Sun, Dec 28, 2014, 11:43 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Electronic Arts Inc. (ERTS) Message Board

  • shopping_stocks shopping_stocks Oct 11, 2003 10:33 AM Flag

    Hey, speculum lawyer!

    I bet you just LOVE your new governor! At last the people are waking up to the failed liberal policies of California Democrats. I hope they fight Arnold tooth and nail, making themselves look terrible in the process. Then it's hello Republicans!

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Britain is NOT European!

    • Agreed

    • "I'll stand by my statement that I could care less what the do-nothing Europeans think about anything we do."

      Unfortunately that attitude will lead to an "US vs Them" with Them being the rest of the world. It's already going that way.

      Btw a large number of British soldiers died in both Iraq campaigns so you probably shouldn't generalize.

      "I have a feeling you and I wouldn't agree on much of anything and we're both better off not crossing paths."

      We don't have to agree. Regardless of whether your opinions align with mine there's still value in them.

    • <This from a country whose people were still climbing trees a few centuries ago>

      I still enjoy climbing a good tree now and then. I come from a long line of tree-climbers, including my grandfather who, in between climbing trees, spent his time cleaning his rifle in preparation of World War II. Kind of funny that it took us "tree climbers" to save the world from Hitler (or maybe it was the French or the Italians, I don't remember).

      <For most of the civilized world war is a last resort>
      So true. Just ask Neville "we have peace in our time" Chamberlain. He can vouch for you.

      I am aware of the differences between Iraq and other wars, and you have absolutely no idea how I feel today about our invasion of Iraq (you'd probably be surprised). So you can continue to bash us "tree climbers", praise the virtues of the U.N., and compare Iraq to the U.S. and I'll stand by my statement that I could care less what the do-nothing Europeans think about anything we do. I have a feeling you and I wouldn't agree on much of anything and we're both better off not crossing paths.

    • "The Europeans have a long history of sitting on their hands and doing NOTHING. I, for one, could give a frog's fat ass what they think of us."

      This from a country whose people were still climbing trees a few centuries ago...

      Let me be clear. Iraq was not in compliance with the UN and Saddam was a very bad guy and the world is better off without him, but there was no imminent threat. And the US helped to make the UN and NATO toothless so it's hypocritical to turn around and blame them for having no teeth, thus forcing the US into action.

      Question: if Iraq had accused the US of having WMD (true) and of being an imminent threat to them (true), and they launched an attack on US soil, would that be pro-active self-defense or terrorism?

      For most of the civilized world war is a last resort.

    • I understand where you are coming from. But don't gage our success or failure in Iraq on what the "rest" of the world says - specifically the Europeans. The "rest" of the world (Europeans) stood by and did NOTHING while thousands were slaughtered in THEIR OWN BACK YARD (Yugoslavia) - It took an American President (Clinton) to act. Yes, in the end they supported our actions, but only because the trouble was in their neighborhood. The Europeans have a long history of sitting on their hands and doing NOTHING. I, for one, could give a frog's fat ass what they think of us.

    • >I've found a pretty simple way to define a word - consult the dictionary.
      Here you go:
      1 : a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.
      http: //www.m-w.com/

      >We can argue semantics, but I'd say that you are adherent to the
      >majority, if not all of the Democrat's beliefs.

      I am not a Democrat. And it is not just Semantics. My point is that lots of people voted for Arnold and are all happy because he is Republican. But they don't seem to notice that he is pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-gay, pro-gun control, etc.

      I am fiscally conservative . . . to me that means spending no more than you tax. And I appreciate that sentiment about Arnold . . . I'm quite skeptical about whether he can really pull it off, but that is another matter.

      >Bush is a teenage girl at a mall with his Daddy's credit card,

      I would have some respect for Bush if he was conservative in this aspect . . . but he is a fiscal liberal. What happened to the balanced budget movement? That used to be a conservative issue. Look, Gramm & Rudman (main sponsors of the balanced budget movement)are both Republican!
      http: //www.cef.org/News/templates/member.asp?articleid=534&zoneid=6
      Now I think the fact that all of a sudden the budget doesn't matter is because of 'partisan' politics . . . Bush (a republican) wants his simultaneous tax cut and war, other republicans want to support their Republican president . . . so now they ignore their principles because of *partisanship*. Understand?

      >We can argue semantics, but I'd say that you are adherent to
      >the majority, if not all of the Democrat's beliefs.

      Well, I just debunked that one with Gramm&Rudman.

      >Are you somehow privvy to the "truth"?

      Although there are lots of opinions on things, there are hard truths. For example, was the rest of the world behind our invasion of Iraq? By looking at the objective surveys in different countries, the answer is "No". The number of US soldiers killed or injured is a hard number. These are objective facts . . . they are not liberal or conservative. It would be nice if most people had a good grasp of them so we would all be talking about the same things.

      > Is this enlightenment what separates you from a "partisan"?

      No . . . what seperates me is that I don't vote on candidates based on their political party affiliation. I have voted for Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, etc.

      >Being "fed" is a voluntary action in a free country. I checked my radio and, when its
      >functioning properly, you can turn it on and off and even change the channels!

      Well . . . that is a very good point. But it is actually pretty scary . . . does that mean most people want to be deceived? Ugh. That is a very distressing thought. But then again, the circulation of the National Enquirer is probably greater than the WSJ.

      >>I've wasted watching Joannie Loves Chachi re-runs, I could have just changed the channel. Damn, life is cold.<<

      Ugh, *that* would be awful! ;-)

    • I can't find any views why no liberal rush from the left side of the two card monty. Here is another from the right.

      capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2489

    • <But do you understand the difference between being 'partisan' (Dem v Rep) and advocating a position (lib v con)?>

      I've found a pretty simple way to define a word - consult the dictionary. Partisan - One that takes the part of another: adherent. Let's see ... Fox news spreads misinformation, (as if CNN and network news are unbiased), Bush is a teenage girl at a mall with his Daddy's credit card, it is "It is OK to grope if there is an (R) by your name". We can argue semantics, but I'd say that you are adherent to the majority, if not all of the Democrat's beliefs. Maybe you can explain to me the difference between you ranting about Fox News and a conservative ranting about CBS and Dan Rather. Are you somehow privvy to the "truth"? Is this enlightenment what separates you from a "partisan"?

      <How can people intelligently vote if they are being fed propaganda>

      Being "fed" is a voluntary action in a free country. I checked my radio and, when its functioning properly, you can turn it on and off and even change the channels! I just discovered that my TV works the same way ... and to think of all the time I've wasted watching Joannie Loves Chachi re-runs, I could have just changed the channel. Damn, life is cold.

    • >"In short, the reason the liberal message is not being heard,

      A conservative web site says that they are right? Oh, how enlightening! LOL.

      Karl Rove been busy again?
      http: //story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031013/ts_alt_afp/iraq_us_letters_031013133922

      It looks like that 'liberal media' has been spreading the word . . . imagine that . . . how could they print those letters when their whole whole agenda is left wing!

    • View More Messages
 
EA
48.33+0.27(+0.56%)Dec 26 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.