THE WHITE HOUSE Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : THE WHITE HOUSE

SPY 689.52

-0.3%

Jan 7 4:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (5602)	6/12/2007 5:34:26 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 25737

That's why I said 'I don't get your first point.' You lead off with a statement relating to a federal judge's interpretation of the US Constitution, relating to the limits on the power of the Executive branch. Apparently my copy and paste buffer didn't updated when I copied your text, so the quote was a response to another post, on another subject, I think on another thread. If you read the whole part in italics you'll see its about detention of enemy combatants. Its not really part of this conversation, hence the confusion all around. The quoted (italics) part should be your statement - "Thanks for the research that illustrated my basic point: the 20th. century developed into an aberration, as far as political parties go." To which I said - "I think rather that it demonstrated the opposite. Two dominant parties is the norm. Also its not about the 20th century. Although the period of joint Republican and Democratic dominance is broken down in to periods where one the GOP is dominant, periods where the Dems are dominant, and periods where neither is dominant over the other; combining those periods gives you the same two parties back to 1854."

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next