SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Bald Eagle who wrote (208540)12/11/2001 1:46:10 AM
From: Srexley  Read Replies (2) of 769670
 
"I didn't realize our discussion was about whether Ashcroft was correct or not. I thought it was about whether the law was open to interpretation"

It was. Here is your original premise:

"If a law can be interpreted in different ways(which this one obviously can as some lawmakers disagree with him)"

To which I said:

<Just because "lawmakers disagree" does not mean that it is cut and dry that it can be interpretted different ways. I would like to see the actual law and make a judgement.>

Then you said:

"Huh? The fact that lawmakers disagree surely shows that it can be interpreted different ways since it has been.
Your sentence is contrary to logic, IMO."

Here is part of my response from earlier today that shows ANOTHER possibility when people "interpret" things differently AND show that my logic is not contrary.

<You say just because someone else states something that it CAN be interpretted differently. An example of my logic:

I say 2 + 2 is 4.

Demo Congressman A says that 2 + 2 is 5.

There is only one interpretation to this problem. Doesn't matter to me what someone else says. In this particular case I would say Congressman A does not know math too well. The same could be the case with his law.>

There was no response to this, but what don't you understand about this?

"I guess some can just never admit to being wrong"

I can and I do admit when I am wrong. Please post what you think I am wrong about.

"I think I'll have to put you in Watson's category of either being incapable of seeing things that disagree with your opinion or a flat out liar"

I can see that you have no interest in debate. You made a statement and I gave you my thoughts about how I look at it and now you are accusing me of being dumb (incapable of seeing things that disagree with your opinion) or worse, a liar. I used to think you were a fairly cool poster on the thread, but through looking back at all your posts on this subject I changed my mind. Looks like you are another shill that will twist things to suit your needs. A liar in other words. Kind of disappointing.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News