Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (15251)	3/14/2000 2:07:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

You can't answer a clear, direct question. Instead you, like JLA, paraphrase with changes you prefer critiquing to critiquing my actual statements, and proceed to critique those changed statements. Here it is again. If you can show me where I "made an issue fo the sort of social policy Olasky SUPPORTS," do it, Neocon. If you can't, apologize. And again, Neocon: The man's views arise from a fundamentalist view of the Bible as an infallible and inerrant literal source of instruction, however odd this may seem to some who stand outside his magic circle of belief. The specific items of advice [eg on foreign policy] he gives the president based on such notions may turn out to be any of a number of things. One really can't say. Again, Neocon. This is what I have said, however much you prefer to debate other, made up, positons of mine: I do not know, Neocon, what foreign policy advice, for example, Biblical inerrancy might suggest. I have no idea. Now do you understand? I DO NOT CRITICIZE HIS SOCIAL POLICIES BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THEM EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT HE WANTS MOST OF WELFARE TURNED OVER TO THE CHURCHES, AND I HAVE NOT COMMENTED ON THAT. What I HAVE said, Neocon, is: The specific items of advice he gives the president based on such notions may turn out to be any of a number of things. One really can't say. Now listen closely: You said I made an issue of the social policy that Olaskly supports. I told you I didn't. You then dropped, without admission you had retracted that characterization/accusation, your accusation that I had "made an issue of the social policy Olasky supports." You move on, as though what you said had never been said, and called. This is disreputable argumentation.