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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (9203)	1/6/2002 1:22:04 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Actually, my use of the single example was merely to demonstrate that one need not be partisan to be affected by the actions of a particular organization or institution. It has nothing to do with a factual determination. Thus, your homily on the weather is inapposite. Calling it a homily is ridiculous; an illustration or analogy but hardly anything approaching a homily. And the analogy very nicely paralleled with your argument; actually flawed argument. Assessing rainfall over a region would have been a sampling technique; the observation to the contrary in a specific location does not negate the sampling over the region. Sorry you didn't appreciate it. IMO, your single example was actually an attempt at gaming the debate. You shifted from a sampling technique to a single case, you changed the case, and you cited an opinion on the ACLU not the Court. You attempted to extend by inference that one analysis of one person on one case can be logically extended to the entire group. You fail to recognize what the "averages" are. Average people do not have a clear understanding of the nuances of Constitutional law....1st amendment perhaps being one of the better appreciated. But try to strike up a general dialog with someone off the street on whether what the historical records shows or doesn't show a debate by the Framers over whether and how much the 1st amendment covers non-political speech. Yes, I think the GOP has a better understanding of the Constitutional principles involved in the decision. Utter nonsense. After the decision, Bush's legal team indicated that they were surprised that Scalia held on the due process argument. So then it would go that Republicans in general have a better understanding of the due process clause of the Constitution than did Bush's legal team! Hogwash! I told you why I reacted as a did to the Skokie case. You have not addressed my reasoning, but invoked the success of the appeal, as if that settled the matter. I didn't address the reasoning because the it wasn't relevant to the the question put to the polling sample. I'll assume that you were not part of the pre and post samples on Bush's decisions. And you can't say with any confidence that there was or was not someone sampled that was adept at Constitutional law. You have to turn to the averages where the sample is drawn from. I didn't think highly of the Supreme Court for buying it either, if that need be said, just as you question the Court's decision in the case of Bush. The Court has since improved. While I disagree with the Court on this particular decision, my opinion of the Court is unchanged. It is but one case of many settled by this Court. This case while significant in it's impact is not terribly significant in Constitutional Law. How many times do you expect this situation to occur and what does it extend to other than one event that occurs every four years. Now that the Court has established a "precedent"...so what. From a Constitutional precedence basis it's virtually a non-event. This is one of your inferior posts........ I thought it was one of my better ones. C'est le vie. jttmab