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: jttmab who wrote (9217)	1/7/2002 9:22:39 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

As a substantive matter, it is not worth continuation. As a rather bizarre evolution of an argument, with inherent interest as a case study, it is hard to say. I will make at least one more attempt to clarify: The fact that something is logically valid does not mean that it is factually correct. To say that there were no inconsistencies with the interpretation is merely to state that it was plausible, not that it was true. It was not a question of "extending a case", whatever that means. It was a question of setting forth an similar incident to show merely that affecting one's opinion sharply could involve something other than partisanship. As I said, showing that there could be an alternative was preliminary to anticipated further argument, which, due to distraction, never quite materialized. The legal team's doubts do not mean that they had significant doubts on the strength of the argument, it means that they found one justice unpredictable as regards the issues raised. I can repost the Skokie exchange. You did, in fact, argue against my point of view, in a contemptuous fashion. I find it bizarre for you to mention your sympathy at this point. (Repost forthcoming.....)

To: jttmab who wrote (9217)	1/7/2002 9:25:32 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 93284

To:Neocon who wrote (9161) From: jttmab Friday, Jan 4, 2002 11:12 AM View Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9251 I lost a lot of confidence in the ACLU as a result of the Skokie affair (I was still a Democrat then, by the way). Did my reaction to one decision mean that I was partisan, or that I had particularly strong views of what was right in that case? What it means is that you were emotionally driven in your opinion of confidence. Does any organization exactly line up with our opinions of every issue? I hope not. The Germans came up with a different solution to the type of problem that you refer to, Nazi and neo-Nazi free speech is illegal. I wouldn't personnally like to defend the KKK in their right to free speech but on the other hand for the ACLU to overcome the disgust of defending the group in their 1st amendment rights, I think speaks well of their principles. I find it repulsive that the KKK flies the American flag at rallies. Would the ACLU be a better organization if they refused to defend that behavior? jttmab