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 (10751)	2/8/2002 12:10:17 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

In general, your claim of accuracy is, well, bogus....... Let's settle that.....here's the specific extracts.... You're opposed to campaign finance reform on a Constitutional issue; though the Supreme Court has ruled that soft money limits would be Constitutional. [I don't understand how you could possibly say that wasn't completely accurate. You have basically repeated the position and added that you don't much care what the Supreme Court has said.] You support Hastert, in the effort to defeat the bill, though you don't know the specific language of the bill. [Precisely the same sitution here; you support Hastert and you don't know the specific language of the bill. You've agree to that, so how could you possibly claim it was inaccurate?] I'll break the next paragraph up... You do know that Hastert has made some claims about advantages that the Democrats would have, but you take them on faith that they are true and/or in some fashion unfair. [The first part [Hastert's claims] certainly you have agree with. After all, you attempted to relay them. The second part re: faith, you've said that you have your own impressions and you are not able to prove them, but you believe them anyway.] You've also said that Hastert's primary interest in this manner is "winning" and you seem to agree that he hasn't really said much [if anything] about any Constitutional issue on this legislation as of late. [You've agreed with this section and added that there are others that have brought up the Constutional issue. Fine.] I think the only "error" I may have made was that you don't take Hastert's view on faith, you take your own impressions on faith. I think that's pretty damn near; hardly a bogus claim. jttmab