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: Karen Lawrence who wrote (13096)	6/5/2002 2:47:40 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Thanks. I think the best example of self contradictory and bizarre logic, has to come from jla. [Hope you were sitting down <s>]. With jla's thinking process, I can be in agreement with William Safire and William Safire is not partisan, but I am. jttmab

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (13096)	6/5/2002 3:03:57 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Here's a nice editorial from that demolib rag, the New Republic. [?!?!?!?]. Really a good read as to what kind of truth you can expect from the Administration. tnr.com THE PECULIAR DUPLICITY OF ARI FLEISCHER. Defense Secretary by Jonathan Chait ........Like any skilled craftsman, Fleischer has a variety of techniques at his disposal. The first is the one he used to such great effect at Ways and Means: He cuts off the question with a blunt, factual assertion. Sometimes the assertion is an outright lie; sometimes it's on the edge. But in either case the intent is to deceive--to define a legitimate question as based on false premises and, therefore, illegitimate. Fleischer does this so well, in part because of his breathtaking audacity: Rather than tell a little fib--i.e., attacking the facts most open to interpretation in a reporter's query--he often tells a big one, challenging the question in a way the reporter could not possibly anticipate. Then there's his delivery: Fleischer radiates boundless certainty, recounting even his wildest fibs in the matter-of-fact, slightly patronizing tone you would use to explain, say, the changing of the seasons to a child. He neither under-emotes (which would appear robotic) nor overemotes (which would appear defensive) but seems at all times so natural that one wonders if somehow he has convinced himself of his own untruths. ........