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 (19052)	1/16/2003 1:21:44 PM
From: MSI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

LOL! Boy are you confused ... rules of evidence.... Message 18449143 While your "rules of evidence" are entirely lacking, instead using silliest form of sophistry, pseudo-psychology, faulty logic and random GOP propaganda -- this is true, tho': Most of the commentary on SI has less to do with an objective reading of the actions of the Administration as it has to do with the assumptions brought to bear ... followed immediately by good examples from your same self-contradicting post: Anti- Americanism is chargeable when one starts with the assumption that the powers that be, particularly in the post-War era, were deluded about Communism... etc. So, who decided what is "chargeable" or not? Without explanatory preamble you declare "anti-Americanism" as defined by criticism of the gov't or officials? The Founders would certainly disagree, my pedantic friend. You sound Royalist, or at the least one who values authority over the Constitution and common sense. Then you suddenly change your claim in mid-paragraph to mildly say "not readily assumed without debate", as if that's on a par with the inflamatory "anti-Americanism"... All of these are propositions that can be examined, of course, but none are readily validated, and, in any case, it is a demeaning set of charges against leaders from Truman to Reagan, and should not be readily assumed without debate Which is very different. And the word "demeaning" has a telling inference here, that you wish for "non-demeaning" or maybe even "heroic" discussions. The problem with that is obvious, but I'll state it -- we are a nation of laws, not "heroic" men... The most heroic are those who humbly stand aside, like Washington, in favor of their country, not those who loot the treasury and speak in words scripted by lobbyists and ideologues. then comes pseudo-psychology as some kind of justification, which is already a redundancy: He does not have the hint of a Napoleonic complex, or of someone on the make The simple statement would be more truthful -- I want to suggest that it would be better to interpret Administration actions as arising from intelligent, experienced people, decent and public spirited ... which more accurately describes your position, is then debatable, and certainly wrong from the POV of many who track more closely the personal, poltical, and financial gains of these in the Bush League, compared with their public statements and private actions.