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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (5155)	8/15/2003 1:47:21 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793912

Karen, You'll have to point me to non-conservative stuff you post. I haven't seen it. I, frankly, don't have a problem with that but it becomes a problem when you then turn around and criticize a post simply because of its point of view. As for your return to the Woolsey and Freeh bit under Clinton, I think we should drop it. Both, the Clinton people, understood very quickly were mistake appointments. Woolsey was quickly let go, thank heavens, without too much damage. Freeh glued himself to the senate Reps so could not be let go. But, if you read any of the better books out now on the Clinton years, you can see how badly they wished to get rid of him but how the senate Reps kept them from doing so. And our security is weaker as a result. As for whether I read all your posts, I don't; as I suspect you don't read all of mine. I skim a great many posts which are back-and-forth things between individuals, increasingly a curse of FADG, and I skim a great many posts of political commentary from right and left wing sources. Most of it is simply repititious. I don't skim thoughtful pieces from David Brooks, good journalism from Bob Novak, some of the Reason stuff Bill posts, etc. As for whether Marshall's essay was partisan, I think you misread it. Certainly, it reflects his political point of view, which is basically DLC, but it's a fair analysis of how several administrations contributed to the problem. If you think that judgment is wrong in some way, it behooves you to point out precisely where that is. As for concerns about Patriot II, if I understand that quick comment from you, I think we agree.