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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (445532)	8/20/2003 1:20:39 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Is your point that liberals who relentlessly distort the meaning and intent of the Constitution beyond recognition are NOT traitors to the Constitution? Or that it's just bad strategy to point it out?

To: Neocon who wrote (445532)	8/20/2003 2:44:29 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

As I said, your conclusion is an idiot identification event cue and the mis-quoting is dishonest when you use "" That's using plane simple logic and expected conventions. From the Coulter statement below I would conclude the following. To call liberal traitors because their word deeds manifest the expected word deeds of traitors would be McCarthyism. That is McCarthyism as the current general understanding of McCarthyism. Why Ms Coulter believes McCarthyism as it is known is wrong. Ms Coulter believes McCarthy had his name usurped and his name was given a meaning of a concept that's wrong. Ms Coulter makes the case that Joe McCarthy was a victim of McCarthyism as a concept. Ms Coulter's book in large part is about the fact that all the supposed acts of Joe McCarthy are false. That mean McCarthyism is a misnomer, but McCarthyism as the concept is generally named is wrong. But that mis-named concept is wrong and vile and un-American. "Liberals relentlessly attack their country, but we can?t call them traitors, which they manifestly are, because that would be ?McCarthyism,? which never existed." I see no way to logically conclude "liberals are traitors" is the gist of the statement. You seem to have a need to oversimplify to suit your limited comprehension. And the on the simple like what is a terrorist you have some need to over complicate what is simple and direct. It's hillarious.