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: Sully- who wrote (19905)	12/14/2003 8:28:31 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793623

Without the "cynic" & his distorted views of reality, the speculative hypothesis falls completely apart. It's absolutely useless. Well, of course it is, at least in my interpretation. If he doesn't use that artifice, he has no point to make to the cynics so there would be no point to the article. Friedman stated..... "Where did Bush's passion for making the Arab world safe for democracy come from? Though he mentioned this theme before the war....... There is a difference between "mention" and "passion." I assume that you chose those words carefully and I think they were good choices. Friedman is speculating about how mention turned into passion. That he recognized the change and addressed it is not a flaw, it is the point of the article. I understand how a hardliner could miss that on quick read, but you no longer have an excuse. He wants us to completely forget that Bush did discuss that theme before this hypothesis takes place. Why? Because it's beside the point. He didn't meantion that Christmas is celebrated on December 25th, either, or that the flu is bad this year. These facts may be critical to you or other readers, but they don't contribute to his point. Bush did mention it, but he never emphasized it like he did in that speech. Friedman is addressing the change from "mention" to "passion," not asserting a change from zero to passion. His objective is not to molify war hardliners. That would be a digression. You may not agree with my interpretation, but my interpretation not only is entirely consistent with what was contained in the article, it explains all your concerns. That doesn't make your interpretation wrong. It only reinforces that your interpretation is your interpretation, not a fact. It cannot be a fact if there is a plausible alternative. I have provided one. At least now you're claiming "factually based assertions" rather than absolute facts. That's a step in the right direction, I suppose. <g>