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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (186096)	4/5/2004 8:31:51 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573852

In a court of law it would be trivially easy to succeed in making my point. The court of public opinion is less certain but I'd be willing to be that if you polled Americans and asked them "did President Bush say that if we didn't invade Iraq that Iraqi weapons would blow up American cities within months" that a majority would say that Bush said no such thing. I would also imagine that a majority of Americans would not agree that our current debt levels are less sustainable then they ever have been in US history. Then again perhaps Americans are more ignorant then I think they are. In any case I have succeeded with my point to the extent that I met my main purpose, that of accurately stating the real facts of the situation. You've succeeded only by playing the word game again. If you polled Americans and asked them if Bush said that Iraq and its WMD presented a clear and present danger to this country and its inhabitants, a majority would say yes. By replacing "clear and present danger" with "blowing up American cities", you've added a level of specificity that can be contested. The threat is still there but its in a very specific way. For an example............Joe went to the store. Did Joe go to the store? Did Joe drive to the store? Did Joe walk to the store? Did Joe bike to the store? These are all varying levels of specificity for which I can answer yes only to the first one based on the amount of info I have been provided. Does the meaning change dramatically among the 4 questions? No, of course not. But it does change enough so that you can't answer the next three questions affirmatively. Its an issue that pollsters have to watch very closely. So with Bush.......I can't say he said that Iraq's WMDs would "blow up" American cities but in a very general way, he did say they presented a danger to this country and its cities. And its enough to know this general understanding of his treatment of the subject to determine how guilty he is of misleading the American public......in fact, some are calling for his impeachment. Your required level of specificity is unnecessary. Only someone with an axe to grind, or one who is highly partisan would be a stickler for the greater specificity. Only someone who wants to make a minor point would insist on that level of specificity. That attitude definitely is not good for this country and is what is adding to the existing schism. ted