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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (46901)	5/21/2004 3:51:04 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

"Anyway, checks and balances doesn't mean that two gang up to beat up a third." Well that was your wording. And, I know how you are a stickler for holding people to their exact wording...or what ever convoluted versions you can get from rewording their wording. Sorry, I need to reign in here. Wouldn't want to be accused of ranting. That's silvester's job. Ok, I got your meaning. The many stand up to the one who is brutally oppressive. Not necessary to beat him in all cases but the two or more must do what is needed remove the threat. I got it the first time ... even though that had to be inferred from your wording. Point being... Saddam was one, who needed to be addressed by the many. The many, knew it but kept their seats...crying peace, peace, when they were called upon. I was calling for several years before GWB took office btw. You would still be crying peace peace ... leave Saddam alone if it were up to you, and he would still be doing his thing, and thanking you for it.