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 : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (14193)	7/9/2004 12:43:51 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 14610

Here's what the article said: A memo from the Democratic speaker's office said, "problems have arisen both with regards to the spirit, content and participation of various individuals with regard to the ceremony." Apparently, they said that he did not believe in the "separation of church and state" and they didn't like the policies he supported as a United States Senator and therefore they would not allow him to be on the Assembly floor or to speak. There was no indication that Denton's speech was to include an indictment of John Kerry or to charge anyone with treason. What you've done is assume that the Democrats can do no wrong and have only pure motives, that the Republicans who proffered Denton had ulterior motives, and that therefore the Democrats were justified in their position, which included an objection to the content of the speech (undescribed) and to Denton's position on church and state. Since you admittedly don't know the actual content of the proposed speech, except to the extent the article describes the content delivered off the floor, I'd say there's no basis for your assumptions. As previously indicated, the most significant thing we do know is that the Democrats objected to the "content" and therefore refused him the podium. The difference between you and me is that you're willing to defend that stance without even knowing the details. You just fill in the blanks as they suit you. As for Moore, who's talking about him? I don't care about hypotheticals. If that occurred, we'd have to see what everybody said and what actually happened. I do find it interesting that you're essentially comparing Moore to Denton. Given your scathing characterization of Denton, does this mean that you consider Moore the left's version? btw, I am a lawyer. That's why I find most of your arguments quite flawed.