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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (147502)	10/10/2004 1:12:43 PM
From: Bruce L	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Re: <<So can you tell us that you go regularly to church/synagogue?>> jttmab:: You say you're not sure what I meant with this question. It had nothing to do with whether Michael Watkins - or any other person- is good or bad because they do or don't attend. It had to do with my PROFILE OF A PERSON WHO HAS REPLACED RELIGIOUS FAITH WITH IDEOLOGICAL FAITH AND FERVOR. In his first response, Michael Watkins (who claims "Spockian" cool) denied the profile as 'not true.' It was in that connection that I tauntingly asked the QUESTION.... and then I added, "I didn't think so!" Michael Watkins spent MUCH TIME preparing his reply. So that reply should be examined closely. Michael at first indignantly stated that his attendance was "irrelevent." But having stated that, he then goes on to VOLUNTEER that he was "born and raised" a Catholic, but now "SPENDS MORE TIME WITH Anglicans", that communiy and "INDIVIDUAL FAITH" mean more than doctrine. Clearly Michael Watkins was trying to create a little ambiguity; but I don't think that any reasonable person can doubt that the fact in issue, atendance, has now been answered: Michael Watkins does NOT attend church regularly. Michael Watkins continues his postings - still suffused with ideological passion - and claiming falsely that, ""...its merely the simple, inescapable, logical next step." Michael Watkins accuses President Bush of lying based on carefully selected and distorted excerpts from a NY Times article, yet he ignores the really big question we all should be asking in this connection. IF PRESIDENT BUSH REASONABLY RELIED ON CIA DIRECTOR TENET (KEPT ON FROM CLINTON) - WHO TOLD HIM THAT IT WAS A "SLAM DUNK" THAT SADDAM HAD WMDs - HOW CAN ANY REASONABLE PERSON CLAIM THAT HE WAS LYING? Bruce