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: Sun Tzu who wrote (149682)	10/28/2004 5:24:08 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 281500

Tax cut means the amount of monetary reduction in taxes. No. "Tax cut" can mean different things but it is just about never used that way. "Most of the tax cut" would often, maybe usually be used that way, but not always. Even you source was talking about percentage point reductions not dollar reductions. (Note going from 20% to 15% is a 5 percentage point reduction but is a reduction of 25%. That type of thing can often get confused.) In any case Bush didn't say "most of the tax cut", he said "most of the tax cuts". I fallow NLP doctrine that says the meaning of the message is defined by the receiver. In other words, if you say something and most of the people understand it to mean "A", it does not matter if you meant (or can under some circumstances show) "B". In general I think that idea is unreasonable. If a term has more then once possible meaning, then it doesn't mean what ever the receiver thinks , it rather has an unclear or uncertain meaning. It is esp. unreasonable to use that method to define someone as a liar. Because by definition a liar is someone who intended to deceive. If I mean X, and X is true (or at least I think it is true) and every one of a thousand people that hears me thinks I mean Y, and Y is not true, and it is known that I know that Y is not true, then my statement is not a lie. You may have read the polls that show so many people believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11 or had WMD and was an imminent threat... Bush didn't say Saddam was behind 9/11 and in fact his administration has said that there isn't any credible evidence that Saddam was behind 9/11, so that isn't a lie, even "a lie of omission". Bush didn't say that Iraq was a imminent threat but rather that we had to act before the threat became imminent. As for WMD you have no evidence that it is a lie. It appears that the stockpiles of WMD were eliminated, but assuming this is so a statement that later turns out to be inaccurate does not equal a lie. Tim