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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: wonk who wrote (4904)	11/7/2005 1:20:32 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541548

Your latest argument isn't even about the statue. I'm not sure what the flooded car has to do with the SOTU address supposedly being either " (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate." " If it isn't one of those things, and it doesn't appear to be to me, then I don't see how it is illegal. If you are changing the subject from "Is lying in the SOTU address illegal" to "Is lying in a major way about an important issue in the SOTU address a bad thing", then we might reach agreement, or at least something much closer to agreement. If you are trying to make some other point with your example (possibly that Bush indeed did deliberately fail to disclose an important material fact that he should have disclosed) then perhaps you should make it explicitly, so it can be dealt with directly. Tim