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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (713963)	11/18/2005 11:40:25 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

No, I was not referring to you at all. I interjected my observation in a dialog. Combine that with the fact there is one habitual liar in the top five posters on this thread. There are no habitual liars in the top four. The habitual liars know who they are. If I concluded you were an habitual liar, I would tell you. The habitually foolish seem to always fail in inductive reasoning ability. That is for you to think about. Your conclusion of what "seems" to you was faulty reasoning. The habitually foolish seem to always seem to proffer on faulty reasoning. So then concluding with a direct statement another is using a lie is the zenith of stupidity. So are you, as you have said??? "The hopelessly entrenched are doomed never to learn from their mistakes."

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (713963)	11/18/2005 4:02:54 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

"Isn't the constitution supposed to be a living document?" I'm coming into this late, but the "living" part is kind of strange to me. It says what it says, and there is a process to amend it. What bugs conservatives is when liberals think it is "amended" by having judges that share their views change what it says. I assure you that the framers did not intend that to happen. Amendments are difficult to get, and they were made difficult to get on purpose. We now have rulings that say: Child pornography is ok as long as the images are digitally created. This is interpreted as "free speech". The gov't can take your property if they can make money with it. The USSC hasn't said it yet, but saying the pledge of allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional. In the judges "opinion" they think that having the words "under God" in the pledge is the same as Congress enacting a law to establish a national religion. Ridiculous. Somewhere in the constitution our highest court has ruled that half of the population has an extra right to kill their unborn children. Pretty sure that isn't really in there. So in other words, the constitution is meaningless (not living) to a fairly high percentage of the population. Sad, but true.