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: Dale Baker who wrote (12256)	2/16/2006 10:51:28 AM
From: Rainy_Day_Woman	Respond to of 541347

I like this from Jim Frey's website chat area You will never win against an abusive chatter. Their whole purpose is to get a reaction out of you, and if they aren't actually 13 years-old, then they are almost certainly psychologically retarded to that age, so you will never win with them. Regard them as terrorists. Regard them as petulant children that aren't your own, AND IGNORE THEM. (**Lastly, note that it is primarily only one person who has been causing most of the trouble in chat, and previously on the message board. He hops from room to room, he signs in under multiple names, and he's just a loser - plain and simple. As with most diehard losers, he will plague you till you die, so just ignore him, and he will go masturbate somewhere else. If you respond to him, even once, he has won.)

To: Dale Baker who wrote (12256)	2/16/2006 11:33:06 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541347

George Will seems to have found his voice, lost in his Bush loyalties. Not a bad argument. But I found this last paragraph disturbing and wonder if anyone else did. But 53 months later, Congress should make all necessary actions lawful by authorizing the president to take those actions, with suitable supervision. It should do so with language that does not stigmatize what he has been doing, but that implicitly refutes the doctrine that the authorization is superfluous. His language, down to this last paragraph, was a model of clarity. Here he starts reaching for the kinds of abstractions that trouble me when a specific policy option is under discussion. The phrases "suitable supervision" and "implicitly refutes" are what I have in mind. It's not clear to me, and perhaps I'm slow, how he is doing anything other than saying the FISA law should be restated. But it in a way that doesn't say "you did wrong" to the Bush administration. Anyone see anything else? And does anyone know if Will is widely read in the Bush administration? I recall reading that Will was one of the first columnists read by the Reagan folk.