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 : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: c.hinton who wrote (18074)	2/19/2006 12:29:31 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

<< "can you not recognize your own words?" >> I sure can. << "here is the qoute from your post number 18036 "Your stated goal is to denie (sic) the posting of anything that might make credible or give credibility to an opposing point of view." >> I said no such thing. Here is the link to that post. Message 22181130 I will repeat the key point from that post again..... "If you cannot discern between false, unsubstantiated &/or baseless assertions that have little or no basis in fact, then I strongly suggest you refrain from posting it here." From the thread header: For those so inclined feel free to discuss any of the issues brought here as long as it is civil & reality based. Please limit your discourse to issues that can consistently be supported with facts & credible evidence from reliable, independently verifiable sources.... ....If something you post is challenged, be prepared to provide reality based evidence to support it. Just because you or your ideological peers fervently believe something doesn't make it reality based. See my follow up reply for more.

To: c.hinton who wrote (18074)	2/19/2006 12:42:06 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

The article you posted from contained false, maliciously distorted & intentionally misleading assertions stated as fact. Just because an ideological peer of yours said it doesn't make it true. All of the false assertions I challenged have been thoroughly discredited by real facts & credible, independently verifiable evidence. It matters not that some left wing rag prints baseless, thoroughly discredited lies or if your best friend on SI makes them. They remain lies. That article smeared our entire military of today as being equivalent to Lieutenant William Calley of My Lai massacre infamy & it also claimed they are all being wrongly treated as heroes. That not only is a blatant lie, it is a treacherous smear & slander. You & I both know there are no facts or credible evidence anywhere to support such a false & viciously malicious slander. And our military are not ALL being treated as heroes. If you think evidence actually exists to prove otherwise link us to it. That article also called Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld all liars RE: Iraq, ET AL. Try as you might, there simply is no known credible evidence to support such an allegation. And there is a plethora of evidence to discredit the allegation. If you have such evidence, please link us to it.

To: c.hinton who wrote (18074)	2/19/2006 2:56:58 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

See if this helps you understand the difference between you & me. "Is characterizing opinion as fact.... and engaging in ad hominim attacks.... the way to make political dialogue more constructive?" Legal Fundamentalism By Marc Schulman AMERICAN FUTURE In his latest post, Glenn Greenwald congratulates Captain Ed for admitting to a mistake and goes on to say that If more people were willing to simply acknowledge analytical and factual mistakes that way, political dialogue would be much more constructive. Agreed. But earlier in the same post, Greenwald, commenting on an article in the New York Times on what, in his words, is "a substantive conflict" between the White House and Senator Pat Roberts, opines the following: <<< . . . the 9/11 attacks created a war climate in this country which the Bush Administration deftly and cynically exploited in order to install theories of unchecked Executive power which long pre-dated 9/11. >>> and <<< Even the most obsequious mice among us, such as Pat Roberts, at some point want to at least appear to have some minimal amounts of personal autonomy. >>> Is characterizing opinion as fact (some of us, after all, believe that Bush's motivation was and is to protect our lives) and engaging in ad hominim attacks ("obsequious mice") the way to make political dialogue more constructive? Not in my book. In response to a reader's inquiry, Greenwald spills his beans: <<< . . . I don't think motives really matter. When someone breaks the law, the first issue is to convict them of violating the law. Motives come into play, if at all, only at the punishment stage . . . they [the Administration] broke the law. The question of why they did so may be interesting to speculate about, but ultimately, it's irrelevant. We are a nation of laws and our political officials don't have any greater right to break those laws than any other citizen, no matter how justified they think they are in doing so. >>> So motives don't matter—even if the motive is the physical security of our people. I suspect that Greenwald would have called for the impeachment of Lincoln, and would disagree with the Supreme Court judge (I can't recall which one) who said that the Constitution is not a death warrant. To the list of fundamentalisms, we can add the legal variety. americanfuture.net glenngreenwald.blogspot.com captainsquartersblog.com nytimes.com glenngreenwald.blogspot.com