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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (80331)	5/21/2007 6:08:16 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

#2 is not something that you can predict for sure, although I predict (even if I can't be absolutely sure) that you will continue to pretend that you can make such dependable predictions about complex changing events. As for measurement you pick a few, not all. And many factors in wars are not easily measured. Deaths will go up when you get aggressive, the benefits only come later. You want measures about what effects of our current actions, you have to look months or years from now. (And even then you would have to compare them to something that you can't know, what would have happened had we not undertaken "the surge") and predicting that if only we give another two FUs, things will change. Some prediction made by someone else in the past has nothing to do with me. Its irrelevant, esp. since I'm not even making a prediction. Now your not just engaging in ad-hominem, but ad-hominem by proxy. You think someone else said something foolish, or at least incorrect, then you try to paint me with their mistakes, and attack me for the mistakes. Its bad (and unreasonable) enough when you attack the person arguing with you rather then the arguments and ideas, but its particularly silly when your "argument" is neither addressing the points being discussed, nor the person discussing them, but third parities.