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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (26037)	2/12/2008 10:52:32 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: "You lay out to possible variations, neither one of which is the actual question." That is FALSE. I quoted your question exactly... WORD for WORD: Message 24306799 Re: "I've clarified more than once." That ALSO is FALSE! You did not. You have never yet made that clarification, answered my request for clarification (for the second question you asked, see the link above to see it again). Which is damnably ODD... because YOU YOURSELF are the one who issued the condition with respect to your FIRST question: "Taken in isolation from spending issues, where the tax cuts a good, bad, or neutral thing, in your opinion?" Which is why I asked if the SAME condition (if "in isolation") applied to your SECOND QUESTION as well! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! (I went on, after clearly answering your first question, to answer your second question... both WITH that same condition applied and WITHOUT... but, NO, you actually never came back and specified if you also meant for your second question to be considered 'in isolation', away from all other real world developments, or not.) Regardless though, I clearly answered your second question as well. (No sense in claiming I didn't... that would obviously be counter to the truth, and just look silly and obstreperous....)