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: Cogito who wrote (90462)	10/17/2008 9:38:07 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 544206

Having a clue and making the categorical claim that one knows something are two very different things. Categorical claims are difficult if not impossible to make. In almost all cases in which "intent" is the subject of inference, it seems to me one is only making an "argument." Intent is inherently a mystery since even the subject's claims about intent have to be measured against incentives to lie, blocks which create misunderstanding, and the like. But, to go back to Reagan, if you are in Reagan's inner campaign circles, thinking of where to open the campaign and why you should choose one venue over another, Philadelphia, Miss, I submit, is among the least likely. Moreover, it is a site to avoid precisely because of its history. Which, I also submit, was well known in political circles. Philadelphia, Miss then gives them a site that sends all sorts of signals throughout the south with the deniability one finds in at least the Brooks account. No doubt others from the inner circle have made the same claims. If someone who would not be suspect can make a serious case for another argument, I would certainly listen as would anyone who cares about some level of accuracy. Short of that, I think, at least in this case, the conventional wisdom is the stronger argument.