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: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (47626)	1/4/2011 8:39:27 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

"Highly unlikely to ever be enacted and also highly unlikely to ever have much effect even if it ever enacted." Does not equal or imply "a diversion" and doesn't even remotely suggest "a sham". Both require it be a deliberate attempt to reduce the chance of other options going through, which assumes facts not in evidence. (You haven't supported even the idea that it will reduce the chance for other change, let alone that this is the intention of the proposal.) Since the possible effect is large, a highly unlikely effort to achieve that effect can be somewhat significant, and even if the potential direct effect is small, and you discount political and other indirect effects for some reason, it still wouldn't suggest any sort of sham. I understand that you like a BBA, I even agree with some of the arguments for it, but your viewing the world so narrowly through that idea that you make rather unreasonable statements. Most other ideas for constitutional amendments are supported because people want the amendment to pass, not to keep a BBA from passing.