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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (10992)	10/23/1998 11:35:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<Come on, jbe>> Abdul Haq, I am confused by your confusion. You quote from a sentence in my post to Doug (I add the second sentence of the paragraph, for clarity's sake). Now, I personally do not know how many spies for "friendly countries" we have found, tried, and sentenced. I don't even know what countries they spied for -- but,with the exception of Pollard, I think we can say it was not for Israel, or else we would be hearing about that. Then you ask this question: But you do know who Pollard was spying against, right? Of course. Like all the other spies for so-called "friendly countries," he was spying against the United States. That is assumed. So why do you ask ?? Then you add: I am real confused by your attitude on this. What attitude? I have no "attitude" on this. I am setting the scene for a question to doug, who, as you may have noticed, is opposed to commuting Pollard's life sentence (indeed, would prefer to see him executed). I then point out that the other spies, reportedly, have served much shorter sentences than Pollard already has (13 years). I then ask doug (who is a lawyer, after all) what the justification would be for keeping a spy for Israel in prison longer than a spy for another country. A perfectly logical question (to which I received a perfectly logical answer, by the way). What's not to understand?? Either you are not reading carefully enough (sorry, no offense), or you think that every utterance of everyone, even a simple question, reveals an "attitude." As a matter of fact, judging from a post you made to Borzou, I get the impression that you think everyone ought to have a "clear firm position" on everything. If so, I will have to tell you that, where most matters of public policy, foreign affairs, etc., are concerned, I have no final, firm position, because I don't feel I know enough about them. It is impossible to have a fully informed opinion on everything. That requires research, analyzing all the arguments, listening to all sides of the issue, weighing the pros and cons, and only then reaching a conclusion. So I try to suspend judgment till I know more.. I try not to go off half-cocked with a half-baked opinion, although that can happen sometimes... :-) And being some sort of dittohead and parroting someone else's opinion is definitely not my bag. Well, did I cover all the bases? <gg> jbe