On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 11:53:53 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. DanielsPost by Tony CooperOn Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:38:48 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. DanielsPost by Athel Cornish-BowdenWhat do you think? I may be as stupid as PTD thinks, but I'm not _that_ stupid!
Damia will never go broke underestimating the intelligence of anyone he
addresses.
Gotta laugh...this from someone who calls others stupid or a moron
when they point out his errors.
Not my fault that you are unable to comprehend simple English describing
even slightly complicated facts and decide that I am in error.
What's your opinion on "IQ" and "g" and racial bias on *Wheel of Fortune*?
Never watch the show. Not aware of the "g" spot involved.
Post by Peter T. DanielsPost by Tony CooperAnd, from someone who thinks
political bad behavior and opposing opinions signifies low
intelligence.
You still haven't given any examples of Conway exhibiting intelligence.
Oh, yeah, I did. Phi Beta Kappa, magna cum laude university graduate,
Juris Doctor with honors from George Washington University Law School,
appointment as a clerk to a DC Superior Court judge. All cited
before.
She was successful in running a political campaign that elected a man
who had no credentials to serve in any office. The fact that I don't
support that candidate, and think he's made the office the laughing
stock of the world, that doesn't negate the intelligence required to
have pulled that off.
Can you match *any* of those achievements?
Post by Peter T. DanielsYour attitude toward the First Amendment is basically the same as Trump's.
I don't make the mistake of thinking the First Amendment prohibits the
legal and ethical rights of reporters and the reported on to mutually
agree to what will or will not be reported.
It's not actually the wording of the First Amendment that is
meaningful. As far as the Free Press aspect, all it says is that
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press".
What is meaningful are the later rulings by the Supreme Court that
have interpreted what that entails. The original wording does not
deal with the conditions now in place, but the rulings do.
There was no concept of an NDA when the First Amendment was written.
That a mutually agreed on and valid contract that prohibits the
revealing of something by the press is a concept later developed. The
Trump NDA issue has to do with the validity of the specific contract
itself, not the fact that such a contract can be valid.
You bluster a lot, but you don't cite actual facts. As above where
you bluster that I don't understand the First Amendment, but present
no rebuttal to anything I've said with any actual facts.
You claim that Woodward has "done the same" (as Wolff), but present no
factual support of that claim. Just a hand wave to "read his books".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida