Re: Woulda, coulda, shoulda.
I say that MS will get off essentially scot-free if Bush wins control of the AG.
That would imply that you expect that Microsoft would NOT do so, under other Executives.
Otherwise, Bush being in office is irrelevant.
Its that simple.
The converse is "If Bush doesn't win control, then Microsoft won't get off scot-free". That's the counter to your prediction. Its not the case. (at least, not shown so far). Bush wasn't the deciding factor - so predicting based on that predication is mistaken.
Not all the world works like "If'n yer ain't fer us, yer agin' us!".
Nope, it doesn't. However, in making such a prediction, namely, that ONE circumstance will lead to a situation, by defintion means you've excluded the other. I can predict that the Panthers and the Jaguars (US football teams) will be in the Super Bowl. By defintion, that means that *nobody else will*. (there being only 2 teams who can).
If you said "DoJ will let them off scot-free", sure,. But you qualified that AND placed a restriction on it - *IF BUSH WON*. Now you're saying that doesn't mean that if BUSH LOST the opposite would occur. Technically possible, but why then would you specify BUSH as the problem?
As to your dismissal of the the circumstance that Scott points out (that the DoJ had already won, that they couldn't lose the case anymore), well, I think that you'll see that it heavily influences my opinion.
I pointed out a settlement to you - after the findings of fact, after which meant the DoJ had won, that Microsoft was declared a monopoly, where the DoJ was willing to VACATE those findings of fact, in essance, GIVE UP. It *was* before the appeals court. But it *wasn't* under Bush, which, let me remind you, IS THE CONDITONAL FOR YOUR PREDICITION.
Say there are two muggers and a drunk in a park, and one of the two muggers rolls the drunk. Would you, COULD you defend the offending mugger with "You can't blame the guy, if he didn't do it the other one would have - because of that likelyhood, no blame can be placed? Sorry - I don't buy THAT for a second.
Didn't say that. I didn't say the settlement was good, or that it was smart - that's what your analogy would have me do. Its excreble, and undefendable.
What you said is "If Bush is elected, one of those muggers will roll the drunk". Bush's election, while he could have stopped it, and in my opinion SHOULD have, doesn't seem to have changed the entire DoJ stance. Something you're blaming him for (implying that there's a difference between his DoJ and Clinton's, and what would ahve been under Gore).
I'm not *defending* this settlement. The DoJ *should* be ashamed. I'm glad the states balk, and I hope they get to take Microsoft apart in the courtroom.
Bush's boys screwed up. *BUT* no more than Clinton's boys screwed up, or that I know that Gore's boys would have. The *only* President who would have made a difference would have been Nader.
And if THAT'S who you were contrasting with Bush in your prediction, OK, sure, you're right.
Addison
