Manny, you are accusing either me or Finagle of lying. Neither of us is.
I plead guilty to ignorance of the prior existence of “Loyalty Day”, but that’s no lie. And Finagle’s link looks legit to me, so if your accusation was aimed at him, it’s equally baseless.
10 seconds Googling[sup]TM[/sup] got me Ronnie Reagan’s Loyalty Day Proclamation:
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1981/41481b.htm
So, yeah, Manny whazza deal?
So if this weird day was already proclaimed by prior presidents, can Bush re-proclaim it?
A couple of interesting phrases in the excerpt above. Like “demonstrate their commitment to our country by supporting our military” and “Being an American is a privilege”. Does anyone worry that Bush is saying, SHUT-UP about Iraq and dead soldiers or we’ll take your citizenship away (it’s a “privilege” after all) and toss your ass in GITMO?
Bullshit. You are lying. You are lying to try to get a rise out of people; in this case to induce conservative persons to say something bad about the President. – It even worked with Sam Stone.
This entire thread was a troll. And this particular troll involved you attributing to one president what is properly attributed to Congress (specifically, to Congress in 1958). There’s a citation right at the bottom of the press release, but you (correctly) figured that most people wouldn’t read that far.
December was banned for precisely that offense – you should be too.
Finagle, my deepest apologies for being insufficiently clear.
Oh, for the love of Mike. That above is me, of course. My post is repeated in its entirety below of the mods would care to remove the incorrectly-attributed one.
Bullshit. You are lying. You are lying to try to get a rise out of people; in this case to induce conservative persons to say something bad about the President. – It even worked with Sam Stone.
This entire thread was a troll. And this particular troll involved you attributing to one president what is properly attributed to Congress (specifically, to Congress in 1958). There’s a citation right at the bottom of the press release, but you (correctly) figured that most people wouldn’t read that far.
**December]/b] was banned for precisely that offense – you should be too.
Finagle, my deepest apologies for being insufficiently clear.
Manhattan, why is it that you feel it’s impossible it was a mistake? If others in the thread were fooled into thinking the proclamation was recent, why couldn’t the OP have also been mistaken? You seem to be unfairly holding him to higher standard that everybody else.
And I see no citation at all in the OP’s link. Please elaborate where that is.
I don’t see a citation on RTF’s link either. The proclamations (maybe all of them) says that "The Congress … has designated May 1 of each year as “Loyalty Day,” maybe the present-tense ‘has’ made it sound like a new thing when it’s clearly not. Anyway, I don’t think anyone’s lying here.
I have reported this post to the moderators. I will respond no further to your absurd accusations.
You do that, Rule-boy. Just make sure to remind them that this is not the first time that you’ve pulled something off the White House website that’s later been shown to be something that’s not new to Bush, so they can know it wasn’t an innocent mistake here.
And be sure to make clear that the very text of your cite referred to Loyalty Day being an Act of Congress, not of the executive. And that the specific public law was cited, so that you could have looked it up before posting the thread.
To the posters here other than Manny: I apologize for failing to notice the reference to the Act of Congress in my post. It was an oversight on my part.
Failing to completely read one’s own cite is definitely below the standards I aspire to in this forum. Whether it’s sufficient grounds for the charges Manny makes - lying, trolling, worthy of banning - I will let the mods sort out. After which they are welcome to close this thread.
I’m not sure what it is that Manny makes of the linked thread, other than that he’s found an instance in which I was upset by something that other posters weren’t.
[Moderator Hat: ON]
When you report a post to the moderators, that is all you should do. Do not then post in the thread about having done so, as it serves no useful purpose other than to inflame things. If there is a rule violation, the moderators will deal with it.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
In the thread you link to, he was ranting about something he thought was bad that Bush did (which I disagreed with, FWIW), and of course the Bush supporters come back with usual tiresome “Clinton did it too!” as if that makes it right. The fact that Clinton did it before was irrelevent, and clearly if a mistake was made in that thread, it wasn’t the same as the one made in this thread. Bush actually did what he ranting about there.
The cite also says “I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2004, as Loyalty Day.” Seems very easy to miss the Congress part, or even think that perhaps Congress’ act was done after or as a result of Bush’s proclamation.
And I’m still curious why both John Mace and RTFirefly see the same page, come to same conclusion, yet Mace is a victim, and RTF is a liar. Are you claiming RTF is smarter that Mace, and should know better?
Try giving the benefit of the doubt some times, even to people who happen to have different politcs than you.
That should be "in my link. D’oh. :smack:
But you get the idea. I blew it, I didn’t read the proclamation thoroughly enough to catch the reference to Public Law 85-529, and if I had, I wouldn’t have opened this thread. Mea culpa.
Noted.
Not that it’s related, RTFirefly, but your sig calls Paul Bremer “Jerry,” you might want to fix that.
A vote for Kerry will express your disloyalty to GWB, at any rate.
He’s known as Jerry…
You really should pay closer attention to the news.
:mad: Reeder, I read the news plenty, thank you very much. I know who Paul Bremer IS, I’ve just never heard anyone call the man Jerry before. The other line in RTF’s sig refers to him as Paul, so I was innocently pointing out what I thought was a typo.
Manny’s behaivor was an attempt at intimidation. Let’s not let it work.