is not correct? Is saying our solders didn’t know what they were talking about?
It’s a very relevent question, because either he’s demostrating a very grave hypocrasy, or he’s saying some Japanese war criminals were falsely convicted.
Which is it? Is Bush a hypocrite, or does he feel the water boarding of American troops was okay? If so, again assuming he isn’t a hypocrite, why didn’t he pardon, if retroactively, the Japanese ware criminals who committed these acts?
My uncle is willing to write such a note, knowing full well I’m not sick.
Now I have a note from home.
I guess I’m not lying when I say I’m sick now.
Have I got it right?
Well, Bush’s odious policies towards certain human beings certainly fall under the definition of torture according to Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113c § 2340. That his administration covered for him changes nothing. A piece of paper might suffice to provide plausible (he said while trying not to laugh) deniability in the courtroom, but it doesn’t make lies true. I say ‘might’ because the relevant statute mentions “while acting under color of law.”
In my opinion there is too much demonizing of hypocrisy.
As Ralph Waldo Emerson said:
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.”
or Walt Whitman:
"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.) "
[QUOTE=Bricker]
He forthrightly acknowledged the acts in question, and he didn’t believe they were torture.
[/QUOTE]
I recommend you study the term “forthrightly.” Hell, you might want to look up the word “believe”, for that matter.
Why would someone seek a ruling for something one wasn’t hoping to be able to do? Are we offered to believe that this was an abstract legal exercise? Isn’t the simplest explanation that he wanted to do it and looked for someone to tell him he could? Is there any actual evidence that this most obvious of scenarios is not the fact?
He’s already gotten away with it, nothing of any significance will happen to him. He’s dragged our nations honor and dignity through the sewers, and all the consequence is that he cannot freely travel to the other places where he is deservedly despised.
IIRC, the Japanese officers tried for the same crime received a suspended sentence with extreme prejudice.
The earlier statement (at least, the portion you quoted; I haven’t looked up the entire originals) never said that the filibuster must not be tolerated. It said that it was bad, but it did not call for rules that would abolish it. I’m pretty sure that you yourself have argued at times that something is bad, but should not have rules explicitly prohibiting it.
Bush was discussing what was, or was not, torture under the law. An equivalent example migh be someone saying “I was raped” after suffering non-consensual anal sex. The term is perfectly understandable, and the person isn’t lying when they say it. And it’s not “okay.”
But under the common law, and the law of many states, it’s not “rape.”
And that’s the end of this hijack. This thread is about Common Cause and their view of the filibuster rule. There is no relevance to this line of discussion.
Since you praise hypocrisy generally, but don’t mention this specific case, I can’t tell. Do you agree that the actual position of Common Cause is as I described, but argue that’s a good thing?
As I hoped my identification of the logical fallacies you used would make clear, this is not an attack on you, personally, but on your ability to recognize the presence and use of logical fallacies.
Probably could have phrased it in a less inflammatory way, and for that I apologize. But the entire “what Bush did” line is irrelevant, and in support of it, you tossed out two logical fallacies in a row. It’s not clear to me what experience in formal debate you have, but I would wager it is not extensive.
First off: Who the heck is Common Cause? Man, I swear, there are so many Democratic organizations and “leaders” I would’ve never heard of if it weren’t for Republicans scouring their history for comments and actions to take offense to. Do you have a chart, or something?
I grant he merely said that there was too much demonizing of hypocrisy, but then he provided two quotes from literary luminaries that certainly praise the self-contradictory. Perhaps the quotes were meant to mean something other than “I approve of these sentiments,” but that’s a fair initial read.
However, it’s argument which goes against their stated reasons for (now) opposing the filibuster, as **Simplicio **cited.
In other words, you’re completely discounting their reasons for opposing the filibuster in favor of your own, arguably biased, interpretation, absent any other evidence. You’re basically calling them liars, because you apparently think you know why they’re doing better than they do. Is that debate? Would you let that argument fly if the thread were on the other foot, so to speak?
Apparently so. When a liberal explains why they’re not a hypocrite, it’s to be discounted. But when a conservative explains why he’s not a hypocrite, it’s to be taken at face value.
This shows that Bricker’s actual point of view is: we should believe people’s explanation of why they’re not hypocrites when it helps the Republicans, and disbelieve it when it doesn’t.
No, of course it doesn’t, as I’m sure Bricker will step in to explain the difference. But that’ll just push it back a step: why should we believe his explanation of why his view isn’t hypocritical, but not believe Common Cause’s defenders’?
Actually, in BOTH instances, the explanation should be weighed for its credibility.
But this thread isn’t really about Bush, and I’m not going to continue to entertain that desperate hijack. If you have a defense of Common Cause, offer it. If your defense of Common Cause is, “Yes, but look at the even worse thing that Bush did!” then I’ll regard your post as a concession of my point here, and thank for for the timely admission of my correct analysis.
An excellent defense of Common Cause. I see you searched through each and every idea that might defend them, and went with the best one, the one that really explained their position.
And since THIS was it, I thank you for confirming my analysis.