You have another way to interpret his actions in question, or is it that you’re not aware of them? Link ‘N’ Learn
Bzzt. The old “My post is my cite” fallacy. Show us where it isn’t supported or supportable.
Where’s the jingoism?
IOW you know the speech you did link is not an example of that.
In your dreams, homeboy. You’re 0 for 5. ** 0.**
Probably not. But the speech you linked was not another example.
What else ya got?
First of all, this post may be a bit hard to follow, due to the lack of automatic quoting of quotes. What a pain.
Anyhow, in response to what you wrote, it appears that I should have been a bit more clear. The important thing is not only that (1) it doesn’t just attack a single individual, and (2) it accuses them of something Unamerican, but that (1) and (2) refer to the same accusation. In your example, even if we accept your analysis of both snippets from Jackson’s speech, he’s accusing “Republicans” of being “illusorily inclusive” and then accusing just Bush of standing by the confederate flag. This is opposed to Miller who accuses ALL democrats of not loving Freedom.
As for the specific quote about the confederate flag, it’s important to look at it in context:
He’s not really accusing Bush of being a racist. He’s accusing him (ironically) of being a flip flopper and a pandered. So he’s taking one factual incident (Bush supported South Carolina’s right to fly the confederate flag) and mentioning it once, in passing, in one paragraph. He’s NOT then harping on that, drawing conclusions from that, making vague insinuations based on that, etc.
I did. It’s a pretty typical campaign speech, meaning it says a few bad things about the opponents and a lot of good things about the candidates. In fact, (3) doesn’t even apply. In Miller’s case, he’s spending paragraph after paragraph trying to make One Single Point (democrats don’t love freedom), supporting it with shaky logic. What’s the One Single Point that Jackson is trying to make?
Oh, come on. Again, it’s a question of context. If Miller’s speech had said “First, democrats hate freedom. Second, this is the greatest country in the world. USA USA USA USA” I wouldn’t be mentioning the jingoism. The problem is that he uses this jingoistic American-soldiers-are-awesome business in order to attempt to further smear his opponents. Jackson does no such thing. Jingoism for its own sake is part and parcel of just about every political speech ever made. Jingoism which attempts to smear democrats is what makes Miller’s speech particularly odious.
Maybe. And Zell Miller is someone who wishes to shoot people dead with guns. What’s the relevance? We’re discussing the speech itself.
I just plain don’t agree with your analysis. If you got 100 impartial observers, had them read each speech, and then asked them “on a scale of 1 to 10, how true is it that the overall message of this speech is one of demonizing the speaker’s opponents”, do you think that you’d get even close to the same average response for Miller’s speech as for Jackson’s?
Bricker, I realize there are a lot of other more recently active threads going on, but I’m still waiting for an example of an equally negative Dem speech of recent vintage, plus an answer to my question in the last paragraph.
Sorry for reviving a dying thread, but I’m definitely interested in reading your response.
Sorry for the necro, this thread was linked in another thread (ID demanding GOP vote-suppressors).
The patriot act and disruptors.
As Mr. Svinlesha pointed out though, the creaking sound is a shifting goalpost.
Memory lapse, perhaps. No problem, not hard to demonstrate motive.
Always nice to see fine Christian values promulgated. Was it in Luke or Matthew where Jesus said “slay the idolaters wherever ye find them”?