Even then, t’s hard.
Oh, and Bricker…lest you think I’m just being snide with you, I do want to say that I think your position that Kerry is a war hero and patriot who’s just wrong for the job is admirable. I don’t want you to think I don’t think you’re a good guy, I just think Zell’s full of shit. 
The fuck kind of chicken weasel shit that is directly responsive to the comment for which it was offered in response. Read back, follow along, and try to keep up.
Kerry opposed those weapons systems in 1984, as a candidate for Senate, during the time in which the Cold War was alive and the weapons and a strong defense posture most needed. GHW Bush dropped support for the B-2 following the collapse of the Societ Union. A observer could well infer that Kerry’s 1984 position was irresponsibly soft on defense and that GHW Bush’s 1992 position was reasonable, given the different climates that existed.
But wait, I hear you cry. Kerry’s position evolved. By the end of the 1990s, he was an ardent defender of defense.
Maybe. But Miller’s comments, while arguably misleading by focusing on the past, remind us of the indisputable fact that Kerry was a dove, even if he’s not so much now.
The discussion started with gobear saying, “The worst my side will do is argue with you, but your party wants to enact laws to stifle criticism.” My comments about laws are in response to that. Laws (or their lack) are PRECISELY and DIRECTLY relevant to the discussion. If you can’t keep up, I recommend one of the many fine sites on the Internet that don’t require any particular level of intelligence.
A dove with three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star, was it? How many ol’ Zell got? I’m guessing zero, what do you think?
As has been shown to you God-only-knows how many times, there is nothing particularly pacifistic about Kerry’s voting record. He was not as eagerly solicitous of the well-being of Lockheed and General Dynamics as they might have wished, but not by any stretch of the imagination was he anti-military.
All of which I suspect you know by now, having particpated in any number of these threads, seeing it demonstrated that such a suggestion is more a leap of faith than a compilation of facts.
If folks are locked up without being charged, with no acces to counsel, how do we know what, specifically, they are being locked up for?
Fish in a barrel, ain’t it, gang?
Bricker, if you could still defend a fucking thing you, or for that Miller, have said any longer, no doubt you’d have at least tried. But that little pissy-hissy fit of a post showed that you not only can’t, but lack the integrity to admit it. No matter; we all know anyway.
What are you trying to do here, out of curiosity? Now that Sam seems to be on vacation from filling in for december, you think it’s your turn to give it a try?
“Occupiers”–Zell’s anger is directed at liberals/real Democrats/whatever, when his real beef is with the English language. Zell can call us “fellators” if he wants to; the fact remains that by any reasonable definition of “occupation”, we are occupying Iraq. There may be debate as to the benefits of the occupation, and we may very well be bringing about liberation via our occupation, but to assign malicious intent to anyone referring to it as an occupation is just ridiculous. (This leaves aside, of course, the fact that Bush and Rumsfeld used the term themselves.)
“Kerry has made it clear…”–I think it is quite dishonest to state that someone has made something clear when that person has, in fact, stated the exact opposite position. Miller’s comment came long before Kerry’s “global test” comment that so many people insist on misunderstanding.
Kerry vs. the military–Give me a chance to examine the record of any lifelong public servant, and I can torture the data to make that person look like an utter tyrant. I do fault Kerry for his inability to respond effectively to this BS, but that makes it no less BS.
If Miller’s speech really was “from the heart”, as his defenders like to say, it really just makes it that much worse.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
The man was a war hero who entered the Senate tending towards being a dove, yes. No need to remind me of his decorations: I acknowledge and respect them. He is a genuine hero, more so than Mr. Miller, Mr. Bush or anyone senior in the Bush administration.
No - what was shown to me was that by the last term of his Senate career, Mr. Kerry was not anti-military. His first term in the Senate doesn’t measure up.
Thanks for the insult at least.
With all due, the term is not necessarily insulting, merely that no conclusion can be drawn from a lack of information. A valid criticism when applied correctly, but not, I think, in this instance. The fact is, of our ignorance of the fate of those held is clearly due to reluctance to permit such knowledge, hence, our suspicions have clear foundation in fact.
And an observer who so infers would be IMO quite abysmally incorrect in his inference, seeing as how the B2 was a boondoggle from the start.
You know, Bricker, I often respect you and what you say, but you’re really not putting your best foot forward in this thread.
First of all, please respond to this point made by many people, most clearly by DoctorJ:
Given that you have seemingly endorsed the Miller speech you quoted, and given that the vast majority of that speech is going on about “occupation”, and given that that’s (as far as I can tell) a totally idiotic point, I’d like to hear your response.
I mean, to say that the US army is occupying Iraq is, first of all, pretty clearly factually correct, and is second of all, not a criticism of the military at all. It may not be a criticism of ANYONE, but if it is, it’s a criticism of those who directed the army in the first place. It sure seems to me that that entire point is utterly meaningless, baseless, jingoistic slurring. And I think that you would do well to distance yourself from it.
Secondly, are you agreeing that there are people being held without trial and charges, but you are claiming that none of them are being so held for voicing dissent? And that’s a situation that doesn’t bother you? Remember, even if the people in charge right now are fucking saints who would NEVER abuse their power, the entire US system of checks on power is there for a REASON. The only way to absolutely guarantee that no one will ever be held without charges or trial for voicing dissent is to guarantee that no one will ever be held without charges or trial.
“And they were happy – they’re not happy they’re occupied. I wouldn’t be happy if I were occupied either.” – George W. Bush
Good grief.
That’s not an insult.
It’s the identification of the logical fallacy so named. “Argumentum ad ignorantiam” refers to the fallacy of saying, “We don’t know X, so it must be true.” (Or, of course, “We don’t know X, so it must be false.”)
The argument started with gobear’s claim that my side was making laws to stiffle dissent. I asked him to identify the specific laws. Someone offered the fact that we now had a law permitting people to be locked up without access to counsel. I asked which of those people were locked up for dissent.
You then said, “If folks are locked up without being charged, with no acces [sic] to counsel, how do we know what, specifically, they are being locked up for?”
In other words, you’re offering the inference that because we don’t know what they’re locked up for, we may assume it is dissent. That is classic, black-letter argumentum ad ignorantiam.
The burden is on the one offering the claim. It’s to gobear, or anyone adopting his position, to prove that there are laws stifling dissent.
I can’t believe that you’ve never seen the term in GD.
It’s not an insult.
Er… thanks. And I’m sorry you feel this way.
There’s a nuance here that I’m rather surprised isn’t obvious.
Can we generally agree that US WWII troops marching into Paris were liberators, not occupiers?
Judging from the above, you might well disagree: after all, our troops stayed in France for some time. But we don’t describe it as occupation because the INTENT was to liberate the country.
By analogy, I could describe a man who hacks and slashes at the flesh of the unconscious targets of his attention, cutting deeply into vital organs with seeming indifference to the damage he’s doing. Or I could describe a cardiac surgeon in a more positive way. This is, I believe, Miller’s point. Yes, of course troops in Iraq are occupiers, just as troops in Paris were. But when that word is the first that comes to mind when describing them, it betrays a certain bent of mind: much in the same way that a person choosing to describe a cardiac surgeon as a bloodthirsty hacker betrays.
Not relevant. If you’re now trying to expand the argument to ask if holding people without charges for OTHER reasons than dissent, that’s fine. But this is a slippery method of argument: the first point is never conceded; we merely shift to another point. So: before we move on to the question of whether I’m bothered by a particular practice, I would like to put to bed the question of whether laws have been made to stiffle dissent.
I heartily agree. As a matter of fact, I’m incorporating this book into a new unit in one of my history classes next semester.
Sure you would. You would like nothing better than to base the entire argument on the only point you have made so far.
Besides which, what real differance does it make that no laws have been passed that abrogate civil rights? Civil rights have clearly been abrogated by fiat, Mr. Padilla has been convicted of nothing whatsoever. His attorney general can make the Geneva Convention go “poof!” with a wave of his magic wand. When the executive branch can re-write the Constitution on an improvisational basis, the Congress becomes little more than the House of Lords: a quaint institution permitted to exist for largely ceremonial purposes.
Who needs to pass laws when you can make them right on the President’s desk?
Firstly, the terms are not mutually exclusive. “Occupiers” is not synonymous with “oppressors”, though that is clearly the implication Zell is putting forward.
Secondly, can we generally agree that US WWII troops occupied Germany? Since no foreign force was thrown out that would be a “better” WWII analogy(though the situations are not really comparable IMHO).
“Liberator” is a far more politically loaded noun than “occupier” is. Whether you believe troops belong in Iraq or not, everyone should at least agree that we are occupying it (or at least was). Zell is trying to make “occupier” a dirty word when it isn’t.