YOU expanded the argument, Bricker, because gobear wasn’t the one who specified dissent. Here’s the post you replied to:
And you know very well how easy it is to trump up charges if you want to nail someone for dissent.
Slippery indeed.
I offered it up becuase if we don’t what they are locked for, then *we don’t know what they are locked for * and we are deliberatley kept in ignorance by the powers that be. So nothing can be ruled out.
“You can’t prove it without the evidence I say I have, and I will not allow you to see the evidence. Therefore, you are wrong”.
That pretty much sums it up.
Your beef is mostly with a failure to spin the Iraq operation the way you think it should be spun.
To torture your cardiac surgeon analogy, imagine the same situation, except: 1.) the heart was not healthy, but appeared stable, 2.) the tests indicating that the heart surgery is necessary were incomplete, their results were assumed, and the diagnosis was suspicious, 3.) there were questions about the surgeon’s technique, and whether there were better, less invasive ways of treating this, especially since we were not sure of the diagnosis, and 4.) the patient had a raging case of appendicitis that we were just throwing some antibiotics at while we took care of this “imminent” heart problem.
Miller could then say, “My colleague’s opponents say he is cutting this patient’s chest open. That sickens me! He is heroically saving this patient’s life!”
I could torture the analogy further (surgical complications, pathology results, etc.), but I’ll spare us all.
“Occupation” is what we did. “Liberation” of the population from Hussein’s regime is a result of what we did, but it hardly tells the whole story. “Kill a lot of women and children” is something else that we did in the process of that occupation, but that doesn’t tell the whole story, either. My point is that “liberators” is at least as politically slanted term as “occupiers”, and IMO, far more.
But that’s far more subtle than what Zell is saying. He’s trying to make an incredibly stupid and shallow point, which is that anyone who would use the word “occupiers” to refer to US troops, ever, in any context, is unfit to be president. We all seem to agree that the question of occupation vs. liberation is not 100% clear. Certainly, the US occupied both Germany and Japan after WWII, and no one blames US soldiers for doing so, and saying so is not a criticism of The American Soldier.
Most importantly, though, and this touches on the Bush administration’s inability to accept criticism, Miller is making the insidious claim that to criticize the role that the US military is being ordered to play is the same as criticizing The American Soldier.
So let me ask you point blank: do you think it’s possible for someone to believe that the war in Iraq is a terrible, embarassing, monumental mistake, one that will have reprecussions for decades to come, one which greviously damages the US’s moral stature in the world, not to mention our economy, our safety, and the lives of over 1,000 of our troops; and still admire and support our fighting men and women? If not, why not? And if so, how can you reconcile that with the claim that Miller is making?
As far as I know, no laws have been made with the deliberate intent of stifling dissent, and, again as far as I know, no one has been held without charges or trial for stifling dissent. I’d guess that if anyone so claimed, they were exercising hyperbole.
However, you are brushing aside the important question here… it’s as if the conversation went like this:
Some liberal dude: George Bush ate 15 babies and drank their blood
Bricker: Hang on. He only ate 3 babies and drank their blood. That’s only 20% as bad!
SLD: OK, but aren’t you bothered that he ate 3 babies and drank their blood?
Bricker: Wait, you’re trying to change the terms of the argument.
Specifically, I find the possibility of the US government holding Americans without trial or charge exteremly disturbing, for reasons which should be obvious (but I explained them in my last post). Add to that the fact that the current administration seems to be terrible at dealing with questioning, criticism and/or dissent (the paucity of press conferences, scientists and intelligent agents fired or ignored when they don’t toe the party line, non-political appointees being appointed politically, “if you aren’t with us, you’re against us” rhetoric, and Zell Miller’s speech all being examples) and we’re a lot closer to a situation in which people can be “disappeared” just for criticizing the government than we were 10 years ago. Not that I’m paranoid enough to think that things are anywhere near that bad, currently. But if one were trying to imagine a scenario in which the US transformed into a society with far less freedom of expression, the first few steps might look a lot like what we’re seeing right now.
Fortunately, the vast majority of conservatives, including (I’m sure) you, value freedom of expression just as much as the vast majority of us leftists. But, as they say, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. And you shouldn’t slack off your vigilance just because your party is in power right now.
Pay attention, please.
THAT is the post that started this discussion.
And when the judicial branch can re-write the Constitution on a whim, we have Griswold, Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence.
If anyone is going to rewrite the Constitution on a whim, I like it to be the executive, a guy we can vote out if we don’t like what he does.
Probably that was it.
Here, of course, we cannot possibly infer hyperbole. Miller’s words must be technically accurate, or he’s an ass.
Interesting set of standards. Why were you so generous with hyperbole in one case, but not the other?
I would have thought you more sophisticated in these matters. It is, in fact, the function of the judiciary to interpret. That’s their job.
Case in point: the Mass. “gay marriage” decision. The Massachussetts court looked at the law, and saw how it was written. It was written gender-neutral. There is little doubt in my mind that the worthies who wrote the law did not, by any stretch of the imagination, intend to legitimize gay marriage. But that’s how they wrote the law! Now, if the Court had interpreted the law to say something it didn’t say…that marriage was between a man and a woman…then they would have, indeed, re-written the law, and would have exceeded their proper function.
But they didn’t. The law as written makes no such distinction, no doubt because the authors of the legislation didn’t think it necessary. Tough beans, it says what it says. Now, if the law had said that marriage could only take place between a man and a woman, the Court is in no position to say that it says marriage can take place between a man and an iguana. And only a Court empowered to consider Constitutional issues is empowered to declare such a law invalid on Constitutional grounds. There is little, if anything, “whimsical” about any of this.
Just need to remind friend elucidator that, in the lexicon of the rightie-tighties, “activist judiciary” == “an interpretation I didn’t like.”
Note that I didn’t bring up Zell Miller in the first place, you did, and you (apparently) strongly endorsed what he was saying. You could have said “Zell is being a bit hyperbolic here, but I think he has a sound point, blah blah blah”, but you did not.
Most importantly, though, there’s a big difference between something crescendoing to hyperbole, and something built upon hyperbole. If someone something like “rant rant rant rant rant rant damn those republicans who want to pass laws stifling free speech”, that’s really not comparable to multiple paragraphs specifically and precisely about the use of the word “occupier”.
Anyhow, you’ve slyly avoided respondnig to the direct question I posed last time, so I will repeat it:
“do you think it’s possible for someone to believe that the war in Iraq is a terrible, embarassing, monumental mistake, one that will have reprecussions for decades to come, one which greviously damages the US’s moral stature in the world, not to mention our economy, our safety, and the lives of over 1,000 of our troops; and still admire and support our fighting men and women? If not, why not? And if so, how can you reconcile that with the claim that Miller is making?”
Don’t rise to the bait, 'luc and rjung.
Before:
After:
The topic is Zell Miller (ref. the thread title), and his blanket condemnation of the word “occupy” regarding our, um, activities in Iraq. Bricker has nothing left to say that he can support in that area, but instead of admitting it is doing something he also condemns.
First slippery. Now condescending and childish. How charming. Juries must’ve loved you.
As has been noted my post started this discussion. Zell Miller? You were attempting to defend him?
But if you want to keep hijacking it with your petty pedantic little diversions, go right ahead. As OP, I give my blessing.
I’ll take my chances with this jury…
As I understand it, Zell Miller said that those who think of our forces as “occupiers” are not fit for office.
Bored liberals have dug up quotes by high ranking members of the administration, to include the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of Defense, in which they use the offending term “occupiers”. The fact that their use of this term is not the same as those of their heroes (see: Michael Moore and his ilk) who view Iraqi insurgents as rebels who will overthrow our troops is (apparently) completely irrelevant to these chuckleheads. But they have strength in numbers on this board, and they take turns mixing the Kool-Aid for each other, so they can get away with it. These same bored liberals, for whatever reason, expect Bricker to come in on hands and knees apologizing for defending Zell Miller’s speech as ‘heartfelt’ based on this single argument. And not only this, but to condemn his speech as ‘soul-rotting demogoguery’ (though I’m sure they view their mocking of Zell himself as possessing venom sacks, chicken eyes, and a senile mind are all ‘sweetness and light’).
:rolleyes:
Right so far. It’s in the quote the dear departed (and understandably so) Bricker used on Page 1, if you’d care to scroll back.
It’s *not * the same meaning when one of your heroes in the administration uses the word “occupier”? What do you think they, and Miller, mean by it, then? What nuance can you explicate that makes Kerry unfit for office and Bush your hero?
Silly. When a Good Guy says “occupation,” he means it in a Good Guy way. When a Bad Guy (Liberal) says it, he means it in a Bad Guy way.
Well, Bricker, since arbitrary detention, invasion of privacy, harrassment of peace activists don’t bother you, since Bush has not yet declared martial law or suspended the Bill of Rights, (and even then I doubt you’d be disturbed), I withdraw the comment.
That’s an arguable point, since even Kerry admitted that his early voting record on defense funding was too dove-ish. If Zell had made that point in that manner, I’d have no beef. However, wording it like that doesn’t play well to pounding the pulpit and working the convention into a frenzy, which was apperently Zell’s point. He could have maade the subtle and insightful points you speak of, but subtlety doesn’t get them out of their chairs.
The occupation flap, for instance: either Zell didn’t know the man he was giving a speech in support of had repeatedly used the very language he was condemning (which is unlikely, Zell’s no fool), or he did know and was intending to make the subtle point that those who choose to see us as primarily occupiers rather than primarily liberators are wrong headed, or he did know and was hypocritically assigning fault to another (by implication, Kerry) for using the same language as the person he’s praising. If Zell was attempting to make the more subtle points, he not only failed but did so at the expense of being intentionally misleading about the larger ones. This is what I take issue with, not just with Zell but with grandstanding politics and politicians in general, whether Republican, Democrat or otherwise. Zell’s just the most recent offender.
So, would you actually like to engage in spirited intellectual debate and discourse? If so, I’d be happy to respond to your post, if you’d be so polite as to rephrase it in a fashion that even vaguely indicates that you don’t view all liberals as identical idiots nuzzling at the teat of Michael Moore.
Oh, who am I kidding?
Anyhow, to actually attempt to respond, Zell Miller’s speech was very simple and straightforward. If you’re claiming that there was actually an incredible level of subtlety and complexity to it, then the onus is on you to demonstrate the existence of that subtlety.
And, even if that subtlety exists, I’m not at all clear on what it is. Are you claiming that liberals support Iraqis? Or that the fact that the word “insurgent” might be used instead of “baby-raping terrorist shitface raghead scumbag” somehow implies approval of what those insurgents are doing?
Seriously, if you have a point, and I haven’t responded to it, please clarify exactly what it is. And in the meantime, I’ll ask you the same question I asked Bricker:
“do you think it’s possible for someone to believe that the war in Iraq is a terrible, embarassing, monumental mistake, one that will have reprecussions for decades to come, one which greviously damages the US’s moral stature in the world, not to mention our economy, our safety, and the lives of over 1,000 of our troops; and still admire and support our fighting men and women? If not, why not? And if so, how can you reconcile that with the claim that Miller is making?”
I assume you mean me to be the “bored liberal” who is smarmily unearthing quotes which might seem to make Zell look either foolish or hypocritical, if taken at face value by one who misunderstands the syntactic complexities beneath different personages’ uses of the term “occupation.” I might know Michael Moore if he bit me in the ass, as I understand he is rather heavy, unshaven, and wears a hat, but beyond that I’ve never seen a frame or read a word of anything he’s done. I’m not really a liberal. I just dislike hypocrites.
Now, having just called me a bored liberal Kool-aid swilling chucklehead, you’re taking others to task for argument ad hominem abusive?
So the lesson here is: if you’re a anti-war dove early in your career (and support the noble, although sometimes naive goal of peace through diplomacy) and evolve into more of a moderate on issues of foregin policy, one day you might have to answer to a reconstructed segregationist’s* allegations of treachery?
Zell Miller is a political opportunist. His 2004 maneuverings have landed him a “consulting” position with the law firm of McKenna Long Aldridge. Only a couple of years ago, his retirement dream was to teach at his alma mater, a small community college, Young Harris College in tiny Young Harris, Georgia. But his speach was heartfelt. So do you think his heart is bi-fold or tri-fold? Maybe it’s a clip.
*To head off any criticism of my reference to Miller’s support of segregation, allow me to clear up that I reference it merely because it showcases Miller’s opportunism. He is, IMHO, no man of convictions.