Its not just the word “occupier”, its intonation, and setting.
Look at this tape. Here’s GeeDubya, standing before a screen with the words “The Leader Loves The Heroes, The Heroes Love The Leader”, over and over. When he says “occupier”, he’s got a hoarse tone of a man nearly breaking into manly sobs, choked with emotion by his throbbing love for strapping young men in uniform. (Probably thinking back on his days of desperate struggle with Viet Cong aircraft in the Battle of Amarillo. “Never have so many gotten away with so much for so long!”)
Now here’s Kerry. Notice the way he pronounces “occupier” with a slightly French accent! How his lip very nearly curls in disdain and contempt, his stiff and woodern delivery when a real patriot would be blubbering with patriotic devotion and fervor. And notice that gesture? He’s wiping his ass with the flag! You can’t see it from this angle, but I know a guy over at Freep who’s an expert in flag-ass forensics, and he says that’s what it is, and the guy’s a patriot!
It’s all real simple when you know how to look at stuff.
Oh, by the way, did I mention that Bush won? The election? And he’ll be the President? For another four years? That’ll he will decide when we leave Iraq, and on what terms? Not Kerry. Bush.
What happened to finding and eliminating the weapons of mass destruction and the imminent threat to our security? That used to be the truth. How about ending the systematic torture of prisoners there? That used to be the truth too. But now we’re at war with Eastasia, and you don’t even remember any different.
Note that I said “indefinite”. That means “not definite”, and furthermore, “not even moving in that direction”. Meanwhile, what we’re doing there can only be called, well, what? Got any ideas?
It isn’t really the President’s view of what we’re doing that matters. This war is now, reputedly, about winning Iraqi hearts and minds. If they think this is an occupation, then that’s what it is. The hundreds of attacks on our troops every single fucking day should give you a hint about that. Bush’s view was, is, and will be for the indefinite future, a fantasy. Kerry’s is realism.
And instead, Iraq will be a hellhole, with our people getting blown up every day by the Iraqi people trying to get us out, and with no end in sight. You’re thankful for that, you tell us. Tell you what, go down to the Guard recruitment office Monday, after your safe and happy Christmas with your family, and go sign up to help. What? You wouldn’t do that? Why not?
You’ve been asked repeatedly to support your arguments, and this is what you do instead. Case dismissed.
Point of order, if you don’t mind, regarding the debate on the previous two pages.
gobear wrote: ”The worst my side will do is argue with you, but your party wants to enact laws to stifle criticism,”
to which Bricker replied:
Just for the sake of clarity here, gobear never claimed that the Republican party had actually passed any laws that “stifled criticism,” merely that they wanted to. So the proper frame of reference for this debate would be: how reasonable is it to suspect that the right in general, or at the very least influential members of the right, would like to pass laws stifling criticism, if they could?
Speaking for myself, I find that the right has a frighteningly pliable sense of freedom, and that members of the right tend to lean towards a “means justifies ends” kind of morality. They speak quite high-mindedly of liberty when it pleases them, but are the first to strip away basic rights when those rights get in the way of specific goals.
You certainly don’t hear folks accuse those who support the war of a lack of patriotism, even though to me supporting this war, unprovoked and based on a tissue of lies, is far more unpatriotic than opposing it. But there has been a non-stop cacophony from the right about the lack of patriotism expressed by those who oppose. Not an open discussion of the issues, mind you, but an attempt to shut down the discussion by means of ad hominim.
Bricker:
With all due respect, this is a really stupid argument. It’s also a logical fallacy, isn’t it, something along the lines of the 10,000 Frenchment can’t be wrong school of thought? Anyway, the mere fact that a majority of Americans (or anyone, for that matter) believe something to be right doesn’t in and of itself make it right. Not to Godwinize the thread, for example, but the majority of Germans thought Hitler was right to invade Poland. Max:
One of the great strengths of the right in the US is their capacity to ignore the beam in their own eye so as to better focus on the mote in the other’s. Thus, the propaganda promulgated by Judith Miller in the Grey Lady receives nary a word of condemnation, but an off-hand reference to a plastic turkey in a movie review in the back pages of the LA Times ranks its own pit thread.
That’s why I mentioned control of the House, Senate, and White House. Your inference carries some weight, I agree. But stronger than your inference is the FACT that, notwithstanding their control of both houses needed to pass laws, and the president’s pen to sign the laws, no such laws have actually been passed.
In short: if your vision of the right is correct, why haven’t these draconian laws come to pass?
No, it proves nothing… except that the purpose of debate is to persuade an audience of the validity of one’s position. The audience that needed to judge this contest has done so. You may claim they chose wrongly, but the EFFECT of their choice was to validate the course chosen thus far.
You know damn well what the point of the question was, and so does anyone else reading this thread. Your refusal to address it says everything necessary.
The bulk of the practical effect isn’t from written laws but from executive action, compliance with the law being coincidental (viz. the torture of prisoners that somehow fails to arouse even indignation in you). One might have expected that point to be clear to you as well, and your failure to address that either says even more.
So, tell us, what argument do you still truly believe you have left?
**annaplurabelle ** and elucidator, may you also find the joy of the seasons in your hearts and help to foster it the hearts of others.
I’m fairly liberal, but this sentiment is starting to get on my nerves.** Bricker** may be too old, or have infirmities, or what not.
I’m having a little trouble with the implication that only those who can serve should get to voice an opinion on the matter…or have a say in the decision.
Ain’t the point, spooje. The implied preface perhaps should have been stated: If you were eligible to go fight, would you? Why or why not? If you wouldn’t go yourself, how can you justify asking anyone else to go?
We know what the answer of all the relevant decisionmakers in the Iraq war was, based on their own actions. We don’t know what this board’s own chickenhawks would answer.
Even if the answer were “Because I’m a cringing, craven yellow-bellied coward” it would make no difference, an argument is independent of its advocate, to be judged on its own merits. This is precisely why an ad hominem argument is a false argument. If one makes an argument about racism, it makes no difference at all whether the advocate is black, white, or polka-dotted.
Friend Bricker’s personal valor, or entire lack thereof, is of precisely zero consequence.
It is of zero value to the discussion the validity/sucess of the war in Iraq, but it is not of zero value when getting at the content of the character of those who support the war.
Yes, an argument cannot validly be won on the basis of ad hominem attacks due to the fallacious nature of that mode of reasoning.
However, in debates that go beyond the policies in question, and/or when someone just wants to hammer on another person, the content of one’s character becomes fair game.