Then you’re a fucking idiot.
We, through our taxes and our votes, support our government. We provide the economic means to do what it does and through our votes we legitimize what it does. When our government does something reprehensible, it does it because it has our support and it does it in our name.
Because our government acts in our name and with our support, it’s especially offensive when it does something horrible in our name, and that provides an incentive to end the reprensible behaviour that doesn’t exist in other forms of government.
We’re responsible for the actions of our government in a way that citizens in a country that isn’t democratically run aren’t.
.
Huh? What the hell does any of that have to do with Metacom’s claims that we’re all supporters of torture?
Actually, I get it quite well. That we collectively bear some responsibility for the actions of our elected officials, as well as a responsiblilty to object to their immoral actions, is a very reasonable position to argue. But equating responsibility for an action with support of same, ain’t. And that is precisely the claim which Metacom is making; because Bush is president, we support his acts. It leaves one in the position of supporting the very things he’s arguing against. It’s not only a particularly fucking stupid claim, it’s a logical impossibility.
Nice change-up there, Meta. Just went from support to responsible. Two entirely different things.
One of the definitions of “support” is “To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities.”
Do you not supply your government with money?
It is *not * his claim. It’s *your * (false) claim that that’s what he said.
Then why have you been arguing it? Tool.
No no–I am saying that we’re all supporters of torture.
The more I think about this, the more divided I am.
On the one hand, the paraphrase of Durbin is totally awful: what’s happening at Guantanamo compares to Treblinka in the same way that my county commissioner compares to George Bush: calling it small potatoes is an insult to fingerlings everywhere.
On the second hand, the point that these abuses are similar to abuses happening in oppressive regimes is an important point: they’re unacceptable, thoroughly and completely unacceptable, and they’re ruining our reputation as defenders of freedom. Even from a realpolitik perspective, we ought to stop these abuses tootsweet, because their continuation is just handing ammunition over to those who would murder us.
On the third hand, Durbin was foolish in his hyperbole. While comparisons are normally a legitimate rhetorical device, and while hyperbole is not a cardinal rhetorical sin when indulged in with moderation, Nazis are the Big Bad, sui generis. He was unwise to choose this form of hyperbole.
On the fourth hand, Durbin’s sin is to the sins at Guantanamo as my county commissioner is to George Bush: to call it small potatoes is an insult to fingerlings everywhere. It is outrageous that the media attention is focusing on Durbin instead of on the mental and physical torture at Guantanamo, and it is highly suspicious that Mr. Moto is pitting the former and not the latter. While Moto says he’s criticized prisoner abuses before, I’ve not seen him start a thread over it, and certainly not one with such vitriol in the OP as that he seems to reserve for someone engaging in hyperbole. Dare I suspect partisanship?
On the fifth and final hand, at least Guantanamo is being discussed, however peripherally, as a result of Durbin’s ill-chosen hyperbole. That may, in the end, make it all worthwhile.
Daniel
For certain activities, not willingly.
Now, who’s the obtuse one here?
We must take a moment to applaud Unc for his generosity, once again, in gracing us with crucal information, in this instance, the precise distinction between “support” and “responsibility”. It is difficult to precisely measure the urgency of this semantic distinction, almost as difficult as it is to give a shit.
Trying to pick a fight, Unc? I’m your huckleberry.
Care to post something other than a drive-by?
It would be nice if you could explain how thinking that torture techniques (like chaining people down without food or water and exposing them to extreme temperatures) are comparable to something that might have been done by a regime with no concern for human beings amounts to idiocy.
Maybe you’d care to answer the question someone asked earlier in this thread - If this comparison doesn’t jive with you, than what comparison would?
Or maybe I’m asking too much of you.
In the eyes of much of the world, we are. Does the guy with an RPG launcher know if the Americans riding in a Humvee all disagree with the US’s treatment of prisoners? No, people tend to see things in the simplest fashion and are learning to associate the US Army uniform with the torturers at Abu Ghraib and the captors of Gitmo. Is it fair to tar every soldier or every American with the same brush? Not at all, but not unexpected, either. People everywhere create simulcra of the world based on their beliefs, observations, and what they have been told by others and in their worldviews America has stopped being the land of Hollywood and is looking too much like a land of torturers and monsters. All of us are seen as torturers and monsters, no matter our personal beliefs and actions. I’m pissed off about that and I would think that you, as a social conservative who holds in his heart a love of all that is good about America, would be at least as pissed as I am. I miss the days when we were outraged by the summary execution by that Vietnamese general. I would be happy to go back to a time when America was symbolized by John Wayne and Elvis. Hell, I’d settle for the time when everybody from Chicago was supposedly a gangster. That beats the hell out of what we have now.
But…I thought you were my huckleberry!
:sobs
Daniel
We can’t pick and choose which actions we support, though. We either participate in the social contract by paying taxes and voting, and assume the responsibility for what our government does with our support, or we move to small cabins in Montanna and mail bombs to people.
Thank you for that. Needed to be said.
No, I ain’t tryin’ to pick a fight with you 'luc. If you object to my characterization of you, take it up with Metacom. I’m merely applying his declaration to the broadest spectrum possible in order to demonstrate just out how absurd it is.
Apparently it was entirely necessary; it was a distinction clearly lost on Elvis.
We’re after the same rainbow’s end
Waiting around the bend
My Huckleberry friend
Moon River and me…
What the fuck? Either you simply can’t even keep your own bullshit straight, or you’re simply projecting. I’ve taken enough care to help *you * understand the distinction. But, if you wish to look like an idiot anyway, you’re welcome to.
Isn’t it a bit of a moot point, now?
The question is no longer whether you support torture or not, it’s whether you willingly support torture.
I’m a slut, Lefty. Not as big a slut as Doggyknees, but a slut nonetheless.