Is civil war in Egypt averted? 90% yes for new Constitution.

[dasmoocher]

@NotfooledbyW

You cannot define what I’ve written that is ignorant.

I’d say writing that there was a Nixon/Ford election qualifies.

@NotfooledbyW

I can however show you that you are absolutely wrong to infer that I argued that the ouster of Morsi was NOT a coup because I chose to cite a third party opinion by someone who is part of the revolution in Egypt. I can do this by showing the following post which is a very reasonable and issue-settling account about the US aid package for Egypt and the date that it was posted.

Bayard’s information was posted BEFORE the post where you claimed that I argued that the coup was not a coup. That argument was not even a factor by the time my reply to you came around. Who the hell are the reasonable people who would care what I or Obama or McCain called the last day of Morsi’s unfinished election term? Whether it was called a coup d’état after this point really did not matter.
Read it all here: Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law (Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board)

Maybe you can help me out. I didn’t participate in the Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law thread. But is this not your first post in that thread? Here is the entire post so we can judge its context:

@NotfooledbyW

Originally Posted by John Mace
Very complicated. But, it also notes that Obama is the decider as to whether this is a coup or not, so it’s really up to him unless Congress writes a new law.

I’ll go with what an Egyptian thinks about it:

This is a historical revolution and not a coup d’etat or protest movement or outraged uprising. It is a revolution that will continue until all of its goals are realized.

—

Nawal El Saadawi is an internationally renowned Egyptian writer who’s writing has influenced five generations of women and men in Egypt and other Arab countries, and paved the way for dissidence, rebellion and revolution. For more than four decades she has suffered under Egyptian political and religious authorities, which has led to imprisonment, exile, death threats and court trials.

Read More:

Egypt: A People’s Revolution, Not a Crisis or Coup (Nawal El Saadawi)

You say you “go with” what an Egyptian thinks about it. And what does “go with” mean to you? I suspect (don’t want to assume, now) most people—maybe not you—but most people would read that as you agree with what the Egyptian is saying. Infer that you agree, if you will.

And what is the Egyptian saying? Well, it appears that she’s saying Morsi’s overthrow, arrest, invalidation, being voided, or whatever is the result of “a historical revolution and not a coup d’etat”. I want to be sure, now. She’s saying it’s not a coup, correct? The title of the piece is “Egypt: A People’s Revolution, Not a Crisis or Coup (Nawal El Saadawi)”. This is the first sentence of your quoted material. And you “go with” that, because, well, that’s what you wrote just prior to your quote. Maybe you don’t realize this or agree with this, but you certainly seem to be making an argument by proxy. And you certainly didn’t qualify anything about your quote of her.

@NotfooledbyW

What are you talking about? I have not disavowed El Saadawi or what she said. You are confused. You did not ‘call me’ on anything. I never ever ever ever ever ever argued that Morsi’s ouster was NOT A Coup. I argued that it was up to Epytians like El Saadaw to decide what to call it.

My position is that it is up to Egyptians to decide how to handle their revolution. Not me not you not H.Action. El Saadawi is not going down the Islamist theocracy path for H.Action or anyone else. She said more than IT is not a coup’…

See, this is why people find your posts, umm…let’s say, disjointed and contradictory. You have not disavowed El Saadawi saying it’s not a coup and you “go with" what she’s said—it is not a coup. But because you say you “go with” her argument, most people—probably all of them (I again suspect and not assume, now)—would read/infer that as her argument is your argument. Isn’t that why you posted the quote in the first place? And yet two sentences later you say you have “never ever ever ever ever ever argued that Morsi’s ouster was NOT A Coup.”

It seems like you want to say “it’s not a coup” when you want to rebut John Mace’s assertion “that Obama is the decider as to whether this is a coup or not” in one thread, but say I “never said it is not a coup" in this thread.

Predicted response: I never said it was not a coup; the Egyptian I “go with” did and she is not me; and what Egyptians call it doesn’t matter anyways. And then you’re going to say I don’t get the context of your first post in the other thread. But it’s up to you to provide the context when you quote a poster and then reply. As your post stands, it appears that John Mace said Obama gets to say whether it’s a coup and you tried to rebut that by saying the Egyptians say it is not a coup and you agree/“go with” that.

However, before you latch on to a sentence or two above to rebut and “embarrass” me once again, maybe you should think on why it is no one “gets” those brilliant arguments you are sure you are making. How many times have people pointed out—incorrectly in your mind, I’m sure (that I will assume)—that you have said contradictory things?