Maybe I was wrong about the coherence part.
Regards,
Shodan
Oh, can you please answer the question about how the military coup was more like a “constitutional act”? Please cite the part of the constitution to which you are referring.
Ironically enough, doing exactly what you are doing right here for now the fourth time: responding twice to one post of mine. You already replied to this post of mine here. I’m compelled to note in passing that it is post 420, and toking up can cause short term memory loss. I already provided you with the other 3 times you did this in this post.
Your own words and your torturous abuse of the English language is what backs me up. You are of course going to insist that I’m making this up and that what you are saying makes perfect sense and isn’t self-contradictory in any way whatsoever. You might want to reflect on the fact that it isn’t just me or a few people who share this view of you. When you’ve been drinking and one person tells you that you’re drunk, they might be wrong. When everyone you talk to tells you that you’re drunk, you might want to lie down for a while.
I wasn’t comparing Nixon’s resignation to a coup d’etat. I was illustrating your criteria for an election to be invalid–that someone was forced from office before their term is complete as Morsi was, doesn’t hold water because Nixon was also forced from office before his term was complete. The fact that you view Nixon’s election as valid and not Morsi’s just illustrates your mental gymnastics in order to retroactively defend your contradictory statements.
It seems like your definition of whether an election is valid depends on whether the term of office is completed. So, who knows? Maybe Obama will have some scandal and be forced from office. His term isn’t finished yet, so we can’t yet quite say whether his election is valid or not according to your logic. Let’s say next month John McCain leads the military in an overthrow of Obama. By your own arguments, that means Obama was not validly elected.
Sound stupid to you?
There you go. You are the one having a problem with English. In Nixon/Ford’s case it does not matter because their election was never invalidated, ended, terminated. Ford did serve out Nixon’s term according to the Constitution or am I missing something?
While I have your attention, I’ll ask you again. Here’s what you wrote:
{A} “So, reading the news today it looks like there are Senators in both parties who are taking both sides on this. 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. As violence escalates, there really are no good options for us here.” -John Mace
Since you claim to have mastered English, how have you determined that the above statement {A} from you is an argument that it was a coup.
My response to {A} was. *“I’ll go with what an Egyptian thinks about it:” *
and then I cited this, *“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 from this link: http://www.juancole.com/2013/07/peop...n-saadawi.html
You wrote {A} that it was up to Obama to decide. I responded {B} that I’d go with what an Egyptian thinks about it. Plain English means that I was non-committal at this point on whether or not it was a coup just like you were. My argument is that I will let an Egyptian decide what to call it.
But then you have the audacity to tell me that:
{C}
“It matters not” … you tell me “It matters not” … as if you are the final authority who gets to decide ‘it matters not’. I did not argue that it was a coup d’état. I didn’t argue anything on it.
It **matters fully **because your comment {A} was not presented as an argument or point or comment where I could have answered with an argument that it was not a coup. Yet you keep repeating that citing an Egyptian to decide what to call it is somehow my argument. That is absurd.
And then I explain shortly afterward, this:
{D}
[quote=“NotfooledbyW, post:72, topic:662825”]
I’d call what happened to Morsi was a smack down or to paraphrase Jefferson… it was a good bit of ‘refreshing the tree of liberty’ when it had to. **Call it a coup D’état if you like. It doesn’t matter within a deeper perspective.[/**QUOTE]
That is **my argument **on whether or not it was a coup. And it still is. It was technically a coup d’état but in the larger scheme of things it does not and it did not matter what it is called. Call it a coup d’état if you like. The aid is flowing - Morsi is in jail… it looks like a civil war is being avoided.
So if you want to know what my actual argument is on this topic, "it was technically a coup that has ‘refreshed the tree of liberty’ in Egypt after Morsi tried to chop it down.
I did not argue that you were comparing Nixon’s resignation to a coup d’état. I don’t have to. You brought up Nixon’s resignation as if it is comparable to what happened to Morsi. And you wrote, "
That is an error. It is not comparable because as I said Nixon’'s term was completed. His election was not invalidated.
You said "by using this logic, Nixon’s election was retroactively invalid because he was forced to step down and did not finish his term of office? Or, is Nixon’s election now voided–a new distinction from you now"
Nope. I shot your move down. Nixon’s election was NOT retroactively invalid because his term was finished in accordance with our constitution. Morsi’s term became invalid when it ended. There is no breakdown in my logic. There is a huge breakdown in the logic you tried to pass off.
Nixon was forced from office as Morci was is true. So what. The significant difference is that his election was not invalidated because of it. You made a mistake. Live with it.
Please cite where I have claimed this.
One thing you need to understand. I am not debating with you. That is fruitless. I’m simply debunking your claims for anyone who happens to be watching at home.
So, to the “voided election”. There is good reason to differentiate between instances when elections are actually voided and what happened in Egypt. An election might be voided if, for instance, a recount demonstrates that the alleged winner in fact, did not win. Or, if there were election irregularities that caused the election to not conform to the laws of the land.
In Egypt, that was not the case. Morsi was deposed, not because the election was found to be invalid, but because the military didn’t approve of his governing tactics. That’s an important distinction to make. The military didn’t depose him because of election irregularities or violations of election law. They deposed him because there was a sense that he was taking the country in the wrong direction.
Whether that move was good or bad is debatable, depending on your philosophical positions (not scientific positions, btw). But what is not debatable, because it’s a fact, is that the military coup didn’t depose Morsi by invalidating the election. They deposed him because they disapproved of the way he was governing.
[My emphasis]
Another illustration of your logic and reading comprehension and debating style. You say one thing and then deny you said or did it.
Seriously, people can read what you’ve written. You know this, don’t you?
See, you plainly aren’t pro-democracy, at least as regards Egypt. You believe you are, but you are mistaken.
You are advocating for a revolutionary government, which is rule by a sub-set of Egyptians you deem to embody the goals of the revolution. This is not compatible with democratic government, which requires an equal say for all citizens, regardless of their stance on secularism, Islamism, the military, or anything else.
Your cheerleading for Morsi’s imprisonment for escaping from prison - where he was being held for the crime of being in the Muslim Brotherhood and opposing Mubarak - and for “insulting the judiciary” is equally disturbing. Throwing opposition leaders into jail on trumped-up charges does not magically lead to the liberal democracy you claim to want.
paragraphs got out of order. Fixed it here:
That is an error. It is not comparable because as I said Nixon’'s term was completed. His election was not invalidated.
I did not argue that you were comparing Nixon’s resignation to a coup d’état. I don’t have to.
You brought up Nixon’s resignation as if it is comparable to what happened to Morsi. And you wrote, "by using this logic, Nixon’s election was retroactively invalid because he was forced to step down and did not finish his term of office? Or, is Nixon’s election now voided–a new distinction from you now"
Nope. I shot your move down. Nixon’s election was NOT retroactively invalid because his term was finished in accordance with our constitution. Morsi’s term became invalid when it ended. There is no breakdown in my logic. There is a huge breakdown in the logic you tried to pass off.
Nixon was forced from office just as Morsi was is true. So what. The significant difference is that his election was not invalidated because of it. You made a mistake. Live with it.
The Egyptian election was not invalidated. You just made that up.
And we’re still waiting for your explanation about how the coup was more like a “constitutional act”. Or are you now saying you made a mistake by posting that?
Do you know what ‘tried’ means?
Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW
Nope not making up rules the point was Dadmoocher **tried **to lay an argument on the board comparing Nixon’s resignation to Morsi’s being a victim of a coup d’état.
That is why I **did not have to argue **that you were comparing Nixon’s resignation to a coup d’état. My argument is … Nixon’s election was NOT retroactively invalid because his term was finished in accordance with our constitution. Morsi’s term became invalid when it ended. There is no breakdown in my logic. There is a huge breakdown in the logic you tried to pass off.
Have you explained how your comment last July was an argument by you that the Morsi ouster was a coup d’état?
What post are you talking about ?
Are you telling me that the Morsi election is still valid?
Yes, it was still valid. If you are asked: who was the president of Egypt in 2012, what is the answer?
I’m pretty sure it’s not my logic people have a history of not understanding.
Give me some pointers. How do you live with all your demonstrable mistakes?
You are pro-Islamist/theocracy with sympathetic ties to terrorists, at least as regards Egypt. You are anti-Nawal El Saadawi who said, “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.
http://www.juancole.com/2013/07/peop...n-saadawi.html
You must think the revolution ended when Morsi was elected. That is a mistake. Do you think Nawal El Saadawi’s goal is not democracy? And what makes you think it has to happen exactly as you want it to happen and as quickly?
Do you agree with this him?
I’ll take a democratic Islamist state over a secular military dictatorship any day, absolutely. People, all people, have the right to choose their own leaders.
Are you willing to acknowledge that you put secularism before democracy?
It was absolutely a coup, by any definition of the word I’ve ever encountered. That El Saadawi chooses to deny that it was a coup, rather than argue that it was a coup that was justified, doesn’t speak highly of her intellectual honesty.
I don’t care. The people (or rather, the sub-set of them that you support) affiliated with the revolution don’t have any more right to determine Egypt’s government than any other Egyptian does.
If it is, it’s foolish to support the illegal toppling of a democratic government. I’d say her goal is an outcome, not a process, and democracy is a process.
Common sense? There’s nothing unprecedented about what’s happening in Egypt right now, as I’ve already pointed out. How did it turn out for Spain or Argentina? Why should I think it’ll go any better for Egypt, when they appear to be heading right back to a military dictatorship? What’s the long-term plan here, deny Islamists the ability to organize politically and/or vote? Kill them? How do you transition to a democracy when you refuse to accept what happens when a free election is held?
[quote=“dasmoocher, post:535, topic:679071”]
I’m pretty sure it’s not my logic people have a history of not understanding.
QUOTE]
What ‘people’? All you have to do is read what is written. What ‘people think’ sounds like the anecdotal stories that J.Mace was warning M. Lover to stay away from. Are you trying to get majority rule or something going for you. Popularity contest? I don’t buy it.
I am sticking with the facts. Fact is Nixon’s term was completed. Morsi’s was not. Nixon’s election was fully served. You are trying to tell me that distinction does not exist or matter. J.Mace tells me things don’t matter. It is not up to him to decide.
Here’s my argument again, "The people of Egypt are still in a revolution. Because they are in the midst of a revolution it is not comparable to our democracy and elections. The REVOLUTIONARIES/marchers/protestors/Egyptian Army invalidated Morsi’s election last summer when they took to the streets and the military forced him to leave office. Morsi will never act as president of Egypt ever again. His election means absolutely nothing for the future outcome in Egypt. It has been invalidated. It is over. It is done with. It is not happening. All facts. If you care to dispute them let me know with some logic and facts behind it.
And I believe the Egyptian military and the secularists coming together to crush the Muslim Brotherhood is not ‘democratic’ but it is most likely the best path to real democracy with the least chance of all out civil war. No civil war is what is important to me as an observer. Had the MB and Egyptian military come together to crush the moderates and revolutionaries, I believe there would be a civil war. One side has to lose. I am not disturbed that the MB is the side that appears to be losing right now.
You said I “tried” to lay an argument on the board comparing Nixon’s resignation to Morsi’s being a victim of a coup d’état.
You are arguing that is the comparison I tried to make. Whether or not you think it is a successful argument doesn’t change the fact that that was what you thought it was.
Yes, you did. Here it is:
You made the statement that I was comparing Nixon’s resignation to a coup d’état to support your proposition that I was incorrect.
Let me help you out some more: