To paraphrase a line from one of my favorite movies…
You keep making stuff up, NFBW. That’s what you’re good at.
Nothing in Post #839 is made up. If you are going to accuse me of making stuff up… reference it.
Been done by me and a half dozen other people in this thread. No need to repeat ourselves. Got a problem with that? Go to the Pit thread.
Do you believe that freedom of religion is an inalienable right and that right is critically important in the success of what has been called a functional democracy?
And perhaps you will find time to answer this:
(-NotfooledbyW 02-13-2014 11:43 PM) When did America go from no democracy to having a democracy. A functional democracy in your mind? Would it be right and fair to give the Egyptians the same amount of time to go from revolution - a taste of freedom - to a functional democracy such as ours? <"Cite
Those on this forum who pompously flaunt their pro-democracy credentials as they bemoan the demise of the Morsi anti-democracy regime and agenda really should spend some time reading this:
***A people’s history of the Egyptian revolution ***
The Egyptian people’s revolution is about 'Power to the People; for establishing basic civil liberties, human rights, and a solid democratic process but the horde of ‘bemoaners’ here show little understanding of people power in Egypt as defined by human rights, liberty and a truly functional democratic process.
Morsi’s exit was not by the ballot box. That is true. However it was better that Morsi’s exit was "BY REVOLUTION… which is well explained as to why … by Hani Shukrallah
Here’s an excerpt… I suggest following the link t read it all.
(-CarnalK 02-14-2014 01:06 PM) The real question is if we “give the Egyptians the same amount of time to go from revolution - a taste of freedom - to a functional democracy such as ours” that amounts to between 80 years (for non-whites to vote) and 130 years (for women to vote). Is that the amount of time you are really talking about, NotfooledbyW?
How did you arrive at your conclusion that the ***‘real question is if’ ***
(*a)… we as Americans can only be fair and objective in the thoughtful approach to our scrutiny of the Egyptian people’s quest for democracy by considering the long dysfunctional chain of events and denial of voting rights that eventually were overcome to allow the commencement of our current functioning and well managed democracy…
is that…
(*b)… the amount of time I am really talking about?
The *actual duration *it took *our democracy *to get there is not ‘the real question’ as I see it. It is all of (*a) that is ***the real question ***for you and John Mace and Human Action to answer.
I see all the points by the three you to fully disregard the need to be fair and objective about the evolution and development of our own democracy as we pass judgment or scrutinize the Egyptian revolution that is merely in its third tumultuous, chaotic and messy year. Also theirs is a revolution that is not as tumultuous, chaotic and messy as revolutions of this type sometimes go.
You’re right. We should embrace the pro-democracy military coup. It was, after all, more of a “constitutional act” than a coup.
Every democracy would be enhanced by an Egyptian style military coup in order to get rid of those elements that any democratic government would suppress. We all know that democracy is only for people with the correct political leanings. The best democracies are those that outlaw undesirable political positions.
Let’s follow what I am actually saying versus what John Mace somehow thinks I am saying:
(-NotfooledbyW AM) **Plea request #1 ** First off it would help to keep the discussion focused on what our actual thoughts and positions are if John Mace would actually present an honest answer to the two questions that I asked three days ago at 11:43 PM shown above. Can you answer them?
(-NotfooledbyW AM) **Plea request #2 ** I am asking that John Mace pledge to cease cutting off pertinent, significant and related aspects of all and any message that I attempt to convey when John Mace uses the quote function in order to post a response that has not fully captured the full meaning or intent of what I am saying. This would be common courtesy to abide by that. Do you agree?
I underlined the above defined infraction #2 at the point where I wrote yesterday at 04:33 AM a full sentence that ended with a “:” which suggests the writer expects any reader to continue reading if they are interested in understanding the point.
I also underlined the amputated version that John Mace quoted immediately preceding error laden response this morning at 02:59 AM which is shown toward the end of this post.
Note: the Blue Font above is the part of my statement that John Mace amputated at 02:59 AM this morning.
(-NotfooledbyW AM) **Plea request #3 ** So with all the Mace infractions that are shown just on this one exchange it would be proper for John Mace to acknowledge that he is in error when he states at 02:59 AM this morning that I (NotfooledbyW) ‘am right’ to say “We should embrace the pro-democracy military coup. It was, after all, more of a “constitutional act” than a coup.”
I have not asked anyone to ‘embrace the pro-democracy military coup’ or any other coup.
Much of my points and arguments are repeated here:
(*a)… we as Americans can only be fair and objective in the thoughtful approach to our scrutiny of the Egyptian people’s quest for democracy by considering the long dysfunctional chain of events and denial of voting rights that eventually were overcome to allow the commencement of our current functioning and well managed democracy…
That is not asking anyone to ‘embrace’ denial of voting rights to women for 130 years of our democracy… or the denial to white males who didn’t own at least fifty acres.
so there should be no conclusion or misconception that I have asked anyone to embrace the coup in Egypt as anything more than a setback and a flaw in the run upt to democracy similar to ours being flawed for over a century in some cases.
Learn how to code a quote before you complain about anyone else. And John Mace made no change whatever to the meaning of your post. Your post was so stupid that it lacked any meaning, so no change is possible.
Regards,
Shodan
<“Cite”
(-Shodan 02-16-2014 09:26 AM) Learn how to code a quote before you complain about anyone else. <“Cite”
John Mace does an excellent job of coding quotes, so I have no idea how you might conceive that I was complaining about that.
By the way I have been meaning to ask you something that is actually relevant to this topic. In light of this exchange on Jan 17 at 03:46 PM :
Which is the ‘wiser’ choice, (military dictatorship or Islamic theocracy) in your highly informed and sophisticated expert view on this particular choice? And are they limited in some way to only one of those two options that PastTense insist are the only two that exist.
So, we have a new characterization!
The coup was a) not a coup; b) an “uncommon coup”; c) “more like a constitutional act”; and now it’s d) “a flaw in the run-up to democracy”.
I guess it can be any number of things, however contradictory, depending on whatever is needed to back up the argument du jour.
You continue to be in error. I have never argued it was not a coup. If you were interested in accuracy you would pull that bogus claim off your list.
After you get that fact straight you could now try to defend your claim that I have some kind of argument du jour that relies on contradictory characteristics of the coup De tat against the knucklehead Muslim Brotherhood first elected and first rejected President of Egypt since the ouster of Mubarak a few years ago.
What do you think my argument is John Mace? Do you even know?
Actually, you did it again just a few days ago:
Emphasis added.
Now, you can quote all the other times you said it was a coup all you want. You are famous for posting contradictory statements, and this is no different. You’ve argued that it was a coup and that it wasn’t a coup. That it was more like a “constitutional act” and that it was a “flaw”. You’re all over the map on this.
You are not citing my words. H.Hellpop wrote theat. Will you admit this huge error on your part?
(Horatio Hellpop 07-06-2013 09:44 PM) The situation is a little murky. The Egyptian military has specific duties and privileges spelled out in Egypt’s constitution that, by some interpretations, allow or compel them to remove a president who threatens Egypt’s security and stability. Morsi arguably fit the bill. This arguably does not meet the strict definition of a “coup,” although it kind of walks and quacks like one.
Read the entire thread at Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=695795)
Also, what H.Hellpop wrote is not saying it is not a coup. He says it did not fit the strict definition of a coup.
I said call it a coup all you wish. It does not matter.
Do you know what my argument is John Mace? And how does the identification of Morsi’s termination as "a coup’ or ‘not a coup’ affect my argument. You have no idea do you?
You are right, those were not your words. Due to your inability to code properly, it looked like your words.
However, you did endorse it, so you did put forth that as an argument. If you didn’t want to endorse it, you shouldn’t have posted this immediately above it:
The error was yours for crappy coding. But you still, once again, endorsed someone else’s analysis that “it was not a coup”. If you don’t intend that to be ascribed to you in the future, you need to be more careful whose posts or writings you endorse.
Correct-- I have no idea what your argument (singular) is. You’ve made so many contradictory arguments that I doubt anyone reading this thread has any idea what your argument is. You seem to have many different arguments (plural) depending on whatever suits your purpose at the time.
John Mace Errs and blames me. What a guy.
I have one basic argument.
If you do not know what my argument is or has been on the revolution in Egypt, how can you ascertain that ‘calling it a coup’ or ‘not calling it a coup’ has any effect on my argument?
Where in that quote did H.Hellpop say it was ‘not a coup’?
There you go again! You are asking me to re-quote something I already quoted. And in this case, I quoted it just 5 posts above. So no, I’m not going to re-quote it. Read what I posted. There is nothing confusing about what he said, unless you want it to be confusing.
You have never ever posted a message that includes language by H.Hellpop where he has written that it was not a coup. Your claim here is false.