Eesh. I didn’t really think my sig would ever be quite so appropriate…
mhendo, that was an oustanding post.
So, still no evidence that American citizens’ rights have been violated since 9/11. What have you given us is a whole bunch of opinions that they have been. Doesn’t make it so, regardless of your sources. Has a court ruled that the detentions of Padilla and Hamdi are unconstitutional violations of their rights? No? Then they are not. QED.
So until a court find someone guilty of murder, the person killed isn’t dead?
No, but just like a killer isn’t guilty of murder until he is convicted, the government is not automatically guilty of violating citizens’ rights until the particulars are adjudicated. It simply does not matter what the Cato Institute, High Times, or the collective wisdom of the SDMB opines about.
Oh, spread it on a field, mhendo – maybe it’ll help something to grow.
The only point I intended to make, indeed, the only one I did make prior to you setting off with the personal attacks, is that your OP and the article it was based on were and are stupid. The Times, intentionally or not, printed a wisecrack as something more than that, and you went after the bait. It was stupid to do so. That is fact, not opinion. It was stupid not to check the transcript for yourself – that is also fact, not opinion.
Further, I did not bash the “anti-war crowd.” In my first post, I didn’t even bash you – just your statement. Go ahead, check. Then I bashed you. Not the “anti-war crowd” – you specifically. So you will stop lying about what I said.
The only other possible interpretation of your Original Post is that you intentionally misrepresented a wisecrack as a policy statement, making you a coward and a lying sack of shit and stupid to boot. The weight given to that possible interpretation I leave as an exercise for the reader. Personally, I started off going with the more generous interpretation. But since you lied about me, I’m no longer as confident.
Damn, birdman, by your logic, the Supreme Court could rule that death camps aren’t a violation of rights, and all of the people who protest differently, before they’re executed, are simply of the “opinion” that their rights are being violated.
And it was such a beautiful post from mhendo. Too bad it was directed at someone unable to appreciate it.
So, Saddam Hussein’s government wasn’t guilty of violating the Iraqi citizen’s rights? I just want to make sure I read that correctly…
Well, if that something were your intelligence, i’d give it a go.
Well, your first post said that my OP was “stupid,” based on your belief that i had taken the quote out of context and had mistaken it for a “definition of freedom.” Instead of politely offering that Rumsfeld’s quote might have been simply an ironic quip (there’s no evidence for that), or demonstrating exactly how placing it in context would change anything, you wade in with the jackboots (as usual), make final pronouncement, without offering anything of substance.
I conceded that the title of the thread was “ill-considered” but, as i went on to explain in my following post:
This statement still stands. You can whine all you like about poor old Rummy being a guy who likes to make “off-hand comments,” but the fact is that he made such comments at a very important press conference, and that he did so in his capacity as Secretary of Defense. And those comments contained a statement about the nature of feedom, or at least one aspect of it, that i (and many others on this Board) found to be stupid. There is still absolutely no evidence that it was a wisecrack.
As for the source i used for the quote, it was the only one i had at the time of posting the OP. A friend sent me the quote, absent all context, by email, so i did a google search as well as a check of the White House website, and all i found was the New York Times article. I forgot to check the DoD website at the time - for which you have a thousand of my most humble apologies.
But, because you’re such an awesome researcher, you managed to get the text of the whole press conference so that we lesser beings could see the quote “in context.” And guess what? It didn’t change a thing. I stand by my assertion that it was a stupid comment, and that no amount of context makes it otherwise.
Coldfire pointed out:
This is exactly my feeling on the subject. I’m not interested in turning it into a general policy point, either of Rumsfeld or the Administration in general (as i’ve now made quite clear on several occasions); i was simply criticizing the content of the statement itself. In response to Coldfire’s post, all you did was post a long quote from the press conference (i assumed that Coldfire had read the whole link before posting, so i don’t know what purpose this served, except perhaps to suggest that he hadn’t), and your only contribution to the debate was:
Way to address the issue there. You sure you haven’t been taking lessons from The Ostrich?
At no stage was i expecting anyone in this thread to say “Wow, that quote changes my whole opinion of Rumsfeld and the Administration. He is obviously a total moron whose policies are indefensible.” As i’ve stated (numerous times now, in case you missed it), i don’t attribute a whole lot of importance to the quotation, but that doesn’t make it any less stupid. You, however, couldn’t even bring yourself to admit that, even if it was just a wisecrack or a throw-away line, it was a pretty illogical and stupid one.
And it’s funny that you refused to give my OP the same consideration that you showed Rumsfeld. Did it ever occur to you that a short post like that, in the flaming section of an internet message board, might be designed simply as a wisecrack rather than a deep and portentous statement about Administration policy? But hey, don’t let consistency get in the way of your belligerence.
Well, it seemed to me that a more general critique was implicit in your post, but i’ll concede your point on this; i conflated your post and brutus’s. What you did do, however, was make my opinion of the war and of the civil unrest the issue of the thread, while completely avoiding what was the real issue - the content of Rumsfeld’s statement. The only reason that i raised the issue of the civil unrest at all in the OP was so that those reading the quotation would have some idea of what the NYT article was about. Yet you essentially accuse me of starting the whole thread simply to whine about the war:
I never made a single statement questioning the validity of the war, assessing the happiness (or otherwise) of the Iraqi people, criticising the US military, or assigning blame for the civil unrest. Your post is a big fat red herring. To borrow your words: You’re still just posting shit looking for some cover for your embarrassment over the idiotic content of Rumsfeld’s statement, and your refusal to address that issue in any way except by denial.
Believe what you want, including that you started with a “generous interpretation.” Doesn’t make it true. Nor does your constant repetition of the “wisecrack misinterpreted as policy statement” accusation make that true. I’ve denied any such intention on multiple occasions, yet you persist in ascribing to me a position that i do not hold, and never held. Again, to borrow your words, the only possible interpretation of your posts is that you are intentionally misrepresenting my argument, making you a coward and a lying sack of shit and stupid to boot. The weight given to that possible interpretation i leave as an exercise for the reader.
Wow…I thought I could get a good argument in here…I guess not.
I apologize for getting on your goat, mhendo, about a zillion posts back (remember? I think it had something to do with my rare support of Rumsfeld.). You have obviously put a lot of work into this thread.
And I agree to an extent with the point you are trying to argue. Alas, the horse is dead. You have made your point with no real rebuttal. Let it rest. You could cite every single publication and news program in the nation. I can guarantee that there is someone out there who would find fault in every one.
You are citing your opinion as to coincide with some expert opinions. No one can really refute that without a cite for the other side, no? Or at least offer some explanation as to what has happened to these individuals and the restrictions of their freedoms.
All I’ve seen is attacks.
Yeah, i guess i should just give it up. And i fully concede your point that my take on the decline in liberty in the US represents my own opinion. I just happen to believe that it’s a reasonably well-informed opinion basd on close citical reading of valid sources. In the end, my real irritation with The Ostrich stemmed not from the fact that he disagreed with me, but from the fact that he didn’t have the intestinal fortitude or intellectual wherewithall to actually conduct a debate on the issue.
I also allowed him to turn it into an issue of legal rights, which is not the whole story. I fully believe that a society can undergo a reduction in liberty without anyone ever being deprived of their legal rights. Laws can be passed which reduce liberty, and when people are arrested for breaking such laws then their legal rights are not being violated. But it doesn’t mean that there has not been a decline in liberty. Similarly, with the points i made about government surveillance and intrusion - much of it might be legal, but its use as described in those stories still seems, to me at least, to contribute to a decline in liberty.
I chortled out loud when I read manhattan’s tort “spread it on a field, mhendro – maybe it’ll help something to grow”.
That’s funny stuff - yet wasted on an thread accurately and deservingly pitting Rummy. mhendo stated his theme and it won the majority in spite of not being sanctioned.
Fair Dinkum!
Put me down on the side of those who believe Rumsfeld is a dangerous asshole who has done a lot of damage to the USA. Every time he speaks people around the world cringe and the administration would have done well to keep him quiet and let Colin Powell do the talking. One of the problems of thes administration is that president bush totally lacks the understanding of foreign affairs his father had. Join him with a simplistic fool like Rumsfeld and you have a terribly dangerous mix.
Gotta go now, someone’s knocking at the door.
This is a great point.
When rating presidents, I have traditionally graded on three different agenda: 1) Internal affairs. 2) Foreign affairs. 3) Leadership abilities.
Only two presidents, IMHO, get A’s or better in all three categories (Lincoln and Washington).
The first Bush saved himself a bit with his A- in foreign policy. He made one mistake…he didn’t remove Saddam Hussein from office. I’m generous enough to give him a D in internal affairs, but he gets an F in leadership.
The second Bush can’t even save himself from himself. I give him an F- in foreign affairs. Most people will disagree, but I don’t think we will see the true ramifications of what Bush started for at least another ten years. I simply cannot think of a President who I would rate lower. In internal affairs, I give him another F. The economy sucks right now. The midwest is mired in a drought and an economic slump of which I haven’t seen the likes in my lifetime. Not even the drought of the late '80’s was as bad as the economy is right now. Leadership? On September 12, 2001, I would have given him an A. Today, he has sunk to a D. Again, I have not seen a President so hated in my lifetime by people who oppose him (perhaps a bit too young to remember Nixon?). Bush has made no effort at compromise during his tenure.