I just wasted half my morning scouring the internet looking for a cite, because, quite frankly, I really wanted to experience all of the fissile material in the universe reach critical mass when I agree with Ace0Spades, and back him up against less strident and more rational (though often wrong) opponents.
After much fruitless searching, I have discovered that not even the loonies on buzzflash reported Ashcroft or Cheney saying anything remotely like, “Wellstone was a traitor,” or “anyone who disagrees with the war in Iraq is a traitor.”
Ace, you’re completely wrong, and you are a monumental dickbox for retreating like a weasel when a cite was requested to back up one of your more ludicrous, shit-smeared claims.
What’s good for the goose…
Still waiting for your response on your protest thread. You going to step up to the plate?
Dewey, I have used that “Balderdash…” line many times, it is a bit of fun, don’t you know. I seriously doubt that anybody imagines that I’m trying to fob myself off as an upper class Englishman. You know, a joke: like “Whats black and brown and looks good on a lawyer?” That sort of thing. I quite understand, I know other victims of law school who have had every last bit of whimsy hammered out of them. Perhaps that has some bearing on why, as a group, they are so widely beloved. But I can’t prove that. No cite will be offered.
Just so. Any reasonable argument can be extended to be unreasonable, they cover that in Thinking 101. As you and I both know.
I have provided you many criticisms of the Man Who Fell Up, and you have answered them to your entire satisfaction. Implication and innuendo, by its very nature, can be twisted and “deconstructed” to damn near any end desireable, as I’m sure you know. If this somehow escapes you, you’d best consider cutting eyeholes on either side of your navel so that you don’t go around bumping into things. Sparky.
Strange, it only took me about 30 seconds to find the quotes. Here they are.
The bolding is mine. I don’t think Bush could be much plainer. He is calling the Senators who oppose his politics Un-American.
Bush doesn’t need to say the words, “Wellstone is a traitor” in order to be rightly accused of calling Wellstone a traitor. Saying Wellstone’s politics are un-American will nicely fit the bill.
Second, the claim was that Ashcroft and/or Cheney called Wellstone and those who disagree with them traitors. Nothing you pasted above even remotely supports this allegation. Trying to spin a partisan issue into an “American” one is, and has always been, de rigeur. Substitute the environment, social security, or any pork barrel project into the language of Bush’s speech and it still makes perfect sense. More importantly, it utterly lacks any accusations or implications of treason.
If for you entertainment is inserting superheated glass rods into your urethra, then yeah, he sure is.
If you make a specific statement about a specific person, and are then asked for a cite on that statement, provide it. Otherwise, you made it up, and all the posturing, balderdash and tommyrot in the world ain’t gonna change that.
May I suggest that someone who uses phrases like “fucked-up Anglophone time-warp hallucination” is not someone who has had “every last bit of whimsy hammered out of them”?
Since, as you say, “implication and innuendo, by its very nature, can be twisted and ‘deconstructed’ to damn near any end desireable,” may I suggest that it is inappropriate to use something as subjective as “implication and innuendo” as the basis for saying the Bush administration has described any given set of Democrats as treasonous?
Degrance: I second Maeglin’s response to you.
Ace: I do not think that link goes where you think it goes.
Sauron, you’re of course right. But the statement was of the administration making general statements of part of a policy that had “the effect,” intended as painting their opposition as traitors. This doesn’t need a cite here – it’s obvious enough to those not living under rocks; and even if we needed one, Degrance’s are more than plenty.
After all, we only have a limited amount of resources. Why should anyone waste it fighting appeals to ignorance in the PIT, when we could better spent it submitting material to a new book?
I’m pretty sure that if I took the time, Ace0Spades, I could rearrange some of the letters in your last post to form the phrase “I was wrong.” Apparently that’s as close as you’re going to come to admitting such, so I’ll content myself with that.
