Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Olberman: You are not "permitted" to disagree
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Let me be clear up-front: I think Keith Olberman is a putz. And I think most of what he says is ill-informed hyperbole designed to appeal to a certain segment of the audience and boost his abysmal ratings.

Last night was no exception:
"Some will think that our actions at Abu Ghraib or in Guantanamo or in secret prisons in Eastern Europe are all too comparable to the actions of the extremists. Some will think that there is no similarity or, if there is one, it is to the slightest and most unavoidable of degrees.

"What all of us will agree on, is that we have the right, we have the duty, to think about the comparison. And, most importantly, that the other guy, whose opinion about this we cannot fathom, has exactly the same right as we do: to think and say what his mind and his heart and his conscience tell him is right. All of us agree about that except, it seems, this President. With increasing rage, he and his administration have begun to tell us that we are not permitted to disagree with them, that we cannot be right, that Colin Powell cannot be right.
Now, for the most part I agree. And had he stopped with "we have a right and duty", we'd be golden. We not only have the right, we have to duty to make comparisons. And speak out. We have the right to give our opinion about those comparisions.

Fine. Great.

What we don't have the right to do is misharacterize what the other guy has to say.

When and where has this administration "begun to tell us we are not permitted to disagree with them?"

I want specifics.

I want quotes.

"Not permitted" means something and I want specific quotes in which the administration says certain speech is "not permitted".

What Bush said was this:
"If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic. It's just, I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."
That means, in his opinion, the comparison of the actions of the US and terrorists, as some are making them, is logically inconsistent. And to him, it is "unnacceptable to think" they are comparable.

Nowhere in there does he hint or imply that it "isn't permitted" for others to think that the comparisons are logical or legitimate. He simply disagrees with those that do.

If anyone is claiming certain speech isn't permitted, it's Olberman. Seizing on the word "unacceptable", taking it out of context and mischaracterizing its use as implying certain comparisons and thoughts aren't "permitted" is the whole basis of his rant. And it's wrong.

Yesterday, commenter MKultra made the claim that:
GOP Senators who disagree with the Bush Cult over detainees are accused of aiding the terrorists, as being unpatriotic, as being traitors to the United States, and yet it is left leaning Dems who are being intolerant.
When pushed by other commenters to produce quotes and cites which supported the claim, this was the best he could do:
"You wonder whether they’re more interested in the rights of terrorists than in protecting the American people."
Of course no link was offered with it.

Glasnost offered this:
Don’t miss Andrew McCarthy’s excellent dissection of the objections raised by Republican Sen. John McCain and "his entourage" of terrorist rights advocates against President Bush’s proposed terrorist trial procedures. As McCarthy notes, Sen. McCain’s unwillingness or inability to see past his experiences as a prisioner of war in very different times under very different circumstances raises this question: Can the nation afford a President John McCain? (One might also ask whether, given his power and influence with respect these issues, the nation can afford a Senator McCain).
And that's actually a quote from Powerline.

In neither case were they able to supply anything close to satisfying the MKultra claim.

Jon, Dale and I have taken a particular stand on torture. Obviously that stance could be translated into one of being a "terrorist rights advocate". But no one has called us a traitor for doing so, no one has suggested we weren't "permitted to disagree", and no knock on the door in the middle of the night has been experienced by any of us.

Olberman, languishing in late-night TV hell for quite a while, has finally found a schtick which works. Inflammatory and hateful speech, usually inaccurate, which is satisfying to a certain segment of the population and helpful to his ratings. Propaganda 101. Find out what the public wants to hear and give it to them. And it is to that particular segment to which he's aimed his screeds.

He's become the darling of the far-left who now regularly tune in for their feeding of Olberman's mostly disingenuous rhetoric and bombast, skillfully manufactured and manipulated for their consuming pleasure. And while it is not much different than those who listen to Michael Savage or others on the right what he does should be understood for precisely what it is an no more.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I enjoy Olbermann when he talks about sports. When he speaks of anything else I agree that he is a putz. Isn’t his show overdue for cancellation?
 
Written By: Joab
URL: http://joabsblog.blogspot.com
Oh goody, I get to nitpick McQ. That quote was provided by glasnost actually. mk couldn’t come up with a thing to support Republicans calling Republicans traitors except a single statement calling Democrats soft on terror.

I was scratching my head over that as well.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
We’d be knocking on your door if only we knew where to find you terrorist coddling traitors. On second thought, having to get up in the middle of the night to come after you would make me real cranky the next day, so I guess I’ll let you off with a warning... stop disagreeing with those of us who are so much smarter than you.
 
Written By: steve
URL: http://
Oh goody, I get to nitpick McQ. That quote was provided by glasnost actually. mk couldn’t come up with a thing to support Republicans calling Republicans traitors except a single statement calling Democrats soft on terror.
You’re right. Edited.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
You certainly didn’t get that Olbermann quote by watching him....you’d have tripled his ratings if you had
 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
The post-modernist left strikes again. To someone whose mental patterns are steeped in post-modernism, it matters very little what someone actually said. Any interpretation of it is valid, because all points of view are valid.

If they are offended or read more into Bush’s remarks than were intended, well, that’s their privilege as good deconstructionists. You’re not supposed to bring out logic or even rhetoric to oppose such, because post-modernism gives them carte blanche to interpret something any way they want.

It’s just their opinion of Bush’s comments that matters, you see. If they feel threatened, well then, Bush must have meant that, even if he didn’t think he did.

Conveniently enough, of course, their interpretation always follows their preconceptions about what nasty people their ideological opponents are. Also conveniently, the axioms of post-modernist argument mean they don’t have to actually defend their positions via logic or reasoned argument. They can bring out irrelevant quotes or something that has to be stretched all out of meaning to support their point, but as long as they personally interpret the irrelevant remark as supporting their case, well then, the fact that you don’t see the strength of their argument is due solely to your lack of appreciation of the beauties of post-modernism.

 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
I’m just so tired of the bald faced lying. If you have to lie to make your argument, you deserve to lose.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Again, McQ, you simply lack the ability to be intellectually honest. We all know what is going on here. The strategy of the GOP is to basically say that Democrats (and, by extension, Republicans who disagree with Bush), as giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Are you really suggesting it’s not? Really?

Here is what Cheney said a week ago Sunday:
The idea "that we should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq," he told NBC’s Tim Russert on Sunday, "validates the strategy of the terrorists."
The idea that we should withdraw from Iraq validates the terrorists. Now, you and most of the rest of those who post here are members of the Bush Cult, so I of course don’t expect you to read that assertion objectively. You can’t. I understand that. But to the rest of us, it is saying that anyone who has the idea that we should withdraw from Iraq is really saying that the terrorists’ position is valid and that we are seeking to further validate it.

The opposite is true, of course, but let’s leave that aside for the moment.

It’s the same kind of game you played when it came to statements that the administration has made about the connection between Baathist Iraq and 9-11. The clear intent was to suggest there was some kind of connection. But the language was carefully chosen to allow some wiggle room - "we never said that Saddam ordered 9-11."

As for Boehner’s quote, well, I see one intent, you see another. It’s funny, though. You have no problem drawing the most outrageous inferences when it suits your purposes. But when it doesn’t, you don’t even seem to understand what the term "inference" means.

Here’s a good example:
That means, in his opinion, the comparison of the actions of the US and terrorists, as some are making them, is logically inconsistent. And to him, it is "unnacceptable to think" they are comparable.

Nowhere in there does he hint or imply that it "isn’t permitted" for others to think that the comparisons are logical or legitimate. He simply disagrees with those that do.


Here you are telling us what Bush meant to say. Even though Bush nowhere says that it is simply unacceptable only to him (where is the word "only," McQ?), you claim that is what he is in fact saying. In fact, he says exactly the opposite. He first states that he can’t accept that.
"I simply cannot accept that."
Had he stopped there, I would have agreed with you. But then Bush says:
It’s unacceptable to think
Now, you claim that, in making this second assertion, he is merely saying once again it is unacceptable to him. But that’s nonsense, because he already said it is unacceptable to him. So why say it again? And why not use the first person pronoun, if that is what he meant? Unless, of course, he meant to say something else.

When you juxtapose these two assertions, it is clear what he is saying.

When the chief law enforcement officer of the United States says that something is not only unacceptable to him, but that it is unacceptable, there is only one logical interpretation, unless, of course, you are a member of the Bush Cult.

Nice try McQ.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Again, McQ, you simply lack the ability to be intellectually honest. We all know what is going on here.
We all know what happened here, and it isn’t that McQ isn’t intellectually honest, mkultra. It’s that you are willfully dishonest and anyone reading this knows it. You got caught lying, and you’re spinning like a dervish to get out from under it.

It isn’t working.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
When the chief law enforcement officer of the United States says that something is not only unacceptable to him, but that it is unacceptable, there is only one logical interpretation, unless, of course, you are a member of the Bush Cult.
Only a non-Bush cultist like mkultra or Olbermann can draw the one and only logical, rational, non-Bush obsessed conclusion: Bu$Hitler is now a dictator and it is illegal to disagree with him.


It’s obvious, isn’t it?
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Hey MK - you kill yourself with your posts more than any of us ever would. Look at your Cheney screed -

Cheney said -
The idea "that we should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq," he told NBC’s Tim Russert on Sunday, "validates the strategy of the terrorists."
To which you come back with -
The idea that we should withdraw from Iraq validates the terrorists
Cheney is talking about the STRATEGY (yeah, surprise, surpirse - you lopped off a word) and you are trying to make it sound like he’s talking about validating their very essence.

You need to remember rule #1 when you are in a hole.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
As for Boehner’s quote, well, I see one intent, you see another.
I provided a perfect example as to why your "vision" was absolutely blind concerning your example in that thread.

As far as Cheney’s quote, here is the context:

In terms of the question of people being on the fence, that, in part, is the reflection of, of the reality of life in that part of the world and the uncertainty in the minds of a lot of people about whether or not the United States will, in fact, stay in the fight...The basic proposition for our adversaries...[is that they] want to topple the regimes that are there today, they want to kick the U.S. out of that part of the world...In the course of doing that, their strategy for doing that is to break our will. They can’t beat us in a stand-up fight, they never have, but they’re absolutely convinced they can break our will. The American people don’t have the stomach for the fight.

So you look at situation today in Afghanistan or even in Iraq, and you’ve got people who have doubts. They want to know whether or not if they stick their heads up, the United States, in fact, is going to be there to complete the mission. And those doubts are encouraged, obviously, when they see the kind of debate that we’ve had in the United States, suggestions, for example, that we should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, simply feed into that whole notion, validates the strategy of the terrorists.
Cheney was not saying that anyone in America is trying purposefully to aid the terrorists. Again you lie.
statements that the administration has made about the connection between Baathist Iraq and 9-11
Never made. Never. Your third lie. You’re out.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://

At this point, I don’t see how MK can be viewed as anything but a liar. He can’t be that intellectually impaired.

 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Pablo:
I’m just so tired of the bald faced lying. If you have to lie to make your argument, you deserve to lose.
JWG:
At this point, I don’t see how MK can be viewed as anything but a liar. He can’t be that intellectually impaired.



As I said to McQ a while back, you’re not looking at it right. They don’t think they’re lying. The central problem is that, as adherents to post-modernism, they do not define the word "truth" the way you do.

 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
I disagree, Billy. This sort of crap requires invention, which requires intent. This isn’t simple misunderstanding, this is malicious spin.

While I agree that there are true believers out there, we’re not talking about soft-headed Cindy Sheehan types here. We’re talking about people who intentionally calculate the falsehoods they tell. They know they’re lying when they do it.

So, mkultra and Olby may
believe
that Bush is a dictator, but they know full well that they’re lying when they make up things to try and support their irrational belief.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
I don’t quite understand your argument. Reading Bush’s words or your explanation, they just feel wrong.

Is this how we are supposed to understand the President’s remark....

[...] I simply can’t accept that. However, it is acceptable, though in my opinion logically inconsistent and I simply disagree, to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.

To me, the original remark just doesn’t convey this meaning. The President is atraightforward and direct. First he says he can’t accept the comparison, and then he says flatly, directly, it is unacceptable to think that there’s any comparison. He already said he personally couldn’t accept it, this goes further to say that it is just unacceptable to think there is any comparison.

Looking at it another way, just how would you say it if you actually wanted to mean that one is not permitted to disagree, that indeed... it is unacceptable to think they are comparable? Wouldn’t you just say that it is unacceptable to think they are comparable? That seems direct and straightforward. That is what the President said.
 
Written By: wk
URL: http://
wk, if one were going to say it wouldn’t be permitted, and we were in the government, one would say there would be actual criminal or civil penalties applied to the expressor for expressing the unnacceptable viewpoint.

This is absent from Bush’s statements on the topic then or since.

Hence unnacceptabe /= not permitted.

In fact, the Democrats recently made noises about yanking ABC’s permit/broadcast license if they put an unflattering docudrama about the past several decades of counter terrorism policy on the air, because it was critical of Democrat Bill Clinton.

If they did that, it would be an example of making some behavior "not permitted".

The President was eliding the concept that thinking such an unnacceptable analogy was valid made one morally ignorable scum. And it does.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://

ac·cept·a·ble
adj.
Worthy of being accepted.
Adequate to satisfy a need, requirement, or standard; satisfactory.

...it’s flawed logic. It’s just, I simply can’t accept that. It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison...
Since the president preceded his statement by saying the logic was flawed, his use of "unacceptable" obviously means that the comparison was inadequate.

It’s called the English language. Some of us try to teach it in school, but we have limited success, unfortunately.

 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
This whole business with Olberman, as well as mkultra’s and glasnost’s feeble attempts, reminds me of a news item from a few years ago.

A flight attendant on a Southwest Airlines jet got on the mike and said, "Eeny, meeny, miney, moe. Pick a seat, we got to go." A pair of African-American women took high offense to this, and even sued Southwest over it. They claimed that the second line to that bit of doggerel was originally, "Catch a nigger by the toe," and thus the flight attendant made a racist remark.

The flight attendant defended herself by saying when she was growing up, the offending word was always replaced by "tiger".

It just seems to me that in both the Southwest case and those critical of Bush that people predisposed to being offended will always find some phrase that neither was offensive nor was intended to be offensive, and read into the phrase meaning that was never there.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
When the chief law enforcement officer of the United States says that something is not only unacceptable to him, but that it is unacceptable, there is only one logical interpretation
Yep...and you missed it, idiot. Let’s use the English language and substitute the definition:
...it’s flawed logic. It’s just, I simply [reject it as an adequate comparison]. It’s [inadequate based on standard logic] to think that there’s any kind of comparison...
Yep...disagreement is now obviously illegal.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Tom, I am not sure, but from the rest of your note I don’t think that you meant to use the word "eliding". If you did, then I apologize for not accepting it exactly as you wrote it.

But, if you mis-wrote, then I think you are reading too much into the President’s remark, and making too much of an explanation. I don’t get the idea that he was trying to get the concept across that thinking such an unnacceptable analogy was valid was making anybody morally ignorable scum. I just don’t think that was the point he was making.

The remark is straightforward. I believe he said it simply and directly.
 
Written By: wk
URL: http://
The remark is straightforward. I believe he said it simply and directly.
Yup. As well as off the cuff, it being a news conference and not a speech.

Somehow, it seems to fall a bit short of suspension of the Constitution and the institution of the Thought Control Administration.

This is the common leftist tactic that disqualifies an opponent from the debate. Where a "chickenhawk" doesn’t get to say anything, it’s because they haven’t achieved the right to their viewpoint because they haven’t served. In this case, the President has no right to voice his viewpoint because either 1) He’s "playing politics" with every word that comes out of his mouth (See reaction to his 9/11 speech, and his audacity in making one), or 2) He can’t say anything worrisome or that might be taken the wrong way because the world automatically conforms to his every utterance, except for when it explodes in anger at him.

It’s all bad. He shouldn’t ever say anything, unless he’s effusively praising both his opponents in this war and his political opponents at home.

The leftists may wail, but you’ll notice his numbers are rising. Like everything else they try, it’s not working.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
I agree, the President’s comments were "off the cuff", and I agree that they fall very short "of suspension of the Constitution and the institution of the Thought Control Administration."

And yes, the President’s poll numbers are rising. I don’t quite get your argument or sarcasm that he shouldn’t ever say anything. First time I’ve been called a leftist or used a common leftist tactic.
 
Written By: wk
URL: http://
Many people do not like O’Reilly, and certainly I can understand. However, I was watching Olbermann one night and he was giggling with some guy who wrote a derogatory book about O’Reilly who is his direct competition.
I found that to be at best, childish. SO I switched to O’Reilly and he is doing an in depth and hard interview with the secretary of state.

At that moment it was very clear which one was the pro and which one was the rank amateur.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
wk, none of that was directed at you, other than the first line. I was simply agreeing with your astute observation and using it as a jumping off point for a mini rant. Apologies for my failure to make that clearer.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Again, McQ, you simply lack the ability to be intellectually honest.
Again MK, you’ve shown us nothing to which anyone has to apply "intellectual honesty". Your stuff is plain old vanilla disingenuousness.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"If there’s any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it’s flawed logic. I simply can’t accept that. It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."
Not much point in outlawing thinking, as a nation, we seem to have pretty much stopped doing it anyway. We play games around what’s important, we duck and dodge from the real point and hide under strawmen.

You may not like or agree with the wordsmithing Olberman used, but his overall point is dead on. Bush was making a statement as defacto head of the government of the United States of America, and that statement was his position is that it "is unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."

People are whining about Olberman’s words, but Olberman’s words are a response to the poorly chosen words of the President. If the President does not want people to construe his words as meaning that as the head of the United States of America he is stating without equivocation that it is "unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective", than he should not say it.

Worse, the President himself was Swift Boating Colin Powell when he said this.

The question was (from the WH website)...

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State feels this way, don’t you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you’re following a flawed strategy?


THE PRESIDENT: If there’s any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it’s flawed logic. I simply can’t accept that. It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.

Let’s break this down to the components.

Q. Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism

A. It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.

Let’s break it down more...

Q. Powell says - world beginning doubt moral basis of our fight against terrorism

A. comparison between USA and Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children

And you flippin’ people are complaining about Olberman?????????

Either the President was intentionally accusing Powell of comparing the US with the terrorists, or he has no idea what he is saying.

You pick, liar or moron?

Cap

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Well, quite the lynch mob we have down here in the comments area today.

Oh, wait. I used the term "lynch mob." Does that mean I’m making a genuine false accusation? Have I made a serious attempt to persaude a neutral audidence that the members here are really coming for MK with a noose?
Or am I just blinded by postmodernism, and I really can’t tell the difference between nasty comments and lynching?

Those are options our comments section has provided today.

I suggest a third option: that MK was - depending on your personal slant - making an **allegorical** argument, the basis for which I will look into shortly - or, if you don’t like him but are still intellectually honest and/or careful you could say: prone to rhetorical exaggeration.

There’s quite a difference between rhetorical exaggeration and lying, i think. If you want to consistently use the standards you’re using against MK, I think I could catch 80% of you here in "lies" in the next six months.

EXAMPLE ONE
This is an example. Have you ever called someone "retarded?" Guess what - that term has a medical definition. Uh oh. You’re probably making an accusation you can’t back up. In other words, you could be called a liar - by the standard you’re holding Mkultura to.

EXAMPLE TWO
- anyone in here ever accused "Democrats" - or, uh oh, "leading Democrats" of perpetuating a "War on Christmas?" Well, by all means, please cite me a quote from a prominent, self-identified Democratic institition, officeholder or activist, declaring their intent and goal of destroying, abolishing, eliminating, the celebration of Christmas in America.

Now, you can nitpick this with what constitutes a "war" - but instead, ask yourself honestly - if I had to prove to a judge in a court of law that Democrats are leading a War on Christmas, would I win?

Now, is everyone who’s ever made a statement like that a "liar" or a postmodernist?


Let’s move onto a more interesting topic: where did Mk get this crazy, crazy idea that people are calling John Mcain a traitor? I did ten minutes of internet research, and came up with some casual examples. Use your web page’s Find Feature for the word "traitor" on these pages...

http://www.hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8635

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1203245/posts

http://www.pardonmyenglish.com/archives/2004/03/a_traitor_in_ou.html

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/news/nl/read_comments.asp?nl=116740800220&tmpD=3%2F7%2F2001

Now, I agree that these aren’t "leading" Republicans. However, since McCain is not a traitor, all of these right-wing commenters are, by our new Mkulura standard, **liars**. Yes?

Actually, these right-wing commentors aren’t the only ones to blame, either, for the fact that John McCain, war hero tortured by the North Vietnamese, gets called a traitor quite a lot. That blame should be shared by people like Dick Cheney:
suggestions, for example, that we should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, simply feed into that whole notion, validates the strategy of the terrorists.
Let’s draw some easy mental inferences here:

validates strategy of terrorists = help the terrorists win
American + help the terrorists win = traitor

Now, are these little equations true? Are they **fair**???
I’d say they’re not.

But they’re in the back of everyone’s mind. They’re in the American collective subconscious. When Dick Cheney accuses any American of anything that, no matter how euphemistically phrased, equals "helping the terrorists win" - the mind leaps to traitor in millions of households.

Of course, this is dangerous logic, because I can make a strong argument that Dick Cheney’s reckless disregard for human rights and the rules of war helps create a globally lawless environment that "validates the strategy of the terrorists". So now, our Vice-President is inferred to as a traitor.

If Dick Cheney has never come right out and called MSM journalists or leftists "traitors", I’m glad. They’re not. But the idea is planted. And the seed emerges among the regular folk who are documented calling McCain traitor in the links provided.

Here are two media articles complaining about John McCain being called a traitor:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0602thurlets022.html
http://www.slate.com/id/76369/

Combine this with a presidency that has shown reckless disregard for the separation of powers, civil liberties, and the opinions of others, and a lot of people are worried. Liberals aren’t the only ones worried. I could quote you, $100 bet, a half-dozen former senior administration officials to Republican Presidents, who are worried about Bush’s rollback of civil liberties, and the implicit equating of dissent with treason.


So mk, in his precise phrasing, may have been rhetorically exaggerating (Depends, probably, on who is a "leading" Republican.) But he is imprecisely articulating a fear held by - I would imagine polling would back me up here - millions of Americans.

So give him as much of a break for his imprecise language as you would yourselves. By all means, point out that Bush hasn’t called anyone traitor. But leave the disingenuous talk of lies and post-modernist retardation aside, please.

PS: Don’t believe in inferrence Why don’t you poll the American people and ask them:

"Are "terrorist-rights advocates, in your opinion, traitors?"









 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
It just seems to me that in both the Southwest case and those critical of Bush that people predisposed to being offended will always find some phrase that neither was offensive nor was intended to be offensive, and read into the phrase meaning that was never there.
Did you just call me a nancy boy and say that my mommy dresses me funny?

Now one for the lefties: Next time Bush or another GOPer says or IMPLIES that you Lefties are unpatriotic, just assume what you always do: that Republicans are liars and they mean the opposite of what they say.

Furthermore, I thought Chimpy McBush was stupid and illiterate. If so, why do you care what he thinks? Shouldn’t you take ’insults" from a liar/fraud/cheat/warmonger with a laugh? You guys will show us your patriotism during the Oct. 12 ’peace’ rally, right? Right? Right?

Finally, since you Lefties claim that your constant carping against the WOT has no effect on the prosecution of said war, why would BushCo’s remarks re: your patriotism have any visible effect on your life or YOUR PATRIOTISM? I mean, dissent is the highest form of patriotism. So why can’t Bush ’dissent’ from traditional American thought: that Dems are just as Patriotic as Reps.

No, no, guys. Your actions speak louder than words. You guys on the left care nothing about this country or the troops or stopping terrorism. It’s all about the advance of Socialism.

So please, shut up!
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
We all know what happened here, and it isn’t that McQ isn’t intellectually honest, mkultra. It’s that you are willfully dishonest and anyone reading this knows it. You got caught lying, and you’re spinning like a dervish to get out from under it.
Conclusion. No substance.

I have yet to see anyone explain why Bush’s use of the first person pronoun, "I", and then his use of the impersonal pronoun, "it," was not intended to mean different things, when they in fact mean different things. After all, McQ was asserting the say the same thing. When they clearly don’t.

So c’mon Pablo, lay it on me, you grammar maven.
Cheney was not saying that anyone in America is trying purposefully to aid the terrorists. Again you lie.
Conclusion. No substance.

Let me explain something: Simply quoting someone and then jumping to a conclusion is not analysis. It is not grammatical analysis. It is not syntactical analysis. It is not logical analysis. It is not substantive analysis. It is simply a conclusion, thoughtless and baseless.
Cheney was not saying that anyone in America is trying purposefully to aid the terrorists. Again you lie.
Cheney said that suggestions that we withdraw validates the terrorists strategy and hence assists or validates or helps (or whatever) the terrorists. It is what he said. You offer no alternative explanation. Not even a non-sensical one.
At this point, I don’t see how MK can be viewed as anything but a liar. He can’t be that intellectually impaired
Criticism of Bush. Can’t compute. Meltdown. Must be lies. No other choice.
Yep...and you missed it, idiot. Let’s use the English language and substitute the definition
McQ’s point, which you obviously didn’t read, was that Bush was expressing something that was unacceptable only to him. But the use of "it" as an impersonal pronoun in the cited passage belies that notion. The use of the word "it" in this fashion is a time old rhetorical technique to do exactly what McQ said Bush wasn’t doing. Using the term in this fashion implies that the speaker is citing some extrinsic authority. "It is the law of this land ...." "It is a time honored tradition ...." Etc.

Why don’t you explain to the class what the antecedent of the term "it" was? Hmmm?
First time I’ve been called a leftist or used a common leftist tactic.


Bush = Right Wing. Criticism of Bush = Left wing radical.

Simple, huh? It’s what happens when a one side of the political spectrum dumps any semblance of ideology and substitutes in its place a cult of personality.

Get used to it.
Again MK, you’ve shown us nothing to which anyone has to apply "intellectual honesty". Your stuff is plain old vanilla disingenuousness
Ok, then why don’t you tell me what the antecendent is to which the term "it" refers in the passage you cited? And why use an impersonal pronoun if one is simply referring to one’s own opinion? Question: "Are you hungry"? Answer: "It is hungry."
Either the President was intentionally accusing Powell of comparing the US with the terrorists, or he has no idea what he is saying.

You pick, liar or moron?
This is really the most important point here. Bush’s use of the strawman. No serious person in this debate is comparing the behavior of the United States to the actions of the terrorists. Powell certinaly wasn’t.

And yet here we have Bush saying that is what his critics are doing. Bush is lying. And yet, look at all the Bush Cult members here defending this lie.

Sad.


 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
So now, our Vice-President is inferred to as a traitor.
Err...only by your twisted logic which was discussed and dismissed before you even posted.
if I had to prove to a judge in a court of law that Democrats are leading a War on Christmas, would I win?
Red herring unless you can point to someone in this discussion making that argument.
Guess what - that term has a medical definition. Uh oh. You’re probably making an accusation you can’t back up. In other words, you could be called a liar - by the standard you’re holding Mkultura to.
Absolutely wrong. If you challanged someone on the statement, they would admit that it was not literally true. MK has not done that. To the contrary, he continues to claim his comments are true despite his inability to provide evidence.
American + help the terrorists win = traitor
Thank you for the evidence demonstrating your depth of logic.
leave the disingenuous talk of lies...aside, please
Lie: Administration made statements connecting Iraq to 9-11


Lie: Leading voices in the GOP accuse McCain of not just being anti-Republican, but treasonous
Explanation: Even though you "agree that these aren’t ’leading’ Republicans," MK has not backed down from the statement and continues to believe it. Neither Boehner nor Cheney stated or implied treasonous activity, but MK continues the argument.

Again, I’ll restate the obvious: If someone claims

You wonder whether they’re more interested in the rights of [criminals] than in protecting the American people.
Would the above statement mean the speaker is accusing people of supporting criminal actions against citizens, or would it mean the speaker thinks some people have the wrong priorities?
Cheney said that suggestions that we withdraw validates the terrorists strategy and hence assists or validates or helps (or whatever) the terrorists. It is what he said. You offer no alternative explanation. Not even a non-sensical one.
Did so. Validating a strategy to remove US troops from the ME does not mean you want to and are actively assisting the terrorists to win. Validation of a strategy does not equate to treason, unless you are using Glasnost’s ridiculous definition.
Why don’t you explain to the class what the antecedent of the term "it" was? Hmmm?
In the phrase "It’s unacceptable," the antecedent is the flawed comparison which follows the pronoun (As I already stated: It is unacceptable that... = That is unacceptable). In other words, you are wrong again.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
glasnost, that post-modernist interpretation of leftism really stings you, doesn’t it? The first time you saw it, as I recall, you accused me of being like those WWII-era Germans that studied Jews and claimed to understand them, and still believed they drank blood.

Now take careful note here: Many would have looked at that and concluded that you were arrogant, nasty, and unfit for polite discussion. I just shrugged it off as proving my point and moved on.

You can sneer at my take on why the left does the things they do all you like. Heck, I don’t really expect you to agree. The very thesis I make says that would be very, very hard for you, although there are some who have made the journey to understanding the true nature of today’s left.

But you’re going to have to come up with something better than the sneers you make above before I take anything your criticism seriously. Until you address the basic points as presented ably in this article, I’ll continue to take your sneers for the defensive measure that they are. (And please don’t come back at me with the lame response that not everyone on the left exhibits the behaviour discussed in the article. It’s enough that many of them do, including commenters such as mk.)

I hope you can respond better than, for example, the comment above. You spend too much energy trying to show that "Oh, look, conservatives say nasty things too! Why are you beating up on us?" But the proprietors of this board and many of the commenters, such as myself, are not conservatives. And I’ve never used "retarded" in any comment I’ve ever made, as best as I can recall, and while I think public officials do silly things sometimes out of lame attempts to not offend anybody, I don’t think that I or any of the owners of this forum have gotten worked about any "War on Christmas". So I can’t see that what you’re going on about applies to the people here.

It just makes you feel better than you’ve found some behaviour in ideological opponents that you can criticize, which conveniently allows you to avoid facing the nonsense perpertrated by your own side. But it doesn’t prove anything, or excuse anything.

Look, your side has the 9/11 conspiracy nutters, the ones who claim that the Bush administration had nothing better to do during a hurricane than blow up a levee, and the ones who are sure Bush and Diebold fixed the Ohio election. And we’re talking public officials here, not wacko web sites like the ones that pushed the Mena airfield back in Clinton’s days. You think these people really have a grasp of the concept of truth?
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Either the President was intentionally accusing Powell of comparing the US with the terrorists, or he has no idea what he is saying.
Or he was referring to "the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight" rather than trying to say that Powell was making any comparisons. In other words, "the world" compares the US (or more specifically, Bush) to the terrorists all the time.
You pick, liar or moron?
In this case, I’ll pick "moron" for your post since it was so far off the mark.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
- anyone in here ever accused "Democrats" - or, uh oh, "leading Democrats" of perpetuating a "War on Christmas?"
Nice strawman you set up there, glasnost, but to the best of my knowledge no one on this site has accused anyone of conducting a war on Christmas. So your whole tirade about this is meaningless.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/


Friendly FYI:


A "red herring" is an argument that is (probably) valid, but has nothing to do with the current argument. It is used as a distraction.


A "strawman" is a misrepresentation of an argument so that the presenter can easily attack and refute it.


Glasnost’s "EXAMPLE ONE" (calling someone retarded) is a strawman. In "EXAMPLE TWO" (War on Christmas) he used a red herring.

 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
And why use an impersonal pronoun if one is simply referring to one’s own opinion?
It’s nice outside.

It’s a bad day to pick a fight with that guy.

It’s an interesting hypothesis.

It’s bad enough that MK can’t grasp basic concepts, but ...
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
oh, wait...I thought of some more:


It’s a shame that MK never learns.

It’s unacceptable that MK continues to lie about...

It’s a wonder that MK’s head doesn’t implode due to the vacuum between his ears.


Now, MK, wouldn’t you agree that all of these are "one’s own opinions"?
BTW, can you figure out what the antecedents are?

 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Or he was referring to "the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight" rather than trying to say that Powell was making any comparisons. In other words, "the world" compares the US (or more specifically, Bush) to the terrorists all the time.
Here is a selection from Powell’s letter...
The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,... To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.
Ahh, I get it, so Bush is telling the WORLD what is unacceptable, well, that makes all the difference. So if I understand you correctly, the fact that the world is beginning to doubt our moral basis in the fight against terrorism is just not a good enough not to do something will add to those doubts. We don’t need the world anyway, they can all be on the side of terrorists and we’ll be just fine.

Of course in 2002, when the world didn’t think we were more dangerous than the terrorists, George Bush seemed to think we needed the world with us in order to win this war...

for any terrorist looking for a base of operations, there must be no refuge, no safe haven. (Applause.) By driving terrorists from place to place, we disrupt the planning and training for further attacks on America and the civilized world. Every terrorist must be made to live as an international fugitive, with no place to settle or organize, no place to hide, no governments to hide behind, and not even a safe place to sleep.
By the way, when we talk about "the world", we are not just talking about the Muslim world, or France. Our number one ally in this venture is Great Britain, here are some of the opinion of the people of the UK. (if only they had FOX News to spin it for them)
While there was strong support for a hard line on terrorism at home, the survey exposed deep-seated distrust of the foreign policies championed by Mr Bush since September 11, 2001. Only 14 per cent believed Britain should continue to align itself with America.
In a worldwide poll in January of last year, fifty-eight per cent of the 22,000 who took part in the poll, commissioned by the BBC World Service, said they expected Mr Bush to have a negative impact on peace and security, compared with only 26% who considered him a positive force. In Britain, 64% of those polled said they disagreed with the proposition that the US would have a mainly positive impact on the world. The figures were even higher in France (75%) and Germany (77%).
It’s gotten worse.

But hey, screw the world, the guy that said this in March 2003 was obviously a terrorist appeaser...

for any terrorist looking for a base of operations, there must be no refuge, no safe haven. (Applause.) By driving terrorists from place to place, we disrupt the planning and training for further attacks on America and the civilized world. Every terrorist must be made to live as an international fugitive, with no place to settle or organize, no place to hide, no governments to hide behind, and not even a safe place to sleep.
To paraphrase Tony Snow, the world, like Colin Powell, must be confused.

Cap




 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
Explanation: Even though you "agree that these aren’t ’leading’ Republicans," MK has not backed down from the statement and continues to believe it. Neither Boehner nor Cheney stated or implied treasonous activity, but MK continues the argument.
Conclusion. No substance. Meaningless. Reboot. Try again.
Did so. Validating a strategy to remove US troops from the ME does not mean you want to and are actively assisting the terrorists to win. Validation of a strategy does not equate to treason, unless you are using Glasnost’s ridiculous definition.
Do you really believe this? If John Kerry stood on the floor of the Senate and said that the terrorists had a valid, i.e., "legal" or "justifiable" or "appropriate" or "logically correct" strategy to get the United States out of the Middle East, he wouldn’t be giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

Or are you rejecting this definition from Websters?

So when Cheney effectivley says that those people with whom he disagrees over Iraq are asserting that the terrorists have a legal, justifiable, logically correct and and appropriate strategy, he is not saying those same people are giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

Are you high? Seriously. Are you high?

Finally, we get to this nonsense.

Here is what I said:
I have yet to see anyone explain why Bush’s use of the first person pronoun, "I", and then his use of the impersonal pronoun, "it," was not intended to mean different things, when they in fact mean different things. After all, McQ was asserting the say the same thing. When they clearly don’t.
As I made clear, I was referring to the use of the firsr person pronoun and the impersonal pronoun. I repeat, I was referring to both. I repeat, I was referring to both.

You then completely ignore what I said, and refer only to the latter. I repeat. You ignore what I said, and refer only to the latter. Only after doing this, do you then make your "point." You claim that it is a normal speech pattern to use the impersonal pronoun to refer to one’s own opinion. Here are your examples:
It’s nice outside.

It’s a bad day to pick a fight with that guy.

It’s an interesting hypothesis.

It’s bad enough that MK can’t grasp basic concepts, but ...
Yes, that is how people talk when they are referring to their own opinion. But, if they are referring only to their personal opinion, which is what McQ asserts, they don’t talk like this:
"I believe that you are a hot chick. It is well established that you are a hot chick."

"Well, if you ask me, the Mona Lisa is overrated. It is not acceptable to assert that the Mona Lisa is properly rated."

"I really don’t like McDonalds french fries. It is unthinkable that McDonalds french fries are likable."
They don’t use the first person, and then also - I repeat - and then also - use the impersonal pronoun. They use one or the other. But not both at the same time.

Unless, of course, they intend to make a point about their personal opinion and something more objective. Which is what I have been saying all along.

Nice try, JWG. Sad to see someone who at least has the ability to construct a sentence has signed up with the Bush Cult crew.




 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Call red herring and strawman as much as you’ve liked, but you’ve compelely missed my point. To point out contradictions between your attempted classification scheme and the classification scheme used as a societal standard is not a red herring, it’s fundamental.

a "War on Christmas" can’t be backed up. If you call someone a "retard", when they do not meet the medical definition of mental retardation, chances are that you can’t back it up. Apparently, Mkultura claimed that "Leading Republicans" were calling John McCain a "traitor" and, for the sake of argument, let’s claim he can’t back that up with a quote. It sure as h*ck seemed to be true.

It doesn’t matter if either of those first two examples were used in this conversation, or by anyone here ever, or not. We’re trying to standardize "liar" by making comparisons with similar exaggerations. Either all of these are "lies", or none of them are. This is just the tip of an iceberg of inexactness and allegory that covers the use of language by the human species.

What’s happening is neither lies nor "post-modernism" (Billy, rhetorical exaggeration predates post-modernism by at least two thousand years). It is, as I stated, maybe less succintly, connecting the dots.

As I pointed out, a lot of right-wing commentors call John McCain a traitor. I provided you five links. Where’d they get that idea from? Did it spring apropos of nothing, to their heads?

Or were they led to that conclusion by people implicitly, or *explicitly*, claiming that John McCain (or, arguments made by "people".. oops, John McCain’s making them too, how bout that!) "validates the strategy" of terrorists?

It’s fair to say that Mkultura thinks that the Bush administration officials have been quick to label people as traitors. He’s not the only one who thinks that to be true. Frankly, there’s ways to call someone a traitor without using the word. There’s ways to send the message without using the word. Concepts are larger than the single word used to nail them. Mk’s language was inexact, but like I said ask the American people:

"Are "terrorist-rights advocates, in your opinion, traitors?"

Hey, here’s powerline, calling John Mcain a terrorist-rights advocate. It’s a "lie", right? - Because John Mcain, Q and O, and I, are advocating for the rights of individuals accused or suspected of terrorism, not only (in some cases, not at all) for the rights of god-proven terrorists. So, did Powerline "lie?" I didn’t accuse them of lying. They’re using inexact language, rhetorical exaggeration. etc. etc. etc.

If we find out later that Powerline actually called John Mcain a "terrorist-rights-enabler" instead of a "terrorist-rights-advocate", did I lie?
When the anti-defamation league accuses people of "Anti-Semitism", when they make critical statements about *Israel*, if that person has never made statements about "Jews", is the anti-defamation league **lying**?

It’s not about whether "the other side does it too". It’s the difference between an innaccurate meme and a deliberate lie. The English language allows you to use it ambiguously, for better or for worse.

When Bush officials make ambiguous statements that seem to suggest that criticizing the war on terror makes you pro-terrorist, don’t be suprised when people feel like they’ve been called traitors. You can just about fit a knife blade in between the two concepts. They’re not *exactly* the same, but if Mk confuses them, it’s a misrepresentation of the english language and human psychology to say that he’s lying. A lie both implies deliberate intent and knowledge of a false statement, and some reasonable method of knowing that your statement was false. MSM and blog commentors alike make statements and accusations that they have to retract or modify all the time. It’s not the same thing as a lie. And in this case, Mk has every reason to mistake the implicit for the explicit.

So far, zero people have addressed the disctinction I’m making. I’ll say it’s because you’re too stupid. That would make me an a**. Does it make me a liar?






 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Look, your side has the 9/11 conspiracy nutters, the ones who claim that the Bush administration had nothing better to do during a hurricane than blow up a levee, and the ones who are sure Bush and Diebold fixed the Ohio election. And we’re talking public officials here, not wacko web sites like the ones that pushed the Mena airfield back in Clinton’s days. You think these people really have a grasp of the concept of truth?

Bill, I think arguments that boil down to "who’s crazier?" are a waste of time.
Your "critique" of "postmodernism" is a polemic against leftists that fails even to define the term, much less logically demonstrate its invalidity. It wastes most of its time on the fascinating topic of leftist apologies for Stalin. That’s a fascinating topic and all, but humans have been glorifying violence in the name of progress since the Cro-Magnons massacred the Neathandarals, and you’ve rather failed to prove the relevance of postmodernism to the topic. Come up with a serious argument, and I might bother seriously contesting it. But frankly, I might not, because most lefists I know, less educated than I, wouldn’t even be able to tell you what it meant.


 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
So far, zero people have addressed the disctinction I’m making. I’ll say it’s because you’re too stupid. That would make me an a**. Does it make me a liar?
Plausible deniability

How can you call someone a traitor, but not actually call them a traitor?

You use the words that define a traitor and apply them to someone, but when they become indignant about being called a traitor, you say that you never called them a traitor.

And then blogs have endless fodder.

Let’s see if this has happened.
TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
adhering to their enemies
adhering (as in sticking with or being on the side of) their enemies
giving them aid or comfort.
So let’s examine the evidence...
Diana Irey, the Republican candidate running against Rep. Murtha, a leading critic of Bush’s war policy. She said at a news conference May 24, at the National Press Club in Washington DC, that Murtha’s comments and actions "are not that of a patriot" but "serve to aid and comfort our enemy." And as if those words weren’t strong enough, she added: "Our 16th President once said, and I quote: ’Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged." (Lincoln never said that, by the way)
John Ashcroft suggests that people who disagree with the administration’s anti-terrorism policies are on the side of the terrorists. "To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies, and pause to America’s friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil."
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle expresses mild disagreement with US anti-terror policies, saying US success in the war on terror "is still somewhat in doubt." In response, Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) says that Daschle’s "divisive comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to exploit divisions in our country."
Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) says that "[T]he liberal leadership have put politics ahead of sound fiscal and national security policy. And what they have done is cooperated with our enemies and are emboldening our enemies."
Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England.
If the furor over the port deal should go on, Mr. England said, it would give enemies of the United States aid and comfort: "They want us to become distrustful, they want us to become paranoid and isolationist."
Now the whole "aid and comfort" as a code phrase broke down as the logic above made the code very easy to crack.

Now if I went to synonyms for aid and comfort, perhaps "embolden our enemy" which has been very popular of late, or one of Bush’s favorites, "It sends the wrong signal" while suggesting that HIS signal hurts the enemy, so of course the "wrong signal" provides.... aid and comfort.

I suggest that anytime someone can’t say "my plan is better because... " and instead they say something to the effect of "they will help the enemy", the guy has an awful plan and it will probably help the enemy (or at least provide them aid and comfort) sarcasm here for the humor impaired

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
Or are you rejecting this definition from Websters?
I don’t reject it, but it is incomplete:


val·i·date
tr.v., -dat·ed, -dat·ing, -dates.
To declare or make legally valid.
To mark with an indication of official sanction.
To establish the soundness of; corroborate. See synonyms at confirm.


If you want to continue arguing that Cheney meant that politicians are offering terrorists "legal, justifiable, logically correct and appropriate" sanctions for their efforts, then you continue to prove your idiocy.

If Cheney meant that they were traitors, then why is he using code words that only the far left can understand? If the so called "Bush Cult" aroung here doesn’t think he is referring to treason, why is Cheney speaking in code to only you?

They don’t use the first person, and then also - I repeat - and then also - use the impersonal pronoun. They use one or the other. But not both at the same time.
I think MK has a learning disability. It’s a shame that MK never learns.
I think MK’s lies are unacceptable. It’s unacceptable that MK continues to lie about...
I don’t think MK is very smart. It’s a wonder that MK’s head doesn’t implode due to the vacuum between his ears.


Let me know who the higher authority is in these sentences. They are perfectly normal and everyday constructions.

 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
mkultra,
Conclusion. No substance.
All the substance needed is on the thread you left that big fat turd on, mkultra. I know what you said, McQ knows what you said and you know what you said.

The substance, which is your bald faced lie and the subsequent debunking thereof, preceeded. No point is rehashing it.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://

I can’t believe MK is still trying to fight this losing battle. It’s unbelievable that he can’t figure out common sentence structure!

How’s that for a first person pronoun and then also - I repeat - and then also - the impersonal pronoun? I used both once again!

 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
We’re trying to standardize "liar" by making comparisons with similar exaggerations.
As I already pointed out, your "retarded" example was a strawman because it misprepresented the argument. I’ll repeat my explanation:
Guess what - that term has a medical definition. Uh oh. You’re probably making an accusation you can’t back up. In other words, you could be called a liar - by the standard you’re holding Mkultura to.

Absolutely wrong. If you challanged someone on the statement, they would admit that it was not literally true. MK has not done that. To the contrary, he continues to claim his comments are true
As far as your "war on Christmas" red herring, you claim:
- anyone in here ever accused "Democrats" - or, uh oh, "leading Democrats" of perpetuating a "War on Christmas?" ... Now, you can nitpick this with what constitutes a "war" - but instead, ask yourself honestly - if I had to prove to a judge in a court of law that Democrats are leading a War on Christmas, would I win?
First, no one in this blog has ever made that accusation.
Second, none of the people pushing that statement are arguing that it is a literal war. They are using the same language as the "War on Poverty."
Your example is flawed because MK is arguing that GOP leaders *are* claiming people are traitors. Has he made any argument claiming otherwise?
To point out contradictions between your attempted classification scheme and the classification scheme used as a societal standard is not a red herring, it’s fundamental.
Then make one that matches MK’s actions.
Where’d they get that idea [of treason] from? Did it spring apropos of nothing, to their heads? Or were they led to that conclusion by people...
Gosh, ordinary people on the right make outrageous claims against politicians? Who would’ve believed it? And how could we believe that ordinary people can think and come to conclusions themselves without being led by some higher authority? People are just sheeple, after all.
It’s fair to say that Mkultura thinks that the Bush administration officials have been quick to label people as traitors. He’s not the only one who thinks that to be true
Yep. But when you’re provided evidence that proves the opposite and you continue to spew your original statement, that reflects badly on you. I’m tending to agree with Billy that many on the Left are not lying but are actually trapped in a post-modernist viewpoint.
MSM and blog commentors alike make statements and accusations that they have to retract or modify all the time.
What has MK retracted or modified? Anything?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Glasnost says:
When Bush officials make ambiguous statements that seem to suggest that criticizing the war on terror makes you pro-terrorist, don’t be suprised when people feel like they’ve been called traitors.
Yet, he previously provided a good example of why that is a completely baseless charge:
Of course, this is dangerous logic, because I can make a strong argument that Dick Cheney’s reckless disregard for human rights and the rules of war helps create a globally lawless environment that "validates the strategy of the terrorists". So now, our Vice-President is inferred to as a traitor.
But who on the right is feeling like that argument infers that Cheney is a traitor? Only the Left is making the either-or inference. Isn’t it possible for someone’s actions to lead to a benefit for one’s enemy without that person being a traitor? Of course it is. Do I need to provide some examples?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Isn’t it possible for someone’s actions to lead to a benefit for one’s enemy without that person being a traitor? Of course it is. Do I need to provide some examples?
When you use the language of treason to describe the impact of a person’s actions, you are using a specific kind of attack.

More importantly, while either side can use this language, only one side IS the government while the other side is the opposition.

Calling the government treasonous has a different impact than the government calling the opposition treasonous.

In other words, if I called Dick Cheney (the government) a traitor, it is completely different than Dick Cheney calling someone in the opposition minority party a traitor.

Most importantly, the government (Republican party right now) is making the policy, and the same government (Republican party right now) is making the claims that dissent against that policy helps the enemy, whether intentional or not.

This is a false and specious claim as it is simply someone’s purported opinion. Helping the enemy in a time of war needs to be a charge that should be reserved for very specific actions, and a differenc of opinion of how the war is prosecuted should not be among them.

It is a given that if there is a difference of opinion of how to proceed in a time of war that both sides believe that their ideas would be more effective in winning the war, and the converse, that the opposing idea will be less effective, therefore better for the enemy. Framing one’s argument that the other side is helping the enemy is simply an ad hominem attack, not a case for why their own policy is better.

It is interesting that a year or two ago, if you searched traitors in Google, you would find thousands of right wing blogs and posts and websites casting aspersions on Democrats. Today, you are going to find more entries calling Bush and Cheney traitors. My comment about the difference between government and opposition still stands, but I think this, and the popularity of folks like Olbermann, as well as the conversion of folks like Scarborough and others suggests a turn in the tide.

Still, while I believe that the current crop of Republicans is the worst and most incompetent this country has ever seen, they are VERY good at one thing, getting elected. I will not be surprised if they hold the Senate and the House, to the detriment of the nation.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Isn’t it possible for someone’s actions to lead to a benefit for one’s enemy without that person being a traitor? Of course it is. Do I need to provide some examples?

Yeah. It is. But - if we’re going to look at this academically and not partisanly - the concept of one’s actions leading to a benefit for one’s enemy is very close - a rearrangement or words away - from "helping one’s enemy".

And the word "help" is very easily associated with deliberate and intentioned action. That’s the classic use of the word.

And deliberate, intentioned helping of one’s enemies is very close to traitorness. There may be another neccesary condition - helping them cause harm. There may not. I’d say it’s open to debate.

That - if you want to understand, rather than accuse - is why people jump to the conclusion that they’re being called a traitor. Usually, it’s imperfect logic. It’s rarely an intentioned lie. It happens whenever to distinct concepts lie very close to each other in language.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
That - if you want to understand, rather than accuse - is why people jump to the conclusion that they’re being called a traitor.
Two thoughts.

A) they are jumping to the conclusion. Maybe there’s a modicum of belief by that individual that the inferrence is true (even if there really was no inferrence) given what they’re doing. They are self-identifying as a "traitor". And, of course, their first reaction is denial. A perfectly human reaction.

B) "help" and "benefit" can be completely unintentional. Again they jump to the conclusion and engage in the self-identification (after all no one knows better than themselves what the intent of their actions and activities are, do they?).

Seems to me it is they who are identifying the problem, not the so-called accuser.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Two thoughts.

A) they are jumping to the conclusion. Maybe there’s a modicum of belief by that individual that the inferrence is true (even if there really was no inferrence) given what they’re doing. They are self-identifying as a "traitor". And, of course, their first reaction is denial. A perfectly human reaction.

B) "help" and "benefit" can be completely unintentional. Again they jump to the conclusion and engage in the self-identification (after all no one knows better than themselves what the intent of their actions and activities are, do they?).

Seems to me it is they who are identifying the problem, not the so-called accuser.
Yeah, I am sure it has nothing to do with accusers using words like "aid and comfort" that are actually direct quotations from the Constitutional definition of treason.

Jeez McQ, please tell me that you are just baiting and don’t actually believe what you wrote.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Most importantly, the government (Republican party right now) is making the policy, and the same government (Republican party right now) is making the claims that dissent against that policy helps the enemy, whether intentional or not.
Well, dickhead, what if that is actually true?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Oh please, Cap. Not every example of where we hear cries about being called traitors or questions about patriotism involve "aid and comfort". In fact, not even most.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
It wastes most of its time on the fascinating topic of leftist apologies for Stalin.
The fact that you fail to see the relevance of that vs today’s the left’s apologies for Islamists says volumes about just how widely you missed the point.
Bill, I think arguments that boil down to "who’s crazier?" are a waste of time.
If I were on your side, I’d want to avoid that argument too.

Look, there are many of us who just can’t take seriously a left in this country that countenances such idiocy. Even those who don’t think Bush killed 3000 people on 9/11 are polite and respectful to those who do. And, my friend, no matter how little you want to face the fact, it’s a sign that the left is sick.

 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Most importantly, the government (Republican party right now) is making the policy, and the same government (Republican party right now) is making the claims that dissent against that policy helps the enemy, whether intentional or not.
Well, dickhead, what if that is actually true?
Well dickhead, if you want to have policy without dissent, go find a dictatorship.

The current environment of dissention is EXACTLY what the Bush administration ws trying to sneak past when they REFUSED to consider post-war planning when they invaded Iraq. They KNEW that the American people would not provide enough support for the invasion if the truth of proper post-war needs were discussed.

Now, when the situation is exactly as could have been predicted, and the bungling policy is being exposed for just what it is, The republican Party is telling us to keep pretending the emporer has clothes on or it will help enemy.

The greatest enemy of democracy are lies, and you my friend, are aiding and abetting that enemy.

Cap





 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
The greatest enemy of democracy are lies, and you my friend, are aiding and abetting that enemy.
Ouch...I think someone was just called a traitor.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Air Fleisher was first to tell people to be careful what they say. Then, John Ashcroft said that questioning the preseident would embolden the enemy. After that it was all downhill. Face it, if you’re still sincerely supporting Bush, you’re an idiot, a supermega-idiot, or Osama bin Laden.

Hey, maybe Bush is right, and all of the 20+ generals who have spoken out against his policies are wrong. Maybe Bush is the only sane person in a world full of crazies.

Before you criticize Mr. Olberman, ask any American of Japanese descent over the age of 60 what he or she thinks of the death of habeas corpus.

I doubt many of the people commenting here even understand what habeas corpus is so my words are probably wasted. At least I tried.

 
Written By: Frank
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider