|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/12/2006 04:34:35 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
... you have shown, yet again, that one of the very first things many on the left do when confronted with statements in opposition to their own position is to try to impugn the credibility of their opponent through smear tactics. |
If only they did that as effectively as the right, John Kerry would be President. But I guess "we've" finally learned what constitutes a winning strategy in this corrupt political system we're all saddled with now ... |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Maybe so ... that might not have been the best example to illustrate the frequency and effectiveness of right-wing mud-slinging. |
GeneralE, You were a participant, as was I, in the Terry Schiavo thread a while back. In that thread, I'm sure you must have read ClubJuggle's caution to the group:
"Just be careful not to negatively stereotype any ethnic, racial, gender, religious or other protected group. That means if you want to refer to a position held by or express an opinion of certain leaders or members of one of those groups, you should not generalize it to the entire group."
Since then, I have been quite careful to not make negative comments about an "entire" group. That's why I specifically only referred to "many" on the left, instead of simply "the left", which would have implicated the "entire" group.
I would be nice if you could follow ClubJuggle's caution and not generalize your negative comments to an "entire group" as well.
For your information, not EVERYONE on the right trys to impugn the credibility of their opponents as one of the first things they do. And not EVERYONE on the right slings mud. You may argue that "many" on the right do either or both, but I think that you would fail to show that every member of "the right" does either. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 05:34:45 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
|
Maybe so ... that might not have been the best example to illustrate the frequency and effectiveness of right-wing mud-slinging. [/quote]
In all fairness, GeneralE, I think it can safely be said that members of both groups do their fair (or unfair) share of mud-slinging. That is not a "right-wing" tactic. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 07:00:19 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Maybe so ... that might not have been the best example to illustrate the frequency and effectiveness of right-wing mud-slinging. |
In all fairness, GeneralE, I think it can safely be said that members of both groups do their fair (or unfair) share of mud-slinging. That is not a "right-wing" tactic. |
You are correct ... though I think one "side" seems to be significantly more proficient.
RonB: You are right -- henceforth I will try to avoid blanket generalizations, and leave adequate wiggle room to later claim any statement I make actually means the opposite of what it seemed to mean when originally posted ... perhaps the most enduring legacy of the Nixon Administration is the principle of plausible deniability.
Message edited by author 2006-06-12 19:01:24. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 07:04:16 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You are correct ... though I think one "side" seems to be significantly more proficient.
|
And that "side" is probably determined by *your* (not you specifically, GeneralE, but you generally [bad, pun, I know]) political leaning or perspective. ;) |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 07:09:14 PM · #130 |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 08:53:11 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Maybe so ... that might not have been the best example to illustrate the frequency and effectiveness of right-wing mud-slinging. |
In all fairness, GeneralE, I think it can safely be said that members of both groups do their fair (or unfair) share of mud-slinging. That is not a "right-wing" tactic. |
You are correct ... though I think one "side" seems to be significantly more proficient.
RonB: You are right -- henceforth I will try to avoid blanket generalizations, and leave adequate wiggle room to later claim any statement I make actually means the opposite of what it seemed to mean when originally posted ... perhaps the most enduring legacy of the Nixon Administration is the principle of plausible deniability. |
You don't need "wiggle room" to claim that you meant the opposite of what it seemed to mean. Why constrain yourself. By employing the famous John Kerry "Reversal in-situ " maneuver ( RIS ), you don't have to claim that you meant the opposite. You can actually claim to support BOTH sides at the same time!
For example, Kerry once said: "I actually did vote for his $87 billion, before I voted against it". And Kerry's more recent RIS maneuver concerning legislation to construct 370 miles of fencing along the Mexican border: "I voted for it...If I were making the long-term decision, I̢۪d announce, you know, hopefully it̢۪s a temporary measure, and we can take it down as soon as we have enough people,...".
See, by employing the RIS maneuver, you can be both for something and against it simultaneously. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 11:32:41 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You are correct ... though I think one "side" seems to be significantly more proficient.
|
And that "side" is probably determined by *your* (not you specifically, GeneralE, but you generally [bad, pun, I know]) political leaning or perspective. ;) |
Actually, that "side" is determined by the demonstrable power gain of conservatism in the U.S. since the 80s. They have utterly outmaneuvered the left until finally an extreme conservative with fundamentalist religious values is in the white house. Their only hope of being defeated is the dismal failure of their policies. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 11:46:33 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by RonB:
For example, Kerry once said: "I actually did vote for his $87 billion, before I voted against it". |
Perhaps you can find the entire paragraph from which this phrase as been lifted, just to add a little context and broaden our understanding of the parliamentary procedures (Rules of the Senate) which govern how and why people might vote one way one time and differently the next.
Your post suggests an attempt to imply that, in contrast to Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bush has never said anything wrong or stupid or just poorly-phrased? Gee, I thought I'd seen whole books comprised solely of collections Presidential non-sequiturs ...
Message edited by author 2006-06-12 23:49:17. |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 04:59:24 AM · #134 |
Originally posted by RonB:
You are quite correct, legalbeagle. That statement does better reflect the contents of the report. But Madmordegon's link to that report was made to buttress his assertion that "insurgents are not the main cause of reconstruction shortcomings". And I, therefore, limited my rebuttal to that specific charge, and intentionally did not attempt to address factors not specifically related to the charges made by Madmordegon. |
This is getting pretty focussed on fairly irrelevant issues, but if we are going to hang ourselves on specific wording...
The report identified the cause of inefficient reconstruction and the impediments to reconstruction. The causes were widespread, but principally relate to poor planning and implementation. The main impediment to reconstruction is insurgency. However, the report concludes that the insurgency is not the cause of the inefficiency, which would exist regardless of the insurgency.
Therefore the report supports Madmordegon's assertion that "insurgents are not the main cause of reconstruction shortcomings": they are an impediment, but not the cause. It very definitely does not support your statement that Originally posted by RonB:
"I don't think that our government is "screwing it up". I think that the insurgents are." |
The report states that the government has screwed it up. But it also states that the main impediment to rectifying the position is the insurgency.
Originally posted by RonB:
Actually, I chose the term "the left" rather than the term "liberals" because in an earlier thread I learned, from you, that some in the European community did have a different understanding of "liberalism". Ref: explanation near the bottom of your 09/16/2005 08:24:41 AM posting in the thread, Bush, USA, Iraq, Hurricane.... So I thought that "the left" would be less confusing. Perhaps "American liberals" would convey the meaning better? |
I am not sure: I find it difficult to get used to all of the insinuations of the US terminology.
I understood "libertarian" was a phrase more often used to avoid insinuation of socialist/communist principles that are sometimes connected to the word "liberal" in the US. Left usually denotes socialism, and what you are opposing is liberal policy (in its technical sense)/libertarianism, I think.
i.e. you support the suppression of individual freedom in support of greater state interventionism where that interventionism is intended for the greater good. This has nothing to do with socialism (relating to the balance of wealth within a society).
Message edited by author 2006-06-13 05:13:40.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2006 05:16:46 AM · #135 |
| I read from last week's paper that a recent survey conducted shows that the next major power (military might) may be either China, or India. I think while everyone has got their attention on the wrong places, lol. Who knows? We might wake up tomorrow with Chinese (or Indian) soldiers handing everyone food rations and water... |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 07:13:51 AM · #136 |
Originally posted by crayon:
I read from last week's paper that a recent survey conducted shows that the next major power (military might) may be either China, or India. I think while everyone has got their attention on the wrong places, lol. Who knows? We might wake up tomorrow with Chinese (or Indian) soldiers handing everyone food rations and water... |
As long as those ration handouts include satay beef, honey chicken, sweet & sour pork, special fried rice and a side of spring rolls! ;)
|
|
|
|
06/13/2006 10:42:22 AM · #137 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
For example, Kerry once said: "I actually did vote for his $87 billion, before I voted against it". |
Perhaps you can find the entire paragraph from which this phrase as been lifted, just to add a little context and broaden our understanding of the parliamentary procedures (Rules of the Senate) which govern how and why people might vote one way one time and differently the next.
Your post suggests an attempt to imply that, in contrast to Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bush has never said anything wrong or stupid or just poorly-phrased? Gee, I thought I'd seen whole books comprised solely of collections Presidential non-sequiturs ... |
Paul, I can't find the entire transcript of Kerry's visit to Marshall University on March 16, 2004, but here is the best context I can muster:
"Ladies and gentlemen, the president made the decision as to when to send our troops to war, no one else — he decided the date," Kerry began. "And on the date they went into Iraq, they didn't have the armament on the Humvees, the armored doors, they didn't have the equipment they needed in some regards, and they didn't have the state-of-the-art body armor at that moment when they went in.
"Secondly, this is very important, I actually did vote for the $87 billion — before I voted against it. Joe Biden and I thought this: we thought since a lot of mainstream, regular folks in America were sharing a big burden of this war, we thought since those families are sacrificing, that just maybe the wealthiest people in America would be willing to also contribute, and so Joe and I brought an amendment to the $87 billion, and we said, `This should be paid for now, not adding to the deficit,' and the way we should pay for it is say to the wealthiest 1 or 2 percent of Americans, instead of accepting $690 billion of tax cuts over the next 10 years, wouldn't you just be willing, in the spirit of patriotism and sacrifice, to just take $600 billion?
"And you know what? The president said no; the Republicans voted no."
That's the context, though how that broadens one's understanding of parliamentary procedures I don't know.
-----------------------------------------
Here, though, is something that will broaden one's understanding of parliamentary procedures ( rules of the Senate ). Kerry told ABC News afterward, that the comment "reflects the truth of the position, which is I thought to have the wealthiest people in America share the burden of paying for that war. It was a protest. Sometimes you have to stand up and be counted, and that's what I did."
So Kerry, by his own admission, voted against funding the military purely as a protest. Not to vote for what is right, or what represents the best interests of the country, or his state, or his constituents. Just as a protest. Rules of the Senate do allow Senators to cast votes whichever way they choose.
----------------------------------------
I made no attempt to imply any contrast between Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush. If you inferred as much, it was not my intent. It is well known that Mr. Bush has uttered more than a few malaproprisms. |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 11:06:28 AM · #138 |
Originally posted by amber:
Also consider the mess surrounding Valerie Plame and Wilson, for which Libby is carrying the can at the moment until someone joins up all the dots...Rove has been in front of the Grand Jury what? 5 Times now? |
Hmmm. A decision has apparently been made to NOT indict Karl Rove in the Valerie Plame affair, even though he WAS called to testify before the Grand Jury 5 times.
Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald informed him of the decision on Monday. Luskin said,
"We believe the special counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."
As I said earlier, the number of times one appears in court or before the Grand Jury should NOT be construed as an indictment of their character. |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 01:57:59 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by amber:
Selective reading
Clever Bush - appoints Bowen to investigate where the money goes; decides as the decider that he can rewrite/ignore the laws and tells Bowen he cannot investigate; As Bowen's post exists that means no Senate or House commitee can ask for an investigation or hearing...Clever! Evil but clever.
Ron...did you even read the link I posted? |
First, I apologize, I missed your second post, so am late in responding.
That being said,
1) The linked article claims that the President's signing statements are "unpublicized, of course". And, of course, that is not true.
All signing statements are published in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, which is published every Monday and is the official publication of presidential statements, messages, remarks, and other materials released by the White House Press Secretary. It is published by the Office of the Federal Register (OFR), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Documents from 1993 onward are available on the internet at //www.gpoaccess.gov/wcomp/index.html , and is searchable.
2) The article asserts that the signing statement says that "the new inspector general would have no authority to investigate any contracts or corruption issues involving the Pentagon". And that, of course, is also not true.
The SIGIR can investigate whatever it chooses to provided that it does not compromise national security or other ongoing investigations. Neither the Pentagon nor the DoD is excluded from investigations except under certain circumstances related to national security. The actual wording of the signing statement from the aforementioned link is this:
"The Special Inspector General shall refrain from initiating, carrying out, or completing an audit or investigation, or from issuing a subpoena, which requires access to sensitive operation plans, intelligence matters, counter-intelligence matters, ongoing criminal investigations by administrative units of the Department of Defense related to national security, or other matters the disclosure of which would constitute a serious threat to national security. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense jointly may make exceptions to the foregoing direction in the public interest."
3) The article asserts that the signing document is a "secretive and unconstitutional order". And, of course, that is not true - as I have already proven. Something published on the internet is hardly "secretive". And signing documents have been used by many former Presidents, including Clinton, the elder Bush, and Reagan. If they were "unconstitutional" I would have thought that someone would have made an issue out of their use before now. And, lastly, they are not an "order" - they are merely Presidential statements indicating his personal legal interpretation of portions of the legislation that he is signing.
Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who until last year oversaw the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for the administration, said "They have no significance. Nothing in the world changes by the publication of a signing statement. The statements merely serve as public notice about how the administration is interpreting the law." He went on to say, "Criticism of this practice is surprising, since the usual complaint is that the administration is too secretive in its legal interpretations."
4) The remainder of the article is just innuendo and attempted character assignation, and I have already shown in my responses to Madmordegon that Stuart Bowen is a man of integrity and credibility.
Message edited by author 2006-06-13 17:30:38. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/09/2025 02:20:35 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/09/2025 02:20:35 PM EDT.
|
