Remember how ages ago, I mentioned that whenever a discussion about free speech gets going, “some idiot” sooner or later misquotes O.W. Holmes and says that free speech doesn’t mean you can yell “fire” in a crowded theater? When the fact is that you CAN yell “fire” in a crowded theater…provided there’s a fire. What Holmes said you cannot do is falsely shout “fire” in a crowded theater and cause a panic. And furthermore, Holmes’ comment was attached to a decision that had nothing to do with theaters, crowds, fires or panic. It instead supported a horrific lower court abuse of free speech rights, when a socialist named Schenck was jailed for years and heavily fined simply for advocating the notion that the draft was wrong. You remember the draft: It’s that thing they eventually abolished and now when politicians try to make each other look bad, they claim the other guys are talking about bringing it back.
The Holmes-quoted decision not only jailed Schenck, but dozens of other Americans over the following years because it advocated a fundamental concept: Disagreeing with the US government in times of war was a jailable offense.
You’d think people would learn. And yet there, on the “Daily Show” last night, was Zell Miller, discussing freedom of speech and misquoting Holmes, as if misquoting was a good thing. As if a court decision suppressing disagreement with the government was a good thing.
Thank heavens I was not in the audience of the “Daily Show” last night. Because I just KNOW I would have shouted out, “Holmes didn’t say that, you nitwit!” Which probably would have gotten me thrown out of the theater, but hey, it’s better than falsely shouting “fire.”
PAD
• 
I absolutely agree. Which is why I keep saying, “he only slightly misstated his role… what’s the big deal?”
I was referring to the fact that everybody ELSE likes to misquote Gore, yet you are willing to carelessly ignore them for it.
Apparently, it is ok to cut words from quotes, to make them mean something their not, and then not give a dámņ about it later on. That is the case with Gore’s quote.
People complain on all sides that quotes are never taken in context, or are never taken in full, and thus meaning is lost or intentionally warped. That Ward Churchill guy here in Colorado is a great example.
It easily becomes a “big deal” then.
After trying to catch up and read all these posts, I have to Quote Prof. Gumby –“My brain hurts”.
It’ll hafta come out!
Sorry, couldn’t help myself. 😛
-Rex Hondo-
Criticising one’s own country while it is at war (especially in an effort to protect itself) is fine, as long as it doesn’t lower the morale of the troops and the men who volunteer to fight said war. I don’t think it warrants prison time, but it’s still a šhìŧŧÿ, selfish thing to do… speaking as a former serviceman.
Hm. It seems to me that the servicemen and women are fighting for our country and constitution. If someone is protesting the reasons for the war or criticizing the government then that person is doing one of the most American things he can: exercising his freedom of expression. Isn’t that what the soldiers are fighting for?
Especially if it is earnest, honest criticism, how is it shifty and selfish?
Eric
Criticising one’s own country while it is at war (especially in an effort to protect itself) is fine, as long as it doesn’t lower the morale of the troops and the men who volunteer to fight said war. I don’t think it warrants prison time, but it’s still a šhìŧŧÿ, selfish thing to do… speaking as a former serviceman.
You know, I am sick and tired of this argument, especially since it is usually applied to silence some of the most egregious abuses. Does criticizing the abuse at Abu Graib lower troop morale? How is pointing out that a civilized society doesn’t strip their prisoners naked and take humiliating photos of them a šhìŧŧÿ thing to do? If pointing out the fact that Bush’s little adventure in Iraq was based on deliberately distorted intelligence and faulty planning (“It’s inconceivable that it will take more troops to occupy Iraq that it will take to invade.”) hurts troop morale, well then maybe it’s time our soldiers started questioning themselves as to why they are there.
I have tremendous respect for those who have volunteered to defend this country, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything they have done or were ordered to do. I know that pesky First Amendment keeps irritating Bush and Company and interferes with their ultimate goal of one party rule, but I thought that was what this country was all about.
Who is really hurting troop morale? The people who want to bring them home or the ones who are treating them like disposable pawns for the neocon agenda?
Who is really hurting troop morale? The people who want to bring them home or the ones who are treating them like disposable pawns for the neocon agenda?
Maybe you should ask the troops that question. Considering they supported President Bush by something like 3-1, I don’t think you have much support for your argument.
What a strange thread to garner so much attention… I read the whole thing, after all.
Let’s see:
The fire and theater quote pretty much stands on it’s own. If Zell actually used OWH name, then yes he did misquote. If he didn’t, he didn’t quote or misquote, he appropriated a common phrase to delineate that not all speech is protected. Tired it may be, but it does work.
Whether the Schenck conviction was truly unassailable is easily assertained: was it overturned? If it WAS, then it was assailable; if it was NOT overturned, it was unassailable. Anything else is semantics.
Thank you, though, for the partisan slam. That’s what I come here to read (clearly because there’s something wrong with me…)
I am curious, though. From the sound of the various threads, Peter watches a ton of TV, bowls obsessively, reads everything, and spends a lot of time on the internet… how do you manage to stay so prolific? Do you sleep?????
Maybe you should ask the troops that question. Considering they supported President Bush by something like 3-1, I don’t think you have much support for your argument.
Which only proves how effective the Swift Boat Veterans for Slander were.
As for Al Gore and the internet, this just came over the wire:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gore_award
There is no denying that he did a lot as a legislator to promote the internet and make it what is today. Maybe he could have phrased his statement to CNN a little better, but to constantly harp on the idea that he claimed to have “invented” it is a gross distortion.
Den wrote: “Does criticizing the abuse at Abu Graib lower troop morale? How is pointing out that a civilized society doesn’t strip their prisoners naked and take humiliating photos of them a šhìŧŧÿ thing to do?”
No, not at all.
But immediately assuming, as a scary number of supposedly intelligent people did, that such activity was condoned, normal operations for the U.S. military, DOES lower troop morale.
In the far-left zest to use this abberration as a springboard to attack the policies of the president and his cabinet, the integrity and morals of all U.S. military people was impugned.
And if, for one second, this phrase flashed through the mind of anyone out there — “How were we supposed to know if this was an abberration or not?” — then shame on you all for being that ignorant of the people, standards and policies of your military in the first place.
Russ:
>But immediately assuming, as a scary number of supposedly intelligent people did, that such activity was condoned, normal operations for the U.S. military, DOES lower troop morale.
>In the far-left zest to use this abberration as a springboard to attack the policies of the president and his cabinet, the integrity and morals of all U.S. military people was impugned.
>And if, for one second, this phrase flashed through the mind of anyone out there — “How were we supposed to know if this was an abberration or not?” — then shame on you all for being that ignorant of the people, standards and policies of your military in the first place.
Russ, I see a big difference between assuming that it is standard operating procedures and asking that the checks and balances be in place to ensure that these acts do not occur. I agree with you that nobody should assume that it is commonplace. I also belive that there is a great danger in assuming that it never or could never happen and throw out my own “shame on you” to anyone who is blind to either extreme of this faulty thinking.
if it was NOT overturned, it was unassailable
That only applies if the case, or a similar one, was presented to the court & the court upheld the original decision. Even if it was, the decision is still assailable because others can still find ways to try & challenge the decision. Just look at Roe Vs Wade for an example of this.
In the far-left zest to use this abberration as a springboard to attack the policies of the president and his cabinet, the integrity and morals of all U.S. military people was impugned.
1) This statement implies that attacking the president & his cabinet is the same as attacking the troops. It is not. As for this matter being used as a springboard, I assure you that this administration was well under attack long before this came to light.
2) The president & his cabinet were attacked for this because they knew what was going on weeks before the public did, & did nothing about it, They set the tone to allow this behavior through such things as
* Deciding on their own that The Geneva Convention doesn’t apply,
* Dismissing the Geneva Convention as “quaint”,
* Embracing & following a policy of sending prisoners to countries like Egypt & Saudia Arabia to be tortured because it isn’t legal here, &
* Also having torture carried out at Gitmo.
Which only proves how effective the Swift Boat Veterans for Slander were.
Do you really believe that they affected the military vote at all? If so, then you may just be out of touch. The military has always voted primarily for the conservative candidate. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth affected more retired military and civilians than it did active military.
It is funny to think how out of touch some people can be, a Naval officer friend of mine had to sit through a visit from Barbara Boxer last spring where she ended it with “Don’t worry, we’ll have him out of office in November” referring to Bush; when most people in the room were thinking how great it would be if she was not in office.
But immediately assuming, as a scary number of supposedly intelligent people did, that such activity was condoned, normal operations for the U.S. military, DOES lower troop morale.
I don’t believe that the majority of the US military condoned those actions. However, I also don’t believe that it was just the actions of a few low-ranking enlisted personnel. And apparently, the military judge that tossed Prt. England’s guilty plea agrees.
http://www.decloah.com/linkblog/archives/2005/05/index.html#001061
Zell Miller: The latest idiot – You’d think people would learn. And yet there, on the “Daily Show” last night, was Zell Miller, discussing freedom of speech and misquoting Holmes, as if misquoting was a good thing. As if a…
1) This statement implies that attacking the president & his cabinet is the same as attacking the troops.
Exactly and this is why I believe the “criticizing the president hurts troop morale” argument is bogus. The second anything embarrassing comes out, the “liberals want America” to fail charges start flying. It’s a carefully orchestrated plan to deflect charges away from the administration. First they deny, then the try to minimize the event (“fraternity pranks”), and finally, they call it the actions of just a few bad apples.
There is increasing evidence that the abuse at Abu Graib wasn’t isolated and that higher level officials knew about it. We need to hold all of them to the ideals we are supposedly defending. Telling us that it hurts morale doesn’t make these charges go away.
And yes, I’m aware that the military votes overwhelmingly conservative, which has always astounded me given: 1) the chickenshit group that currently controls the GOP in which their one prominate member that actually served with honor in combat (McCain) is hated and despised and 2) The way they treat our soldiers as disposable pawns. I’m sure the GOP lies like the one promoted in Arkansas and West Virginia that Kerry was going to outlaw the Bible has something to do with it.
When the Abu Gharib photos first came out, I think everyone was hoping that it was just the remote actions of a few overzealous troops. Since then, there’s been, as Den mentioned, increasing evidence that our top leadership condones and approves, and in fact expects, the use of techniques of torture in an attempt to extract information.
The thing that sickens me is that the people that most likely are primarily responsible, those that gave troops like England their orders, are hiding behind these kids that volunteered to take up arms for this country. If anything other than this proves that this administration views our troops as nothing more than disposable assets, I don’t know what will.
As I pointed out when this scandal first came to light, this sort of atrocity is EASILY predictable (see Zimbardo prison experiment). Higher ups could have and SHOULD have been able to anticipate it and taken steps to avert it. There’s negligence at some level for this to have taken place. Pointing this out and making sure that prisoners are treated humanely is NOT a partisan issue.
Den wrote: “Exactly and this is why I believe the “criticizing the president hurts troop morale” argument is bogus.”
Did anyone really read my post? I never said any such thing. What I said is that when the prison scandal broke, far-left critics of the president used it as a springboard to attack him, and there were quite a few supposedly intelligent people who did not just infer, but stated as “fact” that this “deliberate policy” started with the guards and went straight up the chain of command, through the Pentagon, to administration officials in the White House, and hope-upon-hope, straight to the Oval Office. Mind you, this was in just the first week or so after the scandal broke, and it was pretty obvious that no one was even close to having all the facts. And some of you guys are STILL saying this is what happened. Do you all really believe, in your blind hatred of this administration, that hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of DoD employees at all levels would have just sat around and blithely signed off on a bizarre “official policy” like the treatment received by prisoners in Abu Ghraib? Gimme a break!
Personally, I was shocked by the scandal, and I spent 20 years in the military. Back when scandal hit the newswires, I stated right here that if I had been a senior NCO assigned to Abu Ghraib around the time this whole debacle took place, there would have been no scandal, and we wouldn’t be having this argument. How do I know? Simple. I know who I am, I know my value system, I know the value system of the military I was a part of, and I was involved with previous military operations where the Rules of Engagement were clearly spelled out.
Did anyone really read my post?
Why are you assuming that everything here is in response to you? It must be a real burden to be that important to everyone. 😛
I never said any such thing. What I said is that when the prison scandal broke, far-left critics of the president used it as a springboard to attack him, and there were quite a few supposedly intelligent people who did not just infer, but stated as “fact” that this “deliberate policy” started with the guards and went straight up the chain of command, through the Pentagon, to administration officials in the White House, and hope-upon-hope, straight to the Oval Office.
But when you have a guy (now the US Attorney General, God help us) working in the administration, who writes a memo asking whether and when it’s okay to torture prisoners, that should raise eyebrows on any thinking person. And when reports of US agencies sending prisoners to places like Libya and other countries known for their wonderful treatment of prisoners surface, can you honestly tell me with a straight face that this is all just a “few bad apples”? Can you seriously believe that this administration set the tone of interrogation that lead to such abuse, if not not actually condoning it explicitly?
If can believe that, please, tell me what drugs you’re taking.
I know who I am, I know my value system, I know the value system of the military I was a part of, and I was involved with previous military operations where the Rules of Engagement were clearly spelled out.
And then those Rules were thrown out the window by Bush and Gonzales.
And then we became aware of how far and reaching our government’s practices of rendition and torture have come.
It also sounds like you’re a poster child for the propoganda that the Bush Administration loves to throw out there: “See, this former member of the military says there’s nothing wrong.” Along with poster children like the Swift Boat Veterans for Utter Bûllšhìŧ and other Lies.
Whatever military you were apart of apparently died after you left.
there would have been no scandal, and we wouldn’t be having this argument.
Or you would’ve done a better job of covering it up.
With the prison stuff in Iraq, it really does make one wonder whether the accusations made about incidents in other wars (such as, oh, Vietnam) actually have some merit.
Zell Miller surrendered to the Dark Side when he gave the speech at the Republican Convention.
I’m really, really sick of hearing anyone who call themself a Democrat claiming that the Dems are “too far to the left for the mainstream”. What the hëll do they mean by that anyway? You wanna see what “outside the mainstream” looks like? Just look at some of the kooks running the GOP now.
I just love one of the many parts of the Abu Ghraib “solution”.
Since one of the main problems that the regime of this country has with the scandal is that pictures of the abuse came out – their solution was to ban cameras at the prison. No pictures, no scandal.
And then to put Mr. “the Geneva Convention is quaint and irrelvant” Gonzalez into the Atty. General position – yup, it was just a bunch of “bad apples” who did the abuse. It doesn’t extend the least bit up the chain of command…
Den wrote: “Can you seriously believe that this administration set the tone of interrogation that lead to such abuse, if not not actually condoning it explicitly?”
Using your logic, then, perhaps we should postumously try President Lyndon Johnson for complicity in the My Lai massacre, since Lt Calley was commissioned, trained and sent to Vietnam under the influence of Johnson’s administration.
What a crock!
Craig wrote: “Whatever military you were apart of apparently died after you left.” and “Or you would’ve done a better job of covering it up”
It’s statements like these that show ignorance and intolerence are alive and well on the extremes of both parties.
re: Posted by R. Maheras at May 5, 2005 03:36 PM
President Johnson & his administration did not write memos to justify torture, did not ignore / dismiss the Geneva Convention, or support the practice of rendition. The current administration did.
Using your logic, then, perhaps we should postumously try President Lyndon Johnson for complicity in the My Lai massacre, since Lt Calley was commissioned, trained and sent to Vietnam under the influence of Johnson’s administration.
Aside from the fact that you can’t try somebody posthumously, Johnson should be rightfully condemned for escalating and continuing a war long after he and Robert McNamara knew it was unwinnable.
Now, explain to me how that justifies the Bush administration’s condoning of torture?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050505/ap_on_re_eu/lithuania_bush_5
Wow!
Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Syria, Iran and dozens of other countries have become democracies over night!
God help me, I do not think I can take four more years of this moron.
And yes, I know none of those other countries I named are in Europe.
Michael wrote: “President Johnson & his administration did not write memos to justify torture, did not ignore / dismiss the Geneva Convention, or support the practice of rendition. The current administration did.”
Are you an expert on the Johnson administration? Have you gone through all of Johnson’s papers regarding the Vietnam war? Do you know for sure that no Johnson admisistration staffers wrote memos or discussed the pros and cons of various elements of the Geneva Convention? Do you know if any Johnson administration memos or other documents regarding the Vietnam were shredded? Do you know if there are documents from the Johnson administration that were classified during the Vietnam War and have yet to be declassified?
Further, do you have any proof that in Iraq, the U.S. military issued blanket orders to its troops, based on an Executive Order, to ignore the Geneva Convention when handling POWs?
Unless you answered yes to most, or all, of the above, it seems to me there is no basis for your argument.
Den wrote: “Now, explain to me how that justifies the Bush administration’s condoning of torture?”
As I said to Michael above, the troops never received any orders that I know of to suspend the torture provisions of the Geneva Convention. And personally, I could care less what academic wranglings went on amongst Bush administration officials about what does and what does not constitute torture. Chances are pretty good some of these same arguments have been going on amongst governments and militaries all over the world since the Geneva Convention was first signed. And until such a time that such administration discussions become law, to me, it’s just another think tank BS session.
The bottom line? If you have a beef with the president, that’s fine. But don’t act like everyone in the U.S. military is made up of mindless zombies who have no concept of what’s right or wrong, legal or illegal.
Den….
Um….
What exactly WAS your point then? Bush says that Belarus is the “last remaining dictatorship in Europe”, you come back with “Wow! Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Syria, Iran and dozens of other countries have become democracies over night! God help me, I do not think I can take four more years of this moron.”
You then admit that none of the countries mentioned are in Europe, meaning that Bush’s statement has NOTHING to do with your reply…well, I’m perplexed.
I thought that Clinton drove some of the right wing into fits of insanity but it’s nothing compared to how discombobulated the left has gotten over Bush. You’ve got 1335 days left. My advice–stay away from firearms.
Are you an expert on the Johnson administration? Have you gone through all of Johnson’s papers regarding the Vietnam war? Do you know for sure that no Johnson admisistration staffers wrote memos or discussed the pros and cons of various elements of the Geneva Convention? Do you know if any Johnson administration memos or other documents regarding the Vietnam were shredded? Do you know if there are documents from the Johnson administration that were classified during the Vietnam War and have yet to be declassified?
I never claimed to be an expert. However, if such memos did exist they would have come to light sometime in the last 40 years, as did the Pentagon Papers & the truth about the Gulf Of Tolkin incident.
Further, do you have any proof that in Iraq, the U.S. military issued blanket orders to its troops, based on an Executive Order, to ignore the Geneva Convention when handling POWs?
I also never claimed that such orders were issued. What I pointed out is that this administration has no problem with torturing people. This most likely gave the ones who did the torturing the belief that it was okay to do so because the administration’s position is ‘torture is acceptable in these situations’.
But don’t act like everyone in the U.S. military is made up of mindless zombies who have no concept of what’s right or wrong, legal or illegal.
I didn’t notice anyone making this claim.
Posted by Den at May 5, 2005 04:36 PM , 04:38 PM
HUH?
“… she ended it with “Don’t worry, we’ll have him out of office in November” referring to Bush; when most people in the room were thinking how great it would be if she was not in office.”
You do realize, of course, that telepathically-derived evidence is inadmissible in court…
As regard Abu Ghraib: When I was in AF Basic Training, we were taught in Military Law class that everything the troops do is the responsibility of their CO. We were also taught that this fact gives the CO remarkable latitude over what he/she can order the troops to do (or not do). Lt. Calley’s CO should have been held responsible for the actions of Calley’s platoon at My Lai, as he should have known, from personal contact, what sort of man he’d put in charge; similarly, the CO of the garrison at Abu Ghraib should have been keeping better tabs on what these guards were doing. The CO’s superior should have known he’d assigned someone to the job who wasn’t doing it. The responsibility does climb upward, in similar fashion, although it does get somewhat diluted at each level (thus, the Chief of Staff doesn’t get court-martialed for each offense committed, unless he [or, theoretically, she] actually authorized it).
But don’t act like everyone in the U.S. military is made up of mindless zombies who have no concept of what’s right or wrong, legal or illegal.
Never said that. However, while some in the military & the Bush Administration may have the concept, they certainly don’t give a dámņ anyways.
But don’t act like everyone in the U.S. military is made up of mindless zombies
Actually it was Henry Kissinger who did say “Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy”
quoted in Kiss the Boys Goodbye: How the United States Betrayed Its Own POWs in Vietnam.
Zell Miller surrendered to the Dark Side when he gave the speech at the Republican Convention.
I’m really, really sick of hearing anyone who call themself a Democrat claiming that the Dems are “too far to the left for the mainstream”.
I’m a little bit “sick of hearing anyone who call themself a Democrat” (sic) claiming for “themself” (sic) the prerogative to define the values of America’s oldest political party. If and when you do anything nearly as beneficial for either the United States or the Democratic Party as Zell Miller has contributed in his half century of public service, I’ll be sure to take your opinion seriously.
What the hëll do they mean by that anyway? You wanna see what “outside the mainstream” looks like? Just look at some of the kooks running the GOP now.
Curiously enough, those kooks have now won six straight Congressional elections, five of the last six Senates, and seven of the last ten Presidential elections. At the very least, it suggests to me that the mainstream is very kook-friendly. More probably, it suggests that you have no idea what the mainstream is really like. This is a center-right nation, and a conservative party with slight centrist leanings fares better than a liberal party with almost no centrist leanings. I’m a centrist (ask me about abortion and tax policies some time if you don’t believe me), and I vastly prefer the Republican party to the Democrats. In the 1990s Blair successfully moved his party to the center. Clinton didn’t. Look which party’s won an election recently. Don’t blame the one party that’s making a concerted effort to appeal to the center for the direction of the country, when the opposition party hasn’t been able to campaign on anything more convincing than a charismatic leader since 1976.
At the very least, it suggests to me that the mainstream is very kook-friendly.
And yet this exact same poster still looks at me funny when I say I’m still considering bailing on this whole f***ing place. Go figure.
(And if you think Frist and DeLay represent any sort of mainstream position, then … well, right now I don’t have the words and I’m just reading Bill’s last sentence of advice.)
TWL
who’s too tired, too stressed and too busy to wade into this thread in any meaningful way
Michael wrote: “Actually it was Henry Kissinger who did say “Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy”
Ha! This from a Nixon pawn. I never liked Kissinger anyway — I always thought he was an elitist. And although he seems to pop up as a talking head every time some U.S. foreign policy crisis arises, I can’t recall him being right about much of anything in years.
I wrote: At the very least, it suggests to me that the mainstream is very kook-friendly.
TWL responded: And yet this exact same poster still looks at me funny when I say I’m still considering bailing on this whole f***ing place. Go figure.
1) Surely you didn’t miss the sarcasm in using Mr Hall’s word “kook.” Surely.
2) I give you the funny look for writing off your country as some “f***ing place.” Last year I was upset that someone otherwise intelligent would bail. The more I think about it, though, the more I think that perhaps people who feel that way, who are willing to abandon this poor nation in the hands of vicious people like me, should leave. We can get along fine without them.
If and when you do anything nearly as beneficial for either the United States or the Democratic Party as Zell Miller has contributed in his half century of public service, I’ll be sure to take your opinion seriously.
Ahh, the automatic rejection of the opinions of others.
As if David himself can speak from a position that would make his opinion any more worthwhile than the opinions from the rest of us.
it suggests that you have no idea what the mainstream is really like.
Well, thankfully, we don’t need to take your opinions seriously or anything.
Not unless you’re a kook.
1) Oh, I caught the sarcasm. I simply think it’s also an accurate assessment, regardless of intent.
2) It ceased to be my country when it became “this f***ing place”. I dearly love America’s ideals and what America can be … but am deeply distressed by and fearful of what it has already become and where it appears to be headed. You think that’s worth a funny look, that’s your business.
And counselor, if you can find any place where I called you “vicious”, I’d be interested in seeing it. You were one of the people I’d said I trusted to be impartial on that whole “reinstate the draft” wager with Jerome, let’s recall. I’ve never called you vicious: not you specifically, and not Republicans or conservatives as a whole (or centrists, which is how you just self-identified). The current gang of thugs in power, yes, but I should think you’d be one of the first not to take that as an overgeneralization.
Interested in retracting your assessment, or is it too much fun being dismissive?
TWL
Actually, another thought just occurred to me on this whole “mainstream” question.
To those who say that the GOP is more in touch with America’s mainstream, let me ask this: can you name one single person on the far right who is TOO far right to be supported by most Republicans? There are plenty of people on the left who aren’t supported by most Democrats (some of whom I think are unfairly maligned, but that’s a topic for another time).
I’m not going to get into a litany of current GOP officeholders with connections to awfully scary places at the moment; others can do that if they’ve got the time to spare. I’m just honestly wondering — I can’t think of a single person on the right who the Republicans don’t embrace wholeheartedly, and I wonder exactly how “centrist” or “mainstream” a party can be in that situation.
‘Night, all.
TWL
You were one of the people I’d said I trusted to be impartial on that whole “reinstate the draft” wager with Jerome, let’s recall. I’ve never called you vicious: not you specifically, and not Republicans or conservatives as a whole (or centrists, which is how you just self-identified). The current gang of thugs in power, yes, but I should think you’d be one of the first not to take that as an overgeneralization.
I think my problem is in your distinction between the “current gang of thugs in power” and the rest of us centrists and Republicans (and I did self-identify as both). I voted for that gang twice. I’ve voted for that gang’s Congressional supporters several other times. And unless or until Jed Bartlett crawls out of my television and stands for office, I rather suspect I’ll continue supporting the party led by that “gang of thugs” for the foreseeable future. So no, I really don’t think it’s an overgeneralization to equate your criticism of “the gang of thugs in power” with an at least implicit criticism of those of us who intend to keep that gang in power.
I’m glad you think I’m smart. I’m glad you think I’m honest. I only know you from these discussions, but I respect what I know of you as well. You’re still wrong, but you’re a worthy opponent.
Interested in retracting your assessment, or is it too much fun being dismissive?
Sarcasm is always fun, and sometimes effective. My scorn was really directed at the notion you espoused rather than you personally, although I can see how you’d take it amiss in much the same way that I become irked by dismissive characterizations of the party I choose to support. We can agree to disagree, but I won’t moderate my disdain for bailing out instead of staying to fight.
As if David himself can speak from a position that would make his opinion any more worthwhile than the opinions from the rest of us.
That’s an excellent point. In fact, it’s a corollary of my point. You’ll notice I wasn’t the one presuming to define who or what truly belongs in a major political party. I don’t have that right. But neither does anyone else here, which is why I deride people who appoint themselves to speak for their people.
The only area in which I do claim to speak from a position that makes my opinion more worthwhile than the laity is the legal discussion we had earlier. I have a law degree. In fact, I’ve been a prosecutor since 1999. So when I make a statement about legal and constitutional interpretation, particularly involving criminal law, I generally have the training and experience to back it up, which I’ve tried to do by:
*trying to explain what constitutes solicitation to commit a felony
*hunting down the original flyer published by Schenck, which he (arguably) used to solicit a felony (I posted the link to it last year when whe had this debate, which PAD apparently forgot when he threw it back in my face this year. Go look if you don’t believe me.)
*posting the link to the Debs case, which was the real travesty
So yes, I do think that experience and knowledge can let one earn the right to speak from a position of authority. Miller earned the right to speak his mind about the party he’s been a leader in for so long, and it’s utter arrogance and small-mindedness to deride him as something less than a true Democrat.
“To those who say that the GOP is more in touch with America’s mainstream, let me ask this: can you name one single person on the far right who is TOO far right to be supported by most Republicans?”
First off; welcome back, Tim. It sounds, though, like you’re stressed out–if you are as close to finals as I am, that is quite understandable (not to mention I recall you have an upcoming move AND a small child…frankly, you could probably climb up a tower with a sniper rifle and most juries would be willing to cut you some slack…
As to your question…I doubt that Pat Robertson could get elected dogcatcher in any statewide election. I doubt he’d even get the Republican nomination, unless his opponent was a shrimp-headed welder with pods. What did the fool get when he ran for president? Pat Robertson has demonstrated a lack of connection with you average republican, so much so that he took his ball and went home.
One could also list Allan Keyes as someone who has pretty much destroyed any chance of success in the party by being too far right. The GOP thought they were getting an articulate ideologue when they nominated him against Barak Obama; when he started spouting craziness they cut him off at the knees.
On the talk radio front, while Michael Savage has a following, it isn’t anything he can parlay into national support–his TV show was a dud and not too many people marched in the streets to reinstate him when he got canned.
Of course, it all depends on what the meaning of the word “support” is. All these guys have a nice little niche where they do ok for themselves. So does Noam Chomsky and/or a tapeworm. When they venture out into the mainstream though, they get bìŧçh slapped and scurry back to the soft moist soil from whence they came.
What exactly WAS your point then?
The point is, Dumbya is strutting around like he’s creating all of these democracies.
What an ášš.
As I said to Michael above, the troops never received any orders that I know of to suspend the torture provisions of the Geneva Convention.
I think the key phrase is, “That you know of.”
And personally, I could care less what academic wranglings went on amongst Bush administration officials about what does and what does not constitute torture. Chances are pretty good some of these same arguments have been going on amongst governments and militaries all over the world since the Geneva Convention was first signed. And until such a time that such administration discussions become law, to me, it’s just another think tank BS session.
So, is “extraordinary rendition” just more think tank BS.”
The bottom line? If you have a beef with the president, that’s fine. But don’t act like everyone in the U.S. military is made up of mindless zombies who have no concept of what’s right or wrong, legal or illegal.
Don’t you ever get tired of making up things and pretending I said them for your strawmen? Where did I ever say that the military were a bunch of mindless zombies?
It’s funny, though, that our esteemed leaders always make a lot of noise about how the people in charge are responsible for everything that happens, until the sh!t hits the fan and then they’re the ones who blame it all on a group of mindless underlings.
David:
I think my problem is in your distinction between the “current gang of thugs in power” and the rest of us centrists and Republicans (and I did self-identify as both).
Well, I’ll agree that that’s YOUR problem and not mine…
To clarify: there are some Republicans I could see myself voting for given the right set of circumstances, and a far larger number of Republicans who, while I’d likely not vote them into office, would not make me think that their presence in office is endangering the state of the nation. It’s a very real distinction to me, which is why I’ve found Bill’s occasional “you’ll wind up going nuts if you do this every time conservatives are in ascendancy” pat on the head a bit off-putting. I *don’t* react this way most times an election goes the “wrong” way.
If a modern-day Victor Frankenstein were to put together some chimera that was specifically designed just to provoke as much fear, anxiety, and loathing in me as possible, I frankly doubt he could do a much better job than Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft (and his heir Gonzales), Rumsfeld, Frist, and DeLay have already proven themselves to be. Every single “hot button” issue of mine is one they’ve not only embraced, but broken into little pieces and then stomped on the pieces until they can do something really nasty.
That does not mean that every single person who voted for them evokes the same reaction, however. I voted for Kerry this election, but very much as a “lesser of two evils” choice: Kerry was a MUCH lesser evil IMO, but very far from my picture of the ideal candidate.
If you really think there’s no distinction between you and those in power, you’re implicitly claiming that you agree not only with the public stances they’ve taken, but with the demagogic tactics they use on a regular basis and with their choice on which issues to prioritize and which ones to downplay. Now if that’s really what you mean to say, I’ll agree that the distinction is meaningless — but I’ll also be very surprised to hear you say it.
We can agree to disagree, but I won’t moderate my disdain for bailing out instead of staying to fight.
This, alas, is really not worth much more than a “bite me”. You want to characterize my entire world-view as nothing more than “bailing out instead of staying to fight” without knowing any more of me than what you read here, fine — but it’s frankly conduct unbecoming someone in a profession that’s supposed to stand for well-crafted argument and proper research.
TWL
First off; welcome back, Tim. It sounds, though, like you’re stressed out–if you are as close to finals as I am, that is quite understandable (not to mention I recall you have an upcoming move AND a small child…frankly, you could probably climb up a tower with a sniper rifle and most juries would be willing to cut you some slack…
Thanks — and yes, just a bit of stress at the moment. When you think about the big life changes (becoming first-time parents, becoming first-time homeowners, moving cross-country, assuming jobs with likely permanence attached), most sane individuals spread them out. We’re doing all of them in the same 12 months, most of them in the same 3 months. Not really avoidable, but also not especially bright.
As to your question…I doubt that Pat Robertson could get elected dogcatcher in any statewide election.
While that may well be true, that’s not quite sufficient to meet my criterion IMO. As I see it, if his advice is taken seriously by at least one major figure in the party that qualifies as “support.” I don’t recall anyone high up in the GOP distancing themselves from Robertson, even after he joined with Falwell in blaming 9/11 on gays and atheists.
(And he may well have demonstrated “a lack of connection with the average Republican”, but as my reply to David should indicate I don’t think the current leadership is anything even faintly resembling “the average Republican.”)
One could also list Allan Keyes as someone who has pretty much destroyed any chance of success in the party by being too far right. The GOP thought they were getting an articulate ideologue when they nominated him against Barak Obama; when he started spouting craziness they cut him off at the knees.
Did they? He lost the election and everyone knew he was going to, sure — but I don’t recall him being “cut off at the knees” by the GOP. On the other hand, I also didn’t follow the Illinois race much beyond September, so if there are fun things that happened in the fall I may have missed them.
On the talk radio front, while Michael Savage has a following, it isn’t anything he can parlay into national support–his TV show was a dud and not too many people marched in the streets to reinstate him when he got canned.
That’s the best choice of the three you’ve mentioned, though I also wonder here at least a little. Have major GOP figures appeared on his radio show to drum up support? Has he been sent talking points? Has anyone in the leadership quoted him approvingly to make a point? If the answer to any of those is “yes”, then I think that still counts as “support.”
[I don’t know the answer to those last few questions, and don’t have time to check at the moment — they’re honest questions, not rhetorical.]
TWL
What constitutes torture? Can we do anything other than politely ask our prisoners for information? Is sleep deprivation torture? What about just enough food to keep one alive, but no more? Is yelling at them torture? Scaring them? Making them eat pork?
Toying with prisoners for fun is wrong; so is electrifying their privates (or colonels). There is certainly a line, but what is the line for most of you?