Friday Open Thread
I've been without computer access over a lot of the last two weeks but here is an open thread. President Bush says the Justice Department will not be allowed to pursue contempt charges against his administration in areas where executive privilege is claimed. (link ) The stock market is up. Housing and the dollar are down. And Iraq is still a mess. Have a great weekend!
Submitted by Mike Pridmore on Fri, 2007-07-20 07:46
Tags:
Comments :
so the lack of computer access
eventually brought over evolution of some of your senses to be able to plug into the internet directly with your mind? Cool!
I thought this was interesting: General needs until November to assess Iraq
I think just enough progress needs to be made by September to hold enough Republicans together to push the final assessment of the Surge till November.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
LOL not yet
able to directly connect to the internet solely via mind power. But I am working on getting a laptop to use a wireless connectivity available where I am staying now.
In defense of the chickenhawk aspersion
is the title of a piece I wrote
over at the Forvm. I didn't put it here because it's motivated by (and sort of in response to) previous discussion there, but feel free to jump in on the Forvm if the topic interests you!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Great piece, Brendan.
I agree with you entirely. The Chickenhawk argument is both 1) a little specious, since we don't make experience a requirement in making other arguments, and 2) still pretty valid, since the gravity of war is something that needs to be experienced before ordering other people into it.
Well done.
One of the responses baffled me a bit: "But your argument here does strike me as more than a bit silly, particularly as the war remains most popular with those segments of the population most likely to have served or who are actually serving." Is that backed up by anything like numbers, or is it just based on a vague idea of demographics? Purely anecdotal here, but I don't know anyone who considers the war 'popular', and I'm in deep in Republicanville at the moment. (Right now, the closest anyone gets to supporting it is suggesting that we can't pull out because of the impending chaos)
Incidentally, my best friend from high school just got back from his third tour of duty, so I'll get to see him tomorrow for the first time since he's gotten back from Kabul. Glad to have him back safe.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Thanks, and glad to hear
your friend is well. I've always been told that the military is strongly conservative and that they support the war in Iraq, and maybe I just take it on faith at this point. I would think it's not unreasonable that the war is most popular with that group as compared to the rest of the population, although how popular it is I don't know.
I'll dig around a bit this weekend if I get a chance, see if there are some useful polls.
Your (1) and (2) put it better than I did, I think I ruffled some feathers over there...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
What's the old proverb?
You can't skin a chicken without ruffling some feathers? :)
Seriously, though: I think you took an excellent stab at a topic that's very, very polarizing: people on the left do use it as a criticism of the right, and people on the right are furious with it. It'd be easy to dismiss that as merely partisan, but I think you did a great job picking apart the complexities of it.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
In a way...
it's the same argument the right uses concerning Al Gore's "carbon footprint" or John Edwards' "war on poverty".
It comes down to hypocrisy.... or the appearance of it.
When John Edwards is getting expensive haircuts and living in 20,000 square foot mansions, his anti-poverty rants ring a little hollow with people.
If Al Gore is driving around in an SUV that gets 12 miles per gallon, it takes something away from his crusade.
...and when Dick Cheney or George Bush cavalierly send our young men and women to war, while doing everything in their power to avoid it as young men, it rubs people the wrong way.
But I do agree with the chicken-hawk label on young 18-to-24 year old "College Republicans".
They are of age. They are gung-ho about the war. They call the war on "Islamo-fascists" the "ultimate struggle of our times".
But they can't be bothered to enlist.
A 50-year-old who is pro-war isn't able to enlist, even if he wanted to ..... but these College Republicans
are the ultimate hypocrites.
They CAN put their money where their mouth is... but they can't be bothered to do so.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
Executive Privelege Trumps All
Say good-bye to checks and balances if Bush/Cheney have their way.
The Pleasure of the President
End of Story. Got that. No More Questions. President sez.
President to Congress and the American people. Shut Up.
Dolchstosslegende
It is the economy, stupid.
They don't realize it
but they are making an excellent argument for impeachment. By attempting to castrate the Congress, the WH is making impeachment the only remaining option.
qui tacet consentire
The lawyer that impeached Bill Clinton agrees
Bruce Fein is urging the Congress to take this action as a remedy.
He is pretty much furious. And he voted for Bush twice!
It is the economy, stupid.
This is, in fact, the correct policy.
Executive privilege only applies to the President. It gets extended to his subordinates only in the sense that they are acting as an extension of him/her.
So when he/she invokes executive privilege and compels his subordinates to comply the matter is pretty much out of their hands. Pursuing contempt charges against the subordinates would be a travesty of justice because putting them at risk based on the actions of the President makes no sense at all. It is the President's decision to invoke Executive Privilege, not theirs, and to the extent that their positions are merely an extension OF the President they should be bound to upholding that decision.
They should be effectively shielded from prosecution in these cases which is all the President is asserting. From your article we find:
Do you actually contend that subordinates should go to jail because of Bush's decision to invoke Executive Privilege?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Your argument
is another compelling reason to impeach -- if the president can compel the silence of anyone in his administration to thwart an investigation, then the onus is on him and the only remedy for that is to remove him from office.
qui tacet consentire
I agree.
The only way that Congress can combat Executive Privilege is with Impeachment but it is not clear to me how they can compel him to cooperate even under those circumstances.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
On Privilege: Nonsense
Don't be ridiculous. They can hold as many officials as they choose in inherent contempt and order them locked up until they testify. While it may be inadvisable to extend this as far as the President himself, it is arguably within their power.
Congress can choose to honor the privilege claim or not in the same manner that the courts could.
Congress and the Courts can do whatever they want ...
in terms of ordering people to be locked up, but if the executive refuses to comply with said order (e.g. by actually locking anyone up) there ain't much they can do about it.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Sgt@Arms
The Sergeant at Arms for the House and Senate both have the authority to make arrests. The arrestee can then be held without any prosecution necessary. Foiling an Inherent Contempt charge would require the President to actively use force to stop an arrest.
This is a criminal act (obstruction of justice also applies to obstructing congress) and you would CERTAINLY have your constitutional crisis at that point
And his jurisdiction includes what?
The best I could find was this blurb from the Capitol Police (of which he is technically part) on wikipedia:
While they are in charge of the protection of members of Congress throughout the US it seems that their investigative Jurisdiction (and presumably their arrest powers) are limited to a 200 block area around the Capitol building.
If you find something to the contrary I would be happy to know the details, but if this is the case then simply staying outside of their Jurisdiction would be sufficient to keep from being arrested by them, would it not? Outside of that area Congress would need to rely on the executive to enforce their order, correct?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Not a big deal
but I find it humorous that you denigrated the 'liberal' wikipedia (2X in the last day) when the facts don't support you, but other times (here) you use it as a reference to be refuted by others. Consistency?
The level of bias ...
varies from article to article. This is not surprising in the least given my stated rationale for why the bias even exists. On those hot button issues so near and dear to the hearts of liberals they will flock to the Wikipedia to insure that they points are made. On less controversial topics or on points that favor the Republican viewpoint the bias will tend to be reduced.
You could, I suppose, make the counter claim of a conservative bias in some articles but I would still claim that the effect is reduced. As I have said before, the group mindset of the liberals pre-disposes them towards contributing to things like Wikipedia and that this is one of the factors in creating the bias in the first place.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
In other words
you can use it when it is convenient for you, but others cannot when it is not convenient for you. Consistency?
Actually no.
That is not what I said or meant. That is merely your own fantasy and is not supported by any facts.
While I will reference Wikipedia from time to time I have never held it to be a definitive reference for anything. The value there is only as good as the references it relies on and the personal biases of the contributors, the quality of which does vary from article to article. Do you disagree?
If you do disagree, why do some pages have notices at the top indicating that the references and/or neutrality of the articles are in question?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I'm not in this discussion yet, but....
I would not disagree that the personal biases of the contributors vary from article to article... but in your posts above you seem to be saying that you are the sole arbiter of whether the biases affect the accuracy of the wikipedia article.
For purposes of discussions in SwordsCrossed, it appears that if the personal bias of the wikipedia article editors appears to lean left, then you question the accuracy of the article. If the personal bias appears to lean right, then you consider the article to be a reliable source.
Did any of the articles that you dismissed out of hand have such notices at the top?
The bottom line here...and I think the others have a good point... is that you cannot discount a resource of information when it doesn't suit your position and then turnaround and use the same resource when it does. If you have a problem with a Wikipedia article's accuracy, then point out where it is factually wrong. Screaming "bias" about an article doesn't make the article inaccurate.
Sometimes Fox News gets a story right, even though they are biased to the right.
Sometimes PBS gets a story right too.
Bias only enters into it when the accuracy of the facts is in question. Was the accuracy in question?
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
RE: I'm not in this discussion yet, but....
With all due respect, well duh?!?
When I believe that an article is biased to the left, then I discount it. When I believe that an article is factually accurate, then I cite it. Don't act like the rest of you don't do likewise. But what do you know, when I think a given article is factually accurate YOU would consider it to be leaning to the right. Isn't that amazing.
I acknowledged as much above.
Really? So you don't believe that one can cherry pick facutally accurate material to produce a biased result? I see people on the left doing this all the time and in a myriad of ways.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
uh huh...
And you never see it occurring on the right?
The pre-war "intelligence" was an exercise in cherry-picking of the highest order.
My point is... a "fact" should be evaluated based on its accuracy... not on the individual that is reporting the fact.
If Al Franken says the sky is blue, it is not factually incorrect just because you don't like his politics.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
RE: And you never see it
Me? No, I don't see that. But what do you think that I meant by the following comments:
I never claimed it was one sided. So why do you think that I am wrong when I do these things but it is OK for so many of the liberals on this site to do the same thing? Consistency as Specter would say?
Where have I contradicted this? In fact, I have argued exactly this very same point on several occasions with jasmine and others when they were the ones claiming "biased sources."
The fact that I am not going to spend time reading through a bunch of cherry picked references with a liberal bias says nothing about the factual accuracy or inaccuracy of that content. I will not have evaluated the content on it merits by definition in this case.
In these instances I just refuse be distracted into chasing a bunch of one-sided points which were thrown up as a means of distracting or deflecting the discussion (at least IMHO).
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Strawman
Can you show me where a liberal says you are wrong to use wikipedia? I only said you were inconsistent in your criticism.
OK, fair enough.
And I have given you valid reasons for my exhibiting that inconsistency which are NOT the same reasons which you want to imply. I am not claiming to have been consistent in my objections to Wikipedia articles, merely that I have valid reasons for being so that have nothing to do with the reasons that you want to deceive people into believing (i.e. your lies in this instance).
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
But you missed his most
important point:
Here are the articles if I remember correctly:
Waterboarding
from this discussion 
or
Unlawful Combatant
in this discussion 
I believe there was another, but I can't find it at the moment. Still, these two examples suffice.
In the irony of all ironies, let's take a look at the wikipedia article
you cited which I called you 
on. Hmm... Interesting.
(edit): I do agree that blatantly biased sources should be taken with a grain of salt, but I'm not sure if wikipedia counts as an automatically biased source depending on whether their article supports your point or not.
RE: But you missed his most
Irrelevant. I never made any claims concerning the existence or lack thereof of these notices on the specific arcticles in question. The POINT, obviously, was that even the wikipedia maintainers recognize the existence of at least "a problem" if not the exact problem that I am describing.
You picked a rather funny article to "call me on". I tried in earnest to find a better reference but simply couldn't. So, as it clearly stated:
These are hardly the statements of someone holding the wikipedia article I referenced as being a definitive reference, is it?
On the waterboarding discussion you reference above I clearly made the point:
Which effectively renders the question of whether I accept or reject the wikipedia article in that discussion completely moot and irrelevant. If it somehow makes you feel better then I remove my objection to the wikipedia article in this instance but I stand by my use of the Specter defense as should you, right? Assuming you want to be consistent, of course. We will also get to check you on that point in one of my earlier posts today as well.
On the Unlawful Combatant discussion this comment:
Was prompted more by the Human Rights Watch reference than the wikipedia article, but this issue is such a hot button issue for the liberals that I honestly don't even have to look at the wikipedia article to know that it will be 90-100% Democrat talking points, and thus biased from my perspective.
At any rate I responded by directly quoting from the actual Geneva Conventions documents. Do you somehow consider the layperson descriptions found in the wikipedia to be superior to actually reading the text of the controlling documents? Personally I prefer first hand documents not some liberal hashed over interpretation thereof as we have in BOTH of the references that pico prvoided.
Now, since you want to talk about consistency, since both you and pico want to consider wikipedia infallible and reference worthy in all cases I fail to understand why you would object to my choosing to cite them as a source where I feel that they actually DO have value in that regard. Are you being consistent?
If you feel that any of my references are biased feel free to object even if it IS from the wikipedia. I freely extend the same liberties to you as I take for myself. Is this not what it means to be consistent?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Please cite the following:
When did I say wikipedia was infallible?
When did I say I objected to you using wikipedia? (To clarify: I said your criticism was inconsistent, not that I objected to you using it. It was more surprise that you would use it after knocking it twice just minutes before than my disdain of the source or its information--Honestly, I have no idea what you were talking about when you used this source nor do I care what you were talking about).
When did I say your sources were biased?
When did you say it was ok for us to use it (in the examples we are discussing)?
It must be easy to slay an army of strawmen. :-)
RE: Please cite the following:
Well, you didn't actually say those words, per se, but you implied it with this whole consistency meme and, as we know for the Bush lied meme, implying something is the same that as actually SAYING it. Your (collective liberal) rules, not mine.
Conceded this point above.
When did I say you said that? :)
When did I say it wasn't OK? :)
Besides, your point is silly. I can't stop you from using whatever references you want to. I just don't have to respond to them if I don't want to because I happen to think that they are biased.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Can you show me
how me saying you are inconsistent implies wikpedia is infallible?
As for when you said it was not ok, you immediately discounted our sources (already cited above) when we presented them to you without you showing us where the bias is.
You should have some evidence of the bias before you throw the charge around.
Can we move on?
Kudos for managing to outlast me on this one. Your tenacity is noteworthy! :)
(1) Fine, I concede, you didn't imply that wikipedia was infallible.
(2) The whole point of my claiming bias is so that I don't ahve to wade through the stupid thing. Did it raise any substantive FACTS that didn't come out in the rest of the discussion anyway?
(3) My charge of bias is a systemic one, not one based on the specifics of any given article. I have presented my argument on that point.
The effect in wikipedia is exactly the same effect as in the MSM. It is not an organized conspiracy on the part of the left, but rather the simple artifact of numbers of contributors. I assert that more liberals tend to contribute to both of these examples than do conservatives. As such, it produces a bias.
This same bias applies to the presence of the warnings on the pages as well. More liberal contributors = more complaints of a conservative bias. So, if anything, I expect the warnings to actually be biased in the reverse direction (i.e. they are better at indicating conservative biases than liberal ones for similar reasons). This also means that they will be centered aournd the skewed mean of actual constributors as opposed to around a truly objective neutral position.
This is also consistent with my PoB( wikipage ) argument elsewhere. The more controversial a Democrat Talking point the more likely that hordes of liberal contributors will show up and bias the results.
You are free to discount my assertion if you wish, but I will still hold this to be true. I am not demanding that you agree with my POV.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Irrelevant?
You brought it up
originally:
Yes, irrelevant.
Let me repeat myself for your benefit:
As I state in the quote above, THE POINT was merely that even wikipedia recognizes that it has problems with references and/or neutrality. I did NOT make any claims regarding which specific articles had or did not have these warnings. The warnings come and go as a given article evolves. They can be here today, gone tomorrow, and back the day after that.
So Prime Mover's question regarding whether the articles I was complaining about had any such warnings is IRRELEVANT in the sense that I never claimed that they did.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I think this
conversation is over since you cannot argue here in good faith, and we are basically back to GoRight gets to determine whether a source is convenient for him by its argument instead of judging the bias by the alert warnings at the top of the page (which you brought up and I agreed with until you got caught in your own bias trap). What is the indicator that there is perceived biases other than the banners we are discussing?
Furthermore, where is the evidence of bias in the articles you discredited?
Basically this comes down to you being able to discredit any opponent's use of a relatively comprehensive source while you get to use it at whim without any external evidence of its bias.
Again, I ask where is your consistency?
This is what I was trying to say...
Based on GoRight's criteria, there is no source of information we could use to support our point of view.
Any article we cite, if it contradicts his point of view, would be considered "biased".
We could use the Wall Street Journal, and his comment would be "not every writer at the WSJ is conservative, and the author of this particular article is obviously biased to the left."
It's easy to always be right when you can automatically discount any source of information that conflicts with your world view.
There are no incontrovertible facts anymore when you accept that standard. Only "my" facts and "your" facts.
It's ingenious, in a way. Being able to decide on a case-by-case basis which facts you'll accept and which you'll ignore means never having to say "Oops. I was wrong."
...and conservatives call us proponents of "moral relativity". ;-)
If some facts contradict GoRight's point of view, those facts are no longer facts. Get it?
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
Which makes the case
Why use sources at all? Why waste the time citing links?
It just comes to point of view in the end. Just state your point of view and argue it that way.
My point of view for the day.
Having Alberto Gonzales represent Justice in the White House is a joke. He is an inveterate hack.
No messy sourcing, just fact based opinion. I am right because all of the facts are in my favor, because 'I said so'.
It is the economy, stupid.
A mischaracterization of my position.
(1) Facts are not biased, interpretation and selective editing are (or certainly can be).
(2) I have never disputed facts, only interpretations thereof. To dispute facts is folly.
(3) A wikipedia article is not a fact (in the sense being discussed here). It is an interpretation and a presentation of a set of facts. When I discount the wikipedia article as being biased, I am not rejecting the facts contained therein I am rejecting the interpretation and presentation of those facts. The facts themselves are, well, rather like facts (i.e. stubborn things).
(4) If I agree to start from a biased source I am giving the advantage to my opponent. I see no reason to do so. This is why I consistently try to argue from first hand sources. While I occasionally reference sources such as wikipedia out of convenience if the discussion goes deeper I always move in the direction of first hand sources. Why? To remove the bias.
Your contention that I am taking this position as a means of being selective on the facts is deceitful and a lie. As I offered to Specter, I will likewise offer to everyone, if I reject a source as being biased feel free to highlight the specific facts, preferrably in terms of first hand sources, and I will be more than happy to address them.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Disagreement with GR = "Deceit and Lie"
My contention is based on a reasonable interpretation of your comments on the subject to this point.
To refer to that as "deceitful and a lie" is to engage in hyperbole... a tactic about which you have expressed a significant amount of disdain for.
I'm stating the following assertion:
The above statement is a reasonable assertion to make based on your comments thus far.
If you dispute it, fair enough... that doesn't make me a "deceitful liar".
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
RE: Disagreement with GR = "Deceit and Lie"
I am sorry, but we have to follow the rules. You have not been around long enough to have gone through the "Bush Lied" meme a while back, specifically about Iraq's involvement in 9/11.
The bottom line of the whole thing is that I have challenged, and said challenge remains open BTW, anyone to provide a clear quote from President Bush that "Iraq attacked us on 9/11". What I got back was a bunch of hand waving arguments that relied on people claiming that he implied it (which is also false BTW) by conflating discussions of Iraq and 9/11. Surprisingly I also got back a couple of references where Bush explicitly DENIES any such connection and yet these were somehow evidence of his having made the claim he was denying.
From this derived the "An Implication which has the Effect of Being Misleading (Regardless of the Speaker's Intent) is a Lie Rule." I have shortened this to just the "A Deceitful Implication is a Lie Rule" for brevity.
Note that a corollary of this rule is the "An Implication is a Statement Rule." which is an inherent part of the above argument.
These are NOT my rules, BTW, but the rules employed by many liberals as part of the Bush Lied meme. I frequently adopt the "rules" of debate as employed by my opponents so as to promote a level playing field in this respect. I have argued fervently against these particular "rules" in the past so please don't attribute them to me. Give credit where credit is due.
Regarding your previous statement, it had the effect of giving people the false impression that I was discounting "facts" as being biased, which obviously they never could be (being facts, after all). Your intent in this matter is apparently not required for me to level the charge of it being a lie, and since it was promoting a false idea it is deceitful to boot (sort of a corollary to being a lie).
If you object to these rules I suggest that you take it up with the proponents of the "Bush Lied" contingent. As long as this is part of the rules of debate here in all fairness I should be allowed to employ it, correct? Or are you suggesting that others can invoke this rule but I cannot for some reason?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Oh come on
The Bush lied discussion went way farther than Iraq (we got you on Katrina, remember?), and the Iraq discussion dealt with 'the right', not just Bush.
Man you have a selective memory.
RE: Oh come on
I was just trying to keep you people from going off on all sorts of tangents, but fine, I stand corrected. Many liberals on this site have been lying about Bush on a whole range of topics, not just Iraq and 9/11. Better now, Specter? :)
Here are a couple of pointers into the discussion. Knock yourself out:
And here's the "gotcha" the Specter likes to hold up as my having been "gotten":
DISCLAIMER: There may be even earlier examples, but this is a representative sample. [ To avoid Specter going spastic over my leaving something out or having slective memory. ]
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I reject...
As I was not party to the discussions on the "Bush Lied" meme, I reject having the "rules of engagement" that you perceived to have come out of them applied to me.
My only comment on the "Bush Lied" topic, and I really don't want to open an old discussion here, is this:
I would phrase the comment, in order to be accurate, as "The Bush Administration Lied".
While words specifically uttered from his mouth may not have linked Iraq to 9/11, words from those who worked for him and in doing so represented him did exactly that.
Al Capone didn't have to pull the trigger to be guilty of the crime.
Members of the Bush Administration most clearly and directly did link Iraq to 9/11... in doing so, they represented their boss. I'm sure others listed many of the links showing these actual quotes, so I won't do so. If you press me on this, however, I will get the links.
(which you, of course, will dismiss out of hand as coming from "biased" sources anyway)
The correct and factual statement for those of my political persuasion is "The administration lied".
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
I provided links into the previous discussions
above. Skim through them to see if you have anything new to add.
How do you define "The Bush Administration"? The entirety of the executive branch, or something smaller?
EDIT:
Oh, and just like your "intent to deceive" is irrelevant to the point being made, so is your objection to my use of "the rules" as I call them. As long as people are free to use the rules against me, I am free to use the same rules against my opponents. Just to keep the playing field level, of course.
EDIT 2:
And as long as I am going to the rule book, I am going to have to invoke the "Specter's Rule of Bad Inductive Logic" on this one too:
That is unless you can produce a direct quote from every member of the group called "The Bush Administration."
Specter, you better get on this one. He even used the "The" word! :)
Oh, and as a point of clarification, which definition of "lie" are you intending here? The one described in the rules above, wherein your statement is true enough, I guess, or the one that actually requires the accused to SAY what you said they said and that they INTENDED it to be a deception? Because by the latter you will have a hard time of it.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Ahhh, the circle is complete
But to be fair, you are absolutely justified based on all the past grief you got over not qualifying which specific subset you meant. You could link it here, for inquiring minds who wish to know the background.
I still think it would be much easier to communicate if we tried to focus on what someone means (the message) rather than pick apart their word choices (the medium).
Just sayin'
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
No raining on my parade! :)
I am getting quite a set of "liberal debate rules" put together. I think I will enshrine them into a diary soon with good pointers to the discussions.
I haven't really considered my purpose in belaboring this point since I agree with yours (i.e. debating the content rather than the medium), but I feel obligated to point out a nauseatingly large number of examples here so that when these come up again with respect to my points I will have plenty of examples where the purpetrators thought the argument was absurd.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Hmm, not quite
because in colloquial English, we are more apt to understand that leadership roles of specified groups stand for the groups themselves.
For example, if there is a cover-up of sex abuse in the Catholic Church by some bishops, priests, or the Pope (hypothetically), it is admissible to say the Catholic Church covered up sex abuse. We would not have to go through every member of the Church to see if they covered up the abuse, just the leaders. Same with any other group-proper (the NAACP, the Democratic Party, the NRA, etc.*).
Another example is if America went to war with another country only the president (and Congress) can initiate this act as representatives of America. Not every American would have to physically engage in attacking the country for the statement of "America attacked X" to be true.
Since the Bush Administration is this type of group, it falls under this type of category, so not every person in Bush's administration would have to lie to make this statement true, just the leaders/higher ups/official representatives. The term 'leaders' is admittedly a bit slippery, but as I said it is usually (an) official representative(s).
One may want to argue that these actions are also 'sanctioned' (not punished, not a singular event/systemic, etc.) so as not to use only extreme cases which may still be an inductive fallacy.
*Please note that this does not mean you can say that the members of these are intertwined with the statement/accusation. For example, if you say the Catholic Church covered-up sexual abuse, you would not say that all Catholics participated (only the leadership or those in a representative position). Same with all of the other group members (blacks, democrats, NRA members respectively for my above examples, etc). In the example we discussed previously, you used blanket group members (liberals for example) instead of official representatives of the group as I'm discussing here.
P.S. These expositions are for naught since you (GoRight) do not actually believe that these are inductive fallacies anyway unless you wish to admit to your past errors. (Consistency?) :-)
P.S.
Congrats on your secured third place in the HoF for most comments.
Too bad about half of them were 'I agree' responses to MadScientist.
Just kidding ; )
As always, I appreciate your contributions here.
I have explained my previous statements.
This is a lie. I never implied or stated that the articles that I objected to had these warnings. If I did, then show me where or STFU.
I have stated my position and purpose in bringing up the warnings as being a counter to your apparant faith in the inherent objectivity of the wiki as a resource, nothing more.
I have stated the source of my claim of a liberal bias above. The argument is applicable to every page on the wikipedia site, and as I have stated the effect is largest on those pages which are of particular interest to liberals or are particularly useful in supporting Democrat talking points. This should not be a surprising result.
To borrow a technique from Tlaloc (imitation being the sincerest form of compliment):
PoB( wikipage ) = % overlap with Democrat Talking Points.
In other words, the probability of bias (PoB) on a given wikipedia page (as it applies to this discussion) depends on the amount of overlap between the material on that page and Democrat talking points. Note that as the percentage of overlap with Democrat Talking points rises that the probability of bias approaches 1.
As I said above, you are free to disagree or even make the counter charge if you like, but I am operating from the perspective described above, and I apply this perspective consistently. :)
Are you arguing that wikipedia has no bias on these types of pages (even sans warnings), or that we have to be in agreement as to the level of that bias? I think in both of these cases we will have trouble reaching agreement. Since neither side will yield, let us agree to disagree on this point.
If I resort to this tactic in the future and you feel that the source that I have objected to contains particularly pertinent points that I am glossing over then point those out specifically and I will consider them on a point by point basis. Fair enough?
What I seek to avoid is being stonewalled in a discussion by a reference to a wikipedia page which contains large volumes of material most of which is only ancillary to the discussion at the time. This leaves me open to continued cherry picking unless I address every single point in the damn article which is clearly a waste of time in my mind.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Woo hoo. Finally can answer this
In the Supreme court case
MCGRAIN v. DAUGHERTY, the authority of the Deputy Sergeant at Arms of the Senate to arrest someone in Cincinnati was upheld.
Ha!
Agreed. It's Bush's problem for having invoked
executive privilege in the first place, but things should get interesting pretty soon. There is no "executive privilege" per se on the books, so its boundaries aren't all that clearly defined. In fact, it's been successfully challenged recently: when Clinton tried to prevent staffers from testifying in the Lewinsky debacle.
I think Bush may be able to make a case for privilege in some circumstances (NSA decision-making, for example), but I'm not sure his arguments will hold for others (the US Attorneys investigation). The former could reasonably be considered a protective measure to ensure state secrets, but there's nothing necessarily "secret" about the latter - plus I don't see a court smiling on political meddling in the judiciary.
Even more baffling: why invoke executive privilege to prevent investigation of the Tillman
story? I'm not sure if ESPN is covering it like they used to, but I could see that losing the President a lot of supporters.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
RE: Agreed. It's Bush's problem for having invoked
I mostly agree, and I have no idea about the Tillman thing other than it was a friendly fire death and they simply want to prevent the media circus that will get drummed up again.
The only point I disagree with is the view that the USA firings are "medling in the Judiciary". The USAs are not now, nor have they ever been, part of the Judiciary. The prosecutors are always part of the executive even at the state level, I think.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Legally sound
I certainly agree. Legally speaking, it makes no sense for a subordinate of President Bush to be prosecuted for contempt when the President himself directed the subordinate to act in that way.
Of course, the real problem is that if the executive branch commits a crime (or is suspected of committing a crime), the legislature has absolutely no way to investigate.
I am interested in hearing how you would go about attempting to investigate possible executive branch crimes. Is impeachment and inherent contempt the only tools the legislature has to compel members of the executive branch to testify?
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Independent counsel
is the least messy remedy. But I think the statute or whatever it is has to be reinstated. Are there 67 votes to override a veto.
I keep hearing Bruce Fein, speak on this, and he says basically that Congress does not have a full grasp and understanding of the constitution. They need a class or something.
Either that or democrats who aren't afraid to start raising their voices in Congressional hearings.
Patrick Leahy to Mr. Gonzales," I asked you a question, and I direct you to answer it. This is a democracy. Now answer the question."
I can't imagine why the D's aren't standing up on this, unless they know that when they are in power they will have a free ride...... .
It seems a bit nutty to me.
It is the economy, stupid.
RE: Independent counsel
Except that Special Counsel would have to be appointed by the Attorney General and, obviously in this case, Bush would simply direct Gonzales not to do so.
If the President decides to stonewall on something like this the only tool available seems to be Impeachment.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
RE: Legally sound
This is true only in the case of Executive Privilege having been invoked. Up to that point Congress CAN compel people to testify in their hearings and charge them with contempt if they do not.
As far as I can tell, the only tool that Congress has to fight Executive Privilege is Impeachment.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Legally sound? Is that your opinion as a lawyer?
If not, say rather it is your personal opinion on fairness. And actually seems somewhat odd to me.
Let's look at another case of privilege. Attorney-Client privilege is to protect the client, but if the attorny refuses to explain why privilege should apply or defies a court order to testify DESPITE the claim, the attorney is held in contempt. Not the client who orders them not to testify.
If congress refuses to accept that executive privilege applies, or that the failure to even show up is contemptous in and of itself, there is nothing 'unfair' about holding the subordinate in contempt any more than it is 'unfair' that the attorney is held in contempt in the analogous case.
Honoring the President's request to defy the legal authority of congress is contempt. And if the president fired anyone for speaking truthfully to congress, regardless of whether it was in the face of a privilege request, it could become obstruction on his part.
RE: Legally sound? Is that your opinion as a lawyer?
Nice try by the analogy is invalid. The Attorney is not acting as an extension of the client in the same sense that the subordinate is, especially with respect to the act with which they are being charged. A more apt analogy would be the 5th Amendment protections, not that I am suggesting that anything illegal has occurred in this case.
When the subordinate in question was acting in the course of their jobs, they were exercising the President's powers on his behalf. As such, those actions are essentially the same as if the President himself had conducted them. This is clearly different than the Attorney-Client case you present.
As I stated in my reply above, Congress can jump up and down until they are blue in the face. If the President refuses to take action on any order they may issue for someone to be locked up, there ain't much that they can do about it other than try to remove him from office (i.e. Impeachment).
Actually, firing them for refusing to obey his directive would in no way be obstruction. Cooperating with Congress against his directive is not a guarantee of employment, nor does their firing in any way hinder their continued cooperation.
Now, if I found myself in one of these subordinate's positions I would definitely honor his directive. If Congress or the Courts decided to jail me for my actions I would definitely want the man with the power to Pardon and Commute sentences to be in my corner. YMMV.
Are you actually going to say that people under Bush should be held accountable for his decision to invoke Executive Privilege