Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
this is really a funny line of argument that you're pursuing, ace.
say one were to concede it, in all it's self-evidence---because the
"shocking" center of your position is self-evident, at least in its surface features: yes congress capitulated. yes, congress acted in an appalling fashion by giving bush such authorities as it gave, and in language that arguably opened onto even more authorities, which the administration simply took. and yes, there is an element of backtracking in the responses of congress since the last elections.
EVERYONE KNOWS THIS ACE DARLING---but *you* seem to be under the impression that this self-evident fact of the matter is a great revelation. where the hell have you been?
|
Are you saying that everyone knows that Democratic party leaders have been duped by the administration or that their rhetoric against the administration has been empty B.S.?
Quote:
the bush administration has generated what ought to be by any rational standard a series of problems for the entire american political order.
this is crisis management.
duh.
|
If what you say is true and so obvious, why isn't congress doing more? Why aren't the American people demanding more? Our current state of affairs regarding Iraq seems to be far from a crisis to me. Seems like the reported FISA violations by the administration is not at a crisis level, hell, Congress may even pass legislation to forgive the telecoms. And they have not taken any action against Bush for his alleged crimes. Oh, and let's not forget the latest spending bill for the continuation of the occupation in Iraq. You think these actions/inactions are managing a crisis?
Quote:
but that's not what is interesting in your last post.
here's another version:
you are now have decided to glamorize bush administration impunity with your "sheep/wolf" opposition.
|
I was more mocking Congress than glamorizing the administration. I clearly expected Bush to do what he did, I am just surprised others did not. and I know that if I was given unchecked power I would use it. Perhaps I am one of the few who would, but tell me to do what I see fit and to use my judgment and I will.
Rule #1 on managing wolves, never give a wolf an opportunity for unchecked power. Isn't that a lesson to be learned?
Quote:
|
so presumably you, like any number of other fascist opponents of democracy in whatever its form, do not find debate or multiplicity to be sufficiently "manly" and prefer the erect Will of an Individual Leader to it.
|
We speak two different languages when it comes to power and control issues. I advocate democracy, but like my quote below says, if a sheep and two wolves vote on lunch...I truly believe those who thirst power/control need to be checked. I think democracy is the best form of government for controlling those who thirst for power and control.
Rule #2 regarding managing wolves - never show weakness.
Quote:
|
i doubt seriously that you have the faintest idea of the extent to which your argument harkens back to the extreme right of the 1920s...but no matter: it seems that many who fall for the neocon line operate in a historical vacuum such that wholesale recapitulation of extreme rightwing critiques of democracy as a whole from the 1920s shangri-la of germany (you know, the "good period" of fascism before things got too ugly) is not a problem.
|
Perhaps you can specify which argument. Currently I am arguing that Democrats don't act in a manner consistent with their rhetoric. I think it is because they are dishonest.
Quote:
|
rightwing extremists have always opposed their theories of manly dictatorship to the weak-kneed vacillation of the legislative.
|
I actually think our legislators generally support the actions taken by the administration, starting with the authorization to use force, continued funding, supporting the surge, rebuilding Iraq, democratizing Iraq, detaining terrorists, monitoring the communications of terrorists, etc., and that the rhetoric (from Democrats) is not consistent with their support of Bush.
Quote:
|
turning back to the bush people, it seems that your position is now reduced to approval on sexual-aesthetic grounds, as one who cheerleads for the Dominant, but who thinks there's no fun to be had as cheerleader of the Dominant unless the Submissive says "I am Submissive."
|
When Bush ran for re-election he said he was going to "stay the course", he was re-elected on that basis. I voted for him on that basis. It is not more complicated than that.
Quote:
|
so this isn't about law, it isn't about an interpretation of law--it isn't about much of anything except the above.
|
I simply pointed to the law when it suited my argument. Generally, you are correct. And I do agree, and have said, that Bush tested the limits. I agree, that there are some who would not have tested the limits. However, we knew after Bush selected Dick Chaney that his administration was going to be an administration that was going to test the limits. Chaney had a clear track record of moving more power to the executive branch of government.
Rule #3 regarding managing wolves - never give power that you will want back, there will be a fight.
You can razzle, dazzle with lengthy explanations of my issues, my flaws, etc., but at least I knew what we had and what to expect. Are you suggesting there was anyone paying attention that did not know? And if they knew, how do you explain them letting him go unchecked? I stated that I had some respect for Democrats like Kucinich - he has been consistent, it seems like he understood his responsibility, and it seems he acted in ways consistent with his stated principles.
Rule #4 regarding managing wolves - be consistent, stand firm, deliver consequences quickly, decisively.
Quote:
but the funniest thing of all is that you don't seem to be aware yourself of the nature and lineage of your own argument.
we can play this little game for a while, ace.
|
Generally, the nature and lineage of my argument is in the Socratic method. However, I am often in the position of asking and answering my own questions. I am somewhat impatient and this forum is not conducive to some of the subtleties in the arguments presented. Or again, perhaps it is in my weakness in communication - because I get the feeling you think I am presenting an argument on subjects that I am not making arguments on. I have always had difficulty when communication with people who see things in shades of gray or those who put effort into reading between the lines.
Rule #5 regarding managing wolves - know the language.
I wonder if this means I should know your language or if you should know mine? I guess it depends on the circumstance. But, are you saying that everyone knew what Bush was saying and what the implications of his words would be?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
damn, ace....your sham of a post about wolves and sheep has me humming the old Sam the Sham and the Pharaoahs classic..
Howwwwllllll....you big bad wolf!
|
How is a post a "sham"?
By the way, I once tried a demo of that game in your video on XBOX, the controls lacked precision and the game seemed to lack a point. Reminds me of...never mind.