Matt Lauer destroys Bush in an interview

[Canis]

FFS I clarified it. I summed up my position based on what you asked in your post, and you reply with your demeaning response.

In past discussions about this I clarified that error in my argument with the distinction between using the word "illegal" as rhetoric and "practical legality". You're still equating the two, and I'm seeing a distinction. Yes, I agree that we need to stand up and point out errors in that person's actions according to statutes, morals, or whatever we decide are "laws", and in that sense there can be claims of illegality towards any action that breaks any stature. However, the practicality of the situation is much different.

I've been making the argument that claiming illegality in the sense just described is no different than claiming immorality and any form of wrong-doing. This is just "conceptual" illegality to put another view on it, and as such is quite dismissable without proper courses of action being taken to enforce it. So, overall, I'm not arguing that folks cannot claim illegality, but rather am arguing that claims of "illegality" in themselves are pointless without enforcement. I've been arguing the practical benefit of it to society, and I cannot see any without enforcement measures.

[Canis]

aye, i remember that. page after page of canis bloody loren ipsum'ing his way through an argument until it fizzled out

It never fizzled. It just hit a wall because of two different views, and one side's refusal to acknowledge with an open mind and disagree if it comes to it.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

aye, i remember that. page after page of canis bloody loren ipsum'ing his way through an argument until it fizzled out

lol

[Canis]

lol, you're preaching to the retarded here. i think we've had this discussion once before

Why dont you provide something substantive here?

[Foo]

aye, i remember that. page after page of canis bloody loren ipsum'ing his way through an argument until it fizzled out

It never fizzled. It just hit a wall because of two different views, and one side's refusal to acknowledge with an open mind and disagree if it comes to it.

Lemme guess, that wasn't your side...

[Canis]

aye, i remember that. page after page of canis bloody loren ipsum'ing his way through an argument until it fizzled out

It never fizzled. It just hit a wall because of two different views, and one side's refusal to acknowledge with an open mind and disagree if it comes to it.

Lemme guess, that wasn't your side...

Good guess. I've repeatedly said I understand Rook's (and others' who agree with him) arguments, but that I disagree. Unfortunately this discussion has been kept alive based on demeaning attacks instead of any hope for understanding. As such it's just one attack after another.

[Foo]

No-one seems to understand the logic of your point of view in this. Same as last time it came up. By contrast, rooks position seems to be logical to everyone but you.

[Canis]

No-one seems to understand the logic of your point of view in this. Same as last time it came up. By contrast, rooks position seems to be clear to everyone but you.

Given the odds, it's not hard to see you're talking complete shit on a near krackass level.

Well, that's exactly my point with how folks are viewing this argument. I understand my point is not one folks are adhering to, and I dont expect them to. However, dare I say it would be nice to have folks not then take the view that you just projected, ie: "you're talking complete shit". It's a "follow the crowd or you're a fucking dumbass" mentality, and it cuts out any possibility of discussion.

I've presented examples, especially in bush's attitudes and demeanor, that support what I'm discussing. I fully agree with people about how atrocious and immoral his actions are, but see a different view on the claims of legality as applied to him because he's obviously capable of overriding the "laws" and is doing so. In this argument, and others in the past that've dealt with similar examples, I've formed an argument for practical legality and the requirement for enforcement, yet folks wont take the time to even acknowledge this because they still equate practical legality in this sense with conceptual legality.

I've yet to be convinced that a society can have a practicing and working legal system without consequence for laws being broken.

[GONNAFISTYA]

Quit fucking up my thread and get back to bashing Bush you fagg0ts.

[Canis]

Quit fucking up my thread and get back to bashing Bush you fagg0ts.

[GONNAFISTYA]

I mentioned back on page one that Olbermann was bashing Bush and tnf caught that one.

Clicky

I can only hope that this will snowball and - from here on - more journalists go for the throat during questioning Bush/Cheney/That Fagg0t From FoxNews White House Spokesperson And Cockeater Snow.

[Canis]

There was another good bush-bashing on TV by a reporter. I forgot who it was but it was recent and was pretty intense. I give props to Olberman for his efforts, however I fear that the majority of folks will shove him in the same dismissable category they've shoved many others who've criticized bush.

There were some points in his speech where he made some remarks that I saw would be used as fuel against him by the bush camp, but overall his message was pretty well laid out.

[seremtan]

lol, you're preaching to the retarded here. i think we've had this discussion once before

Why dont you provide something substantive here?

because WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION BEFORE

[Canis]

lol, you're preaching to the retarded here. i think we've had this discussion once before

Why dont you provide something substantive here?

because WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION BEFORE

...and we're having it again, clearly.

[R00k]

I mentioned back on page one that Olbermann was bashing Bush and tnf caught that one.

Clicky

I can only hope that this will snowball and - from here on - more journalists go for the throat during questioning Bush/Cheney/That Fagg0t From FoxNews White House Spokesperson And Cockeater Snow.

Did you see Cheney's interview with Chris Matthews? I was shocked -- shocked! -- to see Matthews actually grilling him with follow-ups instead of letting him get off with non-answers and talking points.

There's a transcript of it on MSNBC.com somewhere - good stuff, especially around page 5.

[Canis]

I'd like to see that. I've always wanted to see Chris Matthews drill into someone, but everytime he's been fired up he seems to back off instead of pursue it.

[GONNAFISTYA]

I can only hope that this will snowball and - from here on - more journalists go for the throat during questioning Bush/Cheney/That Fagg0t From FoxNews White House Spokesperson And Cockeater Snow.

Did you see Cheney's interview with Chris Matthews? I was shocked -- shocked! -- to see Matthews actually grilling him with follow-ups instead of letting him get off with non-answers and talking points.

There's a transcript of it on MSNBC.com somewhere - good stuff, especially around page 5.

I'd like to see that. I've always wanted to see Chris Matthews drill into someone, but everytime he's been fired up he seems to back off instead of pursue it.

You can watch Tim Russert interview Cheney about Iraq's failures here

But MediaMatters feels that Russert wasn't aggressive enough in his questioning of Cheney. You can read why they think that and see a secton of video here

Like I said...it's a long shot...but maybe people won't have a choice but to cut through the bullshit of the last 5 years by seeing the White House get torched on every channel and poo pooed by every journalist.

P.S. Matthews is ok SOMETIMES...but only sometimes. I think he's generally honest but he's still one of those fuckin hacks that propagates misinformation and biased reporting.

[Freakaloin]

chris matthews has been to quit a few bohemian grove meetings i am told...

[R00k]

...but rather am arguing that claims of "illegality" in themselves are pointless without enforcement. I've been arguing the practical benefit of it to society, and I cannot see any without enforcement measures.

I'm going to say this one more time, at the risk of you ignoring it one more time: my stance is that claims of illegality are a CALL for enforcement. You can't have enforcement WITHOUT claims of illegality.

This logically undermines your entire argument , unless you can prove that enforcement is possible WITHOUT claims of illegality.

Otherwise, how can enforcement be a pre-requisite for illegality?

Does this make sense to you?

[Canis]

...but rather am arguing that claims of "illegality" in themselves are pointless without enforcement. I've been arguing the practical benefit of it to society, and I cannot see any without enforcement measures.

I'm going to say this one more time, at the risk of you ignoring it one more time: my stance is that claims of illegality are a CALL for enforcement. You can't have enforcement WITHOUT claims of illegality.

This logically undermines your entire argument , unless you can prove that enforcement is possible WITHOUT claims of illegality.

Otherwise, how can enforcement be a pre-requisite for illegality?

Does this make sense to you?

I know what you're saying, and on a similar level to your claim, you are completely overlooking what I've been arguing about. We've been at each other about this for some time. I've been clarifying and clarifying the difference to you and you are not even acknowledging it.

I've mentioned over and over the distinction between practical legality and conceptual legality. I hate to resort to the same tactics folks have been throwing my way, so respectfully, do you at least see this difference I have been describing, even if you do not agree with it?

If so, then you'll see my argument is upheld in that conceptually, as you described, claims of illegality are illegal, but that is an empty claim without enforcement. Now, I do see what you're stance is with regards to the "call for enforcement", and I do not disagree. I dont necessarily (...because this can be seen from many angles) disagree with your claim that you cannot have enforcement without claims of illegality, even if the claims are just an excuse for the use of force. However, this logic does not refute my stance in differing between claims of illegality and having the means to back it up. In fact, its not even something that argues against my main point.

You do not need proof that enforcement is possible without claims of legality for there to still be logic in my point. I've not said enforcement is a pre-requesite, but rather is a necessary aspect of practical legality. In order to have one, you need to have the other. As you adopt an idea as law, enforcing power for that idea is a must. The two are parallel, and not prerequisites of each other.

According to your argument you cannot have enforcment without laws, and for the most part I agree with that, depending on the circumstance (abuse of power, dictatorships vs democracy and responsibility, etc.). Additionally, I am not in disagreement that you can conceptually have laws without enforcement. However, when this occurs the conceptual laws dont mean anything. The governing body that has enforcing power is the deciding factor on what is or isnt illegal (in the practical sense) based on what gets chosen to be enforced. This has been my stance all along. In your argument you claim the cry of illegality is a call for enforcement. It may be so, but until that enforcement occurs then the claim is stuck in the conceptual area and stays there, with nothing being done about it until specific action is taken to enforce that law. As it is, in a murder example, the immediate response to a murder is enforcement of the laws surrounding murder. Hence, in practice the law is enforced and murder is immediately illegal. If the enforcment did not come immediately, and the governing powers just sat by and watched (as is the case in many countries that have anarchy on the streets) then the call for enforcement happens but this doesnt mean it will happen. Folks are stuck pondering the conceptual illegality of the situation, and meanwhile those who're dubbed criminals get to do as they wish. In this case the cries are empty without enforcement, even though they may be moral and righteous, following all golden rules, human rights, etc.

[R00k]

Whatever, I don't have time to continue this again.

[R00k]

Quit fucking up my thread and get back to bashing Bush you fagg0ts.

reporting for duty, sir!

[Canis]

Whatever, I don't have time to continue this again.

Precisely. In all your claims of ignorance on my part you clearly have no motivation to form a discussion.

[menkent]

amazing that after all this (twice), canis still seems to think he's not dumb. surely there's an existential point to be made about the power of the subject's self-perception.

[R00k]

Whatever, I don't have time to continue this again.

Precisely. In all your claims of ignorance on my part you clearly have no motivation to form a discussion.

Not one you can understand obviously.