Subject:
|
Re: An interesting find
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:09:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
240 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > > > http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/19/bill.of.rights/index.html
> > > >
> > > > The funny thing is that the *actual* bill of rights has been missing since
> > > > January 20, 2001.
> > >
> > > Err, it was only 1 of 14 copies commissioned by George Washington, according
> > > the to the article.
> >
> > Err, I think he's referring to the stolen election being the sign that the
> > Bill of Rights are done for (missing since inauguration day) in our country.
>
>
> Got it now. My misteak actually believing Dave! when he said he was over the
> election a few posts ago...:-)
First of all, fie on you for misuse of Dave! Larry is the clear master of
the usage, so I'd advise you to study his stylings. So says Dave!
Second of all:
i·ro·ny
n. pl. i·ro·nies
1. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to
their literal meaning.
2. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent
and intended meaning.
3. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical
effect.
from http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/i/i0236100.html
(I expect that you knew this part, but my reference to irony here is a
further example of it).
Third of all:
While it may be that other, elected Presidents have played fast and loose
with the bill of rights, Dubya et al were handed a whopper of an excuse to
do anything and everything in The Holy Name of National Security. Clinton
bears much of the blame for the PATRIOT act in the first place (and
Ashcroft, of all people, is on record decrying that violation of rights to
privacy), but he certainly didn't authorize the wholesale detention of
anyone assumed guilty of the crime of being of Arab descent.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: An interesting find
|
| (...) Maybe if the date you chose to use had been September 11, 2001, I would have gotten your drift better. Choosing Bush's inaugural date came off to me as more sour grapes. JOHN (22 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
