Subject:
|
Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Dec 1999 20:06:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
676 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> Moderate? Boy, I can't wait (I being a proud partisan, BTW!)
Really? I hadn't guessed!
> > Obviously
>
> No, not obviously.
Well, it seems apparent enough to me. If you disagree, that's fine, of
course; we just see Al's analogy in two different ways.
>
> > Al is alluding to the nuclear "red button" of the Cold War era,
> > manned so capably by Reagan and Bush. It seems likely that Al knows these
> > are in fact three separate buttons, but he was engaging in verbal license to
> > make a point,
>
> Reagan and Bush had a million times more qualifications to man the
> nuclear arsenal than Al Gore or Bill, IMHO.
I can see where a former actor, skilled in portraying himself in a number of
roles, and a former CIA head, skilled therefore in propogating disinformation,
would qualify for this position.
> Badly, as always. It isn't just a red button and everything launches
> either. It is a set of commands and instructions called POTUS, which is
> a briefcase the President carries around.
Here again, of course it's not *A* button, but in casual parlance that's how
it's been described, both here and abroad, alternatively as the button, the
"big red button," or a number of other ways. Whether its a briefcase, a
filing cabinet, or a '56 DeSoto, the term "button" should be familiar enough
as a descriptive to get the point across.
> I don't care what he was
> trying to say, or what he was trying to craft, it is another spinning
> around clump of words which shows he is trying to be Bill, and failing
> badly.
Geez--do you _want_ him to be Bill! 8^)
> Words mean things, he said something completely ignorant, and it
> tells me how he thinks, verbal license aside. We are talking about
> people who don't know what the definition of the word "is" is.
Well, I can't defend the "is" silliness, but that's an entirely unrelated
topic, since Al didn't say it. However, are you proposing that candidates be
held to the literal truth of what they say at all times? If so, can you name
a leader in recent history capable of withstanding such scrutiny? And if not,
how do we decide when verbal license is acceptable and when it is not?
>
> It seems likely that Al knows these are
> > in fact three separate buttons, but he was engaging in verbal license to • make
> > a point,
> > lost perhaps on those requiring an absolutely literal
> > interpretation.
>
> Words mean things.
Spare me. And, for that matter, I ask again that you name a recent figure
in history able to withstand literal scrutiny of everything to come out of his
or her mouth.
> Spinning around them when you are trying to say
> something else is such a great example of how these two malcontents have
> been the past eight years.
Didn't two other recent Presidential figures "spin" matters involving, for
example, their involvement in an arms deal? I don't recall.
I don't expect that you're implying Bill's the only one to employ spin
during his office (and there's no denying that he's employed plenty), but I
don't see why this CTRL-ALT-DELETE "button" thing is such a big matter of
"spin."
> Well, since no one seems to be getting this point, let me see if I can
> explain, in my viewpoint. Al Gore, in my opinion, and by his actions
> (Claiming he and Tipper where the role models for Love Story (Author
> says no), claiming he created the Earned Income Tax Credit (No, it was
> created by a Louisiana Rep. a year before he got into the House of Rep.,
> much less the Senate), creating the internet, etc.).
I'm afraid there's not much of a refutation to offer on this count; Al's
just being goofy with some of these claims. I think he's also claimed to have
decided the sequence of LifeSavers in the roll, as well as the order of the
alphabet.
> He is an insincere,
> partisan, phony who tries to use quotes such as this to make himself
> relevant. His co-administration with Bill Clinton (Or Hillary, as some
> of you think), has pressed this lawsuit, because, in my opinion mind
> you, over political ends.
If he's insincere, I certainly think he's in the right line of work. No
president in my lifetime (1971) would qualify, in my view, as being wholly
sincere. Besides which, how many non-partisan presidents have there been in
the last few decades?
> > In addition, why should the judge be required to know the
> > workings of a computer?
>
> Well, one one has the ability to overthrow a corporation based on
> competitors complaining, I think there should be some basic knowledge. I
> wonder how many people who ran this case have had the pleasure of
> working on computers for as long as most people on LUGNET have?
That's an arbitrary assertion; why should a judge in _this_ case be required
to have "some basic knowledge" of computers, when his job in fact is to
interpret the law as it applies to the case? Why not require "some basic
knowledge" in every case before the judge? How do you propose to distinguish
between those cases requiring "basic knowledge" and those which do not?
> > Does a judge have to be a ballistics expert or be
> > skilled in forensic pathology to rule in cases involving esoteric and
> > intricate information?
>
> Different issue, different circumstance.
Certainly. However, my point is that the judge's job is to interpret the
law as it applies to a case at hand. The specifics of how a computer operates
are irrelevant to the legalities of Microsoft's business practices. Again,
I'm not asserting one way or the other whether Microsoft _is_ a monopoly,
since I'm not qualified to interpret the laws in this way, but the judge had
to make this determination, based on the cases presented by both sides.
> If so, no cases would ever be tried, because judges
> > would have to spend all their time learning about everything. For that
> > matter, when Windows 98 debuted, didn't the system crash or in some way fail
> > to operate up to Microsoft's expectations? Does this mean that Bill Gates
> > should be ousted from Microsoft because of a single unfortunate episode?
>
> To some people, yes. Not to me. I think Gates is a person who has been
> shafted because he is rich, and he did not bow down to the Clinton
> administration.
Do you have any actual evidence for this assertion, other than a partisan
interpretation of events? I'd love to read your documentation.
> > I don't have much of an opinion on this argument as a whole, other than to
> > say that I like Windows, and I certainly prefer it (and its compatible
> > software) to the other OS's I've used.
>
>
> > However, this sort of straw-
> > targetting, in which an off-the-cuff comment or anecdotal episode is taken
> > as representative of the entirety of a person's view or qualifications, is
> > ridiculous whether put forth by the Left, Right, or Middle.
>
> Not ridiculous, Dave! This is just another example of Al Gore being
> phony, being a fraud, standing up on the side of Bill Clinton the day he
> got impeached, saying he was the greatest president ever, and then, when
> he saw that hurting him, he said it was a reprehensible act, and he was
> deeply disturbed.
I won't refute facts which are, after all, facts. However, I will ask once
again that you name a president who isn't guilty of misrepresenting himself
for the purposes of garnering popular support.
In addition, I think it's just dangerous and misrepresentative to pull
snippets from speeches or interviews or photo-ops and hold these up as
indicators across-the-board of any individual or admininstration. As a light-
hearted example, we could similarly hold up a Juniorized Lego brick and claim
it to represent the entirety of Lego's product--this would miss the breadth of
Lego as well as being a disservice to the other, quality products they offer.
One or a few products (or statements) don't always provide a clear picture of
the whole company.
> (For those of you that don't know, he was impeached because he committed
> perjury!)
Though it could have been for stupidity, if you ask me. What, if anything,
was he thinking? I mean, I'm sure, viewing himself as the USA's Alpha Male he
probably felt he was entitled to pick whoever he wanted, but did he really
think he wouldn't get caught? Or that, denying it, he wouldn't be found out?
How zany!
> Ridiculous is the actions by Al Gore, during the past eight years, this
> comment is the epitomy of him, and I guess to you, it seems absurd, but to
> me, it is classic Al Gore.
"Read my lips--no new taxes." "Thousand points of light." "Kinder, gentler
nation." Classic George Bush
"I don't recall." "The Evil Empire." etc. Classic Ronald Reagan.
These comments likewise epitomize their respective sources and indict the
equally ridiculous administrations attached to them, if the comments are taken
as representative of the whole administration.
I suppose, in the end, I just don't understand why the Clinton White House,
and more specifically, Al Gore (who, let's face it, is a longshot to win
anytime soon...) are being held to different standards of literal, un-"spun"
soundbytes.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
| Dave, (...) Moderate? Boy, I can't wait (I being a proud partisan, BTW!) (...) No, not obviously. (...) Reagan and Bush had a million times more qualifications to man the nuclear arsenal than Al Gore or Bill, IMHO. Badly, as always. It isn't just a (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
188 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
