Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling NSA Spying Activities 'Unconstitutional'

January 30, 2014 - GamePolitics Staff

Rep. Peter King (R-New York) this week laid into the Republican National Committee (RNC) for its resolution stating that the National Security Agency's spying was unconstitutional, that various surveillance programs should be halted immediately, and that a "full public accounting" of those activities should take place. Rep. King described the resolution as a “hysterical” measure that could be a “death warrant” for the GOP. The RNC announced the resolution on Friday.

"We’re going to make the Democrats and Barack Obama the party of national security," said Rep. King. "It’s signing our own death warrant as a party."

"Republicans are supposed to be the party of national defense," King continued. "It would be one thing if people wanted to pass legislation [posing] questions. But to talk about ‘spying’ and unconstitutionality… it’s basically repudiating the policies of the Republican Party over the last 12 years, policies that kept us safe."

King, who has hinted that he might make a run at the Republican nomination to run as the party's standard bearer for President, has been a long-time proponent of various activities designed to combat terrorism. He has been a vocal critic of both Democrats and Republicans who have opposed post-911 activities including military action, spying, and issues associated with Gitmo.

The RNC did not comment on King's remarks.

Source: Politico


Comments

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

1: No more than I can prove that there isn't a gigantic teapot floating behind the moon, always out of sight.  It's possible that it's there, just as it's possible that there were other people reading the thread and not replying, but there's no evidence that either is true (at least there wasn't until AE chipped in).

2: "They" are purely hypothetical until they speak up to show us they're there, so how could I (or you) prove anything about them?

3: "You seem like an intelligent person. So what’s with all the assumptions about what I "sounded like" instead of how you interpreted it?"

That's a quote from your post.  And I was responding directly to that when I came back with

"If you can explain to me a meaningful difference between "what you sound like" and "how people interpret what you say", I'll give you an internet cookie."

So, you are actually the one who omitted the context that you are now blaming me for omitting.  Even with the full context, I don't think the distinction you're trying to draw really holds water.  Inference and implication go hand in hand.  I was inferring what you were implying, and the way you used the quote is the reason I inferred what I did.

4: It's not anything that someone would recognize as a quote.  If we're having a discussion about, first amendment rights, it doesn't mean we're quoting each other every time we say first amendment rights.  It's just a phrase, the topic at hand.  Even if you insist on thinking of big government authoritarianism as a quote, surely you can see that the Bush quote was much...  quote-ier.  It had quote marks, a lot more words, and was attributed to the speaker.  It should have been obvious which of those two things I meant by "that quote".

5/6/7: But how do you parse what I said, if the quote in question was "big government authoritarianism"?  That you misunderstood OP's meaning?  That makes no sense, because there's not really anything to misunderstand there, and besides, when the OP said it it wasn't a quote yet, so I couldn't have been referring to you reading it and taking a wrong meaning.  And if it's "big government authoritarianism" in your post, then what would I have meant by "read that quote and take from it the meaning you are suggesting"?  How would simply replying to someone about the topic at hand be "grasping at straws"?  Not to belabor the point, but I just can't imagine what you even thought I was saying, if you thought I was referring to "big government authoritarians".

8: It's an exaggeration, but the point is, one man being a certain way does not mean the entire group he is in will be the same way.  Otherwise, you wouldn't have to worry about the Republicans, because Bush would have made them all bumbling idiots.

9: Please.  Extremist, authoritarian, sure.  Absolutely.  But Bush's?  He was a mouthpiece, and not a very good one.  He was one of the ones in lockstep, with the likes of Rove and Cheney.  He's a product of the GOP, not the other way around.

10: You don't need to, and yet here we are...  ;)

11: I think I've made my views of Republicans quite clear.  If you still think I'm defending them, then I don't know what else to tell you.

12: Or, he was not quite the bogeyman he was whipped up to be.

13: You've certainly claimed that he had the entire GOP in lockstep with him.

14: I did not, because from the context and the URLs I inferred that they would be a litany of the evils of the authoritarian GOP.  That would mean that once again, you were "arguing" a point to me that I haven't been arguing with you.  I never said you were wrong about the GOP being authoritarian.  I've repeatedly said that that quote (from Bush! :P) is a poor way to make your point, because it's obviously out of context, and even without that context (he's talking about writing his memoirs), anybody familiar at all with Bush will recognize one of his trademark blunders of the English language.

15: They reduce the perceived cost of military action, lowering the barrier and leading to more of it.  Also, our current President seems to think he has the right to assassinate Americans with them now.  Sounds like a pretty authoritarian thing to do, doesn't it?

16: Yeah.  Nobody wants to touch that hot potato, GOP or DNC.  Do we release them?  Ship them off to foreign hellholes?  Bring them into federal prisons?  Which ones?  Both parties would rather everybody just forgot about the place.

17: You haven't been reading the news lately, I take it?

18/19: US Constitution, Article II, Section 3: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".  The outrage is that it is an Executive usurpation of Legislative powers, undemocratic and unconstitutional.

20: I'm not playing the "who's worse?" game, remember?  Both of them are run by greedy, manipulative, self-serving, power-hungry, lying sacks of shit.

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

Huh? 

Is Peter King the ONLY person in America who doesn't know that the Republican position is a joke and a hypocritical lie?

The Republicans only support our rights when a Democrat is in the White House. Just like they only support deficit reduction under a Democratic president, but spend like drunken sailors when Republicans are president.

If a Republican ever becomes president again, it's back to warrantless wiretapping and torture, and this metadata program will be the least of the violations of our Constitutional rights. 

Good thing a Republican can't become president again. 

 

Whoever dies with the most unplayed Steam games wins!

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

Sounds like he has more in common with (New York) big government authoritarians like De Blasio, and Bloomberg than most of the Republicans.

Hey Bush started it, so it must be good, right? right?

Democrat or Republican, if you're for domestic spying and therefore against the 4th amendment then I will be voting against you.

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

Republicans are the big government authoritarians - but only when they control the White House. Did you somehow miss that?

Did you miss the warrantless wiretapping?

Did you miss the torture? 

Did you miss the attempts to criminalize birth control and abortion? 

Did you miss the support of racial profiling?

Did you miss the many GOP attempts to establish religion?

Did you miss the politically motivated GOP terror alerts designed to terrorize us?

Did you miss the war based on lies? 

Bush: “I’m going to put people in my place, so when the history of this administration is written at least there’s an authoritarian voice saying exactly what happened,” 

Authoritarian = GOP.

Understand yet? 

 

 

Whoever dies with the most unplayed Steam games wins!

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

No reasonable person could read that quote and take from it the meaning you are suggesting.  I'd just ditch it if I were you.  It makes you look like you're grasping at straws.

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

Since when do you speak for the "reasonable people"? Since when? Prove they agree with you.

Your quote was "Sounds like he has more in common with (New York) big government authoritarians like De Blasio, and Bloomberg than most of the Republicans."

What meaning do you think I am "suggesting" that you didn't intend?

I pointed out that:

Republicans are the big government authoritarians - but only when they control the White House. Did you somehow miss that?

Did you miss the warrantless wiretapping?

Did you miss the torture?

Did you miss the attempts to criminalize birth control and abortion?

Did you miss the support of racial profiling?

Did you miss the many GOP attempts to establish religion?

Did you miss the politically motivated GOP terror alerts designed to terrorize us?

Did you miss the war based on lies?

Bush: “I’m going to put people in my place, so when the history of this administration is written at least there’s an authoritarian voice saying exactly what happened,”

Authoritarian = GOP.

Understand yet?

 

 

Whoever dies with the most unplayed Steam games wins!

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

Dude.  Let's play a little game, OK?  I'm going to say two words, and you tell me whether they are the same, or different.  Ready?  Here goes:

Rishkith

MechaTama31

Take all the time you need.  Once you've come up with an answer, try scrolling back to the two comments you replied to, and see if you can figure out why I am having you play this game.

 

Aaaaaaaanyways...  None of those things you list are pertinent at all to that quote.  This is Bush, ffs.  He obviously meant "authoritative", not "authoritarian".  He makes these kinds of gaffes a lot.  Now all that other crap you mentioned, sure.  Go wild using those as evidence that the GOP is the party of authoritarianism or whatever.  But that quote is obviously not meant to mean that, and it makes you look desperate.  "See?  See?  He even SAID authoritarian!  I'm soooooo right!"  It's childish and weakens your argument.

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

"Dude", let's actually consider the actual content of your claims.

Yes, you have a different screen name from the person you leaped to the defense with and with whom you utterly agree and display an urgent need to protect from being proved wrong. So what? That does not preclude the possibility of sock puppetry on your part.  

"None of those things you list are pertinent at all to that quote." 

Prove it. "Take all the time you need." LOL. 

"He makes these kinds of gaffes a lot."

That does not preclude the possibility of a Freudian slip, in which Bush said what he actually meant instead of the lie he meant to say. Kind of like how he repeatedly paints himself washing, like Lady Macbeth, as if he can never get all the blood off.

"He obviously meant "authoritative", not "authoritarian""

In case you need it spelled out for you, that was a humorous cap to the factual portion of the post. Facts you fail to refute. 

"Go wild using those as evidence that the GOP is the party of authoritarianism or whatever."

I already did. You failed to refute a word of it. 

The original quote still fails: "Sounds like he has more in common with (New York) big government authoritarians like De Blasio, and Bloomberg than most of the Republicans."

You fail to prove or even support your claim "No reasonable person could read that quote and take from it the meaning you are suggesting."

I listed the massive authoritarian failings of the GOP, and you failed to refute a word of it, 

Childish is failing to deal with the actual content of a post.

Whoever dies with the most unplayed Steam games wins!

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

Sock puppetry:  Whatever, man.  You fail to look at who you are replying to, and try to spin it into something nefarious on my part?  Pathetic.

The quote:  You yourself claim that it was meant to be humorous.  Sure, I agree.  Bushisms (he did it so much there's even a word for it*) are often funny.  But the way you used it in your post didn't sound like you were kidding.  It sounded like you were sincerely holding that quote up as evidence that the GOP is authoritarian.  That connection, and that connection alone, is what I have been criticizing.  It is absurd, and it weakens your overall argument by presenting an easily countered claim.  As for "proving" that it was simply a gaffe, how about context?  He said that quote in regards to writing his memoir, a first-hand (perhaps... authoritative?) account of his presidency.  To me, it seems very plausible that Mr. Nuke-yoo-lar mixed up "authoritative" and "authoritarian" because let's face it, he sucks at words.  It seems very implausible that he has such a hardon for being a dictator that he can't help accidentally telling journalists how authoritarian he is.

Everything I "failed" to refute:  That's because I wasn't refuting anything else, genius.  My comments were directed to one item and one item alone: the tortured leap of logic you made from that highly questionable quote.  I didn't argue with your other points because I'm not arguing with them.  All I'm saying is, your other points are weakened by that pathetic last stab with the quote.  You do understand, I hope, that it is possible for a person to take issue with the manner in which you are presenting your argument, without being completely against everything you said.  I'm not obligated to pick apart your entire post point by point when there is only one part of it that I have a problem with.

The original quote:  I'll try to keep this simple for you:  Not me.  Don't care.

 

 

*Heck, there's even a wikipedia page on Bushisms!  And oh gee, if you look at the quote in question, what does it suggest that he probably meant?  I guess there are some reasonable people out there, after all...  Oh, and in case you were going to accuse me of editing the wiki too (sockpuppeting scumbag that I apparently am), just check the revision history first and spare yourself the embarassment.

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

MechaTama31 “Sock puppetry:  Whatever, man.  You fail to look at who you are replying to”
I already acknowledged that referencing you as OP was an error. You failed to answer the questions above:

1) Since when do you speak for the "reasonable people"?

2) Prove “reasonable people” agree with you.

“But the way you used it in your post didn't sound like you were kidding.”
3) Prove it

4) Is that according to all those “reasonable people” you speak for?

“It sounded like you were sincerely holding that quote up as evidence that the GOP is authoritarian.”

5) Prove it.

6) Prove that is what it “sounded like” and not merely how you interpreted it.


“It seems very implausible that he has such a hardon for being a dictator that he can't help accidentally telling journalists how authoritarian he is.”

7) Did you fail to read the site you link to?
“Others have sought a deeper, psychological explanation: "To a psychiatrist, these are not mere malapropisms and mistakes in speech. They reveal a truth about what is going on inside the individual's psyche. They suggest ambivalence oscillating chaotically between poles. They suggest the very desperate uncertainty about everything that the president reflexively seeks to hide by taking absolutist, rigid positions about "victory," "success," "mission accomplished," "stay the course," "compassion," "tax cuts," "no child left behind," or a host of other issues."”

Which explains Bush Freudian slips like this: “Our enemies… never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and people and neither do we.”

So thanks for citing a source that supports my point.

You seem like an intelligent person. So what’s with all the assumptions about what I "sounded like" instead of how you interpreted it?

 

Whoever dies with the most unplayed Steam games wins!

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

"Yes, you have a different screen name from the person you leaped to the defense with and with whom you utterly agree and display an urgent need to protect from being proved wrong. So what? That does not preclude the possibility of sock puppetry on your part."

OK, this?  This is not acknowledging that referencing me as OP was an error.  This is strongly implying that I am the OP's sockpuppet.

"Prove" "prove" "prove", you just keep spitting that word out any time you don't have any actual argument to make.  "Prove" that all reasonable people agree with me?  Oh sure, let me get right on that.  How about you "prove" that you were kidding?  Or "prove" how Dubya's poor language skills have any relevance to the GOP's beliefs.  How do you even "prove" something like that?  Exactly!  So it's stupid to ask.

If you want some evidence, however, look at your original post.  You have a list of bullet points, none of which are jokes (at least I assume so, since you repeated every single one of them when you started arguing with me).  That quote is included among them with no indication that it is any less serious than the others.  Indeed, its position as the final piece of evidence, right before you state your conclusion, makes it seem as if that's the bit of evidence that really clinches it, that definitively proves your point.

If you click through to the actual article (actually a really interesting one about just how screwed up Dubya was and why) they pulled that quote from for the wikipedia page, it is talking specifically about how he was kind of obsessed with opposites, and that's why they show up so often in his Bushisms.  "See, without the tax relief package, there would have been a deficit…", stuff like that.  Not really applicable to your quote, and again, the context so clearly suggests the word "authoritative", that I just don't think there's anything to justify looking for a deeper explanation than that.

And hey, let's say you're right about the quote and Bush really did long in his heart of hearts for authoritarianism and it just slipped out.  Bush isn't the GOP.  He's one man.

If you can explain to me a meaningful difference between "what you sound like" and "how people interpret what you say", I'll give you an internet cookie.

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

"If you can explain to me a meaningful difference between "what you sound like" and "how people interpret what you say", I'll give you an internet cookie."

 

"What you sound like" = implying

"How people interpret what you say" = inferring

Understand now?

Internet cookie won! 

 

 

 

Whoever dies with the most unplayed Steam games wins!

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

Well, it wasn't much of an explanation, so here's a cookie that's more punishment than reward.  :P

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

That was an outstanding explanation. If you think that implying and inferring are the same thing, the ball is in your court to explain how.

Imply and Infer: Commonly Confused Words

By Richard Nordquist

The verbs imply and infer are easily confused because their meanings are closely associated. Put simply, a writer or speaker implies (or suggests) something; a reader or listener infers (or deduces).

Thus, the distinction between them is a highly meaningful distinction. So meaningful that the keepers of meaning in the English language go to great lengths to clarify it.

I clearly IMPLIED the possibility of sockpuppetry, as you correctly detected. And I incorrectly INFERRED that you were talking about OP's original quote and not the Bush quote (due in part to the lack of clarity and specificity in your post). 

See the difference? 

Internet cookie won. Will the debtor remain begrudging?

Whoever dies with the most unplayed Steam games wins!

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

Believe me, I'm not confused about the difference between implying and inferring.  But "what you sound like" and "how people interpret what you say" are both examples of inferring.  "What you sound like" is how the audience interprets your meaning, how you sound to them.  Without an audience to infer and interpret, you don't "sound" anything, because nobody is listening.  Since I am your sole audience member for this discussion, how I interpret it is what you sound like. 

And the OP didn't quote anything at all, nor did you quote him, so I'm not sure how you thought I meant anything other than the Bush quote.  It's true that I didn't specify, but with only one quote in any of the preceding text, I guess I didn't think it was necessary.

How many cookies are you up to?  Unfortunately, in the process of linking you to that game, I got sucked back into it (was free of it for a couple months, but now there's a Valentine's update.  More achievements!).  I've just about got 60 quintillion all-time, 46 of those from my current run-through.

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

"Since I am your sole audience member for this discussion,"

In a public message board? Doubtful. It seems pointless to assert something you cant begin to prove. 

Also,since I read my own material, there is clearly at least ONE MORE audience member. Anyone who makes any statement has their own opinion of how their material sounds. So your claim of "sole audience" is not only doubtful, but simply wrong.

"how I interpret it is what you sound like."

Come on. Your interpretation cannot possibly change "what I sound like," even if you could prove no one is reading this except you and not me. All you can control is what I sound like TO YOU. Not "what I sound like" in the rest of reality.  

"And the OP didn't quote anything at all, nor did you quote him"

I hate to keep contradicting you, but I clearly quoted OP. Note my repetition of his "big government authoritarians" quote. My quote of his original statement are the heart of this discussion.

Or WERE, prior to this devolution into an oddly stubborn quibble largely about semantics. Getting back to the subject...  

"And hey, let's say you're right about the quote and Bush really did long in his heart of hearts for authoritarianism and it just slipped out.  Bush isn't the GOP.  He's one man.

Well not exactly. Bush was not merely one man, but one US President. One Republican President occupied the White House for eight years. What other "one man" could compare to that in terms of power? Not any other world figure. And had a Republican Congress for most of that time. Among US Presidents, who had that kind of power? Not Obama, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, etc. Not only that, but Bush and his lockstep authoritarian Republicans also had 911 to exploit and Democrats who were voted out of office for appearing disloyal to His Authoritarian Majesty.

"One man" Bush and his lockstep Republicans did immeasurable damage to the US and to the world and it will be a long time before we undo that damage, if we can ever undo it.

The Bush/Republican congress years were a de facto dictatorship:

http://harpers.org/blog/2009/03/george-w-bushs-disposable-constitution/

A lot of it was undone only by the election of a Democrat to succeed him:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/bush-rollback/bushs-secret-dictatorship.html

That's why I can't support Republicans anymore. And that's why I scoff at people like OP who have bought into the meme that the Democrats are "authoritarian" when it has been Democrats who have actually been willing to resist authoritarianism regardless of who holds the presidency.  

Thanks for the cookie clicker link. It's pretty meta. Are you serious about having actually spent time collecting its dubious rewards? And paying for it? 

Whoever dies with the most unplayed Steam games wins!

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

If nobody else is replying, then they're not really relevant to the discussion.  Nor is your own reading of your words, really.  You have access to all of the context in your own head that lead to that comment, but was not actually written in it.  You will not read it in the same way that someone outside your head, without all that context, will.  If I say "Whites are superior!", without giving any context, it won't matter if I was thinking of what type of underwear I like.  What I am going to sound like is a racist, not an underwear connoisseur.

What you sound like to the rest of reality, other than people listening to you, is nothing.  Because nobody other than the people listening to you is listening to you, so there is nobody for you to sound like anything to.  What you sound like absolutely depends on, and is determined by, the people listening to you.  And I am evidently the only person listening to you, since the only evidence we have access to is the replies in the thread.

Three words in a row, with no quotation marks, hardly qualifies as a quote.  Even if you really wanted to stretch to call it a quote anyway, it really should not have caused any confusion as to which quote I was referring to.  None of what I said in my first reply makes the slightest bit of sense applied to "big government authoritarian".  If I had meant "big government authoritarian", what would be served by "ditching it"?  How is it "grasping at straws" when it is part of your thesis, not your evidence?  And again, it's only a quote by an extremely flexible interpretation of that term.  But taking a look at the Bush quote, which is actually presented as a quote with quotation marks and everything, what I said looks a lot more sensible (whether you agree or not).  "Ditching" a single bullet point from a list of bullet points is a much more logical suggestion to make.  And since it is one of your bullet points of evidence leading up to your conclusion, it is a much more sensible target for the description "grasping at straws".  Every bit of context points to the Bush quote being the target of my first reply, and from my second reply on, that was made explicit.  At any rate, if you were unsure which of the two "quotes" I was referring to, you might have asked for clarification.  You either looked at both "quotes" and assumed I meant big government authoritarianism (not sure how you could come to that conclusion, given the context), or the Bush quote never even occurred to you as a possibility for the quote I was referring to (in which case...  wow >.> ).

Bush had beady little eyes, and speech problems, too.  Does that mean the whole GOP has beady little eyes and speech problems?  No.  Because one man is not a meaningful data point to extrapolate to an entire group.  No matter which group you are trying to trash, it's trivial to come up with a litany of offensive, disturbing, awful quotes from members of it, even prominent members.  It's a cheap, emotional tactic that doesn't really address the real issues.

If Bush was really so authoritarian, in charge of a de-facto dictatorship, why is he not El Presidente For Life right now?  How many dictators step down peacefully when their consitutionally-allotted time is up?  Why didn't he arrange a(nother?) 9/11-style attack and declare martial law or something, as so many Chicken Littles claimed he would?  He was an incompetent jackass, in over his head.  A puppet being used probably for his family name.  Not an evil mastermind.

Drone strikes, Gitmo still open, massive increases in foreign and domestic surveillance, continuing the use of legally questionable Presidential signing statements, unilateral military action in countries we are not at war with, oh yeah...  These last few years with the Democrats behind the wheel have been like heaven on Earth.  They are just a class act, above all the shady dealings and abuses of the Republicans.  They are definitely not just a different flavor of scum from Republicans.  Nope nope nope...  Look, I'm 100% with you on not supporting Republicans.  But I can't support Democrats, either.  Like I said earlier, it doesn't matter to me who's worse.  They are both bad, both harmful to our freedoms, and neither of them is worthy of my support.  I argue with the "X party is horrible, so the other party is good" type of argument, because it perpetuates the two-party paradigm the Democrats and Republicans have us all trapped in.  They don't really care which of the two you choose because by choosing either of them, you perpetuate their mutual stranglehold on our political system.  One thing both parties will agree on is that voting for a third party is the worst thing you can do.  You're "wasting" your vote, and depriving them of a vote that "belongs" to them.  They try to guilt you into it, suggesting that by voting for the third party you 100% agree with, you are costing the major party you 50% agree with the election and allowing the major party you 100% disagree with to win.  That may well be, but the only way to ultimately be free of that unfortunate equation is to break the two-party stranglehold and get to a point where we have multiple relevant parties.  I'll keep "wasting" my vote and try to convince others to do the same, because it's the only honest, sincere choice for me to make.

And I've spent plenty of time on Cookie Clicker, but money?  AFAIK you don't spend money on anything in it.  There's a donation link at the bottom, but I don't know if you get anything for doing so.

This text box is getting a little skinny...  >.>

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

"If nobody else is replying, then they're not really relevant to the discussion."

1. So you admit you can't prove your claim about "sole audience."

2. The issue is not relevance to the "discussion." The issue is their interpretation. You cannot prove their interpretation of what I "sound like" in my post is identical to yours. 

3. Also, I note you did not accurately quote your earlier post, nor did you quote it in context of your own point. You originally said "the way you used it in your post didn't sound like you were kidding" which CLEARLY goes to IMPLYING. 

Now that you omitted "the way you used it in your post" and reduced it to "sound like," it can possibly be conflated with INFERRING. 

But in the full context and in your full quote, talking about "the way I used it" is clearly talking about IMPLYING, not inferring.

Point to me. Concede it?   

"Three words in a row, with no quotation marks, hardly qualifies as a quote... it's only a quote by an extremely flexible interpretation of that term."

4. No. It's a quote by the definition of the term, which does not put a limit on length and does not require quote marks. 

1quote verb \ˈkwōt also ˈkōt\
: to repeat (something written or said by another person) exactly - I DID THAT

: to write or say the exact words of (someone) - I DID THAT

: to write or say a line or short section from (a piece of writing or a speech) - I DID THAT

a :  to speak or write (a passage) from another usually with credit acknowledgment - I DID THAT, CREDIT NOT REQUIRED, (though in my case it was clearly IMPLIED, as it directly followed OP's post)

b :  to repeat a passage from especially in substantiation or illustration - I DID THAT

(You have to get to the #4 definition before the "quote marks" definition appears. 

Concede the point that it was a QUOTE by OP by the definition of quote?  

"If I had meant "big government authoritarian", what would be served by "ditching it"?"

5. Ditching my central thesis that "Republicans are the big government authoritarians"

"How is it "grasping at straws" when it is part of your thesis, not your evidence?"

6. What does thesis vs evidence have to do with applying your idiom? OP's pathetic attempt to define Deblasio as an authoritarian could be defined as "grasping at straws." (to make a futile attempt at something.)

"But taking a look at the Bush quote, which is actually presented as a quote with quotation marks and everything, what I said looks a lot more sensible"

7. I agree. Again, I agree I INFERRED your meaning, and inferred incorrectly. 

"Bush had beady little eyes, and speech problems, too.  Does that mean the whole GOP has beady little eyes and speech problems?"

8. Point of clarification: this is an attempt a joke and not a logic fail on your part?

"Because one man is not a meaningful data point to extrapolate to an entire group."

9. Did you read what I wrote? The GOP was in virtual lockstep with Bush's extremist, unprecedented, radically authoritarian agenda. How is that my "extrapolation"?

"No matter which group you are trying to trash,"

10. I don't need to "trash" the GOP, their voting record for eight Bush years does that. As does their rejection of their former positions when a Democrat is in office. 

"it's trivial to come up with a litany of offensive, disturbing, awful quotes from members of it, even prominent members."

11. Again, not just the GOP speeches, but the GOP authoritarian agenda for eight years in virtual lockstep with Bush. You appear to be defending that record. Are you? If so, why are you defending that shameful record? 

"If Bush was really so authoritarian, in charge of a de-facto dictatorship, why is he not El Presidente For Life right now?"

12. The US Constitution was stronger, the American people began to wake up (especially as the GOP tanked the economy), Bush administration lies were exposed, etc. 

"Not an evil mastermind."

13. Now you are IMPLYING things I did not say. I never ascribed to Bush's mind any kind of mastery. Merely authoritarianism. 

14. Did you read the links? Resonse? 

"Drone strikes,"

15. Are weapons somehow more "authoritarian" if the pilot is not onboard? 

"Gitmo still open"

16. The fault of the AUTHORITARIAN GOP. 

"massive increases in foreign and domestic surveillance,"

17. The biggest increases were by the GOP in the Bush years. Obama has worked to bring the GOP surveillance into a legal framework. 

"continuing the use of legally questionable Presidential signing statements,"

18. What law makes signing statements illegal?

19. They've been around since Monroe and they have no legal value. If an administration acts on them to contravene the law, the usual constitutional remedies apply, so what's with the poutrage? 

"unilateral military action in countries we are not at war with"

20. Nothing Obama has done compares to the blatant lies that created the disaster of the Iraq war. 

You are ignoring the post you responded to. Compare the Democrats to this: 

Did you miss the warrantless wiretapping?

Did you miss the torture?

Did you miss the attempts to criminalize birth control and abortion?

Did you miss the support of racial profiling?

Did you miss the many GOP attempts to establish religion?

Did you miss the politically motivated GOP terror alerts designed to terrorize us?

Did you miss the war based on lies?

 

And I will add the root of democracies converted to autocracies: voter suppression. 

No politicians are perfect (not successful ones, anyway). But you are comparing misdemeanors to felonies and IMPLYING they are somehow equivalent. 

 

 

 

Whoever dies with the most unplayed Steam games wins!

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

I recommend, for space reasons, that the next reply is placed in a new comment.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

Okay, comment above moved to top. 

Whoever dies with the most unplayed Steam games wins!

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

What Mr King is saying then is that people don't actually want to know they are being spied on, or that all of their data on what they do is being collected by big bro.  And if the RNC takes a stance to expose these, it's somehow going to make people think the RNC is not concerned about who has access to their information?  I'm pretty sure the issue is our information isn't secure with the government, and that's the whole point.   As far as what has passed in the last 12 years, it's been proven that the data spying on americans has resulted in absolutely no leads that weren't already determined through other means..  So yah Mr King, keep talking about how big Bro is protecting us.

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

Looks like another RINO that needs to go

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

RINO? King has the true Republican position on the NSA. This position is a LIE for times when a Democrat is in the White House. 

This Republican party report is as much a pile of lies as the other Republican party support saying they would appeal to minorities and stop insulting immigrants. How did that work out? 

Whoever dies with the most unplayed Steam games wins!

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

Don't you mean "refudiating"?

Re: Rep. Peter Kings Rails Against RNC Resolution Calling ...

LOL

Whoever dies with the most unplayed Steam games wins!

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Who's responsible for crappy Netflix performance on Verizon?:
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician