The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

Basically, that's what he's saying. And, by me saying, quite rightly, that
he's does
not particularly espouse a balanced view and is pretty right wing (a comment
that
many have used when referring to him), I'm now calling him names... seems
to me that Dave is the one who is calling people names when he calls me
Ganzy, which he knows isn't my name and which is suppose to offend me. (It
would if I were still in grade school.)

And, to Dave... you're right, I really didn't read the article. Why would I
want
to read an article by the likes of Safire, someone who is not presenting a
balanced
view.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
So let me get that straight, are you saying that that whole thing you
attributed
to Safire you just made up?



"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:43:44 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

I would not call Safire's view balanced. He's pretty right wing.

Ganzy, you just don't get it, do you? Only the first paragraph of my
message--the part about the historical use of the term "imminent" and
its
historical legal significance--is Safire. Obviously you didn't read the
article. Rather than address whether his history is factually correct,
you
simply start calling him names and then sing your same old hymn. Do you
disagree that historically the word "imminent" attack or threat has been
used to justify a preemptive strike?

The remainder of the message--the part about enunciating an new doctrine
that in today's world a strike may be justified even if attack is not
"imminent," and the Dems' related floundering--is purely my analysis. So
now, instead of calling him names, I suppose you'll start calling me
names
and singing your refrain at me.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

Actually, I did read it, because I couldn't believe Safire would have said all
the things you appeared to have claimed.

So, you did exactly what the Dems are saying Bush did - you made it sound like
you meant one thing while maintaining deniability.


"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 18:02:43 -0500, "Jeff Morris"
said:

So let me get that straight, are you saying that that whole thing you
attributed
to Safire you just made up?

Jeff, I wouldn't be so foolish as to point to a specific source and then
make up content for the cited material. Somebody might actually go and read
it. (Well, maybe not much of a risk in this group.)

One of the reasons the language has paragraph separations is to minimize
confusion like what you apparently experienced. New paragraph = new line of
thought.

As I indicated before, what Safire said was summarized in the first
paragraph. That's why I introduced it with "He notes." Based on what Safire
had noted, I presented my analysis in the following paragraph. Capice?


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

As I said, I only read Safire after the fact - I really did think your entire
post was regarding his column, though it didn't make much sense.

I'm curious how this thread will play out (the real thread, not this NG
thread!) - If GWB was playing a game by avoiding the words "imminent threat,"
I'm not sure the public will buy it. If you took a poll today, you'd probably
find the 80% of the voters "think" he said it.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 19:58:16 -0500, "Jeff Morris"
said:

So, you did exactly what the Dems are saying Bush did - you made it sound
like
you meant one thing while maintaining deniability.

Come now, let's not play dog in the manger. If you actually read the Safire
article, your supposed misunderstanding of the original post was either
absurdly disingenuous or just plain dumb. In either event it's not worth my
playing silly games of sophistry with you.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

It all depends on what "is" is. Deja vu, all over again. Johnson and
the Gulf of Tonkin, Nixon's "Secret Plan to End the War" and "I am not
a crook". Reagan and Iran Contra, Grenada, Bush and Oil Part One,
Clinton and his Johnson, Bush and Oil Part Two. Kerry and ?


On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 22:02:59 -0500, "Jeff Morris"
wrote:

As I said, I only read Safire after the fact - I really did think your entire
post was regarding his column, though it didn't make much sense.

I'm curious how this thread will play out (the real thread, not this NG
thread!) - If GWB was playing a game by avoiding the words "imminent threat,"
I'm not sure the public will buy it. If you took a poll today, you'd probably
find the 80% of the voters "think" he said it.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 19:58:16 -0500, "Jeff Morris"
said:

So, you did exactly what the Dems are saying Bush did - you made it sound
like
you meant one thing while maintaining deniability.

Come now, let's not play dog in the manger. If you actually read the Safire
article, your supposed misunderstanding of the original post was either
absurdly disingenuous or just plain dumb. In either event it's not worth my
playing silly games of sophistry with you.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

Hold on hoss... you say that Safire is writing as a conservative?? That
sounds like name calling to me!

FYI, it's Franken not Frankel.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 16:30:11 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

And, to Dave... you're right, I really didn't read the article. Why would
I
want
to read an article by the likes of Safire, someone who is not presenting
a
balanced
view.

Perhaps if you read a bit more broadly you would have noticed that Safire
writes two different kinds of articles for the Times. When he writes on
the
op ed page, it's with a definite political point of view, as is
appropriate
for that venue. He and Brooks are the Times's two house conservatives,
just
as Al Hunt is the Journal's house liberal. But his regular column in the
magazine section is "On Language." To the extent it expresses a point of
view at all it's generally not a political point of view at all. Rather
it's
a mildly prescriptivist point of view on matters of language and usage. As
to why you should read those columns? He writes with a marvelous sense of
tongue in cheek humor about language, its use and misuse. One really
should
occasionally read something other than political tracts and diatribes like
the world according to Frankel. Or if that's too much, at least recognize
that such things exist.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

Sure it is... you've been doing that for a while now.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 19:58:16 -0500, "Jeff Morris"
said:

So, you did exactly what the Dems are saying Bush did - you made it sound
like
you meant one thing while maintaining deniability.

Come now, let's not play dog in the manger. If you actually read the
Safire
article, your supposed misunderstanding of the original post was either
absurdly disingenuous or just plain dumb. In either event it's not worth
my
playing silly games of sophistry with you.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

Just like they think that Saddam has something to do with 9/11...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
As I said, I only read Safire after the fact - I really did think your
entire
post was regarding his column, though it didn't make much sense.

I'm curious how this thread will play out (the real thread, not this NG
thread!) - If GWB was playing a game by avoiding the words "imminent
threat,"
I'm not sure the public will buy it. If you took a poll today, you'd
probably
find the 80% of the voters "think" he said it.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 19:58:16 -0500, "Jeff Morris"
said:

So, you did exactly what the Dems are saying Bush did - you made it
sound
like
you meant one thing while maintaining deniability.

Come now, let's not play dog in the manger. If you actually read the
Safire
article, your supposed misunderstanding of the original post was either
absurdly disingenuous or just plain dumb. In either event it's not worth
my
playing silly games of sophistry with you.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

And, the conservatives are well-versed in this sort of repetition.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 22:02:59 -0500, "Jeff Morris"
said:

If GWB was playing a game by avoiding the words "imminent threat,"
I'm not sure the public will buy it. If you took a poll today, you'd
probably
find the 80% of the voters "think" he said it.

I'm not sure I'd characterize it as a game. More a matter of prudence. If
Safire is right about the word's history and significance, using it would
have been regarded as tantamount to sending the troops across the border
the
moment the words left his lips.

As to what people _think_ was said, it's an illustration of the old maxim
that if you keep repeating a lie long enough and loud enough, some people
are going to believe it.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

Jeff Morris wrote:
I'm curious how this thread will play out (the real thread, not this NG
thread!) - If GWB was playing a game by avoiding the words "imminent threat,"
I'm not sure the public will buy it. If you took a poll today, you'd probably
find the 80% of the voters "think" he said it.

Well, the Bush Administration and it's cheerleaders spent a lot of time
& effort (and a few million dollars, no doubt) convincing most of the
American public that Iraq definitely had 'weapons of mass destruction'
and was doing all it could to hit the US with them, and also that Saddam
Hussein was working closely with Al-Queda.

Both were patently false.

Now their own publicity is coming back to bite them. The question is,
what will the voting citizenry believe come November? Knowing what P.T.
Barnum said, and remembering that Nixon got reelected in 1972, I am
somewhat cynical about what is going to happen to this country. But I
still have some hopes....

Regards

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

Dave, it's not worth a response because you claimed that I was the
one calling names, yet that's exactly what you've been doing to me
and now to Mr. Safire. You have no defense against this argument,
so you resort to the 'I'm not going to play' argument.

The author of the book of Matthew's?? You mean Sod?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 20:05:50 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:


Hold on hoss... you say that Safire is writing as a conservative?? That
sounds like name calling to me!

Not worth a response

FYI, it's Franken not Frankel.

My apologies. I suppose that's an offense as heinous as misspelling the
name
of the book of Matthew's author.




Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27