The Challenger was miffed by my assessment of her position. Let me address them again for clarification.
Her points in order:
1. "I call on the Iron Blogger to stipulate in her Closing Statement that there will never be a time when we can all agree on what it means to be or feel patriotic."
I'll do it now.
I stipulate that there will NEVER be a time when we can all agree that Bull Connor
was a bad man.
I stipulate that that there will NEVER be a time that we all agree that adult men having sex with children
I stipulate that there will NEVER be a time that we all agree that a husband can't rape his wife.
So? What of it?
Where does the "reasonable person standard"
come in? When most people can say: I'm sorry you're an unpatriotic jerk.
How do we measure the meaning of any word if not by definition? I think that some things are obvious.
2. "Another is that my opponent hasn't offered us much in Battle Patriotism, beyond, "Here's the dictionary definition, and I think patriotism is good, and there's some hippie out in California who is a crazy hippie." This was not a prima facie case after her Opening Argument, and it is still not a prima facie case after the First Rebuttals"
Actually, what I offered were dictionary definitions of patriotism and treason to serve as a base from which to build. And then examples of what treasonous behavior looks like and what civil dissent, which is patriotic, looks like.
If examples of people exhibiting treasonous behavior isn't helpful then we should just put on our flag bikinis and hop in the mud. I can meow with the best of them. ;-)
3. "I said, 'One might argue that using anti-American sentiment to incite a group to violence against those perceived as pro-America could be considered treason... but it'd sure be a stretch, especially considering the ridiculously higher incidence of the reverse in action,' which is a vastly different statement.
My response: "The challenger suggests that there's documented evidence of violence toward people who are insufficiently patriotic but none of her links show any such violence, just one link about a mosque being vandalized."
That is what it sounded like you were saying but if it isn't, then I apologize for misunderstanding you. The link you provided with the vandalized mosque was not regarding people that were insufficiently patriotic. It was anti-Americanism. It was wrong but it was not attacking insufficiently patriotic people with violence.
Then she said: "Second, where I'm from, breaking into a building, spraypainting 'Sand Niggers'on the walls, and stealing religious artifacts is considered violence."
See that is where we differ. Where I'm from those are most definitely crimes but not violence. They are breaking and entering
4. " The IB said, "Dictionary definitions are not 'fruit of the poison tree.' That's a Non-Sequitur." It can't be a non sequitur if I never said any such thing. I have no truck with the dictionary. I said that IB's opinion-based mores made her personal definitions unusable. "
I didn't provide personal definitions, I provided an example of treason that is supported by the dictionary definition. You didn't like Rebecca the Socialist College Student (not teenager) but she was one voice in a crowd of MANY screaming for the defeat of our military and support for the insurgents. Sorry but whether those people realized it or not they behaved treasonous.
5. "Then, while dillying with Iran-Contra, Rosemary completely ignored my reference to the Plame-Wilson affair. If there has been a more insidious act of high treason since Aldrich Ames, I can't think of it... and yet it was bypassed by the Iron Blogger completely. Sometimes silence speaks volumes."
The reason I didn't address it was that I [GASP]
mostly agree with the assertion the challenger made. If, the person who gave up Plame's identity did it with the intent and desire to shut her husband up then I believe the act was treasonous to a degree. Was it first degree treason? Maybe not. It was not on the scale of giving our secrets to the Soviets
or telling the enemy where our troops would be landing. But it was an act of treason, certainly.
Is it possible that the person who did it was a dipshit that didn't realize the ramifications? Sure. Unintentional treason is still treason. We have many terms for killing. Murder (1st-3rd degree), involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, etc. In the end someone is still dead. Same with treason in the end a betrayal of country still occurred. I'm not going to argue a point that the challenger made that I agree with. Will I lose a debate point? Maybe but my consistency on the point of treason isn't going to flip to earn a point in a debate.
6. "The IB says, "[PG] talks about documented evidence of violence by the right and gives us no evidence of violence by the right." If anyone can show me where I talked even obliquely about violence "by the right", I'll bake them cookies."
I'll admit that it is possible that I misunderstood what you meant by "One might argue that using anti-American sentiment to incite a group to violence against those perceived as pro-America could be considered treason... but it'd sure be a stretch, especially considering the ridiculously higher incidence of the reverse in action."
Because when you said that your links were the Dixie Chicks, Pledge of Allegiance and a pro-war counter protest. I guess it was my bad to assume you were suggesting that "the right" was inciting violence. Those examples gave the wrong impression.
7. " The IB says, "I said that there is a way to express your dissent in a patriotic manner, [PG] disagrees with me." I'm offering another batch of cookies to anyone who can point out where I disagreed with that statement."
Well, here are your words:
"My opponent finishes with something that could be extrapolated to a "position": civil dissent equals patriotism. It's certainly a concept with lots of... qualities. It will be quite interesting to watch whether she is able to add some substantive theory and sourcing to flesh that idea out (I mean, I disagree with that position regardless, but I don't have to do much other than disagree, till the Iron Blogger provides something to actually rebut)."
I'll take chocolate chip, please. ;-)
8. "Rosemary gets very, very hung up on the sourcing I chose to back up my assertion that 'the only incontrovertible display of anti-Americanism is when representatives of the State challenge the 'patriotism' of a dissenting citizen' I linked CNN quoting Dick Cheney, yet she says I give "not a single example" -- not once but twice! repeating herself with 'No actual link proving our 'elected officials' have committed the offense you speak of'..."
I had zero quibble with your CNN source. It's a perfectly fine source. My quibble is that you said it was "challenging the patriotism of a dissenting citizen" and I say that it wasn't. Many people think it was wrong of Dick Cheney to tell Sen. Pat Leahy to F-off but that wasn't being unpatriotic - that was using devisive rhetoric.
This part was just funny:
"Sure, Bill Press aligns liberal, but when you compare it to my opponent's sourcing pattern -- she who has relied almost completely on Republican/conservative/pro-Bush private blogs (this LT Smash person must be quite the blogger), and the dictionary/Wikipedia -- I think my one li'l ol' CNN link is practically authoritative."
Wow. Lt Smash
is a registered Democrat( voted for Edwards in the Primary) that fought in Iraq and blogged while he was there. He is hugely popular and very fair. He is an authority on the WOT and has been on CNN and been interviewed countless times.
is currently Pro-Bush but he's an Independent and fairly Liberal. Trust me, we disagree on a whole lot politically.
was a Democrat until 9/11. She suffered the loss of many friends in that attack and while she supports Bush, she isn't a conservative or a Republican.
I admit that I used many sources that align with me politically but there isn't a thing wrong with it. One great thing about blogs is that they cover much that the mainstream media miss. Blogs are an accepted source on the Iron Blog and frankly reading popular blogs that align opposite your political view can be educational. I read Atrios and Kos almost daily. My personal blog is filled with hardcore liberals and I like it that way. It helps me to see opposing opinions. I highly recommend it.
PG then asks me to interpret Dick Cheney's statement:
"Such commentary is thoroughly irresponsible and totally unworthy of national leaders in a time of war."
What commentary was he referring to exactly? When a Senator demanded to know if the Bush Administration had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attack? When a Senator screamed "What did he know and when did he know it" on the Senate floor while holding the NY Post with the headline "Bush Knew" (that bastion of responsible journalism)?
Was Hillary being unpatriotic? No she was acting like a screeching harpy and she was being irresponsible. Cheney called a spade a spade and he was right to do so.
Asking for an inquiry and wanting answers is perfectly reasonable. Screaming like a lunatic on the Senate floor and practically accusing the President of murder is WAY WRONG. And it doesn't matter who that President is
"So, my opponent is saying that people who use profanity in anger are unpatriotic, lazy and stupid."
Okay, I apologize for comparing your intelligence to my 6 year old. I would like to point out that my son is brilliant, btw.
Now you missed my point entirely or are purposely being obtuse. I said that people who swear are being lazy and stupid. I have been guilty of that on occasion. ;-)
People that can't express their dissent in a civil manner are not only lazy and stupid but unpatriotic as well. That is why I said very clearly: "If you can't express your dissent in a civil manner not only are you unpatriotic, but you are also lazy and stupid."
Is that more clear?
Rosemary Esmay, Iron Blogger Republican