- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,654
- 24,473
- 2,290
This pretty much sums up the state of political debate here on USMB and across various media in general:
re: By the way, apropos targeting metaphors and the like
Danny J Boggs [Sixth Circuit Address]
Fri Apr 2 05:42:07 PDT 2010
I think we could just bring this thread to a conclusion by simply agreeing that:
All of MY SIDE's references and statements are to be taken in the coolest, hip-ironic, culturally aware, benign-metaphorical way possible (see Watts v. United States, and [granting my side the full benefit of the] the conflicting interpretive modes the various judges/justices on the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals [have approved]),
AND
All of YOUR SIDE's references and statements are to be taken in the most mindlessly literal, threatening way possible.
That should work for almost all of our commentators, of whatever persuasion.
Also, any charge against MY SIDE requires exquisite legally admissible proof of its accuracy,
WHEREAS
Any charge against YOUR SIDE must be true if it was asserted by anyone, anywhere.
People on MY SIDE are responsible only for what they said personally, in full-quotation context.
BUT
People on YOUR SIDE are responsible for the inferred implications of anything said by anyone who ever held any idea vaguely similar to what your people think.
OK?
THE NEW REFORM CLUB: Judge Boggs
re: By the way, apropos targeting metaphors and the like
Danny J Boggs [Sixth Circuit Address]
Fri Apr 2 05:42:07 PDT 2010
I think we could just bring this thread to a conclusion by simply agreeing that:
All of MY SIDE's references and statements are to be taken in the coolest, hip-ironic, culturally aware, benign-metaphorical way possible (see Watts v. United States, and [granting my side the full benefit of the] the conflicting interpretive modes the various judges/justices on the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals [have approved]),
AND
All of YOUR SIDE's references and statements are to be taken in the most mindlessly literal, threatening way possible.
That should work for almost all of our commentators, of whatever persuasion.
Also, any charge against MY SIDE requires exquisite legally admissible proof of its accuracy,
WHEREAS
Any charge against YOUR SIDE must be true if it was asserted by anyone, anywhere.
People on MY SIDE are responsible only for what they said personally, in full-quotation context.
BUT
People on YOUR SIDE are responsible for the inferred implications of anything said by anyone who ever held any idea vaguely similar to what your people think.
OK?
THE NEW REFORM CLUB: Judge Boggs