arma virumque cano (et alia)
"Apotheosis," MIkeb? Fox ain't my usual source of news, but I sat through the entire segment waiting for this deification of Ms. Geller, and never saw it. Sure, Ms. Kelly cited Eugene Volokh's assertion that the cartoon contest was not only Constitutionally protected free speech, but had intrinsic value of its own. And yeah, she came across as generally supportive of that contention.That falls rather a long way short of "apotheosis."Also, I find it interesting that you call this "the bastardization of the 1A," since you do seem to acknowledge that the Garland, TX even was indeed Constitutionally protected free speech (but grossly inappropriate). The interesting part is that when you talk about the "bastardization of the 2A," you argue not that although private ownership of arms is indeed protected by the Second Amendment, it is still wrong--you instead insist that the Amendment doesn't confer any protection for the private ownership of arms.
Ya ever notice how sometimes you use extreme language , atrocity comes to mind, to describe things about which I would use other more moderate words. And sometimes I use exrtreme language, apotheosis, in this case, to describe things about which you would use more moderate words. Neat, huh?
Ya ever notice how sometimes you use extreme language , atrocity comes to mind . . . Actually, the language I use is no more "extreme," in my view, than is warranted by the situation. When I call something an "atrocity," I do so because that's precisely what I view it to be.And sometimes I use exrtreme language, apotheosis, in this case, to describe things about which you would use more moderate words.But Ms. Kelly didn't even really praise Ms. Geller all that much--but whatever.Oh, and one more difference between us is that I never call you a "liar" for your use of "extreme language."
"When I call something an "atrocity," I do so because that's precisely what I view it to be."Liar (I don't believe you believe that) and hypocrite for often questioning my use of certain descriptive words.
Liar (I don't believe you believe that) . . . What possible motive could I have for calling something an "atrocity," if I really thought it was no worse than an "egregious evil"? . . . and hypocrite for often questioning my use of certain descriptive words.Yes, I "question[ed] [your] use of" that term--expressed my disagreement with it. I never called you a "liar" for using it. Come on, Mikeb, you're being silly. There's nothing of the "hypocrite" in both using adjectives and expressing disagreement with others' use of adjectives.
"What possible motive could I have"You're such a phoney, Kurt. Do I really have to answer that? A motive could be your neurotic need to try and impress by always using exaggerated language. I admit, I do find it impressive, up until the point when you insist we take your words literally. You're the master of hyperbole. There's nothing wrong with that. But when you insist that a magazine limitation is equal or worse than slavery, I call you a lying gun rights fanatic.