|Quoting RJdxer (Reply 128):|
Did or did not Sen Kerry oppose Mr. Fox for ambassodor because he financially supported the swift boat 527 group?
Did Sen. Kerry name any other reason for planning to vote against Mr. Fox, such as his level of education, his work experiences, or any other items that might have conflicted with Mr. Fox performing the job?
If not then Sen. Kerry was suppressing Mr. Fox based on censorshiop of his financial support of a 527 political group and using his position on the foriegn affairs comittee in an oppressive and dictatorial manner. His fellow democrats on the comittee were not going to go against him on this matter no matter how they might have felt about Mr. Fox and we will never know now how the full Senate would have voted. I stand by my statement that Sen. Kerry's actions smack of fascism. Mussolini was a facist long before he was a dictator.
You continue to dodge (or miss, but I doubt that) the point. Senator Kerry has no power to censor Mr. Fox in any way, nor, to my knowledge, has he attempted to do so. The Senate has the power to confirm or not confirm Mr. Fox as ambassador to Belgium, but neither of these actions are or are even tantamount to censorship.
Are you claiming that every political appointee who is not confirmed by the Senate has been "censored"? I don't understand how you could possibly support such a claim given the definition of the words censor and censorship.
Do I need to quote a dictionary definition of censorship, too? Let me know if you dispute my working definition, and I will post an unedited one from a dictionary. Censorship is generally defined as suppressing the creation or dissemination of books, films, speeches, and other such materials on the grounds that they are politically, morally, or otherwise objectionable.
Has John Kerry suppressed or attempted to suppress books, films, speeches, or other materials written, made, or otherwise created by Mr. Fox? Has the Senate done or attempted to do this? The answer to both of these questions is quite obviously no. Mr. Fox is and remains free to express his views and ideas on any subject in any medium. Even had Mr. Fox not become the ambassador to Belgium, he would have remained free to conduct these activities. There is no constitutional right to be appointed as an ambassador to a foreign country, nor does failure to obtain such an appointment constitute censorship.
You can say that it is your opinion that Mr. Kerry or "The Senate" are "fascists" or "dictators", but your opinion appears to run directly counter to the published and accepted definitions of the words "fascist," "dictator," "censor," and "censorship," and therefore seem quite ridiculous to me!
If you dispute the actual meanings of these words or the actual actions of Mr. Kerry, the Senate as a whole, or anyone else, I would be happy to discuss such disputes with you. But I find it rather pointless to discuss anything with you if you are going to say, as you did in your last post, that John Kerry is a fascist no matter what the word fascist means and no matter what actions John Kerry has or has not undertaken that would or would not, in actual fact, make him a fascist.
If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.