Originally posted by FMFWtf is your purpose in this thread? You asked what it's reputation was and whether this changed it. I answered both and you're telling me that I'm wrong.
Well no, actually that's not what a "reputation" is. A "reputation" is not what something is "for". Its "reputation" is something gained from looking at to whom it is awarded and what they did to be deemed worthy of the award. That is what a "reputation" is. Has awarding it to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe enhanced this reputation or diminsihed it?
If you knew, why did you ask?
Originally posted by FMFSidestepping the question slightly is the observation that The Medal's reputation is inseparable to that of the general reputation of the US at that time, such that when Nelson Mandela was being awarded his medal it meant a lot at that time. In the same way that many knights of the realm wanted to turn in their honours when Mick Jagger got the gong, I suppose that you could argue why would Nelson Mandela want to be considered in the same breath as John Howard let along Alvaro Uribe.
Well no, actually that's not what a "reputation" is. A "reputation" is not what something is "for". Its "reputation" is something gained from looking at to whom it is awarded and what they did to be deemed worthy of the award. That is what a "reputation" is. Has awarding it to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe enhanced this reputation or diminsihed it?
Originally posted by kmax87I know it's besides the point, but sometimes I get the feeling that this is
You may as well get an actor to perform the role and allow the office and not the man to determine the correct course of action or appropriate response.
exactly what's going on. It was especially obvious during the Bush
administration. Such a monkey-minded buffoon can't possibly have been
allowed to freely pull the reigns.
Could he? 😕
1 edit
Originally posted by JigtieWhat's that quote about the only purpose of politics/politicians, is to distract the public's attention from the real exercise of power?
I know it's besides the point, but sometimes I get the feeling that this is
exactly what's going on. It was especially obvious during the Bush
administration. Such a monkey-minded buffoon can't possibly have been
allowed to freely pull the reigns.
Could he? 😕
Originally posted by MerkNo you didn't. You made a mistake about what the word "reputation" means. You mixed it up with "purpose". But that's OK. Now you know. So, what is the medal's reputation? And what does it say about that reputation if awarding it to a person like Uribe neither enhances it nor diminishes it? That would suggest that the medal has no meaning. Are you suggesting that the Presidential Medal of Freedom has a meaningless reputation? This is a genuine question. I don't want to know about its "purpose". I am asking about its "reputation".
I told you what it's reputation is and I already told you that Uribe doesn't effect it.
Originally posted by FMFI think neither. The recipients have always been friendly to the administration giving the award, therefore the award is political.
Well no, actually that's not what a "reputation" is. A "reputation" is not what something is "for". Its "reputation" is something gained from looking at to whom it is awarded and what they did to be deemed worthy of the award. That is what a "reputation" is. Has awarding it to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe enhanced this reputation or diminsihed it?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFyou aren't really asking any question at all.
No you didn't. You made a mistake about what the word "reputation" means. You mixed it up with "purpose". But that's OK. Now you know. So, what is the medal's reputation? And what does it say about that reputation if awarding it to a person like Uribe neither enhances it nor diminishes it? That would suggest that the medal has no meaning. Are you suggesting that ...[text shortened]... stion. I don't want to know about its "purpose". I am asking about its "reputation".
but if you were, the answer would depend on where you are coming from.
You pose first a false dilemma and then offer a straw man argument -- it is understood by those with enough education to read that this medal is an honor bestowed by a sitting president.
As you are no doubt aware of this, you really are making statements and rejecting honest attempts to answer your "question" until someone comes up with the "answer" you want.
Not satisfied with the obvious fact that GW Bush makes poor decisions, at least from the point of view of those of us who find his politics disgusting, you want to go further and claim that under any circumstances, any president, the honor so bestowed is meaningless.
No one is fooled by all this from you. While some might conclude you are the perfect idiot, I think while not perfect, you're doing alright.
1 edit
Originally posted by ScriabinHo hum. More tedious insults. If "poor" and "disgusting" political decisions with regard to whom this medal is awarded have no impact on its reputation, then its reputation must be severely compromised - regardless of how some other previous sitting presidents have chosen to use the medal.
No one is fooled by all this from you. While some might conclude you are the perfect idiot, I think while not perfect, you're doing alright.
Originally posted by FMFYou can't be sated, can you?
No you didn't. You made a mistake about what the word "reputation" means. You mixed it up with "purpose". But that's OK. Now you know. So, what is the medal's reputation? And what does it say about that reputation if awarding it to a person like Uribe neither enhances it nor diminishes it? That would suggest that the medal has no meaning. Are you suggesting that ...[text shortened]... stion. I don't want to know about its "purpose". I am asking about its "reputation".