Sorry, I've been busy
and hadn't had time to respond to your finally trying to answer the
questions put to you. My letting you continue to comment does not
mean you successfully/correctly answered the questions... Only that
you made an attempt and we need to wade through your attempt.
DAN: "1.
DEFINE "Enemy of the State/People."
MARSHALL: Originally, you offered no definition from Wiki, but only examples of how the expression has been used in history. The actual definition from Wiki is as follows:
"An enemy of the state is a person accused of certain crimes against the state, such as treason."
I'm good with this definition, though it's hardly comprehensive if it says "certain crimes" but gives only one example.
So, IS this your definition or not? It's not clear, but I think it is.
Moving on, then, an immediate question arises... "The press" has not been seriously accused of any "crimes against the state." None.
A. Do you recognize that reality?
Perhaps in an attempt to deal with this, you bobble around, saying...
All that is truly required for the expression to be appropriately applied is that it satisfies the definition regarding crimes committed against the state/people. But even there, the question is, "Would that be 'crimes' of a type codified by law, or 'crimes' in the sense detrimental acts of any kind?"
MARSHALL: Originally, you offered no definition from Wiki, but only examples of how the expression has been used in history. The actual definition from Wiki is as follows:
"An enemy of the state is a person accused of certain crimes against the state, such as treason."
I'm good with this definition, though it's hardly comprehensive if it says "certain crimes" but gives only one example.
So, IS this your definition or not? It's not clear, but I think it is.
Moving on, then, an immediate question arises... "The press" has not been seriously accused of any "crimes against the state." None.
A. Do you recognize that reality?
Perhaps in an attempt to deal with this, you bobble around, saying...
All that is truly required for the expression to be appropriately applied is that it satisfies the definition regarding crimes committed against the state/people. But even there, the question is, "Would that be 'crimes' of a type codified by law, or 'crimes' in the sense detrimental acts of any kind?"
So, you are defining down YOUR definition of Enemy of the State/People to be "a group accused in a casual manner of some vague metaphorical "crime...", NOT an actual crime... Thus, if a person thinks that Trump's hairpiece is a 'crime against the state...' then TRUMP is an enemy of the state." Or, "If I think it's a crime for a media outlet to be biased in some way (some UNDEFINED way, since we're all unbiased to one degree or another,), then that makes one an enemy of the state..."
B. Is that what you're saying/doing? Watering down "enemy of the state" to the point where it means anyone you don't like of any offense can be reasonably considered an enemy of the state?
If so, the immediate problem arises that the phrase is meaningless. We are ALL "enemies of the state" in the minds of SOME group of people and thus, the term has no point, no meaning.
If the term has no meaning, then it remains a false claim. If we are ALL "enemies of the state" then NONE of us are enemies of the state. It's a ridiculously false claim.
Beyond that, this is not what "Enemy of the state" means.
Other follow up questions...
C. What "crime" is the media "guilty" of? Not being perfectly unbiased? No one is. By that measure, Fox News and you and Craig and Billy Graham are ALL enemies of the state. Is that what you mean?
D. By your measure, do you think Fox News is an enemy of the state? What's the difference? You appear to have no objective measure for what makes one an enemy of the state.
Marshall: To pretend that a media that can't help but spin stories to portray Trump in the worst light...indeed, they tend to spin stories to promote liberal points of view and have for some time...isn't detrimental to the people is to be complicit in the practice.
Here you appear to be defining "enemy of the state" as a media that is biased against Trump and, in YOUR estimation, portraying him in a bad light (what others would call portraying him accurately and HE makes his own self appear in a bad light because he is an awful, awful person, according to people across the political spectrum...)
E. Fox News was clearly biased against Obama. Does that make them an enemy of the state? Why not?
Your entire case appears to be based NOT on the meaning of the term Enemy of the State or People, but on you thinking it's okay to just make a claim that has no meaning and is not factual.
Again, the reality is that “the media” in all its forms has always been biased to one degree or another. Being biased does not make one an enemy of the state. And, if you were being consistent, then FoxNews would be an enemy of the state, as well, given your ridiculous definition.
It's simply a stupidly false claim.
I'm out of time but I'm going to go ahead and post this and give you a chance to respond, Marshall.