FREE TAPATALK APP

NobbyNobbs · 30th August 2007, 01:40 PM

I always wondered what the logical argument "moving the goalposts" meant. Now I know.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070830...ressiraqunrest

(BTW, this link is sure to go down eventually...perhaps someone with more internet savvy than I could help to find a more permanent version?)

Ziggurat · 30th August 2007, 01:51 PM

The phrase "miving the goalpost" refers to when you change your own standards and definitions. This is arguing over the goalpost, not moving it. The goalposts the GAO is evaluating are ones set up by Congress, not by the administration. Now maybe they're the right goalposts, but that's a different issue.

drkitten · 30th August 2007, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The phrase "miving the goalpost" refers to when you change your own standards and definitions. This is arguing over the goalpost, not moving it. The goalposts the GAO is evaluating are ones set up by Congress, not by the administration.

How did Congress "set up goalposts" without the President's consent?

From the article:

Quote:

Congress passed a law earlier this year requiring the president to state what revisions are necessary in US strategy, if he assesses progress towards any benchmarks is "unsatisfactory."

The GAO is required by the law to assess Iraq's progress in meeting benchmarks on political reconciliation, constitutional reform, building of security forces, challenging sectarian militia and sharing oil revenues.

Last time I checked, "passing a law" requires the assent of the President or an explicit override of a veto. Since this law wasn't vetoed-and-overridden, the President must have helped set his own goalposts -- which he is now trying to move.

Ziggurat · 30th August 2007, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Last time I checked, "passing a law" requires the assent of the President or an explicit override of a veto.

Actually, it doesn't. If the president lets it languish unattended, it becomes law. But even if he had signed it into law (can't say I know on this particular bill), that hardly makes it his goalposts. What you present is, rather, an argument for why he's got to suck it up and face those goalposts anyways, but again, that's not the same thing.

MelBrooksfan · 30th August 2007, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Actually, it doesn't. If the president lets it languish unattended, it becomes law.

I thought the opposite was true. If a president sits long enough, it just fails. I believe it was called a Pocket Veto.

Steven Howard · 30th August 2007, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by MelBrooksfan

I thought the opposite was true. If a president sits long enough, it just fails. I believe it was called a Pocket Veto.

If the President doesn't sign a bill within ten days after Congress passes it, it automatically becomes law, unless Congress adjourns within those ten days, in which case it doesn't. That's a "pocket veto" -- not signing a bill that was passed in the last nine days of the Congressional session.

MelBrooksfan · 30th August 2007, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by Steven Howard

If the President doesn't sign a bill within ten days after Congress passes it, it automatically becomes law, unless Congress adjourns within those ten days, in which case it doesn't. That's a "pocket veto" -- not signing a bill that was passed in the last nine days of the Congressional session.

Ah, I see. Thank you, kindly.

NobbyNobbs · 31st August 2007, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Actually, it doesn't. If the president lets it languish unattended, it becomes law.

But doesn't this mean he sort of acknowledges the validity of the law, by default? If he has the power to attend to it, and doesn't, doesn't that mean he is allowing it to pass, in the most work-efficient way (that is, by not taking action)?

I know, I haven't explained myself well, but I hope you know what I mean.

pgwenthold · 31st August 2007, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by NobbyNobbs

But doesn't this mean he sort of acknowledges the validity of the law, by default? If he has the power to attend to it, and doesn't, doesn't that mean he is allowing it to pass, in the most work-efficient way (that is, by not taking action)?

Well, I think you can say that clearly he does not object to it.

Ziggurat · 31st August 2007, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by NobbyNobbs

But doesn't this mean he sort of acknowledges the validity of the law, by default?

As a matter of law, sure. But that's not really what the argument is about. The argument is really about matters of opinion. So it isn't a question of whether or not the GAO is supposed to evaluate those benchmarks (by law, they are), but about what to make of those benchmarks, and how that should inform future decision making.

NobbyNobbs · 31st August 2007, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

As a matter of law, sure. But that's not really what the argument is about. The argument is really about matters of opinion. So it isn't a question of whether or not the GAO is supposed to evaluate those benchmarks (by law, they are), but about what to make of those benchmarks, and how that should inform future decision making.

Sure, but in not taking action, he implicitly agreed to those benchmarks. And now, once the results are in, says they aren't good benchmarks. Isn't that the very definition of moving the goalposts?

Ziggurat · 31st August 2007, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by NobbyNobbs

Sure, but in not taking action, he implicitly agreed to those benchmarks. And now, once the results are in, says they aren't good benchmarks. Isn't that the very definition of moving the goalposts?

No. He agreed to the statutory requirements that the benchmarks be measured, which they have been. Nothing about that requires that those benchmarks be the primary motivators for subsequent decisions. Maybe they should be, but they need not be. Bush is essentially arguing that they shouldn't be. Nothing inconsistent with that, even if we conclude that he's wrong.

NobbyNobbs · 31st August 2007, 11:49 AM

I see...I think....maybe....

30th August 2007, 01:40 PM	#1
NobbyNobbs Gazerbeam's Protege Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The Mended Drum Posts: 5,631	A classic case of moving the goalposts I always wondered what the logical argument "moving the goalposts" meant. Now I know. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070830...ressiraqunrest (BTW, this link is sure to go down eventually...perhaps someone with more internet savvy than I could help to find a more permanent version?)
	__________________ I wish someone would find something I wrote on this board to be sig-worthy, thereby effectively granting me immortality.--Antiquehunter The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted years on earth the time spent eating butterscotch pudding. AMERICA! NUMBER 1 IN PARTICLE PHYSICS SINCE JULY 4TH, 1776!!! --SusanConstant

30th August 2007, 01:51 PM	#2
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	The phrase "miving the goalpost" refers to when you change your own standards and definitions. This is arguing over the goalpost, not moving it. The goalposts the GAO is evaluating are ones set up by Congress, not by the administration. Now maybe they're the right goalposts, but that's a different issue.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

30th August 2007, 02:11 PM	#4
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by drkitten Last time I checked, "passing a law" requires the assent of the President or an explicit override of a veto. Actually, it doesn't. If the president lets it languish unattended, it becomes law. But even if he had signed it into law (can't say I know on this particular bill), that hardly makes it his goalposts. What you present is, rather, an argument for why he's got to suck it up and face those goalposts anyways, but again, that's not the same thing.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

30th August 2007, 04:48 PM	#6
Steven Howard Custom Title Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Long Beach, California Posts: 1,798	Originally Posted by MelBrooksfan I thought the opposite was true. If a president sits long enough, it just fails. I believe it was called a Pocket Veto. If the President doesn't sign a bill within ten days after Congress passes it, it automatically becomes law, unless Congress adjourns within those ten days, in which case it doesn't. That's a "pocket veto" -- not signing a bill that was passed in the last nine days of the Congressional session.
	__________________ See also:LiveJournal flickr

31st August 2007, 08:05 AM	#8
NobbyNobbs Gazerbeam's Protege Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The Mended Drum Posts: 5,631	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Actually, it doesn't. If the president lets it languish unattended, it becomes law. But doesn't this mean he sort of acknowledges the validity of the law, by default? If he has the power to attend to it, and doesn't, doesn't that mean he is allowing it to pass, in the most work-efficient way (that is, by not taking action)? I know, I haven't explained myself well, but I hope you know what I mean.
	__________________ I wish someone would find something I wrote on this board to be sig-worthy, thereby effectively granting me immortality.--Antiquehunter The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted years on earth the time spent eating butterscotch pudding. AMERICA! NUMBER 1 IN PARTICLE PHYSICS SINCE JULY 4TH, 1776!!! --SusanConstant

30th August 2007, 02:08 PM	#3
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by Ziggurat The phrase "miving the goalpost" refers to when you change your own standards and definitions. This is arguing over the goalpost, not moving it. The goalposts the GAO is evaluating are ones set up by Congress, not by the administration. How did Congress "set up goalposts" without the President's consent? From the article: Quote: Congress passed a law earlier this year requiring the president to state what revisions are necessary in US strategy, if he assesses progress towards any benchmarks is "unsatisfactory." The GAO is required by the law to assess Iraq's progress in meeting benchmarks on political reconciliation, constitutional reform, building of security forces, challenging sectarian militia and sharing oil revenues. Last time I checked, "passing a law" requires the assent of the President or an explicit override of a veto. Since this law wasn't vetoed-and-overridden, the President must have helped set his own goalposts -- which he is now trying to move.

30th August 2007, 04:40 PM	#5
MelBrooksfan Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1,011	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Actually, it doesn't. If the president lets it languish unattended, it becomes law. I thought the opposite was true. If a president sits long enough, it just fails. I believe it was called a Pocket Veto.

30th August 2007, 08:28 PM	#7
MelBrooksfan Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1,011	Originally Posted by Steven Howard If the President doesn't sign a bill within ten days after Congress passes it, it automatically becomes law, unless Congress adjourns within those ten days, in which case it doesn't. That's a "pocket veto" -- not signing a bill that was passed in the last nine days of the Congressional session. Ah, I see. Thank you, kindly.

31st August 2007, 08:23 AM	#9
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,119	Originally Posted by NobbyNobbs But doesn't this mean he sort of acknowledges the validity of the law, by default? If he has the power to attend to it, and doesn't, doesn't that mean he is allowing it to pass, in the most work-efficient way (that is, by not taking action)? Well, I think you can say that clearly he does not object to it.
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

31st August 2007, 09:02 AM	#10
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by NobbyNobbs But doesn't this mean he sort of acknowledges the validity of the law, by default? As a matter of law, sure. But that's not really what the argument is about. The argument is really about matters of opinion. So it isn't a question of whether or not the GAO is supposed to evaluate those benchmarks (by law, they are), but about what to make of those benchmarks, and how that should inform future decision making.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

31st August 2007, 10:01 AM	#11
NobbyNobbs Gazerbeam's Protege Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The Mended Drum Posts: 5,631	Originally Posted by Ziggurat As a matter of law, sure. But that's not really what the argument is about. The argument is really about matters of opinion. So it isn't a question of whether or not the GAO is supposed to evaluate those benchmarks (by law, they are), but about what to make of those benchmarks, and how that should inform future decision making. Sure, but in not taking action, he implicitly agreed to those benchmarks. And now, once the results are in, says they aren't good benchmarks. Isn't that the very definition of moving the goalposts?
	__________________ I wish someone would find something I wrote on this board to be sig-worthy, thereby effectively granting me immortality.--Antiquehunter The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted years on earth the time spent eating butterscotch pudding. AMERICA! NUMBER 1 IN PARTICLE PHYSICS SINCE JULY 4TH, 1776!!! --SusanConstant

31st August 2007, 10:21 AM	#12
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by NobbyNobbs Sure, but in not taking action, he implicitly agreed to those benchmarks. And now, once the results are in, says they aren't good benchmarks. Isn't that the very definition of moving the goalposts? No. He agreed to the statutory requirements that the benchmarks be measured, which they have been. Nothing about that requires that those benchmarks be the primary motivators for subsequent decisions. Maybe they should be, but they need not be. Bush is essentially arguing that they shouldn't be. Nothing inconsistent with that, even if we conclude that he's wrong.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

31st August 2007, 11:49 AM	#13
NobbyNobbs Gazerbeam's Protege Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The Mended Drum Posts: 5,631	I see...I think....maybe....
	__________________ I wish someone would find something I wrote on this board to be sig-worthy, thereby effectively granting me immortality.--Antiquehunter The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted years on earth the time spent eating butterscotch pudding. AMERICA! NUMBER 1 IN PARTICLE PHYSICS SINCE JULY 4TH, 1776!!! --SusanConstant