“Oh, and also very experienced and successful at spotting libtards in conservative clothing.”
Congrats on your ability. For all your high minded debate club posts, you resort to calling conservatives who may just happen to be pragmatists ‘libtards’. Pat yourself on the butt, having that type of skill is about as important as Alan Keyes’s influence has been.
“To satisfy my curiosity, I called my nine-year-old over, and he immediately saw the logical fallacy in your argument.”
Your post (370 to Titus)regarding your 9 year old was telling. A child logically discerning an issue like abortion? He is simply repeating the views of his parents as his brain has not caught up to that level of ‘logic’. Perhaps a better way to develop a nine year old boy’s brain would be to teach him how to field grounders in the backyard. At least that is what I did years ago. You don’t win points bringing a child into a very adult subject.
Finally, you have spent several days defending a guy who cannot even garner attention. All of your ‘Gramsci stuff’ and ‘assumption 1 applies’ means something only to you I suppose. So he is a ‘true conservative’. If he can’t draw an audience or create any influence on the landscape, who gives a crap.
“…you resort to calling conservatives who may just happen to be pragmatists…”
I don’t believe that you, or several others on this thread, are either of those things.
“Your post (370 to Titus) regarding your 9 year old was telling. A child logically discerning an issue like abortion?”
It is really tiresome to discuss issues with people to whom the simplest propositions must be explained. Let me see if there’s a simpler way to explain it.
It was not the issue of abortion that my nine year old discerned; it was, *as*I*said*, the logical fallacy in the argument that he discerned. That is, even a nine year old can see that saving all of something is preferable to only saving part of it, where the object is to save as much of that something as possible.
The rest of your drivel was based on that same error, and so need not be discussed.
“Finally, you have spent several days defending a guy who cannot even garner attention.”
As another poster said, that says more about you and the rest of the electorate than it does about Keyes.
“All of your ‘Gramsci stuff’ and ‘assumption 1 applies’ means something only to you I suppose.”
If you had been posting on here for any significant length of time, you would have come across one of the many discussions of Gramsci. And if you didn’t get the references to the assumptions I outlined, you really should consider reading twice before speaking once.
“So he is a ‘true conservative’. If he can’t draw an audience or create any influence on the landscape, who gives a crap.”
People whose commitment to right and wrong is more than a quarter-inch deep.