Posted on 01/20/2010 9:50:36 AM PST by EternalVigilance
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
(Excerpt) Read more at loyaltoliberty.com ...
Words are one thing. Actions are another. Already, Brown is campaigning for the King of Amnesty, John Judas McCain.
Brown's actions are speaking so loud I can't hear his words.
You've made lots of claims about Brown yourself. How many "contradictory details" have you omitted?
It's called returning political favors and building political alliances, dude. Something apparantly Keyes has never learned, given his pathetic showing in elections. Someone can campaign for another pubbie without fully agreeing with them on all the issues.
Yep. He owes McCain and Romney big-time.
I have qualified all my claims, EV, and have admitted that Brown has RINO tendencies.
Your attempting liberal agitprop techniques against me isn't working.
Yeah, that's what happens when you build a winning coalition. But you and Keyes wouldn't know about that.
So understated as to be hilarious.
You're omitting things, dirtboy. Shame on you.
Turn back the liberal agenda?
Brown voted for the liberal agenda as a state senator.
Brown vote for regional cap and trade and he voted for socialized medicine.
These Brown "yes" votes are the liberal agenda. He advanced the liberal agenda while in state office. What do you think that he will do in the Senate?
Hey, if winning is all you care about, what's it matter? You might as well be an Obama supporter. He built a winning coalition too.
“Tell me this - how many little babies’ lives have been saved in the never-ending, never-to-be-successful quest to amend the Constitution with a human life amendment?”
In my last note, I showed clearly that this line of argument is fallacious, in that it doesn’t demonstrate what you want it to. How could you have missed that? Or did you? Are we looking at Gramsci in action, here?
The measures you want to argue are “more pro-life” than ending abortion are, of course, laudable, but the ultimate goal must be a permanent end to abortion. It is lunacy to assert, as you do, that accepting some abortions is more pro-life than ending all abortions.
“All of this is in line with Scott Brown’s stated desire to “reduce the number of abortions.”
Which is an explicit endorsement of *some* abortions. And this, you argue, is “more pro-life” than ending all abortions.
“In other words, Scott Brown’s way works, yours does not - and this is EMPIRICALLY proven to be true.”
Utter nonsense, shout as you will. The fact that we have not yet succeeded in either a constitutional amendment, or overturning Roe v Wade and outlawing abortion on the state level, *in*no*way* “empirically” proves that neither of these things will *ever* be accomplished. That’s a completely unjustifiable assumption, without which your entire argument collapses like the house of cards it is.
“Funny, and I thought being pro-life was about, you know, saving little babies’ lives”
I find it hard to believe that you thought that. But then, I like to think well of people.
To satisfy my curiosity, I called my nine-year-old over, and he immediately saw the logical fallacy in your argument. Your argument assumes that saving any number of babies’ lives, however small that number might be, is the equivalent of saving *all* the babies lives that would be saved through either of the permanent measures I mentioned just above.
Saving any number of babies’ lives, however small that number might be, is *not* the equivalent of saving *all* the babies lives that would be saved through a permanent measure.
“not getting to strut around grandstanding and thumping your chest about how pure and special your convictions are”
Back to Gramsci with the personal slurs.
Here’s what Thomas Sowell had to say about that: “It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them. Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.”
And that is my reply to the rest of your attempts to “win” the argument through slurs, as well.
“even when those convictions lead you to support policies that don’t and won’t even save the life of a single little baby’s life.”
Once again, the fact that we have not yet succeeded in either a constitutional amendment, or overturning Roe v Wade and outlawing abortion on the state level, *in*no*way* “empirically” proves that neither of these things will *ever* be accomplished.
So, those are the three assumptions that all your arguments rest on:
1. That saving any number of babies’ lives, however small that number might be, is the equivalent of saving all the babies lives that would be saved through a permanent measure.
2. That the fact that we have not yet succeeded in either a constitutional amendment, or overturning Roe v Wade and outlawing abortion on the state level, “empirically” proves that neither of these things will ever be accomplished.
3. That insisting that the ultimate goal must be an end to abortion demonstrates that one is opposed to interim measures.
Without those three assumptions your arguments fail, and we have seen in my last note and this, that those three assumptions are false.
“While ignoring all the means currently available to actually reduce the number of abortions, then your “conviction” isn’t worth…”
Nobody ever said those things should be ignored. But you knew that. You just made that up to try and make me look like an “extremist.”
“No they don’t (tacitly admit that baby-killing under some circumstances is acceptable).
They do when someone like Brown says that these measures are *enough,* and that a permanent end to abortion is not desirable.
“…since you’re obviously a prognosticator extraordinaire”
Those tactics are really feeble. As Gramsci recommended, you are taunting and trying to make your opponent look foolish by putting words in his mouth. When I say that you are not able to say with certainty that an event will never occur, that in no way implies that I think I am qualified to say that it will certainly occur. Your demand for specifics in a case like this is ridiculous.
“I prefer to save little babies’ lives NOW rather than putting it off”
Assumption 3 above applies.
“anyone reading this so far who has paid the least bit of attention for the last 30 years knows that lives have already been saved by regulatory laws.”
Assumption 1 above applies.
“NONE have been saved in the magical, donation-generating quest for a HLA.”
Assumption 3 above applies.
“Being pro-life is about saving babies’ lives.”
Assumption 1 above applies.
“I’m all for ending abortion once and for all.”
I wonder.
“The only problem is that the quest to do so through an amendment to the Constitution is quixotic.”
Assumption 2 above applies.
“In short, by pursuing a HLA to the detriment of these other laws, etc. You are essentially doing something that is hindering the saving of little babies.”
Assumption 3 above applies.
“No, the problem is that, if we take your route, the pro-life movement WILL just be for show - since it won’t accomplish anything of any actual benefit to babies in danger of abortion.”
Assumptions 2 and 3 above apply.
“That’s good, because Scott Brown himself has said he wants to see the number of abortions reduced.”
“Reduced” is not eliminated, and he doesn’t see elimination as the goal.
“That works towards that goal - and certainly more so than Martha Coakley would.”
Brown has said that his position on abortion is the same as Coakley’s.
“Fine, I’ll call them dirty pervert faggots. Happier now?”
Yes, but that’s pretty long. Something like “sodomite” would do.
“Okay, wait a second. A guy says that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman - and this is evidence that he’s a RINO who supports gay marriage?”
No, his remark to the effect that states should be free to legalize sodomite “marriage” is evidence that he at least fails to oppose it with adequate ardor.
“What sort of bizarro alternate logical universe are YOU inhabiting?”
The one in which we read the whole article.
“Sorry, but just because you don’t understand an argument doesn’t make it a false dichotomy.”
I understood these arguments before the personal computer was invented, and you most certainly did propose another false dichotomy.
“No....explain to us again why you think federalism is an automatic approval of dirty perverted faggot marriage?”
Gramscian tactics again, with that insertion of the word “automatic,” as though I had said or implied it. In this case, federalism is a stalking horse for establishment of sodomite “marriage,” as the activists believe that they can do this more easily by beginning on the state level. In this case, returning the matter to the states is a desperate attempt to derail a constitutional amendment.
“And just to see where you’re at - you DO believe that we ought to abide by the Constitution, as a general principle, don’t you?”
Another Gramscian slur.
“since the Constitution doesn’t define marriage, the Constitution doesn’t even mention marriage, that automatically puts marriage under the purview of the states”
Really? Well, then, I guess we’d better unfight the War Between the States and repeal the 13th amendment, then.
“You may not like this, but that’s just the way it is.”
Which is why I oppose it on the state level and advocate a constitutional amendment.
“if you don’t like it, then amend the Constitution”
Pretending that this needed to be said is another Gramscian slur.
“As such, the only really rational Constitutional stance is for the issue to be relegated to the states and to work to oppose dirty perverted faggot marriage in your state.”
There you go again, preemptively surrendering without firing a shot. You’re not French, are you?
“That’s basically Scott Brown’s position - the constitutional one.”
No, Brown’s position is to oppose a constitutional amendment and keep it on the state level until sodomite “marriage” is established in state law.
“You basically are taking what others said and twisting it all out of alignment to try to make it seem as if they are saying something completely different”
No, I am showing you what premises underlie your arguments and why those premises are false, and what the necessary imand why that means that your arguments are not valid.
Oh, well, keep trying. Maybe after you get over feeling so defensive, you’ll begin to get it.
“so you can then pretend like you’re some heroic citizen soldier, riding to the rescue of the Republic. Not working, bud.”
And, you wrap it up with yet another Gramscian slur.
You know, one thing that alerts me to the possibility that there is something wrong with a policy or position is that its proponents argue like liberals.
Even mostly conservative people argue like liberals when they are arguing an invalid proposition or leftist policy.
The product of a positive and a negative is still a negative.
But thanks for recognizing my ability to discern conservatism when I see it.
Telling, EV. At the end of the day, it takes actual votes in legislative bodies for principles to have teeth. Something you and Keyes apparently cannot grasp.
Sean "thinks" that he is conservative and he probably is on "some" issues but is very "wobbly" (to quote "The Iron Lady" Thatcher to Geo. H.W. Bush, and she was correct on him as he also went "wobbly" waaaaay to much, which got him voted out of office.)
Yes, the RINO RNC and it's many cheerleaders are hopping on board with Brown to do an end run around any actual conservative for 2012.
Yes, try killing Obamacare and cap and trade for starters. Both are already toast.
Yep...and Brown bore his teeth when he voted for socialized medicine, taxpayer-funded abortion, regional cape and trade, etc.
Again, other than winning an election, what are Brown's core principles, Dirtboy?
By the way, since when do you believe pro-abortion socialists when they throw bits of conservative rhetoric at you anyway? I thought you knew that liberals are incessant liars.
Well, I have RINOs that lie and folks like you and Keyes who lie. So I’m surrounded by liars.
“Too conservative to win” is pretty much how Republican poohbahs analyze most conservative candidacies across the land.
I think the analogy is pretty accurate. Keyes is a perfect example of that analogy. He’s either to conservative or too much of a self centered egotist to win.
As you said, “Those who won’t face this are fooling themselves.”
Is he running for something? I’m unaware of this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.