Text 5015, 83 rader
Skriven 2007-08-26 18:38:41 av Dan Ceppa (1:138/666.0)
     Kommentar till en text av TIM RICHARDSON
Ärende: More neo-con tactics
============================
-> On 25 Aug 07  17:18:00, TIM RICHARDSON got back to DAN CEPPA 
-> Re: More neo-con tactics

 DC>Try looking at the basic premise:  It is John who is making the
 DC>statement that this country would be better off if the laws
 DC>were rolled back to those of the original Constitution.


 TR> Thats pretty much what he said.
 
 
 DC>When confronted with voting rights for blacks, he quickly made a
 DC>consession.  Hence, his premise is flawed.  My asking about
 DC>Woman's Suffrage is a furhter clarification about  another amendment
 DC>to the Constitution, that he may be unwilling to roll back.

 TR> And (as *you* well know) nobody wants to go back to a time when women
 TR> didn't have the right to vote, and there were no voting rights for
 TR> blacks. 

You have conveniently forgottem about Ann Coulter's statements 
on her stance on voting rights for women.  


 TR> But.....you tossed that at him anyway, because you couldn't see any
 TR> other way to go after what he'd said.

There are a myriad of other apt reasons.  Voting rights is just 
one of them.  Or, do you agree with Ann Coulter's assessment 
on Woman Suffrage?  

 
 TR> right with liberal democrats that people who are not legally allowed
 TR> to vote do so anyway. Illegal aliens, felons, etc etc.
 
 
 DC>There is the Strawman Argument.


 TR> That isn't any `Strawman Argument'. If it were..then several democrats
 TR> who were elected by illegal alien votes giving them a winning margin
 TR> would (of course) do the honorable thing, and concede their elective
 TR> offices to their opponents, who legitimately won the election but were
 TR> declared the loser because of the illegal voting!

Strange, that isn't the path that GWB took, is it.  

 TR> They `would' do that.......wouldn't they? Aren't `liberal democrats'
 TR> honest as the day is long? (Of `course' they are!)
 
 TR> Anything to keep a liberal socialist in office. This is great stuff!
 
 
 DC>You are making the false claim that support illegal aliens get
 DC>the right to vote.

 TR> That is a false accusation.
 
It's the truth, Tim.  Sorry it hurts you.  

 
 TR> A *Strawman Argument* would be something like.......one person
 TR> expresses the desire to be in a certain country, and the person who
 TR> wants to oppose that persons statement (whatever the reason) pops up
 TR> and say something like; `well, there was a disasterous earthquake there
 TR> yesterday....so.....you `enjoy' the sight of people injured and dying
 TR> in earthquakes, eh?' 

You mean like Pat Robertson blaming 9-11 on everyone and everything 
that his fetid little mind hurts?  Or, like GWB who claimed that 
9-11 was winning the Tri-fecta for him?  

 TR> In this case......`you' took something John said about the original
 TR> Constitution, and erected a Strawman Argument over woman's sufferage,
 TR> land ownership and the black population.

Nice try, Tim.  It was John himself that made allowances for 
land ownership and black voting.  Myquerry on woman suffrage 
was to see how many other exceptions he was willing to make.  


--- OMX/Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
 * Origin: Soundly on the Fault Line (1:138/666.0)