I try to, yes. But often I don’t waste my time if someone else has already pointed it out, because that would simply be cumulative. BUt I can point to plenty of times I’ve castigated those on “my side” for foolish or fallacious argument.
Not true.
Here’s a puzzle. See how you do:
A man lives near a train track and loves to watch trains. Every day, he finds the time to wander out to the train track and stay there until he’s seen a train go by, at which point he returns home. He goes out at random times, day, night, afternoon, morning. He keeps careful track of the trains he sees and over the years notes that he’s seen five times as many westbound trains as he has eastbound trains.
One day he meets a local railroad official and learns to his surprise that the number of westbound trains are exactly equal to the number of eastbound trains on his track. How is this possible?
Depends. Are you still saying you just posted that note about the approval ratings without intending to suggest anything at all relevant to the argument in this thread?
Of course I intended to suggest something: that Rick Scott is unpopular. I did not intend to suggest that he is unpopular because of a voting retrenchment bill he hasn’t actually signed yet.
“In other news,” or “In a bit of a hijack…” might be words that would better signal your lack of intent to connect your news to the topic under discussion.
Aunt Polly. Not Aunt Sally. I was re-reading Tom Sawyer when you were filling your Huggies with Republican talking points. Be quiet, puppy, and maybe you’ll learn something.
Interestingly enough, I make that mistake frequently because the previous chapter contains the phrase “sally forth” and when I first read TS, at a young age, I didn’t know the phrase and thought it was a person.
Well, what’s it to be, Counselor? First you accuse a perfectly harmless old woman of injustice and child abuse, then you change the indictment to her sister! And both fictional characters, who are in no position to defend themselves from your slander and calumny! Is there no depth to which you will not sink, no infamy to which you would scruple?
Oh, I’m not suggesting anyone get worked up over this, its small enough, but it does speak to who they are and what they are about. Their actual actions are far more important than this bit of public masturbation.
In my mind, it comes down to how much of a priority voting is to someone; the laws just make it somewhat less convenient, instead of introducing a massive impediment to voting.
If voting was a priority, people would make it happen, regardless of inconvenience.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with making voting slightly inconvenient- if they can’t be bothered to at least show up on time or get an absentee ballot or whatever, I’m pretty convinced that they wouldn’t cast a very informed ballot either.
Trains go west on the hour, and east at 10 after the hour. Therefore, someone arriving at the tracks at a random time is five times as likely to be there during a period when the next train will go west than when the next train is going east.