Then why state this
[quote]
Why can’t the Kerry/Edwards/Times ticket ever do anything but whine?[/qoute] when it was the Columbus Free Press (via Equipoise) doing the whining?
Ok, that’s it. I’m going to work, where my coding fuckups won’t matter. (We call them features.)
Well, the Columbus Free Press (via Equipoise) was merely relaying talking points from the New York Times: “The New York Times reported on Oct. 23 that the Republican Party intends…”.
Cite?
Come on, Bricker.
“Archaic” isn’t a synonym for old. That’s just one possible meaning, and it’s clearly not the meaning that the OP was using, nor the meaning that people who say “archaic law” mean. Let’s look at our old friend, the dictionary:
[quote=American Heritage Dictionary]
[ol]
[li]also Archaic Of, relating to, or characteristic of a much earlier, often more primitive period, especially one that develops into a classical stage of civilization: an archaic bronze statuette; Archaic Greece.[/li][li]No longer current or applicable; antiquated: archaic laws. See Synonyms at old.[/li][li]Of, relating to, or characteristic of words and language that were once in regular use but are now relatively rare and suggestive of an earlier style or period.[/ol][/li][/quote]
Notice definition number two, which even helpfully includes the phrase, “archaic law”. Clearly, when people call that law “archaic,” they don’t mean “old,” they mean “old, and no longer applicable in the current age.” Clearly, a law against murder is applicable in the current age–throwing that out to imply that people who call this law “archaic” are being misleading is wrong. Instead of doing that, why not explain why you think this law is still applicable? Why should private citizens be able to challenge the right of other private citizens to vote?
I would have a penny for flpping, but I’m not wealthy enough to get a GWB-special tax cut. Would you settle for cutting cards?
You’ve got cards? We’ve got to make do with homemade substitutes. Ever tried to shuffle 52 used popsicle sticks?
You have popsicle sticks? All we’ve got are tongue depressers. Used. On cholera patients.
You have cholera patients? Awww, never mind! 
I love when these threads start going in this direction. 
And that direction was uphill, 10 miles one way, in the snow, and we liked it. 
A gratuitous assertion may be equally gratuitously denied.
My claim of what a Democratic insider told me was provided with precisely the same proof as the OP’s “Republican insiders” bullet item.
I’ll go further than the OP did. I give you my solemn word that what I said was true. Is that not sufficent, given your apparent uncritical acceptance of the OP’s claim? (I assume your acceptance was uncritical, since his post precedes mine and you didn’t ask for a cite from him).
- Rick
Hey Bricker, it’s your move.
It’s not a strawman. Do you understand what a strawman argument is?
A strawman argument is when I imply, or state, that YOU have argued “X”, and then I rebut “X.” It’s so named because I have built a false man, a straw man, of your argument to defeat, rather than actually addressing your argument.
The murder business is an analogy - it’s intended to highlight the fact that old laws are not, per se, undesirable laws. Now, this may be a valid analogy, or you may find reasons to distinguish the analogy from the real facts, and expose it as a False Analogy, another type of logical fallacy. But it’s by no means a strawman.
I think in the panoply of voter registration sins, that’s a very tiny one, especially if the local boards approved the form and the voters were relying on that approval. I think that’s the only example, in the entire list, of an official abusing his discretion, and I agree that forms which substantially comply with the requirements and were approved by the local boards should be accepted.
That’s something, all right.
Well, look at that. I agree with that decision, as I indicated above.
Of course. The vast majority of Democrats are honest and reputable citizens, and have no desire to encourage illegal voting. I was specifically referring to that tiny subset of poor and befuddled Democrats that seek to register illegal voters. That’s why I said, “Too bad for the poor befuddled Democrats, who can’t get their illegal voters to the polls in such high proportions.” No harm and no foul to the vast majority of Democrats who, as a matter of course, eschew such tactics.
Sorry Rick, I was being a little snarky in a “My anonymous source can beat up your anonymous source” kind of way.
But really–we can trust what you might say, but we don’t know your “Democratic insider” from Adam, and we don’t know whether the guy/gal is Karl Rove’s parellel-universe counterpart, a lowly bean-counter, or what. So, I rather find your claim to insight on Dem “strategy” difficult to believe without collaboration.
(BTW, I do know a “top GOP strategist”–but he didn’t say the above. Sorry, as I say, I was being snarky.)
Ah, Ohio. The birthplace of…me.
I have met more Ohioans here in California than I did when I was in Ohio. One we realized we were free to leave, we left in droves.
Why are there still people there?
it’s the weather, I tells ya. It drives people MAD!
That’s a very reasonable response, but it doesn’t quite square with the uncritical acceptance of the OP’s “insider.” Why was the OP’s insider not subject to the same, very reasonable question?
Not that I uncritically accept the article, but I think the “Republican insiders” refers back to the NYT article of Oct. 23. I think Messrs. Fitrakis and Wasserman are simply going back to that one. I can’t access Lexis-Nexis from home here, so I can’t be sure.
Though…hey, maybe your insider and my insider should meet up some time
This tactic you condemn is fascinatingly similar to the right’s rhetoric about Saddam’s WMDs. Not trying to hijack; just an observation.
Absolutely true.
The analgoy isn’t perfect, because if you say “The guy had WMDs in the past, therefore, we may infer that he has them now,” that’s a slightly stronger inference than, “The Republicans acted illegally in the past, and therefore we may infer that they will do so again.”
The first inference is slightly stronger because WMDs are physical things – they have to go somewhere. If Saddam had them before, then they were either destroyed or someone else has 'em or he still has them. The second inference refers to behavior which may be chosen, or not chosen, again.
Of course, a better and more honest approach - on both issues - would be to clearly identify the facts you’re discussing and permit the listener to draw his own inferences.
- Rick