It’s difficult to argue with anything you’ve said.
I guess my only comment would be: why, if you agree he’s not deliberately undermining the press, are you holding him accountable for undermining the press ? (If you are)
Choice has a meaning, just like “life” does. “Pro-” has a meaning too. Why do you, Doggy, get to decide that “pro-choice” refers to reproductive choices but “pro-life” must be construed much more broadly?
Well, I probably would want to whip Mrs. O’Leary’s cow if my family died in the fire. People want to blame even those that mindlessly cause damage. The difference being, that Gianforte has the power and ability to know better.
Three strikes, yer out, so “anti-abortion”, it is. Life does not end at birth.
I don’t “get to decide” that, because I have no standing to do so - and surprise! - I didn’t. John Mace had many valid issues he could have extended “pro-choice” to while remaining on the good side of reality. Instead, he chose to choose the doublespeak mess phrase “school choice”, which is about as valid as saying two plus two equals jellyfish squared.
That’s not a rebuttal. By the dictionary, a source you touted for the meaning of pro and life, DeVos is pro-choice. She favors choice of schools. Right?
So, not only do you claim to be able to decide what “choice” means, you get to decide what is “valid” and what is “double speak”.
I disagree with Bricker on the issue this thread is actually about, so stop making him look good with your stupid arguments! “Pro-life” is a slogan, just like “pro-choice”. They mean what the group that uses them mean. The St. Louis Cardinals aren’t actually cardinals, they’re human beings, members of the species H. sapiens. Did you know that?
Maybe he does hate Jacobs. Maybe Jacobs slept with his wife, killed his dog, and implied his mama was of less than pure virtue when in the proximity of sailors. I have no idea. Absent that additional information, I know that he assaulted a reporter who was asking him questions, and then lied about the circumstances. And while this is not a literal, *legal *assault on the First Amendment (which I would think would have to be a legislative move, as the 1A is not a physical thing or person to be assaulted), it is difficult for me to deny that it was likely intended to have something of a chilling effect on the free press.
freedom of religion.
Wrong. If she were truly pro-choice in favor of students’ choice of schools, she would support revoking federal money from those schools who discriminate against prospective students and their families. But she doesn’t or at least refuses to say so.
No. Don’t be deliberately obtuse. The kind of choice referred to might make a difference. Not you but some little minority of people. And you know that.
I’ll be OK with “pro-choice on abortion” vs “anti-choice on abortion.” That’s a win for you. Then we have to spell out the word abortion every time. Actually I think it would be a step towards finding out how we really feel as a society.
I was going to make an additional point about religion, but backspaced without capturing all of the sentence. Please ignore the freedom of religion hanging out all alone,
A *politician *chilling the press, and I don’t believe I said a damn thing about it being unconstitutional, per se. It shows a lack of respect for the Constitution, but I wouldn’t say it is unconstitutional; as such.
And I was attempting to clarify the position another poster put forth with a possible interpretation of your admittedly non-standard usage of the phrase “pro-life.”
How about The Black Caucus. Look at them, and tell me how many are actually “black”. And let’s all agree once and for all that Charlize Theron is an African-American. Wow, proof by linguistic nonsense is fun!!!
