How could I have “forgotten” to mention it?
I have no idea what poll you quoted. You didn’t link to it or identify it.
i simply pointed out that IF the poll in question pre-dated the AG report, then you couldn’t use it for the purpose you were attempting.
Do you have a link, or something that lets me see the context of the comment?
For example, if the next sentence is, “Unfortunately, Law’s activities were not technically criminal,” then this isn’t a good example for you.
Any reason you’re not linking to your cites?
Why is that relevant? The only relevant question about “who’s liberal” from your quote is: is Sean O’Conaill liberal?
By the way, how did you rationalize away this evidence when you decided that the person (who explicitly told you he was a conservative voter and wasn’t liberal) was in fact a secret liberal and just didn’t realize it?
As a Canadian, he’s used to voter ID being required. A Canadian favoring Voter ID is simply recognizing the status quo.
In principle, this could be is legitimate.For example, if someone says “I’m opposed to big government, abortion, and anti-christian bigotry, but I’m not a conservative.” I’ll probably say, “Bull, you hold nothing but conservative beliefs.”
But that’s not what Bricker is doing. He’s not providing any examples of liberal beliefs that Uzi holds except for this one, hence my claim his reasoning is circular. His line of reasoning is akin to “I think date-rape is really overstated and the law needs to distinguish between that and legitimate rape, but I’m not a conservative.” “Bull, only conservatives are so wrong about rape and only conservatives are so anti-woman, you must be a conservative.”
Then you should really point out that while someone’s self-identification isn’t dispositive, it should at least tip the burden of proof, so that it falls to me to identify other positions that Uzi has taken that are fairly described as liberal.
Well, Liberals *are *all about the status quo, right?
So where we stand:
You’ve only been able to identify one poster who is “implying Law should be punished regardless of extant laws…”. However, the poster you have identified:
Self-identifies as a non-liberal, and told you so directly and explicitly
Votes conservative, and told you so directly and explicitly
Holds non-liberal political views, and you were aware of this prior to claiming he was a liberal
Based on this you have concluded that only liberals “are suggesting, directly, that Law be punished by the action of the Pope, even if the Pope needs to explicitly and consciously lie.”?
You are aware that this isn’t your finest moment, right?
By the way, when posting that quote of yours I noticed that you used the word “directly”. Whoops, that’ll make coming up with another example awkward.
Googling “conservative blog holder arrested” yields some interesting results. He’s the first guy I tried, but I assume I could find comparable drivel if I chose other liberal (or conservative) officials.
[QUOTE=Conservative Hammers]
Governor Brownback, asserting his own constitutional authority both from the state of Kansas and the 4th amendment of the US Constitution (states rights) responded to Eric Holder with a threat of his own. Apparently the governor has issued a statewide order to Kansas law enforcement to arrest and detain Eric Holder, pending trail [sic] under Kansas law, for threatening the Kansas governor and Kansas police if they attempt to enforce “state law” regarding gun rights.
I love it!
[/quote]
Which I already did, albeit not in so many words.
No, it won’t. “Directly,” modifies the word “suggesting.” It doesn’t negate it.
And as I explained before, I am using “liberal,” in the American political sense. A Canadian or UK person who votes for the conservative party is not excluding himself as a liberal by American standards.
It’s not clear to me if you’re offering up Governor Brownback as the counter-example, or the author of the web page.
Which is it?
If both are bad examples, then it doesn’t matter which is which. They’re both wrong. Say so.
If one is a bad example and the other good, it doesn’t matter which is which. One counterexample is all Varlos needs. Your point is undermined. Say so.
Finally, if you haven’t formulated a response to whether either is legit until the argument is “clarified,” you’re using stalling tactics in bad faith. It’s not terribly complicated to read the article and analyze the opinions of both the Governor and the blogger reporting on him. We did that type of thing all the time in high school.
Well, then you’ll have to explain the difference between “suggesting” and “suggesting, directly” to me then. I’m assuming there is a difference?
And of course, we still have the problem of you judging “liberals” based on a post by one guy. That’s probably a bigger problem, but you got no shortage of problems here.
By the way, I’m rooting for you to convince me you’re right. Because then I get to judge Catholics, conservatives, and lawyers by the posts of any one Catholic, conservative, or lawyer. And let me tell you, that’ll lead me to conclude some very interesting things about you.
Oh, before I forget, you are claiming that **Uzi **is a liberal even though he himself told you that he isn’t. I hope you didn’t think I was going to just let that slide.
I believe that your argument was that all his opinions were liberal opinions (this turned out not to be true, of course, so you’ve already lost the argument, but…). I guess it’s proof time for you: please prove that Uzi is a liberal. Just to avoid ambiguity or misunderstanding, let me be clear: I won’t accept your opinion as proof, so please bring cites.
There is of course the possibility that American political standards are hopelessly warped by any rational view.
The bloggers. (There were two separate links there.) I didn’t bother looking it up, but I’m guessing that Brownback did not, in fact, threaten to arrest AG Holder.
The problem is that the blogger admits that he may be reporting a rumor. In other words, I deny the truth of the claim that the governor plans to arrest the Attorney General for some non-existent crime.
Great.
Now, can you show me where those bloggers were shown that there was. No such law, and persisted in their desire to see Holder arrested?
That’s what happened here, after all: it isn’t simply saying that someone should be arrested – it’s saying someone should be arrested while being in possession of the knowledge that there’s no actual criminal law to use.
All his opinions are liberal opinions. What’s a counter example?
What’s an example?