Bad link. This is the correct link.
Says you.
Define scare quotes please.
You’re the one who isn’t here to debate with facts or logic, tomndebb. Look, for example, at your response to my claim that you mischaracterized Doocy. I said, among other specific factual arguments, that “He specifically says that the notion that this was a racial hate crime would be ‘extraordinary’.” Your response was “The only mischaracterization I see is your weird interpretations of what Doocy, Bush, and Obama’s earliest comment.” That’s not debate. It’s exactly what you are incorrectly accusing **Frylock **of doing. You’re merely projecting your failings in this thread upon him.
Maybe instead of trying to get the thread moved to the Pit, you should drop the insults about the true motivations of the people in the thread who disagree with you and actually address the arguments.
Talk goes nowhere right now. Now is the time for action. My action is, hitting the submit button without making any substantial reply.
Quotation marks used to indicate that a phrase is being used in a non-standard sense–often, but not always, in an ironic sense.
I don’t see any doubting, hedging, denying, offering of alternative hypotheses, or anything like that. He was asked a question about what he thinks of the significance for this event on the gun control issue, and he answered it accordingly.
It is part of discussion in good faith that one does not ascribe to one’s interlocutor abjectly ridiculous claims if there is a plausible alternative interpretation of what the interlocutor said. By doing the former rather than the latter, even after an explanation of how to do the latter has been given to you, you thereby constitute yourself as failing to discuss in good faith.
Except for the typo. “Is” should be deleted.
That doesn’t sound scary to me.
But lets go with this. I TOLD you how I was using them. React to my post with THAT in mind.
Okay, just to be clear again–in the part of my quote I posted, I was reacting to John Mace, not to you. I was referring to a discussion we’d had in the past about quotation marks. I was pointing to how I (not you) had just used quotation marks as an example of an earlier claim I had made.
“Ultimately, what we are dealing with is the evil [sic]…” Not racism, evil[ness].
At least Santorum used the word “hate” in his original statement.
I also don’t think racism is what we’re dealing with “ultimately.”
He didn’t seem to me to be making that statement in order to distract from the question of racism. Did he seem to you to be doing that?
Lets just agree to whatever whatever because I gotta go for the day.
From that link, here’s what Bush said when the question was repeated:
Politicians are always mealy-mouthed, goes with the territory, but I see nothing particularly terrible about the statement. Are there more definitive exemplars?
When Muslim extremists attacked a Jewish deli in Paris, Obama and his administration were slow to call it antisemitism. In an interview several weeks after the fact. Obama called it a “random” shooting, and his spokesman insisted that the shootings were “not because of who [the victims] were, but because of where they randomly happened to be.” Only later, after objection, did the spokesman say it was indeed “antisemitism.” (Doing the classic Washington, “our position hasn’t changed, it only *looks *like we’re saying the opposite of what we said eight hours ago”). As far as I know, Obama himself has never clarified his statements.
I would be highly amused to see the OP write a post explaining how Obama and his spokesman’s hesitancy in using the word “antisemitism” weeks after the deli attack was totally OK and understandable, but the Pub candidates’ hesitancy in using “racism” within the first 72 hours in Charleston was not.
Imagining hypocrisy is indeed an amusing pastime! Have fun with it!
That would be amusing wouldn’t it?
Other than a few schools and internet sites, where are you finding this ignorance-fighting environment? Certainly not in DC politics.