chrysostom’s 2013 annual awards
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
rainee
New member
It is more than enough that you remain a friend. Sleep well.
that is his argument
in case you are confused
let me try to explain
my argument is you have to vote republican to get the right judges on the court that will not find laws restricting abortion unconstitutional
his argument is that you need a constitutional amendment
the democrats have never had a problem getting 41 votes to block a judge and they only need 34 to block an amendment
if the democrats can't get 34 votes
that would mean the democratic party has been effectively destroyed
I almost forgot
the democrats will do whatever is necessary to keep abortion legal
isn't that right town?
[All quotes on my site are exact.
I'm not here to teach you English 101. :dizzy:
Last edited:
:yawn: All quotes on my site are exact. Facts[All quotes on my site are exact.
each: are stubborn things. :smokie:
[All quotes on my site are exact.
You're projecting again. :noway: I quote you exactly. You misquote me.
each: Eph 4:14A few housekeeping items:
If you find an error on my site, please let me know.
zoo22
Well-known member
:yawn: All quotes on my site are exact. Facts
And the award for TOL Crazy Lady goes to serpentdove.
You're insufferable! Do you ever write a post without that?
You do realise not every insult is an ad hominem, or... do you?
Spoiler
P.s. You're an idiot.
2 Ti 1:7 < What has that got to do with you being crazy? You can't say that God has given everyone a sound mind.
Does the Leftist :Commie: ever offer an argument without :yawn: an ad hominem attack?
When a member has committed :yawn: an ad hominem fallacy,
each::yawn: Ad hominem
See:
Tactics of the Left
:yawn: Strawman
I have not made the argument that Leftists :Commie: have a sound mind. Eccl 10:2, Jn 10:10
Last edited:
Me too :thumb
Good Food, Less Nagging, :sibbie: Who is Neg Repping Who and Why?, :freak: etc.). :dizzy:
Last edited:
No, you didn't. You partially quoted me in a way that could and I think reasonably would alter the expressed meaning from "repent of a practice" to "repent and be saved".
And you'll do absolutely nothing about it, apparently.
lain:No, that wasn't his argument. That is his sided bar. The argument isn't over restricting, but over abolishing, at least it was when we began our disagreement. And there are only two ways to cause that to happen, either overturn Roe or by Constitutional amendment.
Chrys argued that what we needed were the right sort of Justices on the High Court. But when confronted with the unassailable fact that the Court that gave us Roe was dominated by appointments made by Republican regimes he declared the Democrats were to blame for making sure the right sort of appointment couldn't make it through the nominating process.
His solution? To destroy the Democratic party.
My answer? That while the party does support choice there is and has been for a while a growing segment of the party opposed to the idea and are actually pro life candidates running within the party structure.
Further, I argued that most Democrats and most Republicans are aligned with either party because of a general philosophy/approach to government and that agreement over a wide array of issues would preclude the meaningful destruction of the party, that the easier course would be to continue to change minds on the issue instead of trying to alter that philosophical particular and to approach the question by amendment.
But even if you think the Court might be stacked instead of using an amendment you're going to have to change enough minds on the question. So which is easier, altering one opinion or a philosophy?
That's a question chrys won't answer, has gone to great pains to blow smoke at because if he answers it then it begins to expose the unassailable fact that instead of doing what would be most effective he saddles it with additional charges/goals for personal, ideological reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with abortion.
I think it's more likely.
First, he hasn't presented any serious proof that the conservative appointments that gave us Roe were the result of political compromise in the judiciary and he won't present any. Instead, he'll attempt to rest on more arguable/controversial appointment efforts, like Bork.
Chrys keeps assuming that the Democratic party is a one issue party. While the leadership has used the issue to galvanize a certain part of its base, its no more a one issue party than the Republican party is.
That said, it's still easier to change people's minds on an issue than an aggregate. Easier to destroy opposition to the issue than a party. And if you change enough minds the elected officials will reflect that out of self interest or agreement in principle.
A shrinking number will use whatever legal process they can to preserve Roe, sure. Shrinking being the operative and meaningful word.
Let the reader decide.[Projecting again. :noway: I quote him exactly.
each: link :yawn: Argument Ad Nauseam or Ad infinitum (Repetition)
I'm not here to teach you English 101. :dizzy:
You have not provided evidence
each: for an error at my site (Eph 4:14).
I did too. What award is next?
this is my argument
this is his
there is a good reason why his is so long
there is a good reason why it is so complicated
he has to hide the fact that there is no good reason to it
this is his
No, you didn't. You partially quoted me in a way that could and I think reasonably would alter the expressed meaning from "repent of a practice" to "repent and be saved".
And you'll do absolutely nothing about it, apparently.
No, that wasn't his argument. That is his sided bar. The argument isn't over restricting, but over abolishing, at least it was when we began our disagreement. And there are only two ways to cause that to happen, either overturn Roe or by Constitutional amendment.
Chrys argued that what we needed were the right sort of Justices on the High Court. But when confronted with the unassailable fact that the Court that gave us Roe was dominated by appointments made by Republican regimes he declared the Democrats were to blame for making sure the right sort of appointment couldn't make it through the nominating process.
His solution? To destroy the Democratic party.
My answer? That while the party does support choice there is and has been for a while a growing segment of the party opposed to the idea and are actually pro life candidates running within the party structure.
Further, I argued that most Democrats and most Republicans are aligned with either party because of a general philosophy/approach to government and that agreement over a wide array of issues would preclude the meaningful destruction of the party, that the easier course would be to continue to change minds on the issue instead of trying to alter that philosophical particular and to approach the question by amendment.
But even if you think the Court might be stacked instead of using an amendment you're going to have to change enough minds on the question. So which is easier, altering one opinion or a philosophy?
That's a question chrys won't answer, has gone to great pains to blow smoke at because if he answers it then it begins to expose the unassailable fact that instead of doing what would be most effective he saddles it with additional charges/goals for personal, ideological reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with abortion.
I think it's more likely.
First, he hasn't presented any serious proof that the conservative appointments that gave us Roe were the result of political compromise in the judiciary and he won't present any. Instead, he'll attempt to rest on more arguable/controversial appointment efforts, like Bork.
Chrys keeps assuming that the Democratic party is a one issue party. While the leadership has used the issue to galvanize a certain part of its base, its no more a one issue party than the Republican party is.
That said, it's still easier to change people's minds on an issue than an aggregate. Easier to destroy opposition to the issue than a party. And if you change enough minds the elected officials will reflect that out of self interest or agreement in principle.
A shrinking number will use whatever legal process they can to preserve Roe, sure. Shrinking being the operative and meaningful word.
there is a good reason why his is so long
there is a good reason why it is so complicated
he has to hide the fact that there is no good reason to it