Once Paul loses.

Can you provide an example? I honestly don't see how disagreeing on an interpretation of the U.S. constitution can be unpatriotic. It seems apparent that you are engaging in hyperbole - as so many on the right(and the left) tend to do.

 

Sure. When liberal justices declared that saying the pledge was unconstitutional, it was unpatriotic.

That's fine.

Not a bit. I think it is unpatriotic to do certain things. I don't think that is true of all disagreements, but there are some so egregious that they merit no other label.

 

You have a very, very broad definition of what is unpatriotic. However, that's your choice.

 

What's your definition of unpatriotic? I think it is unpatriotic to undermine the values of this country, or to undermine its founding documents.

 

Or could it be that you have a very, very broad/liberal definition of patriotism? I think so. And that's your choice.....:thumbs:

 

Let's examine it.

There is so much here that makes little sense that it's hard to respond, but I will take a stab by making a couple of points.

1. I am always thinking. And I frequently change my position based on that. I always enjoy the interaction here and hate that this section contains people who post regularly who are hateful and personal towards others. Nonetheless, I continue to read along and participate.

2. The NRL knows more about the candidates' positions than I do. That's why I made the comment I made. That shouldn't have begged any question for you. I am not sure why it is surprising for you to find out that I don't know everything. I don't even act like I know everything. I have always been very cautious about making bold statements.

3. I would not call the NRL evil baby killers. I would not call anyone that. You are the one that said it, not me. Someone who is not prolife does not have to be called an evil baby killer. That is a non sequitur on your part, and it is the basis of your egregious charge that I am a liar. You simply have wrongly deduced what I said.

4. If you have read my past posts, you will note that I have consistently made the distinction between "consistently prolife" and inconsistently prolife. Ron Paul is inconsistently pro life. I have made that many times, and expected that my comments here would be taken in light of that, particularly given the fact that you have read so many of my others posts. You should know exactly what I meant. In retrospect, given the freuency with which people don't read and remember what others have said, I should have said Ron Paul is not consistently pro-life, as I have said in the past.

5. I would take Ron Paul's solution in in a heartbeat. But it is not the ideal. I have also made that point many times.

No, you simply didn't think through the issue. I would not label Paul or the NRL an evil baby killer. So either way, I did not lie. You think I lied only because you didn't think clearly about what I actually said. The fact that I said Ron Paul was not prolife doesn't mean I have to call anyone evil baby killers. That is just bad argumentation.

So you are wrong. I suggest you apologize and take back your charges. I have never lied and don't intend to start now. Your lack of understanding of my position or my comments does not mean that I lied. It means that you simply did not understand.

 

That is not true. It is ludicrous to maintain that unless one rejects federalism that one is not consistently pro-life. I think it would be dangerous and foolish to throw federalism out the window for one's pet issue. That is where the inconsistency is - on the part of people who are all for federalism unless they don't like the result for their pet issue(s).

 

I have no problem with someone pointing out when I lie. In fact, I have invited people to point out any time that I misrepresent someone else's statements or their position, or when I have been wrong on a matter of fact. I will always apologize for it, and I have in the past. But if you are going to accuse me of lying, you must first point it out. You did not do that. You made up an argument that was not mine, and then try to frame it as if I was lying. I wasn't. You got caught trying to make something up to try to make me look bad and you failed.

Not in my book. And that is where you failed. You think that I should make the same connection you do. Your whole premise that I lied was based on this statement, and it was a wrong statement. It was logically fallacious, and not true since it does not conform to reality of what I believe.

No, but those aren't the only options. You have committed the logical fallacy of the excluded middle.

No, not really. Not being honest is a statement about statement; liar is a statement about a person.

Again, no, not necessarily. "Not straight," in the world of sex, can refer to bi-sexuality, which is not the same as gay. Not being a hard worker does not mean lazy since someone can be a middle of the road worker. So again, you have committed the logical fallacy of the excluded middle.

Too bad you missed on it by committing logical fallacies.

I don't care if you ignore my post. I have clearly shown the fallacy involved. And let the record show that you are now calling on my to lie, sincde to admit that I lied would be itself a lie since I did not lie to begin with.

There was no need for you to misrepresent my argument, and assume that my statements/feelings/beliefs would be the same as yours. I did not lie, and I think that is obvious.

Ivon, I appeal to you stop this nonsense. The fact that you and I disagree on politics does not mean that this rancor needs to take place. The BB used to be a far better place, but the influx of certain people and their types of interaction over the last few years has certainly lowered the quality of conversation. I appeal to you to help raise it back to the level it used to be.

 

Perhaps, Ken, this is a major point of difference.

First, I don't think federalism is the hill to die on. There are some things so important that the federal government should be involved. The founding fathers were not right on everything, IMO. I don't think it is a matter of consistency as much as morality. There are some things on which individual states can make up their own mind. There are other things that should be national (and even worldwide) values. So for my part, I don't see federalism as the answer to everything. I think it is misguided in some parts, at least as I understand it at this point.

Second, if someone is willing to allow others to decide whether or not to kill a baby, I don't see how they can be consistently prolife. Paul's position of no federal law concerning it essentially allows it to remain "safe, rare, and legal," as every Democratic candidate would believe. I don't think it is consistently prolife when you don't take a stand for life in every state, and country for that matter.

 

Yes, it is. And if you think that I am in favor of killing babies because I disagree with you on this then that's your problem, not mine, as nothing could be further from the truth.

 

"Evil baby killer" seems to indicate someone who has killed (unless I misunderstand the word "killer"). The vast majority of pro choice people have not killed anyone, and neither has anyone at RTL or Ron Paul, to my knowledge. And letting states decide whether or not to murder people is not killing anyone. That's a pretty clear distinction, even if not radical.

And I don't think someone who wants Roe overturned but doesn't want a national law against abortion is an "evil baby killer." I think they are inconsistent and I think they are wrong. If you disagree, that's fine.

I would like to see Roe overturned, and I would like to see a national law against abortion.

I would hope so. I have always tried to be straightforward, good-natured, even-handed, and fair. I know that I have not always succeeded at that, and that grieves me, but I work to do better. I have many times, both publicly and privately, apologized to people for things I have said. I have edited many posts to reflect a better thought. I am sure I will fail in the future as well, but I have never knowingly lied or misrepresented anyone.

Then please show me how. Your argument here has an excluded middle. One can be prochoice, or inconsistently pro-life, and still not be an evil baby killer.

I have yet to see it. I will be interested to see if you can actually make your point. The only thing you have shown is that you can make an argument with an excluded middle, and that I failed to use the words "consistently prolife" in reference to Ron Paul. As for a lie, or contradiction, you have yet to show one.

But I am curious. I thought you were ignoring me. Does the fact that you responded to me after saying you would ignore further posts make you a liar? (I don't think it does, but it does present an interesting contradiction between what you said and what you did. And I don't have to make a bad argument to demonstrate it.)

 

Not at all. I don't think you are in favor of killing babies, and I don't think Ron Paul is.

And I have no problem with you, Ken. We disagree on some stuff and I wish it was without the rancor.

 

Maybe you need to nuance more clearly.

 

I am not sure how to. It is usually the nuances that get missed. The one nuance I missed this time was using "consistently pro life" to describe Ron Paul. I usually include that nuance but forgot to this time, and that is what was jumped on.

I have never said anything that could legitimately be interpreted that someone who disagrees with me is in favor of abortion. I am totally baffled as to where you got that from.

I am in favor of a total outright ban on abortion with no exceptions for incest, rape, or the life of the mother. But I think we will have to get there incrementally, which is why I was in favor of the PBA, and in favor of overturning Roe, and in favor of limiting funds for abortion, etc.

 

Me, too. :thumbs: So on this note of agreement I am bowing out of this discussion.