Endless Federal Overreach

[Vanquish]

Daddy government has nothing to do with this.

There's a body of federal laws that must be adhered to by the citizens of the entire country. Period. Federal law isn't "Endless federal overreach" - not by a longshot.

I supposed next you'd take out Title VII employment discrimination? Either federal laws were intended...or they weren't.

 

[Foxfyre]

Are you seriously claiming that Sallow's list here is inaccurate - that the things he lists are not things that conservatives are in favor of?

Better rethink that one.

Some conservatives are no doubt in favor of some of those things as are some liberals. We are speaking of modern understanding of the terms instead of the dictionary or classical definitions of course.

To say that CONSERVATIVES or LIBERALS are in favor of any of them, however, is not only really really DUMB, but highly inaccurate.

But my point is that the post was inappropriate and non sequitur and an ad hominem red herring to include on this thread which isn't about any of those things.

Foxy, Foxy, Foxy . . . . OBVIOUSLY I don't think that ALL conservatives hold all of these views, or even any of them. I love the way you have to qualify everything you say on this board or get questioned about it every time.

I think it is safe to say that MANY conservatives hold MOST (if not all) of these views and that many more conservatives hold these views than liberals.

OK?

George, George, George, I doubt any judge wouild let you get away with making blanket statements like that about anybody, even when qualified as MANY. In fact the prosecution would likely object on the grounds that even suggesting such a statement was prejudicial.

Just taking the first item on the list, I think it is safe to say that you would be hard put to find ANYBODY of any American ideology who would be in favor of torture. You would find people who would discuss the various qualifications within the term that would give people like--you maybe?--license to ACCUSE them of being in favor of torture, but you simply cannot discuss that topic as if there was only one definition for it.

To say that many conservatives are in favor of torture is as ignorant and prejudicial as saying that many liberals are in favor of aborting as many late term babies as possible. Both statements arise out of prejudice with no basis in fact. So yeah, you can count on it every time that I will require qualification of statements that are that wrong.

The same is true of most of those things on your list which STILL have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

 

[Vanquish]

Sallow's list was not a red herring or non seqitur of any kind.

The topic was constitutional perversion. And he gave some wonderful examples of what most conservatives usually are able to palette in terms of constitutional perversions. That's not a stretch...it's a damn fine point.

Why is it most conservatives seem to think THEY have the lock on that document? They dont. We all do.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sallow's list was not a red herring or non seqitur of any kind.

The topic was constitutional perversion. And he gave some wonderful examples of what most conservatives usually are able to palette in terms of constitutional perversions. That's not a stretch...it's a damn fine point.

Why is it most conservatives seem to think THEY have the lock on that document? They dont. We all do.

Please look up the definitions for 'red herring' as it applies to debate or discussion.
Then look up the definition for non sequitur.
Then re-read the opening post that sets the topic for this thread.
It will probably be asking too much to ask that you then admit you said something foolish here, but perhaps you will be less inclined to say something foolish in the same manner again.