(no subject)

Date: 15/3/12 00:26 (UTC)
'You said there was no real voice in the process but there is.'

Actually, he said:

In the sense that she can propose legislation, sure. I noted this earlier - the voice exists, but it doesn't mean much

What's happening here is as the debate extends the argument is changing focus. First it was about attacks on birth control. Your assertion connected prima facie this issue to an attack on birth control. Further arguments were on the power of the whip in terms of getting legislation proposed and passed.

As this wasn't an attack on birth control then further arguments over whether there was an effort by the whip to attack it is fallacious.

If you criticize someone for criminal behavior and demand imprisonment and we later find out they're innocent, the argument can't be over whether or not they deserve to go to jail or that if the supposed crime is deserving of jail time.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods


MONTHLY TOPIC:

Failed States

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

June 2025

M T W T F S S
       1
2 345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30