Subscribe Register Login

Wednesday, June 29, 2016, 4:17 a.m.
Top Picks - Capture Arkansas

Public profile for JakeTidmore

Comment history

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.

Justices strike Texas' criteria for abortions June 28, 2016 at 6:59 p.m.

htt p://ww w.nytimes.co m/2016/06/28/opinion/the-facts-win-out-on-abortion.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=1
--
A key paragraph from the above article reads: There was no mystery in what the five justices in the majority, crucially including Justice Kennedy, accomplished this time, nor in the decision’s impact. By holding the state’s asserted rationale for its clinic-decimating regulations up to the light and finding it specious and counterproductive, the court has shut down one of abortion opponents’ main recent strategies: enacting “targeted regulation of abortion providers” laws that impose on doctors who perform abortions special restrictions not placed on doctors who do procedures of equal or greater risk.
--
What frightened me were the capricious and vindictive rationales put forth by the 5th Circuit US Court of Appeals judges:
“In our circuit, we do not balance the wisdom or effectiveness of a law against the burdens the law imposes,” Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote for the court. In an earlier phase of the case, another Fifth Circuit judge, Edith Jones, declared that the court would defer to the Legislature even if the law was based on “rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data.”
--
Blatantly and blindly declaring that date and evidence had no place in their decision. This is the ugly face of abortion foes. A face void of reason and respect.

( | suggest removal )

Justices strike Texas' criteria for abortions June 28, 2016 at 1:04 p.m.

Instead of giving time to packoflies, educate yourself about the hypocrisy of the pro-life movement:
--
More about pro-life hypocrisy:

htt p://ww w.rawstory.co m/2015/09/the-deadly-hypocrisy-of-the-pro-life-movement/

ht tp://theweek.co m/articles/569663/glaring-hypocrisy-prolife-movement

ht tp://ww w.huffingtonpost.co m/warren-j-blumenfeld/the-hypocrisy-of-prolife-and-the-gop_b_7294178.html

h ttp://ww w.politicususa.co m/2013/11/12/great-hypocrisy-republicans-pro-life.html
-
ht tp://newsbusters.or g/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2016/04/01/meyers-uses-trumps-abortion-comments-skewer-hypocritical-pro-life

ht tp://modernliberals.c om/see-pro-life-movement/

And a cartoon kiddies!!
ht tp://propaganda-for-life.tumblr.co m/post/6702524934/image-a-political-comic-with-six-panels-the
--
Time for Brenda to take pack to the woodshed again?!!

( | suggest removal )

Justices strike Texas' criteria for abortions June 28, 2016 at 12:30 p.m.

Packoflies has to resort to the logical fallacy reductio ad absurdum. After linking PP with the KKK, next he'll link it with Hitler, then Stalin, then Satan, then whatever else he draws out of his hat of cheap tricks. Useless idiots have this problem when it comes to reasoning.

What is idiocy in the realm of valuation is taking something smaller than a period on this page and claiming that it is a child. Or claiming that a rape victim has no value and rights. Or whining about "de-valuation" after reams of postings against gays, Muslims, poor people, etc. Here's your sign packie: "H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E!!!!"

( | suggest removal )

Walton Family Foundation's $250M to help charter schools in Little Rock, 16 other cities June 28, 2016 at 12:21 p.m.

Fresh on the heels of news from Detroit that the charter school effort there is failing.

( | suggest removal )

Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion clinic regulations June 28, 2016 at 9:47 a.m.

From today's news: The U.S. Supreme Court today let stand lower court rulings that invalidated laws in Mississippi and Wisconsin that required abortion providers to have doctors with hospital admitting privileges.
--
SCOTUS is standing up for what is right!!

( | suggest removal )

Benghazi report faults security; no new Clinton allegations June 28, 2016 at 9:45 a.m.

AP lead paragraph which ADG omitted:
"WASHINGTON — Ending one of the longest, costliest and most bitterly partisan congressional investigations in history, the House Select Committee on Benghazi issued its final report on Tuesday, finding no new evidence of culpability or wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton in the 2012 attacks in Libya that left four Americans dead."

( | suggest removal )

Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion clinic regulations June 27, 2016 at 5:06 p.m.

Still spreading your tawdry lies Pop. So the more accurate statement is this:

Pop Smith is still a liar.

( | suggest removal )

Letters June 27, 2016 at 8:57 a.m.

Duncan cherry-picks his Bible to justify his prejudices then passes along the blame to God for his reprehensible actions towards other human beings. It's the same excuse children use when caught out: "But, he made me do it!"
--
The Nazis used the same line for their defense: "I was just following orders."

( | suggest removal )

The H is for hypocrite June 25, 2016 at 9:53 a.m.

H is for Hitler, ergo Hillary is for Hitler
--
Before Godwin's Law there was Reduction ad Hitlerum (or ad Stalinum). Here's a mini-history lesson on the topic:
--
From Wiki:
The phrase reductio ad Hitlerum is first known to have been used in an article written by University of Chicago professor Leo Strauss for Measure: A Critical Journal in spring 1951; it was made famous in a book by the same author published in 1953 Natural Right and History, Chapter II:
--
In following this movement towards its end we shall inevitably reach a point beyond which the scene is darkened by the shadow of Hitler. Unfortunately, it does not go without saying that in our examination we must avoid the fallacy that in the last decades has frequently been used as a substitute for the reductio ad absurdum: the reductio ad Hitlerum. A view is not refuted by the fact that it happens to have been shared by Hitler.
--
The phrase was derived from the legitimate logical argument called reductio ad absurdum. The argumentum variant takes its form from the names of many classic fallacies, such as argumentum ad hominem. The ad Nazium variant may be further derived, humorously, from argumentum ad nauseam.
--
In 2000 traditionalist Catholic Thomas Fleming described its use against traditional values:
--
Leo Strauss called it the reductio ad Hitlerum. If Hitler liked neoclassical art, that means that classicism in every form is Nazi; if Hitler wanted to strengthen the German family, that makes the traditional family (and its defenders) Nazi; if Hitler spoke of the "nation" or the "folk," then any invocation of nationality, ethnicity, or even folkishness is Nazi ..

( | suggest removal )

The H is for hypocrite June 25, 2016 at 9:39 a.m.

Addendum:
Comparing any contemporary political figure to either Hitler or Stalin has more to do with designating who is not in agreement with you and almost nothing to do with history.
--
Anytime someone compares politicians and leaders to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Genghis Khan, etc. -- refer them to Godwin's Law. ("As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a corollary involving Stalin which basically says the same.)
--
htt p://tvtropes.or g/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GodwinsLaw
--
Let us educate you further in some lesser known logical fallaces:
Kang: (disguised as Bob Dole) Abortions for all!
Crowd: Booo!
Kang: Very well. No abortions for anyone!
Crowd: Booo!
Kang: Hmm...Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
Crowd: Yaaay!
— The Simpsons
Most people know that there are two sides to every issue: their side, and the wrong side. Authors (and people in general) who subscribe to the Golden Mean Fallacy have another outlook. They believe that there are in fact three sides: the side of the complete morons to the left of them, the side of the complete morons to the right of them, and their own side, which combines the good points of each in sublime harmony while avoiding all the bad. If one position is argued to be superior solely because it is in the middle, then this is the Golden Mean Fallacy, aka "Argument to Moderation."
The fallacy is not merely saying that compromise between opposing viewpoints is good. It is saying that extreme solutions are never reasonable or correct, and the correct solution can always be found in the middle, e.g. some say cyanide is a lethal and dangerous poison and should never be consumed. The opposite position would be that cyanide is nutritious and beneficial to your health and should be consumed frequently. The golden mean fallacy would state that cyanide should therefore be consumed in moderation.

( | suggest removal )

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

SHOPPING

loading...
Top Picks - Capture Arkansas
Arkansas Online