Reply #77: calling it a spade, eh? [View All]

VPC, and all it's brady bunch spin-offs and sister organizations, are no better than the freepers.

Well, that would be the opinion of some. Not of many in the Democratic Party, I gather, but there ya go.

If you're trying to PROVE your point, then don't perpetuate propaganda of any flavor. Liberal BULLSHIT is no better than freeper BULLSHIT.

And that would be oh so relevant, if it weren't just your opinion, i.e. that the material in issue is "liberal bullshit".

You know -- calling it a spade doesn't actually make it one, eh?

And repeatedly saying nasty things about a source isn't actually demonstrating that the source is unreliable.

If you're going to dismiss material out of hand simply because you deem the source to be idiologically bankrupt that's fine. But you can't then quote material from their "liberal" counterpart and claim any fidelity to the truth or any sort of intellectual honesty on the issue.

Look, T Town Jake! It's another straw fella!

I don't gather that sources like John Lott and newsmaxwhatsit are dismissed out of hand because they are "id<e>ologically bankrupt". I believe they are dismissed out of hand because they have repeatedly been demonstrated to lie. They have, more specifically, been repeatedly demonstrate to lie in the service of a particular agenda, one that is not shared by most people who call themselves Democrats, I gather.

This doesn't mean that there are no occasions when they tell the truth. It simply means that s/he who cites them has a bit of a heavier burden when it comes to establishing that they are telling the truth.

Last I checked, sarah brady was still a republican.

Isn't that just heart-warming? And doesn't it just demonstrate how fair-minded firearms control advocates are?

I do wonder what explains this:

"Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." - Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, to Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, The National Educator, January. 1994, Page 3.

oft-cited on the net, bizarre though it is on the face of it.

But ... how many years ago might that have been when you "checked"? And did you actually "check"? Goodness; are you offering yourself as a credible source?

Oh dear: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html
It looks like Sarah Brady hasn't been a Republican for a while, if that report is accurate. And the National Educator "is something other than a professional magazine for school teachers". Oh look! The perpetrators and perpetuators of this quotation fraud are citing a neo-Nazi source. Quelle surprise.

And there ya go: I'm not endorsing anything said at that site, nor am I willing to accept anything else it says at face value. But it sure does seem to have researched those phoney quotes thoroughly and in good faith, and its conclusions seem quite reasonable and well-founded, so I don't have any reason to go calling it names and pooh-poohing what it says just because I don't like what I see of its conclusions on other matters. I'm not going to cite it when its own source is Gary Kleck, of course, because that's just dumb, and deceitful -- which we know Gary Kleck is.