http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/28/v ... ant-point/
The left is just using Alinskyite tactics to try to discredit Pence.
Protests on Indiana RFRA law miss one important point
-
_BartBurk
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 923
- Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 1:38 pm
-
_Maksutov
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 12480
- Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm
Re: Protests on Indiana RFRA law miss one important point
BartBurk wrote:http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/28/video-protests-over-indiana-version-of-rfra-seem-to-miss-one-important-point/
The left is just using Alinskyite tactics to try to discredit Pence.
"The left"...."Alinskyite"...wait, got to go get my Fox secret decoder ring.
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
-
_BartBurk
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 923
- Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 1:38 pm
Re: Protests on Indiana RFRA law miss one important point
Maksutov wrote:BartBurk wrote:http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/28/video-protests-over-indiana-version-of-rfra-seem-to-miss-one-important-point/
The left is just using Alinskyite tactics to try to discredit Pence.
"The left"...."Alinskyite"...wait, got to go get my Fox secret decoder ring.I do speak a little Rushian.
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
The attack on RFRA is partisan politics, not about the law itself which has been proven to be fair through years of court review.
-
_MrSimpleton
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:35 pm
Re: Protests on Indiana RFRA law miss one important point
BartBurk wrote:http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/28/video-protests-over-indiana-version-of-rfra-seem-to-miss-one-important-point/
The left is just using Alinskyite tactics to try to discredit Pence.
Before you attempt to label something as BS....perhaps you should educate yourself on the identification of BS. Here is a steaming pile of BS from the article you linked:
"Christians have not objected to providing services to LGBT customers, but to being forced to participate in same-sex weddings by the state, either by baking a cake for one or having to photograph it, and then getting forced out of business by fines when they refuse out of religious conscience."
Baking a cake, selling flowers, renting a public space, is the provision of services.
Would you like to phrase the argument from in YOUR OWN words; thus demonstrating that you are, perhaps, attempting to intelligently discuss the issue?