>Oh - but there's this: "Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, you'll be
>able to use public money to send yours kids to General Beauregard
>Bigot Private Academy, Fundamentalist Football and Frequent Drug
>Tests. They have these religious schools that teach these kids
>insanity like the earth is 5,000 years old, where the pope is a demon.
>I don't want my tax money going to that kind of crap. You can practice
>religion until you fall out. I don't want to pay for somebody else's
>So Christians are bigots who want to use tax money to perpetuate that
>bigotry in their children.
See, you lose arguments when you restate something to make your point that
contradicts or flies in the face of what actuallly said.
When you say "So..." and restate it, you add things that were simply never said
nor ever intended. Carville was referring to a specific institution, for
starters, and adding that he didn't want public money to go to religious
schools, which is in line with the separation of church and state.
He didn't say "Christians are bigots who want to use tax money to perpetuate
that bigotry in their children." YOU said that in order to set up a straw-man
argument. YOU applied it on a broader scale, and YOU were the one who said
that Christians as a class were bigots, not Carville.
If you have to twist statements to make your case, you don't HAVE a case.
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)