The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

The reasons for the recent mass shootings Options
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, August 8, 2019 12:24:52 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,094
Neurons: 60,154
Lotje1000 wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Exactly when did I say I wanted government to impose control on women's bodies? uh...never.

You certainly don't seem very kind to people who want women to have a choice in what happens to their bodies. You prefer to refer to them as demanding "the right to kill them when they are convenient"
So you demonise women who want to be able to have an abortion, but claim you don't want the government to impose control on women's bodies. So where do you stand on the matter?

I demonize no one. As I said to BobShilling, the issue is about whining over the treatment of children at the border while demanding the right to kill them before, or even at, birth. It's the hypocrisy I detest.

FounDit wrote:
You don't say how you would do that. Are you advocating punishment for "thought crimes"?

I thought it was obvious. Gun control.
There is no such thing as "gun control". It's people control. The only "gun control" is the satirical joke about being able to hit your target.

You know, the thing you don't want people to even consider. Things like stricter background checks (which President Trump got rid of and is now looking to reestablish), mandatory firearms training, regular refresher courses on that training, optional psychological support for people who have had to fire a weapon, restriction on the types of weapons that become available, etc.

I never said anything about those points, yet you presume to know my mind about those things. Have you developed clairvoyance, too?

FounDit wrote:

Lotje1000 wrote:
Doesn't seem that hard, that's what you do with cars already.

No it isn't.

Yes it is. You say it below, there's training on how to use them. You need a license, registration and license plate, proof of purchase. There are far more checks involved with cars than there are with guns currently.

And again, that's for a mode of transportation that might kill someone if misued - not a tool deliberately designed to kill.

And once again, you deflect from the point. No one suggests restricting the whole population from obtaining vehicles, or any particular vehicle, simply because someone misuses one, but that is what is being promulgated by the "gun control" crowd.

FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Yet there are restrictions to ownership and ability to drive a car.

Not for the whole population simply because someone misuses one. We advocate training for the use of them, just as we do for guns.

Are you saying training is optional? That the whole population doesn't need driver's ed or a license to have a car? Or that road laws are more like road guidelines?
I'm saying no one suggests restricting the whole population from obtaining vehicles, or any particular vehicle, simply because someone misuses one, but that is what is being promulgated by the "gun control" crowd. There is the so-called "assault rifle". There is no such thing. It is simply a rifle. No different in function that any other rifle. That's deliberate demagoguery.

FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Additionally:
- There aren't that many mass murders happening with a car, where 1 person deliberately ends the lives of so many.

Did you miss these events?

No, I didn't. That's why I specifically said "that many mass murders". You named 5 events. Compare that to the Mass shootings archive's list for 2019. Mass shootings also have their own wikipedia page.
And yet, far more people die from vehicles, stabbings, clubs, etc. than from guns with no outcry for "control" of those things.

FounDit wrote:

Exactly. When your life is threatened, or those of your family, you want something designed to produce death for your attacker: knife, gun, club, sword, etc.

And, I would hope, you'd want to have the training and support to do that properly. There are far more checks in place to ensure people know how to drive their car according to the law than there are for people's purchase and use of guns.
And there are far more guns in the hands of law-abiding people who don't misuse them, even without training. That's because most people have enough common sense to respect the power guns provide, and use them judiciously. It is the criminal element that has no respect for other people.

FounDit wrote:

Once again you miss the point, deliberately so, I think. The whole of society isn't restricted to obtaining prescriptions simply because someone abuses them. Illogical argument.

The whole point of prescriptions is that you need the doctor's authorization to be allowed to take certain medication. People's access to that medication is restricted in order to prevent abuse.
To take a prescription, yes, but to be able to visit a physician and obtain a prescription, no. We don't restrict the whole of society simply because someone else abuses them.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
BobShilling
Posted: Thursday, August 8, 2019 1:43:48 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,412
Neurons: 7,571
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
BobShilling wrote:
Except in very rare cases when the life of the mother is seriously at risk,termination of pregnancy near the time of birth just does not happen.

'Killing' them at birth is something that even the most ardent pro-choice advocates would recognise as a crime or an act committed by a person not mentally capable of making rational decisions. To mention that in this context is just a red herring.


FounDit wrote:
Then you haven't been paying attention to what's been happening here in the States. New York recently passes a law that permits the killing of the child even up until birth.


It appears from the report you provided a link to that says that the new law 'may legalize abortion up to birth in cases where the unborn child suffers from a life-threatening illness where “there is an absence of fetal viability.' It also 'codifies Roe v. Wade in New York state law, maintaining Roe’s exemption that states not ban post-viability abortions in cases of health of the mother'.(My emphasis added.)

I can see no sign of any provision for late-term abortion without good reason.

Quote:
the real point, that one can't rail about concern for children and demand the right to end them when they are inconvenient at the same time. It's hypocritical.

Nobody in this forum has demanded the right to abort fetuses 'when they are inconvenient'. You are the only person to raise this straw man. Hypocrite!
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, August 8, 2019 2:10:44 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,925
Neurons: 51,153
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FD you are using the fear mongering and propaganda of anti abortionists when they try to use the January 2019 New York Reproductive Health Bill as allowing abortion at birth on demand.

This bill was meant to preserve the rights of women if Roe v Wade is rescinded as Trump is one step closer with Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court to getting that done for the Republican "Christians". Points one and two are already in Roe v Wade.

The abortion occurs before the end of the 24th week of the pregnancy.
The abortion is "necessary to protect the patient's life or health."
There is an absence of "fetal viability," or the ability for the fetus to survive outside the womb

"...third-trimester abortions — after the 24th week of pregnancy — are only permitted if it's necessary to protect the mother's life or health or there's an "absence of fetal viability."

Nationwide, such late-term abortions are rare: About 1.3 percent of all abortions came after the 21st week of pregnancy, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

More significant are the other southern state bills making a woman carry a dead child to term or charging her with murder after she was shot because she had a fight with the shooter - heard this recently - and the heartbeat law making abortion illegal after a certain time when a woman probably doesn't even know she's pregnant and when it is not even certain that the sounds being heard at that stage are caused by a real heartbeat. There are other causes for those sounds - forget the details.

Bob posted while I wrote. We say the same thing.

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2019/02/01/abortion-law-ny-what-reproductive-health-act-does-and-doesnt-do/2743142002/

Update - Alabama - charges of manslaughter against the pregnant woman who picked a fight and lost her baby after being shot were dropped but only after national outrage. Alabama's fetus has same rights as child already born.

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes/ears. It was their final, most essential command Orwell 1984
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, August 8, 2019 2:31:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,925
Neurons: 51,153
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Hypocrisy is only in your mind FD. There is empathy not only for the desperate pregnant women but also for any child born unwanted, poor and in squalor, treated terribly, is unhappy, and in unloving foster homes or orphanages when it could have been avoided. Or condemned to a life with debilitating physical or mental handicaps.

I would have reluctantly had an abortion in a minute, knowing any child would be better off dead than condemned to such a life if I had for instance caught German measles while pregnant.

“State-mandated reproduction has two outcomes: That women die, and that orphanages fill up." Margaret Atwood

Furthermore equating the abortion dilemma and all its ramifications with having empathy for children at the border or those in Mississippi who came home from school yesterday to find their 700 parents had been taken by ICE and the doors locked is absolutely ludicrous. Thank goodness for empathetic other Americans and schools who are trying to take care of them for now. The parents were working at meat processing plants and contributing to society. Now the US will have to spend money to care for the kids - where? In privately owned facilities that are making a fortune?

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2019/08/07/what-happens-children-people-detained-ms-ice-raids-immigration/1947642001/










The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes/ears. It was their final, most essential command Orwell 1984
BobShilling
Posted: Thursday, August 8, 2019 3:40:39 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,412
Neurons: 7,571
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Hope123 wrote:

Furthermore equating the abortion dilemma and all its ramifications with having empathy for children at the border or those in Mississippi who came home from school yesterday to find their 700 parents had been taken by ICE and the doors locked is absolutely ludicrous.


Applause Applause Applause

We should be used to FD's level of 'argument' by now.

(sigh)
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, August 8, 2019 8:52:18 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,094
Neurons: 60,154
BobShilling wrote:


We should be used to FD's level of 'argument' by now.

(sigh)


Yes, you should be. My level of argument is: Do the right thing.

As I said in the other forum topic, all they had to do was behave, enter the country the right way, and all of this could have been avoided. The chose to put themselves in this position. The chose to put their children in this position. Behavior has consequences. If we are required to obey the laws of our country, then these people should be required to obey them too.

It's called "taking responsibility for your actions", or do you guys not believe in that?


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Oscar D. Grouch
Posted: Thursday, August 8, 2019 11:56:33 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/26/2014
Posts: 748
Neurons: 1,160,566
American Exceptionalism



Hope123
Posted: Friday, August 9, 2019 12:03:16 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,925
Neurons: 51,153
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
What I said was stop equating two different situations. There is no inconsistency in our feelings of empathy for all children, born or unborn - we even include empathy for their mothers free. 😀

Yes, I agree that laws should be followed and responsibility for actions should be taken.

But I do not believe in black and white thinking in all circumstances. I believe that extenuating circumstances and nuances should be considered - like the mentally ill guy in a different thread, or in the case of these ICE raids that better care should have been taken of their children so it was done humanely.

The consequences should fit the crime. Not making preparations for their children in this case was unconscionable.

Also, separating children from their refugee parents with no plans for returning them and keeping them in jail does definitely not fit the crime because they didn't commit any crime. They entered legally as refugees until their status is confirmed. https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/barred-border-wait-lists-leave-asylum-seekers-peril-texas-ports-entry

Obama was told by the courts he couldn't keep refugee children incarcerated when he kept them as families in jail, so rather than separate them he humanely put bracelets on them and sent them out as families. And Obama was known as deporter-in-chief, but he did that humanely too.

Trump so far has refused to obey not only that court order that Obama obeyed, but several orders by the courts to return the children to their parents and to stop separating them.

So FounDit, since everybody should obey laws, why is it you are not demanding that your president obey the laws of the land, not only in this case but in allegedly breaking the emoluments clause, allegedly by using campaign funds to pay off call girls, allegedly by moving campaign contributions into other personal funds, and any other laws/regulations he has flouted? (It seems as if he spends more time at his businesses and playing golf than he does at being president, but I guess that is not against the law, although it should be a deal breaker. (I don't really expect an answer because FounDit doesn't read my posts because then he has to try to find a refutation to facts.)

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes/ears. It was their final, most essential command Orwell 1984
FounDit
Posted: Friday, August 9, 2019 12:46:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,094
Neurons: 60,154
Hope123 wrote:
What I said was stop equating two different situations. There is no inconsistency in our feelings of empathy for all children, born or unborn - we even include empathy for their mothers free. 😀
I see that, once again, you are being "economical" with the truth. It is a specious argument to say you have "empathy for all children, born or unborn", and at the same time argue for the right to end their existence.

But then, this whole post is filled with examples of being less than candid with the truth.

Yes, I agree that laws should be followed and responsibility for actions should be taken.
No, you don't, or else you could not support flooding the border with people who are entering our country illegally.

But I do not believe in black and white thinking in all circumstances. I believe that extenuating circumstances and nuances should be considered - like the mentally ill guy in a different thread, or in the case of these ICE raids that better care should have been taken of their children so it was done humanely.
If you do not believe in black and white thinking, then what do you call laws? Are laws "vague"? Do they say, "Well, you can commit this offense in this circumstance, but not in this other circumstance"? No. The explicitly say what is, or is not, permitted behavior. The are black and white.

The consequences should fit the crime. Not making preparations for their children in this case was unconscionable.
I guess this is your clairvoyance kicking in again because you seem to think the U.S. should have known a political group would facilitate this flood of people, would come to our border and try to enter illegally, and therefore, that we should have prepared a proper form of welcoming and admittance for them regardless of what the law says; with no regard for how it would affect the safety or security of our people and the whole of our society. But of course you don't care because it doesn't affect you. That's the beauty of sitting in another country and criticizing what happens here. What hubris!

Also, separating children from their refugee parents with no plans for returning them and keeping them in jail (Another bald-faced lie) does definitely not fit the crime because they didn't commit any crime. They entered legally as refugees until their status is confirmed. https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/barred-border-wait-lists-leave-asylum-seekers-peril-texas-ports-entry
No, they did not enter legally. They have, for years, been crossing illegally. The only difference is that they now no longer try to hide from the Border Patrol because they have been told about a way to overwhelm the system.

Obama was told by the courts he couldn't keep refugee children incarcerated when he kept them as families in jail, so rather than separate them he humanely put bracelets on them and sent them out as families. And Obama was known as deporter-in-chief, but he did that humanely too.
So when Obama deported them, it was humanely done, but when Trump deports them, it's inhumane, eh? Right.

Trump so far has refused to obey not only that court order that Obama obeyed, but several orders by the courts to return the children to their parents and to stop separating them.
A bald-faced lie. Provide some evidence that children have been taken from their parents and not returned to them.

So FounDit, since everybody should obey laws, why is it you are not demanding that your president obey the laws of the land, not only in this case but in allegedly breaking the emoluments clause, allegedly by using campaign funds to pay off call girls, allegedly by moving campaign contributions into other personal funds, and any other laws/regulations he has flouted? (It seems as if he spends more time at his businesses and playing golf than he does at being president, but I guess that is not against the law, although it should be a deal breaker. (I don't really expect an answer because FounDit doesn't read my posts because then he has to try to find a refutation to facts.)
allege
to assert without proof; to state; attest


No proof whatsoever, simply accusations. And the only "right" position on immigration is not, I repeat, NOT, what you all, or the Democrat Party, think about it at any given moment in time. There are many more of us who get to have a say in it, too.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
BobShilling
Posted: Friday, August 9, 2019 2:06:47 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,412
Neurons: 7,571
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
FounDit wrote:

I see that, once again, you are being "economical" with the truth. It is a specious argument to say you have "empathy for all children, born or unborn", and at the same time argue for the right to end their existence.


Rubbish! You cannot know how other people think and feel.


Hope wrote:
I agree that laws should be followed and responsibility for actions should be taken.

FounDIT wrote:
No, you don't, or else you could not support flooding the border with people who are entering our country illegally


How's that for a specious argument? Hope has never 'supported' 'flooding the border with people who are entering our country illegally'.


FounDit wrote:
If you do not believe in black and white thinking, then what do you call laws? Are laws "vague"? Do they say, "Well, you can commit this offense in this circumstance, but not in this other circumstance"? No. The explicitly say what is, or is not, permitted behavior. The are black and white.


It is because some laws are not clear that courts and courts of appeal right up to the Supreme Court so often have to decide precisely what they mean.



Hope wrote:
Trump so far has refused to obey not only that court order that Obama obeyed, but several orders by the courts to return the children to their parents and to stop separating them.

FounDit wrote:
A bald-faced lie. Provide some evidence that children have been taken from their parents and not returned to them.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/deported-parents-demand-return-their-children-u-s-custody-n978571
Hope123
Posted: Friday, August 9, 2019 2:18:24 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,925
Neurons: 51,153
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
1. I do not lie. You can't see that ending the collection of cells of a woman's body that are not yet children in order to prevent them a life of misery if allowed to go to completion might be the right thing to do, not even taking the woman's situation into account. That nuance I talked about. It is not my or your or the courts' decision. That belongs to the mother, father, and doctor. It is their business and theirs alone.

2. I was going to do the update today that ICE did indeed plan for the children of the people they took in Mississippi. "This case" meant those children in the previous sentence. You responded as if I meant the children of the refugees.

3. For the 26th time - I DO NOT SUPPORT FLOODING ANY COUNTRY'S BORDER WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE ENTERING THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY! You may not be able to stop thinking that incorrectly, but stop saying it. IT IS NOT TRUE. I do sympathize with the US or any country that has such a problem.

What I do is have empathy as a mother and ex teacher for children as young as a few months being separated from their families. And those refugees according to US law ARE NOT ILLEGAL IF THEY REPORT THEMSELVES TO OFFICIALS. Did you read the link I supplied about how the US has been breaking that law for years - long before Trump?

4. I think you do not distinguish the difference among illegals, migrants, and refugees. You also do not distinguish between me and the reports about Democrats you hear and read about in ultra-conservative-supportive-of-Trump news.

5. it is silly to think that administration did not know that these caravans have been arriving since at least Obama's time. He planned for them. The world was often kept apprised that the recent caravans were on their way by Trump himself. They had time to plan.

And yes, Obama was humane. He did not separate families. He also did not target illegals who were adding to society and had been in the US for years. He worked to help the Dreamers. He targeted those with criminal records or the newly arrived migrants, sending back any without refugee status.

6. I could supply photos, videos, documents posted by their lawyers, officials and Congress who visited, statistics of children separated from their parents, some possibly permanently. They are being kept in cages in less than ideal circumstances and several have died in custody. Where you been to call this a lie? The world knows.

7.Your border problems do affect me somewhat. People are walking across our border because they feel the US is unsafe for them. Even an American friend said they should send all the refugees on to Canada. I ignored her comment. There are not nearly as many as the US has to deal with, but Canada is a much smaller country population wise and with much less area that is viable for humans. Canadians would like to rescind safe country agreement but of course the government has to be circumspect when dealing with a volatile unpredictable president.

8. Laws are not completely black and white. There are courts and judges for that very reason. There are gray areas. One very minor example would be the mitigating circumstance of mental illness.

9. The Allegedly was put in my post to protect myself. I do believe some of these would be indictable offences except the US does not indict a sitting president. You would have to check the present legal status of those claims and whether or not he may be indicted when no longer in office. I am not interested in checking the recent status of the accusations or whether or not they have the evidence but have not indicted a sitting president. The allowance for that is impeachment instead and we know exactly how Mitch would prevent that even getting a vote in Senate.

10. We've been through all this before. Enough is enough. Have a good weekend.

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes/ears. It was their final, most essential command Orwell 1984
Hope123
Posted: Friday, August 9, 2019 3:15:22 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,925
Neurons: 51,153
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FD, I think you need to get your head out of the sand supporting this president. And saying my post about refugee children being separated is a bald faced lie means you are not paying attention, are not watching credible news, or are losing it.

You'd better read this "Testimony of Clara Long Before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, July 11, 2019" if you want to find out what is going on in your country. I don't care if their parents are mass murderers. Anyone with a heart has empathy for these children, some who don't even understand. Surely you don't condone this for children?

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/07/11/written-testimony-kids-cages-inhumane-treatment-border


Inhumane conditions listed here are too lengthy to describe; being held for long periods when it is supposed to be 72 hours max. Parents not being notified where their kids are.........Some have already been deported without their kids.

"Despite these prolonged lengths of stay, we found no evidence that anyone had made any attempts to reunite children with their family members in the United States. Many of the children with whom I spoke said they had parents or close relatives in the US."

Evidence provided of a shameful time in the US. Maybe you should think again before accusing me of posting a "bald-faced lie", of therefore being a liar.

Thanks to Bob for the link re parents demanding the return of their children from these hell holes described by Clara Long on the link above.




As I said, enjoy your weekend but I hope you cannot unsee border children images.

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes/ears. It was their final, most essential command Orwell 1984
Oscar D. Grouch
Posted: Friday, August 9, 2019 5:07:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/26/2014
Posts: 748
Neurons: 1,160,566
In an atrocious act of hubris, little donny poses with the child that had both parents murdered by the psychopath inspired by little donny's own words. little donny gives the thumbs up up sign as if to let the world know "I did this, how cool is that!" little donny has earned himself a new name, Sméagol. The first bimbo appears to be grimacing almost as if she realizes how asinine the event is. At least Sméagol inadvertently did some good in the end. It's unlikely little donny ever will.



FounDit
Posted: Saturday, August 10, 2019 12:12:43 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,094
Neurons: 60,154
BobShilling wrote:
Rubbish! You cannot know how other people think and feel.

Sure I can. You all tell everyone here on the forum what you think and feel.


BobShilling wrote:
FounDIT wrote:
No, you don't, or else you could not support flooding the border with people who are entering our country illegally

How's that for a specious argument? Hope has never 'supported' 'flooding the border with people who are entering our country illegally'.

What she did write was:
Quote: Hope123
wrote:
“What I do is have empathy as a mother and ex teacher for children as young as a few months being separated from their families.”

So it is not a specious argument at all on my part, for this is exactly the one-sided thinking of those who would permit an unchecked flow of immigrants into the country with no thought for the citizens who already live here. And being a mother and an ex teacher does not make one an authority on how to deal with the situation. If it did, I could claim that too, as a father and teacher, but that is irrelevant to the problem.

Add to that the fact that the “empathy” is completely one-sided, therefore, we citizens who have to pay for all of this, and who believe in obeying the laws of our country, demand entry to our country be done properly.

As for your link about the children at the border being separated, the link make it clear there is a reason for that:


Quote: “Concerns for children in custody increased Tuesday when it was uncovered in documents created by the Office of Refugee Resettlement that more than 4,550 allegations of migrant children being exposed to sexual abuse, harassment or inappropriate sexual conduct had been reported between fiscal years 2015 and 2018.”

People who apply properly do not have their children separated from them unless by necessity; so the only ones who do are those who have entered, or attempted to enter, the country illegally since there is ample evidence that children are being exploited in this process. If you all really cared about the children, you would support such actions. But either you lie, use “weasel words” to avoid the truth, or are completely deluded by your emotions.

Ergo, until authorities are certain the children will be united with appropriate adults who will see to their welfare, they will remain separated, as well they should. If the parents don’t want this to happen, then they shouldn’t try to cross the border illegally. It’s really that simple.

But I waste my time trying to have an intelligent conversation about this with you all. You are ruled by your emotions rather than logic or reason. Your focus is only on those who have poured across our border, while ours is on the safety and security of our country.

So for as long as you maintain that focus, your lop-sided decision-making and view of the situation creates a poor foundation for even discussing the problem, much less crafting solutions, and precisely why we will focus on the greater problem of the irredentist movement. Fortunately for us, we have more rational thinkers in charge of the situation than you all.
















We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
BobShilling
Posted: Saturday, August 10, 2019 1:19:46 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,412
Neurons: 7,571
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
BobShilling wrote:
Hope has never 'supported' 'flooding the border with people who are entering our country illegally'.


FounDit wrote:
What she did write was:

“What I do is have empathy as a mother and ex teacher for children as young as a few months being separated from their families.”

So it is not a specious argument at all on my part, for this is exactly the one-sided thinking of those who would permit an unchecked flow of immigrants into the country with no thought for the citizens who already live here.


There is no logical connection between Hope's empathy for children being separated from their families and the alleged support of some for an unchecked flow of immigrants. she has said clearly, more than once " I DO NOT SUPPORT FLOODING ANY COUNTRY'S BORDER WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE ENTERING THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY!"


FounDit. wrote:
And being a mother and an ex teacher does not make one an authority on how to deal with the situation.


Hope has never claimed that it does.


Quote:
Add to that the fact that the “empathy” is completely one-sided,

That has nothing to do with anything in this thread.

Foundit wrote:
we citizens who have to pay for all of this, and who believe in obeying the laws of our country, demand entry to our country be done properly.

I cannot speak for Hope, but I have seen no sign at all that she does not believe in obeying the law.


FounDit wrote:
As for your link about the children at the border being separated, the link make it clear there is a reason for that
:
I see no reason there. Perhaps you could tell me what I missed.

FounDit wrote:
there is ample evidence that children are being exploited in this process

That does not make it acceptable for children to be made to suffer for the crimes of their parents.

FounDit wrote:
You are ruled by your emotions rather than logic or reason.

There is little logic or reason in your posts, as we demonstrate repeatedly

FounDit wrote:
Fortunately for us, we have more rational thinkers in charge of the situation than you all.

I have seen no sign of them yet.
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, August 10, 2019 2:45:10 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,925
Neurons: 51,153
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
[quote=FounDit] BobShilling wrote:
Rubbish! You cannot know how other people think and feel.

Sure I can. You all tell everyone here on the forum what you think and feel.

Hope's comments are in red.

No you can't. Not when you don't know how to read and impose your own incorrect thoughts instead, even though my words were shouted to gain attention. Well I did think that shouting might gain your attention. I have to refute your tiresome accusation every time this topic comes up. Your poor memory or tunnel vision are my only guesses as to why you continue with this untrue accusation.



BobShilling wrote:
FounDIT wrote:
No, you don't, or else you could not support flooding the border with people who are entering our country illegally

How's that for a specious argument? Hope has never 'supported' 'flooding the border with people who are entering our country illegally'.

What she did write was:
Quote: Hope123
wrote:
“What I do is have empathy as a mother and ex teacher for children as young as a few months being separated from their families.”

So it is not a specious argument at all on my part, for this is exactly the one-sided thinking of those who would permit an unchecked flow of immigrants into the country with no thought for the citizens who already live here. And being a mother and an ex teacher does not make one an authority on how to deal with the situation. If it did, I could claim that too, as a father and teacher, but that is irrelevant to the problem.

I fervently hope you are not a teacher. I used to teach reading and listening comprehension. You need a lesson or two or you are being purposely obtuse. I do not want illegals in your country or my own country either. Furthermore no where have I EVER suggested I knew any answers to this major world problem other than to cite what Obama did which worked well and would have been better if Republicans had not obstructed him every way he turned. What a ridiculous accusation. I know enough to know when I don't know enough to comment. Refugees are a major problem that has world leaders stymied. I would never think I had answers; in fact am glad not be in a position to deal with it

Add to that the fact that the “empathy” is completely one-sided, therefore, we citizens who have to pay for all of this, and who believe in obeying the laws of our country, demand entry to our country be done properly.

As for your link about the children at the border being separated, the link make it clear there is a reason for that:


Quote: “Concerns for children in custody increased Tuesday when it was uncovered in documents created by the Office of Refugee Resettlement that more than 4,550 allegations of migrant children being exposed to sexual abuse, harassment or inappropriate sexual conduct had been reported between fiscal years 2015 and 2018.”

People who apply properly do not have their children separated from them unless by necessity; so the only ones who do are those who have entered, or attempted to enter, the country illegally since there is ample evidence that children are being exploited in this process. If you all really cared about the children, you would support such actions. But either you lie, use “weasel words” to avoid the truth, or are completely deluded by your emotions.

Baloney. The ones we are discussing do apply properly or are illegally being obstructed by US authorities against US law. I have never discussed those who border jump or overstay. They are ILLEGAL and need to be deported forthwith. As Obama did in spades.They are the ones you keep confusing. Saying Democrats want open borders means you have been brain washed. They have never said that, ever. It is only an accusation made by the Republicans.

Ergo, until authorities are certain the children will be united with appropriate adults who will see to their welfare, they will remain separated, as well they should. If the parents don’t want this to happen, then they shouldn’t try to cross the border illegally. It’s really that simple.

But I waste my time trying to have an intelligent conversation about this with you all. You are ruled by your emotions rather than logic or reason. Your focus is only on those who have poured across our border, while ours is on the safety and security of our country.

The usual baloney.
So for as long as you maintain that focus, your lop-sided decision-making and view of the situation creates a poor foundation for even discussing the problem, much less crafting solutions, and precisely why we will focus on the greater problem of the irredentist movement. Fortunately for us, we have more rational thinkers in charge of the situation than you all.


Rational thinkers who allow a man who incites violence to continue day after day. Yeah right.

Anyone who continues to support a man who calls certain people horrible and then shows a thumbs up with the orphan baby he requested be brought back to the hospital for the photo op after the baby's parents are killed by someone out to target Mexicans, the Mexicans that Trump himself demonizes, has as much blood on their hands as Trump. He did not create the situation, but he has fostered it for his own personal political reasons.

Basically Trump went to El Paso despite being specifically asked to stay away, joked about crowd size, posed ‘thumbs up’ with an orphaned infant, and doesn’t pay his $500k bill from his last visit.

Did I miss anything?!

It is thus hypocritical for you to say you are for the safety and security of your country when because of your ideology you support such an excuse for a man who fosters violence with his cat and mouse games.


The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes/ears. It was their final, most essential command Orwell 1984
Oscar D. Grouch
Posted: Sunday, August 11, 2019 9:52:35 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/26/2014
Posts: 748
Neurons: 1,160,566
Not for target practice!

Here's the weapon of death used in the Dayton shooting.


https://www.npr.org/2019/08/08/748665339/the-pistol-that-looks-like-a-rifle-the-dayton-shooters-gun



Oscar D. Grouch
Posted: Sunday, August 11, 2019 10:04:15 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/26/2014
Posts: 748
Neurons: 1,160,566
20 year old copycat parades Missouri Walmart with AR15 rifle and pistol to "test the 2nd amendment."

Rifle-Carrying Man Faces Terrorism Charge After Causing Panic At Walmart In Missouri


https://www.npr.org/2019/08/09/749763786/rifle-carrying-man-arrested-after-causing-panic-at-walmart-in-missouri
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, August 12, 2019 2:53:47 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,085
Neurons: 591,973
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
FounDit wrote:

I demonize no one. As I said to BobShilling, the issue is about whining over the treatment of children at the border while demanding the right to kill them before, or even at, birth. It's the hypocrisy I detest.

Maybe you should stop saying that women are only too happy to kill their children when convenient, then. Otherwise people will get the wrong impression on where you stand with regards to abortion rights.

FounDit wrote:
There is no such thing as "gun control". It's people control. The only "gun control" is the satirical joke about being able to hit your target.

There could be such a thing as "gun control". You could institute the same requirements as are already in place with regards to cars. You could require a license, a registration, formal training, regular check-ups etc.
I see now why you are so afraid of the Left, if you believe gun control is people control.


FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Things like stricter background checks (which President Trump got rid of and is now looking to reestablish), mandatory firearms training, regular refresher courses on that training, optional psychological support for people who have had to fire a weapon, restriction on the types of weapons that become available, etc.

I never said anything about those points, yet you presume to know my mind about those things. Have you developed clairvoyance, too?

You're right, you never said anything about those points. I did, it's my response to your comment 'You don't say how you would do that. Are you advocating punishment for "thought crimes"?".
The only thing I would "presume" to know is that you don't think about these things. And it turns out I'm right, because even when I explain my thoughts on gun control, you still think I am talking about controlling people.


FounDit wrote:
And once again, you deflect from the point. No one suggests restricting the whole population from obtaining vehicles, or any particular vehicle, simply because someone misuses one, but that is what is being promulgated by the "gun control" crowd.

Mentioning car regulations and restrictions is not deflecting from the point. It's a point you brought up to begin with and continue to bring up.
And yes, the regulations in place do affect the whole population. The restrictions just aren't as strict as with guns, because cars are not weapons of destruction. Yet for something that isn't a weapon of destruction, they are more heavily regulated than guns - a point which you keep ignoring, no matter how many times we bring it up.

FounDit wrote:
I'm saying no one suggests restricting the whole population from obtaining vehicles, or any particular vehicle, simply because someone misuses one, but that is what is being promulgated by the "gun control" crowd. There is the so-called "assault rifle". There is no such thing. It is simply a rifle. No different in function that any other rifle. That's deliberate demagoguery.

As said, the whole population is affected by rules that determine whether someone can obtain a car or not - a far more thorough check than is placed on gusn for the moment. Feel free to argue the semantics of assault rifles all you want, but maybe save it for another thread. I never used that term, I was talking about automatic weapons.

FounDit wrote:
And yet, far more people die from vehicles, stabbings, clubs, etc. than from guns with no outcry for "control" of those things.

And yet, as I have said multiple times in this thread, those things aren't used for nearly as many mass attacks. You managed to name five recent-ish attacks with a vehicle, yet ignore the hundreds of mass shootings this year alone. Feel free to provide some sources about the number of mass stabbings or mass clubbings.

FounDit wrote:
And there are far more guns in the hands of law-abiding people who don't misuse them, even without training. That's because most people have enough common sense to respect the power guns provide, and use them judiciously. It is the criminal element that has no respect for other people.

Did you miss the sources on the number of mass shootings in your country in this year alone? I'm glad those people you mention know what they're doing, but it isn't stopping all the others from committing their atrocities.

Funny thing about criminals is that usually people aren't criminals until they've committed their first crime. If their first crime turns out to be a mass shooting, then it's a little too late for your demonization of the 'criminal element'. Even if it isn't their first crime, you have no background checks and enforcement in place top stop the 'criminal element' from obtaining weapons.

FounDit wrote:
To take a prescription, yes, but to be able to visit a physician and obtain a prescription, no. We don't restrict the whole of society simply because someone else abuses them.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from but I'm not inclined to stop people from visiting a shop and seeing if they can obtain a gun. I'm just talking about restricting people from actually obtaining the gun they shop for. You know, the bit where the shop owner (physician) checks the purchaser (patient)'s background (medical background), because some weapons (medication) should only be available to people if they're allowed to have it (prescription).

Honestly, I'm surprised there's so much worry about regulation when it's all there in your second amendment anyway (emphasis mine):
Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, August 12, 2019 3:33:39 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,085
Neurons: 591,973
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
It seems FounDit is taking a page out of President Trump's book: While he has us all responding to his posts and many unfounded accusations, he still hasn't provided a single shred of evidence that:

- Democrats hate America, the Constitution etc (full list here)
- Hope supports illegal immigration
- Far more people die of car accidents than they do gun violence
- Women who want to kill their own kids before or at birth are hypocrites for having empathy for kids in cages
- Women who want to have an abortion essentially want to kill their child when it has become inconvenient
(I read FounDit's one article about abortion at birth, I also read the act it refers to and it says "24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient's life or health." - so essentially, not at birth unless the mother is going to die or if the fetus isn't viable anyway. So hardly because it's inconvenient.)
- Having empathy for kids in cages means you want the US to let in any immigrant, illegal or otherwise
- Donald Trump is a good president
- All of us with different opinions to FounDit's are Leftists
- Hope and I are clairvoyant
BobShilling
Posted: Monday, August 12, 2019 4:17:27 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,412
Neurons: 7,571
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Lotje1000 wrote:
It seems FounDit is taking a page out of President Trump's book: While he has us all responding to his posts and many unfounded accusations, he still hasn't provided a single shred of evidence that:

FAKE NEWS!

This is a typical,illogical red-herring attempt by a wishy-washy, left-wing, children-hating, illegal-immigrant-loving, America-hating, flag-loathing Democrat snowflake. Your anti-American ideas have been exposed - this is why an overwhelming majority of Americans, patriots all, voted overwhelmingly for a great man, possibly the greatest American in history, who would MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

The truth is, as you well know, FounDit never claimed that he hadn't provided a shred of evidence. Get your facts right!

Go back to where you came from!

FounDit
Posted: Monday, August 12, 2019 12:44:56 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,094
Neurons: 60,154
Lotje1000 wrote:
FounDit wrote:

I demonize no one. As I said to BobShilling, the issue is about whining over the treatment of children at the border while demanding the right to kill them before, or even at, birth. It's the hypocrisy I detest.

Maybe you should stop saying that women are only too happy to kill their children when convenient, then. Otherwise people will get the wrong impression on where you stand with regards to abortion rights.
But that is simply stating facts. It's called Roe vs. Wade, and women do demand the right to kill/terminate their babies growing within them. Just a fact. If it isn't true, perhaps you could show us the law that forbids it.

FounDit wrote:
There is no such thing as "gun control". It's people control. The only "gun control" is the satirical joke about being able to hit your target.

There could be such a thing as "gun control". You could institute the same requirements as are already in place with regards to cars. You could require a license, a registration, formal training, regular check-ups etc.
I see now why you are so afraid of the Left, if you believe gun control is people control.

The Constitution does not permit the Federal Government to perform this function. It is unconstitutional. To do so would require a federal registry which would give the government the power to permit, or forbid, obtaining a firearm, which is in violation of the 2nd Amendment. This is a power forbidden to the Federal government.

FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Things like stricter background checks (which President Trump got rid of and is now looking to reestablish), mandatory firearms training, regular refresher courses on that training, optional psychological support for people who have had to fire a weapon, restriction on the types of weapons that become available, etc.

I never said anything about those points, yet you presume to know my mind about those things. Have you developed clairvoyance, too?

You're right, you never said anything about those points. I did, it's my response to your comment 'You don't say how you would do that. Are you advocating punishment for "thought crimes"?".
The only thing I would "presume" to know is that you don't think about these things. And it turns out I'm right, because even when I explain my thoughts on gun control, you still think I am talking about controlling people.

That's right, because that is what gun control is all about. Tell me how you control guns without controlling people.

FounDit wrote:
And once again, you deflect from the point. No one suggests restricting the whole population from obtaining vehicles, or any particular vehicle, simply because someone misuses one, but that is what is being promulgated by the "gun control" crowd.

Mentioning car regulations and restrictions is not deflecting from the point. It's a point you brought up to begin with and continue to bring up.
And yes, the regulations in place do affect the whole population. The restrictions just aren't as strict as with guns, because cars are not weapons of destruction. Yet for something that isn't a weapon of destruction, they are more heavily regulated than guns - a point which you keep ignoring, no matter how many times we bring it up.

FounDit wrote:
I'm saying no one suggests restricting the whole population from obtaining vehicles, or any particular vehicle, simply because someone misuses one, but that is what is being promulgated by the "gun control" crowd. There is the so-called "assault rifle". There is no such thing. It is simply a rifle. No different in function that any other rifle. That's deliberate demagoguery.

As said, the whole population is affected by rules that determine whether someone can obtain a car or not - a far more thorough check than is placed on gusn for the moment. Feel free to argue the semantics of assault rifles all you want, but maybe save it for another thread. I never used that term, I was talking about automatic weapons.
Automatic weapons are already illegal, and no one is permitted to have one. But you deflect again. Saying the whole population is affected by rules is completely different than forbidding the whole population from obtaining a vehicle when someone misuses one, and that is exactly what is being proposed when countries who have banned possession of arms are used as examples of what is desired.

FounDit wrote:
And yet, far more people die from vehicles, stabbings, clubs, etc. than from guns with no outcry for "control" of those things.

And yet, as I have said multiple times in this thread, those things aren't used for nearly as many mass attacks. You managed to name five recent-ish attacks with a vehicle, yet ignore the hundreds of mass shootings this year alone. Feel free to provide some sources about the number of mass stabbings or mass clubbings.
There has NOT been hundreds of mass shootings. But there have been thousands of people killed by vehicles and drugs and yet there is no outcry for restricting people's ability to obtain one. The problem isn't the gun, it's the nut case using it and none of the laws already passed, or being proposed, would have prevented the last two shootings.

FounDit wrote:
And there are far more guns in the hands of law-abiding people who don't misuse them, even without training. That's because most people have enough common sense to respect the power guns provide, and use them judiciously. It is the criminal element that has no respect for other people.

Did you miss the sources on the number of mass shootings in your country in this year alone? I'm glad those people you mention know what they're doing, but it isn't stopping all the others from committing their atrocities.
And no laws will. Laws have no meaning to crazies and criminals.

Funny thing about criminals is that usually people aren't criminals until they've committed their first crime. If their first crime turns out to be a mass shooting, then it's a little too late for your demonization of the 'criminal element'. Even if it isn't their first crime, you have no background checks and enforcement in place top stop the 'criminal element' from obtaining weapons.

That's a lie. We DO have background checks on people when then purchase a gun. And we just discovered the mother of one of the shooters notified the police about her son and his behavior prior to the shooting, but nothing was done about it. This is because we don't punish people until they COMMIT a crime. We do not yet have "thought police", but this seems to be what is being advocated.

FounDit wrote:
To take a prescription, yes, but to be able to visit a physician and obtain a prescription, no. We don't restrict the whole of society simply because someone else abuses them.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from but I'm not inclined to stop people from visiting a shop and seeing if they can obtain a gun. I'm just talking about restricting people from actually obtaining the gun they shop for. You know, the bit where the shop owner (physician) checks the purchaser (patient)'s background (medical background), because some weapons (medication) should only be available to people if they're allowed to have it (prescription).
And that is already being done. And none of that prevented what happened. Background checks do not stop someone from acting in the future. The shooter passed a background check.

Honestly, I'm surprised there's so much worry about regulation when it's all there in your second amendment anyway (emphasis mine):
Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Exactly. You will notice that it is the militia that is well regulated, not the arms they use. That is a job forbidden to the Federal Government by the Constitution.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
FounDit
Posted: Monday, August 12, 2019 3:34:19 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,094
Neurons: 60,154
Hope123 wrote:
[quote=FounDit] BobShilling wrote:
Rubbish! You cannot know how other people think and feel.

Sure I can. You all tell everyone here on the forum what you think and feel.

Hope's comments are in red.

No you can't. Not when you don't know how to read and impose your own incorrect thoughts instead, even though my words were shouted to gain attention. Well I did think that shouting might gain your attention. I have to refute your tiresome accusation every time this topic comes up. Your poor memory or tunnel vision are my only guesses as to why you continue with this untrue accusation.


And yet, here you are, telling everyone what you think and feel.
BobShilling wrote:
FounDIT wrote:
No, you don't, or else you could not support flooding the border with people who are entering our country illegally

How's that for a specious argument? Hope has never 'supported' 'flooding the border with people who are entering our country illegally'.

What she did write was:
Quote: Hope123
wrote:
“What I do is have empathy as a mother and ex teacher for children as young as a few months being separated from their families.”

So it is not a specious argument at all on my part, for this is exactly the one-sided thinking of those who would permit an unchecked flow of immigrants into the country with no thought for the citizens who already live here. And being a mother and an ex teacher does not make one an authority on how to deal with the situation. If it did, I could claim that too, as a father and teacher, but that is irrelevant to the problem.

I fervently hope you are not a teacher. I used to teach reading and listening comprehension. You need a lesson or two or you are being purposely obtuse. I do not want illegals in your country or my own country either. Furthermore no where have I EVER suggested I knew any answers to this major world problem other than to cite what Obama did which worked well and would have been better if Republicans had not obstructed him every way he turned. What a ridiculous accusation. I know enough to know when I don't know enough to comment. Refugees are a major problem that has world leaders stymied. I would never think I had answers; in fact am glad not be in a position to deal with it

Yet you just contradicted yourself when you said what Obama did worked well, but when Trump does the same thing, you object.

Add to that the fact that the “empathy” is completely one-sided, therefore, we citizens who have to pay for all of this, and who believe in obeying the laws of our country, demand entry to our country be done properly.

As for your link about the children at the border being separated, the link make it clear there is a reason for that:


Quote: “Concerns for children in custody increased Tuesday when it was uncovered in documents created by the Office of Refugee Resettlement that more than 4,550 allegations of migrant children being exposed to sexual abuse, harassment or inappropriate sexual conduct had been reported between fiscal years 2015 and 2018.”

People who apply properly do not have their children separated from them unless by necessity; so the only ones who do are those who have entered, or attempted to enter, the country illegally since there is ample evidence that children are being exploited in this process. If you all really cared about the children, you would support such actions. But either you lie, use “weasel words” to avoid the truth, or are completely deluded by your emotions.

Baloney. The ones we are discussing do apply properly or are illegally being obstructed by US authorities against US law. I have never discussed those who border jump or overstay. They are ILLEGAL and need to be deported forthwith. As Obama did in spades.They are the ones you keep confusing. Saying Democrats want open borders means you have been brain washed. They have never said that, ever. It is only an accusation made by the Republicans.
Quote: "Beto Answers Dan Crenshaw’s Question: Would You Take Down The Border Wall? Answer: “Yes, absolutely. I’d take the wall down,” O’Rourke responded to MSNBC’s Chris Hayes when presented with Crenshaw’s question.

Kamala Harris’s Early ‘No’ on Wall May Give Her an Edge in 2020

Both Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren say it should not be illegal to cross the border which would permit a flood of people to come into the country. Therefore, there can be no wall.


Ergo, until authorities are certain the children will be united with appropriate adults who will see to their welfare, they will remain separated, as well they should. If the parents don’t want this to happen, then they shouldn’t try to cross the border illegally. It’s really that simple.

But I waste my time trying to have an intelligent conversation about this with you all. You are ruled by your emotions rather than logic or reason. Your focus is only on those who have poured across our border, while ours is on the safety and security of our country.

The usual baloney.
No baloney. Logic and reason.

So for as long as you maintain that focus, your lop-sided decision-making and view of the situation creates a poor foundation for even discussing the problem, much less crafting solutions, and precisely why we will focus on the greater problem of the irredentist movement. Fortunately for us, we have more rational thinkers in charge of the situation than you all.


Rational thinkers who allow a man who incites violence to continue day after day. Yeah right.

Anyone who continues to support a man who calls certain people horrible and then shows a thumbs up with the orphan baby he requested be brought back to the hospital for the photo op after the baby's parents are killed by someone out to target Mexicans, the Mexicans that Trump himself demonizes, has as much blood on their hands as Trump. He did not create the situation, but he has fostered it for his own personal political reasons.
Bullshit.

Basically Trump went to El Paso despite being specifically asked to stay away, joked about crowd size, posed ‘thumbs up’ with an orphaned infant, and doesn’t pay his $500k bill from his last visit.
His "thumbs up" was for the baby being saved. But I suppose saving a baby is anathema for those who believe in killing them (yes, that was a purposeful dig because you are deliberately misrepresenting the situation for political purposes).
Did I miss anything?!
ROTF...Seriously? What you miss would fill a library.

It is thus hypocritical for you to say you are for the safety and security of your country when because of your ideology you support such an excuse for a man who fosters violence with his cat and mouse games.

Non sequitur.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
FounDit
Posted: Monday, August 12, 2019 3:41:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,094
Neurons: 60,154
BobShilling wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
It seems FounDit is taking a page out of President Trump's book: While he has us all responding to his posts and many unfounded accusations, he still hasn't provided a single shred of evidence that:

FAKE NEWS!

This is a typical,illogical red-herring attempt by a wishy-washy, left-wing, children-hating, illegal-immigrant-loving, America-hating, flag-loathing Democrat snowflake. Your anti-American ideas have been exposed - this is why an overwhelming majority of Americans, patriots all, voted overwhelmingly for a great man, possibly the greatest American in history, who would MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

The truth is, as you well know, FounDit never claimed that he hadn't provided a shred of evidence. Get your facts right!

Go back to where you came from!



Careful, you're in danger of validating Poe's Law here, but I suspect that is the goal.

We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
BobShilling
Posted: Monday, August 12, 2019 4:59:48 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,412
Neurons: 7,571
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Lotje1000 wrote:
There could be such a thing as "gun control". You could institute the same requirements as are already in place with regards to cars. You could require a license, a registration, formal training, regular check-ups etc.
I see now why you are so afraid of the Left, if you believe gun control is people control.

FounDit wrote:
The Constitution does not permit the Federal Government to perform this function. It is unconstitutional. To do so would require a federal registry which would give the government the power to permit, or forbid, obtaining a firearm, which is in violation of the 2nd Amendment. This is a power forbidden to the Federal government.


It may be unconstitutional now, but you appear to forget that the Constitution can be changed. It has been changed - twenty-seven times.

The original Constitution, Article Five of which is about the process for amending the Constitution. was finally ratified by the last of the original 13 states on 29 May 1790. Less than seven, months later, on 15 December 1791, ten amendments were added.
I have listed below just a few of the pretty significant amendments.

Slavery was not mentioned in the original Constitution. As many of the Founding Fathers were slave-owners it was presumably take for granted that it was legal. The Thirteenth Amendment, ratified on 6 December 1865, made illegal what had hitherto been legal.

The Founding Fathers (there were no Founding Mothers) did not see fit to give women the right to vote in the Constitution. Though women had had the right to vote in some colonies, women in every state except New Jersey lost that right when the Constitutional Convention placed voting qualifications in the hands of the states. New Jersey followed joined the males-only group in 1807. The Nineteenth Amendment, ratified on August 18, 1920, gave women a right that the original Constitution had not.

The production, transport, and sale of intoxicating liquors were not mentioned in the Constitution , and were therefore not illegal, i.e. they were legal. These perfectly legal activities were made illegal by the Eighteenth Amendment, ratified on 16 January 1919. These activities, illegal under the Constitution (including Amendments) became legal again with the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment on 5 December 1933.



Lotje wrote:
Honestly, I'm surprised there's so much worry about regulation when it's all there in your second amendment anyway (emphasis mine):
[quote]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

FounDit wrote:
Exactly. You will notice that it is the militia that is well regulated, not the arms they use. That is a job forbidden to the Federal Government by the Constitution.


As you are doubtless aware, Your interpretation of the Second amendment is far from universally accepted The exact meaning of the Second Amendment has been dealt with several times by the Supreme Court:


In United States v. Cruikshank (1875) The Supreme Court argued that the Second Amendment did not apply to state or local governments or to individual citizens. States (though not the Federal government) could restrict citizens' gun rights. The individual had no inherent rights under the Second Amendment.

In Presser v. Illinois (1886), the Supreme Court supporting the previous judgement, argued that the Second Amendment only guaranteed a state's right to maintain a well regulated militia, but not an individual's right to bear arms.

In, United States v. Miller (1939) the Supreme Court ruled that only guns that could reasonably be used in a militia were protected by the Second Amendment, by a 5-4 vote.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) , the Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.
This was the first time for over 120 years that the Second Amendment had been ruled to mean what gun rights defenders claim today, and then only by a 5-4 majority. Even so, the Court’s opinion included these words :"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner and for whatever purpose".

In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed the individual right to keep and bear arms. The states could not infringe an individual's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes. Once again, tis was a 5-4 decision.


So, the current interpretation could be change by another Supreme Court decision or by a new Amendment. It is not enshrined in the Constitution for all time.
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 11:30:33 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,094
Neurons: 60,154
BobShilling wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
There could be such a thing as "gun control". You could institute the same requirements as are already in place with regards to cars. You could require a license, a registration, formal training, regular check-ups etc.
I see now why you are so afraid of the Left, if you believe gun control is people control.

FounDit wrote:
The Constitution does not permit the Federal Government to perform this function. It is unconstitutional. To do so would require a federal registry which would give the government the power to permit, or forbid, obtaining a firearm, which is in violation of the 2nd Amendment. This is a power forbidden to the Federal government.


It may be unconstitutional now, but you appear to forget that the Constitution can be changed. It has been changed - twenty-seven times.
No, I am fully aware of the amendments. The first ten are very famous, known as the Bill of Rights.

The original Constitution, Article Five of which is about the process for amending the Constitution. was finally ratified by the last of the original 13 states on 29 May 1790. Less than seven, months later, on 15 December 1791, ten amendments were added.
I have listed below just a few of the pretty significant amendments.

Slavery was not mentioned in the original Constitution. As many of the Founding Fathers were slave-owners it was presumably take for granted that it was legal. The Thirteenth Amendment, ratified on 6 December 1865, made illegal what had hitherto been legal.

The Founding Fathers (there were no Founding Mothers) did not see fit to give women the right to vote in the Constitution. Though women had had the right to vote in some colonies, women in every state except New Jersey lost that right when the Constitutional Convention placed voting qualifications in the hands of the states. New Jersey followed joined the males-only group in 1807. The Nineteenth Amendment, ratified on August 18, 1920, gave women a right that the original Constitution had not.

The production, transport, and sale of intoxicating liquors were not mentioned in the Constitution , and were therefore not illegal, i.e. they were legal. These perfectly legal activities were made illegal by the Eighteenth Amendment, ratified on 16 January 1919. These activities, illegal under the Constitution (including Amendments) became legal again with the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment on 5 December 1933.
This is true. The whole idea behind the establishment of the United States was to attempt a better form of government; one of, by, and for the people, rather than a dictatorial style such as had been practiced for millennia before. The framers knew it wasn't yet perfect, so they set up a method for improving it when the people deemed it necessary.


Lotje wrote:
Honestly, I'm surprised there's so much worry about regulation when it's all there in your second amendment anyway (emphasis mine):
[quote]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

FounDit wrote:
Exactly. You will notice that it is the militia that is well regulated, not the arms they use. That is a job forbidden to the Federal Government by the Constitution.


As you are doubtless aware, Your interpretation of the Second amendment is far from universally accepted The exact meaning of the Second Amendment has been dealt with several times by the Supreme Court:
Yes. I am aware that there are those who would disarm the citizenry of our country, and have tried to do so for quite some time. Fortunately, so far they have failed.

The fact that the Supreme Court has made some foolish decisions is one of the reasons Trump was elected so as to prevent more of that. As can be seen below in your list, the court has been wrong several times, as it also was in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) when it ruled segregation was constitutional; the so-called "separate but equal" ruling.


In United States v. Cruikshank (1875) The Supreme Court argued that the Second Amendment did not apply to state or local governments or to individual citizens. States (though not the Federal government) could restrict citizens' gun rights. The individual had no inherent rights under the Second Amendment.

In Presser v. Illinois (1886), the Supreme Court supporting the previous judgement, argued that the Second Amendment only guaranteed a state's right to maintain a well regulated militia, but not an individual's right to bear arms.

In, United States v. Miller (1939) the Supreme Court ruled that only guns that could reasonably be used in a militia were protected by the Second Amendment, by a 5-4 vote.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) , the Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.
This was the first time for over 120 years that the Second Amendment had been ruled to mean what gun rights defenders claim today, and then only by a 5-4 majority. Even so, the Court’s opinion included these words :"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner and for whatever purpose".

In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed the individual right to keep and bear arms. The states could not infringe an individual's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes. Once again, tis was a 5-4 decision.


So, the current interpretation could be change by another Supreme Court decision or by a new Amendment. It is not enshrined in the Constitution for all time.

Exactly. This is why it is so important to continue to elect leaders like Trump to insure that rational and reasoned thinking prevails. This is to be much greater desired than amending the foundational document of the Republic to meet the whims of a political party or group, and thus endangering the freedoms we have increased for people over the last 243 years.

We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
BobShilling
Posted: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 1:00:41 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,412
Neurons: 7,571
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
FounDit wrote:
The fact that the Supreme Court has made some foolish decisions is one of the reasons Trump was elected so as to prevent more of that.


Whether or not a Supreme Court decision is foolish is merely opinion. What is important is that it cannot be reversed or nullified except by a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court or by the passing of a New Amendment. The president, Trump or anyone else, cannot 'stop' any foolish (or wise) Supreme Court decisions.
.

Quote:
... it is so important to continue to elect leaders like Trump to insure that rational and reasoned thinking prevails.


Whistle


Quote:
This is to be much greater desired than amending the foundational document of the Republic to meet the whims of a political party or group, and thus endangering the freedoms we have increased for people over the last 243 years.


Red Herring. The Constitution of the United States, as you probably know. can be amended only in circumstances which preclude the whim of a political party or group, or of a president: .

Amendment proposals may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either:

A two-thirds (supermajority) vote of members present—if a quorum exists—in both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States Congress;
or
A majority vote of state delegations at a national convention called by Congress called at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at present 34) of the states.

[...]

To become an operative part of the Constitution, an amendment, whether proposed by Congress or a national constitutional convention, must be ratified by either:

The legislatures of three-fourths (at present 38) of the states; or
State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (at present 38) of the states.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment#United_States
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 1:16:52 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,925
Neurons: 51,153
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Trying to discuss anything with anyone who thinks what Obama did and Trump is doing are the same thing and who dismisses legitimate comparisons with "non sequitur" but cannot see that his point of view of hypocrisy is the real non sequitur is a waste of energy better used for helping with governments that believe in fighting for ALL people - and their planet.

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes/ears. It was their final, most essential command Orwell 1984
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 7:41:16 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,094
Neurons: 60,154
BobShilling wrote:
FounDit wrote:
The fact that the Supreme Court has made some foolish decisions is one of the reasons Trump was elected so as to prevent more of that.


Whether or not a Supreme Court decision is foolish is merely opinion.
Well, no, not really. That is why some of their decisions were reversed - they were foolish - such as prohibition and separate but equal, opinions which became law.

What is important is that it cannot be reversed or nullified except by a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court or by the passing of a New Amendment. The president, Trump or anyone else, cannot 'stop' any foolish (or wise) Supreme Court decisions.
Exactly. That is why it was so important to elect a President who would place judges on the court more closely aligned to the intent of the original document, rather than social engineers.

Quote:
... it is so important to continue to elect leaders like Trump to insure that rational and reasoned thinking prevails.


Whistle


Quote:
This is to be much greater desired than amending the foundational document of the Republic to meet the whims of a political party or group, and thus endangering the freedoms we have increased for people over the last 243 years.


Red Herring. The Constitution of the United States, as you probably know. can be amended only in circumstances which preclude the whim of a political party or group, or of a president: .

Amendment proposals may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either:

A two-thirds (supermajority) vote of members present—if a quorum exists—in both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States Congress;
or
A majority vote of state delegations at a national convention called by Congress called at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at present 34) of the states.

[...]

To become an operative part of the Constitution, an amendment, whether proposed by Congress or a national constitutional convention, must be ratified by either:

The legislatures of three-fourths (at present 38) of the states; or
State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (at present 38) of the states.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment#United_States

I am very much aware of how the Constitution can be amended. I am also aware that packing the Supreme Court was a goal of the Democrats who hoped to be able to interpret the document as they wished, rather than as what it says, as John Roberts did with Obamacare; so it is not a red herring.

We, President Trump and his supporters, saved the Republic, for now. We just need to continue doing so in the face of the Socialist assault currently trying to undermine and fundamentally change it. I am confident we will. I would ask you to wish us luck in our endeavor, but I suspect you feel differently concerning the success of our enterprise.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Lotje1000
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 2:18:20 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,085
Neurons: 591,973
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Lotje1000 wrote:
It seems FounDit is taking a page out of President Trump's book: While he has us all responding to his posts and many unfounded accusations, he still hasn't provided a single shred of evidence that:

- Democrats hate America, the Constitution etc (full list here)
- Hope supports illegal immigration
- Far more people die of car accidents than they do gun violence
- Women who want to kill their own kids before or at birth are hypocrites for having empathy for kids in cages
- Women who want to have an abortion essentially want to kill their child when it has become inconvenient
(I read FounDit's one article about abortion at birth, I also read the act it refers to and it says "24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient's life or health." - so essentially, not at birth unless the mother is going to die or if the fetus isn't viable anyway. So hardly because it's inconvenient.)
- Having empathy for kids in cages means you want the US to let in any immigrant, illegal or otherwise
- Donald Trump is a good president
- All of us with different opinions to FounDit's are Leftists
- Hope and I are clairvoyant


I'd like to add to the list:
- Supreme Court has made foolish decisions
- The Democrats hope to be able to interpret the Constitution as they wish (and, presumably, the Republicans have the True Interpretation)
- Trump and his supporters have saved the republic.
- The socialists are assaulting the republic.

So far, though, not a single shred of evidence.
BobShilling
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 3:22:15 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,412
Neurons: 7,571
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
FounDit wrote:
I am very much aware of how the Constitution can be amended. I am also aware that packing the Supreme Court was a goal of the Democrats who hoped to be able to interpret the document as they wished, rather than as what it says, as John Roberts did with Obamacare; so it is not a red herring.


Hmmm. Look at the record before you make any claims about 'packing' by Democrats.

Since 1945, three nominations by Republican presidents, Clement Haynsworth, G. Harrold Carswell and
Robert Bork, have been rejected by the Senate. In each case, there were very very sound reasons, and in each case some Democrats voted in favour of the nomination and some Republicans voted against. The two Republican presidents' later nominations were accepted by the Senators, in each case with no Democrats voting against.

When a Supreme Court vacancy arose 2016, Senate Republicans issued a statement saying they would not consider any nomination by President Obama (a Democrat). The nomination should be left to the next President of the United States. This despite there being neither constitutional support nor established tradition that a president could not fill a Supreme Court vacancy in his final year in office. When Obama nominated Merrick Garland, Republican Senators refused to consider the nomination, holding "no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever" on the nomination. The Republican senators appear not to have read the constitution, which states in Article 2, that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint [...] Judges of the supreme Court. Refusing to consider a nomination is hardly giving advice.


This Republican decision resulted in a 422-day vacancy in the Supreme court, a record. No nomination was considered until a Republican president was in office, when Neil Gorsuch was confirmed.




BobShilling
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 3:31:48 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,412
Neurons: 7,571
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Lotje1000 wrote:
It seems FounDit is taking a page out of President Trump's book: While he has us all responding to his posts and many unfounded accusations, he still hasn't provided a single shred of evidence that: [long list]

- Supreme Court has made foolish decisions [..]

So far, though, not a single shred of evidence.



To be fair, FD did cite Prohibition and the Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) ruling that segregation was constitutional; the so-called "separate but equal" ruling, to evidence this claim.

I mention this only because I am sure that FD will bring it up as evidence that he has provided evidence, and conveniently ignore the fact that he has provided no evidence whatsoever on many other claims he has made.


BobShilling
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 3:33:02 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,412
Neurons: 7,571
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
FounDit wrote:

We, President Trump and his supporters, saved the Republic, for now.


Whistle
Lotje1000
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 3:35:09 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,085
Neurons: 591,973
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
FounDit wrote:
But that is simply stating facts. It's called Roe vs. Wade, and women do demand the right to kill/terminate their babies growing within them. Just a fact. If it isn't true, perhaps you could show us the law that forbids it.

Roe vs Wade says nothing about women happily killing their kids when convenient - those are your subjective opinions. It is a document about the right of women to decide to have an abortion, that is an objective fact.

FounDit wrote:
The Constitution does not permit the Federal Government to perform this function. It is unconstitutional. To do so would require a federal registry which would give the government the power to permit, or forbid, obtaining a firearm, which is in violation of the 2nd Amendment. This is a power forbidden to the Federal government.

That is one interpretation that BobShilling already pointed out, just like he pointed out the options for amendments. There are also other interpretations that say it wouldn't be unconstitutional.

FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Things like stricter background checks (which President Trump got rid of and is now looking to reestablish), mandatory firearms training, regular refresher courses on that training, optional psychological support for people who have had to fire a weapon, restriction on the types of weapons that become available, etc.
[...]
The only thing I would "presume" to know is that you don't think about these things. And it turns out I'm right, because even when I explain my thoughts on gun control, you still think I am talking about controlling people.

That's right, because that is what gun control is all about. Tell me how you control guns without controlling people.

I literally just did in that paragraph. That's no more "people control" than it's people control to make similar requests of people when they want to drive a car.

FounDit wrote:
Automatic weapons are already illegal, and no one is permitted to have one. But you deflect again. Saying the whole population is affected by rules is completely different than forbidding the whole population from obtaining a vehicle when someone misuses one, and that is exactly what is being proposed when countries who have banned possession of arms are used as examples of what is desired.


- Semi-automatic rifles were banned for a while, but the ban expired and attempts to renew it have failed.
- Laws sometimes include rulings forbidding people from doing or having stuff. Like forbidding them from owning or dealing drugs. Or forbidding them from driving a car without a license or registration. That's usually in place because someone once did something that was seen as bad (buy/use/deal drugs, buy a car but not know how to drive it, etc.) and a law was made to stop that from happening. So yes, the whole population is affected by rules and sometimes those rules forbid the population from obtaining something (if they don't tick the required boxes).


FounDit wrote:
There has NOT been hundreds of mass shootings. But there have been thousands of people killed by vehicles and drugs and yet there is no outcry for restricting people's ability to obtain one. The problem isn't the gun, it's the nut case using it and none of the laws already passed, or being proposed, would have prevented the last two shootings.

There have been hundreds of mass shootings this year already. I gave you two sources on the subject above. There is no accepted definition of mass shootings, but whichever way you want to define them, there have been more then there have been vehicle related mass attacks. Each of the following pages describes their own criteria:
- As of July 31, 2019, 248 mass shootings have occurred in 2019
- The two shootings, first in El Paso, Texas, and then in Dayton, Ohio, are the latest instances of deadly mass shootings in 2019, bringing the total number of such incidents up to at least 17 — an average of one every 12.7 days this year.
- 256 mass shootings in 2019 (by 14 August)


FounDit wrote:
And no laws will. Laws have no meaning to crazies and criminals.
[...]That's a lie. We DO have background checks on people when then purchase a gun. And we just discovered the mother of one of the shooters notified the police about her son and his behavior prior to the shooting, but nothing was done about it. This is because we don't punish people until they COMMIT a crime. We do not yet have "thought police", but this seems to be what is being advocated.


- BEFORE people commit a crime, they are stopped because there are laws in place that remind them that what they want to do is a crime, and what consequences they might face if they go through with it. So having laws stops wannabe-criminals.
- BEFORE people commit a crime, laws can stop them from accessing the items they need to commit such a crime, such as the background checks on mental illness that President Trump got rid of. That would stop "the crazies" as you call them.
- AFTER people commit a crime, they are brought to justice, serving as an example for anyone else. Thus stopping them from doing it again.
- AFTER people commit a crime, they have that crime added to their criminal record. If that record is checked, it can stop them from doing something dangerous again - like, say, purchasing a gun.

Not regulating guns as strictly as the country regulates non-weapons (such as cars) is giving means and opportunity to the "crazies and criminals".


FounDit wrote:
And that is already being done. And none of that prevented what happened. Background checks do not stop someone from acting in the future. The shooter passed a background check.

- There was no ban in place on semi-automatic rifles that stopped shooters from obtaining them
- There are still ways of obtaining a gun without a background check: 22% of current U.S. gun owners who acquired a firearm within the past 2 years did so without a background check
- President Trump, apparently, wants to strengthen background checks
- McConnell and Trump have also signaled that they would also consider discussing new “red flag” laws, which would allow authorities to take guns away from people who are believed to be dangerous.
- For the specific Dayton case: It is currently unclear if the alleged shooter in El Paso was subjected to a background check when purchasing his firearm. That's a problem in and of itself. But even if it wouldn't have prevented this one, that doesn't make it not a good solution to other mass shootings for the future.


Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

FounDit wrote:
Exactly. You will notice that it is the militia that is well regulated, not the arms they use. That is a job forbidden to the Federal Government by the Constitution.


- Whether it's constitutional has already been argued above, and by BobShilling
- You will also notice that one of the Second Amendment interpretations is that it's the militia that has a right to keep and bear arms, rather than people in general. Maybe it's time to clear up this ambiguity. After all:
FounDit wrote:
Are laws "vague"? No. The explicitly say what is, or is not, permitted behavior. The are black and white.
BobShilling
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 3:47:13 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,412
Neurons: 7,571
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Lotje1000 wrote:
[quote=Lotje1000]It seems FounDit is taking a page out of President Trump's book: While he has us all responding to his posts and many unfounded accusations, he still hasn't provided a single shred of evidence



Responding to his claims is frustrating waste of our time. However, respect for truth and logic (which FD claims he has, and which people who challenge him haven't) mean that his claims cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

I have had for some time a sneaking suspicion that FD does not really believe everything he claims - his main interest is in a troll-like desire to stir things up in this forum. This is why he is not concerned about his inability to provide evidence. The claim itself is sufficient to cause discord, as Trump has shown so often.

If they do believe their claims, they hope that by if they keep making them up long enough, the untrue claims may be accepted as fact.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.