Leon Troutsky 26,886 Posted November 21, 2016 Author Share Posted November 21, 2016 10 minutes ago, unbelievable said: Many people have fought against registry in the past. Remember the gun owners registry? Publishing where people lived so they can be harassed? People were warned what would happen, but the left felt that the ends justified the means. Now they cry out and no will care. No one cared before... The right has been doing that for years and years. Tea Party supporters published the home addresses of Democratic members of Congress. One of them even had his gas line cut by a Tea Party supporter. But yeah, tell us again about "the left". Quote Link to post Share on other sites
eatcorn 5,027 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 (edited) Right....so you think that limiting freedom of expression is wrong, correct? Then why are you defending it? EDIT: Meant to unbelievable. Edited November 21, 2016 by eatcorn Ufraideez! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
unbelievable 141 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 11 minutes ago, lostone said: I call it like I see it. This is nothing new. Rich land owner telling the poor, "brown people are the cause of your problems". No personal responsibility, no self reflection. Just blame someone else. We've had 8 years of "We are the 99%. Everything bad in the world is caused by the 1%!." People are just tired of slogans; wanted a new one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Leon Troutsky 26,886 Posted November 21, 2016 Author Share Posted November 21, 2016 Just now, eatcorn said: Right....so you think that limiting freedom of expression is wrong, correct? Then why are you defending it? Because the left or sumsht. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Leon Troutsky 26,886 Posted November 21, 2016 Author Share Posted November 21, 2016 Just now, unbelievable said: We've had 8 years of "We are the 99%. Everything bad in the world is caused by the 1%!." People are just tired of slogans; wanted a new one. "People are tired of slogans...so they want a new slogan." Durr. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lostone 18,345 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 10 minutes ago, unbelievable said: Many people have fought against registry in the past. Remember the gun owners registry? Publishing where people lived so they can be harassed? People were warned what would happen, but the left felt that the ends justified the means. Now they cry out and no will care. No one cared before... religionregister.gov make sure you register your kids. They coming for the first amendment! Y'all were cool when you thought the spying was just on brown people in the country then got mad when they went after everyone. This is so tired. You erode a right for one it gets eroded for all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
silentbob1272 6,050 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 22 hours ago, lostone said: It's kind of sad when I have to explain how, just because a court ruled a certain way doesn't mean it's right or follows the constitution. the fact that the war on drugs has basically ended our 4th amendment rights should be a clear example of this. So says your interpretation of the Constitution, and it's not just any court, it's the Supreme Court, which contains people much more learned in what is constitutional than you or I. You made an excellent rebuttal to a similar argument I made in another thread regarding the constitutionality of Roe v Wade, in which you challenged if I thought it was right vs just constitutional. So I do get and even agree with what you're saying, but you or I declaring that this is illegal is just fallacious. Immoral is a better argument, but that is our opinion, and does not establish illegality. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
silentbob1272 6,050 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 21 hours ago, Leon Troutsky said: Clinton was indeed dangerous to Osama bin Laden. But what did she do as SOS that is equivalent to Flynn's lack of judgment Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lostone 18,345 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 2 minutes ago, silentbob1272 said: So says your interpretation of the Constitution, and it's not just any court, it's the Supreme Court, which contains people much more learned in what is constitutional than you or I. You made an excellent rebuttal to a similar argument I made in another thread regarding the constitutionality of Roe v Wade, in which you challenged if I thought it was right vs just constitutional. So I do get and even agree with what you're saying, but you or I declaring that this is illegal is just fallacious. Immoral is a better argument, but that is our opinion, and does not establish illegality. True, I will give you that. It would be interesting if people were searched based on demographic numbers would people be cool with that? You see how the tone of the war on drugs changed with suburban kids getting caught up in it. I assume the same with all "color blind" laws. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
silentbob1272 6,050 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 1 hour ago, eatcorn said: Legal or not, it's an un-American and deplorably disgusting policy. We can argue legal semantics all day, and nothing will change the fact that Trump's anti-Islam policies are flat out WRONG. Remember why our nation's founders came here in the first place? I feel the same about abortion, yet here we are. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
unbelievable 141 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 13 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said: The right has been doing that for years and years. Tea Party supporters published the home addresses of Democratic members of Congress. One of them even had his gas line cut by a Tea Party supporter. But yeah, tell us again about "the left". There is a difference between some random guy doing a white pages search and getting the address WRONG for a Congressman, and giving access to the National Gun Registry to the press so they can publish it. One is some random idiot. The other is systematic. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
unbelievable 141 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 They just have to re-name it a "domestic terrorist watch list." Oh wait... that was already created. Maybe just make it "color-blind" and put more than just conservative groups on it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Leon Troutsky 26,886 Posted November 21, 2016 Author Share Posted November 21, 2016 14 minutes ago, silentbob1272 said: Not a response. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dago 3.0 8,688 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 On 11/20/2016 at 9:35 AM, WhenFalconsWin said: What will Trump have to do to win you over? Don't sweat the minuscule things, we need to MAGA, don't be a hindrance, be a part of the winning team with your support. not appointing conspiracy theory nuts to positions of power would probably be a start Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WhenFalconsWin 27,693 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 1 minute ago, Dago 3.0 said: not appointing conspiracy theory nuts to positions of power would probably be a start I wasn't in agreement with all Obama's appointees either, but I gave the administration the benefit of the doubt when they took office. After that we have to go by merit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lostone 18,345 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 2 minutes ago, Dago 3.0 said: not appointing conspiracy theory nuts to positions of power would probably be a start Nah they never did any of that because they have an R beside their name. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
unbelievable 141 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Just now, Dago 3.0 said: not appointing conspiracy theory nuts to positions of power would probably be a start The downside of funding your own campaign is not having a bigger circle of "friends" to fill thousands of positions. You also have to consider that anyone who thought Trump could win (an openly expressed that opinion) was laughed at.. they'd have to be a little nutty. “Sometimes it is the people who no one imagines anything of, who do the things that no one can imagine.” -Imitation Game. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
unbelievable 141 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Does anyone find it ironic that we have Liberals arguing the original content of the Constitution while the Conservatives are finding existing loopholes in it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WhenFalconsWin 27,693 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 9 minutes ago, lostone said: Nah they never did any of that because they have an R beside their name. Argument is to simple to throw back on you...nah, they never did because they have a (D) beside their name. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Leon Troutsky 26,886 Posted November 21, 2016 Author Share Posted November 21, 2016 14 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said: I wasn't in agreement with all Obama's appointees either, but I gave the administration the benefit of the doubt when they took office. After that we have to go by merit. Which of Obama's appointees were conspiracy theory nuts who shared fake news stories about their opponents? False equivalency is false. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Leon Troutsky 26,886 Posted November 21, 2016 Author Share Posted November 21, 2016 10 minutes ago, unbelievable said: The downside of funding your own campaign is not having a bigger circle of "friends" to fill thousands of positions. You also have to consider that anyone who thought Trump could win (an openly expressed that opinion) was laughed at.. they'd have to be a little nutty. “Sometimes it is the people who no one imagines anything of, who do the things that no one can imagine.” -Imitation Game. Trump didn't fund his own campaign. He took hundreds of millions from donors. The whole "I'm funding my own campaign" is another Trump lie. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
unbelievable 141 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Just now, Leon Troutsky said: Trump didn't fund his own campaign. He took hundreds of millions from donors. The whole "I'm funding my own campaign" is another Trump lie. The donors didn't come until late into the primaries. Someone could even argue that his primary donors were the MSM who gave him free air time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
unbelievable 141 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 4 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said: Which of Obama's appointees were conspiracy theory nuts who shared fake news stories about their opponents? False equivalency is false. Hilary Clinton. Those terrorist attacks were because of a youtube video! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Leon Troutsky 26,886 Posted November 21, 2016 Author Share Posted November 21, 2016 2 minutes ago, unbelievable said: The donors didn't come until late into the primaries. Someone could even argue that his primary donors were the MSM who gave him free air time. Just look at this self-funded campaign: https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00023864 Nothing says self-funded like $300 million in donations. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Leon Troutsky 26,886 Posted November 21, 2016 Author Share Posted November 21, 2016 Just now, unbelievable said: Hilary Clinton. Those terrorist attacks were because of a youtube video! That's what the intelligence experts said was behind it in the days following the attacks. I know, I know...how silly of her to rely on the evidence presented at the time instead of making up some conspiracy theory or fake story. But I think it's a sign of competence when somebody looks at the evidence from the intelligence community and draws a conclusion based on those facts...and then changes their conclusion when new facts are presented. We just have a different view about competence. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.