I'm Core, but damn you start it off on a depressing tone. "We'll all be forgotten...buried in the sands of time"
Interesting that you put Islam in the Fascism category. Where do other Religions not mentioned go - Judaism, Buddhist, Hindu - ?
These two specific things caught my eye as well. There is a religion listed with controversial political movements. Also, while epicurean philosophies tend toward enjoyment, which I agree is necessary for the limited time a human has on this earth, I think the fact that humans are so temporary doesn't indicate hedonism as a winning strategy. Yes, we fade quickly, but you can make an impact, a global impact, a lasting impact, if you try hard enough. You can become immortal, at least, the idea if you, if you are willing to make a big enough change to your environment, despite the cost/effort. That's the beauty of us. Unlimited potential, tempered with the shitty mortal coil. |
|
|
|
What is your guys opinion on Alex Jones?
He is a very energetic fellow, straightforward and gets to the point. But can he be trusted? He openly supports Trump and hates globalists from what he says in his videos. I want to believe and support Alex Jones and believe that it is the right thing to do, but I am not sure who to trust anymore. One thing is for sure. I do not trust the mainstream media, liberal or republican,but why should I trust the non-mainstream media?
Thoughts?
I don't think Alex really knows what Trump is capable of. After seeing what he is doing and how he talks to others in his government I doubt he will last long. He seems to be making enemies of everyone that doesn't do as he wants. This can only lead to massive troubles for the US and probably the rest of the world. As for Alex's show well, its okay I guess. I stopped watching his stuff and all conspiracy stuff for a long time now. Its just a waste of time. In his speeches and decrees of the President of Trump provokes scandals and pits people and countries together. This increases the rankings in the show, but very bad for policy. The consequences will be bad. As I have said before, Alex Jones is a fearmonger, plain and simple. There is no positivity from that camp. Only paranoia. It wasn't so bad when it was just conspiracy theory, as the audience didn't really participate in mainstream society for the most part, and couldn't influence policy through votes. Now that this has gotten a more prominent voice in mainstream American media ( becuase in this day and age, InfoWars is news, while CNN gets lambasted as false), some of his listener actually vote, and I think that he is partially responsible for the current wave of populism/anti government sentiment. We elected a guy that said from the beginning he wasnt a politician. It's like hiring a dentist to fix your car. |
|
|
|
I am disappointed no tits were involved.
Someone should have called pussy riot. You, good sir, get the cookie for the day. Notice how the GOP has been pushing for legislature that makes protesting illegal (in varying degrees). Corporate America is not digging the protest scene at the moment (the pipeline shit really bigged down the profits a few quarters, instead of a.pipe, they got litigation and bad PR). This is where we will be, eventually, becuase apparently now we idolize Russia. On a related note, why are so many Russian diplomats connected with the Trump dossier, suddenly dying? Look it up/I shit you not. |
|
|
|
It's obviously his strategy to manipulate people and to show himself like ''victim'' of negative media and bad people.
What a joke! Actually, Donald Trump IS a victim of negative media propaganda directed against him. And his victory in the 2016 United States presidential election is a valid proof to this claim, and it further shows that the majority of the American citizens side with him in his battle against the corrupt media. It is not Trump who is trying to manipulate people. It is the media which is doing that. I agree. The media is deeply up Trumps ass. I mean, on the one hand, you don't want to normalize this crazy shit, but on the other hand, this same media blitz is what propelled him into office (among other things). But yes, as we have never seen anything even remotely like this (this is seriously making Nixon look chill AF.), the media is seemingly on a warpath with old Number 45. Now, the better question is, why? Why is this the first time this level of media assault, both bipartisan and international in scope, is being waged? In the history of the office? Maybe it's.. Trump? And the literal majority of people voted for her. He won the EC, which has been gleefully pointed out many times by the Trump camp. Followed by, 'deal with it, snowflake'. So no, the majority of citizens would have preferred he sat his orange ass down and never been elected. Yes of course he would done that. Like he would repell obamacare and replace it with a better and cheaper trumpcare for everyone?  Just wait for the tax reform. It's all gonna go quite bigly, he told us so on Twitter. |
|
|
|
Terrorist always wants to attack london remember that old times they attacked london too? Where they almost killed 20 people there in the bar i don't know why they want london to attacked it is because it easy to carry out guns ? or lack of securities duties?
LOL... You want to know the reason why London is targeted more often than the other British cities? I will give you a straight and simple answer. There are almost 1.5 million Muslims in London, including immigrants from Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Turkey. No other British city is having this many Muslims. So you are saying, Muslims come to London to kill other Muslims? If I were a radical Islamic terrorist, ID probably want to terrorize some white people. I could have stayed home and picked on my own kind. This guy grew up Christian. From over there. Immigration, despite being the cause of all of white society's woes, didn't cause this. He went to Saudi Arabia (big surprise there) and became radicalized, tried to bring it back. Even his family didn't bite. |
|
|
|
I've heard that before. Not sure if you can generalize that much.
I know many girls who get sick when they think about having sex with oter women.
I know right? It's crazy how people take generalizations about a few people in a group, despite the fact that everyone is different, and apply it to everyone in the group. I heard this one about radical Is... oops. Never mind. But seriously, nah. I've seen a straight female and a homosexual female come to blows behind this. Definitely not true. I've heard that before. Not sure if you can generalize that much.
I know many girls who get sick when they think about having sex with oter women.
Just another propaganda overload from the liberal leftists. The percentage of homosexuals among the females is around the same as that among the males (i.e around 1%). I am not even going to read the research by lunatics such as Meredith Chivers. That lady is a perfect example of a biased liberal nutcase, and her research is full of lies and misrepresentations. LOL, nah, this is just some silly shit. Liberals don't buy this shit either, or moderates. This is pseudoscience clickbait bullshit. Oh, and liberals are homophobic as fuck, don't get that gay agenda thing mixed up. |
|
|
|
Well who wanna take bets that the trumpwall and the tax reform will fail too?
And whos fault will it be?
Of course it is all a big obama/hitlery conspiracy.
They probably blackmailed half of the GOP with money from SA and from selling kids to pedos.
The tax reform is gonna happen. Because Trump didn't divest himself like all previous POTUS, this will be a priority to him and the GOP (their corporate sponsors, I mean). The wall, though, is a budgetary and logistical nightmare of the type that loses one a seat, if it goes badly So they will tread lightly with the wall, but they will press the travel ban once Gorusch gets confirmation. And of course, it was Soros' fault. He obviously paid the deep state to frame Russia about it. Nah, your right. Osama and Killery's fault. I'm genuinely curious to see how they recover after the healthcare fail. This has been like, THE party line for soooo many years. |
|
|
|
....
After you rebut, I will àpproach the argument from a 5th amendment violation of due process, specifically green card holders and permanent citizens affected by the ban through procedurality, and the actions of the executors of the legislation (TSA) and the damages it has cause...
BLah blah blah. No "rebut" is necessary because you have been shut up by "one of 178" each independently capable of a "Nay." The logic of your argument, or lack of, is irrelevant. Now how you like that? I love it man  your reluctance to address my argument, kmowing how intelligent you are, vindicates me a bit. Becuase I see you are upset, I apologize, and I will disengage you. Disregard my argument. I saw that I was bearing down on you, yet I persisted with my argument for its sake despite your feelings. People first, bro. I failed at that, and for that, I am sorry, and do apologize to you, sincerely. Anyone else is welcome to address it however, in the spirit of progress. |
|
|
|
I can do that just for fun, btw I am much older than you and experienced in legal issues and have read hundreds of such complex documents. So, some idea such as "pitting your wits" against Internet adversaries isn't really workable.
I am not an expert or even an expert amateur in constitutional issues. But I have followed Instapundit.com for over ten years, that is a blog by a constitutional law professor, pretty good stuff. I certainly wouldn't want to rely on Huffington Post, or any left or right oriented spin group for understanding of an issue like this.
I can tell you there is no really interesting underlying legal argument, just partisian politics by the judges and true believers. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Regardless of that, there are serious implications to any of close to 200 appointed judges being able to veto an executive order on ANY BASIS. What is implied here is that in cases of a time critical issue, an issue such as should be delt with by executive order, by the Commander in Chief of a nation, any one of a large group could veto it.
That's just plain wrong.
Age matters naught, only experience, friend expertise is a function of time commitment. This will be evident through our discourse. And if not for synthetic discussion, in a public forum, how would men grow political doctrines as common citizens? The salons of France led to decapitated heads. The rhetoric of Hitler displaced a people. 'Pitting ones wits' against an intellectual adversary is the quintessence of our Republic. It's literally how our Framing Documents were constructed. Synthetic argumentation. Alright, give me a bit to prepare my argument. To prestate, I will be first be addressing how the ban infringes on First Amedlndment rights through action if not intent. I will illustrate previous case law, if applicable. Well, pursuing and eagerly supporting batshit crazy would have one predictable outcome. I'll help you out a bit. You are going to present an argument which I oppose. Rather than discuss it logically I am at this time shutting you up because that's my "right as a minority of one." Just like the 178 circuit court judges. You are now shut up. See how easy that was? See how wrong it is? Deal with it, dude. LMAO, I'm getting paid son. This is fun to me and I love pointing out how deluded Trumpism is, it's a pet cause I've picked up that I would do for free. It's my warm fuzzy, ala Paul Frank. Honestly, man, you sound too lazy to defend yourself. You would disseminate your views for free, yet when challenged in a public forum, suddenly it's too much effort to defend yourself? Come on man, I have more respect for you that that, don't be a shit. You knew I was going to propose some shit you didn't agree with before I even started typing. I understand if you are having reservations about being able to defend your ideas. You backed up like a bitch. Don't be a bitch, Spendulus. This is the second time you've done this. First, let's establish if the affected party (as you are aware, there are a multitude of different classes trying this) has the right to claim damages. In the general case, that would mean individuals from the countries affected by the travel ban. In fact, are these people subject to protection under our Constitution at all given that they are non citizens? Case law says yes. Observe Yick Wo vs Hopkins. In this particular case, these Chinese nationals were procedurally denied citizenship. Admittedly, these were residents of California being denied citizenship through stature, not people living abroad. But the Supreme Court used that decision while forming opinions on Boumediene v. Bush. Hilariously, this case involves the lack of constitutional rights experienced by actual terrorists being imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. The Court found that, even when the president acts outside the borders, he lacks the “power to switch the Constitution on or off at will.” OK, so hopefully we have established that the affected class has a legitimate claim, which seems reflected by recent Supreme Court decision. Moving on. Under the First Amendment, there should be no laws “respecting an establishment of religion” or “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. The EO includes a clause which allows 'Prioritized refugee claims on the basis of religious persecution, so long as the applicant belongs to a religion that is a minority in their country of origin.'. Let's look at that. As any war could generate refugees, humanitarian intent (good faith action) would entail that one would accept all refugees from an area, irrespective of religion, but respective of security risk. By specifically providing greater assistance to a specific religion, this shows favoritism, promoting the agenda of a specific religion. Because all the xountries he tarfetted are Muslim majoritys, the other side of the coin is that Muslims woukd not recieve "prioritized consideration". Damn that First Amendment. This seemingly would violate the prohibition against laws 'respecting an establishment of religion'. Also, by denying travel from countries that are majority Muslim, because of a 'security risk', seems to "prohibit the free exercise of religion" of Muslims in those countries as they enter our territory. If empiricism (statistics on terror and it's origins) were used to determine this list of countries, why was Saudi Arabia not listed? They literally did 9/11 (not Bush). While this is more a moral argument of mine than legal explanation, it leads me to my final point. Let's go back to Wick Yo vs Hopkins. The Court pronounced that although a “law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance,” if it is “applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand,” it will be evaluated accordingly. This is why I said many comments ago Trump was a dumbass for letting his cohorts run their mouths about his intent. Gotta be slicker than that. Anywho, we have the progenitor of the ban, the POTUS, calling it on record a Muslim Ban. Let me repeat that, it didn't sink in a month ago when you heard it. Muslim Ban. As in, hey, are you Muslim? Banned, bitch. Despite the guy that wrote it calling it a Muslim ban (yet you don't think it a Muslim ban, because those are unconstitutional, right?), yet another Trump surrogate, and author of the EO, claimed it was a Muslim ban. In fact, let's quote this dumbass: "I'll tell you the whole history of it: When he first announced it, he said 'Muslim ban,'" "He called me up, he said, 'Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.'" So, we have an obvious bad faith action, obviously. Thank you, Mr. Guilliani. After you rebut, I will àpproach the argument from a 5th amendment violation of due process, specifically green card holders and permanent citizens affected by the ban through procedurality, and the actions of the executors of the legislation (TSA) and the damages it has cause |
|
|
|
I can do that just for fun, btw I am much older than you and experienced in legal issues and have read hundreds of such complex documents. So, some idea such as "pitting your wits" against Internet adversaries isn't really workable.
I am not an expert or even an expert amateur in constitutional issues. But I have followed Instapundit.com for over ten years, that is a blog by a constitutional law professor, pretty good stuff. I certainly wouldn't want to rely on Huffington Post, or any left or right oriented spin group for understanding of an issue like this.
I can tell you there is no really interesting underlying legal argument, just partisian politics by the judges and true believers. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Regardless of that, there are serious implications to any of close to 200 appointed judges being able to veto an executive order on ANY BASIS. What is implied here is that in cases of a time critical issue, an issue such as should be delt with by executive order, by the Commander in Chief of a nation, any one of a large group could veto it.
That's just plain wrong.
Age matters naught, only experience, friend expertise is a function of time commitment. This will be evident through our discourse. And if not for synthetic discussion, in a public forum, how would men grow political doctrines as common citizens? The salons of France led to decapitated heads. The rhetoric of Hitler displaced a people. 'Pitting ones wits' against an intellectual adversary is the quintessence of our Republic. It's literally how our Framing Documents were constructed. Synthetic argumentation. Alright, give me a bit to prepare my argument. To prestate, I will be first be addressing how the ban infringes on First Amedlndment rights through action if not intent. I will illustrate previous case law, if applicable. |
|
|
|
OP updated with articles' links.
@creepyjas/coolcoinz:
Since it's been another week and we've seen the same sleuthers as last week I'd like to suggest splitting this weeks rewards again because you both made an effort to add to the case, either by providing analysis or information.
Same adresses? If not please let me know.
I have been following this peripherally, The Fool has donlminated my news feed like most Americans (refreshing change from the Kardashians though). I have not immersed myself in this, on the surface however, I am siding with the prosecution, as I see breach of protocol, but seemingly evidence of wrongdoing by the defendant (DNA evidence doesn't lie). As I examine this, if I should develop a critical voice, will you still field my arguments, and will I still be eligible for your reward, if our argument achieves synthesis? |
|
|
|
It's just another claim without any evidence.
Trump said so many things until now, so called ''alternative facts'' without real evidence, that is meaningless to comment anymore his funny statements.
It's obviously his strategy to manipulate people and to show himself like ''victim'' of negative media and bad people.
What a joke!
It's time that he start to lead this country and to do real job, not to entertain the whole country and the world with his stupid and unfounded statements.
If Trump does not change soon, it could lead to serious problems in the leading of country.
The first cracks we already can see as plan to change Obamacare didn't pass and Trump losing the support of his party.
You would think this would be obvious, but understand what Trump means to the people that voted for him. He took people that felt marginalized, felt threatened (Muslim babies taking over! Took our jobs! Blacks killing everyone! Homosexuals in the Disney!), amplified those concerns, and fed them back. These people believe that their lot will improve if others suffer as they have. Trump doesnt offer amelioration for his followets, he merely offers enterrainment, to enhance the suffering of the out groups for the vindication of the masses. Now, the elite voted for The Fool with good reason, he's gonna enhance their fortunes. So blind with hate and isms, they can't see that policies that would help the rich (why do you think Wall Street is celebrating with these highs? excitement for the working class LOL) rarely do the same for the poor. Mutually exclusive. |
|
|
|
That's true if you belive media.
The same media run by the richest who prefer to have a president taking orders than Trump having his own mind.
They will attack him over and over untill they fail completly.
This is going on for the last 2 years, but they have failed every-time. The oligarchs and the billionaires can't dictate the information war any more, as now social media has overtaken mainstream media as the preferred source of current affairs for the vast majority of the people. How we have fallen as a thinking people. The day when man would rather have his peers define his reality, than seek out the truth itself. You will never understand how much aggregating your media affects your bias. If you surround yourself with a fiction long enough, eventually you will find enough evidence to support any truth. TLDR: try reading other shit. If most of the people you are friends with on social media have your views, then, they don't reflect reality as this is true for no one. Question your beliefs man. Don't run from intellectual conflict, embrace it and grow. |
|
|
|
...As cement block fucking dumb as Bush was...
Bush Jr. wasn't dumb. I've always suspected that he was significantly effected by substance abuse, but that he probably was not naively stupid. Un-interested perhaps. He was in the 25th percentile in terms of aptitude when Papa Bush got in into the Texas air national guard to keep him out of combat yet he graduated around the middle and was briefly able to operate a military jet aircraft (unless that was stagecraft which I would not rule out.) That says something to me about his capabilities. As prez, GW had a 6 year string of getting everything he wanted as soon as he wanted out of the Dems so it's funny to hear them call him dumb. .... Indeed. What is known for certain is the existance of a long, carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign to make people think Bush was dumb. All around the world, the liberals have used mainstream media propaganda to their maximum use. Look at their current campaign against Donald Trump. They are constantly lying and twisting the facts according to their own liking. Says the guy from the crew that gives us Breitbart, and InfoWars. Let me get this off my chest. Evangelicals, I'm calling you out. You as well Middle America. Please stop teaching your kids to distrust authority because you don't agree with it. This fake news bullshit sounds dumb. Here are some truths to ponder: A social network is the reason why the game 'pass the message' always goes so horribly. People only disseminate news they agree with. Just because something is liberal, doesn't mean it's fake. People get sued when actual fake news starts being disseminated. This is why reputable outlets don't really fuck with this, too much brand at stake. Ask Dan Rather about this. Don't label something as liberal just because it criticixes The Fool. He's just, really fucking easy to criticize. The only apologist for Trump are the ignorant poor, the extremely rich, and those that want him not to get impeached until the GOP has its turn with America. Quick, she's passed out. Get the boys and a camera. Liberal media lacks the tartness of fearmongering, huh? You miss the flavor of paranoia from your news? And it wouldn't be so bad if people just admitted they don't agree with a news source, and moved on, but the shit championed at truth in lieu of a reputable, established outlets is absurd. Alex Jones is a crazy head. And he wasn't always, it was a gradual thing. |
|
|
|
Nunes said that while there was no direct “wiretap” by President Barack Obama of Trump Tower, there was indeed surveillance — perhaps collected incidentally — of people close to Trump
I can see why they'd be surveilling Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort. Yet more suspicious ties to Russian interests: Manafort proposed in a confidential strategy plan as early as June 2005 that he would influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and former Soviet republics to benefit President Vladimir Putin's government So yeah, you don't really get to bitch about the feds monitoring your close allies when they're up to their neck in shit: The disclosures come as Trump campaign advisers are the subject of an FBI probe and two congressional investigations, and they appear to guarantee that Manafort will be sought as a key witness in upcoming hearings. Investigators are reviewing whether the Trump campaign and its associates coordinated with Moscow to meddle in the 2016 campaign. Manafort has dismissed the investigations as politically motivated and misguided. The documents obtained by AP show Manafort's ties to Russia were closer than previously revealed. " Boo hoo, law enforcement agencies are investigating my crooked buddies, better blame it all on Obama"  I'd like to agree with your take on the situation. Makes no difference to me. Unfortunately, that is not the way this is shaping up. Apparently the FBI has been unresponsive to the requests for information, so now NSA sources have been tapped. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/23/potential-smoking-gun-showing-obama-administration-spied-on-trump-team-source-says.html “The intelligence is said to leave no doubt the Obama administration, in its closing days, was using the cover of legitimate surveillance on foreign targets to spy on President-elect Trump, according to sources. The key to that conclusion is the unmasking of selected U.S. persons whose names appeared in the intelligence, the sources said, adding that the paper trail leaves no other plausible purpose for the unmasking other than to damage the incoming Trump administration.”Or, you know, it could be that our new president and his associates were actively coluding with Russia, inadvertently exposing themselves to surveillance by associating with known spies? Because maybe, just maybe, it it smells Russian and talks Russian it might not be American? I don't get it. Obama has a funny name and he's black, so he's obviously a terrorist and a Muslim. The Fool is tied to corruption, tied to the enemy, with a history of failures and shade. But gets pass from Middle America... .... ... Manafort Stone Flynn His grandmother for all we know.. Sessions And the beat goes on and on |
|
|
|
You are mixing the men with the message. The idea here is that the judges represent The Law. The Law deemed his shit weak. You know, Law as dictated by a duly elected officer of the Court. You guys believe in elections right? 'That judge won his seat fair and square', just like old 45 Without any of the zesty bite of Russian interference. What I am saying is that, this is not a legal case. Immigration policy is outside the scope of these judges, as long as the policies are not violating the constitutional rights. And Trump's immigration ban didn't violated any of the constitutional clauses. Similar measures were implemented in the past as well, sometimes by Democrat presidents. Right, but note Green_Bits argument is absolutist, "A JUDGE said so so it's TRUE." Actually it's "A judge ruled crazy and the decision has to be appealed, but that can't be done until the 9th position on the Supreme Court is filled." Pretty simple. Whike I agree with the judge, and also believe that the ban was indeed unconstitutional, yes, Spendulus has it right. This is a defect of representation; you are beholden to the political will of your representative. In the spirit of how Trump voters have told us to 'deal with it', I'm suggesting the same thing. If the action truly is unjust, the system will.correct itself. I'm not naive, this doesn't always happen. That's what's wrong with government today. But you can't change the game, in the middle. Although we reject Trump, his is indeed our President. You guys are in majority ATM. You will get over this. I'm black BTW, I have little love lost for the present state of the legal system. But, it exists for a reason. Also, previous presidents weren't slow enough to allow surrogates to claim 'I helped make a Muslim ban at Trumps request' because they are actual politicians, and understand how this works. I would be willing to discuss the legal argument, from my limited understanding, if you promise to argue in good faith. I think we are making progress, you, me and Spend. |
|
|
|
Alright, let's see. Conservatives tend to be
1) Religious/Christian and try and make laws that suit their (false and hypocritical) beliefs. Yea gay marriage shouldn't be allowed but divorcing is totally fine? A prime example of a hypocrite People like me oppose gay marriage not because we are against homosexuality. The point is that, the homosexuals are not as committed to their spouses as much as the heterosexuals. For the gays, marriage is only a tool for lower taxes and higher benefits. I'm not even trying to be a dick, but so you know, homosexual divorce rates in America are roughly equal to heterosexual divorce rates, but there is actually a lower divorce rate globally for same sex couples. I would assume, given the adversity they have experienced trying to be recognized, they would tend to be more serious about maintaining said relationship. Society will marginalize them, their family will reject them; you had better be damned serious about being gay in America, it can ruin your career and social life in the right place (i live out on the country, i have actually heard people troll gay cashiers in public for being gay, and dared them to say something back. And honestly, they woukd have beat his ass had he spoken up). Why would you assume that gay people are any less committed to a relationship than a straight person would be? Again, I'm not trolling. Just curious as to what you saw to develop this attitude. I don't know a whole lot of gay people, but I don't see how being gay would diminish a person's devotion to the person they have chosen as their mate. See? I'm not all asshole. Just mostly. I really want to understand you guys. I may be wrong, I just need the proper argument to show.me an alternative,. |
|
|
|
Government sponsored hacking was started by the CIA and the FBI. The CIA used this, to spy on their enemies and even on their allies. Russia and China are late entrants to this sector, but they have caught up pretty fast.
And that history lesson correlates with current reality how?/Did the US hack the farcical Russian 'election' (it's even more a sham then our last one) ? China invented guns. The US and Russia were late entrants to the sector, but boy, they caught up and surpassed the entire world. But how about that Russian hacking though? And can we please stop using the two wrongs fallacy to describe Russia's actions? Educate yourself: The tu quoque fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because someone else has done a thing there is nothing wrong with doing it. This fallacy is classically committed by children who, when told off, respond with “So and so did it too”, with the implied conclusion that there is nothing wrong with doing whatever it is that they have done. This is a fallacy because it could be that both children are in the wrong, and because, as we were all taught, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Example
(1) The Romans kept slaves.
Therefore:
(2) We can keep slaves too.
This argument commits the tu quoque fallacy because it assumes that if someone else does a thing then it’s okay for us to do it too. It does not follow, however, from the simple fact that the Romans kept slaves, that there is nothing wrong with keeping slaves. It is plausible to think that the Romans acted immorally in keeping slaves, and that we would act immorally if we followed their example. The conclusion of the argument therefore does not follow from its premise.Once again, the Russians didn't hacked the American elections. If you rephrase your wordings to "the Russians influenced the American elections", then probably I would agree with you. If by influence you mean their interference decided the election for Trump, then yes, we are in agreement. I'm saying, point blank, the shit they pulled, made Trump president instead of Hillary. |
|
|
|
This got all crazy misquoted when you responded, you are bright, I have no doubts you will figure out how to read this. ....
So these 178 judges are more powerful than the president of the United States? I have always thought that the president of the United States was the most powerful individual in the world (except when Barack Obama was the POTUS).
My point is, that this interpretation would mean that any one of the 178 was more powerful than the POTUS. Green_Bit is currently attempting a sophomoric argument intoning solemnly "the law" but were that true in the absolute, there would be no issue with the Supreme Court composition, or with whether judges to that body are appointed by the left or the right. But we all know that is not the real world, and therefore, Green_bit's argument rings false, admittedly structured toward advocacy of the great merits of a legal argument barely read or understood. That judges can error is understood by the structure of the judicial system itself, which allows appeals, appeals of appeals, and so forth. Green_bit would trumpet a wacko decision of the 9th court, but what if, tomorrow, it was a conservative court and a liberal POTUS? The problem is the same. No, I call bullshit when I see it. Obama was no angel. Nor was Clinton. But none of them were, really. My political representatives are not deities, they are humans, pretty shady ones TBH. That's both sides of the isle. I answer to the Lord, not to a political party. Although I don't always listen, my political platform is pretty much based off of my sense of decency, my exploration of political science in college (I'm 31 now), and what I have been taught of the Good Book. Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans. Bill is a pig. Obama kissed the Saudis ass. And Hillary fucked over Bernie. But this Trump shit us just insane man. And half of us are pretending like this is normal when it clearly isn't. Do we feel better now? Also, can I at least get a junior level argument award? And no, when a court is no longer bipartisan due to composition, of course the rule of law would degrade. The variety of options present int the judiciary is its own form of check and balance. It's a roulette, but it has worked, haphazardly, since the inception of the republic. |
|
|
|
....Attack my ideas, not me. But, this is fun, I don't have a ton of fucks to give, and they pay me for it.
I've seen three or four guys admit being paid to post here. Mind if I ask, who pays you? The fine folks at Bitmixer. I can spew my partisan, toxic, quasi liberal opinions, for profit, as long as I follow posting guidelines and quality standards. I implore you, since you post decently and have excellent rank, you should look into trying a Sig camp, if you weren't aware (I'm not being sarcastic). I was like, a senior member here before I figured out guys where actually getting paid to have those colorful banners under their posts. I'm slow, I guess. But Naw, sorry to dash your hopes, I'm not an agent of Soros or Hillary, LOL. Just a dude with strong opnions, and a cellphone. But, I will admit I get a certain glee clashing intellectually with you guys. I need to get out more. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
