The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

Democrats are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

a Republican being honest! gotta quote that

[Gatefan1976]

And that right there is where your argument goes out the window, not me. Speculation is not proof.

It's not just speculation, as soul said.

[jelgate]

But it does not support Annoyed's position so it doesn't count

[Gatefan1976]

I don't care who someone associates with. That is not a crime. It becomes a crime when someone carries out a crime based on the his associates beliefs.

So explain the "red under the bed" fears of your generation.
Explain why you feel that socialism is a threat, it's not criminal.
I'm pretty sure you voted to make it criminal however.

If someone goes to a meeting of any group, taliban, NRA or anything else, that's their right. It is a crime when they start killing people or blowing things up in response to those beliefs. Although that is not an exact analogy because the NRA doesn't advocate blowing things up or killing people.

Yes, they do.
They advocate blowing up your political system, and they advocate for killing "intruders" They advocate for ANYTHING that allows gunmakers to sell their product, and wash their hands clean of the result of such actions.
The NRA of TODAY is not what it was in it's inception, much like the republican party of today is not what it was in it's inception. You can pretend it is all you want, but it's not.

That's the point. The Democrats want to make thinking certain things illegal.

No, they don't.

[Annoyed]

So explain the "red under the bed" fears of your generation.
Explain why you feel that socialism is a threat, it's not criminal.
I'm pretty sure you voted to make it criminal however.

My generation grew up in the cold war era, a constant stand off between ourselves and communist Russia. Students being told to hide under their desks in drills, civil defense placards on various buildings that might have a chance of remaining standing, etc.

Socialism is a threat because it would seek to destroy what the US was formed to be, plain and simple. We are not a socialist nation. Perhaps that doesn't make sense to you because you were not raised here.

Yes, they do.
They advocate blowing up your political system, and they advocate for killing "intruders" They advocate for ANYTHING that allows gunmakers to sell their product, and wash their hands clean of the result of such actions.
The NRA of TODAY is not what it was in it's inception, much like the republican party of today is not what it was in it's inception. You can pretend it is all you want, but it's not.

No, they don't.

Our political system has been in need of blowing up for some time now. But the NRA doesn't advocate killing off people to do that, whether by firearms or by bombs.

As far as "killing intruders", I happen to agree with that idea. Depending upon jurisdiction, legality varies, but I believe that if you intrude upon someone's home, you had best expect to be on the receiving end of whatever that homeowner can do to you in order to defend himself and his home.

So I guess you think that Remington arms should be able to be sued if someone kills someone with their product. How about holding General Motors liable when some jackwad gets into his car after drinking himself silly and kills someone while driving home from the bar. It's the exact same thing.

[Gatefan1976]

My generation grew up in the cold war era, a constant stand off between ourselves and communist Russia. Students being told to hide under their desks in drills, civil defense placards on various buildings that might have a chance of remaining standing, etc.

It's just words though, and that's your defence.

Socialism is a threat because it would seek to destroy what the US was formed to be, plain and simple. We are not a socialist nation. Perhaps that doesn't make sense to you because you were not raised here.

It's just words, and they are not illegal.
Right?

Our political system has been in need of blowing up for some time now. But the NRA doesn't advocate killing off people to do that, whether by firearms or by bombs.

Yes, it does.

As far as "killing intruders", I happen to agree with that idea. Depending upon jurisdiction, legality varies, but I believe that if you intrude upon someone's home, you had best expect to be on the receiving end of whatever that homeowner can do to you in order to defend himself and his home.

What if I don't care what you believe?
You take this stance at every turn, you don't care, but you are right.
Does it ever cross your mind you may be wrong?

So I guess you think that Remington arms should be able to be sued if someone kills someone with their product.

No.

How about holding General Motors liable when some jackwad gets into his car after drinking himself silly and kills someone while driving home from the bar.

No.

It's the exact same thing.

No.
I would sue them under the basis of selling their product falsely and using legalese to avoid the consequences.
It's no where near the "same thing"

[aretood2]

Well, that is a long-winded way to say "we don't have to prove it, take our word for it"

How do you test a theory or hypothesis without testing it against a control where the theory being tested is not involved?

The proof is via observation! There is no experimental proof that gravity even exists or that the laws of thermodynamics are even true. In fact, there is no "law of Gravity" it's still a "theory". There is no way to test gravity with a control, there's no way to test thermodynamics with a control. We can observe a lot of things that allow use to deduce a significant level of certainty that these things (among many many others of the kind) are true.

And that right there is where your argument goes out the window, not me. Speculation is not proof.

Yet you use speculation all the time to make assertions.

[Coco Pops]

And the admin is talking about internment camps for the homeless.

Is there no bottom to the barrel we are living in, in this timeline?

2024 is not far away just in time for the Bell Riots

[Annoyed]

The proof is via observation! There is no experimental proof that gravity even exists or that the laws of thermodynamics are even true. In fact, there is no "law of Gravity" it's still a "theory". There is no way to test gravity with a control, there's no way to test thermodynamics with a control. We can observe a lot of things that allow use to deduce a significant level of certainty that these things (among many many others of the kind) are true.



Yet you use speculation all the time to make assertions.

I do not deny that the earth's climate is changing. It has been doing so for thousands of years.

What I seek proof of, before we destroy our economy is that the U.S. is the cause of that change. Until that can be proven, it's nothing more than a bunch of chicken littles screaming that the sky is falling.

[Annoyed]

And the admin is talking about internment camps for the homeless.

Is there no bottom to the barrel we are living in, in this timeline?

2024 is not far away just in time for the Bell Riots

I would suggest learning the details of that situation. LA in particular has a huge homeless problem. It is concentrated there because California's liberal politicians have been promising free everything including the kitchen sink for a long time now, even to the point of actively inviting more indigent folks to the state via their sanctuary policies for illegals. But of course, California is one of the most expensive places in the world to live.

What do you suggest? Just handing out more free money? If California's voters want to pay for that kind of generosity, they are welcome to pay taxes to cover the bill. But of course, they can't do that either. This is the problem with liberalism, someone has to pay for it. But they never think of that.

I posted about this a few days ago, here: https://forum.gateworld.net/threads/...1#post14671565

[jelgate]

I do not deny that the earth's climate is changing. It has been doing so for thousands of years.

What I seek proof of, before we destroy our economy is that the U.S. is the cause of that change. Until that can be proven, it's nothing more than a bunch of chicken littles screaming that the sky is falling.

Its been awhile since you moved goalposts

[Annoyed]

Its been awhile since you moved goalposts

I can't help it if you're too slow to keep up.

Seriously, I've said that for a long time. Earth's climate has been changing on its own for a long time. I do not think mankind is the cause.

[Gatefan1976]

Earths climate DOES go through natural cycles, this is true.
WE have screwed with that natural cycle, all evidence points to it.
If we do not fix what we have done, Earth will not be a good home for us much longer, no matter who you vote for, or what you want.
So, what do you want to do?
Ignore it, or fix it?

[SoulReaver]

What I seek proof of, before we destroy our economy

the snag is ignoring global warming will also have nefarious economic consequences (more on the long term but more nefarious)

I can't help it if you're too slow to keep up.

Seriously, I've said that for a long time. Earth's climate has been changing on its own for a long time. I do not think mankind is the cause.

also there's been crime in the US since forever therefore immigration has nothing to do with it (same logic)

[Annoyed]

Earths climate DOES go through natural cycles, this is true.
WE have screwed with that natural cycle, all evidence points to it.
If we do not fix what we have done, Earth will not be a good home for us much longer, no matter who you vote for, or what you want.
So, what do you want to do?
Ignore it, or fix it?

Until you can PROVE it, ignore it, just as you would ignore chicken little's false cries.

That's just the scientific aspect to this. The bottom line is they can't prove that we are causing change.

Combine that with all of the other stenches emanating from this cow pie, and it's pretty obvious to anyone with a few brain cells that can think on their own that its BS.

What does it say about the intelligence of those who buy into this load of fertilizer?