|
Post by debutante on Apr 8, 2019 12:53:32 GMT -5
Actually, some politicians conspire during the elections with Five Eyes....then lie to Fisa court judges using unverified dossiers....
It only becomes a problem for them when they get caught.
Edited to add: Despite the idiotic harping of the "mockingbird" media -- there is no such crime as "collusion". This entire "investigation" has been a hoax from its inception.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Apr 9, 2019 8:05:01 GMT -5
>Mueller has been without proper oversight during this entire hoax (which shouldn't have begun in the first place). ---Remember that Trump guy who bragged to an Australian diplomat at a bar that Russia was helping Trump win? That’s what started the “hoax” – Trump’s people, not Dems.
---So let’s say that “collusion” would have been that Trump or his people were working with Russia to violate US law and influence a US election. Based on the Trump guy’s brag, that was grounds for law enforcement to look into what was going on. Not a hoax started by Dems, but a possible Federal crime based on a Trump insider’s statements. .
---Mueller didn’t find evidence of collusion, as defined above, but he did find that Trump and his people (1) knew that the Russians were breaking US law and (2) didn’t report it to authorities, which they were legally bound to do and (3) were very happy and excited to use illegally acquired info that the Russians gave them. Then many of those same people lied to Congress or the FBI about what they knew.
---Again, not a hoax, not a witch hunt, but the exposure of a pattern of illegal actions in the Trump campaign. The fact that so many Trump people are in jail (and more to come) justifies the investigation. If no Trump staff had been found guilty of any crime, then and only then would the Mueller investigation have been a hoax.
>It's over. ---No, it’s not. Mueller’s investigation was about dealing with illegal Russian activity, and, yes, that part is over. But his team discovered many other illegal activities by Trump people and that evidence has been turned over to various Federal and State law enforcement agencies. So there will be many more indictments and convictions over the coming months from outside the investigation. Some of them may even include Trump family members.
---Like I said, Trump is a crook and a con artist, and he surrounded himself in the White House with fellow criminals. As to Dems being punished for the investigation, dream on. There is no law against Congress appointing investigators for whatever reason they want, even for clearly political reasons or whatever. Again, I point to the 10 Benghazi investigations of Clinton – pure politics with no purpose other than to make Clinton look bad. Not even the Reps believed that she had committed a crime. But not illegal by any definition.
---In American history there have been many political battles between parities, Congress and the president, etc. These are not treason, these are the way a democracy works as people fight over political power. And opposing a president, whether it be Trump or Obama or whoever, is never treason. Just another day at the office.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Apr 9, 2019 12:12:31 GMT -5
Hi Fred:
Do you know how to tell a Democrat is lying? Their lips are moving.
You forget about the hammer. And I am not talking about the kind you get from Home Depot. They have it all.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 9, 2019 14:43:22 GMT -5
Hey, I heard there may be some homeless people who would love to crash in your house for a few days. Freedom of movement, right? Freedom of movement means the right to move, not the right to take somebody else's property. Are you actually having difficulties understanding the distinction between freedom of movement and property rights? LOL! So you actually support property rights now! Actually a country is like a home for all of its citizens. Just as people have no right to move into your home without your permission, so immigrants have no right to move into a country without permission. This has nothing to do with normal healthcare. A deadly contagious disease is like an invader. Some diseases historically have killed millions. Government has the obligation to defend the nation from deadly invaders. Bob
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Apr 10, 2019 7:34:41 GMT -5
Deb wrote: >Do you know how to tell a Democrat is lying? Their lips are moving.
---Nah,that's Trump. Has told at least 3 lies per day since he took office, except for the days he's playing golf. 8->
All politicians tell lies. That's how they get into office. But some lies are more important or dangerous than others.
Clinton Benghazi investigations = no indictments Clinton email investigations = no indictments Clinton Uranium One investigations = no indictments Trump Russia investigations = 38 indictments, 5 prison sentences (so far) Trump University investigation = shut down for fraud, Trump forced to pay money Trump Foundation investigation = shut down for fraud, family forbidden to engage in charity organizations again
Just a short list of Republican lies. There are hundreds to choose from. LOL
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2019 11:30:44 GMT -5
Freedom of movement means the right to move, not the right to take somebody else's property. Are you actually having difficulties understanding the distinction between freedom of movement and property rights? LOL! So you actually support property rights now! Actually a country is like a home for all of its citizens. Actually, it's not. A country is not any single person's property. You can't make analogies to property rights when dealing with countries. What you are argueing here is that some people should have the right to restrict other people's freedoms simply because of the place where they were born. A deadly contagious disease is like an invader. No, it's not. A contagious disease is just that, a disease. It has no agency and no goal apart from the simple biological drive to survive and reproduce. What you are argueing here is that any foreigner is inherently dangerous, and therefore needs to be stripped of their freedom; that the priviledges of freedom are only available for people with the right pedigree and legal status.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Apr 10, 2019 12:23:33 GMT -5
Hi Fred:
The only people who claim Trump lies are the "mockingbird media" and nobody believes them except Democrats who want to believe them.
How's that Covington case working out for ya? How many times does media manipulation have to be exposed for you to see what is right under your nose?
NO United States citizens were found guilty of collusion under the Mueller investigation. Period.
Eight indictments are going to go to Barr. That doesn't mean there are only eight people. I read this morning that multiple names can be listed under each indictment. Let's see where this ends up, shall we?
Unlike the nonsense the Democrats spewed forth the past two years, there is actual evidence of FISA abuse to spy the Trump campaign and afterwards, a coup.
They have it all.
--Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2019 13:08:56 GMT -5
Soon enough, Pizzagate will be blown wide open!
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 10, 2019 13:12:18 GMT -5
LOL! So you actually support property rights now! Actually a country is like a home for all of its citizens. A country IS property. It is the property of all the citizens who live there. Are you saying that I have the right to enter Austria any time I want to without any documentation? An invader consciously decides to invade and kill. A disease does not consciously make a decision, but it still invades and kills. What's the difference? In both cases, people are dead at the end. What if a few thousand racists decide to move to Austria and vote in the next election? According to what you say here, they have a perfect right to do that. You can't deny them entry because they don't "have the right pedigree and legal status", can you? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2019 19:24:52 GMT -5
A country IS property. It is the property of all the citizens who live there. Are you saying that I have the right to enter Austria any time I want to without any documentation? Contrary to what you seem to believe, I am not Emperor of Austria and have no control over its government, its laws, and its agencies of law enforcement and border security. But if it were up to me? Sure. Why would you deny me entry to your country? And EU citizens can already cross borders to other EU countries without being checked or searched at the border, and contrary to what you apparently expect, no epidemics have ravaged European urban centers in the two decades since Schengen. An invader consciously decides to invade and kill. A disease does not consciously make a decision, but it still invades and kills. What's the difference? In both cases, people are dead at the end. Let's just agree to disagree on the nature of diseases. It's not really an important point to me. What do you make of the fact that no country in the Western world quarantines visiting tourists as a matter of principle? Isn't that a rather glaring oversight from your position?
That's a matter of citizenship and voting rights, not freedom of movement. Indeed I cannot. And I wouldn't want border guards to deny people entry on a whim. That's what "freedom of movement" means. If you weren't free to move, then it wouldn't be freedom of movement. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 10, 2019 21:59:22 GMT -5
Are you saying that I have the right to enter Austria any time I want to without any documentation? Contrary to what you seem to believe, I am not Emperor of Austria and have no control over its government, its laws, and its agencies of law enforcement and border security. But if it were up to me? Sure. Why would you deny me entry to your country? I wouldn't deny you entry as long as you fill out the required paperwork. Once you are in the EU, you can travel around. But does the EU permit anyone to enter the EU Zone at will without any check? Actually, no. "Passport and visa requirements If you are a non-EU national wishing to visit or travel within the EU, you will need a passport: valid for at least 3 months after the date you intend to leave the EU country you are visiting, which was issued within the previous 10 years, and possibly a visa. You should apply for a visa from the consulate or embassy of the country you are visiting. If your visa is from a Schengen area country, it automatically allows you to travel to the other Schengen countries as well. If you have a valid residence permit from one of those Schengen countries, it is equivalent to a visa. You may need a national visa to visit non-Schengen countries. Border officials in EU countries may ask for other supporting documents such as an invitation letter, proof of lodging, return or round-trip ticket. For the precise requirements contact the local consular services of the EU country in question." europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/entry-exit/non-eu-nationals/index_en.htmOkay. But what is the difference between a disease that can kill you or a violent person who is trying to kill you? No. Modern medicine has managed to curb most diseases. But just a few years ago, there were quarantines imposed on people who were traveling from areas where there was an Ebola epidemic. The quarantine period for Ebola virus 16 October 2014 www.virology.ws/2014/10/16/the-quarantine-period-for-ebola-virus/ So what if those racists moved in and applied for citizenship? Would you have no objection? So you are still in favor of "citizenship" then? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2019 6:26:03 GMT -5
Contrary to what you seem to believe, I am not Emperor of Austria and have no control over its government, its laws, and its agencies of law enforcement and border security. But if it were up to me? Sure. Why would you deny me entry to your country? I wouldn't deny you entry as long as you fill out the required paperwork. Nobody fills out paperwork for crossing the street. Why am I required to fill out paperwork for crossing a border? And I disagree with that. Freedom of movement is a human right. There is no blanket quarantine for US Americans who travel to Austria. If we follow your argument, there should be. No, why should I? Plenty of racists already have Austrian citizenship. Although personally, I would rather remove discrimination of foreigners before we start argueing how racist you have to be in order to be granted citizenship. What does that even mean?
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Apr 11, 2019 7:59:02 GMT -5
Deb wrote: >The only people who claim Trump lies are the "mockingbird media" ----Actually, I just use Trump’s own tweets and speeches. No need for any news media
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >“Puerto Rico got 91 Billion Dollars for the hurricane, more money than has ever been gotten for a hurricane before”. PR got $11.2 billion. The $91 billion figure is an estimate of the total cost to rebuild. Trump lied. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "The border city of El Paso, Texas, used to have extremely high rates of violent crime — one of the highest in the country, and considered one of our nation's most dangerous cities. Now, immediately upon its building, with a powerful barrier in place, El Paso is one of the safest cities in our country." February 8th, 2019 ---El Paso doesn’t have a wall, just some short fencing. Nothing new added. And their crime rate has been one of the lowest in the nation for many years, complete opposite of what Trump said. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >"58,000 non-citizens voted in Texas, with 95,000 non-citizens registered to vote." ---The Texas Sec of State was caught up in this and had to retract it and apologize for lying. He made a list of people he didn’t like (Dems), to stop them from voting, but they turned out to be citizens. Lawsuits in the works. Not a single illegal found, so far. Not one. Trump lied. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >"When I say Mexico is going to pay for the wall, that's what I said. Mexico is going to pay. I didn't say they're going to write me a check for $20 billion or $10 billion." ----Actually he did. He said he would ban illegals from sending money home and Mexico would be willing to write a check rather than lose that income. Trump lied both times. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Said Republicans "just passed" the Veterans Choice program after 44 years of trying. "They've been trying to pass that one for many, many decades." ---it passed 4 years ago, under Obama. Trump lied. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "U.S. Steel just announced that they are building six new steel mills." August 2nd, 2018 ---US Steel is not building any new mills. Trump lied. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >"Crime in Germany is way up." June 18th, 2018 ----Crime in Germany is the lowest in 30 years. Trump lied. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And so on and so on. These are not stories from liberal media, these are things that Trump says which that clearly not true. So either he’s ignorant and doesn’t know the truth or he’s lying. At least 3 times per day.
>NO United States citizens were found guilty of collusion under the Mueller investigation. Period. ----Indeed. Thanks to the narrow definition that Mueller used. But several US citizens were found guilty of working with Russians, taking money from Russians, hiding the illegal activities of Russians, etc. Not "collusion" as Mueller defined it, but treasonous activities.
>Unlike the nonsense the Democrats spewed forth the past two years, there is actual evidence of FISA abuse to spy the Trump campaign and afterwards, a coup. ---Not really. That’s just crap the Trump people are saying since they were caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Many of them were being investigated for various crimes long BEFORE they signed on with Trump and so those investigations (and spying) had nothing at all to do with Trump or his campaign. And how, under any description, could exposing criminal activities by Trump or his people be considered a coup? The MOST that Mueller’ report could do is to report to Congress that Trump had done something illegal. At that point, Congress would have to vote on whether to impeach or not. And “impeach” just means “hold a trial”, not remove. So The Republican controlled Senate would have to vote to hold a trial, then hold a Senate trial, then, if they decided the pres had done something serious enough, get a majority vote in the Senate to remove the pres and put Pence in office. Not very likely, since voting along party lines would prevent all 3 of these events.
----Pretty wimpy for a coup. Keep in mind that even if worst came to worse and they dumped Trump, Pence would become pres, the Reps would still control the Senate and the Supreme Court, plus many states around the nation. In other words, removing Trump cannot be considered a coup by any stretch of the imagination. A coup would be removing ALL Republicans from national office and putting Dems in their place. Coup claims are just more BS from far right loons who don’t actually understand how our government works.
---Trump is not a king and it really doesn't matter whether or not he's the pres. What matters is that the Reps control all the Federal government except the House and the majority of state governments. If you don't like what the gov is doing, blame the Reps, not the Dems. The Reps have been in control of everything (except the pres) since 2010. Yeah, they blame the Dems for it all, but the Dems only dream of having the power the Reps accuse them of. 8->
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Apr 11, 2019 9:56:58 GMT -5
Hi Fred:
Quick question:
If you were a nurse (as previously stated) where did you get your facts?
Obviously from the news -- and the mainstream media is a tentacle of the Democratic party.
Let's just see where these indictments lead shall we?
No United States citizens were charged for "Russian collusion" during the Mueller investigation. Nada. NONE. ZIP. All they got were "process crimes" or stuff they dug up that had NOTHING to do with Russia.
Let's just see what comes up with this investigation into the origins of the hoax. If people end up jailed for their part in it -- then that will be proof positive this was a plot.
And as far as presidential liars go -- somehow I have a feeling by the time the investigation over this Russian hoax is over everyone will finally know the reason why all of Obama's records were sealed.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 11, 2019 10:26:50 GMT -5
I wouldn't deny you entry as long as you fill out the required paperwork. Nobody fills out paperwork for crossing the street. Why am I required to fill out paperwork for crossing a border? Once a guest is in your house, you don't need to give them permission to go to the bathroom. Why do you need to give people permission to enter your house? Fine. Then no one needs your permission to enter your home. After all, freedom of movement is a human right. There are no epidemics of deadly diseases like Ebola in America. So why would there need to be a quarantine? Okay. How about members of terrorist groups? After all, why should their "freedom of movement" be restricted? For one thing, it means permission to vote in elections. Or would you prefer racist organizations sending in thousands of people into Austria to shift election results? After all, what does "citizenship" even mean? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2019 12:08:33 GMT -5
Nobody fills out paperwork for crossing the street. Why am I required to fill out paperwork for crossing a border? Once a guest is in your house, you don't need to give them permission to go to the bathroom. Why do you need to give people permission to enter your house? Because it's my house, not theirs. A country, on the other hand, does not belong to anybody in particular, or really, anyone at all. The only thing a country border needs to show is some kind of information to let people know in whose jurisdiction they are and what law they are supposed to follow. Anything beyond that is simply governmental harassment. In case one of the foreigners is carrying an epidemic disease, of course. Why is that quarantine only for foreigners, by the way, and not citizens who travel abroad? Shouldn't American tourists who have travelled outside their country be quarantined as a matter of principle? If they are criminals, then they need to be brought to trial. If they aren't criminals, then I don't see the issue. For one thing, it means permission to vote in elections. Or would you prefer racist organizations sending in thousands of people into Austria to shift election results? After all, what does "citizenship" even mean? Bob [/quote] How is that a reason to violate people's right to move?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 11, 2019 13:20:02 GMT -5
Once a guest is in your house, you don't need to give them permission to go to the bathroom. Why do you need to give people permission to enter your house? Because it's my house, not theirs. Really? What does that have to do with it? Wrong. A country belongs to all of its citizens. If a government didn't stop convicted burglars from crossing the border, how safe do you think your house would be? Why? After all, you just said that "A country, on the other hand, does not belong to anybody in particular, or really, anyone at all." So what right does the government have to tell immigrants anything? Yes. Of course. And that is exactly what happened in the case of the last Ebola epidemic. But that is exactly what happened during the last Ebola epidemic. It is the government's job to defend the nation against invaders. It makes no difference if the invaders are human killers or deadly diseases. Are you saying that it is okay to admit killers who have not been brought to trial yet? So then you agree that racist organizations have a "right" to send thousands of their members into a country without restriction in order to vote in that country's elections?
How about a terrorist group sending people to plant bombs? After all, we can't restrict their right to move.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 13:28:41 GMT -5
Wrong. A country belongs to all of its citizens. This is demonstrably false. You exert no ownership rights over the United States of America. You can only exert those rights over your own private property. Is that some kind of zen koan? A convicted burglar should be in prison. Once they've finished their sentence, of course, they should become a free person, with all rights that entails. First of all, governments don't have rights. They have legal powers. And a legitimate government has the legal power to create and enforce laws inside its territory. That's the literal foundation upon which all functions of the state are based. If you don't have that, then you don't have a government. So tourists need to be locked up for their and everyone else's safety? Therefore...? What do you think follows from that claim? Sure, military veterans, retired cops and former US presidents should be welcome just like everyone else. Planting bombs is a crime, is it not? Why are the people in your example not being prosecuted for that crime?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 13:35:36 GMT -5
Nobody fills out paperwork for crossing the street. Why am I required to fill out paperwork for crossing a border? Once a guest is in your house, you don't need to give them permission to go to the bathroom. Why do you need to give people permission to enter your house? Actually, here is the funny thing: I don't actually own a house. I rent a shared apartment together with two other people. Because my home is not my property, and is being rented and lived in not just by myself, but by two other people, I cannot actually decide by myself who gets to enter or leave: At least three other people (my two co-renters and my landlord) also have a say in it.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Apr 12, 2019 13:35:43 GMT -5
Hi Fred:
I wonder-- what do you think now that Rosenstein's latest interview supports Barr's summary?
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Apr 12, 2019 15:59:09 GMT -5
Deb wrote:
>and the mainstream media is a tentacle of the Democratic party. ---If that were the case, you’d think they’d be much, much better at it. As it is they allow Trump to distract them from important stories when he does or says some bizarre thing that they think will be good for TV ratings. A true “tentacle” would not so easily be distracted. 8->
>No United States citizens were charged for "Russian collusion" during the Mueller investigation. Nada. NONE. ZIP. All they got were "process crimes" or stuff they dug up that had NOTHING to do with Russia. ---A couple of things to keep in mind. (1) The investigation was started to look into whether Russia had interfered in the 2016 election overall, not about individual people. And the overwhelming conclusion was that Russia did indeed interfere. (2) Several Trump people were proved to have had ties to Russians and Russian organizations that were doing illegal things during the campaign and some of those people have been charged with things related to Russia. Again, not “collusion”, as defined by Mueller, but its simply not true to say that no US citizens were involved with the Russians during this period or that no Trump people knew about Russian illegal activities or that no Trump people are in jail now or soon will be due to their Russian activities. Trump himself publicly asked the Russian government to break laws to look for Clinton’s missing emails. A stupid thing to say, and one that may someday come back to bite him.
>Let's just see what comes up with this investigation into the origins of the hoax. If people end up jailed for their part in it -- then that will be proof positive this was a plot. ---There is a false right-wing claim that there was no legal reason to even have an investigation in the first place. But that’s just not true. Seventeen different US intelligence agencies (and some from overseas) had proof that Russia was working to get Trump elected. Members of Trump’s staff told people that the Russians were helping Trump. That’s plenty of legal reason to investigate whether any US citizens were helping the Russians or whether it was all one-way with the Russians doing all the work.
---Again, it was not a hoax. There’s plenty of proof of what the Russians were up to (and they did it again in 2018). The only questions were about who in the US did what and when and who knew about the Russians. And again, I repeat that there is nothing illegal about Congress setting up an investigation about anything they feel like. Literally any subject they want. And since there is no crime in an investigation, there will be no punishment for having one. Also, as above with news media, it would have been a very poor plot that couldn’t do more damage to Trump or the Reps after all that time and money. I promise that I could come up with 10 seriously better anti-Trump plots over lunch, and that’s not even trying.
> I wonder-- what do you think now that Rosenstein's latest interview supports Barr's summary? ---He doesn’t support Barr’s summary per se, he supports Barr’s handling of the report and giving Barr more time to release a redacted report. People who have seen the summary have said that Barr twisted his original announcement to protect Trump, but that when (if ?) the full report ever comes out, it will be damaging for Trump. The summary Mueller gave to Barr for release is the more accurate of the two.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 12, 2019 16:38:50 GMT -5
Once a guest is in your house, you don't need to give them permission to go to the bathroom. Why do you need to give people permission to enter your house? Actually, here is the funny thing: I don't actually own a house. I rent a shared apartment together with two other people. Because my home is not my property, and is being rented and lived in not just by myself, but by two other people, I cannot actually decide by myself who gets to enter or leave: At least three other people (my two co-renters and my landlord) also have a say in it.
That's no problem at all.
Does anyone have the right to enter that apartment without getting permission from any one of you three? How about this: Your door is left unlocked and a drunk staggers in and proceeds to head to your kitchen to look for beer. Does that drunk have the right to do that? Why not if it isn't your property?
How about a burglar breaking in and looking for something to steal? Once again, what reason would you have to stop them. After all, it's not your property.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 12, 2019 16:41:51 GMT -5
Deb wrote: >and the mainstream media is a tentacle of the Democratic party. ---If that were the case, you’d think they’d be much, much better at it. As it is they allow Trump to distract them from important stories when he does or says some bizarre thing that they think will be good for TV ratings. A true “tentacle” would not so easily be distracted. 8-> I have to disagree with you here Fred. You are pointing out that they (the media) are incompetent. That doesn't mean that they can't still be a "tentacle." It is possible to be an incompetent tentacle. Bob
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Apr 12, 2019 17:53:32 GMT -5
Hi Fred:
Barr "handled" the Mueller report by summarizing it. Or are you suggesting Rosenstein was particularly impressed with the way Barr wrapped his fingers around the pages when he picked it up in his hands? Seriously?
The only thing Barr did was summarize. The statement is pretty straightforward.
--Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 19:06:56 GMT -5
Actually, here is the funny thing: I don't actually own a house. I rent a shared apartment together with two other people. Because my home is not my property, and is being rented and lived in not just by myself, but by two other people, I cannot actually decide by myself who gets to enter or leave: At least three other people (my two co-renters and my landlord) also have a say in it. That's no problem at all. Does anyone have the right to enter that apartment without getting permission from any one of you three? How about this: Your door is left unlocked and a drunk staggers in and proceeds to head to your kitchen to look for beer. Does that drunk have the right to do that? Why not if it isn't your property? How about a burglar breaking in and looking for something to steal? Once again, what reason would you have to stop them. After all, it's not your property. Bob
Why don't you adress my other points first? They're right above the post you responded to, on the same page; easy to find.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 12, 2019 21:05:21 GMT -5
Wrong. A country belongs to all of its citizens. This is demonstrably false. You exert no ownership rights over the United States of America. You can only exert those rights over your own private property. That's your "demonstration?" Looks like a dogmatic assertion without any supporting evidence. Citizens of Democracies demonstrate their ownership of the country with every election. So you have no qualms about admitting criminals. How about terrorists? A criminal who has served their sentence is free in their original country. But why should another country be required to admit them? Therefore...? You seem to be avoiding the question of whether or not a government SHOULD place any limits on immigration. If your answer is "no", then you are also claiming the government has no legal power here as well. Are you claiming that? Yes! In fact, people WERE locked up and held until it was clear that they didn't have Ebola. Are you actually claiming that people who may have highly contagious fatal diseases should be free to walk around and infect others? Government has the obligation to protects its citizens from violence that threatens their lives. That includes quarantines in the case of highly contagious and deadly diseases. And veterans, retired cops, and former presidents have committed how many crimes exactly? These people you mentioned usually don't go around killing and robbing anyone. Violent criminals do. According to you, they can't be. Planting a bomb in one country is no reason to be denied entry into another country, is it? Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 12, 2019 21:15:40 GMT -5
That's no problem at all. Does anyone have the right to enter that apartment without getting permission from any one of you three? How about this: Your door is left unlocked and a drunk staggers in and proceeds to head to your kitchen to look for beer. Does that drunk have the right to do that? Why not if it isn't your property? How about a burglar breaking in and looking for something to steal? Once again, what reason would you have to stop them. After all, it's not your property. Bob
Why don't you adress my other points first? They're right above the post you responded to, on the same page; easy to find.
Okay. I addressed your other points. Now why don't you address my points here?
Does anyone have the right to enter your apartment without the permission of either you or your roommates? After all, you just said that apartment is not your property.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Apr 15, 2019 7:41:30 GMT -5
Bob wrote: >You are pointing out that they (the media) are incompetent. That doesn't mean that they can't still be a "tentacle." It is possible to be an incompetent tentacle. ---True, but the right-wing belief is that millions of Americans are being totally manipulated and fooled by fake news from “mainstream” news sources. My take is that if they really had as much control and power as the right-wing believes, we would see a very different political landscape out there. For example, no Trump. So, to me, the choices are that (a) they’re not really a branch of the Dem Party but instead are businesses trying to make the most money they can as fast as they can or (b) they really aren’t very good at political and social manipulations. My personal belief is that they are reasonably accurate in their reporting, but Trump is a master manipulator and whenever he’s in trouble, he says or tweets something outrageous and the news folk spend all their time discussing that instead of actual important subjects.
Deb wrote: >Barr "handled" the Mueller report by summarizing it. ---We won’t know what’s actually in the report until it’s released to the public, but the buzz from people who have actually seen the 300-400 page document is that Barr didn’t release a summary, he released a political ad that he claimed was a summary. Basically, Barr and Rosenstein are primarily interested in making Trump look good at all costs. Whether or not that’s true, they will be getting flack and conspiracy claims until Congressional committees get a look at the full thing. Yes, it’s illegal to release the full doc without redacting secret stuff, but Congressional committees have secret clearances and it’s not illegal for them to see it all.
---BTW, a joke going round the internet is that Trump shouldn’t be complaining about the Mueller investigation taking so long when, as he claims, he’s been under an IRS audit since the spring of 2016. And they still haven’t finished 3 years later. LOL
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 8:03:08 GMT -5
This is demonstrably false. You exert no ownership rights over the United States of America. You can only exert those rights over your own private property. That's your "demonstration?" Looks like a dogmatic assertion without any supporting evidence. It's an assertion of the absence of ownership rights over the United States of America. You could easily refute this claim by pointing out what ownership rights you do have over your country. So tell me, which rights do you exert as a co-owner of the USA? What can you do with your property? Can you sell it? Can you buy more? Can you trade your share with others? What can you do as an alleged owner of the United States of America? Do you need elections to exert your ownership over your apartment, or your computer? If not, then why would you need them for exerting ownership over your share of the US? I have no qualms about admitting felons who have served their criminal sentences, no. Do you? Why? Because it's their human right. People have the right to freedom of movement. Do you disagree? I don't see how one would follow from the other. Please elaborate. They are free to walk around and infect others inside their country, are they not? Why make the distinction between potential domestic plague bearers and foreign ones? For example, why shouldn't the state of New York quarantine its infected population to prevent further Measles outbreaks? But it does not include non-communicable diseases? Why not? If a disease is a form of violence, why doesn't your government protect you from all of them? The US military does indeed go around killing and robbing people in foreign countries. They aren't convicted for their crimes because the US government continues to refuse charging its own military men with war crimes. Your answer is incoherent. In your hypothetical example, these bomb throwers are not being charged with any crime in their home country. Why not?[/quote]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 8:04:37 GMT -5
Why don't you adress my other points first? They're right above the post you responded to, on the same page; easy to find. Okay. I addressed your other points. Now why don't you address my points here? Does anyone have the right to enter your apartment without the permission of either you or your roommates? After all, you just said that apartment is not your property. Bob
You are forgetting that a rent contract enables me to use the apartment and any improvements that are inside, even if I am not myself the legal owner, and a purchase enables me to use whatever stuff I bought.
So if a burglar or stumbling drunk is going to steal something inside my home, they're still stealing my stuff, or using my stuff without proper compensation, without asking me or my co-habitants. So how is this theft in any way analogous to immigration?
What do you believe immigrants are "stealing" from you when they cross the border?
|
|