Celebrating the 40th anniversary of Return of the Jedi

Community >> View Post
·
Post By
FreeKyle

Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021
In Reply To
zvelf

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Re: CNN: Angry White Men
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2021 at 05:24:30 pm EST (Viewed 359 times)
Reply Subj: Re: CNN: Angry White Men
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2021 at 10:30:28 am EST (Viewed 359 times)



    Quote:
    I don’t have to because you are using a strawman and referring to something else that Trump said in September of 2016 and acting like that was my reference. It's not. My reference is to what Trump said in August of 2016. Since I directly quote Trump's words in my first post in this thread, I don't know how you could get it wrong. In any case, you can't get any more straw man than that.


I'm not using a straw man. There is only one place where Trump did in fact refer to shooting Hillary; and, as always, I'm the correct one.

The reason your example is wrong is because:

1) The Second Amendment says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

2) Hillary has wavered on 2A rights:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/05/hillary-clinton-wavers-on-second-amendment-right-to-bear-arms/

3) Your interpretation leads to a non sequitur.

-----------------

Using 1) - 3) above, let's look at your Trump quote again that falsely assumes he encouraged violence against Hillary:

“Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is."

The second sentence is a sequitur. What Trump was saying is that if Hillary is elected and appoints judges that abolish the second amendment, then the 2A people will have an argument to form a militia and fight the state to secure their right to keep and bear arms (AFTER it's been abolished). It would make no sense if Trump meant for the 2A people to assassinate Hillary because that alone would not reverse the abolishment. They would have to fight the entire government through a well regulated militia.

Bottom line: My interpretation is logical, yours isn't.


    Quote:
    Yes, it was an extreme spin compared to actually reading the Times article itself.


I didn't spin anything. The NYT article's point was that think tanks are influenced by donors, and I used this piece of knowledge to attack the CSIS study. That's not spin, it's a valid argument which I even supplemented with my Henry Luce Foundation example.


    Quote:
    I concede that the donations give the appearance of partiality, but if you look further at the Henry Luce Foundation site, you will see that it gives out well more than $20 million in grants per year of which CAP and CSIS together get less than 1% of their total funding. Given their other grants, the Luce Foundation does not appear to have some agenda against the right.


Influence from donors is a systemic environment that influences systemic behaviors when conducting studies and issuing publications. In other words, it's all baked regardless of the significance of donated amounts. And, my half-hour digging cannot be projected as the only conflict of interest that exists for the CSIS study.




Laff (The Washington Post)




Christopher Wray also said that Antifa is an ideology rather than a specific organization, which is false. Antifa has many different Twitter accounts where they post the dates and times for "protest". At the very least, they are a loose affiliation of local activists spread across the United States and they do coordinate.




Laff (Merrick Garland's Homeland Security)


    Quote:
    The University of Maryland’s Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism:



    Quote:
    https://www.start.umd.edu/profiles-individual-radicalization-united-states-pirus-keshif


That's just capturing the profiles of 2,226 individuals. Meaning: it's anecdotal to your claim. Also, START doesn't capture violent democrat riots.


    Quote:
    And everyone who hates white people runs over white people, right? Let’s just put it this way, is it more likely that minutes after Brooks had a domestic dispute, he drove into a crowd in a distraught state of mind or that he did it as an intentional act of terrorism while knowing that he wouldn’t accidentally kill any minorities in doing so? I think the former is more likely than the latter. To say that CSIS had to include such a vague case is ridiculous.


Laff ("Distraught state of mind")

Here's what I think -

While plowing through those people, he was like: "Effin white people!"

His actions were clearly spiteful and a form of revenge.


Posted with Google Chrome 96.0.4664.55 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software