The Guns Of Hate
Fellow CD Users,
This post is not the beginning of a return to consistency in posting as I have in the past. Continue to pray for my family and me. However, your comments are expected and welcome. It's the tragedy in El Paso, TX, and Dayton, Ohio that has compelled me to say a word to the Christian Community, in general, and members of Christian Debate, in particular. I promised to check in from time to time. This event is one of those times. Christians, on any level of his journey, must not keep silent on the recent massacres and America's inhumanity to man. One must speak up and condemn hatred (quasi-Federal pogrom) and give voice to decency and a better way.
My thoughts are not to lend support to the Democrats or the Republican Party. I don't subscribe to either party. They both seem to be opposite sides of the same coin. The Democrats, on the one hand, seem to be more concern about winning. They are too afraid of losing.
On the other hand, the Republicans seem to lack morals, heart, compassion, lack of respect for the American rule of laws. In short, they are political chameleons and are too beholding to the narcissistic U. S. President Donald J. Trump, whom many, full-throated, believed to be a "White National Racist." The Republicans have lost their soul and surrendered any moral high ground, they once held.
I have resurfaced to repeat a truth spoken, in the past, in these forums. It's unfortunate, America had to experience this reality in lost lives in two places within 13 hours of each: Guns were Made To Kill! No, it's not a mental illness that kills. Guns do. I have written much on this topic in these forums. Here we go again:
Guns were made to kill: Back to the Future
You may ask again why more of the same?
Loved ones are dead, and it's not a game.
Without warning, bullets flew, piercing glass, walls, and flesh;
Rupturing backs, heads, eyes, hearts, legs, and chests.
Whether, in one or two places, the carnage is the same.
Spent shells, bloody bodies, broken bones, wounds too deep; for life, what a bloody shame?
Why so graphic, one may say;
Common sense gun laws are needed right away.
Mental illness, many politicians claim;
Ninety percent of Americans want background checks, and seventy percent wants a ban on assault rifles, bump-stocks, high caliber magazines; can politicians be justly blamed?
Who benefits from these weapons of war, anyway?
History says extreme gun owners and the NRA.
You have heard this all before;
A lack of action, America; prepare for a whole lot more.
Yesterday is today and today was yesterday, many are reluctant to believe so;
Enough is enough; commonsense gun laws would hopefully, stem the status flow. -- by CM
Comments
-
Very simple and plain truth: It is NOT a gun that kills ... it is the person improperly handling the gun.
Just as it is not a knife (or any other instrument) that kills ... it is the person using a knife (or any other means) to kill who kills.
-
Hello from the Rockies of Colorado.
Three questions for you, Wolfgang:
1. The shooter in the Dayton shooting killed nine and shot fourteen others in less than thirty seconds using a weapon to which a 100 round magazine had been attached. How likely is it that a knife-bearing assailant could have killed and injured that many in that amount of time in that urban, public setting?
2. The shooter in the El Paso shooting had an assault-style weapon and multiple magazines. He killed 22 and injured 24. How likely is it that a knife bearing assailant in that setting could have killed and injured that many people in a busy Wal Mart?
3. As a rule, isn't it true that a person who wants to kill people will do more quickly, more efficiently, and to greater loss of life than will a knife-bearing assailant?
You and I agree that direct answers to questions posed are FAR superior and MUCH more helpful than are answers that evade the questions posed. In that spirit, I ask you to respond to my questions directly.
-
@Bill_Coley wrote
1. The shooter in the Dayton shooting killed nine and shot fourteen others in less than thirty seconds using a weapon to which a 100 round magazine had been attached. How likely is it that a knife-bearing assailant could have killed and injured that many in that amount of time in that urban, public setting?
My point was not about how many someone can kill in what amount of time ... even if only one person is murdered, it is one too many.
My point is that it is never the weapon (be it a gun, a knife, a bomb, ot whatever) that kills, but it is the person using it to kill.#
2. The shooter in the El Paso shooting had an assault-style weapon and multiple magazines. He killed 22 and injured 24. How likely is it that a knife bearing assailant in that setting could have killed and injured that many people in a busy Wal Mart?
See above ... again, you are missing the point I made.
3. As a rule, isn't it true that a person who wants to kill people will do more quickly, more efficiently, and to greater loss of life than will a knife-bearing assailant?
See above ... or are you trying to tell me that the problem is not the shooter or knifer but the gun and the knife?
You and I agree that direct answers to questions posed are FAR superior and MUCH more helpful than are answers that evade the questions posed. In that spirit, I ask you to respond to my questions directly.
I hope my answers were clear and direct.
In the above case, a bomb oculd kill even more people, and it should be obvious that with certain type of gun one could kill more people in the same amount of time than one could with a different type of gun or a knife or a baseball bat.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
See above ... or are you trying to tell me that the problem is not the shooter or knifer but the gun and the knife?
My point is that the intentions of people who want to kill people are MUCH better served by guns than by knives (or most other potential weapons). In your response, you appear to agree with me on that point.
I think the efficiency of a weapon matters in the gun debate because the more we control the efficiency of the weapons available to the people who, you claim, are the problem, the fewer people will die at the hands of those people who are the problem.
Let's make an example: For his own evil reasons, "Harvey" wants to kill people. If gun laws permit Harvey to access assault-style weapons, Harvey will almost undoubtedly kill more people than if those laws do not permit his access to such weapons.
If society is going to have people like Harvey - and it seems that it's going to - it makes sense to me to limit the efficiency of the weapons to which they have access.
Do gun laws work perfectly? No. Then again, laws against murder don't work perfectly either, yet we still have them because we've decided it's best that people not murder each other. Similarly, society has the right to seek to control the efficiency of available weapons on the grounds that the fewer who die at the hands of people who want to kill, the better.
Your example of a bomb is useful here. To my knowledge, we don't allow people to buy or make bombs, even though, as you claim, bombs are not the problem. Why do we regulate access to bombs when bombs are not the problem? Because bombs are a very efficient weapon in the hands of people who want to kill.
-
@Bill_Coley wrote
I think the efficiency of a weapon matters in the gun debate because the more we control the efficiency of the weapons available to the people who, you claim, are the problem, the fewer people will die at the hands of those people who are the problem.
Do away with all guns ... do away with all knives ... there will still be murders comitted by those who are the problem.
Let's make an example: For his own evil reasons, "Harvey" wants to kill people. If gun laws permit Harvey to access assault-style weapons, Harvey will almost undoubtedly kill more people than if those laws do not permit his access to such weapons.
If society is going to have people like Harvey - and it seems that it's going to - it makes sense to me to limit the efficiency of the weapons to which they have access.
Does not change anything essential really ... Have you noticed that these mass shootings always happen in places that are most likely "gun free" (a shop, a school, a cinema) ?? Why is it that these shooters don't walk up to a police station front door ? or a guard house at a military base? The reasons are obvious ...
I would venture to say that in places where someone knows armed defense and resistance is expected they most likely won't start ... and if they do, chances are they'll be "neutralized" before causing much harm.
Do gun laws work perfectly? No. Then again, laws against murder don't work perfectly either, yet we still have them because we've decided it's best that people not murder each other. Similarly, society has the right to seek to control the efficiency of available weapons on the grounds that the fewer who die at the hands of people who want to kill, the better.
??
Your example of a bomb is useful here. To my knowledge, we don't allow people to buy or make bombs, even though, as you claim, bombs are not the problem. Why do we regulate access to bombs when bombs are not the problem? Because bombs are a very efficient weapon in the hands of people who want to kill.
The point I made - again - had nothing to do with "comparing weapons or instruments". The point i made was that it is not the kind of weapon that is the problem, it is the person misusing these and killing people.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Do away with all guns ... do away with all knives ... there will still be murders comitted by those who are the problem.
I'm not calling for the abolition of guns. I'm asserting that sensible reforms to our gun laws have the potential of reducing the efficiency of the weapons in the hands of the people who, you claim, are the problem.
I contend that, for example, 5,000 people per year dying by guns is better than 10,000 people per year dying by guns. Do you agree with me? If reducing the efficiency of available weapons could reduce the number of people who die from gun violence, why WOULDN'T we change laws to make that happen?
And what kind of changes am I advocating? Simply put, allow people access to the level of weapon efficiency appropriate for their use.
- Military needs high efficiency weapons (tanks, bazookas, grenades, missiles, etc). Duck hunters don't. Households seeking self-protection don't.
- Police need weapons that most citizens don't need.
- No everyday citizen needs a machine gun or an assault-style rifle.
That is, match the killing efficiency of the weapons available to people to their circumstances.
- People with certain mental health concerns/history don't need efficient weapons...they don't need weapons at all.
- People with certain kinds of criminal records (previous crimes using firearms, for example) don't need weapons at all.
@Wolfgang posted:
I would venture to say that in places where someone knows armed defense and resistance is expected they most likely won't start ... and if they do, chances are they'll be "neutralized" before causing much harm
Are you suggesting that we arm every public location? Is that the kind of society you want to live in? If you don't arm every location, shooters will search out the unarmed areas. And as importantly, will have dictated social policy, will have imposed more of their weaponry on the rest of us. I strenuously object to that outcome.
@Wolfgang posted:
??
The point was simply that fewer people dying from gun violence is better than more people dying from guns, so it's appropriate for societies to control the killing efficiency of weapons available to people.
@Wolfgang posted:
The point I made - again - had nothing to do with "comparing weapons or instruments". The point i made was that it is not the kind of weapon that is the problem, it is the person misusing these and killing people.
This sounds to me like the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. The problem with that argument is that the people who kill people kill MORE people and more efficiently with guns than with other weapons. So, in my view, as long as you have people who will kill people, it is incumbent on society to minimize the damage they can do ...within our constitutional framework, of course.
I contend that if there were no guns in the world (again, NOT advocating that!) fewer people would die per year. Yes, people would still die! But with less efficient weaponry at they disposal, the people who wanted to kill people would kill fewer. In my view, fewer people dying is better than more people dying.
-
@Bill_Coley wrote
@Wolfgang posted:
I would venture to say that in places where someone knows armed defense and resistance is expected they most likely won't start ... and if they do, chances are they'll be "neutralized" before causing much harm
Are you suggesting that we arm every public location? Is that the kind of society you want to live in?
It seems - from a news report I came across after the El Paso and Dayton incidents - like more recently someone in one place walked armed into a shop where there happened to be an armed person who stopped the armed fellow at gun point until police arrived to arrest that dude .... how many people died because an armed person was at the place? Was that armed person doing shopping a danger tp society in that place? or was he perhaps the reason that the armed fellow apparently intending to cause havoc there was unable to pursue his evil deeds?
I like the kind of society that allows people to be able to effectively defend themselves by whatever means they can afford to get and for which use they get themselves properly educated and trained. Having the general right to bear arms I would consider better than a general prohibition to bear arms. Germany is currently an example of a country with a disarmed citizenship ... thus citizens are at the mercy of the state to protect and defend them ...which the state appears more and more not only unable but unwilling to do.
And, of course, a state regime that has disarmed its citizenship and thus holds sole control over arms, can easily maintain dictatorship and enslavement of its citizens, whereas a state regime where citizens bear arms is in far more danger of opposition and rebellion against dictatorship. (And don't think, this is Schneider's loony 'conspiracy theory' ... because it is a simple and plain fact whether I mention it or not)
-
A comment about your "disarmed citizenship."
According to the per capita homicide rates I found online (wikipedia article titled "list of countries by homicide rate" - data from 2017, compiled by United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) your "disarmed citizenship" kills each other at a rate that's less than one-fifth the rate at which my country's "armed citizenship" kills each other (U.S. = 5.3 homicides per 100,000 population; Germany = 1.0 homicides per 100,000 population). FYI, according to a different Wikipedia article, the homicide rates specific to guns are U.S. = 4.5 per 100,000 and Germany = 1.0 per 100,000.
For a government that, according to your post, is both "unable" and "unwilling" to "protect and defend" its people, your disarmed Germany is doing pretty well...at least compared to my armed U.S.
-
And Wolfgang, I still hope for your response to my claim that in general, fewer people dying by gun violence is better than more people dying by guns. Do you agree?
-
For a government that, according to your post, is both "unable" and "unwilling" to "protect and defend" its people, your disarmed Germany is doing pretty well...at least compared to my armed U.S.
I would contend the reason is NOT "disarmed" vs "armed" ... but in the disposition of the people and different levels of education/morals/etc. I also contend that Germany is on the route to worse ... following the general course and trend of so-called "western values"
And Wolfgang, I still hope for your response to my claim that in general, fewer people dying by gun violence is better than more people dying by guns. Do you agree?
Oh, I agree ... but disagree on what seems to be your "cause > effect" reasoning.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
I would contend the reason is NOT "disarmed" vs "armed" ... but in the disposition of the people and different levels of education/morals/etc. I also contend that Germany is on the route to worse ... following the general course and trend of so-called "western values"
If in fact your country is "on the route to worse," then the data should bear out your claim. As far as I can find, there is no homicide or firearm violence data support for your claim. Germany is and has been a far safer country than the U.S. and one factor surely must be that American gun laws are FAR more open than German ones. I am certainly open to the data to which you link that demonstrates any other truth.
As for the cause and effect argument, I accept your disagreement, but I don't understand it's basis. In context, my point about 5,000 vs 10,000 killed mwas that regulating/reducing the killing efficiency of weapons would reduce the number of people killed because access to highly efficient killing weapons such as assault-style weapons would be limited. People would still kill, but with fewer overall victims. What's your cause and effect argument against that assertion?
-
If in fact your country is "on the route to worse," then the data should bear out your claim. As far as I can find, there is no homicide or firearm violence data support for your claim. Germany is and has been a far safer country than the U.S. and one factor surely must be that American gun laws are FAR more open than German ones. I am certainly open to the data to which you link that demonstrates any other truth.
Violent crimes such as killings are increasing ... and not necessarily because of shootings ... knifing and other violent severe crimes have increased due to our "no border" situation and migration from hordes of young men from an incompatible cultural and religious background.
While the published official government statistics are interpreted by top politicians of established political parties in power as "criminal offences are decreasing", the same statistics are interpreted by others with credentials in the field with a completely different outcome.
Gun laws here are based on citizens do NOT have the right to bear arms, EXCEPT in certain cases and with heavy restrictions. In the USA citizens do have the right to bear arms with certain restrictions.
However, those who do commit crimes with guns ALWAYS manage to have the type of gun they deem appropriate for their crime ... despite not having the right to bear arms ....
As for the cause and effect argument, I accept your disagreement, but I don't understand it's basis. In context, my point about 5,000 vs 10,000 killed mwas that regulating/reducing the killing efficiency of weapons would reduce the number of people killed because access to highly efficient killing weapons such as assault-style weapons would be limited. People would still kill, but with fewer overall victims. What's your cause and effect argument against that assertion?
Cause and effect had to do with comparison Germany and USA and shootings etc in each country. Seems like there have been certain political attempts at doing away with citizen's rights for some time now, especially so after 09/11/2001. All of course in the name of "more safety, more security, more whatever other supposed "benefit" for the people ... the real benefit for the corrupt and evil government / regime in gaining control over its citizens is never mentioned in the propaganda media and by those citizens who are in favor of upholding the rights afforded them by the constitution. "Enemies from within" are not only found in the form of thugs and gangs in the slums and on streets ... the worst and most dangerous are found some other places where power and money are held.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
background.
While the published official government statistics are interpreted by top politicians of established political parties in power as "criminal offences are decreasing", the same statistics are interpreted by others with credentials in the field with a completely different outcome.
Let's not discuss how OTHERS interpret the data, Wolfgang. Let's discuss how YOU AND I interpret the data. Please provide links to that data, then you and I can discuss what they say about the trajectory of Germany's level of (gun) violence vis a vis the U.S.'s.
As for the cause and effect section of your reply, I see nothing in it that engages the specifics of my contention that regulating the killing efficiency of firearms has the potential of reducing the number of people killed by firearms. Please address that specific assertion.
-
The OP should be dismissed outright for suggesting/hinting/insinuating that Trump is a White Nationalist/Supremacist. This has been debunked over and over and keeps getting peddled by liberals without any evidence or proof and they all, including the OP, should be prosecuted for defamation of character.
-
@reformed posted:
The OP should be dismissed outright for suggesting/hinting/insinuating that Trump is a White Nationalist/Supremacist. This has been debunked over and over and keeps getting peddled by liberals without any evidence or proof and they all, including the OP, should be prosecuted for defamation of character.
There's little doubt that the white nationalists and supremacists believe the president is one of them. Perhaps those folks have not encountered the information you claim has "debunked" the assertion.
In addition, we should note that if you say and do white nationalist/supremacist things over and over again, as the president has done, at some point it becomes reasonable to conclude that you're a white nationalist/supremacist.
As for your suggested prosecutions for defamation of character, do you also believe those whom President Trump has belittled in his tweets - say the African-American members of Congress he claimed, "without evidence or proof," are "low IQ" - should sue the president for defamation of character?
-
Mr. Reformed,
Unfortunately, you seem to have missed the main point of the OP — Guns were made to kill! I would refrain from saying you approve of Mr. Trump's sayings and behavior addressing the various races in the USA. To be fair to you and Mr. Trump, please supply factual data for your conclusions and the condemnation of the OP:
- Where did the writer of the OP suggested or hinted that Trump IS a White Nationalist/Supremacist?
- What is a "White Nationalist/Supremacist? How DO YOU define a person of this character?
- By whom, when, and where it’s written, Mr. Trump is a "White Nationalist/Supremacist have been debunked over and over"?
- Can you prove, Mr. Reformed, that your US President, Mr. Trump is NOT a White Nationalist/Supremacist?
- Why does it seem that you don't care about the main thing (verifiable-realities)? Did you miss the illegal use of guns, assault rifles, large magazine ["Drum"] containers, and the death of innocent people?
- Are you affiliated, sympathizer, or associated with "White Nationalist/Supremacists"? Why are you, unnecessarily, overly sensitive to Trump and this group?
- Why are you so sure that you have sufficient information to suggest that I be "prosecuted for defamation of character"? Are you a lawyer?
Mr. Reformed, step back and reconsider the OP. Discern the need for better control and accountability of gun owners and the responsibility of Law-makers. Please, Mr. Reform, look beyond your political blinders and see the greater demand (commonsense gun laws) for the highest good (humanity). Develop a great love for people over things -- Guns. They were made to kill (legally, stolen, licensed, registered, large or small). With this reality in the hands of a mean, hateful, misguided person, in sympathy with the words of the Nation's Leader words or a mentally ill person, this new massacre in El Paso and Dayton, OH. Be a witness for Jesus and not the NRA. CM
-
What White Supremacist thing has he done? Name one. Just one.
-
There is no such thing as an assault rifle. I don't have a problem with guns or large magazines. I do have a problem with illegal guns but that isn't what gun control advocates are trying to target. We do not have a gun problem in America. We have a mental health problem. Were guns made to kill? Yes. So what? What does that have to do with anything? Bow and Arrows were too, should we outlaw those? This whole thing about gun control is lunacy.
-
Reformed,
Could it be that the answer to your question to Bill are in your answers to CM's questions? CM
-
@reformed posted:
What White Supremacist thing has he done? Name one. Just one.
In my view, the president has spoken like a white supremacist much more than he has acted like one. To wit....
- As a candidate, Donald Trump claimed Mexicans were murderers and rapists.
- As president, Mr Trump called Central American people of color on a journey toward the US for political asylum an "invading force," and described their approach to our southern border as an "invasion."
- As president, Mr Trump called Haiti and "much" of Africa "****hole countries."
- As president, Mr Trump expressed a desire for more immigrants from nations such as Norway...a very white nation.
- As president, he tweeted that three American-born congresswomen of color should return to their home countries to fix their societies, then return to the US to fix this nation's ills. He has not suggested that any white members of Congress should return to their home countries.
We're not likely to hear the president say whites are better than people of color. But we HAVE heard him say things that are consistent with such a worldview. Does that make him a white supremacist? As I indicated earlier in this thread, apparently white supremacists think so.
-
And by the way, @reformed, in a previous post I asked whether your suggestion that the president sue certain of his critics for defamation of character for what you thought were accusations for which there was no proof also meant that the people the president has belittled as being "low IQ" should sue him for defamation since he offered no proof of his claim. I ask that question again.
-
We're not likely to hear the president say whites are better than people of color. But we HAVE heard him say things that are consistent with such a worldview. Does that make him a white supremacist? As I indicated earlier in this thread, apparently white supremacists think so.
What is this "white supremacist" idea about? At this time it seems that a number of non-white folks exercise supremacy over whites ... for example, they can call just about anything and get away with it and are even applauded; but the moment a white makes a more or less matter of fact comment about a non-white he/she is called a racist and put down by the all so politically correct propaganda media.
-
- Was he calling all Mexicans rapists and murderers? Of course not. This point is invalid.
- It was an invasion. Point invalid.
- Have you been to those countries? Heaven forbid he describes actual living conditions. Point invalid.
- You have added in the part about it being because of race. Go back and look as to WHY he wants more people from countries like Norway. It is because he wants people who are going to add to our economy, not mooch off the system. Point Invalid.
- Again context. Those "American" congresswomen talk about how bad our country is, how evil our country is in the case of Omar, and such. They are immigrants and should be grateful for what they have but they are not. There is ZERO wrong with the comments he made about them. I AGREE with them. If it is so bad here, go back home and fix your home country and show us how it is done.
-
Exactly
-
Was he calling all Mexicans rapists and murderers? Of course not. This point is invalid.
Why do you suppose the president has never said that Norway is sending us its murderers and rapists, or that the Norwegians coming into the U.S. are "bringing drugs," "bringing crime," "and some, [he] assume[s], are good people,” as he said of Mexicans?
It was an invasion. Point invalid.
If it was the "invasion" that you claim it was, why did the president never again mention it after election day 2018? Did the invaders turn around Wednesday morning, November 7, when they learned Democrats had only won the House?
Have you been to those countries? Heaven forbid he describes actual living conditions. Point invalid.
The president DID describe "actual living conditions"! Remember how he called them "a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess," and a "very dangerous & filthy place"?.... Oh, that's right. That's how the president described Baltimore, Maryland, a city in his own nation. I guess that means the U.S. is a "****hole country" too.
You have added in the part about it being because of race. Go back and look as to WHY he wants more people from countries like Norway. It is because he wants people who are going to add to our economy, not mooch off the system. Point Invalid.
I see! White Scandinavians don't mooch off the system, but people of color from south of our border do!
Again context. Those "American" congresswomen talk about how bad our country is, how evil our country is in the case of Omar, and such. They are immigrants and should be grateful for what they have but they are not. There is ZERO wrong with the comments he made about them. I AGREE with them. If it is so bad here, go back home and fix your home country and show us how it is done.
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, born in Somalia, could, theoretically, go "home" to Somalia, even though she is now an official citizen of the United States and a duly elected member of the U.S. House. To which specific countries should Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, and Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley - the other three members of Congress at whom the president directed his infamous tweet - go "home" in order to "show us how it is done"? (Please answer that question directly and without evasion.)
And for the third time I will ask you whether your belief that President Trump's critics who call him a white supremacist should be "prosecuted for defamation of character" because there is no evidence to support their claims ALSO means you believe President Trump should be prosecuted (after he leaves office, of course) for defamation of character for his "low IQ" accusations leveled, also without evidence, against Vice President Joe Biden, Congresswomen Maxine Waters, and TV host Mika Brzezinski?
-
@Wolfgang posted:
What is this "white supremacist" idea about? At this time it seems that a number of non-white folks exercise supremacy over whites ... for example, they can call just about anything and get away with it and are even applauded; but the moment a white makes a more or less matter of fact comment about a non-white he/she is called a racist and put down by the all so politically correct propaganda media.
I assume you know the meaning of white supremacy. The meaning of the remainder of your post is shrouded in a lack of details.
- What is the nature of the "just about anything" non-whites can "call... and get away with it and are even applauded"? You call that description an "example," but I have no idea what you have in mind.
- Please offer a specific example of a "more or less matter of fact comment about a non-white" that a white person made which resulted in his or her being "called a racist and put down by the all so politically correct propaganda media." (And while you're at it, please tell how a "more or less matter of fact comment" differs, if at all, from a "matter of fact comment.")
-
- Are you in denial that there is a massive number of illegal immigrants from Hispanic countries that commit crime in this country and it far outweighs the percentages of crimes from other immigrants? That's the reason Bill. Not rocket science.
- It is false that he never mentioned it again after election day 2019. Do some fact checking because you botched that one bad. He said it on May 9th 2019 and other times as well.
- Now you are grasping for straws. He calls it like he sees it. I know you are a Democrat liberal and not used to such things. You are used to deception and smear.
- Again you are coloring things that are not there.
- As you know Tlaib (not sure about the other two) has family, close family, from outside of the United States. That is what he is referring to and he is right. Interesting note on Tlaib and her utter hatred of Israel and her political stunt about her poor dear grandmother and then when her request is granted she refused. You want to talk about impeachment, impeach those four idiots.
-
@reformed posted:
Are you in denial that there is a massive number of illegal immigrants from Hispanic countries that commit crime in this country and it far outweighs the percentages of crimes from other immigrants? That's the reason Bill. Not rocket science.
I'm aware that, according to Wikipedia, about half of immigrants living in this country are from Latin American nations. From available data, I'm guessing that most "illegal immigrants" also come from said nations. It thus makes sense that among the crimes committed by immigrants, more are committed by persons from said nations.
Are you aware that the crime rate in the U.S. among immigrants is lower than the crime rate among natural born citizens?
Exactly what is that "massive number of illegal immigrants from Hispanic countries" who commit crimes in this country? Please provide a link to the stat.
It is false that he never mentioned it again after election day 2019. Do some fact checking because you botched that one bad. He said it on May 9th 2019 and other times as well.
The May 9 reference is NOT to the "invasion" the president told us, in rally after rally, was closing in on our southern border in the days/weeks before the 2018 midterm elections. My assertion is that he stopped talking about that specific invasion after the election. As I asked in my previous post, "Did the invaders turn around Wednesday morning, November 7, when they learned Democrats had only won the House?"
Why did the president stop talking about THAT "invasion" immediately after the election?
Now you are grasping for straws. He calls it like he sees it. I know you are a Democrat liberal and not used to such things. You are used to deception and smear.
I'M the one who's used to "deception and smear? Please re-read your post.
Does the president believe the U.S. is a "**hole" country, given our rat- and crime-infested cities?
Again you are coloring things that are not there.\
The point I'm making is that the president says things that white nationalists say.
As you know Tlaib (not sure about the other two) has family, close family, from outside of the United States. That is what he is referring to and he is right. Interesting note on Tlaib and her utter hatred of Israel and her political stunt about her poor dear grandmother and then when her request is granted she refused. You want to talk about impeachment, impeach those four idiots.
No. He was NOT referring to the countries of the congresswomen's families. Here's the tweet:
NO mention of families. The president said the congresswomen themselves came from countries.... So I ask you yet again, to which specific countries should Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, and Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley - the other three members of Congress at whom the president directed his infamous tweet - go "home" in order to "show us how it is done"?
And for the fourth time I will ask you whether your belief that President Trump's critics who call him a white supremacist should be "prosecuted for defamation of character" because there is no evidence to support their claims ALSO means you believe President Trump should be prosecuted (after he leaves office, of course) for defamation of character for his "low IQ" accusations leveled, also without evidence, against Vice President Joe Biden, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and TV host Mika Brzezinski?
-
I'm sure white supremacists also say the sky is blue (something I say) but that doesn't make me one of them. It's ridiculous to say Trump is racist without any real evidence. Your examples are ridiculous at best, malicious at worst.
-
@reformed posted:
I'm sure white supremacists also say the sky is blue (something I say) but that doesn't make me one of them. It's ridiculous to say Trump is racist without any real evidence. Your examples are ridiculous at best, malicious at worst.
I've offered a prime example of the president's racism three times in our current exchange. The fact that you STILL have not directly engaged that example is prima facie evidence of its strength. If you were able to disarm it with facts, evidence, and/or logic, you would have by now. But you haven't... because you can't.
Here's the argument in simple format:
- The president said those congresswomen (plural) should go back to the countries from which they came - countries "whose governments (plural) are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world" - then come back and show us how to fix the problems of our nation.
- Of the four congresswomen the president tweeted about, only Rep. Omar was not born in the U.S. which means only she could possibly "go back" to the country from which she came. Yet the president tweeted that all of them should go back to the countries from which they came.
So the question is: On what basis did the president conclude the three other congresswomen - Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, and Rep. Ayanna Pressley, ALL American-born - were from countries other than the United States? On what basis other than race, that is.
Will you now FINALLY deal with that argument directly, without further evasion? Answer the simple question: On what basis did the president conclude those three congresswomen were from countries other than the United States?
And while you're at it, will you FINALLY deal directly with the question I now ask you for the fifth time: Does your belief that President Trump's critics who call him a white supremacist should be "prosecuted for defamation of character" because there is no evidence to support their claims ALSO mean you believe President Trump should be prosecuted (after he leaves office, of course) for defamation of character for his "low IQ" accusations leveled, also without evidence, against Vice President Joe Biden, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and TV host Mika Brzezinski?
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
