The Guns Of Hate

I'm not "race baiting." I'm asking for explanations, which from you have been VERY difficult to receive. For example, we STILL don't know why you believed Rep Tlaib was born in Palestine.

You call such a belief "understandable" because she is "NOT FAR REMOVED from her family's country of origin." The problem with that explanation is that someone who is "NOT FAR removed" from his or her family's country of origin IS STILL REMOVED from her family's country of origin. That means, if when you decided she was born in Palestine you knew she was "removed," just "not far," from her family's country of origin, you also knew she wasn't born in her family's country (presumably Palestine?) So exactly where did you think she WAS born?

And if when you decided she was born in Palestine you DIDN'T know she was "removed," just "not far," from her family's country of origin, then that fact could have played no role in your decision... which, of course, begs the question yet again: On what basis DID you believe Rep. Tlaib was born in Palestine>?

Could you PLEASE offer a clear, direct, non-evasive response to my question? At some point and for some length of time you decided to believe Rep. Tlaib was born in Palestine. When you made that decision - at the time you made that decision - on what basis did you make it? What information did you have that persuaded you to believe she had been born in Palestine?

And of course, your latest post makes no mention of the other two American-born Congresswomen of color whom the president wrongly asserted were not born in America. Your only explanation to-date is that the president "just lumped into the group of the idiot squad." I'll remind you that racists tend to be really good at lumping people into groups they don't belong in. You DO agree with that observation about racists, don't you?

Finally, I simply must ask for your reaction to the president's latest flagrant lie. Today from behind his oval office desk he brandished an obviously-doctored hurricane forecast map, one that purported to prove his claim from over the weekend that Dorian was going to hit Alabama. He then magnified his lie by orders of magnitude when he said initial forecasts about the storm's path predicted a "95%" chance of Dorian hitting Alabama. No, they didn't.

• The president lied about the path of the storm over the weekend, forcing the National Weather Service to correct him by tweet.
• The president lied about the path of storm today via a forecast map that SOMEONE in the White House altered.
• The president lied about the path again today when he claimed forecasters once declared a 95% chance of the storm's striking Alabama.
• And the president likely lied yet again today when he claimed not to know (or apparently care) how the forecast map he held up for the nation's review had clearly been altered.

Is there ANY number of lies Donald Trump could tell that would lead you to rescind your support of him? Is it really not a bridge too far when the president of the United States lies about the path of potentially devastating hurricanes threatening his country?

Ok this is flat out false. Too few rules to monitor purchases? A reporter tried to buy a gun to prove how easy it was and, guess what, SHE FAILED THE BACKGROUND CHECK! https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/08/22/the-its-easier-to-buy-a-gun-than-cold-medicine-crowd-just-got-slapped-with-reality-n2552072

Guns are not the problem. Gun control doesn't work, just look at Chicago.

Doctored hurricane forecast map? First, I have no idea what you are talking about. Second, do you really want to talk about doctored meteorology? Let's talk about the big lie of global warming.

Second, Seems like you are calling me a racist now because I also thought Tlaib was from another country. All I know is I heard she was going to visit her grandmother in Palestine, I hear her views and culture and wrongly assumed she was an immigrant. YES that is an UNDERSTANDABLE mistake. Not racist.

The fact that you think climate change is settled science is very telling. Stupid really. It's not settled science. It's not deadly. It's a hoax.

You're welcome to the views of your choice, of course. In most cases in these forums, my response to views different from mine is "I/We disagree." In the case of climate change, however, my response is different: You're wrong. ... Not "stupid." Just wrong. As I indicated in my last post, the issue is no longer debatable. We no longer have time to convince people who, the evidence demonstrates, cannot or will not be persuaded.

It's akin to sitting in your car, packed for a trip, waiting for two friends to show. You've called them, texted them, sent them images of your hotel reservations, but still they haven't arrived. At some point you have to stop waiting; you have to leave without them. In my view, that's where we are now when it comes to climate change deniers. We've show you charts and graphs, we've brought you the witness of thousands of noted scientists and the conclusions of international scholarly panels, including the Trump administration's own "U.S. Climate Change Report," but you won't or can't be convinced. Well, the convincing time is over. It's time for the rest of us to move on.

And I'm still waiting for your response to the question with which I closed my last response to you: You say you assumed from Rep. Tlaib's "views and culture" that she was an immigrant. What "views" and "cultures" are expressed by the people you assume AREN'T immigrants?

I don't know what a "god of truth" is, but the discoveries of science are almost always the best assessment we have of how the natural processes of the world operate.

Again I must break out my "you're wrong" response, Wolfgang. It is simply not true that the "science community is quite divided." But I invite you to prove me wrong. Provide me a link to a peer-reviewed (i.e. scientifically reputable) study that demonstrates that the scientific community is "quite divided." OF COURSE you can point to specific scientists who doubt climate change. But your claim is not that there are scientists here and there who dispute climate change. Your claim is that the community is "quite divided," a description that suggests the existence of a significant percentage of the scientific community that dispute the reality of climate change. Provide a link to a peer-reviewed study that proves your point. (If you want to save yourself some time, I'll tell you that such a study doesn't exist, because there is NO such division in the scientific community.)

If for you "simple reason and what makes sense" lead you to doubt the existence of climate change, you need to complicate your "reason" and experiment with a few things that don't make sense.

For example, what do "simple reason and what makes sense" tell you to make of the following graph of global land and ocean temperature changes over the last 140 years, especially the basic trajectory of the trend line from 1910 to the present?

As I reported in my previous post, you're welcome to the views of your choice on the issue of climate change, but in my view, the time for debating the matter has ended. On this matter - on the matter of climate change - you're wrong. About each of the many unsupported (and unsupportable) assertions of fact in the paragraph quoted above, you're wrong.

And I'm STILL waiting for your response to the question with which I closed an earlier response to you: You say you assumed from Rep. Tlaib's "views and culture" that she was an immigrant. What "views" and "cultures" are expressed by the people you assume AREN'T immigrants? [You made the declaration about the role in your assumption about her birthplace of the representative's "views and culture." Why aren't you willing to stand behind it?]

It's not a pointless question at all. YOU'RE the one who claimed to have assumed Rep. Tlaib's foreign birthplace from her "views and culture." What views and culture would lead you to assume an American birthplace is an inquiry that flows naturally from YOUR assumption about the congresswoman.

But for what it's worth, it doesn't surprise me at all that you're not willing to address the question.

In point of fact, you identified three specific factors in your assumption about the representative's birthplace: her desire to visit her grandmother and her "views and culture."

I'll simply point out that Rep. Tlaib's desire to visit her grandmother rose to public view in mid-August. The president wrongly asserted that she and two other American-born Congresswomen of color were not born in America in mid-July, a month earlier. So if you drew your mistaken conclusion about her birthplace at the same time the president drew his, I doubt you knew about her desire to visit her grandmother.

As for her "utter hatred" of Israel, that's clearly a view to which you're welcome. I must note, however, she is not the only American-born citizen of the United States who holds similar views - though many of those American-born citizens, including Rep. Tlaib herself, would likely reject your characterization of their views as "utter hatred." And I'm guessing you would not assume foreign birthplaces for any Caucasian members of that group of American-born citizens who share the Congresswoman's views.

Which basically leaves you with her "CLOSE family that is still in Israel." In mid-July, at the time the president reached his false conclusion about the congresswoman's birthplace, I couldn't have told you ANYTHING about her family without some online research, research which undoubtedly would ALSO have told me that though she has family still in Israel, she herself was born in the U.S. more than 40 years ago. So I have to tell you that it's strange to me that the sources of information you relied on to learn about her "CLOSE family still in Israel" didn't also tell you of her Michigan birth.

I did NOT ask you about your view of the congresswoman "at this point," and hence am NOT "trying to daisy chain things together."

What DID I ask you? A review of our exchange's recent history: (all emphases added)

• In THIS POST, you wrote, "Seems like you are calling me a racist now because I also thought Tlaib was from another country. All I know is I heard she was going to visit her grandmother in Palestine, I hear her views and culture and wrongly assumed she was an immigrant. YES that is an UNDERSTANDABLE mistake. Not racist." ---- You "heard" and therefore "assumed" and "thought" - all past tense - she was from another country. Clearly our exchange has NOT been about your view of her "at this point," but rather the factors that contributed to your initial assumption about the representative's birthplace.
• In response to your post, in THIS POST I asked, "You now say you assumed from her "views and culture" that she was an immigrant. That's striking to me. What "views" and "cultures" are expressed by the people you assume AREN'T immigrants?" --- While the question I asked was not in past tense, neither was it about the congresswoman; it was about your manner of making assumptions about people's birthplaces, a question, I need to point out, you have yet to address.
• I then re-posed the question to you in THIS POST: "You say you assumed from Rep. Tlaib's "views and culture" that she was an immigrant. What "views" and "cultures" are expressed by the people you assume AREN'T immigrants?" --- Again, my question to you was not about the congresswoman, but about your manner of making assumptions about people's birthplaces.
• Then in THIS POST, you amended your original response about the factors in your assumption of the congresswoman's birthplace: "I did not say it was only her views and culture. But view such as her utter hatred of Israel and her CLOSE family that is still in Israel."
• In response, I then posted my most recent contribution to this thread, a post that was indeed about your assumption of the representative's birthplace. Samples from said post (again note the past tense): 1) "So if you drew your mistaken conclusion about her birthplace at the same time the president drew his, I doubt you knew about her desire to visit her grandmother." 2) "So I have to tell you that it's strange to me that the sources of information you relied on to learn about her "CLOSE family still in Israel" didn't also tell you of her Michigan birth.

I haven't asked you about your "view of [the congresswoman] at this point." The question I asked you in our most recent exchange was not about the representative at all! But since you chose not to address that question, I joined you on the issue you seemed willing to address, the grounds of your initial assumption about her birthplace. NONE of that was about your "view... at this point." ALL of that was about your view at the time your made your assumption.

You assign to my actions the devious intention to "deceive, twist, lie, and whatever else to try and make the opposition say something wrong." That sounds serious to me. Please identify ANYTHING from my posts in our exchange that deceived, twisted, lied, or whatevered to "make" you say something "wrong." (And while you're at it, please tell me into which category does your untrue assertion that I asked you about your "view of her at this point" fall? When you made that false statement, did you deceive, or twist, or lie, or whatever?)

When you revisit my applicable previous post, you'll note that I did NOT "tie [your] mistake of her nationality timeline to the President's." Here's the key paragraph from that applicable post: (emphasis added)

I didn't assert that the timeline of your mistake WAS the same as the president's. I asserted my doubt that you knew about the representative's desire to visit her grandmother IF the timeline of your mistake was the same as the president's.

Perhaps you waited til mid-August - a month after the controversy of the president's tweet about the congresswomen of color's birthplace - to decide Rep. Tlaib was "born in Palestine." That sounds odd to me, frankly, but if that was your timeline, so be it. My original assertion remains unchanged: IF you decided at the same time the president did, I doubt you knew about her desire to visit her grandma.

All that said, it remains unchallenged by your response that your claim that I had asked for your view of the representative "at this time" was incorrect. So I ask you again: In making that untrue statement, did you - to use your categories - "deceive," "twist," "lie," or "whatever"? Or perhaps, given the content of your latest post, you were simply "dishonest" when you made that incorrect statement?

Neither whether the four congresswomen of color are "stupid brats" nor the amount of "sense" they employ has been at issue in our exchange in this thread. Our focus has been on the false assertion of the president of the United States that the three American-born representatives among the four were foreign-born. The president (and you, for that matter) might believe all senseless "stupid brats" are born overseas, but that's not been an issue in our exchange.

And may I take your most recent post as your defacto acknowledgement that your previous claim that I had "tie[d] [your] mistake of [the representative's] nationality timeline to the president's" was in fact not true?

You know @Bill_Coley it is interesting. I went back and read what the President wrote. He never mentioned Tlaib, AOC, or the other in his tweet. For that matter he didn't even directly mention Omar. So you are just bickering about nothing. It's not racist.

I refuse to speculate. But it is clearly not a racist tweet. Liberals created the false fake news narrative.