Remember me
▼ Content

Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?



Page 11 of 12<<<9101112>
03-08-2019 18:31
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote: So I take it the destruction of Hitler statues in Germany is something you think is a shame?

Absolutely. I do not support destruction of art which amount to attempts to rewrite history. Hitler statues should be put in museums so we can remember that this man was also worshipped as a hero ... and that we should never forget lest we repeat the same error in, say, Venezuela, in the current Democrat party, etc...

Yes, I oppose rewriting history.

tmiddles wrote: A statue of Einstein won't have a plaque say "World greatest husband".

This is an excellent example. Bonus points.

tmiddles wrote: People who did more harm than good (Hitler) would generally not warrant a statue.

There is no calculus for "getting a statue."

If you sufficiently impress even one person into making a statue of you then that statue represents those impressive qualities as perceived by the artist or by the person who commissioned the statue. The statue does not represent negative traits not expressed by the artist or sponsor.

tmiddles wrote: Statues of historical figures aren't there to teach history they are there to say, with the voice of the community, this achievement by this person we celebrate.

Let's not conflate two different notions.

1. statues exist because they are physical objects fashioned by an artist to express positive characteristics.

2. whether a statue resides in a museum to remind us of history or is displayed by a community that wants to honor the memory of that individual should be decided by the community.

The community should always have control over what it displays and what it sends back to the museum, but no community gets to destroy historical artifacts and rewrite history.

tmiddles wrote: Supreme court justice Roger Brooke Taney is known for one thing: The United States Secretary of the Treasury under President Andrew Jackson.

While it's true that he did a great job in that position, I think of him more as a former U.S. Attorney General.

Wait! Wasn't he also a Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court? Pretty impressive. I bet they made a statue of that guy.

tmiddles wrote: .. ruling that African Americans could not be considered citizens and that Congress could not prohibit slavery

He did not summarily rule that. He read the majority opinion based on the case presented.

So tell me, did Dread Scott effectively present his case? In what way did Chief Justice Taney not uphold the law?

tmiddles wrote: A statue of him sends a very clear message as it was meant to.

... that Justice is blind and that one should remain faithful to his sworn obligations.

tmiddles wrote: The argument is that the South succeeded because of "States Rights" which just means Freedom to do things that the federal government was interfering with.

Perhaps it would be easier to focus on what you are trying to deny, i.e. that the Confederacy seceded because of infringements of the State Sovereignty

I'll summarize your argument:
1. Your overarching political goal is to label the United States "Racist."
2. To that end you are desperate to rewrite history of the Civil War because you NEED for it to be about slavery.
3. In order to wrest from the Civil War the actual cause of infringements on State Sovereignty, you are attempting to chain backwards and claim that fear of a slavery prohibition triggered fears of sovereignty infringements which triggered secession which triggered the war. You then claim that your success in wedging the word "slavery" in there proves that "The Civil War was fought over slavery."

This approach of yours fails because you then have to insist that the Civil War was fought over Lincoln being elected, which means your position is that the cause of the Civil War was Lincoln's extremely popular mild-mannered speeches that avoided offending different Republican factions and earned him the Party nomination.

In short, your assertion that the Civil War was about moderate speech verbiage is absurd.



tmiddles wrote: Oh and IBdaMan,
The civil war was actually caused by bullets and cannon balls.

Nope. The word you seek is "incidental."

tmiddles wrote: Some bayonets here and there. Had nothing to do with any pieces of paper. You can't fight a war with bits of paper.

Seriously, whoever was responsible for your education did you a grave disservice. I have to assume you never heard of the Cold War or understand why it was called that.

Wars do not require any specific actions. No one even needs to be injured.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-08-2019 18:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Decent people owned slaves. Examples are George Washington ...
What pro-slavery statues?
Slaves were not the issue.


I would agree. I said it was a step forward as humanity who's time had come.

Well, at least for the U.S.!
tmiddles wrote:
Don't count west Africa as part of the "western world".

No? How about South America? Slavery still exists in pockets there as well.
tmiddles wrote:
The leadership of the south existed in a community of trade and interaction where they were dead last in finally giving up slavery.

They aren't. Slavery still exists.
tmiddles wrote:
Pro-slavery statues:
"busts of Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney and a bust of Maryland's first governor and slave owner Thomas Johnson"

Why are these 'pro slavery statues'? You don't think that a statue of Maryland's first governor is appropriate? You don't think an anti-slavery bust of Roger Taney is appropriate? You DO realize that he emancipated his own slaves and spoke out against the 'blot of slavery' as he called it, don't you? You also realize that Article IV applies to his decision, don't you?
tmiddles wrote:
"Slaves were not THE issue" or "Slaves were not AN issue" ???

They were certainly one of the issues, but not the only one, or even the most important one.
tmiddles wrote:
2nd place to the interference with interstate commerce? Not on the list at all?

List? No, no official list. Different people had different reasons for entering the war.
tmiddles wrote:
Go ahead, go full Trump, claim it was low on the list or not an issue at all.

Non-sequitur fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
But be careful! The CONFEDERACY was one of men, and they gave speeches and said things. Their testimony is a matter of public record.

Yes. Go read them. All of them. Stop cherry picking.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 03-08-2019 18:41
03-08-2019 19:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
So I take it the destruction of Hitler statues in Germany is something you think is a shame?

That's up to the Germans, not you.
tmiddles wrote:
Yes statues glorify the person for their specific achievements in most cases.

Can you find an exception to that?
tmiddles wrote:
A statue of Einstein won't have a plaque say "World greatest husband".

Why not? He WAS married, after all.
tmiddles wrote:
People who did more harm than good (Hitler) would generally not warrant a statue.

I don't think you realize why people put up statues.
tmiddles wrote:
Statues of historical figures aren't there to teach history they are there to say, with the voice of the community, this achievement by this person we celebrate.

And they did.
tmiddles wrote:
So here's a list. Do you believe in the following:
Jim Crow existed
There were Jim Crow laws which deprived blacks of the right to vote
The rights of blacks in southern states were violated
The KKK and other powerful forces in southern society worked hard to keep blacks in the position of being 2nd class citizens.

The KKK never worked hard to keep blacks to be any kind of citizen. They worked hard to keep blacks from being citizens at all. They still do.
tmiddles wrote:
Do you doubt all of that passion and activity didn't get a few statues built?

Probably. Paintings too. I would imagine you would find them in places where the KKK meets, since such memorials would only have any meaning to KKK members.
tmiddles wrote:
Supreme court justice Roger Brooke Taney is known for one thing: The Dred Scott Decision
ruling that African Americans could not be considered citizens and that Congress could not prohibit slavery

He was correct. Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery. They were never given that authority in the Constitution. Scott had broken the law of a slave State. Article IV of the Constitution clearly specifies that any State where he shall be found requires him to be delivered up back to that State. It also is very clear that slaves in non-slave States do not gain their freedom by being in a non-slave State.

tmiddles wrote:
A statue of him sends a very clear message as it was meant to.

Which is? How do YOU know why someone else put up a statue. You don't get to speak for them. You only get to speak for you.
tmiddles wrote:
So again this is being dodged.

No, you are trying to speak for others. You are trying to dodge the reason Tanet and six other justices on the court made their decision. You are trying to dodge history.
tmiddles wrote:
The argument is that the South succeeded

The South didn't succeed. They lost the war, remember? I believe you want the word 'seceded'.
tmiddles wrote:
because of "States Rights" which just means Freedom to do things that the federal government was interfering with.

Yup. That's what it basically means.
tmiddles wrote:
Let's get a top 3 list of things that were being interfered with that irked the states:
1._____
2._____
3._____

Already did. Go back and read it again.
tmiddles wrote:
Oh and IBdaMan,
The civil war was actually caused by bullets and cannon balls.

Nope. Bullets and canonballs do not start wars. They are inanimate objects.
tmiddles wrote:
Some bayonets here and there.

Bayonets do not start wars either. They are inanimate objects.
tmiddles wrote:
Had nothing to do with any pieces of paper.

Paper doesn't start wars either.
tmiddles wrote:
You can't fight a war with bits of paper.

Sure you can. Haven't you ever heard of a spitball fight?


The Parrot Killer
04-08-2019 05:01
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
IBdaMann wrote:

The statue does not represent negative traits not expressed by the artist or sponsor....

1. statues exist because they are physical objects fashioned by an artist to express positive characteristics.

...[Roger Brooke Taney] Wasn't he also a Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court? Pretty impressive.


Not "Dread" but Dred Scott.

And if you knew your American history you'd know that Taney judged that Dred Scott didn't have a case at all, because he wasn't a human being at all.

current or former slaves and their descendants had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

You keep pretending these statues are in museums.

Statues in parks and public places say "this person is awesome".

Statutes are no more history than bumper stickers and T-shirts.

Do you believe in bad actors in history? How could you not?

Taney was scum. He is a stain on American history.

More importantly it's easy to see why a statue of him would be wanted.

IBdaMann wrote:
...infringements on State Sovereignty, ...your success in wedging the word "slavery" in there ...because you then have to insist that the Civil War was fought over Lincoln being elected,


We have the words of the confederacy itself. I wedged nothing in and didn't say it was just Lincolns objection. Do I need to quote the CORNERSTONE speech given by the Confedracy? The states did declare their succession and give reasons shall I quote that?

Don't take my word for it. Politicians in the south had plenty to say and it's all written down, accurately, by them.

Into the Night wrote:

[slavery was] certainly one of the issues, but not the only one, or even the most important one.


Slip your mind what was? Go ahead and make list with % of importance. Then read a southern states succession document to check your facts.

It's not speculation or my opinion to look at what people in history said about they did.

It's not cherry picking to quote the government of the confederacy itself identifying the cornerstone of it's existence.

Refusing to accept credible evidence is at the core of this debate. The confederacy had plenty to say about why they wanted to leave the union. I quoted it. You are making things up quite simply to discount the words of the confederate government (not my words).

I'm curious why it's important to you that this issue be massaged so much? It seems very simple to me. What's the goal? Why do you care?


If I lived in Germany and I had children I'd be very grateful that they didn't see statues of Hitler to ask what a great man he was.

Not everyone deserves a statue.

The statues of slavery's hero's were, I think, erected to oppress blacks. Maybe I'm wrong about the reason. But that is what they are to a lot of people. And they are hero's of hate for some too. We had real Nazi's show up to defend them!
Edited on 04-08-2019 05:02
04-08-2019 06:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote:Not "Dread" but Dred Scott.

Yes. Thank you. I'm thinking that was an autocorrect thing but it's good you pointed it out nonetheless.

tmiddles wrote:And if you knew your American history you'd know that Taney judged that Dred Scott didn't have a case at all, because he wasn't a human being at all.

You are on tap to explain how Taney did not uphold the law as was his obligation.

How well did Dred Scott present the case?

This is the second time I am asking.

tmiddles wrote: You keep pretending these statues are in museums.

Nope. I said should be in museums. What a community doesn't want to display in public should be displayed in a museum.

tmiddles wrote: Statutes are no more history than bumper stickers and T-shirts.

Actually, statues are no more history than fossils and historical artifacts.

tmiddles wrote: Taney was scum. He is a stain on American history.

For upholding the law? Do you consider law enforcement to be scum and a stain on American history?

tmiddles wrote:We have the words of the confederacy itself.

Yes. Lots of them. Here is an example:

[The North] have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.

You keep insisting that the Civil War was "about slavery" and I suppose you could say that the North chose to violate the southern states' sovereignty over that topic. But the fact remains, the secession was over violations of state sovereignty.

tmiddles wrote: Do I need to quote the CORNERSTONE speech given by the Confedracy?

You are conflating the economic importance of slavery to the South with the reason the States seceded from the Union.

You don't get to say that because slavery was considered crucial to the southern economy that the Federal government was therefore not infringing on southern States' sovereignty.

In any event, the Cornerstone Address was just an extemporaneous speech by one person. It was not the formal reasons approved by the Confederate States.

tmiddles wrote:It's not cherry picking to quote the government of the confederacy itself identifying the cornerstone of it's existence.

Oh, OK ...

... a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.



Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-08-2019 08:10
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. I said should be in museums. What a community doesn't want to display in public should be displayed in a museum.


I agree it should all be in museums.

So quite simply State Soverenty being violated by the Federal government would be based on real events.

What got violated? What southern state activities were being interfered with by the Feds?
04-08-2019 18:43
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(982)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. I said should be in museums. What a community doesn't want to display in public should be displayed in a museum.


I agree it should all be in museums.

So quite simply State Soverenty being violated by the Federal government would be based on real events.

What got violated? What southern state activities were being interfered with by the Feds?


Love them hate them, they are still artwork, somebody put a lot of time and effort into them. They were also very expensive, and done by hand. Each are unique. Maybe the subject matter offends you, but does the artist deserve some consideration, before destroy a few years of his life's work?

Like it or hate, you can't re-write the past either. Except for the first part of the Book of Genesis, it's never been a perfect world, probably never will be either. You can't erase the bad, ugly thing people did, or ignore those thing happening everyday. Bad and ugly, are part of life, and it's a constant battle. We learn from them, and try to do better. Those who wish to alter the past, and encourage you to believe bad thing aren't happening, seem to like to allow those things to happen, even make it easier, even though we made a lot of progress toward prevent them from getting out of hand.

I don't think the hate groups like the KKK, really hated the people they targeted, it was just a justification for them to pick on and harass people, they had a good chance of not getting punished for. They aren't such a big deal anymore, and they don't do much of the nasty crap they use to get away either. We still do get hate crimes, but not as a large groups, general a single, screwed up individual. Organized hate was pretty much squashed, long before the removal of confederate 'reminders', flags, statues, monuments.

If we forget why we do things certain way, or why we need some laws, would eventual people start to question, and ignore them, or change them, eventually leading us back into a bad way? You have to remember the mistakes, to learn from them, and improve...
04-08-2019 19:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

The statue does not represent negative traits not expressed by the artist or sponsor....

1. statues exist because they are physical objects fashioned by an artist to express positive characteristics.

...[Roger Brooke Taney] Wasn't he also a Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court? Pretty impressive.


Not "Dread" but Dred Scott.

And if you knew your American history you'd know that Taney judged that Dred Scott didn't have a case at all, because he wasn't a human being at all.

Taney never said that Dred Scott wasn't a human being. He said he had no claim to citizenship.
tmiddles wrote:
current or former slaves and their descendants had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

Partial quote. You are cherry picking again. He said that the Constitution was written at a time and is was always understood that the black man had no rights to which the white man was bound to respect (citizenship).

Did you know that he was intending on pointing out the fallacy of racism at this point?

tmiddles wrote:
You keep pretending these statues are in museums.

Actually, they kind of ARE museums.
tmiddles wrote:
Statues in parks and public places say "this person is awesome".

No, statues in parks don't talk. That's the pigeons you're hearing.
tmiddles wrote:
Statutes are no more history than bumper stickers and T-shirts.

Sure they are. They last longer.
tmiddles wrote:
Do you believe in bad actors in history? How could you not?

What you believe to be a bad actor is not the same as another person's belief they are a bad actor. Are YOU the judge of who is a bad actor? Who made YOU god?
tmiddles wrote:
Taney was scum. He is a stain on American history.

Taney freed his own slaves, and became a strong advocate against slavery. His ruling on the Supreme Court was correct, unfortunately for Dred Scott. Article IV of the Constitution bound the court to this decision. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to change the Constitution.
tmiddles wrote:
More importantly it's easy to see why a statue of him would be wanted.

Because he was a Supreme Court judge from Maryland. The first one, I believe.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
...infringements on State Sovereignty, ...your success in wedging the word "slavery" in there ...because you then have to insist that the Civil War was fought over Lincoln being elected,


We have the words of the confederacy itself.

Yes we do. Stop cherry picking. Read the rest of it.
tmiddles wrote:
I wedged nothing in and didn't say it was just Lincolns objection. Do I need to quote the CORNERSTONE speech given by the Confedracy?

It was not the cornerstone speech of the Confederacy. It was the opinion of one man.
tmiddles wrote:
The states did declare their succession and give reasons shall I quote that?

If you quote the whole thing. Stop cherry picking.
tmiddles wrote:
Don't take my word for it. Politicians in the south had plenty to say and it's all written down, accurately, by them.

Yeah. Go read them. They mention things like how the federal government was interfering with States rights, how they failed to played fast and loose with Article IV, how interstate trade was being interfered with, how the government was arbitrarily labeling people 'seditionists' and 'traitors' and locking them up, how Lincoln invaded a foreign nation, etc. The failures of the Missouri Compromise are often noted.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

[slavery was] certainly one of the issues, but not the only one, or even the most important one.


Slip your mind what was? Go ahead and make list with % of importance. Then read a southern states succession document to check your facts.

Already made a 'list'. You ignored it. You ignore it now. Already read them. Have you?
tmiddles wrote:
It's not speculation or my opinion to look at what people in history said about they did.

Yes it is. You are interpreting things. That is your opinion. You are cherry picking. That is your opinion driving it. You are injecting your opinion on why a statue is erected. You are injecting your opinion in condemning those who fought against slavery as pro slavery.
tmiddles wrote:
It's not cherry picking to quote the government of the confederacy itself identifying the cornerstone of it's existence.

You didn't quote the government of the confederacy. You quoted the opinions of a single man. Again you are injecting your opinions and beliefs.
tmiddles wrote:
Refusing to accept credible evidence is at the core of this debate.

I'll go with that. You are refusing to accept the evidence of the documents of secession, the various laws the federal government passed to usurp States Rights, the way the federal government interfered with trade, the way the federal government was seizing private property, the way the federal government was failing to uphold the law and in fact BREAKING the law.
tmiddles wrote:
The confederacy had plenty to say about why they wanted to leave the union. I quoted it.

You quoted an excerpt of an opinion of a single man.
tmiddles wrote:
You are making things up quite simply to discount the words of the confederate government (not my words).

No. YOU are making things up by using the opinions of a single man as (the voice of the Confederacy).
tmiddles wrote:
I'm curious why it's important to you that this issue be massaged so much?

Inversion fallacy. The issue is important to YOU, not me. YOU want to condemn people, not me. YOU want to judge people that are not here to defend their position, not me.
tmiddles wrote:
It seems very simple to me. What's the goal? Why do you care?

Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
If I lived in Germany and I had children I'd be very grateful that they didn't see statues of Hitler to ask what a great man he was.

I don't think it takes much imagination to wonder why Hitler was great. Terrible, yes. But also great.
tmiddles wrote:
Not everyone deserves a statue.

Who are YOU to decide who a statue is made of? You are not god.
tmiddles wrote:
The statues of slavery's hero's were,

Slavery had no heros. Slavery was simply an accepted and legal institution at the time.
tmiddles wrote:
I think, erected to oppress blacks.

How does a statue do that? Some blacks were already oppressed by their masters. Does a statue wield a whip or something? Have you ever seen one move and attack a man?
tmiddles wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong about the reason.

Definitely.
tmiddles wrote:
But that is what they are to a lot of people.

Then those people are racist, just like you are.
tmiddles wrote:
And they are hero's of hate for some too.

Hate has no hero. Hate is an emotional state.
tmiddles wrote:
We had real Nazi's show up to defend them!

Not a single one. No one from Germany came to defend any statue in the United States.


The Parrot Killer
04-08-2019 19:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. I said should be in museums. What a community doesn't want to display in public should be displayed in a museum.


I agree it should all be in museums.

So quite simply State Soverenty being violated by the Federal government would be based on real events.

What got violated? What southern state activities were being interfered with by the Feds?


Go read the portion of the secession document of South Carolina, which IBdaMann graciously quoted for you.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-08-2019 19:40
05-08-2019 00:09
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
Into the Night wrote:
The failures of the Missouri Compromise are often noted.
.


What was the Missouri Compromise? Why'd the Southern states have an issue there.

Question:
What if enough people raised enough money to put a 40 foot stage of Karl Marx in your town square. Any objection to that?

And Harvey you noted that organized hate groups are no longer a problem?

We all saw torch wielding marchers rally around a confederate statue chanting Nazi slogans.

I'm not alone in considering these groups to be the greatest threat to national security.

It's not trivial to me or just some smug way to insult the south.

On a side note I would say that one of the biggest problems at play in this whole issue has been the thorough enjoyment of the North in the West in humiliating the South ever since the Civil War. A lot of the emotion I see I connect with a backlash to that very inappropriate degradation of another part of the country.
05-08-2019 19:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The failures of the Missouri Compromise are often noted.
.


What was the Missouri Compromise? Why'd the Southern states have an issue there.

One of the bigger factors concerning the Southern States. It was an arbitrary line created by Congress to divide the slave States from the non-slave States. It was a divide and conquer technique to usurp the rights of these States to choose for themselves.

tmiddles wrote:
Question:
What if enough people raised enough money to put a 40 foot stage of Karl Marx in your town square. Any objection to that?

We already have one. He's 20 feet tall. He's located just southwest of the University district. I have no objection. Folks in that part of town wanted the statue, they can have it. Meh.
tmiddles wrote:
And Harvey you noted that organized hate groups are no longer a problem?

We all saw torch wielding marchers rally around a confederate statue chanting Nazi slogans.

What is a 'Nazi slogan'? There no Nazi's around that are in any condition to march for long. Maybe wheel their chairs around a bit...

You must be referring to these fascists carrying torches and calling for war.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm not alone in considering these groups to be the greatest threat to national security.

Marching and carrying torches is not a threat. Even calling for war is not a threat. Actually attacking people is a threat. I'm sure the police, local militias, and the army can wipe them up pretty easily.

A far bigger threat is the yo-yos that vote these clowns into office.

tmiddles wrote:
It's not trivial to me or just some smug way to insult the south.

It insults both.
tmiddles wrote:
On a side note I would say that one of the biggest problems at play in this whole issue has been the thorough enjoyment of the North in the West in humiliating the South ever since the Civil War.

They are not humiliated, so you flunk there. Smugness is never desirable.
tmiddles wrote:
A lot of the emotion I see I connect with a backlash to that very inappropriate degradation of another part of the country.

The South is not degraded.

People in Northern States still tend to be some of the most racist in the nation. They were during the War of Secession, and they still are. Folks in the South do not like the KKK any better than you do. They are violent thugs that think they are representing 'the South'.


The Parrot Killer
05-08-2019 23:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote: Question: What if enough people raised enough money to put a 40 foot stage of Karl Marx in your town square. Any objection to that?

I don't have any objection to the concept, but if something like that were to happen then I would expect the opportunity to voice any objections I might have in a democratic process to see if the community really wants it displayed or if the statue needs to be in a museum.

tmiddles wrote: We all saw torch wielding marchers rally around a confederate statue chanting Nazi slogans.

I'm calling BS. I magnified the picture and I couldn't find a single NAZI emblem. Which ones are you claiming are NAZIs and why?

tmiddles wrote: I'm not alone in considering these groups to be the greatest threat to national security.

At the moment, my operating assumption is that you are, in fact, alone in considering these groups to be the greates threat to national security. On top of that, your assertion is absurd on its face.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-08-2019 23:32
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
You guys wouldn't acknowledge that "Blood and Soil" is a Nazi slogan?
youtube clip

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
What was the Missouri Compromise?

..an arbitrary line created by Congress to divide the slave States from the non-slave States.


Yet you insist slavery wasn't the primary issue?

Into the Night wrote:
We already have one [Karl Marx Satue]. He's 20 feet tall. He's located just southwest of the University district. I have no objection. Folks in that part of town wanted the statue, they can have it. Meh.


OK fair enough. That is at least consistent with the belief in free expression.

Into the Night wrote:There no Nazi's around that are in any condition to march for long.


You do know that people do identify themselves as Nazi's today in the US?

Also I know you've heard of 911. What was the 2nd worst terrorist attack in the US? Why aren't people still worried about that? Never understood how quickly that was swept aside.

Into the Night wrote:
People in Northern States still tend to be some of the most racist in the nation. They were during the War of Secession, and they still are. Folks in the South do not like the KKK any better than you do. They are violent thugs that think they are representing 'the South'.


A lot less lynching in the North though.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ...40 foot statue of Karl Marx in your town square. Any objection to that?

I don't have any objection to the concept,


Again fair enough.

Oklahoma City bombing is still a big deal to me. Some scary people in our country and we should think about how to deal with it. I don't believe in censorship but also not in turning a blind eye.
06-08-2019 00:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
You guys wouldn't acknowledge that "Blood and Soil" is a Nazi slogan?

No.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
What was the Missouri Compromise?

..an arbitrary line created by Congress to divide the slave States from the non-slave States.


Yet you insist slavery wasn't the primary issue?

That's right. State's rights was. The invasion by Lincoln into a foreign country was.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
We already have one [Karl Marx Satue]. He's 20 feet tall. He's located just southwest of the University district. I have no objection. Folks in that part of town wanted the statue, they can have it. Meh.


OK fair enough. That is at least consistent with the belief in free expression.

Not according to you. You are now in paradox.
1) offending statues should be torn down.
2) free expression should be the rule.

Which is it, dude?

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:There no Nazi's around that are in any condition to march for long.


You do know that people do identify themselves as Nazi's today in the US?

They can't. The Nazi party was utterly defeated in WW2. These twits today that call themselves 'Nazis' are just violent thug twits that have no clue of history.
tmiddles wrote:
Also I know you've heard of 911.

More the silence of it, as aircraft were ordered to ATC0 condition, and all railroad traffic was shut down. I hope I never hear that kind of silence again.
tmiddles wrote:
What was the 2nd worst terrorist attack in the US?911. The worst attack was Pearl Harbor.
tmiddles wrote:
Why aren't people still worried about that?

No need. Terrorists understand that any twit that tries to take over a plane will be killed by a rampaging mob. Passengers now know that hijackings more than just a trip to Cuba. They are a life and death threat.
tmiddles wrote:
Never understood how quickly that was swept aside.

It wasn't. We are still living with the consequences of it today, such as the TSA, extra snoopiness from the government, and a general paranoid attitude by the government and many citizens.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
People in Northern States still tend to be some of the most racist in the nation. They were during the War of Secession, and they still are. Folks in the South do not like the KKK any better than you do. They are violent thugs that think they are representing 'the South'.


A lot less lynching in the North though.

That happened everywhere, dude. Much of it occurred up the Mississippi valley as far as Indiana, and in New York and New England areas, as well.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]tmiddles wrote: ...40 foot statue of Karl Marx in your town square. Any objection to that?

I don't have any objection to the concept,


Again fair enough.

Paradox. You are being irrational. You must clear your paradox.
tmiddles wrote:
Oklahoma City bombing is still a big deal to me.

To me also. The Federal building that was destroyed housed the ATC dispatch computer. Fortunately, the backup kicked in and became the main system, with a new backup system built in Georgia.
tmiddles wrote:
Some scary people in our country and we should think about how to deal with it.

McVeigh bombed the Federal building in Oklahoma in retaliation for the federal government attacking it's own citizens.
tmiddles wrote:
I don't believe in censorship but also not in turning a blind eye.

Irrational. You must clear your paradox.


The Parrot Killer
06-08-2019 00:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote:Yet you insist slavery wasn't the primary issue?

You're not fooling anyone. Either you can't read or you are being dishonest. It was the North that chose the topic of slavery over which to have the Federal government screw with the South's sovereignty.

If I choose to break into your house and kill your dog, the primary issue is criminal trespass, not dog ownership.

So yes, you should be perceiving the continued insistence that the primary issue was the violation of the southern States' sovereignty, and that the south did not choose the topic of slavery as the vehicle for their sovereignty being violated.

tmiddles wrote: You do know that people do identify themselves as Nazi's today in the US?

I do not know that. I do not know of any and I don't live under a rock.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-08-2019 08:24
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: You do know that people do identify themselves as Nazi's today in the US?

I do not know that. I do not know of any and I don't live under a rock.

.


The crowd (of very fine people as Trump identified them) were chanting, on camera "Jew will not replace us". Call that whatever you want but it wasn't under a rock.

So the North and South had big differences and there was natural division between the two.

The North repeatedly interfered with the South's soverenty primarily in the area of slavery. Was that an arbitrary choice? Doesn't matter. It had been outlawed everywhere else in the "western world" so the pressure was building.

The South seceded over the issue of slavery first and foremost, whether it was because the north picked it out of a hat or not.

Governments make laws and restrictions. You can't compare it to burglary and be accurate.

The North attacked the south because they seceded.

Most of the numbers in the south fought back because the North showed up. (large numbers not being rich and so those poor not even having slaves to worry about losing).

None of that is news! To say the the Civil War was about slavery is the most accurate thing you can say. It's actually fine to say it was about freedom or states rights since the natural thing to do is fill in the blank. The freedom and state right to have slavery!

It's not easy to get upset about things that aren't important to you. Slavery was important to the South.

That's why you guys can't come up with any other area of disagreement.
Edited on 06-08-2019 08:26
06-08-2019 17:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote: The crowd (of very fine people as Trump identified them) were chanting, on camera "Jew will not replace us".

Do you have the video of that? I'll denounce it right here and now.

tmiddles wrote:The North repeatedly interfered with the South's soverenty primarily in the area of slavery. Was that an arbitrary choice? Doesn't matter. It had been outlawed everywhere else in the "western world" so the pressure was building.

Correct, and that was Into the Night's point. If the United States would have just waited, slavery would have ended on its own in the southern states, state by state, just like it did everywhere else. Instead, the US Federal government went about it the wrong way and violated the sovereignty of the southern states and then went to war to force the Confederacy to submit to the violation of sovereignty.

That's all. If the pretense had been bread pudding, it would not have changed the violation of the sovereignty.

tmiddles wrote: Governments make laws and restrictions.

Where they have jurisdiction. They do not where they don't.

tmiddles wrote: You can't compare it to burglary and be accurate.

Sure I can. Connecticut cannot prosecute a burglary that happened in Los Angeles.

tmiddles wrote:The North attacked the south because they seceded.

The "because" is irrelevant. The North attacked the South. The northern sovereign states attacked the southern sovereign states.

Do you support a sovereign state X attacking another sovereign state Y because X does not like a law in Y? Do you believe that is justified?

Should the US be able to invade any other country that has a law with which we disagree?

tmiddles wrote: To say the the Civil War was about slavery is the most accurate thing you can say.

It's the final stage of denial.

tmiddles wrote: It's not easy to get upset about things that aren't important to you. Slavery was important to the South.

It was critical. Absolutely. It was a huge driver of the economy.

Bread pudding and southern hospitality were huge aspects of the culture.

The North did not choose to screw with the southern states' sovereignty over the bread pudding and southern hospitality. They chose the slavery angle because they liked the bread pudding and southern hospitality.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-08-2019 06:59
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: The crowd (of very fine people as Trump identified them) were chanting, on camera "Jew will not replace us".

Do you have the video of that? I'll denounce it right here and now.


https://youtu.be/O8yPQBigTSg (pretty clearly "Jews")
https://youtu.be/5GzXY902hbo (could sound like "You" or "Jew", but you can't miss "White power")

Just not a moment for the president to look at that group and say there were some fine people in the bunch.

I think it's fair to say that's simply a camera pointed at a demonstration. That's what the demonstrators wanted to show. I was pretty horrified that they were willing to do so openly (like the death eaters in Harry Potter)

IBdaMann wrote:
If the United States would have just waited, slavery would have ended on its own in the southern states,


So do you think Martin Luther King should have waited? He was asked by every president to just slow down, give things time.
07-08-2019 17:58
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote:Just not a moment for the president to look at that group and say there were some fine people in the bunch.

1) I'll denounce what those groups appear to be doing ... although my suspicions get put on high alert whenever videos such as these show me only very short, cropped snippets completely out of any context whatsoever. I refuse to render judgements based on that kind of emotion-bait.

2) I need the video of Trump referencing the "fine people" specifically of those videos.

tmiddles wrote:I think it's fair to say that's simply a camera pointed at a demonstration.

That's not what I say. In fact I think it's obvious that the producer of those videos intentionally deleted everything that would give context to what was shown, which is why everything was confusing and made no sense.

The first video you listed was clearly staged by leftist actors pretending to be racists for the camera, to make a video to be played for gullible leftists who would readily believe that it was an actual event. When you're not gullible you can spot those videos immediately. If you want to practice, watch PETA videos. They film themselves doing terribly cruel things to animals knowing that their target audience will believe that those acts are being carried out by farmers, hunters and generally "other people."

tmiddles wrote: So do you think Martin Luther King should have waited? He was asked by every president to just slow down, give things time.

Did Martin Luther King attack a sovereign state?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-08-2019 00:55
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
IBdaMann wrote:appear to be doing ...


OK let's make this more focused and clear. David Duke. Long track record, plenty to say, loves Trump. He was there and pretty much represents everything we're talking about.

Trump is very good at one thing: Not holding back on what he views as an enemy and a threat.

Many of us who really really hate Trump (and I do!) were actually shocked that he didn't put David Duke on that list.

David Duke endorsed him and Trump pretended he didn't know ho he was (a lie) and he was there at the Charlottesville but Trump refused to denounce him.

Trump denounces people all day long! But his selectivity speaks volumes.

08-08-2019 16:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote: OK let's make this more focused and clear. David Duke. Long track record, plenty to say, loves Trump.

I need the other way around. What does Trump say about David Duke?

... or are you calling me a racist for supporting Trump?

tmiddles wrote: He was there and pretty much represents everything we're talking about.

Unfortunately you opened the door to understaning the event in an entirely different way by implying that David Duke was there to support Trump. I support Trump. I can fully support David Duke's desire for America to be great again if that's what's going on.

Is that what's going on?

tmiddles wrote:Trump is very good at one thing: Not holding back on what he views as an enemy and a threat.

The opposite. Trump is very good at remaining close-hold to whomever he views as his opponent. I don't think he believes anyone poses any actual threat to himself.

tmiddles wrote: Many of us who really really hate Trump (and I do!) were actually shocked that he didn't put David Duke on that list.

What list?

tmiddles wrote:David Duke endorsed him and Trump pretended he didn't know ho he was (a lie) and he was there at the Charlottesville but Trump refused to denounce him.

What were Trump's exact words when he, as you claim, endorsed David Duke? Just give me the link to the video and I'll listen to it.

tmiddles wrote:Trump denounces people all day long!

He bashes fake news and stupid Democrat politicians.

Is David Duke either one of those?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-08-2019 17:07
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote:Many of us who really really hate Trump (and I do!) ...

What has Trump ever done to you?

It seems at first glance that your hatred for Trump is entirely a result of you being manipulated politically.

Are you somehow threatened by America being great again?

Are you somehow threatened by America enjoying the lowest unemployment rate in history across the board?

I get that you hate Trump because you have to; you were directed to by your political superiors. Shall I take it that you absolutely refuse to support America and that you will work to undermine the country as long as you are ordered to do so?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-08-2019 14:56
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
IBdaMann wrote:
What has Trump ever done to you? ... America being great again?... the lowest unemployment rate in history across the board?...you absolutely refuse to support America


Well let me start with the one positive thing Trump has done. He's proven our democracy is actually authentic. It really works. Neither party wanted him and yet he was elected due to very enthusiastic support. I think it's fair to say that he's the first 3rd part president the country has had.

It is un-American to say since I'm an opponent of a politician I'm therefor against the country, you find that in every totalitarian state.

Giving any president of two years credit for the current economy is BS.

So why hate the man? Well I never really liked him pre-politics because he's always been a vulgar blow hard. But I only found him distasteful in the past.

What I hate most is that he's both a liar and he works hard to discredit the truth. His "work" is to undermine honesty beyond his own office. There are so many lies it's impressive: washington post article

But let's do one on point to work in both posts: David Duke.
Most of us have known for decades who David Duke is, the most famous racist in America because he got so dangerously close to high office. When David Duke endorsed Trump he was later asked about it in an interview, he'd already briefly disavowed him days earlier, and I think everyone expected him to just blast the guy for being a horrible human being (Trump blasts people all day long anyway). But in what I view as a wink and a nod to white power groups he claimed he didn't know who he was. link

Where he poses the biggest threat: He's willing to destroy our democracy if it'll help him. By democracy I mean the actual nuts and bolts of how we run our government and vote for representatives. His repeated claims that elections are determined by illegal voting, with no evidence, are extremely dangerous. He dismissed, and his supporters with him, the entire intelligence apparatus of our government in refusing to acknowledge Russia's Fing with us because he thought it cast a shadow on his win. I don't doubt for a second he would destroy our democracy if it worked for him. (I don't think he was joking prior to the vote that he wouldn't accept the results if he lost)
And I also think our national security is impacted by both the division he nurtures within the country and the whole world turning on us:

Master of the deal?? Really?? well done Moron

Almost as big and issue: He is a leader of hate. I still cannot believe the banning Muslims from the country was a real political ad. Still numb from that one. Mexicans are rapists and immigrants are the problem. And in general his style is to unleash rage and total degradation on those who oppose him. He is a teacher sadly and this is what millions are learning from him.

Unbelievably low on the list, only because he's got SO much bad stuff, is that he is a truly stupid man. Sure he may have a flair in a few areas. He out does Paris Hilton at getting press and he's very good at manipulating his opponents politically. But he's just, as I believe Rex Tillerson put it, a F#$king Moron.

He thinks NATO collects dues, that clean coal get's washed off lump by lump, that people should be armed at bars (even the wild west wouldn't do that), but I know your'e going to say the F word part of Tillerson's quote was unconfirmed. This is a direct quote:
"It was challenging for me," he said, "coming from the disciplined, highly process-oriented Exxon Mobil corporation, to go to work for a man who is pretty undisciplined, doesn't like to read, doesn't read briefing reports, doesn't like to get into the details of a lot of things, but rather just kind of says, 'This is what I believe.' "

We were talking about Civil War. If you want to blame the left for hating Trump causing the division go ahead. He's the leader and I see a country in the worst shape it's been in since long before Nixon.

And he has no class. I really like having a classy leader. From the eloquence to the civilized behavior I miss that. From Reagan to Obama we've had some of the best. Trump is such an incredible embarrassment to the country.
Edited on 09-08-2019 15:27
09-08-2019 16:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote:It is un-American to say a political opponent of a politician is therefor against the country, you find that in every totalitarian state.

It is absolutely un-American to seek the failure of the United States and to wish failure on the American people just to make the President look bad because he is a political opponent.

tmiddles wrote: Giving any president of two yeas credit for the current economy is BS.

Giving credit to the President for fulfilling campaign promises is an obligation.

tmiddles wrote: So why hate the man? Well I never really liked him pre-politics because he's always been a vulgar blow hard.

Big deal. Do you usually HATE people you don't know? There are many blow-hards out there. I don't see you writing about any of them.

tmiddles wrote: What I hate most is that he's both a liar and he works hard to discredit the truth.

At this point you are trying to give me a snowjob. He's not a liar, but now you are. You are the only one being dishonest. The question is for what purpose ... or for whose purposes? You have not explained why you HATE the man, what he has ever done to you or why you want Trump to fail (and by extension, why you want We the People to fail just so you can then BLAME the failure you facilitate onto Trump).

It still appears clear that you are simply being manipulated. I believe that every one of your opinions on Trump was handed to you. I still can't see how you fit into any of your positions.

You don't have any reason for HATING Trump ... you just do.

tmiddles wrote: But let's do one on point to work in the early post: David Duke.

Hold on. Before you presume that I am gullible, you should know that I'm prepared for your attempt to rattle off how monstrous David Duke is to then be followed by "See, Trump is a very bad man." Can't you see how obvious it is that you are talking about David Duke while pretending to be talking about Trump? Is this the technique that fooled you?

tmiddles wrote: Most of us have known for decades who David Duke is, the most famous racist in America because he got so dangerously close to high office.

He never got close to anything. David Duke never had a chance, which is why he quickly dropped out. His association with the KKK assassinated any political potential he might have had.

tmiddles wrote: When David Duke endorsed Trump he was later asked about it in an interview,

... and you are promulgating misinformation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLukCE3vwwA

tmiddles wrote: Almost as big and issue: He is a leader of hate. I still cannot believe the banning Muslims from the country was a real political ad.

What drugs are you smoking?

tmiddles wrote: Mexicans are rapists and immigrants are the problem.

Show me the video. I think you are full of crap.

tmiddles wrote: Unbelievably low on the list, only because he's got SO much bad stuff, is that he is a truly stupid man.

Let's see, a self-made billionaire who gets himself elected President of the United States ... is truly stupid?

Your envy is completely transparent.

tmiddles wrote:He thinks NATO collects dues,

Trump is fully aware that NATO members don't pay their share.

tmiddles wrote: that clean coal get's washed off lump by lump,

You don't understand the concept of "clean coal" do you?

tmiddles wrote: ... that people should be armed at bars (even the wild west wouldn't do that),

People were armed in bars in the "wild west" because yes, people should not be required to be defenseless in bars.

tmiddles wrote: If you want to blame the left for hating Trump causing the division go ahead.

The gullible who allow themselves to be manipulated share a splinter of the blame.

tmiddles wrote: He's the leader and I see a country in the worst shape it's been in since long before Nixon.

In what way?

tmiddles wrote: And he has no class. I really like having a classy leader. From the eloquence to the civilized behavior I miss that. From Reagan to Obama we've had some of the best. Trump is such an incredible embarrassment to the country.

Let me check.

Nope. Not an embarrassment. Maybe you were told to think that.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-08-2019 00:03
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
IBdaMann wrote:
It is absolutely un-American to seek the failure of the United States


Did you seek to have Obama replaced? Did that make you un-American? This country's strength is that we aren't obedient sheep.

IBdaMann wrote:
Giving credit to the President for fulfilling campaign promises is an obligation.


Are you saying I have an obligation to pay homage to Trump? Any special solute I'm required to give? And what promise? To be a pig?

IBdaMann wrote:
Do you usually HATE people you don't know?


This is my country too and I care about my own welfare and everyone else's so of course I care about the leadership we have.

IBdaMann wrote:
At this point you are trying to give me a snowjob.


No it's a blizzard because he's such a prolific liar. Are you saying Trump hasn't lied a tremendous amount? Are you calling that article a fabrication or "Fake News"? Sometimes he's just too stupid to know hat he says is wrong but he often lies deliberately. Did you know he sued a biographer for liable and then perjured himself repeated in court? liable case

IBdaMann wrote:
You don't have any reason for HATING Trump ... you just do.


No one has trampled what this country stands for more. Maybe you don't share the same values but I'm sure you'd hate someone that trampled what you care about.

Also keep in mind Trump actively goads and torments his enemies. Each day he tries to fuel our anger towards him because he knows his followers enjoy the cruelty. He doesn't care that he's stoking a fire that is burning the country.


IBdaMann wrote: you see how obvious it is that you are talking about David Duke


No David Duke needs no introduction. I was pointing out that Trump was a liar and that he's done more than any president since the 50's to give a wink and a nod to white power.

IBdaMann wrote:
He never got close to anything.


Wow learn your history. He got 55% of the white vote in the race for Governor of Louisiana. He was a congressman. I guess you don't consider that anything.

IBdaMann wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLukCE3vwwA


Have you seen when Trump gives a crap? That's not one of those moments.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Mexicans are rapists and immigrants are the problem.


You've seen it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jaz1J0s-cL4
and this:
https://youtu.be/2UoQff8MMVM

IBdaMann wrote:
Let's see, a self-made billionaire who gets himself elected President of the United States ... is truly stupid?


YES, I think dumber than Paris Hilton emotionally, Pablo Escobar in business (actually self made), and Mussolini (also self made). Curious what your definition of Not Self Made is? If I was in real estate in the 70s with 300,000,000 inheritance, hmmm.

IBdaMann wrote:
Trump is fully aware that NATO members don't pay their share.


You do know how NATO works right? Because TRUMP does not.

And yes I know what clean coal is. It's the same coal (not washed off) processed in a power plant in a manner to reduce air pollution primarily by filtering the smoke.

IBdaMann wrote:
People were armed in bars in the "wild west" because yes, people should not be required to be defenseless in bars.


So when there was the mass shooting in Florida by a US citizen with legally purchase fire arms and Trump said it would have been a beautiful thing if people in the bar had been armed you think that was an intelligent thing to say?

That you should have guns where people are getting drunk? So they can "Defend themselves" against each other?

You do know why they have bouncers padding people down for knives right?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: He's the leader and I see a country in the worst shape it's been in since long before Nixon.

In what way?


Every day the mutual hatred in the country builds as we move toward real conflict. If he doesn't call an election rigged when he loses someone else will. We're just one crisis away from militias in the street fighting the national guard.

IBdaMann wrote: Maybe you were told to think that.


Dismissing someone by claiming they don't have their own ideas in a debate is basically admitting you have no counter.
Edited on 10-08-2019 00:28
10-08-2019 01:22
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote: Did you seek to have Obama replaced?

Nope. I was out there implementing Obama's foreign policy overseas.

I did not vote for Obama but I supported the United States and its President with complete fidelity.

tmiddles wrote: Are you saying I have an obligation to pay homage to Trump?

Well, now I'm saying that you apparently can't read English. How do you translate "give credit to" into "pay homage to"?

What is clear is that you have no ability to discuss this topic rationally and that you are struggling to explain why you have this HATRED for Trump. You have no reason, of course, because your opinions have obviously been coerced into you.

tmiddles wrote: This is my country too and I care about my own welfare and everyone else's so of course I care about the leadership we have.

You are very unconvincing in this regard. You can't explain any specific thing that Trump has done that is deserving of a rational person's HATRED.

tmiddles wrote: No it's a blizzard because he's such a prolific liar.

... and you can't cite a single specific lie. You were simply told by others to say that and you OBEY. You otherwise cannot explain why hold the positions you hold.

tmiddles wrote: Are you saying Trump hasn't lied a tremendous amount?

That is exactly what I am saying. Clearly the ones who have lied a tremendous amount are those who you have been trusting for information.

tmiddles wrote: No one has trampled what this country stands for more.

For what does this country stand? How did Trump trample it?

tmiddles wrote: Also keep in mind Trump actively goads and torments his enemies.

Keep in mind that Trump torments no one; that his political detractors (such as yourself) have allowed themselves to be so totally manipulated by people they have come to trust that they actively torment themselves ... and they have no idea why.

You haven't shown me any of the videos I have requested that would justify your HATRED of Trump. You keep making one absurd false statement after another, and when I ask you for support for those ridiculous positions you jump to another absurd position and hope I forget about what you said previously.

tmiddles wrote: Each day he tries to fuel our anger towards him because he knows his followers enjoy the cruelty.

We can focus on this point. I am a Trump supporter. Explain to me how I enjoy "the" cruelty (whatever that is).

tmiddles wrote: He doesn't care that he's stoking a fire that is burning the country.

That would be the DNC. Only a dishonest person would blame Trump for what the Democrats are doing.


tmiddles wrote: I was pointing out that Trump was a liar and that he's done more than any president since the 50's to give a wink and a nod to white power.

You haven't "pointed out" anything. You have simply made baseless accusations. This is another point for which you refuse to provide support.

tmiddles wrote: Wow learn your history. He got 55% of the white vote in the race for Governor of Louisiana. He was a congressman. I guess you don't consider that anything.

Yes, you and I were talking about different things.

But I'm glad you brought that up. What damage did David Duke do as a State representative? Was it bad enough that I should HATE Trump as well?

tmiddles wrote: You've seen it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jaz1J0s-cL4

Answer these questions:

1) Are you claiming that no Mexican criminals have come to the US?

2) Are you claiming that there aren't any Mexican rapists that have come to the US?

3) Are you claiming that NONE of the Mexicans that come to the US are good people?

Please, be honest and answer these.


tmiddles wrote: You do know how NATO works right? Because TRUMP does not.

It seems very clear to me that Trump understands completely how NATO works and that you do not. What specifically does Trump not understand about NATO that you do?

tmiddles wrote: So when there was the mass shooting in Florida by a US citizen with legally purchase fire arms and Trump said it would have been a beautiful thing if people in the bar had been armed you think that was an intelligent thing to say?

Let's answer your question, shall we?

What would have been the result if someone at the bar had been armed and had shot the shooter dead before he could shoot anyone?

tmiddles wrote: You do know why they have bouncers padding people down for knives right?

How many of the deaths in Florida did the bouncers prevent?

tmiddles wrote:Every day the mutual hatred in the country builds as we move toward real conflict.

The DNC is responsible.

tmiddles wrote: Saying you that someone doesn't have their own ideas in a debate is basically admitting you have no counter.

Nope. Concluding that you have been completely manipulated because you cannot explain your absurd positions is a logical conclusion. Noting that you don't have any of your own ideas is now an observation.

I'm waiting for the videos I requested.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-08-2019 02:03
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
IBdaMann wrote:I supported the United States and its President with complete fidelity.


A soldier should have fidelity to their commanding officer. The president is the servant of the people not their commanding officer (wrong governmental model there). We should never be "Faithful" or have "fidelity" to any president as citizens that's sick.

IBdaMann wrote:
Well, now I'm saying that you apparently can't read English. How do you translate "give credit to" into "pay homage to"?


I thought it was weird wording. Here:

IBdaMann wrote:
Giving credit to the President for fulfilling campaign promises is an obligation.


IBdaMann wrote:
... and you can't cite a single specific lie.


I did. Claiming not to know who David Duke was. He either has dementia or he's a liar. I also provided a link to Looooooooong list of lies. So I'll give you a lie, you won't bother to refute it, say I'm manipulated, and they ask for me to point out a lie? That's a bit repetitive for my taste.

IBdaMann wrote:
For what does this country stand? How did Trump trample it?


For one we are a democracy where the citizens vote for representatives. It's critical that that system work and not be corrupt of unreliable. If people are convinced it is corrupt or unreliable it's as bad as if it were because then the system loses it's integrity. It depends on public trust and our shared sense of civic responsibility.

Team Trump have made it a mission to cast doubt on if MILLIONs of illegal voters are throwing elections. With no proof and a total disregard for the damage this does.

But you keep asking for a list, I give it, and then you say I didn't.

IBdaMann wrote:
Keep in mind that Trump torments no one;


Trump is the champ of belittling and insulting those he views as enemies.
IBdaMann wrote:
You haven't "pointed out" anything.


David Duke was one lie of 10,000. If you're not going to actually refute that they are lies I guess one is enough.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: 55% of the white vote

Yes, you and I were talking about different things.


What were you talking about?

IBdaMann wrote:
Answer these questions:
1) Are you claiming that no Mexican criminals have come to the US?
2) Are you claiming that there aren't any Mexican rapists that have come to the US?
3) Are you claiming that NONE of the Mexicans that come to the US are good people?
Please, be honest and answer these.

1- No, stupid question, humans have criminals among them everywhere so that statement has no meaning 2- Same answer 3- Same answer

Are you claiming he's not preaching that Mexicans bring MORE crime than average? That it represents an increase in crime to have immigrants coming it?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: You do know how NATO works right? Because TRUMP does not.

It seems very clear to me that Trump understands completely how NATO works


So according to Trump many countries owe us money going back many years for NATO:
https://youtu.be/ibWmjLfseTc

Because he's a moron.

IBdaMann wrote:
Let's answer your question, shall we?


Go ahead. Should they allow guns in bars? Should we get that law passed now if we can? How about in sports stadiums?

IBdaMann wrote:
How many of the deaths in Florida did the bouncers prevent?


You don't think security has prevented violence? They fail once and security is pointless?

IBdaMann wrote:
you cannot explain your absurd positions
.


Just let me know where I've been unclear.
10-08-2019 05:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
For one we are a democracy

WRONG. The United States is organized as a federated republic, NOT a democracy.
That means we have government by constitutions, not of men.
tmiddles wrote:
where the citizens vote for representatives.

WRONG. Many officers in government are NOT voted in by the people. Among them:
* The Supreme Court justices.
* The speaker of the House
* The speaker of the Senate
* The President of the United States.

In many States, there also a lot of appointed officers, not elected ones, or they are elected by the legislature, not the people.
tmiddles wrote:
It's critical that that system work and not be corrupt of unreliable.

The system works and is reliable.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2019 05:27
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
Into the Night wrote:
The system works and is reliable.


I think so too. Would you agree that public confidence in the system is important?
10-08-2019 05:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
Go ahead. Should they allow guns in bars?

That's up to the bar owner.
tmiddles wrote:
Should we get that law passed now if we can?

No. That's up to the bar owner.
tmiddles wrote:
How about in sports stadiums?

That's up to who's leasing the stadium.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2019 05:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The system works and is reliable.


I think so too. Would you agree that public confidence in the system is important?


There is no 'system'.

The election systems in this country are widespread and independent of each other. None of them are connected to the internet except through a buffered server that reports the totals.

No one can hack it. It's paper ballots. There is no central system. There are literally thousands of systems, completely independent of each other.

Not even the Democrats can stuff that many ballots.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2019 05:55
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
Into the Night wrote:
That's up to the bar owner.
No. That's up to the bar owner.
That's up to who's leasing the stadium.


And if it was your bar or stadium? I'm asking what you think is wise?

Into the Night wrote:
No one can hack it. It's paper ballots.


I'm glad you have confidence. So do I. But what if the public thought "what's the point the elections are all rigged and fraudulent". Wouldn't that be as bad as if they were?

Some people don't care about making false statements about election fraud:
illegal voters claimed

We really are on topic with this thread because we're talking about "Can you know anything" in the practical sense and is public confidence in knowledge important.
Edited on 10-08-2019 05:57
10-08-2019 07:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
That's up to the bar owner.
No. That's up to the bar owner.
That's up to who's leasing the stadium.


And if it was your bar or stadium?

I don't own a bar or a stadium. I don't lease stadiums either.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm asking what you think is wise?

It's not about being 'wise'. It's about the wishes of the owner or the lessor.

Some allow guns, some don't. Meh.
tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No one can hack it. It's paper ballots.


I'm glad you have confidence. So do I. But what if the public thought "what's the point the elections are all rigged and fraudulent". Wouldn't that be as bad as if they were?

Compositional error fallacy. Bigotry. People's opinions of the election is not uniform or a unit.
tmiddles wrote:
Some people don't care about making false statements about election fraud:
illegal voters claimed

We really are on topic with this thread because we're talking about "Can you know anything" in the practical sense and is public confidence in knowledge important.

There are people that believe jet aircraft are spraying some controlling chemical into the atmosphere too.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2019 08:39
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
Into the Night wrote:
I don't own a bar or a stadium.


No fun ITN. I guess you're so good a dodging you're not worried about flying bullets : )

So you're an anarchist who doesn't believe in any government regulations at all? It's all up to us individually?

I want an RPG should I be allowed to have one?
11-08-2019 07:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I don't own a bar or a stadium.


No fun ITN. I guess you're so good a dodging you're not worried about flying bullets : )

So you're an anarchist who doesn't believe in any government regulations at all? It's all up to us individually?

I want an RPG should I be allowed to have one?


I am not an anarchist. I support the Constitution of the United States.

If you want a role playing game, you can have one. If you want a rocket propelled grenade you can have one.

I don't have to worry about flying bullets.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 11-08-2019 07:41
11-08-2019 10:56
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I don't own a bar or a stadium.


No fun ITN. I guess you're so good a dodging you're not worried about flying bullets : )

So you're an anarchist who doesn't believe in any government regulations at all? It's all up to us individually?

I want an RPG should I be allowed to have one?


I am not an anarchist. I support the Constitution of the United States.

If you want a role playing game, you can have one. If you want a rocket propelled grenade you can have one.

I don't have to worry about flying bullets.


OK that is consistent I respect that.

So when should the government exercise authority?
11-08-2019 15:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote:So when should the government exercise authority?

Questions strictly of interstate commerce and of foreign matters (including military missions).


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-08-2019 18:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I don't own a bar or a stadium.


No fun ITN. I guess you're so good a dodging you're not worried about flying bullets : )

So you're an anarchist who doesn't believe in any government regulations at all? It's all up to us individually?

I want an RPG should I be allowed to have one?


I am not an anarchist. I support the Constitution of the United States.

If you want a role playing game, you can have one. If you want a rocket propelled grenade you can have one.

I don't have to worry about flying bullets.


OK that is consistent I respect that.

So when should the government exercise authority?

Read the Constitution of the United States. Read your own State constitution.

Constitutions declare and define a government. Constitutions are what give that government any kind of power. It specifies when they can use and how. That is the purpose of a constitution.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 11-08-2019 18:06
12-08-2019 04:06
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
Into the Night wrote:
Constitutions declare and define a government.


So as long as it's constitutional you're OK with it?

And of course the court determines what is constitutional so you'd accept their interpretation over your own?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So when should the government exercise authority?

Questions strictly of interstate commerce and of foreign matters (including military missions).


So if someone infringes my patent and we live in the same state? I want to sue someone who blew up my building? I'm a victim of crime?

My farm is down river from a neighbor who's polluting the water and killing my sheep?
Edited on 12-08-2019 04:14
12-08-2019 18:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Constitutions declare and define a government.


So as long as it's constitutional you're OK with it?

Yes.
tmiddles wrote:
And of course the court determines what is constitutional so you'd accept their interpretation over your own?

WRONG. No court has the authority to interpret or change the Constitution of the United States. See Article III of that document.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So when should the government exercise authority?

Questions strictly of interstate commerce and of foreign matters (including military missions).


So if someone infringes my patent and we live in the same state? I want to sue someone who blew up my building? I'm a victim of crime?

Certainly a victim. It rather depends on your State constitution and your own State legislature to make it an actual crime, other than the patent, which is authorized by the federal government to regulate.
tmiddles wrote:
My farm is down river from a neighbor who's polluting the water and killing my sheep?

You have a civil case against your neighbor, just any neighbor downriver from you would have against you if you did the same thing.


The Parrot Killer
Page 11 of 12<<<9101112>





Join the debate Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Is Venus Relevant to Earth?3723-07-2019 04:32
Medieval warm period was way hotter than today's climate. 1 C hotter globally. So why IPCC do not ack019-04-2019 16:33
Why Americans Might Never Notice Climate Change's Hotter Weather2212-03-2019 23:21
The hotter the classroom, the lower the test scores, research finds106-03-2019 21:58
You can't heat a hotter surface using a colder gas.6703-09-2017 10:18
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact