Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Data from Hunter Biden's laptop is real


MGB

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Only one of those sources is from the "mainstream left wing media". National Review is right wing, and while the Austin Statesman does officially classify as leaning left, it's not exactly what I would call a world leader in market share for news! 

Once again you are ignoring the actual issue - if it was Trump who said that you cannot own a cannon, it would have been front page news in every left wing mainstream media outlet, with talking heads on Prime Time news all dissecting Trump's obvious lies. 

It's a matter of degree - if Biden gets ten seconds air time in the news for saying something stupid, then if Trump said exactly the same thing he would be in the news for ten minutes. If Biden gets ten minutes of negative airtime, Trump for the exact same infraction would get ten days of similar negative airtime! 

Yeah yeah. guarantees on counterfactual consitionals aren't worth a brass razoo.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Ok, how does that change the fact that Americans are allowed the right to bear arms? 

Because you are ignoring the fact that regulation already exists, and comparing regulation to someone saying they want to suspend the constitution.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Agent0range said:

Because you are ignoring the fact that regulation already exists, and comparing regulation to someone saying they want to suspend the constitution.  

This is the exact wordplay that I've been talking about! You can use the word "regulation" if you like, it's still abolishing the second amendment! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

The average person could own a cannon! If they had the right paperwork! It's dishonest to argue otherwise! You're excusing pResident Biden's lies to push your own anti-Trump narrative. 

People could own cannons. It's been fact checked in 2020 when Biden first made that claim.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/28/bidens-false-claim-that-2nd-amendment-bans-cannon-ownership/

Quote

In fact, you do not have to look far in the Constitution to see that private individuals could own cannons. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 gives Congress the power to declare war. But there is another element of that clause that might seem strange to modern ears — Congress also had the power to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal.”

Lots of people owned ships, with cannon on them. Private citizens. I imagine the same people could mount a cannon at their home, but it wasn't a very cost effective means of defense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Agent0range said:

Arms are allowed.  It doesn't mention guns.

That's why it's gone to the Supreme Court multiple times. And every time, liberal court, or conservative court, found it meant individual ownership of firearms.

Good thing there's people to interpret such things and be exactly clear.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Biden pulling strings for his kid to get a job, not illegal.  Biden getting a commission for setting up a deal when Trump was in office and he was a private citizen not illegal. 

That's not the actual issue, though is it? This is about lying. Did Joe Biden lie when he said he had no financial gain from Hunter Bidens overseas activities. And that he had no idea of any of his activities either.

Bill Clinton didn't get impeached for a BJ. He got impeached for lying about it.

Trump got slapped around good by Congress, and now Joe's going to get probed by Congress too.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

That's not the actual issue, though is it? This is about lying. Did Joe Biden lie when he said he had no financial gain from Hunter Bidens overseas activities. And that he had no idea of any of his activities either.

Bill Clinton didn't get impeached for a BJ. He got impeached for lying about it.

Trump got slapped around good by Congress, and now Joe's going to get probed by Congress too.

Right.  That is the part that needs to be proved.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

This is the exact wordplay that I've been talking about! You can use the word "regulation" if you like, it's still abolishing the second amendment! 

Are you intentionally being dumb?  I'm saying that regulating the ANY ARMS is a violation.  So, according to your post, making civilian ownership of nuclear weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, is a violation of the second amendment.  They are arms, and we have the right to bear arms.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

That's why it's gone to the Supreme Court multiple times. And every time, liberal court, or conservative court, found it meant individual ownership of firearms.

Good thing there's people to interpret such things and be exactly clear.

You can read the 2nd amendment.  What part do you interpret as just firearms?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

You can read the 2nd amendment.  What part do you interpret as just firearms?  

Me? I thought I referenced the SCOTUS....

If you ask me, it says, "Well regulated Militia". But I'm not a SCOTUS Justice. I am just a Fab Technician with a BSME, and not a Constitutional scholar.

I tend to go with what the SCOTUS decides, so the 2A means "Firearms".

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

Me? I thought I referenced the SCOTUS....

If you ask me, it says, "Well regulated Militia". But I'm not a SCOTUS Justice. I am just a Fab Technician with a BSME, and not a Constitutional scholar.

I tend to go with what the SCOTUS decides, so the 2A means "Firearms".

So you think arms means firearms only?  A justice of the supreme court is no more of a man than you or I.  I'm asking what you think.  Unless you want to submit to politically connected lawyer with a powerful family...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Are you intentionally being dumb?  I'm saying that regulating the ANY ARMS is a violation.  So, according to your post, making civilian ownership of nuclear weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, is a violation of the second amendment.  They are arms, and we have the right to bear arms.

Just to butt in, but you're right. The 2nd Ammendment means exactly that. We did, originally, have a RIGHT to tanks, machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, etc...

Which is why the Congress, as with Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Assemble, Freedom of Religion, and such... Requires regulations so the Stupid People don't hurt the rest of us needlessly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

So you think arms means firearms only?  A justice of the supreme court is no more of a man than you or I.  I'm asking what you think.  Unless you want to submit to politically connected lawyer with a powerful family...

I think, given the context, and those who framed the 2A... 100% it means firearms. What is currently considered a "firearm" is up to discussion, I'd suggest.

You're not suggesting "arms" means hands, arms, shoulders... Are you?

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DieChecker said:

Requires regulations so the Stupid People don't hurt the rest of us needlessly.

So you are OK with banning weapons that are capable of committing mass murder?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

I think, given the context, and those who framed the 2A... 100% it means firearms. What is currently considered a "firearm" is up to discussion, I'd suggest.

So given the context of those who framed it, are weapons that are capable of shooting 100+ rounds per minute acceptable?

There are weapons available off the shelf these days that are way more deadly than weapons that were considered above firearms in those days.

Edited by Agent0range
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Agent0range said:

So you are OK with banning weapons that are capable of committing mass murder?

If the government lawfully proposes and passes legislation... Yeah.

I think trying to ban most small arms is a fruitless endeavor though. You'd never even get close to collecting them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

So given the context of those who framed it, are weapons that are capable of shooting 100+ rounds per minute acceptable?

In my opinion? Yeah, that's too much for reasonable use.

People claim the Slippery Slope, but the history of regulation of weapons would seem to suggest these changes are super incremental.

EDIT: Those who Framed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had no idea of what guns would evolve into. So given their context, they didn't ban and weapons that I know of.

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

If the government lawfully proposes and passes legislation... Yeah.

I think trying to ban most small arms is a fruitless endeavor though. You'd never even get close to collecting them all.

I think I am more on the right on this topic than you are.  I don't agree with banning assault rifles.  No matter what law gets passed.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

I think I am more on the right on this topic than you are.  I don't agree with banning assault rifles.  No matter what law gets passed.  

Most assault rifles would take good training to go through 100+ rounds per minute. That's four magazines in many cases, and so seems hard to imagine being that fast. 

Regardless, yeah, if Congress banned assault rifles, I'd go with it.

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DieChecker said:

Most assault rifles would take good training to go through 100+ rounds per minute. That's four magazines in many cases, and so seems hard to imagine being that fast. 

They sell 100 round drums for ARs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Agent0range said:

Are you intentionally being dumb?  I'm saying that regulating the ANY ARMS is a violation.  So, according to your post, making civilian ownership of nuclear weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, is a violation of the second amendment.  They are arms, and we have the right to bear arms.

Ask a lawyer what the distinction is, I'm sure they'll be able to take you through the legal arguments and precedents that led to America's current stance on different types of weapons. 

I'm not being intentionally dumb, but I think it's a rather silly argument to include all weapons (like nuclear bombs) under 2A rights, without even considering such things as the purpose of 2A (does a nuclear bomb owned by a private citizen protect them from both foreign and domestic enemies)? Or without thinking of international treatises on the use of nuclear weaponry. Or the controlled regulation of plutonium or other such radioactive explosives in a society. It just feels extremely simplistic to argue a dichotomy of either a- nuclear weapons should be allowed under 2A, or b- it's ok to abolish 2A completely. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Ask a lawyer what the distinction is, I'm sure they'll be able to take you through the legal arguments and precedents that led to America's current stance on different types of weapons. 

I'm not being intentionally dumb, but I think it's a rather silly argument to include all weapons (like nuclear bombs) under 2A rights, without even considering such things as the purpose of 2A (does a nuclear bomb owned by a private citizen protect them from both foreign and domestic enemies)? Or without thinking of international treatises on the use of nuclear weaponry. Or the controlled regulation of plutonium or other such radioactive explosives in a society. It just feels extremely simplistic to argue a dichotomy of either a- nuclear weapons should be allowed under 2A, or b- it's ok to abolish 2A completely. 

Sure ask a lawyer because they will ALL give the same answer.:rolleyes:

How about a Professor of Law?  Given the history of the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms, citizens should be armed the the same extent the Government is.

https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1956&context=vulr

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

It's a matter of degree - if Biden gets ten seconds air time in the news for saying something stupid, then if Trump said exactly the same thing he would be in the news for ten minutes. If Biden gets ten minutes of negative airtime, Trump for the exact same infraction would get ten days of similar negative airtime! 

And you are basing this latest one on what exactly, show me your stats.  Do you have a bank of televisions in your home where you're monitoring the time spent on stories on multiple channels and recording the data?  How about internet stories, what's your methodology for this evaluation? Or are you maybe just believing what the right wing media says who argue the same stuff you do above?  Why do you never or under-proportionally complain about the right wing that does the same thing but in reverse?  That kinda belies your earlier claim that you're not really 'conservative'; fine, you're a Trumper then.

What you are correct about is that this is a matter of degree, one that you rarely factor in.  If you were correct about the above, which we have no reason to believe, then perhaps the difference in time spent is a matter of degree in that Trump likely has told many more lies than Biden.  I don't have a list of Biden lies, but there are lists of all of Trump's; I wouldn't be surprised if Trump's lies were 10 times more numerous than Biden's.

On 12/8/2022 at 12:42 AM, Paranoid Android said:

Gun rights ARE routinely suggested to be abolished by democrats! Are you suggesting they don't?

No one has said otherwise, the issue is that this is not an analogy to what Trump said.  As I said, the above is called democracy, when someone says we should abolish gun rights I've never interpreted any of them as suggesting we somehow go outside the rules and the Amendment/legislative process to do that.  Now, if you are so well-versed in American government, tell me in general how we go about 'terminating all' rules?  Is Trump suggesting we put all the Amendments to the states and have them vote on them to abolish them?  If not, what do you think he is suggesting?  Probably nothing since you seem to erroneously/conveniently think social media posts are worthless, but explain the feasible proposal for what he wants that does not appear to be dictatorial.  

On 12/8/2022 at 12:42 AM, Paranoid Android said:

I'm following your rules (not you specifically, LG, but the left wing members here on UM). They're the ones who said that social media posts don't mean anything when it was a left wing celebrity at the centre of a controversy. I'm simply accepting that argument as a valid interpretation and applying it to a different context. 

What you are also doing is defining 'left wing' by what you see as the most extreme and worst members of that group, which is absurd, and to which you seem to complain when it's done to you.  Why don't you follow 'my' rules since I'm who you're talking to instead of random 'left wing members of UM'?  Should I respond to you according to a select group of right wing members here's rules?  I think this left wing/right wing came up because of my mention of double-standards, but I don't think I accused the 'right-wing' of double standards in those comments, I accused you of them.

On 12/8/2022 at 12:42 AM, Paranoid Android said:

Do these random statements  amount to a desire to instil fascism into America? I'd argue not! 

We're not talking about random statements, we are talking about specific statements. I'll ask pointlessly again, what parts of the statement are inconsistent with 'appearing' to want to be a dictator.

On 12/8/2022 at 12:42 AM, Paranoid Android said:

If a social media post is the only evidence that he wants to dissolve the Constitution, I'm inclined to disregard it!

Of course you are.  I'm ultimately kinda playing along here as I have to doubt whether you are translating things reasonably anyway, that things are overblown and want to make him appear as a dictator.  I'm sure someone used the word 'dictator' though so that automatically defines the 'left wing' to you or something.  

But again you are unavoidably biased on these claims in other ways besides your extreme political persuasion.  Why would an Australian be 'outraged' about what Trump does or doesn't, or any of our politicians, it doesn't affect you in any way.  Of course you're inclined to disregard it, you have no skin in the game.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

And many Dems point at the Trump picture with Ivana on his knee, and call "dusgusting", but I'm sure those people are fine with this. Probably just getting ready for a shower...

He's not running for president, or anything else for that matter. Yours, and others fixations on him are really weird. Hillary I could understand as she was a politician trying for office, but this guy? Republicans have officially gone collectively  insane. 

Edited by Hankenhunter
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.