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

51 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

It was a social media post, not a declaration during a press conference! But if you really REALLY want, I can harvest dozens of tweets and other social media posts by democrats (perhaps not former presidents, but certainly other elected officials) that do in fact suggest abolishing the Constitution. Gun Rights, for example, are routinely suggested by democrats that they should be abolished, despite being guaranteed in the Constitution! 

If you want an example of actually ignoring the Constitution, consider the eviction moratorium through the pandemic. Biden extended the eviction moratorium through the pandemic, and this was mere weeks after SCOTUS ruled on it in a split decision with the final vote coming from Brett Kavanaugh who said in the ruling that the moratorium was illegal BUT as it was ending in a month leaving it as is was the best option, and left a warning not to extend it again.  

 

That last line in red - clear and specific congressional authority via legislation is NECESSARY for the CDC to extend the moratorium. 

And yet the moratorium was extended....

 

I could lay the same thing to you. So many examples of where the media has crucified Republicans and ignored Democrats. Using the Hunter laptop as an example, imagine if the laptop belonged to Eric Trump instead of Hunter. Imagine it had precisely the same information as Hunter's, except that it was owned by the son of Donald Trump! 

I guaran-frakkin-tee you that the story would not have been censored for "potentially hacked material" if it was Eric Trump's laptop! And that's what this argument boils down to. So many left wing posters here are arguing about how this is just evidence of a careful media who doesn't want to run with fake stories, when the truth is they are protecting their favoured candidate by minimising stories that make democrats look bad! 

To your final question, I can only repeat - social media posts are supposed to be worthless. Wasn't there a thread just here recently about a social media post that threatened somebody, and the consensus by the left wing members here was that people say dumb stuff online all the time, it's not newsworthy to bring up social media arguments!!!! I can't recall the specifics of that thread, but it was only in the past few weeks *edit: maybe the one where the democrat called child protection on a Republican for teaching their child that America is a top country. 

So forgive me if I don't buy your outrage that Trump saying something on social media is apparently a big deal! 

You're no Rumpelstiltskin

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You're no Rumpelstiltskin

Rumpelstiltskin is a fairy tale character. I certainly hope I'm not him! I'm sure you're trying to make a point of some kind, but as I don't understand how Rumpelstiltskin fits into the discussion we're having, I cannot see what that point is! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Rumpelstiltskin is a fairy tale character. I certainly hope I'm not him! I'm sure you're trying to make a point of some kind, but as I don't understand how Rumpelstiltskin fits into the discussion we're having, I cannot see what that point is! 

While you are clutching at straws, you're not producing much gold. You're spinning quite the opposite. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Gun Rights, for example, are routinely suggested by democrats that they should be abolished, despite being guaranteed in the Constitution! 

And do you know where some gun rights are guaranteed? It's in the Second Amendment. Do you know what 'Amend' means, and why Amendments are not Commandments?  Not that this has anything to do with the very narrow Trump statement at hand, did you not see the word 'all' in his statement? 

15 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

That last line in red - clear and specific congressional authority via legislation is NECESSARY for the CDC to extend the moratorium. 

This doesn't have anything to do with Trump either, you seem to want to make every topic 'the left is worse than the right'.  What are the first three words of the last line in red?  "In my view" - not 'the court so commands'.  This is a legal battle and this is how it is usually conducted, it has nothing to do nor is it any kind of analogy for suggesting terminating all rules and the Constitution so Trump can be prez again.

15 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

So many examples of where the media has crucified Republicans and ignored Democrats.

And vice versa.  Still the double standards with what 'the media' means?

15 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

To your final question, I can only repeat - social media posts are supposed to be worthless.

Ha, where'd you pull this new rule of convenience out of?  What presidents say is almost never treated as 'worthless', but since you are a literally ignorant non-citizen you wouldn't know that. Again, you'd be going bonkers if Obama said this. Ask Eli Lilly if social media posts are worthless after their stock plunged after someone made a false tweet about them giving away insulin for free...

15 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Wasn't there a thread just here recently about a social media post that threatened somebody, and the consensus by the left wing members here was that people say dumb stuff online all the time

I have no idea if there was a thread about this, nor have you given me any basis for thinking you are a good, impartial judge of either the left or right wing.  Was this social media post from a president?

This doesn't have anything to do with the medium of social media, it's the 21st Century and that is the medium in which Trump chose to communicate.  You don't seem to say so but the reason this isn't a bigger deal is not because it's on social media, it's because it's Trump and you seem to be grading how much outrage there should be by 'you know how Trump is...' instead of 'how Ex-presidents/leaders should behave'.  You're welcome to those double-standards if you'd like, don't be surprised though if other people are unwilling to lower those to your MAGA level.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

While you are clutching at straws, you're not producing much gold. You're spinning quite the opposite. 

Rumpelstiltskin actually could spin straw into gold, though, so if you are calling me Rumpelstiltskin it's an admission that I am succeeding. Only by calling me a Rumpelstiltskin-failure-wannabe would this be an insult. So thanks for the huge kudos :tu: 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

And do you know where some gun rights are guaranteed? It's in the Second Amendment. Do you know what 'Amend' means, and why Amendments are not Commandments?  Not that this has anything to do with the very narrow Trump statement at hand, did you not see the word 'all' in his statement? 

Are you really going to try and word lawyer this as an "amendment" rather than "dissolution"???? Suffice it to say that many would consider that a distinction without a difference! It was also only one prominent example, there are many examples of the Squad (and others) posting really really dumb anti-Constitution things to social media.

 

8 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

This doesn't have anything to do with Trump either, you seem to want to make every topic 'the left is worse than the right'.  What are the first three words of the last line in red?  "In my view" - not 'the court so commands'.  This is a legal battle and this is how it is usually conducted, it has nothing to do nor is it any kind of analogy for suggesting terminating all rules and the Constitution so Trump can be prez again.

If it was Trump, the mainstream left wing media would have had a field day. Imagine that the Supreme Court Justices only extended something because it was going to end in a few weeks and warned Trump that if he renewed the program it would be an illegal action? You can pretend that that the mainstream left wing media would treat it the same but you know they wouldn't! There is no way on planet earth that the mainstream left wing media would not use this as an example of Trump ignoring SCOTUS and instituting his brand of fascism onto the country! 

That's what the mainstream left wing media does! While giving a free pass to pResident Biden and the rest of the democrats. 

 

8 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

And vice versa.  Still the double standards with what 'the media' means?

I've also said multiple times that if I accidentally miss clarifying, just assume that when I refer to the media I am referring to the "mainstream left wing media". I know you probably don't read every single post I put up, but if you go through the last three pages of this thread (at least), I have mentioned the mainstream left wing media multiple times, this is literally the only time I forgot to include the caveat - read through every post, you'll see "mainstream left wing media" in my post.  

Once again I ask, if I forget to caveat, just assume that is what I am referring to instead of beating this dead horse over and over again!  

 

8 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Ha, where'd you pull this new rule of convenience out of?  What presidents say is almost never treated as 'worthless', but since you are a literally ignorant non-citizen you wouldn't know that. Again, you'd be going bonkers if Obama said this. Ask Eli Lilly if social media posts are worthless after their stock plunged after someone made a false tweet about them giving away insulin for free...

It was the left wing's own arguments! I can't help it if double standards are the only standards the left wing knows!  

 

8 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I have no idea if there was a thread about this, nor have you given me any basis for thinking you are a good, impartial judge of either the left or right wing.  Was this social media post from a president?

This doesn't have anything to do with the medium of social media, it's the 21st Century and that is the medium in which Trump chose to communicate.  You don't seem to say so but the reason this isn't a bigger deal is not because it's on social media, it's because it's Trump and you seem to be grading how much outrage there should be by 'you know how Trump is...' instead of 'how Ex-presidents/leaders should behave'.  You're welcome to those double-standards if you'd like, don't be surprised though if other people are unwilling to lower those to your MAGA level.

The social media post was from a blue checkmark, iirc (before checkmarks could be bought), so it is a public figure. I've already agreed that Trump's comment wasn't the smartest thing he's said, but anyone who actually thinks he wants to dissolve the Constitution is suffering from a heavy dose of TDS, in my estimation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

Rumpelstiltskin actually could spin straw into gold, though, so if you are calling me Rumpelstiltskin it's an admission that I am succeeding. Only by calling me a Rumpelstiltskin-failure-wannabe would this be an insult. So thanks for the huge kudos :tu: 

When did I call you Rumpelstiltskin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

Are you really going to try and word lawyer this as an "amendment" rather than "dissolution"???? Suffice it to say that many would consider that a distinction without a difference!

I think this is just another example of Trump running his mouth and wouldn't consider it a serious threat to American democracy. However, I sincerely hope you're not an English teacher - those two words mean very different things. They're not synonyms, and only the more illiterate people would consider that a "distinction without a difference".

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

It was also only one prominent example, there are many examples of the Squad (and others) posting really really dumb anti-Constitution things to social media.

As I'm sure you realize the Constitution doesn't interpret itself.  Thus when you say vague things like, "Gun Rights, for example, are routinely suggested by democrats that they should be abolished, despite being guaranteed in the Constitution!", the validity of this statement depends entirely on which 'gun rights' and which ones you think are guaranteed by the Constitution, which if you haven't noticed is a bit controversial and messy here.  Ya see, American people and politicians, including Presidents, say that we should change things in the Constitution, including 'abolishing' things, all the time.  What Presidents don't say is to terminate 'all' (let's not accuse anyone of 'word lawyering' until you recognize what he actually said) rules and regulations so they can be reinstalled in power.  Or do these really seem like the exact same things to you?  Abolishing gun rights by amending the Constitution is democracy, I'll let you identify what is democratic about terminating rules even Constitutional ones to declare Trump the winner.

To focus, what I was questioning was your view that, 'It's ridiculous that such a throwaway comment has been blown out of proportion to make it appear as if he wants to be a dictator!'.  You really didn't answer what should be a straightforward question:

 

Quote

 

where does it not sound like someone who wants to be a dictator:

"“Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,”

 

Instead you made up this social-media-posts-are-worthless rule all of a sudden that is utter bs (how about you notify the police here of this new rule of yours so we can stop having so many school days cancelled due to threatening posts on social media, that are actually 'worthless') and didn't answer the question.  The obvious answer to the question is that there is nowhere in the second sentence at least where it doesn't sound like someone who wants to be a dictator.  The only reference that is non-dictatorial is the reference to a 'new election' option (which has its own obvious problems); I see no way of overturning the election and declaring him the winner without essentially terminating rules a la dictators.  So nothing has been blown out of proportion to make it appear he wants to be a dictator, it is his words that make it appear he wants to be a dictator.  And there are more quotes than just this one that give that appearance also.  It's not that there are no other possibilities or that his statements 'prove' he wants to be a dictator, but your claim was about how it 'appears' which doesn't require that.

To be clear I don't think necessarily that this is the most ridiculous, outrageous thing he's said either, it is indeed just another one for the very large pile.  What you should have said but didn't is that anyone who thinks that we are actually going to allow 'all' rules to be terminated may be overblowing things given that this statement is coming from a proven idiot.  That may be more reasonable to say is 'overblown' than your excuse of his post which I'd sum as 'just pretend he didn't post it'.  And given his popularity and standing in the run for re-election, that necessarily reduces the degree that he can even be 'overblown'; it's not like someone here at UM saying the Constitution should be abolished, to which anything more than a yawn would be overblown.  

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

It was the left wing's own arguments! I can't help it if double standards are the only standards the left wing knows!  

I hesitate to ask, but define 'left wing'.  I may have missed something but the only reference I've seen to them are you talking about some other posts here about threats on social media and references to the Squad and 'others'.  Wow, you're up to maybe 30 people there maybe, out of what 100 million+ left wing Americans at the least?  

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

I've already agreed that Trump's comment wasn't the smartest thing he's said

You're right that I don't read all of your posts on the politics boards just because I don't read many topics here at all, but from the relatively few things I have seen in the past it's amazing how many times you've said something along the lines of this statement.

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

but anyone who actually thinks he wants to dissolve the Constitution is suffering from a heavy dose of TDS, in my estimation.

Maybe he doesn't want to dissolve it, although I'm not sure what argument or evidence you have that he doesn't 'want' that, but I do think he doesn't want any rules to ever apply to him that apply to others.  I think he'd be delighted, no matter how it was accomplished, if the 2020 election was 'thrown out' and him declared the winner.  You go ahead and find me some examples to the contrary for these, maybe I'm forgetting something (there is a lot to forget).  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

When did I call you Rumpelstiltskin?

Fair call. I was just being flippant,  as once you addressed the reasons for your post it deserved no more of my attention than that!

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2022 at 1:31 PM, Knob Oddy said:

"10 percent for the big guy"

Hunter has also said during interviews he would never have got the job if his dad wasn't VP.

And after the appointment of hunter, his dad jumped right into a conflict of interest. Just imagine if this was Donald Trump Jr on the board and Trump saying what Biden said below 

Just imagine that. Ivanka and Jared as special counsels with absolutely no qualifications.  Ivanka getting special consideration for Chinese copyrights, Don Jr, going on special sheep hunts in Mongolia.  Jared and Ivanka generating 600 million in personal income while working in the White House and Jared getting 2.5 billion investment from the Saudi government.

None of these folks had special qualifications except being related to the president.   Jared was the covid czar and the peace negotiator in  the Middle East with no experience, no qualifications, and poor results.

None of that my friend was illegal.  Exercise in bad judgement bordering on unethical and arguably resulting in unnecessary deaths, but not illegal.   The phone call to halt military aid to Ukraine unless they said they were investigating Biden was perfect.

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. 

It was loudly proclaimed that in 2020 Russian bots on Twitter, Facebook and other social media did not help Trump win the election.

Twitter censoring dick picks of Hunter you might not want your kids to stumble across is inline with Twitter policy, not illegal.

Matt Taibbi even said in his story that Trump administration also made requests to remove Twitter posts that were handled by Twitter.   If Elon wants to come clean about free speech, let him show those and the rest of the Biden related material.

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

2 hours ago, Arbenol said:

I think this is just another example of Trump running his mouth and wouldn't consider it a serious threat to American democracy. However, I sincerely hope you're not an English teacher - those two words mean very different things. They're not synonyms, and only the more illiterate people would consider that a "distinction without a difference".

But no one has actually proposed a plan for an amendment, you're just pointing vaguely at the Second Amendment and saying "it was amended once, let's amend it again by removing it" and then comparing that to Trump and saying they are the same, which is just patently absurd! 

PS - I'm a drama/music teacher. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

But no one has actually proposed a plan for an amendment, you're just pointing vaguely at the Second Amendment and saying "it was amended once, let's amend it again by removing it" and then comparing that to Trump and saying they are the same, which is just patently absurd! 

PS - I'm a drama/music teacher. 

Removing it?  When did that ever come up?  Are machine guns legal to own?  Is that a violation of the second amendment?  Can a civilian own a nuclear weapon?  Why not?  The right to bear arms doesn't specify guns.  I should be able to have my nuclear weapon and AT4.  Regulation is not getting rid of the constitution, as Trump would like you to believe.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Removing it?  When did that ever come up?  Are machine guns legal to own?  Is that a violation of the second amendment?  Can a civilian own a nuclear weapon?  Why not?  The right to bear arms doesn't specify guns.  I should be able to have my nuclear weapon and AT4.  Regulation is not getting rid of the constitution, as Trump would like you to believe.

Guns are allowed! I'm not getting drawn into the strawman about nuclear weapons. At least you're doing better than pResident Biden whose best counter argument is that you cannot own a cannon, despite being fact checked and found to be lying for years:

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

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/sorry-mr-president-but-americans-could-always-buy-cannons/

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/06/30/fact-check-could-individuals-own-cannons-during-revolutionary-war/113951468/

Three articles from 2020, 2021, and 2022, each time fact checking and showing him to be a liar. But of course, this isn't Bad Orange Man, so no one seems to care that Biden is a habitual liar! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Guns are allowed! I'm not getting drawn into the strawman about nuclear weapons. At least you're doing better than pResident Biden whose best counter argument is that you cannot own a cannon, despite being fact checked and found to be lying for years:

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

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/sorry-mr-president-but-americans-could-always-buy-cannons/

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/06/30/fact-check-could-individuals-own-cannons-during-revolutionary-war/113951468/

Three articles from 2020, 2021, and 2022, each time fact checking and showing him to be a liar. But of course, this isn't Bad Orange Man, so no one seems to care that Biden is a habitual liar! 

 

Tf are you bringing up Trump for?  Biden is a bumbling fool.  And it's not a strawman argument, because it's real, and it's true.  Nuclear weapons are arms, and they can't be owned.  Along with grenades, rocket launchers, mortars, artillery, machine guns, surface to air missiles, and so many more.  I mentioned more than nuclear weapons, and you focused on that, because it's the most obviously ridiculous one, thinking it would bolster your position.  But, no one on the right claims the banning and regulation of the others violate the second amendment.  Why not?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Tf are you bringing up Trump for?  Biden is a bumbling fool.  And it's not a strawman argument, because it's real, and it's true.  Nuclear weapons are arms, and they can't be owned.  Along with grenades, rocket launchers, mortars, artillery, machine guns, surface to air missiles, and so many more.  I mentioned more than nuclear weapons, and you focused on that, because it's the most obviously ridiculous one, thinking it would bolster your position.  But, no one on the right claims the banning and regulation of the others violate the second amendment.  Why not?

Guns are allowed by your constitution. I'm not getting dragged into an argument about other weapons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

As I'm sure you realize the Constitution doesn't interpret itself.  Thus when you say vague things like, "Gun Rights, for example, are routinely suggested by democrats that they should be abolished, despite being guaranteed in the Constitution!", the validity of this statement depends entirely on which 'gun rights' and which ones you think are guaranteed by the Constitution, which if you haven't noticed is a bit controversial and messy here.  Ya see, American people and politicians, including Presidents, say that we should change things in the Constitution, including 'abolishing' things, all the time.  What Presidents don't say is to terminate 'all' (let's not accuse anyone of 'word lawyering' until you recognize what he actually said) rules and regulations so they can be reinstalled in power.  Or do these really seem like the exact same things to you?  Abolishing gun rights by amending the Constitution is democracy, I'll let you identify what is democratic about terminating rules even Constitutional ones to declare Trump the winner.

To focus, what I was questioning was your view that, 'It's ridiculous that such a throwaway comment has been blown out of proportion to make it appear as if he wants to be a dictator!'.  You really didn't answer what should be a straightforward question:

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

 

3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Instead you made up this social-media-posts-are-worthless rule all of a sudden that is utter bs (how about you notify the police here of this new rule of yours so we can stop having so many school days cancelled due to threatening posts on social media, that are actually 'worthless') and didn't answer the question.  The obvious answer to the question is that there is nowhere in the second sentence at least where it doesn't sound like someone who wants to be a dictator.  The only reference that is non-dictatorial is the reference to a 'new election' option (which has its own obvious problems); I see no way of overturning the election and declaring him the winner without essentially terminating rules a la dictators.  So nothing has been blown out of proportion to make it appear he wants to be a dictator, it is his words that make it appear he wants to be a dictator.  And there are more quotes than just this one that give that appearance also.  It's not that there are no other possibilities or that his statements 'prove' he wants to be a dictator, but your claim was about how it 'appears' which doesn't require that.

To be clear I don't think necessarily that this is the most ridiculous, outrageous thing he's said either, it is indeed just another one for the very large pile.  What you should have said but didn't is that anyone who thinks that we are actually going to allow 'all' rules to be terminated may be overblowing things given that this statement is coming from a proven idiot.  That may be more reasonable to say is 'overblown' than your excuse of his post which I'd sum as 'just pretend he didn't post it'.  And given his popularity and standing in the run for re-election, that necessarily reduces the degree that he can even be 'overblown'; it's not like someone here at UM saying the Constitution should be abolished, to which anything more than a yawn would be overblown.  

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. 

 

3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I hesitate to ask, but define 'left wing'.  I may have missed something but the only reference I've seen to them are you talking about some other posts here about threats on social media and references to the Squad and 'others'.  Wow, you're up to maybe 30 people there maybe, out of what 100 million+ left wing Americans at the least?

It's quite broad - left wing covers anyone falling on the side of liberals/progressives. That can be democrats, but it isn't confined solely to them. It's a very broad generalised term, much like "right wing" is often a term levelled at me - it isn't really accurate, but in context of an online discussion it's fair to say it's close enough, so I may clarify every now and then that I'm not really a conservative, but for the most part I accept the label for the purpose of political discussions. 

 

3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

You're right that I don't read all of your posts on the politics boards just because I don't read many topics here at all, but from the relatively few things I have seen in the past it's amazing how many times you've said something along the lines of this statement.

Trump says a lot of s***, especially with social media. Even the most pro-Trump individuals would agree with that. In fact, I can point you to conservative commentators who have said that very thing (I can't find the video, but there's an interview with Ben Shapiro who concedes that when we look back on Trump's legacy he's going to be the President who talked a lot of crap).  Do these random statements  amount to a desire to instil fascism into America? I'd argue not! 

 

3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Maybe he doesn't want to dissolve it, although I'm not sure what argument or evidence you have that he doesn't 'want' that, but I do think he doesn't want any rules to ever apply to him that apply to others.  I think he'd be delighted, no matter how it was accomplished, if the 2020 election was 'thrown out' and him declared the winner.  You go ahead and find me some examples to the contrary for these, maybe I'm forgetting something (there is a lot to forget).  

If a social media post is the only evidence that he wants to dissolve the Constitution, I'm inclined to disregard it! Everything Trump has done has been in line with the Constitution of America, and he has NEVER circumvented that! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

Guns are allowed! I'm not getting drawn into the strawman about nuclear weapons. At least you're doing better than pResident Biden whose best counter argument is that you cannot own a cannon, despite being fact checked and found to be lying for years:

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

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/sorry-mr-president-but-americans-could-always-buy-cannons/

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/06/30/fact-check-could-individuals-own-cannons-during-revolutionary-war/113951468/

Three articles from 2020, 2021, and 2022, each time fact checking and showing him to be a liar. But of course, this isn't Bad Orange Man, so no one seems to care that Biden is a habitual liar! 

 

That's a petty take and why I find your sources dodgy. It's like when posters rant on about a grammatical error or typo. 

When speaking about the second amendment, the discussion is directed at the people. It's more than clear that is whom the phrase refers to. Not expeditions carrying small bore cannons. Not organised militia, not legalised pirates. The average person. 

So where were pilgrims buying Cannon's from? How common was it to see a cannon in everyone's front yard? What law actually said citizens can own cannons? 

The links are as inaccurate and broad as is Biden's statement. To rant on like that about lies just makes you look petty. There's clearly fields of movement for interpretation there. And yet you defend Trump to the end even though you admit he has indeed lied.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, psyche101 said:

That's a petty take and why I find your sources dodgy. It's like when posters rant on about a grammatical error or typo. 

When speaking about the second amendment, the discussion is directed at the people. It's more than clear that is whom the phrase refers to. Not expeditions carrying small bore cannons. Not organised militia, not legalised pirates. The average person. 

So where were pilgrims buying Cannon's from? How common was it to see a cannon in everyone's front yard? What law actually said citizens can own cannons? 

The links are as inaccurate and broad as is Biden's statement. To rant on like that about lies just makes you look petty. There's clearly fields of movement for interpretation there. And yet you defend Trump to the end even though you admit he has indeed lied.

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes 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. 

None of those links prove that. They proved that organisations did. Including private organisations. Not citizens.

Please post the law that specifically states cannon ownership was equal to citizens owning guns today. A 2A of cannons if you will. 

You understand that gun regulations mean anyone can own a gun, "with the right paperwork" as well, so the point seems moot to me. There's no infringement of 2A under that circumstance. 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

no one seems to care that Biden is a habitual liar! 

But, but, he said he removed Shokin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Guns are allowed! I'm not getting drawn into the strawman about nuclear weapons. At least you're doing better than pResident Biden whose best counter argument is that you cannot own a cannon, despite being fact checked and found to be lying for years:

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

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/sorry-mr-president-but-americans-could-always-buy-cannons/

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/06/30/fact-check-could-individuals-own-cannons-during-revolutionary-war/113951468/

Three articles from 2020, 2021, and 2022, each time fact checking and showing him to be a liar. But of course, this isn't Bad Orange Man, so no one seems to care that Biden is a habitual liar! 

 

Says no one cares Biden is a liar.

Posts articles highlighting Biden is a liar.

:huh:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Guns are allowed by your constitution. I'm not getting dragged into an argument about other weapons. 

Arms are allowed.  It doesn't mention guns.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Says no one cares Biden is a liar.

Posts articles highlighting Biden is a liar.

:huh:

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! 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Arms are allowed.  It doesn't mention guns.

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

  • Confused 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.