BREAKING: FBI Arrests 87-Year-Old Concentration Camp Survivor for Singing Hymns Outside Abortion Clinic Door

[Harpy Eagle]

Those papers belonged to President Trump,

Nope, the day he left office those papers belonged to We The People, not to him.

 

[Marener]

You didn't prove anything, you just countered with your own opinion and like most progressives treated it as the truth and fact.

I countered with logic and reason. Not opinion.

If we are to survive as a species, we need to recognize the difference. Otherwise nothing is ever true or fact.

 

[beautress]

Nope, the day he left office those papers belonged to We The People, not to him.

They were declassified and therefore were his. If you're so interested in beating up on someone who keeps his papers, you need to go after your own Hillary Rodham who elected to expropriate FBI files on citizens she was afraid of. Of course, you may be too young to recollect Filegate.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

They were declassified and therefore were his. If you're so interested in beating up on someone who keeps his papers, you need to go after your own.

Their classification has no bearing on their ownership. They are not his papers, they belong to the citizens of this country just like every president before him.

 

[martybegan]

I countered with logic and reason. Not opinion.

If we are to survive as a species, we need to recognize the difference. Otherwise nothing is ever true or fact.

Which is your opinion.

Facts are things like gravity, Pi, actual vote tallies, verified historical events, etc.

Truth is more complicated.

 

[beautress]

Their classification has no bearing on their ownership. They are not his papers, they belong to the citizens of this country just like every president before him.

Yes, they are his property, and the Leftist-weaponized FBI are going to pay a price for ignoring the Fourth Amendment which states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

There is no precedent for this invasion of a former President's private papers.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yes, they are his property, and the Leftist-weaponized FBI are going to pay a price for ignoring the Fourth Amendment which states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

There is no precedent for this invasion of a former President's private papers.

Nope, no matter how many times you say that lie, it will still be a lie. They are not his property, they belong to the country.

And yes, there is no precedent for a search of a former President's house for documents, but there is also no precedent for a former president keeping them at their house.

 

[Marener]

Which is your opinion.

Facts are things like gravity, Pi, actual vote tallies, verified historical events, etc.

Truth is more complicated.

The last election showed us that facts don’t exist.

Vote tallies are no longer facts. Historical events are now opinions.

The right is destroying truth rather than live in it.

You’re deciding to believe illogical nonsense so that you can justify your previous belief. Logic should dictate beliefs. You let beliefs dictate your logic.

 

[martybegan]

The last election showed us that facts don’t exist.

Vote tallies are no longer facts. Historical events are now opinions.

The right is destroying truth rather than live in it.

You’re deciding to believe illogical nonsense so that you can justify your previous belief. Logic should dictate beliefs. You let beliefs dictate your logic.

D Day was June 6th 1944. That's a fact. Now saying to what degree D-Day was successful is an opinion. Saying D-Day was overall successful is a fact. That it took months to break out of the bocage as well as break the line at Caen adds to the debate of it being a crushing success or a tough success.

This coming from a side that can't tell us what a woman is. Comical.

 

[Marener]

D Day was June 6th 1944. That's a fact

Were you there?

 

[martybegan]

Were you there?

No I wasn't. are you saying the only way to verify anything is to be there when it happened?

 

[Marener]

No I wasn't. are you saying the only way to verify anything is to be there when it happened?

Just trying to figure out how you determined it was a fact that it occurred on that day.

 

[martybegan]

Just trying to figure out how you determined it was a fact that it occurred on that day.

Massive historical documentation, and it was an actual event.

It's not an opinion on a social argument. If you can't actually see the difference then that's on you.

And if you are trying for some gotcha moment, try harder.

 

[Marener]

Massive historical documentation, and it was an actual event.

It's not an opinion on a social argument. If you can't actually see the difference then that's on you.

And if you are trying for some gotcha moment, try harder.

You can choose to believe “massive historical documentation” if you want. Others don’t have to. It’s just your opinion.

Back to the social argument, a position staked on logic will always beat the one that is staked on “I’ll believe whatever I want”. If you can’t see the difference, that’s on you.

 

[martybegan]

You can choose to believe “massive historical documentation” if you want. Others don’t have to. It’s just your opinion.

Back to the social argument, a position staked on logic will always beat the one that is staked on “I’ll believe whatever I want”. If you can’t see the difference, that’s on you.

Saying D-Day didn't happen on June 6th makes you an idiot. Not as idiotic as holocaust denial but close.

My position is based on logic as well, you just can't see it because you have the typical SJW mindset of "only what I think is right"

I figured this was going to be a pathetic "gotcha" attempt, and I figured rightly.

 

[Marener]

Saying D-Day didn't happen on June 6th makes you an idiot. Not as idiotic as holocaust denial but close.

My position is based on logic as well, you just can't see it because you have the typical SJW mindset of "only what I think is right"

I figured this was going to be a pathetic "gotcha" attempt, and I figured rightly.

Saying gender is irrelevant to sexual orientation is likewise idiotic. You can’t see it because you have the conservative asshole bunker mentality that can’t allow yourself to be told you’re wrong.

Your replies indicate your only ground here is to whine about my opinion of how pathetic your argument is. You don’t reply with any logic.

 

[martybegan]

Saying gender is irrelevant to sexual orientation is likewise idiotic. You can’t see it because you have the conservative asshole bunker mentality that can’t allow yourself to be told you’re wrong.

Your replies indicate your only ground here is to whine about my opinion of how pathetic your argument is. You don’t reply with any logic.

gender is irrelevant with regards to equal protection used to justify Same Sex marriage. If you are going to argue against my points, try to actually understand them first.

And your conservative bunker mentality accusation rings hollow because I am on record saying I am OK with SSM as long as enacted properly, i.e. via legislative action at the State level to change marriage laws. I am even OK with courts saying you can forced States to recognize SSM licenses from out of State. My only issue is with forcing States to issue SSM licenses based on substantive due process, which I don't believe is part of the Constitution at all.

That's plenty of logic, you just don't have the intellectual maturity to handle opinions different than yours. You can't just say someone disagrees with you, there has to be some defect for them to disagree with you. It's the inherent narcissism that infects all lefty types.

 

[Marener]

gender is irrelevant with regards to equal protection used to justify Same Sex marriage. If you are going to argue against my points, try to actually understand them first.

And your conservative bunker mentality accusation rings hollow because I am on record saying I am OK with SSM as long as enacted properly, i.e. via legislative action at the State level to change marriage laws. I am even OK with courts saying you can forced States to recognize SSM licenses from out of State. My only issue is with forcing States to issue SSM licenses based on substantive due process, which I don't believe is part of the Constitution at all.

That's plenty of logic, you just don't have the intellectual maturity to handle opinions different than yours. You can't just say someone disagrees with you, there has to be some defect for them to disagree with you. It's the inherent narcissism that infects all lefty types.

Gender has everything to do with protection for same sex marriage in the same way the race had everything to do with protection for interracial marriage.

Your bizarre logic says we aren’t discriminating based on gender but we can discriminate based on sexuality.

So your bizarre logic says it’s okay to a man to marry a man as long as they’re not gay.

Fucking crazy shit.

 

[martybegan]

Gender has everything to do with protection for same sex marriage in the same way the race had everything to do with protection for interracial marriage.

Your bizarre logic says we aren’t discriminating based on gender but we can discriminate based on sexuality.

So your bizarre logic says it’s okay to a man to marry a man as long as they’re not gay.

Fucking crazy shit.

sexuality is the crux of the issue in Same Sex marriage, not gender.

That's exactly what I am saying, because again gender and race are similar, where sexuality is not. Only one involves an action, or at least results in an action.

No I am saying the reasoning used to justify Loving doesn't apply to Obergfell, because while races are equal, sexuality is not.

 

[Catsnmeters]

You don't want to answer the question because you know it looks bad.

I'll make it more clear. In your opinion would it be right for a woman to abort a fetus because they know it's

1. The wrong gender
2. Gay
3. Down's syndrome.

I think a woman should be able to get an abortion for any reason if it complies with the law.