Europe Laments, "Trump is Right"

[Dogmaphobe]

Lol ! Still cant see why you are threatening me with this. What have I said ?

838 times and counting, you have said nothing at all.

 

[oldsoul]

Well believe it or not people are innocent until proven guilty in the UK. Obviously that is not the case in the US.

You cannot just go around "defending" your position with attempted slander. Doesn't hold up. If you have a REAL arguement, state it. Otherwise, please keep your slanderous comments on YOUR side of the pond.

Slander ?

I think OS means "libel." If he does, he is still wrong.

According to legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
slander. n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed.
According to dictionary.law.com
libel. 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others.
So, I stand corrected. It was not slander, it was Libel. Point still stands.

Lol ! Still cant see why you are threatening me with this. What have I said ?

Not a threat, a fact.
"Well believe it or not people are innocent until proven guilty in the UK. Obviously that is not the case in the US." I really do get tired of reminding people of what they have said. Sad really.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only you say that silly nonsense. "So, we should just let everyone in no matter if we can vet them properly or not. Great formula for total destruction of the country. You must really hate it here."

Only you say that silly nonsense. I am so sick and tired of liberals and progressives saying that we cannot protect ourselves. If we cannot protect ourselves then maybe we should just erase all borders and have a new one world government. Oh, wait, that is what you want, no borders, no individuality. That is what this is really all about. NO INDIVIDUALITY. If we where all just the same we would be so much better off. Where have we heard that before? Oh, yeah, Nazis, Communists, Facists, great bunch of folks there.

What are you getting at?

What you said was, "Banning a Person because of an opinion is totally different from banning a group of people who have a PROVEN record of violence, and a stated agenda of desroying you." I would believe that you were referring to Muslims. False equivalent fallacy? NEVER SAID THAT ALL MUSLIMS ARE VIOLENT. All I said was there is a group of people who are bent on descruction of our way of life. I didn't say who they were, I didn't say where they are. I said THAT they are. If you insist on putting words in my mouth, then just shut the go somewhere else to do it. I, for one, will no longer tolerate it. If you cannot make your arguement without such tactics then your arguement is not valid.

So, you make an assumption and just go with it. Typical.

Prove that we can't. What do you propose we do? And don't just spew some crap about how we can vet them already. The Syrian government can't even vet the Syrians. How the hell do you think we can?

Unprovable. Maybe someone should prove that they CAN. Maybe you should prove that you are not a racist, sexist, or homophobe. Same thing. A negative is unprovable, only a positive can be proven correct or incorrect. Ask any scientist. You cannot prove something does not exist, you can prove that something does exist.

You are whining because I slapped down your assumptions about me? You need to apply the standards to yourself.

 

[oldsoul]

Only you say that silly nonsense. "So, we should just let everyone in no matter if we can vet them properly or not. Great formula for total destruction of the country. You must really hate it here."

Only you say that silly nonsense. I am so sick and tired of liberals and progressives saying that we cannot protect ourselves. If we cannot protect ourselves then maybe we should just erase all borders and have a new one world government. Oh, wait, that is what you want, no borders, no individuality. That is what this is really all about. NO INDIVIDUALITY. If we where all just the same we would be so much better off. Where have we heard that before? Oh, yeah, Nazis, Communists, Facists, great bunch of folks there.

What are you getting at?

What you said was, "Banning a Person because of an opinion is totally different from banning a group of people who have a PROVEN record of violence, and a stated agenda of desroying you." I would believe that you were referring to Muslims. False equivalent fallacy? NEVER SAID THAT ALL MUSLIMS ARE VIOLENT. All I said was there is a group of people who are bent on descruction of our way of life. I didn't say who they were, I didn't say where they are. I said THAT they are. If you insist on putting words in my mouth, then just shut the go somewhere else to do it. I, for one, will no longer tolerate it. If you cannot make your arguement without such tactics then your arguement is not valid.

So, you make an assumption and just go with it. Typical.

Prove that we can't. What do you propose we do? And don't just spew some crap about how we can vet them already. The Syrian government can't even vet the Syrians. How the hell do you think we can?

Unprovable. Maybe someone should prove that they CAN. Maybe you should prove that you are not a racist, sexist, or homophobe. Same thing. A negative is unprovable, only a positive can be proven correct or incorrect. Ask any scientist. You cannot prove something does not exist, you can prove that something does exist.

You are whining because I slapped down your assumptions about me? You need to apply the standards to yourself.

Point taken. Now could you address the rest of the post? Or is it just too much trouble? (a question, not assumption)

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You cannot just go around "defending" your position with attempted slander. Doesn't hold up. If you have a REAL arguement, state it. Otherwise, please keep your slanderous comments on YOUR side of the pond.

Slander ?

I think OS means "libel." If he does, he is still wrong.

According to legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
slander. n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed.
According to dictionary.law.com
libel. 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others.
So, I stand corrected. It was not slander, it was Libel. Point still stands.

Lol ! Still cant see why you are threatening me with this. What have I said ?

Not a threat, a fact.
"Well believe it or not people are innocent until proven guilty in the UK. Obviously that is not the case in the US." I really do get tired of reminding people of what they have said. Sad really.

So where is the libel ?

 

[oldsoul]

Slander ?

I think OS means "libel." If he does, he is still wrong.

According to legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
slander. n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed.
According to dictionary.law.com
libel. 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others.
So, I stand corrected. It was not slander, it was Libel. Point still stands.

Lol ! Still cant see why you are threatening me with this. What have I said ?

Not a threat, a fact.
"Well believe it or not people are innocent until proven guilty in the UK. Obviously that is not the case in the US." I really do get tired of reminding people of what they have said. Sad really.

So where is the libel ?

Are you really that dense? Do you lack reading comprehesion skills?
How is saying that it is obvious that one is not presumed innocent until proven guilty in These United States, not libel?
I know, as well as you, that that statement is untrue and likely designed to attack and ridicule the reputation of These United States.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only you say that silly nonsense. "So, we should just let everyone in no matter if we can vet them properly or not. Great formula for total destruction of the country. You must really hate it here."

Only you say that silly nonsense. I am so sick and tired of liberals and progressives saying that we cannot protect ourselves. If we cannot protect ourselves then maybe we should just erase all borders and have a new one world government. Oh, wait, that is what you want, no borders, no individuality. That is what this is really all about. NO INDIVIDUALITY. If we where all just the same we would be so much better off. Where have we heard that before? Oh, yeah, Nazis, Communists, Facists, great bunch of folks there.

What are you getting at?

What you said was, "Banning a Person because of an opinion is totally different from banning a group of people who have a PROVEN record of violence, and a stated agenda of desroying you." I would believe that you were referring to Muslims. False equivalent fallacy? NEVER SAID THAT ALL MUSLIMS ARE VIOLENT. All I said was there is a group of people who are bent on descruction of our way of life. I didn't say who they were, I didn't say where they are. I said THAT they are. If you insist on putting words in my mouth, then just shut the go somewhere else to do it. I, for one, will no longer tolerate it. If you cannot make your arguement without such tactics then your arguement is not valid.

So, you make an assumption and just go with it. Typical.

Prove that we can't. What do you propose we do? And don't just spew some crap about how we can vet them already. The Syrian government can't even vet the Syrians. How the hell do you think we can?

Unprovable. Maybe someone should prove that they CAN. Maybe you should prove that you are not a racist, sexist, or homophobe. Same thing. A negative is unprovable, only a positive can be proven correct or incorrect. Ask any scientist. You cannot prove something does not exist, you can prove that something does exist.

You are whining because I slapped down your assumptions about me? You need to apply the standards to yourself.

Point taken. Now could you address the rest of the post? Or is it just too much trouble? (a question, not assumption)

They have been answered to my satisfaction. And, yes, of course something that is not there can be proved. Determine if "Is John at the corner?" with cctv. If the cctv shows John did not exist at the corner during the time frame, he was not there.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I think OS means "libel." If he does, he is still wrong.

According to legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
slander. n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed.
According to dictionary.law.com
libel. 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others.
So, I stand corrected. It was not slander, it was Libel. Point still stands.

Lol ! Still cant see why you are threatening me with this. What have I said ?

Not a threat, a fact.
"Well believe it or not people are innocent until proven guilty in the UK. Obviously that is not the case in the US." I really do get tired of reminding people of what they have said. Sad really.

So where is the libel ?

Are you really that dense? Do you lack reading comprehesion skills?
How is saying that it is obvious that one is not presumed innocent until proven guilty in These United States, not libel?
I know, as well as you, that that statement is untrue and likely designed to attack and ridicule the reputation of These United States.

Classic. You are off your head matey.

 

[oldsoul]

According to legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
slander. n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed.
According to dictionary.law.com
libel. 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others.
So, I stand corrected. It was not slander, it was Libel. Point still stands.

Lol ! Still cant see why you are threatening me with this. What have I said ?

Not a threat, a fact.
"Well believe it or not people are innocent until proven guilty in the UK. Obviously that is not the case in the US." I really do get tired of reminding people of what they have said. Sad really.

So where is the libel ?

Are you really that dense? Do you lack reading comprehesion skills?
How is saying that it is obvious that one is not presumed innocent until proven guilty in These United States, not libel?
I know, as well as you, that that statement is untrue and likely designed to attack and ridicule the reputation of These United States.

Classic. You are off your head matey.

Laugh all you want, you know the truth. You just can't face it.

 

[oldsoul]

Only you say that silly nonsense. "So, we should just let everyone in no matter if we can vet them properly or not. Great formula for total destruction of the country. You must really hate it here."

Only you say that silly nonsense. I am so sick and tired of liberals and progressives saying that we cannot protect ourselves. If we cannot protect ourselves then maybe we should just erase all borders and have a new one world government. Oh, wait, that is what you want, no borders, no individuality. That is what this is really all about. NO INDIVIDUALITY. If we where all just the same we would be so much better off. Where have we heard that before? Oh, yeah, Nazis, Communists, Facists, great bunch of folks there.

What are you getting at?

What you said was, "Banning a Person because of an opinion is totally different from banning a group of people who have a PROVEN record of violence, and a stated agenda of desroying you." I would believe that you were referring to Muslims. False equivalent fallacy? NEVER SAID THAT ALL MUSLIMS ARE VIOLENT. All I said was there is a group of people who are bent on descruction of our way of life. I didn't say who they were, I didn't say where they are. I said THAT they are. If you insist on putting words in my mouth, then just shut the go somewhere else to do it. I, for one, will no longer tolerate it. If you cannot make your arguement without such tactics then your arguement is not valid.

So, you make an assumption and just go with it. Typical.

Prove that we can't. What do you propose we do? And don't just spew some crap about how we can vet them already. The Syrian government can't even vet the Syrians. How the hell do you think we can?

Unprovable. Maybe someone should prove that they CAN. Maybe you should prove that you are not a racist, sexist, or homophobe. Same thing. A negative is unprovable, only a positive can be proven correct or incorrect. Ask any scientist. You cannot prove something does not exist, you can prove that something does exist.

You are whining because I slapped down your assumptions about me? You need to apply the standards to yourself.

Point taken. Now could you address the rest of the post? Or is it just too much trouble? (a question, not assumption)

They have been answered to my satisfaction. And, yes, of course something that is not there can be proved. Determine if "Is John at the corner?" with cctv. If the cctv shows John did not exist at the corner during the time frame, he was not there.[/QUOTE/]
False comparison fallicy. Se I can do that too. All your "story" proves is that the camera did not capture the image of John at the corner. He may have been out of the veiw of the camera. Now, to be fair, one might assume that John was not at the corner, but you have not proven he was not. I could, potentially, prove he WAS somewhere else, thus demonstrating he was not there. But, there is no other way to prove John was not there.
See how this works?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, you got it wrong, but that is your problem not mine.

 

[pismoe]

I signed the petition to ban Trump and it wasnt just a Muslim thing.

To ban a person for having and stating an opinion is a GREAT example of why the colonies kicked the crap out of your forefathers. That is a Facist move, and you should be ashamed, though I am sure you are not.

--------------------------- thanks OldSoul but Tommy would never understand !!

 

[pismoe]

I signed the petition to ban Trump and it wasnt just a Muslim thing.

To ban a person for having and stating an opinion is a GREAT example of why the colonies kicked the crap out of your forefathers. That is a Facist move, and you should be ashamed, though I am sure you are not.

Well firstly nobody thought that a ban would come out of this process. Secondly, there are some people whose behaviour falls well short of acceptable and any community should have the right to exclude them.

----------------------------- heck , you Banned Geert Wilder and Micheal Savage to name 2 Tommy !!

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I signed the petition to ban Trump and it wasnt just a Muslim thing.

To ban a person for having and stating an opinion is a GREAT example of why the colonies kicked the crap out of your forefathers. That is a Facist move, and you should be ashamed, though I am sure you are not.

Well firstly nobody thought that a ban would come out of this process. Secondly, there are some people whose behaviour falls well short of acceptable and any community should have the right to exclude them.

----------------------------- heck , you Banned Geert Wilder and Micheal Savage to name 2 Tommy !!

I wish we had banned that shite Bush as well. That said it was a magical day when they arrested Pinochet in London.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

How were

I signed the petition to ban Trump and it wasnt just a Muslim thing.

To ban a person for having and stating an opinion is a GREAT example of why the colonies kicked the crap out of your forefathers. That is a Facist move, and you should be ashamed, though I am sure you are not.

Why is it fascist? If Trump can propose a ban, then also a community has the right to petition, which is protected constitutionally. I would certainly petition a council meeting to keep a proposed FLDS or Kingston housing project out of my town. Correll wants to keep out Muslims. Some in Great Britain want to keep out Trump.

Huge difference. Banning a Person because of an opinion is totally different from banning a group of people who have a PROVEN record of violence, and a stated agenda of desroying you.
According to merriam-webster:
Definition of fascism. : a political system headed by a dictator in which the government controls business and labor and opposition is not permitted.
Does that clear things up for you?

I think the issue is that his nonsense was offensive to a large portion of British people and his presence could have caused trouble.The same principle was used to ban David Duke. Britain does not owe Trump anything.

True, you own him nothing. If it's offensive then STOP LISTENING. You do not have the right to silence your opposition. THAT IS WHAT FACISTS DO.

How do we get to silence him ? He is an american citizen. We are just saying that we dont want that kind of trash in our country.

 

[Correll]

How were

To ban a person for having and stating an opinion is a GREAT example of why the colonies kicked the crap out of your forefathers. That is a Facist move, and you should be ashamed, though I am sure you are not.

Why is it fascist? If Trump can propose a ban, then also a community has the right to petition, which is protected constitutionally. I would certainly petition a council meeting to keep a proposed FLDS or Kingston housing project out of my town. Correll wants to keep out Muslims. Some in Great Britain want to keep out Trump.

Huge difference. Banning a Person because of an opinion is totally different from banning a group of people who have a PROVEN record of violence, and a stated agenda of desroying you.
According to merriam-webster:
Definition of fascism. : a political system headed by a dictator in which the government controls business and labor and opposition is not permitted.
Does that clear things up for you?

I think the issue is that his nonsense was offensive to a large portion of British people and his presence could have caused trouble.The same principle was used to ban David Duke. Britain does not owe Trump anything.

True, you own him nothing. If it's offensive then STOP LISTENING. You do not have the right to silence your opposition. THAT IS WHAT FACISTS DO.

How do we get to silence him ? He is an american citizen. We are just saying that we dont want that kind of trash in our country.

Nope. He doesn't rape your nation's children.

That's the kind of trash you brit lefties want.

ANd GOd Forbid you have a real debate about WHY and HOW that happened so much for so long, and is certain to happen again, if it is not STILL OCCURRING in rings that were not caught.

 

[pismoe]

as I have said before , there is no Freedom of Speech in England Tom .

 

[Tommy Tainant]

as I have said before , there is no Freedom of Speech in England Tom .

There is no freedom of hate speech. And rightly so.It helps keep the fascists in check.

 

[pismoe]

foolishness , who gets to decide what 'hate speech' is Tom ?? The queen or the retired tony blier blair !!

 

[Correll]

as I have said before , there is no Freedom of Speech in England Tom .

There is no freedom of hate speech. And rightly so.It helps keep the fascists in check.

Tell it to the children in Rotherham.