Police on the scene of "active multiple shooting" at Buffalo supermarket, 9 people shot : Multiple people are injured & 'several dead'

[MisterBeale]

No and yes, respectively.

The DNC is a cash-making apparatus, same as the RNC, which will exploit any event or tragedy to energize their supporters or incite them to radical action.
But the main difference is that Leftists have infected the Democratic party, and cowardice the Republican party.

. . . and, what Coyote is getting at, is the GOP is home to all sorts of racist vermin, that helped Trump get into office.

Denial is not a good luck for any partisan, left or right.

 

[TemplarKormac]

. . . and, what Coyote is getting at, is the GOP is home to all sorts of racist vermin, that helped Trump get into office.

Denial is not a good luck for any partisan, left or right.

And I'm not denying that either. My issue, as is hers, is with the stereotypical presumptions of me or people of like mind people employ based off of the extremist elements in either party.

 

[TemplarKormac]

1. You can always win an argument with superior facts and evidence.

2. Never tell someone they are wrong, prove they are wrong.

3. I have easily admitted when I was wrong many times, with Coyote in particular.

4. Is hard to do on a board like this. I try most of the time, but the responses I get cause me to abandon the approach rather quickly.

5. Can't get someone so firmly entrenched in a position to ever say 'yes.' It is a waste of effort to do so.

6. That's something I do, by letting them talk. Why would I ever stop them from talking?

7. Of course. But I'm not here to hold their hand. If their idea is right, they need to prove it.

8. I do. But that does not absolve me from the positions that I already have.

9. I easily sympathize with the victims in this massacre, as did I with the victims of Waukesha and Brooklyn. That is not an issue with me.

10. Such as? In the context of this discussion?

11. I always do.

12. I never shy from a challenge on this board, nor do I hesitate to issue one.

You weren't expecting me to play along with that kumbayah post, were you?

MisterBeale ?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sometimes arguments are best left un-sugarcoated.

 

[MisterBeale]

1. You can always win an argument with superior facts and evidence.

There are no such things as "superior," facts and evidence. Either something is factual, or it is not. And no, you cannot win an argument by presenting selectively held facts and evidence, it all needs to be laid out, in its totality, and surmised, honestly.

2. Never tell someone they are wrong, prove they are wrong.

I think you missed the point of this one. If a position is held by someone, it is part of their world view, and their world view, may be part of their identy, you aren't going to change that, you can't make a "proof," against a firmly held belief that is part of someone's identity.

5. Can't get someone so firmly entrenched in a position to ever say 'yes.' It is a waste of effort to do so.

Go back to your Plato, look up the Socratic method. Get them to agree to things they already agree with.

6. That's something I do, by letting them talk. Why would I ever stop them from talking?

Some of these things, are mostly meant for personal interactions. He was a seminar and business consultant. I don't think this one can really be applied to written communicate, maybe instant messaging or phone conversations?

9. I easily sympathize with the victims in this massacre, as did I with the victims of Waukesha and Brooklyn. That is not an issue with me.

That isn't who you need to sympathize with. It is about those who fear gun violence and extremist politics that you need to sympathize with, & their politics. . . try to empathize with their values.

10. Such as? In the context of this discussion?

I haven't thought of one off-hand, and I rarely do. A lot of times? I am surprised, that folks will oblige, I learn, they learn, and a lot of times? It will end a thread.

A challenge, is a way to resolve the argument.


For instance, in the anchor baby argument, I challenged those who claimed that mothers who came here, just to give birth, to PROVE, that once they did, to find just ONE instance of one of these mothers being separated from their children and being deported.

My contention, of course, is because at least one in ten babies now being born in the US is to an illegal, and we are being overwhelmed with aliens to have babies here, THAT is were all this formula is going.

. . . and I was given a satisfactory answer, that yes, they do break up some families and send some back, though not very many. SO? A draw of sorts.

/thread.

Illegal migrants first to get pallets of hard to find baby formula

How many babies are in our custody at the border? The problem we have here, is in the constitution. Women from south of the border, come here pregnant, in order to purposely give birth. The women are pregnant when they arrive, so technically? I suspect, most of these babies? Are...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[MisterBeale]

You weren't expecting me to play along with that kumbayah post, were you?

MisterBeale ?

Give me a minute now. . . lol.

I was responding.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Give me a minute now. . . lol.

I was responding.

My apologies.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There are no such things as "superior," facts and evidence. Either something is factual, or it is not. And no, you cannot win an argument by presenting selectively held facts and evidence, it all needs to be laid out, in its totality, and surmised, honestly.

Except, when the facts and evidence are presented in context, where they actually are superior and trump any emotionally based argument.

I think you missed the point of this one. If a position is held by someone, it is part of their world view, and their world view, may be part of their identy, you aren't going to change that, you can't make a "proof," against a firmly held belief that is part of someone's identity.

Not if their "identity" and "worldview" cause them to try to convince me of mine. I will attack and defend where appropriate.

Also, if their worldview and identity are tailored to mislead me or anyone else, I feel like I have the obligation to convince them of it. I would want them to do the same for me.

Go back to your Plato, look up the Socratic method. Get them to agree to things they already agree with.

Honest question:

How does that help me win them over? Isn't that method kind of redundant?

Some of these things, are mostly meant for personal interactions. He was a seminar and business consultant. I don't think this one can really be applied to written communicate, maybe instant messaging or phone conversations?

I guess so.

That isn't who you need to sympathize with. It is about those who fear gun violence and extremist politics that you need to sympathize with, & their politics. . . try to empathize with their values.

My opinion, a rather blunt one at that, on this is "one who compromises their values easily, have none." It's one thing to empathize with a victim of a shooting asking for sensible gun legislation, but it is quite another to empathize with them when they use their misfortune or tragedy as a vehicle to advocate taking my rights away. That is not something I can do.

I haven't thought of one off-hand, and I rarely do. A lot of times? I am surprised, that folks will oblige, I learn, they learn, and a lot of times? It will end a thread.

A challenge, is a way to resolve the argument.


For instance, in the anchor baby argument, I challenged those who claimed that mothers who came here, just to give birth, to PROVE, that once they did, to find just ONE instance of one of these mothers being separated from their children and being deported.

My contention, of course, is because at least one in ten babies now being born in the US is to an illegal, and we are being overwhelmed with aliens to have babies here, THAT is were all this formula is going.

. . . and I was given a satisfactory answer, that yes, they do break up some families and send some back, though not very many. SO? A draw of sorts.

/thread.

Interesting, and appealing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't hate you guys. I don't want to hate at all. I wish I were incapable of hatred.

But here I am.

 

[Open Bolt]

At the time this was written, "the people' was only propertied white landowners, who were the only ones who could afford guns.

Irrelevant.

Except you can kill a lot more people with an assault rifle than a knife.. So there's that.

Maybe that is why assault rifles have been all but banned for the past 88 years.

Yes, you are just too stupid to understand it, and explaining it to you again won't do much good.

You should learn your place, boy. I'm trillions of times smarter than the likes of you.

Not at all.

Wrong. Leftist policies prevent people from having guns to defend themselves with.

The thing is, Payton Gendron had a plan. His plan was to drive to a store and shoot as many black people as he could.
The "Good guy with a gun" was the security guard named Aaron Salter. He probably didn't have a plan to shoot anyone that day. He was a retired cop, and probably he figured the worst thing he might have to deal with was a shoplifter. He managed to get a couple of rounds off, but Gendron had body armor. Because he had a plan.

Body armor means that he should have been defending with a rifle, not that he shouldn't have been defending.

 

[Open Bolt]

"This is why the left is bad."

Yep. Leftists are really horrible people.

 

[Open Bolt]

The second amendment has done nothing to keep us free

Yes it has. Every time you try to abolish freedom, the Second Amendment prevents you from doing so. That keeps us free.

It has killed hundreds of thousands of people

No it hasn't. Preventing you from abolishing freedom has not cost us a single life.

All those guns only lead to more massacres

No they don't.

The second amendment has never kept us safe
Just the opposite

Yes it has. Every time you try to abolish people's freedom, the Second Amendment protects them from you.

 

[Open Bolt]

three quarters of killers in mass shootings obtain their guns LEGALLY.

So what?

we need stricter gun regulations, my friends

No we don't.

Dan Rather is a perfect example of a freedom-hating leftist.

What's the frequency Dan?

 

[Open Bolt]

Crazy guy alert.

Here is another reason why leftists are bad people. They think that support for civil liberties is craziness.

 

[Open Bolt]

You aren't fully evolved.

Yes I am. It's only progressives who have never figured out those last few evolutionary steps.

Hunting animals with weapons is not the topic here.

So what?

The mass of the moon is also off topic as it so happens.

In this nation if you take away the Second Amendment rights then more people will die.
Many honest citizens will turn in their firearms like good sheeple. Home invasions by armed criminals, store robberies and street muggings will skyrocket.

Bullshit.

Statistics show otherwise.

When Australia abolished freedom in the mid-1990s, the only result was a massive crime spree that went on for years.

 

[Open Bolt]

Wrong.

Not wrong. The Second Amendment prevents the left from abolishing our freedom.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with ‘keeping us free’ – that’s the First Amendment.

That is incorrect. The Second Amendment prevents the left from abolishing our freedom.

And the thread topic is not about the Second Amendment, it’s about yet another manifestation of rightwing fear, racism, and hate.

That is incorrect. Everywhere that the left demands to abolish our freedom (and this thread is such a place), the Second Amendment is relevant because it prevents the left from ever succeeding.

True.
Further proof that ‘good guy with a gun’ is a myth, particularly with regard to mass shootings.

A myth only because of leftist policies that prevent people from being armed.

 

[Open Bolt]

Actually it shows wearing bullet proof clothing can save you.

It's a good investment.

Here is the ultimate irony, and hypocrisy. . . In one hour, I am listening to NPR push this narrative of a, "white supremacist," shooting, in the US, and in the next? They are pushing that the Biden administration, and the US government need to approve of 40 billion for neo-nazi white supremacists in Ukraine, and these NPC's, don't give any of it a single critical thought.

I'm sorry to hear that NPR is pushing the left's demagogy about this shooting.

But note that Ukrainians are not neonazis. That's just KGB lies. The KGB makes up lies about any country that Russia invades.

We must eliminate all guns

You will not be permitted to violate anyone's civil liberties.

 

[MisterBeale]

You weren't expecting me to play along with that kumbayah post, were you?

MisterBeale ?

It's actually more that just. . .a "kumbayah," meme, it is one of the biggest selling self help books in history, far outsold "The Art of the Deal." It actually. . . created the entire genre of that type of book.

How to Win Friends and Influence People is a self-help book written by Dale Carnegie, published in 1936. Over 30 million copies have been sold worldwide, making it one of the best-selling books of all time.[1][2]
<snip>
". .. Despite the negative comments from his critics, Carnegie's book established a new genre. Carnegie described his book as an "action-book" but the category he created has since become known as the self-help genre. Almost every self-help book since has borrowed some type of style or form from Carnegie's "path-breaking best seller."

How to Win Friends and Influence People - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's actually more that just. . .a "kumbayah," meme, it is one of the biggest selling self help books in history, far outsold "The Art of the Deal." It actually. . . created the entire genre of that type of book.

How to Win Friends and Influence People is a self-help book written by Dale Carnegie, published in 1936. Over 30 million copies have been sold worldwide, making it one of the best-selling books of all time.[1][2]
<snip>
". .. Despite the negative comments from his critics, Carnegie's book established a new genre. Carnegie described his book as an "action-book" but the category he created has since become known as the self-help genre. Almost every self-help book since has borrowed some type of style or form from Carnegie's "path-breaking best seller."

How to Win Friends and Influence People - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hm. I might just order this book.

 

[MisterBeale]

But note that Ukrainians are not neonazis.

Of course the Ukrainians are not all Neo-Nazis, but they have a big infestation of them.

The reality of neo-Nazis in Ukraine is far from Kremlin propaganda​

The reality of neo-Nazis in Ukraine is far from Kremlin propaganda

The media should acknowledge the existence of neo-Nazis in Ukraine as much as it acknowledges their existence in America.

thehill.com

In the battle between Ukraine and Russian separatists, shady private armies take the field​

In the battle between Ukraine and Russian separatists, shady private armies take the field

More than 30 of these private battalions, comprised mostly of volunteer soldiers, exist throughout Ukraine. Although all have been brought under the authority of the military or the National Guard, the post-Maidan government is still struggling to control them.

web.archive.org

Ukraine crisis: the neo-Nazi brigade fighting pro-Russian separatists​

Kiev throws paramilitaries – some openly neo-Nazi - into the front of the battle with rebels

Phantom, 23, a fighter in the Azov battalion, outside its HQ in the Ukrainian seaside town of Urzuf

Ukraine crisis: the neo-Nazi brigade fighting pro-Russian separatists

Kiev throws paramilitaries – some openly neo-Nazi - into the front of the battle with rebels

web.archive.org

Ukraine conflict: 'White power' warrior from Sweden​

Ukraine conflict: 'White power' warrior from Sweden

The appearance of far-right activists, both foreign and home-grown, among Ukrainian soldiers fighting in east Ukraine is causing unease, the BBC's Dina Newman reports.

www.bbc.com

Azov fighters are Ukraine's greatest weapon and may be its greatest threat​

This article is more than 7 years old
The battalion's far-right volunteers' desire to 'bring the fight to Kiev' is a danger to post-conflict stability

Azov fighters are Ukraine's greatest weapon and may be its greatest threat

The battalion's far-right volunteers' desire to 'bring the fight to Kiev' is a danger to post-conflict stability

www.theguardian.com

Islamic Battalions, Stocked With Chechens, Aid Ukraine in War With Rebels​

Islamic Battalions, Stocked With Chechens, Aid Ukraine in War With Rebels

Acknowledging Moscow as an enemy shared with Kiev, one leader from Chechnya said, “We never ran from our war with Russia, and we never will.”

web.archive.org

". . . Apart from an enemy, these groups do not have much in common with Ukrainians — or, for that matter, with Ukraine’s Western allies, including the United States.

Right Sector, for example, formed during last year’s street protests in Kiev from a half-dozen fringe Ukrainian nationalist groups like White Hammer and the Trident of Stepan Bandera. Another, the Azov group, is openly neo-Nazi, using the “Wolf’s Hook” symbol associated with the SS. Without addressing the issue of the Nazi symbol, the Chechen said he got along well with the nationalists because, like him, they love their homeland and hate the Russians. . . ."