Take me home mama to make me a citizen

[Robert W]

I like watching Kerri Lane since she includes news and videos. She examines important topics and takes out the spin.
Today she chats about birthright citizen ship and the judges of the supreme court. Talk about the no spin zone. Watch her and comment about things she says.

 

[forkup]

I like watching Kerri Lane since she includes news and videos. She examines important topics and takes out the spin.
Today she chats about birthright citizen ship and the judges of the supreme court. Talk about the no spin zone. Watch her and comment about things she says.

Where to start...

Your "no spin" lady when actually listened to with knowledge on how an empirically valid argument is made, spins more than the wheels of an F1 car. The amount of strawmen, appeals to hypocrisy, false equivalencies, selective quoting, begging the question, and nearly every other fallacious argument under the sun, she spews in less than 20 minutes is truly amazing.

She manages to simultaniously misrepresent the issue with birthright citizenship, the constitutional question involved and make the argument that the Constitution only needs to followed if "it makes sense" to her.

She tries to make the argument that a person under indictment not wanting a speedy trial and someone who doesn't want his sex life made public by the FBI are equivalent and that the former means nothing but the latter implies guilt. Guiltnof what... well doesn't matter.

She accuses Swallwell of leaking. Her proof... well a whistleblower said he leaks and he was one of many congresspeople who was shown stuff and it was later leakes, therefor he did it.





That's my comment. And this is my challenge. Pick something she said... anything she said. And let's both examime it emperically.

 

[Robert W]

Where to start...

Your "no spin" lady when actually listened to with knowledge on how an empirically valid argument is made, spins more than the wheels of an F1 car. The amount of strawmen, appeals to hypocrisy, false equivalencies, selective quoting, begging the question, and nearly every other fallacious argument under the sun, she spews in less than 20 minutes is truly amazing.

She manages to simultaniously misrepresent the issue with birthright citizenship, the constitutional question involved and make the argument that the Constitution only needs to followed if "it makes sense" to her.

She tries to make the argument that a person under indictment not wanting a speedy trial and someone who doesn't want his sex life made public by the FBI are equivalent and that the former means nothing but the latter implies guilt. Guiltnof what... well doesn't matter.

She accuses Swallwell of leaking. Her proof... well a whistleblower said he leaks and he was one of many congresspeople who was shown stuff and it was later leakes, therefor he did it.





That's my comment. And this is my challenge. Pick something she said... anything she said. And let's both examime it emperically.

Since it is morning here, and I just noticed your remarks, seems emotional to me.
Will you start this discussion by citing the moment you allege she got it wrong? Swalwell is a snake. Were he a republican, my hunch is you rip him to shreds.

 

[forkup]

Since it is morning here, and I just noticed your remarks, seems emotional to me.
Will you start this discussion by citing the moment you allege she got it wrong? Swalwell is a snake. Were he a republican, my hunch is you rip him to shreds.

Ok the first moment is around the 2 min mark, where's she's arguing that Jackson did some "legal gymnastics" by conflating allegiance with juristiction. Funny thing.


14.23 in, Sauer litterally is trying to make that point.

Your "no spin" lady is selectively quoting a justice, and making fun of the argument. An argument Sauer introduced. Let's start there;

Also, what sounds emotional? The reason I replied is because you made a falsifiable claim "Lane doesn't spin."

A claim I figured I could falsify. That's the opposite of emotional. So do you still insist she doesn't spin?

 

[BluesLegend]

Look, anyone with a brain knows that these filthy scamming asshole illegal MF'ers jumping across our border 8.9 months pregnant with every intention of scamming our stupid birthright citizenship to plant a foreign flag on our soil is utter BS!!

Those idiots on the SCOTUS need to pull their heads out of their government job ass! I pay their damn salaries, I expect them to put a stop to this shit!!!

 

[BluesLegend]

If the SCOTUS fails to put a stop to this birthright citizenship BS I will declare the U.S.A. a lost cause. The political corruption and lawlessness surrounding the INVASION of foreign illegals and their anchor babies is off the charts. Yet some of these government employee justices sit on their throne prattling on about what some politician said in 1868 WTF!

 

[Lockback]

Where to start...

Your "no spin" lady when actually listened to with knowledge on how an empirically valid argument is made, spins more than the wheels of an F1 car. The amount of strawmen, appeals to hypocrisy, false equivalencies, selective quoting, begging the question, and nearly every other fallacious argument under the sun, she spews in less than 20 minutes is truly amazing.

She manages to simultaniously misrepresent the issue with birthright citizenship, the constitutional question involved and make the argument that the Constitution only needs to followed if "it makes sense" to her.

She tries to make the argument that a person under indictment not wanting a speedy trial and someone who doesn't want his sex life made public by the FBI are equivalent and that the former means nothing but the latter implies guilt. Guiltnof what... well doesn't matter.

She accuses Swallwell of leaking. Her proof... well a whistleblower said he leaks and he was one of many congresspeople who was shown stuff and it was later leakes, therefor he did it.





That's my comment. And this is my challenge. Pick something she said... anything she said. And let's both examime it emperically.

Anyone who defends Eric Swalwell has the morals of a rattlesnake ... and a similar IQ.

 

[Robert W]

Ok the first moment is around the 2 min mark, where's she's arguing that Jackson did some "legal gymnastics" by conflating allegiance with juristiction. Funny thing.


14.23 in, Sauer litterally is trying to make that point.

Your "no spin" lady is selectively quoting a justice, and making fun of the argument. An argument Sauer introduced. Let's start there;

Also, what sounds emotional? The reason I replied is because you made a falsifiable claim "Lane doesn't spin."

A claim I figured I could falsify. That's the opposite of emotional. So do you still insist she doesn't spin?

I totally agree with Sauer and his comments. Lane spins you want to claim? Spins what?