Trump claims presidents can declassify documents ‘even by thinking about it

[Harpy Eagle]

It was infringed on.

So, it is your view then that all of these laws are unconstitutional? Laws that stop felons from legally owning a gun, that sort of thing?

Then when do you draw the line, GG?

I draw the line at the baby never being aborted. That is where my line is. I would like for there to never be an unwanted pregnancy that ends in abortion.

No, becase I give straight answers.

You know why I do that? Not to make the questioner happy, but to allow my own opinions to be tested in the marketplace of ideas. If I were to hide my positions, they would not be fairly tested.

Plus a straight answer is a lot less work than all the verbal gymnastics you're doing to not answer when you draw the line.

I have given a straight answer to your every question. The problem is that my answer does not fit in to one of the two boxes you think all answer have to fit in to, thus you think I am not being up front and honest.

This is simply not the case, but your lack of intelligence is not really anything I can help you with. The world is not black and white, this issue is not a simple as either the mother is guilty of murder or you can kill the baby in the womb up to the very second that it is about to exit the birth canal. But you will never be able to grasp this, your own post have shown that you went from the second extreme to the first.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Huh that the same shit the pro slavery assholes said. How did that work out?

The laws were changed.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You’re refusal to state your opinion on the matter and just hiding behind the “its the law“ bullshit tells me a lot. I think you know it’s wrong but your too much of a coward to say so. Thought you said you were a Marine. Show some moral fucking courage, Devil.

I have stated my opinion. Abortion is not murder. How many more times do I need to say that. Murder is a specific thing.

I am a Marine, there is no such thing as "were a Marine", either you are or you never were.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That is an excellent analogy to oppose the claim that abortion is about self-defense.

Who has ever claimed that abortion is about self-defense?

 

[Seymour Flops]

So, it is your view then that all of these laws are unconstitutional? Laws that stop felons from legally owning a gun, that sort of thing?

Yes, they are. Just as it would be unconstitutional to say that a felon can never make a speech in public, attend the church of their choice, or could be forced to quarter soldiers in their hime in peacetime. Before you go crying about violent felons running the streets with firearms, my answer is that violent felons shouldn't be out on the streets in the first place.

Keep them locked up. The recidivism rate among released felons is over half in many states, and that only counts the ones who get caught again. Releasing them, only to have them commit more crimes, finally get caught, and go through the expensive process of convicting them again saves no money at all, and submits honest citizens to more crime.

Save money by legalizing recreational drugs. Watch the pharmacutical companies put the cartels out of business, and see how much that reduces violent crime.

You really think those laws prevent felons from owning firearms, if they want them? They went to prison because they don't care about the law. Gun laws affect the law-abiding, not criminals.

I draw the line at the baby never being aborted. That is where my line is. I would like for there to never be an unwanted pregnancy that ends in abortion.

You don't draw the line there, you favor women having abortions anytime they want. You do recognize that it is a baby being killed, which I give you props for compared to most of your sister Democrats.

But your so-called position is like saying that you oppose husbands killing their wives because you hope every marriage is a happy one, but not saying wife-killing should be against the law.

I have given a straight answer to your every question. The problem is that my answer does not fit in to one of the two boxes you think all answer have to fit in to, thus you think I am not being up front and honest.

No you are not. You are making up what you think is a similar question and answering that one.

This is simply not the case, but your lack of intelligence is not really anything I can help you with. The world is not black and white, this issue is not a simple as either the mother is guilty of murder or you can kill the baby in the womb up to the very second that it is about to exit the birth canal. But you will never be able to grasp this, your own post have shown that you went from the second extreme to the first.

You may well have a respectable position on abortion, even if I don't agree with it. I can't tell if you do or not, since you won't state your position.

You get angry when I ask if you favor legal abortion up to the moment of birth, but you won't say when it should be a crime to kill the baby, and when it should not be. You won't say why a woman's right to abort supercedes a baby's right to live.

As I've said to many posters many times, when your political outlook makes it that difficult to answer questions, you who should be questioning your political outlook, not getting angry at others for questioning it.

 

[cnm]

You get angry when I ask if you favor legal abortion up to the moment of birth

Probably because it's such a bullshit question. I mean, why not a week before birth, or two weeks, or whatever? Where do you draw the line of your outrage?

Anyone who'd want to abort on a whim a week before birth would have got rid of it long before that.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yes, they are. Just as it would be unconstitutional to say that a felon can never make a speech in public, attend the church of their choice, or could be forced to quarter soldiers in their hime in peacetime. Before you go crying about violent felons running the streets with firearms, my answer is that violent felons shouldn't be out on the streets in the first place.

Keep them locked up. The recidivism rate among released felons is over half in many states, and that only counts the ones who get caught again. Releasing them, only to have them commit more crimes, finally get caught, and go through the expensive process of convicting them again saves no money at all, and submits honest citizens to more crime.

Save money by legalizing recreational drugs. Watch the pharmacutical companies put the cartels out of business, and see how much that reduces violent crime.

You really think those laws prevent felons from owning firearms, if they want them? They went to prison because they don't care about the law. Gun laws affect the law-abiding, not criminals.

Holy crap, something we agree on. Must be a cold day for old Satan.

You don't draw the line there, you favor women having abortions anytime they want.

Why must you lie when I just posted the opposite? Is this really the best you can do?

You may well have a respectable position on abortion, even if I don't agree with it. I can't tell if you do or not, since you won't state your position.

I have stated my position a dozen times in this thread alone. You ignoring it does not change that fact.

You get angry when I ask if you favor legal abortion up to the moment of birth,

No, I get angry when you lie and say that is my position. You can ask anything you like and I will never get mad

As I've said to many posters many times, when your political outlook makes it that difficult to answer questions, you who should be questioning your political outlook, not getting angry at others for questioning it.

And if that ever happens I will be sure to let you know. The fact you do not like my answer does not mean I have not given them to you.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Probably because it's such a bullshit question. I mean, why not a week before birth, or two weeks, or whatever?

Anyone who'd want to abort on a whim a week before birth would have got rid of it long before that.

He is an all or nothing person, one either has to want to execute abortionist and the mothers or they have to want to let the baby be aborted as it is being born. He does not understand there are options outside of those two.

Tis a hallmark of a hyper partisan drone. Everything to them is black and white.

 

[Couchpotato]

The laws were changed.

So you'd be cool with slavery but for the law forbidding it?

I have stated my opinion. Abortion is not murder. How many more times do I need to say that. Murder is a specific thing.

You are being a coward. Either you believe abortion is morally ok or you dont. Which is it? Quit hiding behind "well it's the law".

I am a Marine, there is no such thing as "were a Marine", either you are or you never were.

And you know exactly what I meant. Quit being pedantic.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So you'd be cool with slavery but for the law forbidding it?

I am not cool with abortion, why would you think I would be cool with slavery?

You are being a coward. Either you believe abortion is morally ok or you dont. Which is it? Quit hiding behind "well it's the law".

I do not believe it is morally ok. I have made that clear. There are a lot of things I do not think are morally ok that I do not think should be made illegal. Morals are a personal thing.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Probably because it's such a bullshit question. I mean, why not a week before birth, or two weeks, or whatever? Where do you draw the line of your outrage?

That's exactly the point. Where does a person who supports legalized abortion but says not up to the moment of birth draw that line?

Not a question I invented. Plenty of people have answered it with no problem. Libertarians rarely struggle to answer question but pseudo-libertarians often.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Who has ever claimed that abortion is about self-defense?

How else do you ethically making legal the killing of a human being?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

How else do you ethically making legal the killing of a human being?

By calling it abortion. By questioning what is a "human being".

It has never been about self defense, that is the first time I have ever seen anyone even try such a claim.

 

[iceberg]

He is an all or nothing person, one either has to want to execute abortionist and the mothers or they have to want to let the baby be aborted as it is being born. He does not understand there are options outside of those two.

Tis a hallmark of a hyper partisan drone. Everything to them is black and white.

This is funny as hell. You scream at people for being so binary, or black n white, yet you instantly push people to Trump worshipers or partisan drones if they disagree with you.

Black and white is all you see no matter how you pretend otherwise.

 

[Seymour Flops]

By calling it abortion. By questioning what is a "human being".

It has never been about self defense, that is the first time I have ever seen anyone even try such a claim.

You really are a Democrat. Thinking that changing definitions changes ethics is classic for them.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You really are a Democrat. Thinking that changing definitions changes ethics is classic for them.

I stated how it was done, which is what you asked.

The rest is just your imagination.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You really are a Democrat. Thinking that changing definitions changes ethics is classic for them.

How does one make getting paid to have sex ethically legal?

By calling it porn instead of prostitution.

Our country does this sort of thing all the time.

 

[Foolardi]

Well, I for one always viewed my children as such even in the womb. From the moment we knew my wife was pregnant both times it was a child that was inside of her. There truly is no other option.

Why haggle over near meaningless terms like Child.
I suppose the term " childs play " can only apply to youngins.
Or " second childhood " must refer to Seniors.
Since when is the word " fetus " allowed to be Re-defined.
Because some scumbag leftist control freaks deem it so.
Not Hardly.Trump was spot on with his statement from the
Hugh Hewitt interview regarding his possible " indictment ".
" I don't think the people of the United States would
stand for it. " { Mid September 2022 }

 

[iceberg]

I stated how it was done, which is what you asked.

The rest is just your imagination.

then it seems to be a lot of imaginations.

you ever stop and think "wow, many people seem to have the same problem with me" and think it's you, not them? anyone worth a damn will take that to self-reflect and see if we're really who we think we are based on what we are saying and projecting.

i know you think im in attack mode, but you seem to think everyone is attacking you when they simply disagree with your position. i can disagree with your position and not attack you. in fact, it's preferred. you just won't ever seem to allow that. i disagree, so i worship trump.

yet if i said you disagreed with me on biden so you must worship him, you'd scoff at the idea and run off on some tirade.

i can fight for rights trump (and we all have) without even liking trump. in fact, in my mind that's how it's supposed to work. hating someone, even an awful lot, doesn't take away their rights. but it does seem to blind people to that fact while they run roughshod over those they hate and declare it fair and just based on whatever emotional tie they pull out at the time.

being wrong about your views doesn't make someone a liar. i also have found you very "round about" in your answers. in this thread for example you demanded i give a straight answer - should there be a process for declassifying documents.

yes.

that was all i said. i didn't "however" it, i didn't "but here we have" it. yes. there should be. the question is, do we have one? was trump saying that's how he did it or there is no real process and even thinking about it COULD do it?

from what i can tell, it's door #2 alex, but you refuse to give him that leeway and want to dance around saying STUPID TRUMP because it seems to make you happy to do so. when countered with *the fact* that trump didn't say he did it this way, you simply cry TRUMP WORSHIPER!

there is simply zero middle ground here from you.

you get all pissy if i go off topic but face it, for the last umpteen pages, you've not been on topic at all. you get all pissy if i dare to "whataboutism" but when you do it, its simply a part of normal conversation.

there is simply zero middle ground here from you.

you attack people, not problems. unfortunately that is all too common these days and even more unfortunately, no one seems to understand that. if you've made people the problem as to why things are so messed up, i suppose to a point that can be correct. but it's far more than that. its our own societies inability to find that middle ground and discuss issues and how we can collectively deal with them. i try to do that as others do but so many trolls make that impossible and any valid discussion turns into emotional validation, which seldom has anything to do with the topic itself.

just how you feel about it.

at last check, how you feel about something never fixes it. coming together for collective solutions, does. or at least it used to. now it seems people don't want things fixed because they want to bitch about them instead.

aka - this entire thread. you want to bitch at trump and pretend he said he mentally declassified things w/o telling anyone. IS THAT WHAT HE SAID HE DID HERE? not that i've ever seen. just that there really isn't a process out there.

however, we agree there should be. now, instead of digging into what that process could look like and how we resolve this so we FIX THE GLITCH, you just giggle at trump for 80+ pages of random bullshit and never once try to suggest you fix this vs bitch at it and anyone who dares to disagree with you.

again however, this is very common and reflective of our society at a whole. SCOTUS nominations - we banter back and forth about what is legal and isn't but we never stop and simply define when you can and can't make the nomination.

we'd rather bitch about shit than fix it.

and that is our biggest problem today.

keep on ignoring me, dude. i get it. i could go on about how you're scared and get whooped in all these discussions but doing that to others has never been my goal. however, i do go there a lot it seems because that's the general tone of the board. Seymour Flops has been stellar in sticking to the topic but has faced the same issues i do.

your topics are based off emotions which change by the mood and you attack to defend these emotions. if you do it for another reason, please tell me.

 

[Foolardi]

I stated how it was done, which is what you asked.

The rest is just your imagination.

We're Back to Obama styled Demogoguery.
" Demogogues are the mob's lackey's."
DIOGENES " The Cynic " { Greek Philosopher }