Replies

Just a hint though, failing in your argument and then resulting to name calling

You falsely accused me of basing my entire argument on an absence of opposition from Cruz et al. In other words, that I don't have quotes from Ted Cruz where he declares he supports legalization. I've argued, for a long time, upon a foundation based on Cruz's profession of support for legalization. The only case where an "absence" of stated opposition is in the case of Sessions, but then, I soften it by pointing out the mood of conservatism at the time, which also was not speaking out in favor of deportation.

You're aware of this, but instead of dealing honestly, lie to everybody reading so you can demean my position.

Beyond any reasonable doubt: Cruz supported legal status for illegal aliens. Not "Oh, Cruz didn't mention deportation!" but "Cruz directly mentions legalization and calls it part of common sense immigration reform."

It's not really a debate. It's more of one side choosing to ignore the evidence (and sometimes lying straight to my face so they can deceive their readers), while the other side pleas to have the evidence acknowledged.

BR: Just a hint though, failing in your argument and then resulting to name calling

GPH: You falsely accused me of basing my entire argument on an absence of opposition from Cruz et al. In other words, that I don't have quotes from Ted Cruz where he declares he supports legalization. I've argued, for a long time, upon a foundation based on Cruz's profession of support for legalization. The only case where an "absence" of stated opposition is in the case of Sessions, but then, I soften it by pointing out the mood of conservatism at the time, which also was not speaking out in favor of deportation.

You're aware of this, but instead of dealing honestly, lie to everybody reading so you can demean my position.

Beyond any reasonable doubt: Cruz supported legal status for illegal aliens. Not "Oh, Cruz didn't mention deportation!" but "Cruz directly mentions legalization and calls it part of common sense immigration reform."

It's not really a debate. It's more of one side choosing to ignore the evidence (and sometimes lying straight to my face so they can deceive their readers), while the other side pleas to have the evidence acknowledged.

I believe one reason Jesus warns us not to call other people fools is to protect us from ourselves. Only God is always wise.

As to your argument from silence, and that is principally what it is, it has been addressed before. Your inferencing mechanism to get at something like a positive assertion is not the sort of thing that would survive the first round of briefs if you were to actually try to present your case in court for real adjudication. I am an attorney, and I could, and did, drive a mac truck through the ambiguities in your argument.

Furthermore, I believe our testimony as believers is FAR more important than wasting our time trying to convince those who see things differently that they are fatally stupid. It is one of the principle reasons I cannot stand Trump. It is my sincere belief you would do well to refrain from accusing people of lying when strong difference persist. To prove a lie, you need to prove intent, and if you cannot show a person is saying something they themselves believe to be untrue, you cannot show an intent to deceive. If you mean to do well in law school, you will need to master the art of proving up the elements of a claim. To date, with respect to your charge of lying, you have utterly failed to do so, either with Cruz, or with brothers4thID.

brothers4thID, for the record, we see it the same way. I am so very sorry the conversation has been debased by resort to ad hominem. Wise readers will step around the pile.

Peace,

SR