Free Republic

“Talk about Apples to Oranges comparisons. You are trying to equate Putin to Stalin and the USSR to Russia in its current configuration. Neither are even a realistic comparison at all.”

Good grief, kid; you and fallacies are joined at the hip. Show me where I have equated Putin to Stalin. Don’t make the claim and then scurry off into a corner: Support your claim, kid.

You are all over the place, kid. You segue from Stalin to NATO to the dollar being a reserve currency to January 6 to God-knows-what without even pausing to take a breath. You have elevated the strawman and have taken the non-sequitur to new heights.

You are way too emotional, kid. Take a chill pill before you grab the widow-maker or stroke out.

Medvedev is a notorious lush, and quite malleable. He is the quintessential tool.

“The question is how can you square that Biden is serous about saving the border integrity of Ukraine, while he not only permits the unfettered invasion of the US borders he actually encourages the invasion with his policies which are in direct opposition of the rules established by Congress for applying for asylum?”

I’ve answered that, kid. For one thing, they’re apples and oranges. One is an actual military invasion of a nation by a nuclear-armed aggressor bent on death and destruction and conquest; an invasion of a nation with whom we had ties (though not an ally in the legal sense); an invasion by an aggressor who has been overtly hostile towards us and our legal allies; an aggression that, if left unchecked, could result in serious risks. You may be one of those who say, “Not my country; not my problem.” Isolationism is folly in this day and age; and it can bite you when you are not prepared for the bite. Better to muzzle the jaws and avoid the bite entirely. We don’t live in a Pollyanna world; we live in a real world where conflicts and danger and threats are ever-present. The other is a policy decision by the president of the US made strictly for what he thinks is political gain. The Democrats crave power above all else; and they will do whatever they think will secure that power, the country be damned.

Yeah, I support Ukraine in its existential fight against a known and aggressive bully. That being said, if Congress cut off financial support for Ukraine, so be it. I see the pros and cons of providing aid and support to Ukraine; just as I see the pros and cons of supplying aid and support to any country.

We didn’t drive Russia into the arms of China. Russia and China have had on-again/off-again relations for generations. China is playing the long game, and will play off Russia against the West if it thinks it inures to its benefit. There are no friends in international relations; only interests.

“Sorry, that is still not hard evidence.”

Oh, it is compelling evidence. But whether or not it or other statements are admissible is up to the tribunal. And we won’t see all the evidence that is admitted into the record until the matters actually proceed to trial. And, at that, because the cases will be tried in a military tribunal and not a federal or state court of law, I have no idea what will be made public.

“And you still find ways to avoid the question I have repeatedly asked you multiple times now.”

Uh, what question would that be, Sparky?

Present it here, kid; in response to this post, so I can be sure just what you are talking about.

I’ll respond tomorrow. I have to check on my wife, who is an invalid. I do that every night, kid; which seems to vex some of you FReepers.

“That’s a lie & You know it, I said no one can be certain that Osama bin Laden was responsibility for 9/11, which prompted you to say I was a truther and sent me links that Osama bin Laden took credit for the World Trade Center attack.”

And I sent you links that showed al-Queda even admitted it was involved.

Try as you might, kid; you aren’t walking back this one.

“Again we are accepting at face value without hard evidence confirming it.”

There was enough hard evidence to bring charges. We just have to wait for the trials of those parties who are still alive — the trials of which have been getting continued for years as the parties seek to hash out details — for verdicts to be rendered. It’s how our legal system operates; it can seem very frustrating sometimes.

You mention hard evidence (aka compelling evidence). What compelling evidence do YOU have that 9/11 was the work of the Israelis and the Mossad? Or was an inside job? Wild speculation, kid; there has been no compelling evidence presented at all to support such claims.

I think you might be confused about admissible evidence and legal proof: There are different standards for different causes of action.

Here is a very brief thumbnail description:

In civil cases, the standard is liability (or guilt) “by a preponderance of the evidence.” That means, basically, that a defendant is more likely than not responsible for an act that caused damages. In criminal cases, the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is — understandably — a much higher standard for the trier of fact (generally, the jury; sometimes, the judge in a bench trial). That means that the jury (or judge) can say with moral certainty that a defendant is guilty of the crime for which he or she has been charged, and thus is convicted. If the judge or jury CANNOT say with moral certainty that a person is guilty, the defendant should not be convicted.

Yup; a big NO!

One would think.

Well, the UAW endorsed Biden and the Democrats in 2020 and again this year. Sounds like they got what they voted for.

“You called me a 9/11 truther merely because I mentioned what others have said. Clearly you were jumping to a conclusion, even though I never said I was a 9/11/ truther.”

Why didn’t you cite your comment from your post #65?

Because you identified yourself as a truther by your comments: “See, you keep proving my point, that we really do not know who did it. There are those who claim it was Mossad & Israel, can you say with certainty that is wasn’t? I can’t. There is even a video claiming that the celebrants of the Tower attacks were Israelis, are they? Some claim it was an inside job, and that explosives had to have been used yo bring down one or more of the towers. Some of these people making these claims, are actual engineers, not just some Joe Shmoes off the street making wild accusations.”

You went on to say, “…we were lied to with regards to the corona virus, Covid-19, as to its danger and the actions we must take to stop the spread, and they had to know they were all lies, so how can you be certain that lies were not made about what really happened to the World Towers? The distrust is our own government gas-lighting the people. That is not my fault. Like you I used to believe everything my government told me. They have destroyed my trust.”

Here is the definition of a truther, kid: “A person who doubts the generally accepted account of an event, believing that an official conspiracy exists to conceal the true explanation; a conspiracy theorist.”

Kinda fits you to a T, kid.

You’re playing games, kid.

I can’t speculate on Biden’s concern or lack thereof and neither can you; because — as far as I know — he has not articulated his concern, or lack thereof. I can speculate on his motives, but whether or not those motives rise to concern within him I have no idea.

“Furthermore, you don’t really care about our borders, otherwise you would get more vocal about it, but I hear nothing whatsoever from it.”

Oh, I’ve been vocal about it. You see, kid; my mother was an immigrant. But she came here legally; played by the rules; jumped through the hoops; and when she became a US citizen she wept. I was there, kid. I have said on FR several times over the years that illegal immigrants are an insult to her and her memory.

Take a hint: Read my tagline; it’s been there since 2003 (i.e., more than twenty years).

You made the claim; you have the burden of supporting it.

You see, kid; you have employed yet another fallacy: Shifting the Burden of Truth. It’s a sure sign of a loser: Make a claim, then demand that the other party prove or disprove it.

As I said previously: If it were not for the fallacies, your comments would be a blank page.

Nice try, kid.

As is so typical with losers in an argument, you attempt to change the narrative. BTW, kid; that is another fallacy of yours: It’s called False Equivalence. And I already pointed that out to you in my post #96. Perhaps you missed that. Or, perhaps your reading comprehension is...well, poor.

“The answer you provided was; I think, is intentional that the laws are being ignored. The real problem with that answer is that you say you think, when actually that is in question that you actually do.”

Your grammar, punctuation, and composition suck, as well, kid.

But, I’ll try to make sense of the gibberish you wrote above.

You appear to find fault with my comment that I think Biden’s failure to enforce our border laws (i.e., immigration laws) is intentional. And you go on to say that the real problem with my comment is because that is what I think. It’s called deductive reasoning, kid: I inferred from Biden’s actions and comments relative to the border and illegal immigration that his failure to enforce our laws in that respect was intentional. Then, ironically, you go on to agree with me! You said that, “Biden is intentionally allowing illegals flood our country. You can tell by understanding his policies.”

So, are you saying that my conclusion (my answer) is illogical because I drew it; but, your exact same conclusion is...NOT illogical because YOU drew it?

And you accuse ME of playing games? Too funny!

“Yeah, I aped you for a change, since you do it to me all the time.”

Identify them, kid.

Forget, hell!

I agree with you. I don’t think Trump will pick either DeSantis or Haley.

Think about it: If Medvedev was an embarrassment to or a problem for Putin, Medvedev would have fallen out of an upper-floor window long ago.

“This is all because you blindly accept what our leaders tell you.”

Nice try, kid. Again, you assume facts not in evidence, jump to conclusions, and rush to judgment.

“That was mandated while you were in the military, but you are no loner in the military. Start thinking for yourself now.”

Oh, grow up, kid. I and countless others routinely questioned the government when serving, and still do.

““No, that is not the question, you really are obtuse.”

Yeah, kid; it IS the question; the very question you posed: “Well then realist, telling (sic) me what is really happening with the invasion of our nation. I’m dying to hear your explanation as a realist.”

You see, kid; you asked for my explanation re: our borders, as evidenced by your follow-up comment about Biden “saving the border integrity of Ukraine” while permitting an “unfettered invasion” of the US borders.

And, I gave you my explanation; to wit: The Biden administration is not enforcing our border laws; and in my opinion, intentionally.

You see, kid; I answered your question directly. YOU, kid, are the obtuse one.
Then, you go on to compare the two issues (Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and America’s problem with illegal immigration), when you really should have contrasted them. For instance, in the former (Russia vs Ukraine) there is a nuclear-armed country invading its neighbor in a concerted aggression to directly kill and conquer; in the latter there is a hodgepodge of races and cultures breaking our laws and entering our country illegally, some of whom with harmful intent. The latter could have easily been addressed by our federal government simply enforcing our laws; the former, however, could NOT have been stopped by Ukraine enforcing its laws: It could only be responded to by surrendering or fighting; Ukraine chose to fight.

“Again, you misuse what I said, I never stated that nothing is provable.”

Well, actually, you did; though you perhaps didn’t know that you did. You said that 99.9% of what we believe is what we’ve been told, and NOT what we’ve personally determined ourselves through empiricism; and, thus, that more than 99.9% is not “real proof.” You are, therefore, arguing that ONLY the less than .1% we have determined ourselves is REAL proof. But, kid, it is only real proof to YOU. Because, whether you realize it or not, you have argued that proof is SUBJECTIVE. And because ABSOLUTE proof is an impossibility, ALL proof is, in the final analysis, SUBJECTIVE.

“You talk like a patriot…”

I am.

“…but your actions portray ambivalence.”

Again, you jump to conclusions. Reality is not an either-or dichotomy.

“Do you really believe that Ukraine is a more important goal to save than the US?”

Again, you jump to conclusions, assume facts not in evidence, and rush to judgment. Because, kid, by applying the qualifier “really” in your comment above, you are making the judgment that IN REALITY I believe Ukraine is more important than the US. And nothing could be further from the truth.

Sorry, Nimrata: Whoever it is, it won’t be you.

You? A class photo?