DACA

[Ford]

That was his attempted defense.

Again, not a defense. It was the equivalent of a lawyer saying "your honor, my client could not have robbed the liquor store, because the store does not exist." As for whether he believes such nonsense, I'd say the rest of his participation on this forum makes it clear (to me, at least) that he wasn't just throwing Holocaust Denial out there as an intellectual exercise. Or perhaps he's just being a troll. Either way, he's on my growing ignore list.

 

[Ford]

But most will vote for democrats if they are given citizenship.

If the Dems get their way, they will be able to vote citizen or not.

Feel free to point out where in the Democratic platform you find their position that non citizens should be given the vote.

 

[Elixir]

But most will vote for democrats if they are given citizenship.

If the Dems get their way, they will be able to vote citizen or not.

Feel free to point out where in the Democratic platform you find their position that non citizens should be given the vote.

I guess you missed Pizzagate? It's right there next to selling/eating babies.

 

[Kusa]

But most will vote for democrats if they are given citizenship.

If the Dems get their way, they will be able to vote citizen or not.

I expect they already do.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That was his attempted defense.

Again, not a defense. It was the equivalent of a lawyer saying "your honor, my client could not have robbed the liquor store, because the store does not exist." As for whether he believes such nonsense, I'd say the rest of his participation on this forum makes it clear (to me, at least) that he wasn't just throwing Holocaust Denial out there as an intellectual exercise. Or perhaps he's just being a troll. Either way, he's on my growing ignore list.

It still doesn't mean he means it, the part of my comment you snipped out.

In the case of some offenses, saying "no crime occurred" is actually a valid defense tactic.

 

[Elixir]

But most will vote for democrats if they are given citizenship.

If the Dems get their way, they will be able to vote citizen or not.

I expect they already do.

You also likely expect that Cheato's inaugural crowd was the BIGGEST EVER.
Funny how Cheato's own kangaroo court couldn't find any trace of those 3 million illegal votes.

 

[Ford]

In the case of some offenses, saying "no crime occurred" is actually a valid defense tactic.

Would you consider it a valid defense in this case? Because if so, then you consider "the Holocaust didn't happen" to be a reasonable position.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

In the case of some offenses, saying "no crime occurred" is actually a valid defense tactic.

Would you consider it a valid defense in this case? Because if so, then you consider "the Holocaust didn't happen" to be a reasonable position.

I don't consider "the Holocaust didn't happen" to be a reasonable position, but I do recognize that sometimes defense attorneys have to defend people they know are guilty. They have to do whatever it takes to defend their client. So they cast as much doubt on as many aspects of the case as possible. They don't actually need to vindicate their client, only undermine the prosecution case.

Anyway, back to the point, three people made a defense of Hitler in that thread. The point of that thread was an intellectual exercise. I predicted that if someone tried it, others would say "look, he really means it." You said "look, he really means it." My prediction was validated, which I find very sad. You did it to only one of the three people who made defenses, which I find odd. You seem unwilling to apply the same standards to underseer or laughing dog, who also made defenses of Hitler. If you were at all consistent you would say "look, he really means it" to the other two as well.

The part of my comment you snipped was just because he undertook the thread topic doesn't mean he means what he wrote. You snipped it again. I see you don't want to address that point.

By failing to address that point you admit two things - you desire for him to mean it, and you are inconsistent in applied standards. Can you apply the same standards to underseer and laughing dog who also made defenses in that thread?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And you're going to snip again the part about how by making a theoretical argument in a thread asking for a theoretical argument it doesn't mean he actually believes the argument he is making.

You're going to snip that every time it is brought up.

 

[Ford]

And you're going to snip again the part about how by making a theoretical argument in a thread asking for a theoretical argument it doesn't mean he actually believes the argument he is making.

You're going to snip that every time it is brought up.

And you're going to ignore what I said, because it doesn't fit your narrative? You're trying to make it seem as if underseer, laughing dog, and humbleman were all making the same argument and therefore are the same. You don't want to bring up humbleman's other activity on the board which (IMO) points to him being genuine regarding his admiration for...as he calls him..."Mr. Hitler."


And again, he did not defend Hitler's crimes. He pretended they didn't happen, which you know is not a defense, and you've now admitted that it is not a reasonable position.

I do recognize that sometimes defense attorneys have to defend people they know are guilty. They have to do whatever it takes to defend their client.

Does that include lying? Or denying facts? Humbleman - pretending to be "Mr. Hitler's" attorney, lied. Is lying a proper defense, counselor? Again, back to the liquor store example. An attorney who presented the "liquor store doesn't exist" defense would be thrown out of court and punished for attempting to use a blatant falsehood in defense of their client.

Yet you think that's a valid defense.

Neither underseer nor laughing dog denied the existence of the Holocaust, so your attempts to lump them in with our resident Hitler fan are pathetic.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And you're going to snip again the part about how by making a theoretical argument in a thread asking for a theoretical argument it doesn't mean he actually believes the argument he is making.

You're going to snip that every time it is brought up.

And you're going to ignore what I said, because it doesn't fit your narrative? You're trying to make it seem as if underseer, laughing dog, and humbleman were all making the same argument and therefore are the same.

I never claimed they were making the same argument. I stated that they were all making defenses on that thread. I freely admit that each of them made different defenses.

You don't want to bring up humbleman's other activity on the board which (IMO) points to him being genuine regarding his admiration for...as he calls him..."Mr. Hitler."

And in the same post he referred to himself as acting like a defense attorney.

Does that include lying? Or denying facts? Humbleman - pretending to be "Mr. Hitler's" attorney, lied. Is lying a proper defense, counselor? Again, back to the liquor store example. An attorney who presented the "liquor store doesn't exist" defense would be thrown out of court and punished for attempting to use a blatant falsehood in defense of their client.

An attorney might try to present a case that the liquor store wasn't robbed that night.

Neither underseer nor laughing dog denied the existence of the Holocaust, so your attempts to lump them in with our resident Hitler fan are pathetic.

I never claimed that they made the same defense, only that they each made a defense.

IMO underseer's defense was even worse. He just accused everyone of wanting white genocide.

 

[humbleman]

Sure, go to Home Depot and hire illegal immigrants as workers receiving cash only.

Thousands and thousands of illegal immigrants cleaning houses for "cleaning companies" hired with good referrals also accepting cash or checks, but workers receiving cash only.

From my part, I don't care, but this proves your link as a piece of crap.

Do you have a link? Or is this just BS?

I said, go to a Home Depot, so: go.

 

[humbleman]

Do you have a link? Or is this just BS?

I remind you: You are trying to conduct a rational discussion with someone who believes that paraphrasing alt-right propaganda constitutes "proof" of something. thinks Hitler did nothing wrong.
Just sayin' ....

FTFY

It's amazing to see how much your thoughts suffer because you found no roots and guts to defend properly your point in another thread.

It's not healthy seeing you going to different topics following posters accusing them of being anti-this and anti-that.

Such is demonstration of big problems from your part, learn to let go. If in a discussion you lost because you didn't prepare well, because your thoughts were lunacies, because bad luck, because whatever, just let go.

This is a different topic.

Wait somebody starts the same theme you lost in the past or, open a new one and others can discuss it again with you thoughts or against your thoughts.

Good thing for you the rules don't say to behave as adults, because your messages are very childish, so much that you probably won't stop until some adult gives you a cookie...

 

[humbleman]

All this problem with DACA is what Democrats want to use to call the attention.

What Democrats did for illegal immigrants to have legal status when they had the chance? Nothing.

I shouldn't play their game but ignore it. Just enforcing the immigration laws the way they are and keep making America great.

 

[Ford]

This derail has gone on long enough. I went back and looked over the defending Hitler thread again (easy if you have humbleman on ignore) and was reminded that underseer's "defense" of Hitler was no such thing. So you're lying about that. A few pages later you twisted laughing dog's words into what you imagined was a defense of Hitler, saying that he was ld's "idol," which is a flat-out lie.

Then you kept lying about what was said, eventually talking yourself into having heard a defense from him, despite the fact that no such defense exists. Then you came over to this thread and claimed - again falsely - that both of them had offered defenses of Hitler. I guess you thought I wouldn't go back and read your bullshit. I did. And I think that's a good enough reason to add you to my ignore list as well. You join a sterling group.

 

[Kusa]

 

[Ford]

And another one added to the list.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Replace those illegal immigrants with legal immigrants, the numbers will be the same and perhaps greater because legal immigrants won't evade paying taxes and millions of illegal immigrants do.

This is a process of deporting an illegal immigrant and bring an immigrant whom in his country has filled the application, has passed thru the process of acceptance, medical records, police records, etc, and admitted legally in the USA.

This should be the best immigration reform, replacing one by the another.

Most illegals work with fake papers. That means they pay taxes but don't get many of the benefits of those taxes. The legal does get those benefits.

 

[RavenSky]

Replace those illegal immigrants with legal immigrants, the numbers will be the same and perhaps greater because legal immigrants won't evade paying taxes and millions of illegal immigrants do.

Actually, most illegal immigrants DO pay taxes because their employers withhold the taxes; but they don't get any of it back as tax refunds.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I expect they already do.

You also likely expect that Cheato's inaugural crowd was the BIGGEST EVER.
Funny how Cheato's own kangaroo court couldn't find any trace of those 3 million illegal votes.

Of course it was.

All that empty space on the pictures was actually filled with the same phantom people that voted for him!