Then make a thread challenging people on what so many here have called you out on. I'll not muck up a thread nor make another thread calling you on it. As I said before that is called a bait thread.
Anyone who thinks that that is on the same level as a kid using his finger as an imaginary gun needs to have his head examined.Nor is drawing ones thumb from ear to ear across the throat. Is there any doubt about what that means?
Anyone who thinks that that is on the same level as a kid using his finger as an imaginary gun needs to have his head examined.
So? What youre missing is that the point of zero tolerance is that using a finger just as even playing with it is a threat that is automatically punished by suspension/expulsion- that defies logic and common sense.Who is saying it is exactly the same? What I did say - and what you are missing - is that one can indeed use their fingers to signal a threat against another person. So all of these excuses and rationalizations claiming that it is entirely innocent are way off base. A physical gesture can indeed signal a threat.
Property rights.Really? What rights that Americans have have you seen me not support?
So? What youre missing is that the point of zero tolerance is that using a finger just as even playing with it is a threat that is automatically punished by suspension/expulsion- that defies logic and common sense.
Property rights.
The best way is to get rid of it completely.And I have stated over and over and over again in this thread that there are ways to review this policy and bring about changes.
Perhaps we should see a boy who made another very scared and uncomfortable - who needs help to put him on the right path to become a wise adult down the road and steer him away from the fools who would merely use him as a pawn in their game?
You support every wealth transfer scheme imaginable and even some that you haven't yet imagined. Wealth is property. Income is property. That's a good place to start.Fell free to expand upon those two words with quotes and examples from me.
The best way is to get rid of it completely.
You support every wealth transfer scheme imaginable and even some that you haven't yet imagined. Wealth is property. Income is property. That's a good place to start.
some see this as nothing more than leftwing anti gun extremists trying to instill hoplophobia upon children
You know, when you have to run from your own positions, that might just be a clue that your positions deeply flawed.Please provide the quotes where I took that position.
You know, when you have to run from your own positions, that might just be a clue that your positions deeply flawed.
Not sure why you have to be so slippery all the time, but lets do it this way. Do you support the idea that the state should be involved in wealth transfer schemes? And if so, how can you support this sort of thing AND support property rights?When you cannot even find my position that you claim I took that is a five hundred foot sing carved into the side of a mountain that you ain't got squat.
Not sure why you have to be so slippery all the time, but lets do it this way. Do you support the idea that the state should be involved in wealth transfer schemes? And if so, how can you support this sort of thing AND support property rights?
I see. So you make an accusation against me and then are powerless to back it up with any position I actually took. Then you are exposed for failing to support your claims against me so now you want ME to save your behind and take the stand and hopefully testify against myself.
AMAZING!!!!!
Then I can be infracted for posting stuff that has nothing to do with the thread topic and disregarding previous warnings.
EVEN MORE AMAZING!!!!
Lets start with my statement which cause you to make accusations against me in the first place and what they have to do with the topic of this thread which I am working hard to stay on.
Hmmm... looks like Fletch is right. If you can't even answer the question...
Fletch is trying to pull his own accusatory behind out of the fire that he himself set when he made accusations and claims that he could not back up.
Perhaps you could help him come up with the evidence he so sorely lacks?
Avoiding the question isn't such a great rebuttal.
To the contrary - I have met the question right head on in its face.
For several years now I have taken one consistent position here before all others: if you make an accusation against me as to what I believe or what my position is - it is totally incumbent upon the accuser to document it with quotes from me taking that position. I WILL NOT bail you out by putting myself on your witness stand with you in the position of prosecutor helping you out of the corner you painted yourself into.
You see jMotivator - when one does that it only encourages irresponsible allegations since the person making them knows they can go on a fishing expedition and make the person they irresponsibly accused give testimony which helps them out. And that is the type of intellectual laziness which will NOT be rewarded by me nor abetted by me.
I am more than happy to engage in any discussion about my actual positions I have taken but simply provide that position from me before that discussion can take place.
Nothing could be fairer than that.
You can rationalize why you won't answer a simple question all you want, but it doesn't change the impression.
I mean, you can accuse me of something and as a gratuitous assertion I am only responsible for a gratuitous denial. If you choose to pursue it then you would need evidence.
You haven't issued the gratuitous denial yet, even when asked specifically to make it, leaving the clear impression that the gratuitous assertion was closer to accurate than you are comfortable denying.
I have met the question right head on in its face. And in doing so I deny a reward to intellectual laziness by offering you a shortcut for your own lack of work and research.
I was trained in collegiate debate. I debated in college for two years all over this nation against some of the best. We were trained to always understand that it is the complete and total responsibility of the person making the allegation to support that claim with verifiable evidence. When they cannot do that, simply pointing out their failure scores the matter in your favor.
For several years now I have taken one consistent position here before all others: if you make an accusation against me as to what I believe or what my position is - it is totally incumbent upon the accuser to document it with quotes from me taking that position. I WILL NOT bail you out by putting myself on your witness stand with you in the position of prosecutor helping you out of the corner you painted yourself into.
You see jMotivator - when one does that it only encourages irresponsible allegations since the person making them knows they can go on a fishing expedition and make the person they irresponsibly accused give testimony which helps them out. And that is the type of intellectual laziness which will NOT be rewarded by me nor abetted by me.
I am more than happy to engage in any discussion about my actual positions I have taken but simply provide that position from me before that discussion can take place.
Nothing could be fairer than that.
I do fully realize that there are some here who prefer the prosecutorial approach and feel it is their right to make any manner of unfounded allegations or claims and to put the other person on the defensive. Sorry - try that on some newbie without proper training. Its not going to work here and its not going to work on me.
Which would be fine in formal debate, which this isn't.
It makes it look like you fully expect that ......
in the end, it looks like the charge was valid.
You've given nobody reason to since you haven't actually rejected the claim that you support wealth transfer.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?