I take Rove seriously.
But he said some fairly bizarre things about Trump, like that Trump says he'll negotiate with ISIL, etc.

I've not heard Trump say that.

On FOX News Sunday (FNS) heavyweight Republican Karl Rove said Trump is not a serious candidate.

I put 20 miles on the Schwinn today, beautiful!

I don't know the protocol.
But I gather, any candidate that stays in the race long enough has to disclose financial details.
I'm guessing if Trump isn't already out by then, that will bump him out.

apparently

It's a bold, and candidly somewhat eclectic approach at a date site.

Wild guess based on your seething hostility: you're single?

- clearly -

It's not an issue of Constitutional law.

It's simply a matter of netiquette, appropriate cyber-manners.

Mislabeling a horse crap topic delectable hors d’oeuvres is a petty betrayal.

C7,

I sincerely appreciate your what appears to be your conscientious effort to set the historical record straight.

Let us not fall victim to conceptual infiltration.

What's rare if not unique about firearms is that they empower the weak against the strong.

I don't dismiss the 2A implications.
But doesn't it seem likely that if families designated for extermination were capable, they'd have protected themselves?

What Hitler did was to:
- compel untermenchen to register, & then
- hustle registrees off in cattle cars to the crematoria.

The 2A issue is a distraction.
He murdered millions.

a) That's fine, but they are deadly weapons.

b) Technically 2A isn't only about "fire"arms.

It's about "arms", and thus I imagine would include:
- deadly blades, including box-cutters
- puncturing weapons such as a rapier
- bludgeons
- nukes
- doomsday bio-weapons

If not, why not?

I'm surprised at how common false attribution is.
Here's one from the pro-gun side:

I'm an NRA life member.
I've encountered this countless times.

BUT:
this source says no:

http://www.republicaffair.com/fake-george-washington-quotes-liberty-teeth.html

There's a huge pile more; the ostensible Churchill "... I would drink it." quotation also reported false.

BUT!!

Psychologist Joy Browne says:

If a great man makes a false statement, should we revere the falsehood anyway?

If someone low on the pecking order ("from the mouths of babes") says something profound or useful, should we dismiss it because of who said it?

PS

Local NBC reports a confirmed sighting of the pair in the Southern tier of New York State.

Let's see if they can pick up the scent.

I have wondered about that.
Anyone know what that's about; duplicating an entire post, only to comment on it peripherally at the end?

If your inquiry is addressed to me C7, of course.

Why would I do something so deliberately, and consistently, without purpose?

a) Countless times my position has been misrepresented by others. It's tedium to correct the record.

If posters wish to address my position, it's best that they quote the specific words I posted, with attribute; so readers can know:
1) what EXACTLY was said, &

2) by whom.

Then if there was a misunderstanding, spelling error, or any other miscommunication, it can be cleared up.

But this style of lucid communication has been with us since the Holy Bible.

Some may quote the Holy Bible, and assert the source is "The Holy Bible".
But for more precise study, the "Chapter and Verse" standard is applied.
For purpose of specificity and clarity, the latter is widely recognized as the superior standard.

It's called "context".

And as a matter of fact; it's much the same in face to face conversation.

Person A speaks.
Then person B replies.
Then person A comments on that ...
etc.

It's merely superior communication style, honed over decades of posts, tens of thousands.

Thanks 2A.

I heard a radio report this AM that the audience he assembled were paid to be there.

Such Trump media events have been called "a festival of narcissism".

I generally don't attempt to prove assertions I don't believe.

OF COURSE gun control is his agenda!
I've NEVER disputed that.

I simply addressed your:

You see RA:

I give benefit of doubt.
I may have lots of suspicions about lots of persons.
But I try to avoid accepting as truth that which has not been proved.

Obama may be many things, but if he's a Machiavellian, he's a rank amateur.

PS

I read the chart.
But Obama didn't mention a per capita statistic.

What Obama said was:

I don't mean to seem an Obama apologist; though to many I appear to be.

I'm simply a man of principle; I defend those that are attacked that are undefended.

Key words in the above quoted statement:

How he defines "this type" could narrow it down to the only one.

Oh?
Please quote that.

I thought both gun-banners, and gun-proliferators alike merely claim reflecting their agenda in our law would help reduce it; not eliminate it.

Fine.
But even if true, immaterial.

I never denied that.

Instead, I took issue with your:

If you can prove that, I hope you will.

And if you can't, I hope you'll cease presenting personal opinion as objective reality.

Totally!

PS

You may believe that.

But Ockham's Razor, that perspective is backward.

Most presidents are problem-solvers.

Most U.S. presidents know, they don't get the easy problems.

The problems presidents get are the hard ones; the ones subordinates couldn't solve.

In addition to being from Kenya, or wherever else he was born, Obama's also from Chicago; where gun violence is a prominent feature of life for less than wealthy Blacks.



Not sure what's to be gained by falsely attributing motive here; other than simply to falsely undermine character.

I suspect the reason persons resort to such illegitimate means is because they can't find legitimate means to undermine it.

Thus paradoxically, it's not Obama whose motives are suspect, but Obama's critics that resort to such falsification.

Thanks C7 for confirming Obama's assertion.
According to the data in your post, the U.S. is the only one on the list with fatalities in triple digits, nearly three times the next closest.

No.
I understand why one might "suppose" this, if the opinion is based upon what Obama-bashers claim.

I base my opinion of what Obama says, on what Obama says.

ct posted:

Thanks for corroborating Obama's injudiciously worded assertion.