You hoisted him on his own petard. However, you have a similar hypocrisy if you favor gun control (elimination) and favor allowing the refugees to come here.
Which is, once again, why I said, "good point!" So he and I can both agree that we should let refugees in and eliminate gun control. RR7 and I made progress. Thanks for playing
I'm not... I am agreeing with you. Let the refugees in and lets eliminate complete gun control! We are making progress.
not necessarily, it depends on his reasoning. He could believe (perhaps wrongly) that banning guns will lead to less violence and that accepting refugees will lead to less violence. No hypocrisy there. Perhaps the logic isn't solid but there is no hypocrisy.
Gumball theory applies to both cases. If 3 out of 200,000 refugees are terrorists, that's enough to keep them all out. If 3 out of 200,000 gun owners shoot someone, that's enough to ban guns. Right?
I hadn't really taken a strong position on either topic, I think he was just making assumptions. And now having been shown the hypocrisy of his beliefs, he'll just pretend he's all for the refugees coming, because saying otherwise would make him sound stupid. Until he gets another good Facebook meme like the gumball one to throw out.
You got it... I was just playing along with RR7 and Denny. RR7 doesn't want to control guns because he accepts refugees. Denny is just a fool and he's fun to play with
The tweet he posted about kids on the playground. SCARY! What was the point of that? LOL And then he says, he's good with taking in refugees.
That being said, I don't favor a complete elimination of guns and total gun control, the same way I don't favor unfettered access to our country without a proper vetting process. Will bad seeds slip through the cracks? In both cases, yes. Of course. It's just comical to me to see those who say we could do nothing about gun violence, so let's do nothing, and that politicians are quick to politicize every mass shooting and its wrong are then ok with the logic that if even one life could be saved from turning them all back, we have to, and oh, let's politicize what happened in Paris to support closing our borders to refugees. Where is the outcry when some politicians politicize a tragedy, but it's in favor of something you support? Oh, go figure, there is no outcry about it. Then politicizing tragedies are ok. Hypocrisy.
But he started out by saying that he didn't subscribe to the gumball theory. He was just pointing out that if that was what mags believed, he was full of hypocrisy. You were the one who was ascribing hypocrisy to RR7 when he had not said anything that warranted such a reaction.
I did no such thing. I just pointed out there's hypocrisy by being for banning guns and for allowing refugees to come here. The former relies on the gumball theory. The latter ignores it. RR7 didn't state his position on banning guns or accepting refugees. BTW, my views are consistent. No ban on guns. Let the refugees in.
Lol So again, you notice your hypocrisy. Ok to politicize Paris. You can try to steer the thread anyway you like.
I do. I didn't like how Trump politicized the Paris Tragedy. So I'm asking you the question. Why does Obama politicize tragedy?
And then we have Ben Carson... LOL http://www.usnews.com/news/politics...e-program-must-screen-for-mad-dogs?src=usn_tw GOP candidate Ben Carson compares screening Syrian refugees for threats to handling 'mad dogs' A vendor sells campaign buttons supporting Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson during a campaign stop, Thursday, Nov. 19, 2015, in Mobile, Ala. (AP Photo/Mike Kittrell) By BILL BARROW, Associated Press MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said Thursday that blocking potential terrorists posing as Syrian refugees from entering the U.S. is akin to handling a rabid dog. At a campaign stop in Alabama, Carson said halting Syrian resettlement in the U.S. doesn't mean America lacks compassion. "If there's a rabid dog running around in your neighborhood, you're probably not going to assume something good about that dog," Carson said. "It doesn't mean you hate all dogs, but you're putting your intellect into motion." Carson said that to "protect my children," he would "call the humane society and hopefully they can come take this dog away and create a safe environment once again." He continued: "By the same token, we have to have in place screening mechanisms that allow us to determine who the mad dogs are, quite frankly. Who are the people who want to come in here and hurt us and want to destroy us?" Carson is among the GOP hopefuls who have called for closing the nation's borders to Syrian refugees in the wake of the shooting and bombing attacks in Paris that killed 129 people and wounded hundreds more. The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the carnage, stoking fears of future attacks across Europe and in the U.S. The retired neurosurgeon, who is near the top of many national and early state preference polls, said he's been in touch with House GOP leaders about a bill that would establish new hurdles for Syrian and Iraqi refugees trying to enter the U.S. With dozens of Democrats joining majority Republicans, the House defied President Barack Obama's veto threat Thursday and passed the measure, 289-137. It would require the FBI to conduct background checks on people coming to the U.S. from those countries. The heads of the FBI and Homeland Security Department and the director of national intelligence would have to certify to Congress that each refugee "is not a threat to the security of the United States." Asked whether he would sign such a measure, Carson said he hasn't reviewed the details. "If, in fact, it does satisfy basic needs for safety, of course," Carson said. Even with his rabid dog comparisons, Carson sought to separate himself from the rhetorical divide between Republicans and Democrats on how to talk about Islam amid concerns about IS attacks. Many GOP figures frequently blast "radical Islamic terrorism." Many Democrats, including the party's presidential favorite, Hillary Rodham Clinton, say the phrase unfairly implicates all Muslims. Carson said, "Islam itself is not necessarily our adversary." But he said Americans are justified in seeing threats from Muslim refugees and the U.S. shouldn't "completely change who we are as Americans just so we can look like good people." He continued: "We have an American culture, and we have things that we base our values and principles on. I, for one, am not willing to give all those things away just so I can be politically correct." Carson's comments come days after some people in and around his campaign offered public concerns about his command of foreign policy. Carson tried to distance himself from them. The chief critic, former CIA agent Duane Clarridge, is "not an adviser," Carson said Thursday. Clarridge told The New York Times that Carson struggles with Middle Eastern affairs, in particular. Armstrong Williams, Carson's longtime business manager, "has nothing to do with my campaign," Carson said. Williams spoke to the Times, the Associated Press and other media about Carson's need to improve, though Williams praised the candidate's work so far. Carson described Williams as an independent operator who "speaks for himself." But, Carson acknowledged, Williams as recently as this week helped the candidate edit a foreign policy op-ed the campaign sent to The Washington Post. ___ Follow Bill Barrow on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/BillBarrowAP Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
