Let's review your contribution here. The OP was about Obama backing off renewing the AWB. Which is a very good thing. Yet you immediately launch an attack based around immigration related issues and are called on it. You don't comment on his actual backing off of the AWB. Partisanship before all else. Then you proceed to try and show Obama is lying about guns coming from the U.S. because you don't hear about ATF raids on U.S. gun shops. Then when when your logic is exposed as flawed, you abandon the broad argument and focus your attention on the "90%" issue. Towards the end the only thing you can focus on is the "90%" issue and completely run from your original position.
Recapping your case....
So here you've taken Obama to task for not providing some amount of evidence during a brief foreign policy speech in Mexico. Because Obama didn't present you all this evidence in the speech he's being deceptive about these guns coming from the U.S. This exposes two things about you. You're lazy and you have no depth of understanding regarding U.S./Mexican operations against drug cartels and the associated problems. Just a very small amount of internet research would provide you with enough information to satisfy any questions you might have about the flow of guns from the U.S. to Mexico. As I had shown you with your own link.
Then, when challenged by RNYC you post this....
Once again you are railing on Obama as being dishonest about these guns being traced back to the U.S. Is this out of your partisanship alone? Or is this once again a demonstration of your lack of initiative to actually educate yourself? If you have a question do you not seek answers? Or do you just go with your gut and say to hell with the rest?Originally Posted by GottaHurt
Here we are once again with you focusing on the line of argument that Obama is lying about guns coming from shop in the U.S. because we are not hearing about raids on these shops. Negative proof argument. But then again, as pointed out earlier...you make this argument from a position of ignorance. Even a cursory amount of research would have provided plenty of evidence. But somehow, because Obama didn't do this for you, he is being dishonest. What is ironic is the fact that you posted a link, which contained other links within it, that would have given you all the info you needed had you actually read it all and researched the article a bit.Originally Posted by GottaHurt
Uh oh, now we see the damage control start. Now it's not just about a lack of news regarding raids, it's the "90% lie" he told. This is very interesting because now you are focusing on a specific comment and doing nothing to shore up the holes in your original argument. You provide a link, which you think makes your case, and that disputes Obama's use of the 90% figure as being out of context. Let's examine that link. What is funny is the first sentence of the article summary:Originally Posted by GottaHurt
FactCheck.Org: Counting Mexico's Guns
Ouch, that's interesting as it directly challenges your original argument. Apparently FactCheck.Org knows something you don't. Let's see, if in light of this new information, you eventually admit that guns do in fact find their way from U.S. gun shops to Mexico.Originally Posted by From the article
In this post I proceed to point out the many flaws in your argument, deconstructing it from the foundation up. But what are you almost solely focused on now? Not the OP, not the case of yours I destroyed, but with keeping the spotlight on the liberty Obama took with the 90% figure. Which in no way supports your original argument. Divert! Divert!
In the middle of your backpedaling and damage control you post this...
Oh really? Which part of your argument did you support with my link and your link? Oh yes, just the 90% part. You still haven't substantiated your original argument, only your diversion argument in which you insinuated that Obama was lying about guns going across the border.. And I still haven't seen you make any intelligent response to RNYC's inquiry regarding your immigration babbling.Originally Posted by GottaHurt
In this post I use your own FactCheck.Org article as the springboard for a little bit of research to provide you all the proof you need about ATF/DEA/FBI/DOJ operations that are the supporting foundation for testimony that gave birth to the 90% figure. You repeatedly questioned the validity of the claim that guns were finding their way to Mexico from the U.S., claiming there was no proof of this, and so I provide it to you. Your reaction to having your original argument dumped on it's head? Nothing. You can't respond to it because you've had your e-mouth slapped shut with information gleaned from your own article. That's twice you managed to set your opponent up to defeat your own argument. Instead, you turn up the volume on the 90% figure issue and ignore completely that your assumptions and insinuations have been thrown back in your face.
So after all this, how does your focus on Obama using the 90% figure out of context support your original argument that there is no proof of guns flowing from U.S. gunshops to Mexico?