• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans aren't wrong about 'People with Metnal health Issues'

TurtleDude said:
its just idiotic. It is so beyond reality it must be posted as a joke. Half the people I went to law school with-most are millionaires now-don't own cars. They live in NYC, Boston, or London. If they need a "car" it generally is not RIGHT NOW, so they can use a cab, a subway, a rental or an Uber. If you really NEED a gun, you need it INSTANTLY.
Click to expand...

It's all conditional needs. You need a car if you want to have a certain job and live in a certain place. That's the argument. To go on and pretend it is a universal truth is dishonest.
 
Rich2018 said:
A lack of a gun won't cause you to die - as I can testify to

A lack or a car can cost you your job and house and cause you to live off charity or worse, live homeless - and it's just my perception, but I'd think homeless people have a shorter lifespan.
Click to expand...

You do realize there are people in this world other than yourself, and they might have different experiences and circumstances?

Why not be accurate in your little scenarios?

A lack of a gun could directly relate to dying. Not necessarily though.

Exactly as you claimed about a lack of a car.

I'm not surprised at these self centered notions of yours. As earlier you even hinted that someone's possession and use of a vehicle was only legitimate as gauged by your own circumstance.
 
RF667799 said:
You do realize there are people in this world other than yourself, and they might have different experiences and circumstances?
Click to expand...

And you "might" be able to recount those experiences and circumstances - with a little internet search which you're about to do)



...why not be accurate in your little scenarios?
Click to expand...

Why indeed...and I trust that you will be


...a lack of a gun could directly relate to dying. Not necessarily though....
Click to expand...

By all means go and explain how, and remember to be accurate in your little scenarios



....I'm not surprised at these self centered notions of yours. As earlier you even hinted that someone's possession and use of a vehicle was only legitimate as gauged by your own circumstance.
Click to expand...

No by theirs - you clearly have a reading problem

I said "if you were a salesman, cable technician etc" or didn't you read that bit ?
 
RF667799 said:
I noted you were stuck in a trap of your own making....
Click to expand...

I noted that you were stuck in a trap of your own making


...it applies to someone's expressed need for a gun as well as for a vehicle....
Click to expand...

Yes, as defined by the verb "to need"

You need a car, you don't "need" a gun.


The trap you fell into was to assume the "need" was a basic need to survive.


...you just want to set yourself and your personal opinion up as the supreme arbiter of those conditional needs for everyone else.
Click to expand...

That is in the nature of a debate

It's a characteristic

Now can the gown ups continue the debate ?
 
TurtleDude said:
So if someone is attacking you and you don't have a gun-you aren't going to get hurt? where do you come up with such nonsense?
Click to expand...

So if someone is attacking you, how does ownership of a gun help ?


Will you challenge them to "draw" ?


Exactly what kind of attack are you perceiving ?
 
Rich2018 said:
So if someone is attacking you, how does ownership of a gun help ?


Will you challenge them to "draw" ?


Exactly what kind of attack are you perceiving ?
Click to expand...

well two young men jumped down from a porch as I walked by with my hands full of groceries and started hitting me, I drew my Smith and Wesson and shot one of them at point blank range in the gut-that ended the altercation as the shot mope fell down and the other guy put his hands up and said-don't shoot me man.Now if I didn't have the gun both would have probably died since I would have pulled out the knife I was also carrying and then I would have cut and kept cutting until they stopped their assault meaning both would have most likely bled out
 
Rich2018 said:
I noted that you were stuck in a trap of your own making




Yes, as defined by the verb "to need"

You need a car, you don't "need" a gun.
The trap you fell into was to assume the "need" was a basic need to survive.




That is in the nature of a debate

It's a characteristic

Now can the gown ups continue the debate ?
Click to expand...

You're equivocating again.

You're the one who seems to imply that having a car is necessary for survival. Remember all your conditional rhetoric leading up to your speculation that someone without a car might have a lesser life expectancy?

So what will it be now? Is the need for a car conditional based upon the circumstance and choices of a person involved in determining that for himself? Or will you again imply and even outright state that the needs of others are decided by you?
 
Rich2018 said:
And you "might" be able to recount those experiences and circumstances - with a little internet search which you're about to do)





Why indeed...and I trust that you will be




By all means go and explain how, and remember to be accurate in your little scenarios





No by theirs - you clearly have a reading problem

I said "if you were a salesman, cable technician etc" or didn't you read that bit ?
Click to expand...

That's just you applying your own prejudice again relative to whether someone else needs something. When I noted that in the past you had claimed I didn't need a truck and I asked if that was still the case you responded by seeming to imply my ownership might be legitimate depending on my job.

So clarify that if I have misunderstood.

Is recreational use a legitimate need for a vehicle?
 
Rich2018 said:
And you "might" be able to recount those experiences and circumstances - with a little internet search which you're about to do)
Click to expand...

This was your response to my saying, "You do realize there are people in this world other than yourself, and they might have different experiences and circumstances?"

If you don't deny the veracity of my statement, why would you in effect demand that I prove it to you?
 
RF667799 said:
You're equivocating again...
Click to expand...

They say it's good for the mind

...you're the one who seems to imply that having a car is necessary for survival....remember all your conditional rhetoric leading up to your speculation that someone without a car might have a lesser life expectancy?
Click to expand...

It could be argued that it is in an indirect way


...so what will it be now?
Click to expand...


Necessity for a motor vehicle is conditional on your lifestyle and could affect you survival, at the very least your standard of living

Necessity for a gun is conditional on recreation - well down the list of conditional necessities (tax law for example - it's why in Georgia some convicted of DUI can get a restricted drivers license)



...that's just you applying your own prejudice again relative to whether someone else needs something....
Click to expand...

No it's objective


...wen I noted that in the past you had claimed I didn't need a truck and I asked if that was still the case you responded by seeming to imply my ownership might be legitimate depending on my job....
Click to expand...

That is true, you would need a truck if ownership was job related. Since by your own admission it is not, your truck is not needed and a smaller/cheaper for of motorized transport would suffice



...so clarify that if I have misunderstood...
Click to expand...

See above


...is recreational use a legitimate need for a vehicle?
Click to expand...

Probably not

Since the need for such activity would be seen as less pressing


...if you don't deny the veracity of my statement, why would you in effect demand that I prove it to you?
Click to expand...


Positive statements demand positive proof

eg: I need x

Prove it - the INS does something similar when you try to make a tax deduction based on the need to purchase something.


So if you, for example, say you need a formal suit to do your job as a court room lawyers, you might get away with such a claim.

If you claim you need your truck for recreation, you will probably not succeed in a tax claim.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
well two young men jumped down from a porch as I walked by with my hands full of groceries and started hitting me, I drew my Smith and Wesson and shot one of them at point blank range in the gut-that ended the altercation as the shot mope fell down and the other guy put his hands up and said-don't shoot me man.Now if I didn't have the gun both would have probably died since I would have pulled out the knife I was also carrying and then I would have cut and kept cutting until they stopped their assault meaning both would have most likely bled out
Click to expand...

A tall tale by any stretch of the imagination.

Further proof to cast doubt on you claim of 30 years in prosecution.
 
Rich2018 said:
They say it's good for the mind



It could be argued that it is in an indirect way





Necessity for a motor vehicle is conditional on your lifestyle and could affect you survival, at the very least your standard of living

Necessity for a gun is conditional on recreation - well down the list of conditional necessities (tax law for example - it's why in Georgia some convicted of DUI can get a restricted drivers license)





No it's objective




That is true, you would need a truck if ownership was job related. Since by your own admission it is not, your truck is not needed and a smaller/cheaper for of motorized transport would suffice



See above




Probably not

Since the need for such activity would be seen as less pressing





Positive statements demand positive proof

eg: I need x

Prove it - the INS does something similar when you try to make a tax deduction based on the need to purchase something.


So if you, for example, say you need a formal suit to do your job as a court room lawyers, you might get away with such a claim.

If you claim you need your truck for recreation, you will probably not succeed in a tax claim.
Click to expand...

I wish you would quote my posts in their entirety rather than sloppily edit them and respond piecemeal...but you go ahead and do you.

I'm not making a tax claim (with the INS?) and the US tax codes are not an authority on people's own stated subjective needs.

Now see the bolded above.

You claim I don't need a truck. I claim I do. Why would your claim have more weight than mine? It's my truck, I paid for it, I maintain it, I buy the fuel for it. I don't see where your claim holds any significance at all. Also, be aware that I also own a smaller/cheaper car. How do you respond to that?
 
RF667799 said:
I wish you would quote my posts in their entirety rather than sloppily edit them and respond piecemeal...but you go ahead and do you....
Click to expand...

I try to skip to the pertinent parts plus some posts I reply to have to be widely edited to meet the maximum character limit on here.


...I'm not making a tax claim (with the INS?) and the US tax codes are not an authority on people's own stated subjective needs...
Click to expand...

Sorry I meant IRS

They are an authority as far as necessity goes for tax reasons. I would subscribe closer to their definition of necessity if pushed


...now see the bolded above.

You claim I don't need a truck. I claim I do. Why would your claim have more weight than mine? It's my truck, I paid for it, I maintain it, I buy the fuel for it. I don't see where your claim holds any significance at all. Also, be aware that I also own a smaller/cheaper car. How do you respond to that?
Click to expand...


The INS view that a need for a truck for recreational purposes is not sufficient of a "need"

I don't need an SUV, I could get by with a smaller vehicle (though I occasionally transport my (exceedingly beautiful) dogs

You are absolutely entitled to your truck - whether you need it as an essential is open to debate.
 
Rich2018 said:
I try to skip to the pertinent parts plus some posts I reply to have to be widely edited to meet the maximum character limit on here.




Sorry I meant IRS

They are an authority as far as necessity goes for tax reasons. I would subscribe closer to their definition of necessity if pushed





The INS view that a need for a truck for recreational purposes is not sufficient of a "need"

I don't need an SUV, I could get by with a smaller vehicle (though I occasionally transport my (exceedingly beautiful) dogs

You are absolutely entitled to your truck - whether you need it as an essential is open to debate.
Click to expand...

I haven't claimed it is essential in the context of being a necessity for survival. I've just responded to your arguments as you made them, and often that was the context you laid out.

Anyway, I'm glad you recognize my entitlement to my truck, even if it as based on the (to you) inferior need relative to my recreation. By the same criteria you should recognize that I am entitled to my guns.
 
RF667799 said:
I haven't claimed it is essential in the context of being a necessity for survival....
Click to expand...

No I believe you claimed your truck was necessary for your camping


quote]...I've just responded to your arguments as you made them, and often that was the context you laid out....[/quote]

Thank you - I suppose


...anyway, I'm glad you recognize my entitlement to my truck, even if it as based on the (to you) inferior need relative to my recreation. By the same criteria you should recognize that I am entitled to my guns.
Click to expand...

Your need to camp is lower than my (or anyone's) need to work.

You are entitled to you guns though you should not be. The "need" for them is even lower than the "need" to camp.


By agreeing for you to have guns, we agree for others to...and nationally they will kill and maim at an horrific rate.
 
Rich2018 said:
A tall tale by any stretch of the imagination.

Further proof to cast doubt on you claim of 30 years in prosecution.
Click to expand...

You want to claim I am lying because it would hurt your argument so dishonesty triumphs over losing an argument that you have lost many a time. I have been recounting this incident since my earliest days on this board. I am sure long time posters can testify to that-so I certainly didn't create this just to further destroy the nonsense you post
 
Rich2018 said:
No I believe you claimed your truck was necessary for your camping


quote]...I've just responded to your arguments as you made them, and often that was the context you laid out....

Thank you - I suppose




Your need to camp is lower than my (or anyone's) need to work.

You are entitled to you guns though you should not be. The "need" for them is even lower than the "need" to camp.


By agreeing for you to have guns, we agree for others to...and nationally they will kill and maim at an horrific rate.
Click to expand...

Yet another lie-there are over 400 million guns in the USA and at least 100 million gun owners. What is the rate of gun violence (not suicides but actual gunshot deaths perpetrated illegally)

Your horrific rate is hyperbolic nonsense.
 
Rich2018 said:
No I believe you claimed your truck was necessary for your camping



Thank you - I suppose




Your need to camp is lower than my (or anyone's) need to work.

You are entitled to you guns though you should not be. The "need" for them is even lower than the "need" to camp.


By agreeing for you to have guns, we agree for others to...and nationally they will kill and maim at an horrific rate.
Click to expand...

No, in the same way that you don't have the authority to determine whether my needs are legitimate, you don't have the authority to place them in a hierarchy according to your own prejudice. You do that with your own perceived needs, not with mine.

Look at the bolded above. Once again you are stating your prejudice and conditional take on necessity as if it is a universal truth.

"Your need to camp is lower than my (or anyone's) need to work."

First, I don't just need my truck for camping. It serves other purposes as well. But they are indeed mostly recreational minus the odd trip to move larger items like lawn equip. etc.

My mother never worked after she was around 55 years old. Yet until recently she maintained ownership of a car that she mainly used to go to yard sales, visit grandchildren etc. Pretty much a recreational use of her vehicle. Since she had no need to work at all- how can you claim that her need for recreation was lower than her need to work? That's the trap you fall into when you gauge everything by your own experience and your experience only.
 
TurtleDude said:
You want to claim I am lying because it would hurt your argument so dishonesty triumphs over losing an argument that you have lost many a time.....
Click to expand...

No, rather than your claims are less than believable based on the standard of your posts - lack of research, false claims, school boy standard of "macho" stories etc


...I have been recounting this incident since my earliest days on this board. I am sure long time posters can testify to that...
Click to expand...

So maintain your claims are valid based on the length of time you've been making them ?


...there are over 400 million guns in the USA and at least 100 million gun owners. What is the rate of gun violence (not suicides but actual gunshot deaths perpetrated illegally)

Your horrific rate is hyperbolic nonsense.
Click to expand...

Someone in a prosecutors office for 30 years wouldn't cast aside the annual level of death and injury we see in the USA due to gun misuse

They would class one death due to negligence as "horrific" and they certainly would also regard a suicide as a loss of a valuable life and not dismiss it out of hand

It appears that you wouldn't class a million gun casualties a year as "horrific" or would you ?

In which office do you claim to have worked ?
 
RF667799 said:
No, in the same way that you don't have the authority to determine whether my needs are legitimate...
Click to expand...

Yes I do...I say they're NOT legitimate and you shouldn't (be allowed to) have guns. And not just you personally


So do the IRS have the authority


...you don't have the authority to place them in a hierarchy according to your own prejudice....
Click to expand...

Yes I do

...look at the bolded above. Once again you are stating your prejudice and conditional take on necessity as if it is a universal truth....
Click to expand...

It is a valid truth whether you like it or not...and shared by the IRS

You have a need to work, you have a much lesser need to camp


... I don't just need my truck for camping. It serves other purposes as well....
Click to expand...

Would any of those "needs" be work related? If not, group them with camping


...my mother never worked after she was around 55 years old. Yet until recently she maintained ownership of a car that she mainly used to go to yard sales, visit grandchildren etc. Pretty much a recreational use of her vehicle. Since she had no need to work at all- how can you claim that her need for recreation was lower than her need to work?
Click to expand...

Because the need to work is greater than a need for recreation

However so is the need to have transport....but not a need so pressing that the IRS would let you make a claim for tax reduction.

A contractor for a cable company would need a truck in order to work and so could make such a claim - see the difference ?
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes I do...I say they're NOT legitimate and you shouldn't (be allowed to) have guns. And not just you personally


So do the IRS have the authority




Yes I do



It is a valid truth whether you like it or not...and shared by the IRS

You have a need to work, you have a much lesser need to camp




Would any of those "needs" be work related? If not, group them with camping




Because the need to work is greater than a need for recreation

However so is the need to have transport....but not a need so pressing that the IRS would let you make a claim for tax reduction.

A contractor for a cable company would need a truck in order to work and so could make such a claim - see the difference ?
Click to expand...

1. You aren't the IRS and you don't have the authority of the IRS.

2. The IRS isn't determining if one of my needs is more important than another. They are determining if one of my claimed expenditures is compliant with the tax code.

You have nothing. Your tortured attempts at rhetoric gain you nothing. Consider. The IRS won't allow you to deduct your personal vehicle used to commute to work. Neither will it allow me to deduct my personal truck used for recreation. So by the parameters of YOUR argument, neither my truck nor your car is more important.
 
RF667799 said:
1. You aren't the IRS
Click to expand...


Nope, the IRS are the IRS. And YOU are not either.


I do, however, support their broad distinction of a necessity


2. The IRS isn't determining if one of my needs is more important than another....
Click to expand...

Yes it is

You can claim a tax rebate on a necessity



...they are determining if one of my claimed expenditures is compliant with the tax code....
Click to expand...

A tax code which includes rebates for expenditures on necessities


...you have nothing....
Click to expand...

IDK if you have nothing. You could be rich or poor, I wouldn't presume to guess


...your tortured attempts at rhetoric gain you nothing....
Click to expand...


And I think your gainless attempts at rhetoric are tortuous



...the IRS won't allow you to deduct your personal vehicle used to commute to work. Neither will it allow me to deduct my personal truck used for recreation
Click to expand...

Nope, your arguments are torturous. The IRS expect you to pay for your own transport to work and guess what the food on your table, the roof over your head and the clothes on your back (some of which are basic necessities)

The IRS will let you claim for your truck if you need it to do your job as the view it as a "necessity", they do not view your camping as a similar necessity; you gain nothing by your rhetoric.
 
Rich2018 said:
Nope, the IRS are the IRS. And YOU are not either.


I do, however, support their broad distinction of a necessity




Yes it is

You can claim a tax rebate on a necessity





A tax code which includes rebates for expenditures on necessities




IDK if you have nothing. You could be rich or poor, I wouldn't presume to guess





And I think your gainless attempts at rhetoric are tortuous





Nope, your arguments are torturous. The IRS expect you to pay for your own transport to work and guess what the food on your table, the roof over your head and the clothes on your back (some of which are basic necessities)

The IRS will let you claim for your truck if you need it to do your job as the view it as a "necessity", they do not view your camping as a similar necessity; you gain nothing by your rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Whether the IRS allows something to be deducted against your income has nothing to with whether that something can be defined as a necessity.

Look, you destroy your own argument when you note the IRS doesn't allow you to deduct food.
 
RF667799 said:
Whether the IRS allows something to be deducted against your income has nothing to with whether that something can be defined as a necessity....
Click to expand...

They wouldn't allow it to be deducted if they viewed it as a luxury


...look, you destroy your own argument when you note the IRS doesn't allow you to deduct food.
Click to expand...


No I don't, the IRS don't let you deduct heating bill either. Are you trying to say your truck (or guns) fulfills a basic need ?

In the UK such items are not subject to tax, but they are in the USA.

The IRS will allow you to make claims of things that are necessary, in order to work.




QED: They can view your vehicle as a necessity to work.

The need to work is regarded as a necessity.
 
Rich2018 said:
They wouldn't allow it to be deducted if they viewed it as a luxury





No I don't, the IRS don't let you deduct heating bill either. Are you trying to say your truck (or guns) fulfills a basic need ?

In the UK such items are not subject to tax, but they are in the USA.

The IRS will allow you to make claims of things that are necessary, in order to work.




QED: They can view your vehicle as a necessity to work.

The need to work is regarded as a necessity.
Click to expand...

You are so wrapping yourself in circles that at this point you're embarrassing yourself. For one thing, you're conflating things the IRS views as a business expense with things the IRS doesn't give a **** about. For another, you're flipping so rapidly between various definitions of "necessity" that you likely have your own head swimming.

The tax codes have nothing at all to do with whether my truck is more necessary than your car or whether either of them are less necessary than a purple painted concrete yard ornament.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom