• Asylum Seekers

    From aaron thomas@1:123/525 to All on Wednesday, September 11, 2019 22:04:33
    So now that SCOTUS has sided with the POTUS on asylum seekers, it's time to resume our argument over whether or not people are illegal.

    My argument is this: It's illegal to come to the USA from, for example, Honduras and request asylum; people from Honduras have other countries along the way where they can request asylum.

    What to do with all these criminals at our border??

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: Alcoholiday / Est. 1995 / alco.bbs.io (1:123/525)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to aaron thomas on Thursday, September 12, 2019 08:00:32
    What to do with all these criminals at our border??

    You need to differentiatem I think, between criminals on the one hand and on the other hand those individuals on the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

    \%/@rd

    --- D'Bridge 3.99
    * Origin: Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards (2:292/854)
  • From Sean Dennis@1:18/200 to Aaron Thomas on Thursday, September 12, 2019 02:59:30
    Hi Aaron,

    A very late night (or early morning) post before I head to bed. Working second
    shift has played havoc with my sleep schedule.

    What to do with all these criminals at our border??

    What we need to do is remove all the reasons to come to the US. No more free stuff; no more easy ways to get into the country. They're illegal aliens as "immigrant" by the definition of the word means that one comes to a country legally.

    You remove the impetus for coming to the US, you can stop a lot of the problems
    right from the get-go.

    However, when your government just prints money out of thin air without any real backing, free stuff can go a long, wrong way.

    I don't have a problem with a hand up. It's when it becomes a hand out (even to citizens) where things become problematic and when it's drawing people from all over the world that shouldn't be here, we need to look internally rather than externally and figure out what the heck we're doing.

    I hope that made sense. I realize I'm more tired than I thought. :D

    Later,
    Sean

    --- Maximus/2 3.01
    * Origin: Outpost BBS * bbs.outpostbbs.net:2304 (1:18/200)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to aaron thomas on Thursday, September 12, 2019 18:06:43
    Hello Aaron,

    So now that SCOTUS has sided with the POTUS on asylum seekers, it's time
    to
    resume our argument over whether or not people are illegal.

    People are legal regardless of who they are or where they are from.

    My argument is this: It's illegal to come to the USA from, for example, Honduras and request asylum; people from Honduras have other countries along the way where they can request asylum.

    People from any country can request asylum. The US cannot tell
    anybody where to go in order to do so.

    What to do with all these criminals at our border??

    What criminals?

    --Lee

    --
    Get Her Wet Here

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From aaron thomas@1:123/525 to Ward Dossche on Thursday, September 12, 2019 07:54:25
    What to do with all these criminals at our border??

    You need to differentiatem I think, between criminals on the one hand
    and on the other hand those individuals on the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

    What are we going to do with this mixed group of criminals and ambitious, polite, not racist, illegal immigrants?

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: Alcoholiday / Est. 1995 / alco.bbs.io (1:123/525)
  • From aaron thomas@1:123/525 to Sean Dennis on Thursday, September 12, 2019 08:10:31
    What we need to do is remove all the reasons to come to the US. No more free stuff; no more easy ways to get into the country. They're illegal

    Now that there's no more asylum requesting, democrats like Veronica Escobar
    no longer have a job to do. (Previously, their job was to travel to Mexico to coach migrants on how to exploit the old asylum law.) Now, they have to
    rethink their plan on how to turn the country blue.

    I don't have a problem with a hand up. It's when it becomes a hand out (even to citizens) where things become problematic and when it's drawing

    Living the poor American life, even in extreme poverty, is always going to be appealing to people coming from less developed countries. I want prosperity
    for them in their home countries, but at the same time, it's not my problem.

    We should ask Veronica Escobar what incentive people have, now, to enter the
    US illegally. I bet she knows! :)

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: Alcoholiday / Est. 1995 / alco.bbs.io (1:123/525)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to aaron thomas on Thursday, September 12, 2019 19:30:54
    You need to differentiatem I think, between criminals on the one hand at>WD> and on the other hand those individuals on the pursuit of life,
    liberty and happiness.

    What are we going to do with this mixed group of criminals and ambitious, polite, not racist, illegal immigrants?

    The same thing as "with justice and liberty for all" ... a phrase that you undoubtedly parroted an ungracious amount of time without devoting any attention to what you were actually saying.

    It doesn't say "with justice and liberty for 'some of us'".

    \%/@rd

    --- D'Bridge 3.99
    * Origin: Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards (2:292/854)
  • From Al Miller@1:261/1036 to Ward Dossche on Thursday, September 12, 2019 20:26:57
    You need to differentiatem I think, between criminals on the one hand at>WD> and on the other hand those individuals on the pursuit of life, at>WD> liberty and happiness.

    What are we going to do with this mixed group of criminals and ambitious, polite, not racist, illegal immigrants?

    The same thing as "with justice and liberty for all" ... a phrase that you undoubtedly parroted an ungracious amount of time without devoting any attention to what you were actually saying.

    It doesn't say "with justice and liberty for 'some of us'".

    If you are referring to the pledge at least quote it correctly. :)

    I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it
    stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: The Dragons Den - Forest Hill, Md (1:261/1036)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Al Miller on Friday, September 13, 2019 07:55:05
    I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to
    the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible,
    with liberty and justice for all.

    No, I don't.

    \%/@rd

    --- D'Bridge 3.99
    * Origin: Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards (2:292/854)
  • From Sean Dennis@1:18/200 to Lee Lofaso on Friday, September 13, 2019 12:00:59
    Hello Lee.

    12 Sep 19 18:06, you wrote to aaron thomas:

    People are legal regardless of who they are or where they are from.

    Not according to federal law.

    People from any country can request asylum. The US cannot tell
    anybody where to go in order to do so.

    You show me where that's codified. The US has the right to deny anyone entrance.

    What criminals?

    Quit insulting the rest of the echo's intelligence, Lee.

    Later,
    Sean

    --- GoldED/2 3.0.1
    * Origin: Outpost BBS * bbs.outpostbbs.net:2304 (1:18/200)
  • From Sean Dennis@1:18/200 to Ward Dossche on Friday, September 13, 2019 12:05:58
    Hello Ward.

    12 Sep 19 19:30, you wrote to aaron thomas:

    It doesn't say "with justice and liberty for 'some of us'".

    You're right. The SCOTUS just ruled that illegal aliens (let's use the right term) have no right to due process since they aren't citizens. So, inherently,
    you're quite right.

    "For all" needs to be amended to "for all citizens and legal immigrants". Not illegal aliens.

    Later,
    Sean

    --- GoldED/2 3.0.1
    * Origin: Outpost BBS * bbs.outpostbbs.net:2304 (1:18/200)
  • From Sean Dennis@1:18/200 to Ward Dossche on Friday, September 13, 2019 12:08:01
    Hello Ward.

    13 Sep 19 07:55, you wrote to Al Miller:

    No, I don't.

    1) You know damn well that's not what the orignal quote meant in context, Ward,
    so stop being obtuse.

    2) I'd hope not. You're not a US citizen.

    Later,
    Sean

    --- GoldED/2 3.0.1
    * Origin: Outpost BBS * bbs.outpostbbs.net:2304 (1:18/200)
  • From aaron thomas@1:123/525 to Lee Lofaso on Friday, September 13, 2019 18:54:16
    People from any country can request asylum. The US cannot tell
    anybody where to go in order to do so.

    They just did. Want to erase the US supreme court after you get done erasing the electoral college?

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: Alcoholiday / Est. 1995 / alco.bbs.io (1:123/525)
  • From aaron thomas@1:123/525 to Ward Dossche on Friday, September 13, 2019 18:56:32
    It doesn't say "with justice and liberty for 'some of us'".

    Illegal immigrants don't have time to read up on that, but legal immigrants have it memorized.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: Alcoholiday / Est. 1995 / alco.bbs.io (1:123/525)
  • From Al Miller@1:261/1036 to Ward Dossche on Saturday, September 14, 2019 07:44:53
    I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

    No, I don't.

    Obviously because you dont know it.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: The Dragons Den - Forest Hill, Md (1:261/1036)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Al Miller on Saturday, September 14, 2019 18:26:35
    No, I don't.

    Obviously because you dont know it.

    Not being a citizens of the USA I could be hanged for treason after having pledged allegiance to the flag of a country who has been continuous at war with
    someone or something for most of its 243 years of existance.

    \%/@rd

    --- D'Bridge 3.99
    * Origin: Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards (2:292/854)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Sean Dennis on Saturday, September 14, 2019 19:22:04
    Hello Sean,

    People are legal regardless of who they are or where they are from.

    Not according to federal law.

    Babies are criminals??? When is a person not legal? No government
    has a legitimate right to end people - especially on the false claim
    that people are not legal.

    People from any country can request asylum. The US cannot tell
    anybody where to go in order to do so.

    You show me where that's codified.

    There are several different types of asylum. One of those
    types is political asylum.

    The US has the right to deny anyone entrance.

    The law of the sea says you are full of beans. If a hurricane
    victim is found at sea, he/she must be rescued (if possible) and
    can be brought to shore. Thousands of people from the Bahamas
    come to mind ...

    What criminals?

    Quit insulting the rest of the echo's intelligence, Lee.

    Many nondocumented immigrants are children, even babies.
    None of them criminals at all.

    --Lee

    --
    Change Is Cumming

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Sean Dennis on Saturday, September 14, 2019 19:22:10
    Hello Sean,

    It doesn't say "with justice and liberty for 'some of us'".

    You're right. The SCOTUS just ruled that illegal aliens (let's use the right term) have no right to due process since they aren't citizens. So, inherently, you're quite right.

    "For all" needs to be amended to "for all citizens and legal immigrants". Not illegal aliens.

    IOW, non-citizens who are not legal immigrants can be shot on site.
    Without fear of being charged of murder.

    We can choot `em, we can rape `em, we can do whatever the heck
    we want to do with `em. And your dearly beloved president will
    thank us for it.

    What a sick society we live in.

    --Lee

    --
    Often Licked, Never Beaten

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Sean Dennis on Saturday, September 14, 2019 19:22:16
    Hello Sean,

    No, I don't.

    1) You know damn well that's not what the orignal quote meant in context, Ward, so stop being obtuse.

    The original pledge had no mention of God. And also included
    a fascist salute. As such, what did the original pledge mean?
    After all, it was written by a socialist ...

    2) I'd hope not. You're not a US citizen.

    He's the original Boy Scout, which no longer exist.
    Today there are only Scouts, now that girls can also play.

    --Lee

    --
    Big Or Small We Lay Them All

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to aaron thomas on Saturday, September 14, 2019 19:22:26
    Hello Aaron,

    People from any country can request asylum. The US cannot tell
    anybody where to go in order to do so.

    They just did. Want to erase the US supreme court after you get done
    erasing
    the electoral college?

    We can amend the Constitution to do that.
    But it would be far easier to simply elect a Democrat as president.

    --Lee

    --
    Big Or Small We Lay Them All

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Sean Dennis@1:18/200 to Ward Dossche on Saturday, September 14, 2019 13:58:38
    Not being a citizens of the USA I could be hanged for
    treason after having pledged allegiance to the flag of
    a country who has been continuous at war with someone
    or something for most of its 243 years of existance.

    Better to fight for one's survival than roll over and play dead which nearly all of Europe has done for its existance.

    Let's not forget Germany which started both World Wars only to get their asses handed to them both times.

    Later,
    Sean


    --- Maximus/2 3.01
    * Origin: Outpost BBS * bbs.outpostbbs.net:2304 (1:18/200)
  • From Sean Dennis@1:18/200 to Lee Lofaso on Saturday, September 14, 2019 14:01:34
    IOW, non-citizens who are not legal immigrants can be shot on site. Without fear of being charged of murder.

    Leave it to you to pull a strawman out when you don't have anything else to fall back on.

    BTW, it's "sight", not "site".

    Until you have actual facts to represent your opinions and not lame logical fallacies, I'm just not going to respond. Your drivel gets old after a while though admittedly you're easy to bait.

    Too bad you're not a real person. It'd be fun to meet you.

    Later,
    Sean


    --- Maximus/2 3.01
    * Origin: Outpost BBS * bbs.outpostbbs.net:2304 (1:18/200)
  • From Kurt Weiske@1:218/700 to Lee Lofaso on Saturday, September 14, 2019 10:27:00
    Lee Lofaso wrote to aaron thomas <=-

    People are legal regardless of who they are or where they are from.

    I tire of this counter argument. Ok, people are legal, but actions aren't.

    My argument is this: It's illegal to come to the USA from, for example, Honduras and request asylum; people from Honduras have other countries along the way where they can request asylum.

    People from any country can request asylum. The US cannot tell
    anybody where to go in order to do so.

    I think we just did - we just disqualified anyone traveling through a
    country that could have provided assylum from requesting assylum from the
    US.


    ... Just carry on
    --- MultiMail/XT v0.52
    * Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Sean Dennis on Saturday, September 14, 2019 23:59:23
    Let's not forget Germany which started both World Wars only to get their asses handed to them both times.

    World war 1 was started by Austria ...

    \%/@rd

    --- D'Bridge 3.99
    * Origin: Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards (2:292/854)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Sean Dennis on Sunday, September 15, 2019 00:29:37
    Hello Sean,

    IOW, non-citizens who are not legal immigrants can be shot on site.
    Without fear of being charged of murder.

    Leave it to you to pull a strawman out when you don't have anything else
    to
    fall back on.

    BTW, it's "sight", not "site".

    I was referring to "on site" as meaning on US soil.
    Sorry you found that confusing.

    Until you have actual facts to represent your opinions

    The words "sight" and "site" have two very different meanings.

    and not lame logical fallacies,

    What logical fallacies? Please cite them, if you can.
    I very clearly wrote "on site". If you did not understand
    the meaning of what I had written, you could have asked.
    But there was no logical fallacy in anything I wrote.

    I'm just not going to respond.

    Well, since you are out of arguments ...

    Your drivel gets old after a while though admittedly you're easy to bait.

    Most people are thoroughly dishonest.

    There are two, and only two, intellectually-honest debate tactics -

    1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent's *facts*.

    2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent's *logic*.

    The dishonest list is much longer.

    Too bad you're not a real person. It'd be fun to meet you.

    Almost all (90% to 95%) arguments and debates are one dishonest
    tactic after another.

    One dishonest tactic that is used quite frequently is name-calling.
    This is when an opponent who is losing (or has lost) a debate tries
    to diminish the argument of his/her opponent by calling that opponent
    a name that is subjective and unattractive.

    However, you forget, my fame precedes you -

    "Nothing is real." ~The Beatles

    Met them at City Park.
    Right by Audubon Zoo.
    In New Orleans.
    I was much younger then.

    Strawberry Fields, forever.

    --Lee

    --
    Big Or Small We Lay Them All

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Al Miller@1:261/1036 to Ward Dossche on Saturday, September 14, 2019 21:22:42
    No, I don't.

    Obviously because you dont know it.

    Not being a citizens of the USA I could be hanged for treason after having pledged allegiance to the flag of a country who has been continuous at war with
    someone or something for most of its 243 years of existance.

    You say that but how would you have felt if the US let Germany take Europe?
    Now I cant defend
    everything that the government does as some things make little sense to me but I like at least
    feeling like I am free and I feel that way because of what the good ole USA has done.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: The Dragons Den - Forest Hill, Md (1:261/1036)
  • From Al Miller@1:261/1036 to Sean Dennis on Saturday, September 14, 2019 21:29:19
    Not being a citizens of the USA I could be hanged for
    treason after having pledged allegiance to the flag of
    a country who has been continuous at war with someone
    or something for most of its 243 years of existance.

    Better to fight for one's survival than roll over and play dead which nearly all of Europe has done for its existance.

    Let's not forget Germany which started both World Wars only to get their asses handed to them both times.

    I will never understand how anyone let Hitler take power and once he was in power how they
    allowed him to do the awful things he did. Thats one reason why the 2nd amendment means
    something to me.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: The Dragons Den - Forest Hill, Md (1:261/1036)
  • From mark lewis@1:3634/12.73 to Al Miller on Sunday, September 15, 2019 11:20:42
    On 2019 Sep 14 21:29:18, you wrote to Sean Dennis:

    I will never understand how anyone let Hitler take power and once he
    was in power how they allowed him to do the awful things he did.

    look at what DT is doing and you will see exactly how it happened... i'm waiting for the declaration of martial law and then it'll be much too late to do anything...

    Thats one reason why the 2nd amendment means something to me.

    have you forgotten that germany confiscated folks' weapons after they were required to list them? once the list is created (and it is), they can easily come and get them and the 2nd goes out the door...

    should we point out that the 2nd amendment is specific to states' militias and not to individual ownership?? too many misread, misunderstand, misconstrue what
    the 2nd is about in the same what they get the 1st amendment wrong...

    )\/(ark

    Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set
    them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them. ... Never keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level.
    ---
    * Origin: (1:3634/12.73)
  • From Sean Dennis@1:18/200 to Ward Dossche on Saturday, September 14, 2019 23:30:00
    Ward Dossche wrote to Sean Dennis <=-

    Let's not forget Germany which started both World Wars only to get their asses handed to them both times.

    World war 1 was started by Austria ...

    Yes, you're right. I had my facts mixed up on WWI. I stand corrected.

    Later,
    Sean

    ___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

    --- Maximus/2 3.01
    * Origin: Outpost BBS * bbs.outpostbbs.net:2304 (1:18/200)
  • From Sean Dennis@1:18/200 to Al Miller on Sunday, September 15, 2019 11:42:12
    Al Miller wrote to Sean Dennis <=-

    I will never understand how anyone let Hitler take power and once he
    was in power how they
    allowed him to do the awful things he did. Thats one reason why the
    2nd amendment means
    something to me.

    I was wrong about WWI; I'd mixed up Austria with Germany.

    With Hitler, the German people were still smarting over WWI and were angry
    with the West. Hitler just knew what to say and do to win over the people's approval before it was too late.

    For me, it's our Constitution and Bill of Rights that all matter. We the people have given way too much power to our federal government and the
    federal government has forgotten that they exist to serve us and not the
    other way around like it is now.

    Later,
    Sean

    ___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

    --- Maximus/2 3.01
    * Origin: Outpost BBS * bbs.outpostbbs.net:2304 (1:18/200)
  • From Sean Dennis@1:18/200 to Mark Lewis on Sunday, September 15, 2019 12:26:32
    should we point out that the 2nd amendment is specific
    to states' militias and not to individual ownership??
    too many misread, misunderstand, misconstrue what the
    2nd is about in the same what they get the 1st amendment wrong...

    You don't know about McDonald v. Chicago?

    The Supreme Court has also addressed this issue in District of Columbia v. Heller but the McDonald v. Chicago cleared up some ambiguity left by the first case.

    From Wikipedia's article on McDonald v. Chicago: "The right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one's home is protected under the Second Amendment, and is incorporated against the states through either the Due Process Clause or
    Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded."

    No, the Second Amendment is not specific to "states' militias".

    Later,
    Sean

    --- Maximus/2 3.01
    * Origin: Outpost BBS * bbs.outpostbbs.net:2304 (1:18/200)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Al Miller on Sunday, September 15, 2019 20:14:30
    Hello Al,

    Let's not forget Germany which started both World Wars only to get their
    asses handed to them both times.

    I will never understand how anyone let Hitler take power and once he was
    in
    power how they allowed him to do the awful things he did.

    And to think he did it without FoxNews!

    Thats one reason why the 2nd amendment means something to me.

    It only means something to the NRA and gun manufacturers.

    --Lee

    --
    Get Her Wet Here

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Al Miller@1:261/1036 to mark lewis on Sunday, September 15, 2019 14:58:02
    On 2019 Sep 14 21:29:18, you wrote to Sean Dennis:

    I will never understand how anyone let Hitler take power and once he was in power how they allowed him to do the awful things he did.

    look at what DT is doing and you will see exactly how it happened... i'm waiting for the declaration of martial law and then it'll be much too late to do anything...

    Iím not sensing that at all I think you are being paranoid on that one.


    Thats one reason why the 2nd amendment means something to me.

    have you forgotten that germany confiscated folks' weapons after they were required to list them? once the list is created (and it is), they can easily come and get them and the 2nd goes out the door...

    Every one I own is registered already and that doesnít scare me at all. If they start mass
    confiscation I hopefully wont be the first door they knock on. Itís the democrats that worry me
    about gun confiscation some of them are saying they are going to do it as part of their sales pitch.
    Trump seems to be 2A friendly at this point.

    should we point out that the 2nd amendment is specific to states' militias and not to individual ownership?? too many misread, misunderstand, misconstrue what
    the 2nd is about in the same what they get the 1st amendment wrong...

    I understand the wording and the debate on this. This one will potentially be resolved in the
    SCOTUS one day.

    What makes things worse is that I live in Maryland where the only people that can carry firearms
    are the police(who are only minutes away when seconds matter) and the criminals. Fortunately, I
    dont feel the need or fear to walk around armed at least for the places I visit and in my home I am
    covered.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: The Dragons Den - Forest Hill, Md (1:261/1036)
  • From Al Miller@1:261/1036 to Lee Lofaso on Sunday, September 15, 2019 18:09:13
    > AM> I will never understand how anyone let Hitler take power and once he
    was
    in
    power how they allowed him to do the awful things he did.

    And to think he did it without FoxNews!

    I wont try and deflect this to the democrats and the false Russian narrative as tempted as I am. :)

    I dont think Fox News would support Trump or any POTUS staying in office when their term is up.
    You have 5 more years max just suck it up. ;)


    Thats one reason why the 2nd amendment means something to me.

    It only means something to the NRA and gun manufacturers.

    Iím sure it does to them.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: The Dragons Den - Forest Hill, Md (1:261/1036)
  • From mark lewis@1:3634/12.73 to Sean Dennis on Monday, September 16, 2019 08:44:30
    On 2019 Sep 15 12:26:32, you wrote to me:

    should we point out that the 2nd amendment is specific to states'
    militias and not to individual ownership?? too many misread,
    misunderstand, misconstrue what the 2nd is about in the same what
    they get the 1st amendment wrong...

    You don't know about McDonald v. Chicago?

    i am... did i play devil's advocate too well? ;)

    The Supreme Court has also addressed this issue in District of
    Columbia v. Heller but the McDonald v. Chicago cleared up some
    ambiguity left by the first case.

    yes, but there is still some ambiguity and thus still a lot of misunderstandings abound...

    From Wikipedia's article on McDonald v. Chicago: "The right to keep
    and bear arms for self defense in one's home is protected under the
    Second Amendment, and is incorporated against the states through
    either the Due Process Clause or Privileges or Immunities Clause of
    the Fourteenth Amendment. United States Court of Appeals for the
    Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded."

    true...

    one question is: does one have to be a member of a state's official militia or are they required to join said official militia if the need arises?

    other questions are:
    who can form a "state's militia"?
    can there be more than one "state's militia"?
    how does a militia become an/the official militia of the state?

    No, the Second Amendment is not specific to "states' militias".

    i think that's still being debated in numerous circles :)

    )\/(ark

    Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set
    them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them. ... Call it a hunch. - Quasimodo
    ---
    * Origin: (1:3634/12.73)
  • From mark lewis@1:3634/12.73 to Al Miller on Monday, September 16, 2019 08:55:50
    On 2019 Sep 15 14:58:02, you wrote to me:

    I will never understand how anyone let Hitler take power and once he
    was in power how they allowed him to do the awful things he did.

    look at what DT is doing and you will see exactly how it happened...
    i'm waiting for the declaration of martial law and then it'll be much
    too late to do anything...

    Iím not sensing that at all I think you are being paranoid on that one.

    no paranoia here...

    Thats one reason why the 2nd amendment means something to me.

    have you forgotten that germany confiscated folks' weapons after they
    were required to list them? once the list is created (and it is),
    they can easily come and get them and the 2nd goes out the door...

    Every one I own is registered already and that doesnít scare me at
    all. If they start mass confiscation I hopefully wont be the first
    door they knock on. Itís the democrats that worry me about gun confiscation some of them are saying they are going to do it as part
    of their sales pitch. Trump seems to be 2A friendly at this point.

    smoke, mirrors, and distractions, my friend... look at everything and don't get
    taken in by the stuff floating to the top and being shouted loudly about... look to all the other things that are being done quietly and behind the scenes...

    should we point out that the 2nd amendment is specific to states'
    militias and not to individual ownership?? too many misread,
    misunderstand, misconstrue what the 2nd is about in the same what
    they get the 1st amendment wrong...

    I understand the wording and the debate on this. This one will potentially be resolved in the SCOTUS one day.

    possibly... then the slant of the SCOTUS will also be highly scrutinized... SCOTUS is and has been being loaded like a deck of cards and both of the main parties are guilty in this respect...

    What makes things worse is that I live in Maryland where the only
    people that can carry firearms are the police(who are only minutes
    away when seconds matter) and the criminals. Fortunately, I dont feel
    the need or fear to walk around armed at least for the places I visit
    and in my home I am covered.

    you are lucky to live in an area where the police are that close and responsive... out here, it can take 30+ minutes for them to arrive and by that time, the action is all over... 10 minutes is common if you live in a town/city... possibly even a shorter time if you're in/near a known gang or drug area...

    personally speaking, i don't feel a need to walk around armed at this time... that may change in the future, though...

    )\/(ark

    Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set
    them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them. ... 78. Be patient with airport security. They are just doing their job.
    ---
    * Origin: (1:3634/12.73)
  • From Richard Falken@1:103/705 to Lee Lofaso on Monday, September 16, 2019 07:48:11
    Re: Asylum Seekers
    By: Lee Lofaso to Sean Dennis on Sun Sep 15 2019 12:29 am

    There are two, and only two, intellectually-honest debate tactics -

    1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent's *facts*.

    2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent's *logic*.

    I beg to differ.

    Some of us actually try to make our own points in a solid manner
    rather than to limit ourselves to get lost in the position of
    somebody else.

    I don't need to prove other people wrong if I can prove myself
    right.
    --- SBBSecho 3.09-Linux
    * Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Richard Falken on Tuesday, September 17, 2019 01:45:42
    Hello Richard,

    There are two, and only two, intellectually-honest debate tactics -

    1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent's *facts*.

    2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent's *logic*.

    I beg to differ.

    Some of us actually try to make our own points in a solid manner
    rather than to limit ourselves to get lost in the position of
    somebody else.

    I don't need to prove other people wrong if I can prove myself
    right.

    The individual making the original claim does not have to prove
    anything. After all, he/she is the one making the claim.
    Therefore, it is up to others to prove him/her wrong. If they
    can (without resorting to intellectually dishonest debate tactics,
    such as name calling, etc.).

    Man never set foot on the moon and returned safely back to earth.
    The funding Congress appropriated to NASA for that purpose was
    redirected for something else. Far cheaper to make a movie
    directed by Stanley Kubrick rather than do the real thing.

    The purpose of the moon shot was to show the Soviets the US
    had the capability of nuking a target on the moon with a missile
    launched from a quarter million miles away.

    Obviously, there was no need for men to be on board a missile
    loaded with a nuke.

    The "astronauts" spent almost all their free time playing slots
    and other games in Las Vegas. Along with other extra-curricular
    activities provided for them by casino staff.

    All this while the rest of America watched them walking on the
    surface of the moon (with one of them flying overhead).

    See how that works? It's all in the mind. It's all in the mind ...

    --Lee

    --
    Big Or Small We Lay Them All

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Dale Shipp@1:261/1466 to Lee Lofaso on Tuesday, September 17, 2019 01:55:00
    On 09-17-19 01:45, Lee Lofaso <=-
    spoke to Richard Falken about Asylum Seekers <=-

    There are two, and only two, intellectually-honest debate tactics -

    1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent's *facts*.

    2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent's *logic*.

    I beg to differ.

    Some of us actually try to make our own points in a solid manner
    rather than to limit ourselves to get lost in the position of
    somebody else.

    I don't need to prove other people wrong if I can prove myself
    right.

    The individual making the original claim does not have to prove
    anything. After all, he/she is the one making the claim.

    There are times when I agree with the point you are making (or trying to
    make in some obscure way). THIS is not one of them. If someone makes a
    claim, it is up to them to provide the credible evidence for that claim.
    It is not up to someone else to disprove the claim -- although sometimes
    that is all that can be done.

    Therefore, it is up to others to prove him/her wrong. If they
    can (without resorting to intellectually dishonest debate tactics,
    such as name calling, etc.).

    Nope.

    Man never set foot on the moon and returned safely back to earth.

    And then there are other times when you are on the lunatic fringe. That
    is one of them.

    Dale Shipp
    fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
    (1:261/1466)


    ... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 01:58:35, 17 Sep 2019
    ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

    --- Maximus/NT 3.01
    * Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)
  • From mark lewis@1:3634/12.73 to Lee Lofaso on Tuesday, September 17, 2019 09:02:02
    On 2019 Sep 17 01:45:42, you wrote to Richard Falken:

    I don't need to prove other people wrong if I can prove myself right.

    The individual making the original claim does not have to prove
    anything. After all, he/she is the one making the claim. Therefore,
    it is up to others to prove him/her wrong.

    very incorrect and you know it... you've even argued the opposite numerous times in the past...

    )\/(ark

    Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set
    them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them. ... Myths are public dreams. Dreams are private myths.
    ---
    * Origin: (1:3634/12.73)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Dale Shipp on Wednesday, September 18, 2019 19:03:31
    Hello Dale,

    There are two, and only two, intellectually-honest debate tactics -

    1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent's *facts*.

    2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent's *logic*.

    I beg to differ.

    Some of us actually try to make our own points in a solid manner
    rather than to limit ourselves to get lost in the position of
    somebody else.

    I don't need to prove other people wrong if I can prove myself
    right.

    The individual making the original claim does not have to prove
    anything. After all, he/she is the one making the claim.

    There are times when I agree with the point you are making (or trying to make in some obscure way). THIS is not one of them. If someone makes a claim, it is up to them to provide the credible evidence for that claim. It is not up to someone else to disprove the claim -- although sometimes that is all that can be done.

    In law, the burden of proof is usually on the person who brings
    a claim in dispute.

    Therefore, it is up to others to prove him/her wrong. If they
    can (without resorting to intellectually dishonest debate tactics,
    such as name calling, etc.).

    Nope.

    The burden of proof differs depending on field.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)


    Man never set foot on the moon and returned safely back to earth.

    And then there are other times when you are on the lunatic fringe. That
    is
    one of them.

    Some years ago FoxNews presented a special on this topic (the
    show claimed the lunar landings were all faked). Are you saying,
    or suggesting, that FoxNews is FakeNews?

    --Lee

    --
    Your Hole Is Our Goal

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to mark lewis on Wednesday, September 18, 2019 19:03:44
    Hello mark,

    I don't need to prove other people wrong if I can prove myself right.

    The individual making the original claim does not have to prove
    anything. After all, he/she is the one making the claim. Therefore,
    it is up to others to prove him/her wrong.

    very incorrect and you know it... you've even argued the opposite numerous times in the past...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)


    Burden of proof (onus probandi) - the obligation on a party in
    a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

    The burden of proof differs depending on field, as explained
    in the article.

    For example, in law, the burden of proof is on the person who
    brings a claim in dispute. As Richard noted, as well as I.

    --Lee

    --
    It Ain't Payday If It Ain't Nuts In Your Mouth

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Al Miller on Wednesday, September 18, 2019 19:03:56
    Hello Al,

    I will never understand how anyone let Hitler take power and once
    he
    was
    in
    power how they allowed him to do the awful things he did.

    And to think he did it without FoxNews!

    I wont try and deflect this to the democrats and the false Russian
    narrative
    as tempted as I am. :)

    Since it worked last time, why not do it again? Especially with
    a job approval rating of 38% or less, that would seem like a winning
    ticket for the orange one.

    I dont think Fox News would support Trump or any POTUS staying in office when their term is up.
    You have 5 more years max just suck it up. ;)

    Fake another 9-11 type event and declare martial law. No more
    elections to worry about. America will have its own dictator for
    life.

    Or just rig the election. With or without Russian help.

    Thats one reason why the 2nd amendment means something to me.

    It only means something to the NRA and gun manufacturers.

    Iím sure it does to them.

    All they care about is the profits they make. Not the people
    killed/murdered by those weapons of war.

    --Lee

    --
    Stop Workin', Start Jerkin'

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Al Miller@1:261/1036 to Lee Lofaso on Wednesday, September 18, 2019 17:25:31
    > AM> I wont try and deflect this to the democrats and the false Russian
    narrative
    as tempted as I am. :)

    Since it worked last time, why not do it again? Especially with
    a job approval rating of 38% or less, that would seem like a winning
    ticket for the orange one.

    Yeah if he could keep his mouth shut and not Tweet he may do better there. :)


    I dont think Fox News would support Trump or any POTUS staying in office when their term is up.
    You have 5 more years max just suck it up. ;)

    Fake another 9-11 type event and declare martial law. No more
    elections to worry about. America will have its own dictator for
    life.

    Your level of paranoia concerns me. Lets just wait and soon I will say I told you so,


    Or just rig the election. With or without Russian help.


    Letís wait again... Iím guessing Trump wont win but Iím sure someone will still declare he cheated.


    Thats one reason why the 2nd amendment means something to me.

    It only means something to the NRA and gun manufacturers.

    Iím sure it does to them.

    All they care about is the profits they make. Not the people killed/murdered by those weapons of war.


    No more than a company like John Deere or Ford care about people that were killed or injured by
    their vehicles.

    So you know I am not gun crazy but I would not like folks to come for my handguns or my rifle. My
    guns are for target practice only and to be honest I would be perfectly happy locking them at the
    range. In other words, I do not live in fear in my home that I need a gun if I did I would move. I
    dont live in fear where I go so I dont need to care a gun on me either.

    Again lets wait and watch that Trump will NOT do the paranoid things that some folks are saying.
    This sounds like a plot created to stir up fear and not something anyone actually believes.

    Al
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: The Dragons Den - Forest Hill, Md (1:261/1036)
  • From Dale Shipp@1:261/1466 to Lee Lofaso on Thursday, September 19, 2019 00:59:00
    On 09-18-19 19:03, Lee Lofaso <=-
    spoke to Dale Shipp about Asylum Seekers <=-

    The individual making the original claim does not have to prove
    anything. After all, he/she is the one making the claim.

    There are times when I agree with the point you are making (or trying to make in some obscure way). THIS is not one of them. If someone makes a claim, it is up to them to provide the credible evidence for that claim. It is not up to someone else to disprove the claim -- although sometimes that is all that can be done.

    In law, the burden of proof is usually on the person who brings
    a claim in dispute.

    That is what I said. Thanks for confirming it.

    Nope.

    The burden of proof differs depending on field.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

    That article also confirms what I said.

    Man never set foot on the moon and returned safely back to earth.

    And then there are other times when you are on the
    lunatic fringe. That is
    one of them.

    Some years ago FoxNews presented a special on this topic (the
    show claimed the lunar landings were all faked). Are you saying,
    or suggesting, that FoxNews is FakeNews?

    They usually are. FoxNews has been classified as an entertainment
    channel, not a news channel.

    Dale Shipp
    fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
    (1:261/1466)



    ... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 01:02:44, 19 Sep 2019
    ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

    --- Maximus/NT 3.01
    * Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)
  • From mark lewis@1:3634/12.73 to Lee Lofaso on Thursday, September 19, 2019 12:28:54
    On 2019 Sep 18 19:03:44, you wrote to me:

    I don't need to prove other people wrong if I can prove myself
    right.

    The individual making the original claim does not have to prove
    anything. After all, he/she is the one making the claim. Therefore,
    it is up to others to prove him/her wrong.

    very incorrect and you know it... you've even argued the opposite
    numerous times in the past...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

    Burden of proof (onus probandi) - the obligation on a party in
    a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

    that says the exact opposite of what you said above... the claimant has to provide the proof...

    The burden of proof differs depending on field, as explained
    in the article.

    who enforces this?

    For example, in law, the burden of proof is on the person who
    brings a claim in dispute. As Richard noted, as well as I.

    judges enforce this in law...

    )\/(ark

    Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set
    them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them. ... Happy Holidays and a Wonderful 2001 to you and yours!
    ---
    * Origin: (1:3634/12.73)
  • From Sean Dennis@1:18/200 to mark lewis on Thursday, September 19, 2019 11:24:10
    mark lewis wrote to Sean Dennis <=-

    one question is: does one have to be a member of a state's
    official militia or are they required to join said official
    militia if the need arises?

    I don't know anything about militias so I will pass on this one.


    No, the Second Amendment is not specific to "states' militias".
    i think that's still being debated in numerous circles :)

    It may be debated but the Supreme Court ruled on it so for me, it's settled, but then again, whilst being a gun owner and a permitted carrier (in TN, you need a permit for both open and concealed carry and I now carry the
    "extended" CCWP that allows for open carry), I don't get -too- deep into the political area with guns. It's why I created GUNS-N-SUCH as an area for
    those of us who enjoy guns; the political side is more appropriate for here.

    Later,
    Sean

    ___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

    --- Maximus/2 3.01
    * Origin: Outpost BBS * bbs.outpostbbs.net:2304 (1:18/200)
  • From Sean Dennis@1:18/200 to Dale Shipp on Thursday, September 19, 2019 13:09:16
    Dale Shipp wrote to Lee Lofaso <=-

    There are times when I agree with the point you are making (or trying
    to make in some obscure way). THIS is not one of them. If someone
    makes a claim, it is up to them to provide the credible evidence for
    that claim. It is not up to someone else to disprove the claim --
    although sometimes that is all that can be done.

    PUSU is in effect in this echo as stated in the echo rules.

    So, yes, "Lee" is wrong in this case.

    If it gets too bad in here, I'll put on my moderator hat but I really prefer not to.

    Later,
    Sean

    ___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

    --- Maximus/2 3.01
    * Origin: Outpost BBS * bbs.outpostbbs.net:2304 (1:18/200)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Dale Shipp on Friday, September 20, 2019 06:05:48
    Hello Dale,

    The individual making the original claim does not have to prove
    anything. After all, he/she is the one making the claim.

    There are times when I agree with the point you are making (or trying to
    make in some obscure way). THIS is not one of them. If someone makes a
    claim, it is up to them to provide the credible evidence for that claim.
    It is not up to someone else to disprove the claim -- although sometimes
    that is all that can be done.

    In law, the burden of proof is usually on the person who brings
    a claim in dispute.

    That is what I said. Thanks for confirming it.

    An individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
    The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case.

    If the individual has been found guilty, he/she can appeal.
    In which case the burden of proof shifts to the individual.

    Nope.

    The burden of proof differs depending on field.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

    That article also confirms what I said.

    The article explains how the burden of proof differs from field
    to field. Which is totally different from your claim being that
    the burden of proof is always the same, regardless of field.

    Man never set foot on the moon and returned safely back to earth.

    And then there are other times when you are on the
    lunatic fringe. That is
    one of them.

    Some years ago FoxNews presented a special on this topic (the
    show claimed the lunar landings were all faked). Are you saying,
    or suggesting, that FoxNews is FakeNews?

    They usually are. FoxNews has been classified as an entertainment channel, not a news channel.

    FoxNews has to play to its audience, else it would have no audience.

    --Lee

    --
    It Ain't Payday If It Ain't Nuts In Your Mouth

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Dale Shipp@1:261/1466 to Lee Lofaso on Saturday, September 21, 2019 01:30:00
    On 09-20-19 06:05, Lee Lofaso <=-
    spoke to Dale Shipp about Asylum Seekers <=-

    An individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
    The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case.

    Again -- you are making a statement to confirm what I said. Prosecution
    is making a claim, it is up to them to prove it. It is not up to the
    defendant to disprove it.

    Dale Shipp
    fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
    (1:261/1466)


    ... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 01:47:28, 21 Sep 2019
    ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

    --- Maximus/NT 3.01
    * Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Dale Shipp on Sunday, September 22, 2019 00:48:35
    Hello Dale,

    An individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
    The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case.

    Again -- you are making a statement to confirm what I said. Prosecution is making a claim, it is up to them to prove it. It is not up to the defendant to disprove it.

    In law (criminal cases), there is presumption and there is burden
    of proof.

    When brought to trial, the individual is presumed innocent until
    proven guilty, not the other way around.

    How do you plead? Innocent, or guilty? If guilty, there is
    nothing for the prosecution to question. The one who was charged
    admits to having committed the crime.

    What you are claiming is that the accused is presumed guilty
    and must prove his/her own innocence. That is not the case in
    our system of justice. In civil cases, your view prevails.

    --Lee

    --
    Sleep With Someone New

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Dale Shipp@1:261/1466 to Lee Lofaso on Sunday, September 22, 2019 00:45:00
    On 09-22-19 00:48, Lee Lofaso <=-
    spoke to Dale Shipp about Asylum Seekers <=-


    Hello Dale,

    An individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
    The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case.

    Again -- you are making a statement to confirm what I said. Prosecution is making a claim, it is up to them to prove it. It is not up to the defendant to disprove it.

    In law (criminal cases), there is presumption and there is burden
    of proof.

    When brought to trial, the individual is presumed innocent until
    proven guilty, not the other way around.

    How do you plead? Innocent, or guilty? If guilty, there is
    nothing for the prosecution to question. The one who was charged
    admits to having committed the crime.

    What you are claiming is that the accused is presumed guilty
    and must prove his/her own innocence. That is not the case in
    our system of justice. In civil cases, your view prevails.

    You seem to have lost your ability to understand simple English. I have
    never made such a claim as you state in your last paragraph. You have
    got it totally backwards. The person making the claim has the burden of
    proof. I never said anything else, despite what you claim.

    Dale Shipp
    fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
    (1:261/1466)


    ... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 00:48:10, 22 Sep 2019
    ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

    --- Maximus/NT 3.01
    * Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Dale Shipp on Monday, September 23, 2019 01:28:21
    Hello Dale,

    An individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
    The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case.

    Again -- you are making a statement to confirm what I said.
    Prosecution
    is making a claim, it is up to them to prove it. It is not up to the
    defendant to disprove it.

    In law (criminal cases), there is presumption and there is burden
    of proof.

    When brought to trial, the individual is presumed innocent until
    proven guilty, not the other way around.

    How do you plead? Innocent, or guilty? If guilty, there is
    nothing for the prosecution to question. The one who was charged
    admits to having committed the crime.

    What you are claiming is that the accused is presumed guilty
    and must prove his/her own innocence. That is not the case in
    our system of justice. In civil cases, your view prevails.

    You seem to have lost your ability to understand simple English. I have never made such a claim as you state in your last paragraph.

    The answer to the question is not the same in all cases.

    You have got it totally backwards.

    How so?

    The person making the claim has the burden of proof.

    No thief is going to turn himself/herself in after he/she has
    stolen a car. Even if he/she is still driving or riding in it.

    If he/she is accused of having stolen a car, that still does
    not mean he/she has to admit to having done so.

    An individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
    That is the way it works in this country. Or supposed to.

    I never said anything else, despite what you claim.

    The article cited could have been written better. But its meaning
    was easy for most to understand.

    In law (criminal cases), the accused makes no claim as he/she
    is presumed innocent under our system of justice. In North Korea,
    and other antidemocratic countries, that may not be true. But
    we are talking about in the USA (and most other countries).

    In a more general sense -

    Presumption and burden of proof are two entirely different things.

    Many people presume that NASA landed a man on the moon and safely
    returned him back to earth. NASA made the claim, even if it never
    did what others believe.

    Does NASA have to prove its own claim? Or is it upon others to
    disprove, or at least discredit, NASA's claim to fame?

    A poll was taken some years ago showing the majority of people
    in the UK do not believe man ever set foot on the moon. If such
    a poll was to be conducted today in the USA, my guess would be
    that most Americans would have their own doubts it ever happened.

    In philosophy, the burden of proof shifts between those who are
    debating an issue.

    The answer to the question is not the same in all cases. That is
    what the article cited explains.

    --Lee

    --
    Erections, That's Our Game

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)