Obama's Feckless Leadership

[BT]

Mine is simply hilighting for all to see. 

why would you do that? What is the end game of such actions?

[sirs]

....for all to see.        Again with the knee jerk need to assign some sinister intention on my part.  And you wonder why I think you single me out, when you do it over and over again

[BT]

For all to see what? That XO ignored your demand request for response?

After they see, then what?

Again with the knee jerk need to assign some sinister intention on my part.  And you wonder why I think you single me out, when you do it over and over again

As far as i know you are the only one who points out lack of response for all to see, so it would be hard not to single you out.

[sirs]

Contrary to your ongoing misconstrued conclusions of my supposed sinisterness....for all to see means....for all to see.  Nothing more, nothing less.  If its some specificity you're looking for, you could reference for all to see his inability to respond, for whatever reason he chose.  Which again isn't a demand, in any way, shape, or form.  But I thank you for the concession of your general singling me out.  At least that's progress

And why are we spending all this time on this completely irrelevant tangent??

[BT]

So the aim is to point out his choice not to respond. Not really sure what that accomplishes. And yes I know you characterize the lack of a response as an inability to do so, but i don't know if that is the case. I think choice is a more accurate description. The difference being the absence of a positive or negative value.

And i don't see where i conceded singling you out other than pointing out that to the best of my knowledge you are the only one that uses that tactic. So it would not make sense to include CU or Plane in this discussion. Perhaps focusing on the transgressor is the better descriptor.

[sirs]

So the aim is to point out his choice not to respond. Not really sure what that accomplishes.

Not sure it needed to accomplish anything, outside of....drum roll....hilighting for all to see.  And no one transgressed anything.  You merely tend to single me out, for whatever reason, despite my conscious effort to avoid initiating any personal insults, mud slinging, and other low class tactics used by others, but nary gets any "singling out" by yourself.       

[Plane]

Having the last word....

...not always satisfying.

[Xavier_Onassis]

EVERY discussion with sirs always ends the same way, with sirs asking some dumb question and then complaining that he does not like any response to said stupid question other than his and his alone.  Finally, everyone gives up.

sirs has yet to convince anyone of anything.

[sirs]

See what I mean....serious questions posed to facilitate debate, xo avoids like the flu.  Irrelevant personal pot shots, that get not a wink of protestation from the powers that be?, too many to keep track of

And what am I supposedly trying to convince anyone of?  Oh wait, that's an actual question again, that must be avoided in answering, at all costs, for fear of actual substantive dialog.  And we sure as hell can't be having that around here, in this, a debate forum     

[Xavier_Onassis]

 Irrelevant personal pot shots, that get not a wink of protestation from the powers that be?, too many to keep track of

======================================================
What powers that be should come to your defense, sirs?

Owning weapons is not a natural right according to any religion I have ever heard of.

When sirs claims that is is, he just looks silly.

[sirs]

Oh boy....what to make of this.  More personal pot shots with a tease of debate, only to pull it away and launch into another insult barrage perhaps?  Hmmmm.  Well, Bt, let's see what Xo has to offer, and then watch the results....for all to see

Irrelevant personal pot shots, that get not a wink of protestation from the powers that be?, too many to keep track of

======================================================
What powers that be should come to your defense, sirs?

That'd be Bt singling me out for criticism on tactics that he erroneously assigned to me, while your vast array of 3rd grade personal insults gets nary a whiff of bother.  Not that I'm looking for defense, because "life isn't fair", so sirs just deals with it, which Plane actually helped clarify that a tad more, which I was appreciative of

Owning weapons is not a natural right according to any religion I have ever heard of.

This, on the surface, appears to be a deflection effort, as now we've been added a qualifier of "natural right" & religion, when it was never really mentioned before.  What was mentioned before was the written right, layed clearly out in the Constitution, ...the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed. 

Do we want to take this discussion into the Founders' mindset as to the basis of the Constitution & the Bill of Rights?  Rights endowed by our Creator?  I mean we can, but there's no "right to a free press" or "free speech" or "illegal search & seizure" in any religion I've ever heard of either.  Which begs the follow-up question, why inject the qualifiers in the 1st place?

When sirs claims that is is, he just looks silly.

Naaaa, the silly part is when the Professor takes a sabbatical when students are asking him serious questions.  For instance, being unable to support how registering weapons prevents killers from obtaining firearms, how can we best identify the mentally damaged, pathologically inclined folks, as to deny them, and them alone, from accessing anything dangerous, be it firearms, axes, swords, hammers, power tools, cars, etc.?

[BT]

That'd be Bt singling me out for criticism on tactics that he erroneously assigned to me

How did i erroneously assign a tactic to you that you freely admit to using. We are simply trying to get to the real bottom of why you do it.

So in that quest we have pretty much determined that:
You are the only one who apparently uses it, thus focusing on you is not unfairly focusing on you.

You claim to do so so that all can see that XO has failed to respond or is has the inability to respond.

I am simply asking why. I really am not interested in your opinion concerning my motives, that is a deflection, why not explain your motivation so we can moveon once and for all.

[Xavier_Onassis]

So far as I know, we are not even TRYING to determine why men go berserk, grab several guns and go on a mass murdering spree. Clearly, they are insane. Of course, the legal system does not really recognize insanity as a motive, since the only people who get to use insanity as a defense are people who are both wealthy AND crazy.

That does not mean that it cannot be done.

A person should have to prove his sanity before allowed to own anything more deadly than a one shot musket. If he chooses to hunt, he could use a crossbow or longbow or his musket or flintlock if he cannot prove his sanity. The test could be funded by fees on those who apply to own these weapons.

So there you have is sirs, that is my answer.

Now show us what a dick you are by rejecting it.

[BT]

A person should have to prove his sanity before allowed to own anything more deadly than a one shot musket.

How does one do that?

[sirs]

That'd be Bt singling me out for criticism on tactics that he erroneously assigned to me

How did i erroneously assign a tactic to you that you freely admit to using. We are simply trying to get to the real bottom of why you do it.

The "why" is your error, as I had already answered your why, in which you've apparently concluded otherwise in your version of why.  That's all that's been pretty much determined, as there was no nefarious intent or stealth demand.  Now back to our regularly scheduled programming