Motown Bombers Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 1 minute ago, pfife said: Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. She said national land and I posted the quote. That was a distinction you posted that was in fact wrong. There are numerous sources that quote her as saying national parks. I also never said she didn't say national land. Elizabeth Warren suggests Planned Parenthood set up 'outposts' in national parks | WUTV (wutv29.com) Elizabeth Warren suggests Planned Parenthood set up 'outposts' in national parks | KPIC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 Pfife wins. You won another e-argument. Congratulations. I concede. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 2 hours ago, oblong said: That's a problem that will never ever be fixed despite who much we hate it. So you have to play the game as it's laid out, not how you wish it were. I still don’t see the value in blaming the voters of a single city for the loss of a candidate running for the American Presidency. If poor blacks don’t vote, thus preventing us well-heeled liberals from getting the winner we want, I think it has to do with their historical feeling that they no stake in America, more than anything else. That feeling goes back generations, has been hardened through their unique experience, and which continues to this day. It has hardly ever mattered to them who’s been president—Democrat or Republican, they have still experienced the same institutional and even legal barriers we white people have the luxury to never even have to think about. Most of them feel that, regardless of who the leader is, they will still have to cobble together a life for themselves under oppressive circumstances anyway, so it really makes no difference. If abortion becomes outlawed, it won’t matter to them that a Republican did it. They’ll just do what they always have: find a way to work around it. Unlike white people, black people don’t have a sense of entitlement when it comes to legal protections. They just make do. So if white people want black people get “get up off their asses”, or however one might put it, and vote so that our candidate can win, they need to feel they have something at stake in the outcome. How can that be arranged? And arguing that they have just as much stake and that they’ll benefit as much as everyone else ain’t gonna work, because they know it ain’t true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 2 hours ago, Tiger337 said: You know you're getting old when you start talking about how weak the next generation is! Tell me I’m wrong about it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) you guys lost me on the Warren argument. To say "Federal Lands" is not actually a legal designation - there are various kinds of 'Federal Lands' with varying types of legal jurisdiction. It's seem unproductive to have an argument over some incompletely specified statement by a pol (a pol speaking loosely!? the Horror!), but that's just me.... Edited June 30, 2022 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted June 30, 2022 Author Share Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: There are numerous sources that quote her as saying national parks. I also never said she didn't say national land. Elizabeth Warren suggests Planned Parenthood set up 'outposts' in national parks | WUTV (wutv29.com) Elizabeth Warren suggests Planned Parenthood set up 'outposts' in national parks | KPIC 1) the tweet you posted clearly doesn't quote Warren on "parks" vs "land". I posted Warren's quote. 2) The WUTV article you posted also doesn't quote Warren on "parks" vs. "land". It quotes Caroline Kitchener about national parks, not Elizabeth Warren. I posted Warren's quote. You did not. 3) The KPIC article you posted appears to be a syndicated article that's almost the same as the WUTV article you posted which didn't quote Warren on parks vs. land, both of which are quoting the same person who composed the tweet you posted (and was quoted). I posted Warren's quote. You did not. The word "park" appears in the article 3 times. Once in the title (not a quote) another in a quote from Caroline Kitchener (not Liz Warren), and another time in the narrative of the article which is also not a quote from Warren. Essentially you posted 3 quotes all by the same person that aren't quotes from Warren re: Parks vs. Land - they're quotes from Caroline Kitchener about what she says Warren said. On the other hand, I posted a direct quote from Warren herself appearing on a national TV show. 4) You made a distinction between federal lands and federal parks and said she said one and not the other: Edited June 30, 2022 by pfife Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: you guys lost me on the Warren argument. To say "Federal Lands" is not actually a legal designation - there are various kinds of 'Federal Lands' with varying types of legal jurisdiction. It's seem unproductive to have an argument over some incompletely specified statement by a pol (a pol speaking loosely!? the Horror!), but that's just me.... The argument is that I'm a liar because I said Elizabeth Warren said national park when I was going by multiple sources that quoted her as saying national park. Pfife has to win e-arguments so just let him have this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 1 minute ago, pfife said: 1) the tweet you posted clearly doesn't quote Warren on "parks" vs "land". I posted her quote. 2) The WUTV article you posted also doesn't quote Warren on "parks" vs. "land". It quotes Caroline Kitchener about national parks, not Elizabeth Warren. I posted her quote. 3) The KPIC article you posted appears to be a syndicated article that's almost the same as the WUTV article you posted which didn't quote Warren on parks vs. land, both of which are quoting the same person who composed the tweet you posted (and was quoted). I posted Warren's quote. The word "park" appears in the article 3 times. Once in the title (not a quote) another in a quote from Caroline Kitchener (not Liz Warren), and another time in the narrative of the article which is also not a quote from Warren. Essentially you posted 3 quotes all by the same person that aren't quotes from Warren re: Parks vs. Land - they're quotes from Caroline Kitchener about what she says Warren said. On the other hand, I posted a direct quote from Warren herself appearing on a national TV show. 4) You made a distinction between federal lands and federal parks and said she said one and not the other: I already said you won this e-argument. You're right. You're always right. What else do you want from me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted June 30, 2022 Author Share Posted June 30, 2022 2 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: The argument is that I'm a liar because I said Elizabeth Warren said national park when I was going by multiple sources that quoted her as saying national park. Pfife has to win e-arguments so just let him have this one. You posted 0 sources quoting her as saying national park. Did you read what you posted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted June 30, 2022 Author Share Posted June 30, 2022 2 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: I already said you won this e-argument. You're right. You're always right. What else do you want from me? Yeah I know I won it. I don't need you to tell me that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 3 minutes ago, pfife said: You posted 0 sources quoting her as saying national park. Did you read what you posted? It said that it was suggested in conversation with Warren that national park was suggested. It could be reasonably assumed she actually said national park in that conversation. If she didn't, the lie is with the person who put out the tweet. Of course you always need a technicality so you can win an argument. You've won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted June 30, 2022 Author Share Posted June 30, 2022 8 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: you guys lost me on the Warren argument. To say "Federal Lands" is not actually a legal designation - there are various kinds of 'Federal Lands' with varying types of legal jurisdiction. It's seem unproductive to have an argument over some incompletely specified statement by a pol (a pol speaking loosely!? the Horror!), but that's just me.... She didn't speak with incomplete specificity. The only quote we have of her actually talking was from ABC's This Week (which I posted) - She said land, not parks. As for the point of the distinction - I didn't make a bunch of jokes about the policy being only applicable to Isle Royal so I'll defer to the likes of you and MB for why you made jokes about having to go to Isle Royal for an abortion if you could hypothetically go closer b/c there's no legal distinction between federal lands and federal parks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted June 30, 2022 Author Share Posted June 30, 2022 1 minute ago, Motown Bombers said: It said that it was suggested in conversation with Warren that national park was suggested. It could be reasonably assumed she actually said national park in that conversation. If she didn't, the lie is with the person who put out the tweet. Of course you always need a technicality so you can win an argument. You've won. Accurately depicting what a person said isn't a technicality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 Pfife is really going to whack this dead horse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 5 minutes ago, pfife said: She didn't speak with incomplete specificity. The only quote we have of her actually talking was from ABC's This Week (which I posted) - She said land, not parks. As for the point of the distinction - I didn't make a bunch of jokes about the policy being only applicable to Isle Royal so I'll defer to the likes of you and MB for why you made jokes about having to go to Isle Royal for an abortion if you could hypothetically go closer b/c there's no legal distinction between federal lands and federal parks. I never made a joke about it. I was pointing out how ridiculous it was. I also never said Isle Royal. You're lying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 2 hours ago, pfife said: ... I guess it's easier for you to relate to republican voters given your admitted history of voting Republican.... speaking of who's to blame. Just for clarification... I've voted 95% Democrat in my lifetime. Maybe 98%? I have never voted 3rd party. I have never stayed home and NOT voted. My votes for Pubs have been extremely limited, and almost all local. So that's just where I'm coming from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) 35 minutes ago, pfife said: She didn't speak with incomplete specificity. The only quote we have of her actually talking was from ABC's This Week (which I posted) - She said land, not parks. As for the point of the distinction - I didn't make a bunch of jokes about the policy being only applicable to Isle Royal so I'll defer to the likes of you and MB for why you made jokes about having to go to Isle Royal for an abortion if you could hypothetically go closer b/c there's no legal distinction between federal lands and federal parks. the fact the Warren didn't make the distinction does not mean it is not a real one. To the degree she didn't make the distinction she was simply incorrect. See the link below for a primer. National forests are 'propreitary' jurisdictions. The fed only enforces federal statutes there that pertain directly to the forest service mission - like resource use, park rules etc. All state criminal laws are in full force in 'proprietary' jurisdictions. Quote When the ownership of a piece of land, government land, is considered proprietary, the government is said to have taken over none of the state's obligations for law enforcement. In other words, state and local law enforcement officers still handle calls for service as if the land were privately owned. The sheriff or city police will respond and they'll handle calls without regard to the property's ownership. Solari: But realistically, the U.S. government's not really like a private landowner. I mean private landowners don't have their own legislative branch to make laws and regulations, for example. They don't have their own court systems. Perry: Absolutely right. The Property Clause of the United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to make and enforce all necessary rules and regulations to protect federal property, including property that is held in proprietary jurisdiction status. Solari: Well can you give us an example? Perry: Millions of acres of national forest lands are considered to be proprietary jurisdiction. To help protect the valuable national resources found within, Congress has given the Department of Agriculture, through the U.S. Forest Service, power to enact regulations to control use and protect those national forest lands. There are laws found in the Code of Federal Regulations that require visitors to national forests to obey standard rules of behavior, for example to avoid damaging public property, and to get permits before taking or altering any natural features found in the forest. https://www.fletc.gov/territorial-jurisdiction-federal-property-mp3 Edited June 30, 2022 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 1 hour ago, pfife said: I wish the dems focused on how bad the other party is instead of how bad their own party is. On the flipside... I don't bash the Dems for anything. Not for being progressive. Not for being diverse. Not for putting out bad messages. Not for failing to get as much policy passed as they SHOULD. Not for being Centrist Obstructionists (lookin' at YOU Manchin & Sinema...). Not for being a Centrist (I'm looking at YOU '84...). I don't think I've ever bashed them, even though, admittedly, they definitely screw some things up (messaging, in-fighting, etc...). The ONLY thing I bash them on is NOT VOTING. Dems actually HAVE the numbers, which frustrates me to no freaking end.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted June 30, 2022 Author Share Posted June 30, 2022 47 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: I never made a joke about it. I was pointing out how ridiculous it was. I also never said Isle Royal. You're lying. So you werent talking about the only national park in Michigan when you were talking about the only national park in Michigan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted June 30, 2022 Author Share Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) 34 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: the fact the Warren didn't make the distinction does not mean it is not a real one. To the degree she didn't make the distinction she was simply incorrect. See the link below for a primer. National forests are 'propreitary' jurisdictions. The fed only enforces federal statutes there that pertain directly to the forest service mission - like resource use, park rules etc. All state criminal laws are in full force in 'proprietary' jurisdictions. https://www.fletc.gov/territorial-jurisdiction-federal-property-mp3 Again, she didn't speak with insufficient specificity. In the only actually quote found or posted of what she actually said, she said federal lands. A poster here made references to 1 National Park in Michigan, which is not synonymous with federal lands. The poster also directly stated that she said "parks" when she did not. ETA: Furthermore, even though it's a technicality to look at what someone actually said when discussing what was actually said...... she said this in the context of declaring a medical emergency. What is the impact of declaring the emergency on the legal aspects you posted? Since it's already been established that declaring emergency unshackles a president from Congress, as proven by Trump, why would the legal argument you're making persist? Edited June 30, 2022 by pfife Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted June 30, 2022 Author Share Posted June 30, 2022 1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said: It said that it was suggested in conversation with Warren that national park was suggested. It could be reasonably assumed she actually said national park in that conversation. If she didn't, the lie is with the person who put out the tweet. Of course you always need a technicality so you can win an argument. You've won. Was it a technicality when you used it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted June 30, 2022 Author Share Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said: I also never said Isle Royal. You're lying. 1) I said the likes of you. 2) I was posting in response to G2, as shown by the quote, who did say Isle Royal. Thus, not lying. Clearly. You should read what you're responding to (which you admit you don't) before responding. Edited June 30, 2022 by pfife Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted June 30, 2022 Author Share Posted June 30, 2022 1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said: Pfife is really going to whack this dead horse. I'll do whatever I want until the mods tell me not to then I still might Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 1 hour ago, chasfh said: Tell me I’m wrong about it! I think helicopter parents are better than the opposite extreme. I think a good balance of support and freedom is the best. Come to think of it, that is how I feel about liberals and conservatives as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted June 30, 2022 Author Share Posted June 30, 2022 55 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: the fact the Warren didn't make the distinction does not mean it is not a real one. To the degree she didn't make the distinction she was simply incorrect. See the link below for a primer. National forests are 'propreitary' jurisdictions. The fed only enforces federal statutes there that pertain directly to the forest service mission - like resource use, park rules etc. All state criminal laws are in full force in 'proprietary' jurisdictions. https://www.fletc.gov/territorial-jurisdiction-federal-property-mp3 Earlier you said national forests are under the full authority of the states, now you're saying the fed enforces federal statues there which would be different than states having full authority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.