Black Sunday

[GMDino]

(11-27-2018, 05:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Where the hell did I say I didn't defend the use of tear gas? 

So you are defending the use of tear gas?  

[Millhouse]

Has anyone yet mentioned the number of times "CHEMICAL WEAPONS" aka tear gas was used during the Obama administration at the border? Just wondering is all, because apparently it was used quite a bit during his time.

edit..apparently it was already brought up, and of course it didnt matter lol

[GMDino]

(11-27-2018, 05:45 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Has anyone yet mentioned the number of times "CHEMICAL WEAPONS" aka tear gas was used during the Obama administration at the border? Just wondering is all, because apparently it was used quite a bit during his time.

edit..apparently it was already brought up, and of course it didnt matter lol

It did matter...even at the time.

But when it was brought up in this thread it was used as an attempt to say people didn't care then and this is all political/partisan.  When it was demonstrated that that premise was wrong the conversation moved away from it.

[*bfine32*]

(11-27-2018, 05:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Personally, I don't see what difference that makes in whether or not it is a chemical weapon. It is a chemical weapon whether or not it is used in riot control or offensively because it is a chemical that has been weaponized. Trying to split hairs based upon how it is used is nothing more than trying to justify actions that are less than appealing and questionable morally and/or legally.

So you're not going to provide a straight answer. Your the one that trotted out definition according to international agreements. I simply asked for clarification of the complete ter.

[*bfine32*]

(11-27-2018, 05:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: So you are defending the use of tear gas?  

I defend protecting our borders. Luckily we were able to do so with nonlethal force. So short answer yes.

Do you support defending our borders?

[GMDino]

(11-27-2018, 06:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I defend protecting our borders. Luckily we were able to do so with nonlethal force. So short answer yes.

Do you support defending our borders?

Indeed.  

I don't defend closing them and then using tear gas on people on the other side just because a few are throwing rocks because they can no longer seek legal asylum.

[*bfine32*]

(11-27-2018, 06:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: It did matter...even at the time.

But when it was brought up in this thread it was used as an attempt to say people didn't care then and this is all political/partisan.  When it was demonstrated that that premise was wrong the conversation moved away from it.

Was it a Chemical Attack when the Obama Admin did it?

[Dill]

(11-27-2018, 05:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Personally, I don't see what difference that makes in whether or not it is a chemical weapon. It is a chemical weapon whether or not it is used in riot control or offensively because it is a chemical that has been weaponized. Trying to split hairs based upon how it is used is nothing more than trying to justify actions that are less than appealing and questionable morally and/or legally.

LOL Wait. How are you defining "chemical" here?  Is it a substance or a compound?!  That mother with the gassed children thinks it makes all the difference.

[Dill]

(11-27-2018, 06:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: Indeed.  

I don't defend closing them and then using tear gas on people on the other side just because a few are throwing rocks because they can no longer seek legal asylum.

So are you are against gassing children or for defending borders.  Which is it?  Can't have both now. Those days are gone so you have to make a choice-side with the law or invader families storming the border.

[GMDino]

(11-27-2018, 07:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Was it a Chemical Attack when the Obama Admin did it?

I would say yes.  Same chemical.  did they gas children?  I didn't remember that from the article...but he they did it was just as bad.

Any other questions?  'Cause I'm pretty clear on this being a bad thing while you think it's a wonderful tactic.

[GMDino]

So Trump lied.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-tear-gas-kevin-mcaleenan-knocks-down_us_5bfcef69e4b0eb6d93133281

Quote:President Donald Trump claimed that federal agents had used “a very minor form” of tear gas on a group of migrants attempting to enter the U.S. on Sunday.


But Kevin McAleenan, whom Trump appointed as commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection in 2017, agreed with the assertion of CNN’s Chris Cuomo that there is only one kind of tear gas.


“It’s standard law enforcement issue,” he explained on Monday’s broadcast of “Cuomo Prime Time.”


So, there is no “very minor form.” It’s all the same.


Check out the clip below:

Or he doesn't know.

Or he was talking about his ass...same as his mouth.

Either way the "man" just can't take any kind of criticism so he tries to deflect it from himself.

And his supporters keeping eating it. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-27-2018, 08:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: I would say yes.  Same chemical.  did they gas children?  I didn't remember that from the article...but he they did it was just as bad.

Any other questions?  'Cause I'm pretty clear on this being a bad thing while you think it's a wonderful tactic.

I would consider neither a Chemical attack. To do so mitigates actual chemical attacks. To use these nonlethals is an effective tactic and I support with both did it. I'm pretty clear on protecting our borders is a good thing. Not sure if Obama used the "child proof" gas or not. 

[GMDino]

(11-27-2018, 08:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I would consider neither a Chemical attack. To do so mitigates actual chemical attacks. To use these nonlethals is an effective tactic and I support with both did it. I'm pretty clear on protecting our borders is a good thing. Not sure if Obama used the "child proof" gas or not. 

So it's not a chemical unless it's lethal?

Frankly that you claim to be a Christian and support such thing must take a LOT of spin in your own head.  But I'm sure you sleep well knowing your boy Trump did it.

Good for you!

[Belsnickel]

(11-27-2018, 06:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you're not going to provide a straight answer. Your the one that trotted out definition according to international agreements. I simply asked for clarification of the complete ter.

I rejected the premise of your question. My answer doesn't matter with your question because I disagree that the use, whether offensive or for riot control, changes the fact that tear gas is a chemical weapon. It is a weaponized chemical compound, the way it is used doesn't change that. What I gave was a straight answer. Not all questions can be answered within a falsely constructed dichotomy.

[*bfine32*]

(11-27-2018, 08:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: So it's not a chemical unless it's lethal?

Frankly that you claim to be a Christian and support such thing must take a LOT of spin in your own head.  But I'm sure you sleep well knowing your boy Trump did it.

Good fo you!

Nope, I never stated it is not a chemical unless it's lethal(I would say how you no longer need me to have the conversation as about the last 5 things you have attributed to me have been false). Lots of stuff is made up of chemicals. I'm simply asserting it is not a Chemical Attack.

Not sure what my Christianity has to do with the matter at hand. But the slur is noted

Thanks. 

[GMDino]

(11-27-2018, 08:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope, I never stated it is not a chemical unless it's lethal(I would say how you no longer need me to have the conversation as about the last 5 things you have attributed to me have been false). Lots of stuff is made up of chemicals. I'm simply asserting it is not a Chemical Attack.

Not sure what my Christianity has to do with the matter at hand. But the slur is noted

Thanks. 

For clarity a Christian would never defend a chemical being "used" to "defend" against children.

No slur.  Just statement of fact.

You're welcome.

[*bfine32*]

(11-27-2018, 08:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: For clarity a Christian would never defend a chemical being "used" to "defend" against children.

No slur.  Just statement of fact.

You're welcome.

A Christian might be sad that it came to this, while realizing we live in a secular world. He/she would further pray that those that place their children in harms way find a safer way to care for their children. Or a Christian might say I defend this evil in the name of the greater good.

A Christian may do any number of things. Unless we all vote that Dino is in charge of stating what a Christian will do, 

[GMDino]

(11-27-2018, 08:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: A Christian might be sad that it came to this, while realizing we live in a secular world. He/she would further pray that those that place their children in harms way find a safer way to care for their children. Or a Christian might say I defend this evil in the name of the greater good.

A Christian may do any number of things. Unless we all vote that Dino is in charge of stating what a Christian will do, 

Oh, no doubt many Christians will attempt to bend their faith to meet their political goals and "morals".

WTS, *I* didn't sate what Christians should do or how they should act.  Christ did.   I'm just trying to maintain that and remind "Christians" who want to try and justify their own actions.

[*bfine32*]

(11-27-2018, 08:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: Oh, no doubt many Christians will attempt to bend their faith to meet their political goals and "morals".

WTS, *I* didn't sate what Christians should do or how they should act.  Christ did.   I'm just trying to maintain that and remind "Christians" who want to try and justify their own actions.

Thanks, but how about we leave it between the Christian and Christ instead of the Christian and Dino? 

[Beaker]

(11-27-2018, 09:55 AM)GMDino Wrote: And what happened was that Trump stopped allowing them to even ask.

And then a few (some?) tried to get around the closed checkpoint.

He has also said he'd close the entire southern border.  I wonder what is different between THOSE immigrants seeking to enter legally and the rest? 

If theyre trying to get around a closed checkpoint then they arent seeking to enter legally.