Dear Alfonso Calderon,
On Nov. 8, 2016, the world as I knew it was turned upside down. Everything I was taught about American politics was proved wrong. Everything I thought I knew, hoped was true, about the American people turned out to be a lie.
The election of President Trump meant all those those high-minded lectures on morality turned out to be a generations-long exercise in hypocrisy. All that concern that the president uphold the honor and dignity of the Oval Office was bunk. All that reverence for the presidency and its customs and traditions was fake. All those decades as “leader of the free world,” as a bulwark against tyranny in general and Russia in particular, were abandoned.
The country that swelled me with pride by twice electing Barack Obama its 44th president, the first African American entrusted with the White House, broke my heart by handing over the keys to a thin-skinned, thrice-married adulterer unfit for the office he holds and incapable of discharging the awesome duties that go with it. Every day since Jan. 20, 2017, we have endured a demoralizing deluge of drama and dysfunction from an incompetent president who is an affront to our nation’s history and the 44 men who preceded him.
To make matters worse, he one-upped the cynical tradition of presidents picking at the edges of our unhealed racial wounds by becoming a white supremacist bullhorn barking nonsense about “both sides” and insults about “shithole countries.” That members of his presidential campaign are under criminal investigation is the cherry on top of the Minny’s chocolate pie that is the Trump administration.
The horror you and your classmates experienced on Valentine’s Day only added to my dark mood. Here we go again, I thought. The airwaves will be flooded with images of another devastated community, followed by anguished calls of “do something” that then segue to inaction and silence. After all, if not even the slaughter of grade-school innocents at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., could move this nation to act, nothing can or will.
But then you spoke. Within hours of the shooting, you and your fellow Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students were roaring with indignation. Within days, you descended upon Florida’s capital bearing thunder. And it was there that you, Alfonso, said the words that gave me hope.
"What we need is action and we need it now more than ever because people are losing their lives and it is still not being taken seriously. I don’t know what it’s going to take. I don’t know what it’s going to take to get some people to realize this is more than just reelection. This is more than just political gain. This is more than the conspiracy theories and people trying to disqualify us for even having an opinion. This matters to me more than anything else in my entire life. And I want everybody to know, I, personally, I’m prepared to drop out of school. I am prepared to not worry about anything else besides this because change might not come today. It might not come tomorrow. It might not even come March 24, when we march for our lives down in Washington. But it’s going to happen and it’s going to happen before my lifetime because I will fight every single day."
Alfonso, your generation is one of instant gratification. Any question you have can be answered in seconds by the phone in your pocket. That you know your fight will not be won right now, overnight or tomorrow, but will require dedication, persistence and a long view is what brought tears to my eyes when I heard you speak and as I type these words now.
Despite the well-earned cynicism and skepticism of my generation and fellow political observers that what you’re doing will actually succeed, you and your fellow students and those who follow your lead around the country are my hope. You stand on the tiny shoulders of giants. Just as the Birmingham children’s crusade changed the trajectory of the civil rights movement 55 years ago this April, you are doing the same for the gun debate today.
“Young people have helped lead all our great movements. How inspiring to see it again in so many smart, fearless students standing up for their right to be safe; marching and organizing to remake the world as it should be,” former president Barack Obama tweeted on Thursday. “We’ve been waiting for you. And we’ve got your backs.”
All of you make me proud. All of you are the America I thought was lost on election night 2016. Thank God you’re here.
With admiration and gratitude,
Jonathan
We will remember? The entire problem with the NRA/Gun manufacturers lobby is that they buy Congress. If has nothing to do with a significant voting bloc.
Of course, if those weenies in the Democratic Party actually manage to take over the Congress in the mid-term election this year, I suspect you'll be pissing and moaning and ranting about voter fraud and stolen elections.
farmerman wrote:Many times Oralloy worries me because he totally dismisses truth.
Says the person who cannot point out a single untrue thing that I've ever said.
farmerman wrote:The Congressional Review act in 2017 was used by Congress , working under recommendations of mr Trump did this:
Quote:the measure being blocked from implementation would have required the Social Security Administration to send records of some beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. About 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs would have been affected.
No it didn't. There was no focus on mental disabilities.
farmerman wrote:Youre right, he is, once again arguing against the facts,
You have a big mouth for someone who can't point out a single untrue thing that I've ever written.
farmerman wrote:hoping by bold assertion he can convince those who are too busy to look it up, that he, oralloy, knows of what he speaks.
I'm on record repeatedly linking to the executive order when Obama had it on his White House page.
You're on record actively denying reality because you don't like facts.
That Congress disapproves the
rule submitted by the Social Security Administration relating to
Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (published
at 81 Fed. Reg. 91702 (December 19, 2016)), and such rule shall have no
force or effect.
The focus was only on people who don't handle their own finances. No focus on mental illness.
Criteria for inclusion in the NICS
include that an individual is disabled
based on a finding at step three of our
sequential evaluation process that the
individual’s impairment(s) meets or
medically equals the requirements of
one of the mental disorders listings.
35
revelette1 wrote:The rule pertained to people who receive social security checks through mental illness to the extent they can't handle their financials.
No. The rule covered everyone who receives social security checks and can't handle their financials. No limitations to mental illness.
For purposes of the Social
Security programs established under
titles II and XVI of the Social Security
Act, we have ‘‘adjudicated as a mental
defective’’ any individual who meets
the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(5) of this section
revelette1 wrote:I won't respond again,
Of course. You've boxed yourself into a corner by sticking to an untrue claim, and you lack the integrity to admit that you are wrong.
revelette1 wrote:you just ignore facts
Nope. I post facts. You're the one who is ignoring them.
revelette1 wrote:keep going on what you want to say regardless.
What I want is to tell the truth, just as always.
revelette1 wrote:You sir, are not credible.
Your refusal to accept reality will not make reality stop being true.
oralloy wrote:
revelette1 wrote:From what I can understand, the focus was on those received social security due to mental illness and had a representative to manage his/her affairs, including the checks.
No such focus. It covered people who receive Social Security for any reason, if they do not handle their own finances.
This would be untruth number 6.
Your statement is proven false here:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-19/pdf/2016-30407.pdf
Quote:For purposes of the Social
Security programs established under
titles II and XVI of the Social Security
Act, we have ‘‘adjudicated as a mental
defective’’ any individual who meets
the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(5) of this section
One has to meet this standard to be included. Feel free to weasel and claim a mental disorder is not the same thing as mental illness.
oralloy wrote:The focus was only on people who don't handle their own finances. No focus on mental illness.
This is another lie by you making 3 in only 2 posts.
You will of course deny it because that seems to be who you are.
Not only was there a focus on mental disabilities there was a requirement under the SS regulation that that someone be a "mental defective" to be reported to the NICS database as someone who is restricted from gun purchases.
The SS regulation can be found here.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-19/pdf/2016-30407.pdf
In order for someone to be classified as mental defective they had to meet 5 criteria. One of those was the person had to have a primary code based on mental impairment. Another one was the person's SS disability payments were going to a representative because the person was designated as being mentally incapable of handling their benefit payments.
Your statement denying what was said is factually untrue.
Your outlandish claims of never telling anything untrue seems to be trying to hide behind bluster and name calling.
The SS regulation that was overturned is not an executive order. It is a regulation which is what was brought up by revellette. Congress overturned the regulation, not an EO. I think we can classify this as an untrue statement on your part since you have been arguing that Congress overturned and EO.
Lie number 4 by you.
Not being able to handle their financials was one of the 5 criteria but ALL criteria had to be met to be sent to the NICS.
Another factual untruth. You aren't posting facts. Number 5. if we are counting
We won't count this as a lie because you may just be ignorant but it certainly isn't true that you are telling the truth.
That statement is true but it applies to you.
This would be untruth number 6.
Your statement is proven false here:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-19/pdf/2016-30407.pdf
Quote:For purposes of the Social
Security programs established under
titles II and XVI of the Social Security
Act, we have ‘‘adjudicated as a mental
defective’’ any individual who meets
the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(5) of this section
Details matter. That's hardly weaseling.
I was right about there being no focus on mental illness. I was in error about there being no focus beyond the inability to balance a checkbook.
The required level of severity for these dis-
orders is met when the requirements in both
A and B are satisfied, or when the require-
ments in C are satisfied.
A. Demonstration of a loss of specific cog-
nitive abilities or affective changes and the
medically documented persistence of at least
one of the following:
1. Disorientation to time and place; or
2. Memory impairment, either short-term
(inability to learn new information), inter-
mediate, or long-term (inability to remem-
ber information that was known sometime in
the past); or
3. Perceptual or thinking disturbances
(e.g., hallucinations, delusions); or
4. Change in personality; or
5. Disturbance in mood; or
6. Emotional lability (e.g., explosive tem-
per outbursts, sudden crying, etc.) and im-
pairment in impulse control; or
7. Loss of measured intellectual ability of
at least 15 I.Q. points from premorbid levels
or overall impairment index clearly within
the severely impaired range on neuro-
psychological testing, e.g., the Luria-Ne-
braska, Halstead-Reitan, etc.;
AND:
...
I was right about there being no focus on mental illness. I was in error about there being no focus beyond the inability to balance a checkbook.
Honest mistakes are not lies. So that's an untrue claim by you.
And since the main point was mental illness, I am completely correct about the main point that is under discussion.
There was no focus on mental illness, exactly as I said.
sceletera wrote:wrote:
You will of course deny it because that seems to be who you are.
Another case of you saying something that is untrue.
I'll concede that. I should have said there was no focus on mental illness,
I did think there was no focus on mental disorders, but I was wrong about that.
I also never claimed to never say anything untrue.
Not untrue. The regulation was put into place because an executive order instructed that it be put into place.
Referring to the regulation and ignoring the executive order is sophistry.
sceletera wrote:This would be untruth number 6.
Your statement is proven false here:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-19/pdf/2016-30407.pdf
Quote:For purposes of the Social
Security programs established under
titles II and XVI of the Social Security
Act, we have ‘‘adjudicated as a mental
defective’’ any individual who meets
the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(5) of this section
Not number six. That is the same error that I already acknowledged, not realizing that they were targeting mental disorders.
What they did was still intolerable. Having dyslexia is both a mental disorder and something that could prevent someone from balancing their checkbook.
Dyslexia is not an acceptable reason to deprive someone of their guns.
Welcome back, BTW. I'd wondered where you went after the election.
I was enjoying our discussion about ancient English laws, but I think the conversation had already run its course by the time you took off.
Who is counting dyslexia as a mental illness other than you?
Dyslexia wouldn't meet the requirements under the SS act unless you know somoene that collects SS disability, is unable to work and they are unable to control their own finances.
Details do matter. Your untruths are not details. They are either evidence of your failure to find the facts or evidence of a concentrated effort on your part to lie.
Wow. If you are right about there being no focus on mental illness then perhaps you can explain how you think you are right.
If you think anyone was subject to being added to NICS because they were dyslexic then you are a mistaken. In fact, you would be delusional since no one with just dyslexia would have met the criteria laid out by the SS regulations.
We will simply group all of your above statements that are factually untrue and call them #7.
Ah, you concede one thing while denying all the others. My statement seems to be pretty accurate in describing you and what your response would be.
Actually there is a focus on mental illness since the requirements include being "mental defective" which has very clear standards that include symptoms of those with mental illness.
What precisely do you think a mental disorder is medically?
Everything considered a mental illness is classified as a mental disorder.
This might give a bit of understanding. It is WHO's classifications of mental disorders.
You seem to have gone on and on about how no one has ever pointed to an untrue statement you have made.
Are you now claiming that your statement was not about how truthful you are but simply a rhetorical fallacy on your part to attempt to shift the burden of proof unto others?
Your statement that no one has ever shown you to make an untruthful claim has to be either one or the other.
If it had a different purpose feel free to tell me what it was.
Would you care to back up your claim by citing the EO?
Then you can cite how the regulation came about because the EO.
Congress did not overturn any EO related to the NICS. Any claim that they did is factually untrue unless you can cite the specific law.
I guess we should make these statements #8 for you being untruthful.
(You should really be careful of using such sloppy logic because if applied to your gun control arguments it creates all kinds of issues for your stance there.)
I see. You now want to classify your untrue statement as not being untrue simply because you are repeating the untrue statement? That seems pretty ridiculous. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true in the real world.
No one was deprived of their guns because of dyslexia. Dyslexia doesn't meet all the requirements under the SS regulations.
Does dyslexia cause disorientation?
Does dyslexia cause memory impairment?
Does dyslexia cause hallucinations?
Does dyslexia cause a change in personality?
Does dyslexia cause mood disturbances?
Does dyslexia cause loss of impulse control?
Does dyslexia cause a decrease in IQ from what your IQ previously was?
Unless you can say dyslexia does one of those 7 things your argument here becomes untruth number #9.
It's a mental disorder isn't it?
sceletera wrote:Details do matter. Your untruths are not details. They are either evidence of your failure to find the facts or evidence of a concentrated effort on your part to lie.
Your dislike of facts does not make them untrue.
The reason why I'm right is because the focus was on mental disorders, not on mental illness.
sceletera wrote:If you think anyone was subject to being added to NICS because they were dyslexic then you are a mistaken. In fact, you would be delusional since no one with just dyslexia would have met the criteria laid out by the SS regulations.
Are you saying that dyslexia isn't a mental disorder?
oralloy wrote:We will simply group all of your above statements that are factually untrue and call them #7.
No such factually untrue statements. We're still at one single error from me.
You have a big mouth for someone who can't point out a single untrue thing that I've ever written.
I'm not counting, but we're probably at somewhere around a dozen untrue statements or personal attacks from you.
