Rep. Seth Moulton appears to have pulled a Hannah Dugan at the State of the Union. Where the Milwaukee judge helped an undocumented immigrant to escape her courtroom, Moulton reportedly hid Marcelo Gomes DaSilva in his office after he fled the SOTU following a text from DHS calling him out by name as being in the country illegally. In the meantime, new reports raise questions about his possible criminal record.
Gomes da Silva was born in Brazil and moved to Milford at age 6 on a visa. However, when that visa expired, he stayed in the country illegally.
When Moulton announced bringing him to the SOTU with others sought by the government, the DHS objected that “Today, some Democrats in Congress are planning to bring illegal aliens as guests to the State of the Union. Once again, they are putting illegal aliens above the safety of American citizens.”
It then singled out Gomes da Silva as “an illegal alien who has no right to be in our nation. We are committed to enforcing the law and fighting for the arrest, detention, and removal of aliens like him.”
Gomes da Silva then fled the chamber and Moulton hid him in his office, calling him a “great American.” He told the Globe “I can’t believe they still want to chase after me. I’m just disappointed in the ignorance. It’s really inhumane, and there’s a lack of empathy.”
The DHS never suggested that it was seeking to arrest Gomes da Silva in Congress. Indeed, there is no evidence that DHS was actively seeking the arrest of this individual.
In the meantime, the Boston Herald sought to confirm his record and found what it described as troubling.In an update to this story, the Boston Herald did some digging into Gomes da Silva, who, over the summer of 2025, became an activist and celebrity of sorts among Democrats, including Moulton and Gov. Maura Healey, after ICE detained him for several days when they were looking for his father (read the background on that story and why Gomes da Silva was released here).The information the Herald found, while incomplete, is troubling:
The Herald submitted a public records request to the Secretary of State’s Office and the Milford Police Department regarding two reports, one from June and the other from September of 2021, where Marcelo Gomes da Silva was apparently named as the person of interest.
“The Herald sought the police report numbered 21-23101 dated 9/15/2021 featuring Marcelo Gomes da Silva and 1-16254 dated 6/30/21 also featuring the 19-year-old.
Milford Deputy Chief John Sanchioni denied both of those requests, indicating that the police report from June 2021 “involves a sexual assault and juveniles,” and that the report from September 2021 “involves juveniles.” He did not elaborate.”
Moulton’s move to hide Gomes da Silva raises some interesting legal issues. First, members enjoy legislative immunity under the Speech and Debate Clause.
Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 states that “The Senators and Representatives” of Congress “shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
This is usually a protection for statements made in Congress. Moreover, the DHS was seeking the undocumented immigrant, not the member himself.
Second, searches of congressional offices have always been problematic. I have criticized past surveillance and searches as undermining the separation of powers. However, those searches targeted members, not fugitives or deportees.
Finally, putting these limitations aside, such controversies are generally left to Congress to police its own ranks. It is not clear whether the House will address the question of using a congressional office to shelter those being sought by the government.
The Mouton move raises the curious issue of sanctuary offices within Congress. It is also unclear whether Moulton supported this individual in his transportation to and from Congress, including the use of staff to facilitate such movements.
Moulton has not responded to the Boston Herald report of police reports connected to his SOTU guest.
Re: Prof Turley: Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 states that “The Senators and Representatives” of Congress “shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest.
Sarcasm: Moulton for Election!!! Assurance of support by those who believe in popularity and passive aggressive logic far surpasses action and legislation as a deterministic selection – unfortunately true under a wide segment of American voters.
Perhaps these times are the cause of confusion. Based on the current judicial actions among ANYONE – it seems – ANY level “judicial official”, (judge, magistrate, self appointed, or even independent special counsel appointed by the legislature independent of legal authority) creates law, mandates reaction and prosecution of that process, and has the full support of the American Bar Association to create kangaroo courts completely independent of normal legal jurisdictional process.
https://jonathanturley.org/2025/12/08/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-american-bar-association/
Ergo, if the law is only created and enforced randomly under the opinion and jurisdiction of whoever asserts they have the authority and power to do so, the ability to disable must equally apply “according to the law” (or at least interpretation supported and mandated by the American Bar Association): No Senator or Representative of Congress, in all cases shall be arrested for Felony(for harboring and/or obstruction of an illegal alien), much less the other two.
If so, which drug should we inject to willingly conform in delusional consent and full acceptance of this hallucination – we can save some time rather than going to the polls.
I Quit My Office Job and Found Freedom Online: Here’s My Story The office environment was draining me emotionally and physically, so I decided to make a change. Now, I work online and earn 85 per hour doing what I love. It wasn’t an easy journey, but two years later, I can proudly say my life has changed for the better!
Here’s what I do and how you can too……… https://lnk.ua/tEAxR7FfS
Rep. Seth Moulton is guilty of complicity by an accomplice to a crime, if not treason, as a conspiracy with the enemy.
I’m not responding to anon. I’ve chosen this spot for convenience.
PT, this article is garbled. The one thing known is the da silva is an unauthorized person in the United States subject to deportation.
I’ve read the links and they’re not much better. There’s a mother, Jao, in the United States? She says she wants her son back.
There are police reports. Da silva says he knows nothing? The police or newspaper listed him as a person of interest? He’d be 14 at the time, Romeo? He now has a lovely girlfriend Juliana? Conflicting info about 6 or 7 year old visito visa morphed into an expired student visa? His father drives through neighborhoods at 100mph?
It’s unintelligible.
Moulton is up for reelection and needs free publicity?
PT provides a link regarding Rep Schock and DOJ, office searches and surveillance, 2017. Sanctuary offices are apparently like churches and occupants are priestly?
😂
^^^^ALERT—> found it! Rep. Seth Moulton is NOT running for reelection to the House in 2026. HE’S RUNNING FOR SENATE, 2026. Free publicity
😂
Sure, use the chambers, but never their homes or anywhere else where something personal is on the line. They wouldn’t let this guy within 500 feet of their palaces.
Modern dems are simply pathetic elites who would very much like to stay that way, and they don’t care who they exploit or how to get or stay there. I’d say ‘shameful’, but they are incapable of shame, other than the faux kind, when they get their foot caught in a trap. Impossible to take the modern DNC seriously, and this only compounds that.
Treason has been normaslized since the Brit. Cotrolled US Publishing office covered up, stop putting our Original 13th Amendment in the books. I saw it published in a CO state book decades ago.
Demand the Original 13th Amendment enforced. Lawyers are not a allowed to hold public office.
Key to stoping all treason
A People
“Demand the Original 13th Amendment enforced. ”
Your “Original 13th Amendment” was never ratified, therefore, there is nothing TO enforce. Moreover, even if it had become law, “Esquire” is no more a “title of nobility” (for crying out loud: “lawyer” = “noble”) than any other profession appellation, e.g., “Doctor”.
Dear Mr. Turley, I am wondering where GEB, Old Fish, Old Man from Kansas and Wise Old Lawyer are at the morning??? They always send in great comments. This congressman was only trying to “one up” the President. I am glad he was found out.
I think if agree with all your IFs (but not sure; use the key that says Enter sometime). But that’s the problem. They are all IFs
This was meant to be a reply to someone else below not a free standing comment
Seems to me that if ICE was seeking to arrest the illegal then the congressman hiding him is a felony (interfering with a federal agent). If thats the case then the Congressman might have some legal liability.
But ICE wasn’t seeking to arrest him. He was paraded all around Congress for days; if ICE had any interest in arresting him it would have done so then. The plain fact is that they can’t arrest him. He was released because a court ordered it, and that order is still in effect. So Moulton wasn’t “harboring” him from anything and committed no crime.
Facts about Moulton:
During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Moulton led one of the first infantry platoons to enter Baghdad. He served a total of four tours of duty in Iraq from 2003 to 2008.[11][18] Moulton took part in the 2003 Battle of Nasiriyah, leading a platoon that cleared a hostile stronghold.
After graduating from Harvard College in 2001 with a bachelor of science in physics, Moulton joined the United States Marine Corps. He served four tours in Iraq and then earned his master’s degrees in business and public administration in a dual program at Harvard. He entered politics in 2014, when he was elected to represent Massachusetts’s 6th congressional district.
In November 2018, Moulton spearheaded an effort to OUST Nancy Pelosi as House Democratic leader.[3] Despite Moulton’s efforts, Pelosi easily won the Democratic nomination for speaker of the house on November 28, 2018, by a 203-to-32 vote of the Democratic caucus. Source: wikipedia.
With all that brainpower military and political credentials, what went wrong with him?
Baystaters drink saltwater, corrodes the brain.
Harvard
“Harvard”
Harvard (particularly any “public administration” curriculum that it would offer) no doubt began the corruption, and having his final right-minded effort to get rid of Pelosi crushed most likely finished the job.
Anonymous defends Moulton based on his military career. Anonymous has nothing to say about
Democrats who would not stand to honor a one hundred year old veteran who served in World War
Two. To Moulton every illegal alien is a great American hero even if he raped a child.
The charges of sexual abuse against this man would not have been brought without a complaint by the
child’s parents. If your child came to you and told you that she had been assaulted what would you do
Anonymous? Moulton could have easily checked this man’s record but instead he was trying to make him a poster child. This is a common action by the (MAKASA) Make America Stupid Again cult.
Read the final line? ” what went wrong with him?” That’s not a defense, it a lament. Geeeezzzz……
“Read the final line? ”
Too many people read these comments all primed to be angered, then fire off an immediate reaction to the first “buzz phrase” they come across without the slightest effort to grasp the context.
How about some kind of handle to differentiate you from all the other Anonymouses.
I apologize for not knowing what Anonymous you are. Perhaps Anonymous the good would work better. Did you happen to notice that Anonymous the bad jumped to your defense only to discredit what I had to say as is her common want to do? Damn, first mistake Ive made in 2026.
How can I live with myself? Geeez.
I agree. For some time when I was new to the site and comments I thought Anon was suffering from multiple personality disorder. I figured it out eventually. It appears there are more than 2 now. It is a bit of a pain having to enter my email and name (handle) every time I comment or reply.
Covid vaccines
I am very surprised Professor at how poorly you researched this subject. I guess you’ve gone all clickbait too
1. No, ICE is/was not searching for the kid at the State of the Union speech. Implying it was was a stunt by Moulton. ICE already arrested the kid for being here unlawfully a year ago and he is out on bail awaiting immigration/deportation proceedings. Any perfunctory Google would have explained this to you
2. The recent Boston Herald article is clickbait just like yours. Allegedly there are police reports which the police will not release under Massachusetts public information law because the people mentioned in it – allegedly – were minors at the time (2019). The kid who overstayed his visa (multiple times not just when he was 7) was 14-15 in 2019. If he is mentioned in these reports (if they even exist) he may be a juvenile victim… not a perpetrator. Without the report in hand, @bostonherald is totally out of line implying otherwise (I cannot read the article because it’s behind a paywall but I heard the reporter describe it on the radio)
Dennis, good morning. One thing I’d like to point out, Turley writes opinions. Do you know what that means?
So calm, down, take a swig of coffee and just relax.
Good morning, Coward
Opinions based on lies are lies
“(I cannot read the article because it’s behind a paywall but I heard the reporter describe it on the radio)”. Your words Dennis. So how do you know what the facts are?
Father of lies. Who’s your daddy lies, rumor, gossip, scandal, deception. Harvard teaches deception.
Part 1. Turley make no claim that the kid was being sought.
Part 2… Turley mentioned that in his opinion piece.
PS. Always read the opinion thoroughly before repeating it contents and mischaracterizing Turleys words.
Your welcome.
Person of interest means perp but who knows the press isn’t up to snuff. Police won’t release. Unclear if arrested as Romeo.
Moulton is running for senate 2026, a stunt.
I suggest that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) avoid turning Seth Moulton into another Alex Padilla (D-CA). Padilla is the senator who remained inactive until he interrupted a DHS press conference in Los Angeles, after which he suddenly became a prominent Democratic spokesman. This appears to be a new Democratic strategy: allowing more and more party members to speak publicly.
As another example, consider Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), who was largely silent as Arizona’s senator until he appeared in that infamous TV ad urging soldiers to disobey orders. Now, he is on television almost every day, delivering some of the most virulent anti-Trump rhetoric.
The country has no need for another “Maryland man” simply “fighting for his constitutional rights,” like Kilmar Armando Ábrego García, as promoted by Senator Chris Van Hollen.
Helping an non-American is not a crime. So Moulton won’t get 15 minutes. And stop making an issue out of a non-issue.
“Helping a non-American is not a crime”? Hate to break it to you, but it is indeed a crime, it violates Federal Immigration Law.
Per AI;
The primary federal statute for hiding, harboring, or shielding an unlawfully present non-citizen from detection is 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii). This law makes it a felony to willfully conceal or harbor an individual, knowing or in reckless disregard of their illegal status.
Department of Justice (.gov)
Key Aspects of the Statute:
Definition: “Harboring” includes any action that tends to substantially facilitate an immigrant’s remaining in the U.S. illegally, such as providing shelter or housing.
Knowledge Requirement:
The perpetrator must know or recklessly disregard the fact that the person is in the country without authorization.
Penalties:
Penalties can include fines, imprisonment for up to 5 years (or more if for commercial gain or if it causes bodily injury/death), and potential seizure of vehicles or properties used.
Moulton, if not shielded by the speech and debate clause, (it does make exception to a felony) could indeed be charged with a violation of Federal Immigration Law.
Question: is Moulton shielded from the law when;
1) the illegal was transported (across states lines btw) to/from the SOTU?
2) did he or an aide(s) transport the illegal? (If it was an aide(s) that could open up the question as to *his/her* culpability in violating the Federal Immigration Law. (The aide(s) is not shielded by the S and D clause)
3) did he or an aide(s) use a government vehicle/Federal property or personal vehicle to transport the illegal, to/from the SOTU?
4) when he obstructed/harbored/shielded the illegal from DHS after the notice that they knew the guest he brought was illegal?
5) when he used his office -federal property- to obstruct/harbor/shield the illegal from DHS?
Good point crandal
He wasn’t “harboring” anyone. No one was trying to arrest this young man, so there was no crime in having him in his office.
“This appears to be a new Democratic strategy: allowing more and more party members to speak publicly.”
Maybe that is because their established spokespersons are regularly making such fools of themselves?
Good point–> stunt fame
So if a member of Congress buys a hotel in their home district and uses it to house illegals,…………
Forgot to add: and calls it their district office.
… he gets rich by getting state and federal dollars. Especially in MA.
If it can be shown in court that the member of Congress knew the people in his hotel were illegal aliens, he or she would be in violation of 8 U.S. Code § 1324a (1) (A) (iii): knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
The member of Congress would be harboring an illegal alien.
Wrong. Harboring only applies if you know the government is trying to arrest someone and you help them evade arrest. Here no one was trying to arrest this young man. He was released by a court order which is still in effect. So having in him the office was not harboring him.
“So if a member of Congress buys a hotel in their home district and uses it to house illegals”
That concept could in theory be extended far beyond illegal immigrants, could it not?
It took Turley 6 paragraphs to localize the story. Massachusetts. And then only indirectly, referencing the Boston Herald.
“No one is above the law. Except illegal immigrants.” So says every leftwing fascist Democrat.
Every? How many are there? I’m a Dem, but not a leftwing or a fascist. MAGA sue has a shortage of brain power. The midterms are ours. Bye bye MAGA.
Yup, as long as machines, algorithms, foreign allies and Sina run they elections you will stay blue
AND
we will stay blue.
🤣we’ll see what happens in the midterms
““No one is above the law. Except illegal immigrants…”
“…and those supporting them” FIFY – YW
Let me see if I can save X the trouble of typing his predictable response.
Something like this will probably appear shortly:
“This entire story is just another manufactured outrage from the right. A member of Congress showing basic humanity to someone who has lived here since childhood is now supposed to be some kind of crime? Meanwhile the same people clutching their pearls about ‘the rule of law’ had no problem cheering when Trump ignored laws, norms, subpoenas, and court orders whenever it suited him.
The real issue isn’t a congressman offering temporary refuge to a young man who has been part of this country most of his life. The real issue is a government obsessed with chasing immigrants while ignoring far more serious misconduct by people in power.
And the hypocrisy is remarkable. Conservatives who spent years defending obstruction, defiance of federal agencies, and outright contempt for legal process suddenly rediscover the sanctity of law when the target is an immigrant.
If compassion is now considered a crime, perhaps the problem isn’t the congressman. Perhaps it’s the politics driving immigration enforcement in the first place.”
There. That should cover the basic talking points.
Now that we’ve heard the predictable argument in advance, we can actually discuss the real issue: whether members of Congress should be using official offices to shield individuals from federal law enforcement.
Geez, olly has a morning hard-on for George.
The real issue is your lack of sanity. And your lack of facts. Like George you make up lies nonstop.
🤣 I admire the efficiency.
You managed to pack insult, projection, and zero evidence into just two sentences. That takes talent.
If you ever stumble across a fact to support your claim, be sure to bring it back with you. Good luck. Bwahahahaha!
Why thank you. Glad to see the comment struck deep… bwahbwahbwah …. do ya wanna bandaid?
What about the hard-on? Still got one?
Yup, compassion= above the law
AND
will you take a second AND your TDS meds and tell us what law PQTUS+++ broke ignored? We will wait…
txvet, apparently you did not notice how I bookended what I wrote in the quote. Without a doubt, X will begin commenting in his most predictable way and I thought it would be a fun exercise to write a comment for him in his voice.
I wasn’t sure I had sufficiently captured his true nature until your comment to me. So thank you for the confirmation. 😉
txvet33, summed it up. You’re wrong. You sure are bent on taking on X, someone, anyone… how about you just take your meds, relax, and go watch porn this morning.
I used to ignore X, but you must be using AI to confabulate whole postings in X style and now I don’t know with what to compare them.
Also you should put a double quote mark at the start of each quoted paragraph so we can understand what part was synthesized.
Great job OLLY. You got his voice 100%. It almost fooled me.
Of course fools are easily fooled.
Your statement is ineffective. Why? Because you are ignorant and unable to insult with logic and class. “Fools are easily fooled” means that some fools can be fooled and others not. It tells us nothing about reasonably intelligent people who also could be fooled.
You are a dummy.
Interesting response.
I have a number of comments
First, you assume that my comment means something other than what it plainly means, that being that fools are easily fooled. Only a fool would interpret that statement to mean “that some fools can be fooled and others not”.
Second, if reasonably intelligent people can be fooled, then they are not particularly intelligent. They may be “reasonably intelligent” in the sense of a dog being “reasonably intelligent”, allowing it to be trained to follow commands, but that is not intelligence of a particularly high order.
Third, you say that I am ignorant and unable to insult with logic and class, then follow up with the statement, “You are a dummy.”
Is this an example of an insult with logic and class, of which you speak?
Fourth, in your original response to OLLY, you said, “It almost fooled me”. The plain meaning of this statement is that you are “almost” a fool, but not quite a complete fool, although your comment to me reveals that you are well on your way to completing the transition to a complete fool. With just a very little more effort I think you will be successful in transitioning from being almost a fool to being a complete fool. You are well on your way to that goal, and you are almost there.
Try again.
Your turn.
It remains logically ineffective. Being fooled doesn’t make one a fool.
Yet being the dummy, you are, means you are a dummy. No class is required when responding to an anonymous person, for he has no identity or persona.
Poor effort, grade F.
Simply repeating the same comments does not make them stronger or more effective or more correct or more sensible or more rational.
Only a complete fool would believe that.
Thus, with this latest comment which is simply a repetition of the previous one, I believe that we may conclude that you have successfully transitioned from “almost a fool” to a complete fool.
Congratulations !!!!
I am reminded of the biblical verse from Proverbs 26:11
“As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his foolishness.”
(There are slight variations of this depending on your preferred version of the bible, but the message is the same.)
Try again.
Your turn.
Stopping at verse 11 is a bold choice; clearly, you didn’t finish the assignment.
Your supercilious grading is addressed in verse 12: ‘Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.’
You’ve spent quite a bit of energy ‘meddling’ (v. 17) and ‘digging a pit’ (v. 27) for others. Careful, the chapter warns you’re the one about to fall into it.
Grade: Incomplete and Incompetent. Try again.
Another very interesting response that is also very revealing about your character.
Apparently you are simply imitating my use of bible verses to try to make some sort of point.
You are also imitating my use of a grading system for your comments.
As Oscar Wilde famously said, “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness”.
So I am flattered that you feel the need to imitate me and thus recognize my greatness, but unfortunately, in so doing, this also reveals your mediocrity in all its glory.
At this point in our little discussion we should probably review what we have established so far about you.
Some time ago we established your self-admitted status as a “follower”, rather than an independent thinker. We established that you look to others, such as Milton Friedman, for guidance in forming opinions rather than indulging in any kind of independent thought process, of which you are apparently incapable. Your opinions are unencumbered by the thought process.
Only a “fool”, incapable of independent thought would be a “follower” such as yourself, and this observation dovetails with your more recent self-admission that you are almost a fool. However, we can safely extend your self-admission as “almost a fool” to that of “complete fool” based on your responses so far to date.
Your imitation of my use of bible verses is yet further confirmation of your status as a “follower” and a “fool”, completely incapable of formulating an original response. “Followers” and “fools” are imitators, not independent thinkers. Of course it logically follows that a self-admitted “follower” must also be a “fool” and an “imitator”. I am flattered that you now “imitate” and “follow” me, as well as Milton Friedman.
You should take this latest comment by me as a useful lesson on how to formulate an insult with logic and class. In an earlier comment you said that I am unable to insult with logic and class, and alluded to a belief that this is something that you are capable of.
However your insults so far are simply derivative and imitative, totally lacking in both logic and class. But at least in imitating my insults you recognize my greatness, and in doing so you admit to your own mediocrity, as Oscar Wilde so astutely observed about those who are imitators.
So, let’s summarize.
So far we have clearly and unequivocally established in chronological order, that you are a “follower”, a “fool” and an “imitator”, who recognizes my greatness as well as your own mediocrity.
I eagerly await your next mediocre and imitative response.
Since you clearly have difficulty coming up with original comments, I have attached a link to a list of Oscar Wilde quotes to make it easier for you to imitate me and follow my lead.
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/3565.Oscar_Wilde
“You are simply imitating my use of bible verses”
No, I am completing your incomplete and incompetent use of a verse. Everyone can see your sophistry exposing your ineptitude and your persona, Sigmund Fraud.
As expected, another mediocre comment from a foolish, imitative follower.
I’m a little disappointed that you did not take the time to find an Oscar Wilde quote with which to rebut my comment. However, there is still a lot to unpack in your latest mediocre comment.
I find it interesting that you claim that you do not imitate me.
However, the very first sentence in your latest comment is an exact verbatim imitation of my previous comment. By any measure this is clearly imitation, which you deny doing. So you are actually denying that you are an imitator, while simultaneously imitating me. Really rather disorganized thinking, but what can else can one expect from a fool and a follower.
The word “sophistry” is rather a big word for someone of such low intellect.
Where did you learn of this word?
Are you imitating someone else in using this word?
Did you learn of this word from following Milton?
Are you sure that you understand what “sophistry” actually means?
Sophistry means using deceptive argumentation to arrive at a false conclusion that superficially seems correct but is actual false.
This term does not apply to my little discussion with you. I am not actually making an argument that you are a fool and a follower and an imitator. You have already explicitly admitted that you are all of these things in your previous posts. I am not trying to formulate an argument to prove that you are all of these. I am simply pointing out that to which you have already freely admitted.
For the term “sophistry” to apply to my comments, the conclusion would have to be false, but it is not, because you have already self-admitted to being a follower, a fool, and an imitator.
By the way, who is Sigmund Fraud?
Are you a follower of Sigmund as well as Milton?
Is it Sigmund that you are imitating with the use of the word “sophistry”?
I eagerly await your next mediocre comment.
“Are you sure that you understand what ‘sophistry’ actually means?”
Your denial is the definition of sophistry: using a twisted, circular “logic” to declare your own false conclusions as facts. I chose the name Sigmund Fraud because, like him, you are obsessed with “unpacking” others while failing to see your own turgid delusions of greatness.
Ahhh, yes !!! More mediocrity in all its glory from the “follower”.
Before we start a detailed analysis of your latest mediocre effort, I think a more general overview is in order.
I find it interesting that you feel compelled to respond to every one of my comments. This would confirm that you are indeed a “follower”, intent on following all my comments with a comment of your own. Prima facie evidence that you are a “follower”.
You also continue to “imitate” me by starting your comments by posting an exact verbatim copy of what I said in my previous comment. Prima facie evidence that you are an imitator.
Only a fool would persist in this behavior. Prima facie evidence that you are a fool.
Now to a more detailed look at your latest mediocre comment.
You persist in claiming that my comments are mere “sophistry”, and that I use deceptive logic to arrive at false conclusions. If that is what I am actually doing, then you would be correct. I would be engaging in sophistry. But you are not correct. As I explained above, you yourself are providing prima facie evidence, by your own behavior and comments, that my conclusions are perfectly valid. Thus, my comments cannot possibly be characterized as sophistry.
Previously, we clearly established that you are a “follower” of Milton Friedman, by your own admission.
The fact that you obsessively “follow” my comments with a response of your own simply confirms that you are a “follower”. This is a factual statement, not a false conclusion.
Apparently you now admit to also being a “follower” of the mysterious Sigmund Fraud.
Who is Sigmund Fraud?
You state that YOU chose the name Sigmund Fraud.
I am confused.
Is he a real person that you follow, or is he an imaginary friend, a figment of your imagination??
It would be helpful if you could clarify the identity of this mysterious person that you have named Sigmund Fraud.
Feel free to respond to this comment, thus providing further confirmation of you status as a “follower”.
The Fraud’s obsession with the term ‘follower’ is a classic non sequitur. Engaging in a debate does not make one a follower; it makes one a participant. By your own logic, your persistent need to ‘grade’ my responses would make you my most dedicated disciple, though I would wish for a more intelligent one.
Final grade: Redundant
Not only do you not understand the meaning of “sophistry”, apparently you do not understand the meaning of “non sequitur”.
It seems that words have no fixed meaning in your fantasy world. You just use words that you have heard from others without understanding what they actually mean. In other words a “follower”.
A non sequitur is a statement made that does not logically follow from a previous statement or argument. When I call you a “follower” it is not a characterization that I have made. You, yourself characterized yourself as a “follower” when you stated that you “follow” Milton Friedman in order to form your philosophy and opinions as a liberal conservative or words to that effect. I can’t remember the exact phrase you used to describe yourself, but it was something like that. You criticized me by claiming that I did not have a coherent philosophy or opinions because I did not “follow” anyone. As I said back then, unlike you, I prefer to think for myself rather than rely on others to do my thinking for me.
To say that my characterization of you as a “follower” is a non sequitur is absurd and simply reveals that you do not understand the meaning of words you use. All I am doing is simply confirming by observation, that to which you have already admitted.
In no way can that be described as a non sequitur. In fact it is the exact opposite of a non sequitur.
In fact if you want a perfect example of a non sequitur, look no further than you absurd statement, “your persistent need to ‘grade’ my responses would make you my most dedicated disciple”.
Someone who grades another’s work is by definition a teacher, not a disciple or a follower. This statement is a perfect encapsulation of a non sequitur, but unfortunately you are totally unable to understand this. As I said above, you consistently prove every day that words have no fixed meaning in your world. You simply use words that you have heard somewhere else in vain and futile attempts to denigrate others.
“You, yourself characterized yourself as a “follower” when you stated that you “follow” …”
You are correct. Think of an Indian tribe. There is only one leader, and everyone else is a follower. You think of yourself as a leader, but most think of you as
the sacrificial lamb.
Final Grade: Overcooked
So you finally admit that you are a “follower” who has to rely on others to think for you.
Well, that is at least some sort of progress, I guess.
You use an Indian tribe analogy, suggesting that I think about it. Did you get this idea from Milton or from your imaginary friend Sigmund?
I do not need to think about your stupid analogy because, unlike you, I do not need to be told how or what to think. Unlike you, I am not a follower who is incapable of independent thought. Your analogy is pointless and not worth thinking about.
Now that we have confirmed your status as a “follower” we should move on to your status as an “imitator”, which of course is logical consequence of being a “follower”.
It is worth noting that you have “followed” my lead by “imitating” my use of a grade for one of your comments. You copied and “imitated” me by grading my subsequent comments several times, while I used this grading concept precisely once. Since you are unable to think independently, you simply “followed” my lead, as expected, by repeatedly imitating the grading idea even though I did this only once.
Thus we can also conclude that you are both a “follower” and an “imitator”.
“So you finally admit that you are a ‘follower’…”
Yes, I follow a Nobel laureate’s logic. You follow the voices in your head. One of us is standing on a mountain of proven data; the other is a Sigmund Fraud trying to lead a parade of one through a turgid ego-trip.
You aren’t a leader, you’re an outlier; the noise we filter out to find the truth.
You aren’t even the “sacrificial lamb” anymore; you’re just the vestigial organ of this conversation.
Final Grade: Denatured by Narcissism.
What’s with this weird repetition of my comments all the time, as a preface to your responses?
And why do you persist with “imitating” my grading idea, that I used only once and then abandoned?
Is this what “followers” and “imitators” are compelled to do?
It certainly feels like you are “following” me all the time.
How exactly do you “follow” good old Milton after he died 20 years ago?
Are séances involved?
Do you prefer Ouija boards or Tarot cards, or do you use both?
How can you be sure it is actually Milton you are communicating with?
Apparently you like to follow Milton’s logic, but you assume that his logic is in fact logical. Perhaps a big stretch.
I am reminded of the time Milton was asked how many people it requires to change a light bulb. He replied none, if the light bulb really needed changing then market forces would already have done it.
Does this make sense to you?
If so, then that explains your low intellect and inability to think logically or independently.
I also seem to recall that one of his colleagues said the following about him, “I wish I were as sure of anything as Milton is about everything”
I’m not really sure that following a dead economist is such a good idea.
Maybe you should consider following Sigmund instead.
“How exactly do you ‘follow’ good old Milton after he died 20 years ago?”
It’s called a legacy, Sigmund Fraud. In STEM and economics, we call it “standing on the shoulders of giants.” You wouldn’t recognize it because you are standing on a molehill of your own tumid metaphors.
As for the light bulb: I’d rather wait for market forces than sit in the dark with your vacuous “unpacking.” You aren’t leading anyone; you’re just a vestigial ego in search of a seance.
Final Grade: Winner of the Repetition Reward.
You keep prefacing your comments with a weird repetition of one of my comments. I find this very odd. It is almost like there is an echo.
And you persist with my grading idea even though I only used it once, discarded it, and moved on. And you keep repeating my words such as “unpacking” and “séance”. Yet you say that I have won the Repetition Reward. Very, very weird. You are the one indulging in repetition as you “imitate” me and “follow” me around like a lost puppy.
Your characterization of following good old Milton as standing on the shoulders of giants is an interesting turn of phrase. Good old Milton was less than 5ft tall, really a dwarf.
Believe it or not, and I know you won’t, I actually kind of knew Milton. When he retired he moved to San Francisco and bought a co-op in the Royal Towers, the same building where I lived for about 20 years. We weren’t really friends, but we would acknowledge each other as neighbors when we passed in the hallway or on the street. There is a little park right beside the building and I would often see him and his wife there when I was walking my dog, and we would have very brief chats about the weather and so forth as we passed.
Milton was most definitely not a giant, he was less than 5ft tall and very close to the definition of a dwarf.
So basically you are standing on the shoulders of a dead dwarf, staring into the past with your back firmly placed against the future.
I repeat your words, Sigmund Fraud, because I like to provide a transcript of your turgid sophistry for the record.
Measuring intellectual magnitude by physical height is a hilarious paralogism. You may have walked your dog past Milton Friedman, but you clearly failed to absorb a single quanta of his logic. What happened? Did the dog pee on your shoe? Even the animal recognized you as a dead branch in the evolutionary forest.
Final Grade: High-Volume, Zero-Velocity.
Apparently you have been giving your thesaurus and dictionary quite the workout, but unfortunately to no avail. So far you have proven that you do not understand the meaning of the word “sophistry” or the term “non sequitur”. Now you demonstrate that you do not understand the word “paralogism”.
As I said above, your understanding of “sophistry” is flawed. Sophistry describes an argument that deliberately uses deceptive logic to try to prove a point. My previous argument that you are a “follower”, and an “imitator” and a “fool” did not rely on deliberately deceptive logic. As I explained above, you yourself provided prima facie evidence, in the form of self-admissions, that these characterizations of you are perfectly valid. You freely admitted that you are a “follower”. This leads to a logic conclusion that you are also an “imitator” and therefore a “fool”. There was no deliberately deceptive logic involved. Thus, my comments cannot possibly be characterized as sophistry.
Now you describe my latest comments about Milton as a “paralogism”. This word refers to a fallacious or illogical argument made by someone in good faith with no intent of deliberate deception. However, to any reasonable observer, my comments about the diminutive stature of Milton in response to your characterization of him as a giant, are clearly said tongue-in cheek. I am clearly being facetious simply to irritate you. I know perfectly well that that the logic of my argument is faulty and deliberately deceptive. Since I made the argument with the intent of deliberate deception it cannot possibly be described as a paralogism. It is in fact a sophism, because I had a deliberate intent to make a false argument.
So when I make an accurate argument based on prima facie evidence of your own self-admissions, you mistakenly characterize it as sophistry. And when I subsequently engage in actual sophistry with regard to Milton, you mistakenly characterize it as a paralogism. You are either using a very poor dictionary/thesaurus or your low intellect prevents you from understanding what you read.
In an earlier comment you seemed to indicate that you have some training in STEM and economics. I also noted that you used the term “single quanta” in your latest comment. This would belie your claim to be a scientist. There is no such thing as “single quanta”. There is a “single quantum”, and “many quanta”, but no “single quanta”. This would be a textbook example of a solecism, another big word that you probably do not understand. You may have to look up the meaning, but given you inability to understand your dictionary definitions of sophistry and paralogism, I do not hold out any hope that you will come to an understanding of the word solecism.
I have also been giving some additional thought to your previous statement that “In STEM and economics, we call it standing on the shoulders of giants.” You seem to be alluding to the suggestion that you have some training in STEM and/or economics. Your obsession with Milton leads me to believe that you have training or at least an interest in economics. Of course economics is not a real science and is definitely not part of STEM. It is dismissively referred to as the “dismal” science for perfectly good reasons. It is not a field that studies the natural world or naturally occurring phenomena in the natural world.
Economics is a completely fake science, just like computer science. Neither of them are natural sciences that study the natural world and phenomena that occur in the natural world. Computer science is simply the study of tools that REAL scientists use to investigate the natural world. Saying that computer science is an actual science would be the equivalent of saying that chemistry is the study of Bunsen burners, rather than the study of chemical reactions. Or that astronomy is the study of telescopes rather than the study of the universe. Or that meteorology is the study of thermometers and barometers rather that the study of climate and the weather. Or that microbiology is the study of microscopes, rather than the study of bacteria and viruses.
This status of computer “science” as not a REAL science is recognized by certain institutes of higher learning, such as Rutgers, who offer a Bachelor of Arts degree majoring in computer “science”, rather than a Bachelor of Science degree. Although a BS degree could be considered appropriate if the BS stood for the more colloquial abbreviation for bovine excrement.
By the way, it would be more interesting to debate with you if you could up your game and be a little more creative with your insults. Your endless repetition of the same tired old insults and the emphasis on preschool level insults about bodily functions hardly makes it worth the effort to continue our little discussions. Your constant repletion gets very old, very fast.
^^^^ automatic response can be placed anywhere. It’s like, I can’t take your call right now or I’m in a meeting gbye. 😏
Fact. Of all the crazies in MA, Moulton is by far the craziest. And proud of his record of aiding criminal illegals.
The Herald sought the police report numbered 21-23101 dated 9/15/2021 featuring Marcelo Gomes da Silva and 21-16254 dated 6/30/21 also featuring the 19-year-old.
Milford Deputy Chief John Sanchioni denied both of those requests, indicating that the police report from June 2021 “involves a sexual assault and juveniles,” and that the report from September 2021 “involves juveniles.” He did not elaborate.
The deputy chief simply wrote: “The records you are requesting are not public records in accordance with M.G.L. c. 4 s. 7 cl. 26 (A). Report 21-23101-OF involves a sexual assault and juveniles. Report 21-16254-OF involves juveniles.”
Typical Massachusetts.
It’s the fact that they are juveniles – if these reports even exist – that are the issue. The 19 year old was not 19 8 years ago
The report sexist. As commented above, the COP refused access.
Those illegals are puppets in a democratic Greek tragedy play.
*The report sexist*? * puppets in a democratic Greek tragedy play*? I don’t understand the first line. As for the *puppet* line. The illegals are just that, *illegals*. Which means they are in the country without authorization. Regardless of when they entered, the law was violated. As one post stated “no one is above the law, except illegal immigrants” I would add; and the Democrats who obstruct, shield, harbor and smuggle them*.
“if these reports even exist*? The reports obviously exist since the Chief Deputy responded as to their inability to be released due to the involvement of juveniles. IF the US Department of Homeland Security wants to find out if the juvenile is a victim or the criminal, they can get a warrant from a Federal Judge to unseal the juvenile reports. IF the juvenile was in fact involved as a perpetrator of the sexual assault, it would be beneficial for the government to have this information to present at the deportation hearing. IF he was involved, we do not need more criminal illegal aliens who were allegedly involved in this type of crime, in the United States. I don’t care what age they were when they *illegally* entered the country. IF they were involved in a crime of that magnitude, they must go! Imn addition , the father is apparently *allegedly* wanted in matters of public safety. If there are police records of arrests, those reports would be beneficial to DHS for use in a deportation hearing for the father of this individual, he can be removed from this country as well.
I think if agree with all your IFs (but not sure; use the key that says Enter sometime).
But that’s the problem. They are all IFs
“The 19 year old was not 19 8 years ago”
The question then would be whether or not a juvenile offender who was not a citizen or a legal immigrant would be entitled to the same age-related protections from information release that a legal or a citizen of that age would be (the victims’ names can easily be withheld). I would argue that an illegal immigrant does not enjoy that protection unless the law authorizing such suppression clearly articulates that specifically for illegals.