Frederick,

Strange, isn't it? It's as if they feel an impulse they can't control
to disagree with ANYTHING I say just because I am further to the left
than they. I think they feel it is some sort of obligation. They don't
even mind looking like fools.

On Jul 11, 11:39 pm, Frederick The Moderate
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Keith, I'm reading through this and it seems obvious you have a strong
> bias toward anything Bruce and Zeb says (which surprisingly, for much
> of the thread seemed to defend the illegal aliens) and against
> anything Holly says - not to mention the condescending crap about
> thinking carefully before responding to a Conservative. I mean, I was
> blown away for a couple replies there because it was pretty obvious
> Bruce was defending the illegals, just to be contentious. What exactly
> do you think ANYONE (who wasn't totally in Bruce's camp, of course)
> would interpret thse sentences to mean?
> 1. In reply to Holly's suggestion that both the illegals and the
> companies should be punished for breaking our immigration laws, Bruce
> wrote:
> "People should be free to work and live where they like " abd then
> "States don't have a right to tell non-violent people where they can
> travel.
>  If someone invites them to visit they should be able to"
>
> Now if you somehow interpret that to mean "People should NOT be free
> to work and live where they like - if it's here and illegal; and
> states DO have a right to tell ANYONE not to come to our country
> illegally", then what you say has absolutely no credibility at all.
>
> As far as it even being "legal" for us to have immigration laws atall, Bruce 
> wrote:
>
> "You believe that what governments say is important and has something
> to do
> with what is wrong or right . You believe they are the source of
> rights. You are wrong."
>
> So do you believe our government has no right to enforce immigration
> laws? Or for that matter, any laws or rights? That they are or are not
> "the source of" immigration rights? Bruce seems to have some pretty
> strong opinions about whether something Obama is doing, is in
> accordance with what our government says is right or wrong - and
> defines as a right (therefore, being the "source") and whether or not
> he has the "rights" to do them. But I guess in his opinion, the rights
> of governments are valid only when convenient to him and never when a
> "liberal" condones them.
>
> I guess you could go with a cop out like, this was some deep, esoteric
> bullshit but really, Bruce was just being Bruce: babbling crap that
> even he doesn't believe applies in this case, just so he could
> disagree with someone further left than himself (i.e. not actually
> wearing a swastika on his arm).
> Whereas, I thought you to be a bit more insightful and objective.
> Perhaps I overestimated...
>
> On Jul 11, 6:00 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Holly, Holly, Holly.......
>
> > As I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions, you should always read
> > the posts by thinking, well read, conservative Americans several times
> > before responding.
>
> > Zeb and Bruce both are not advocating that laws be broken, or that illegal
> > immigrants should not be prosecuted.  Just the opposite is true.   Bruce,
> > and I imagine Zeb also concurs, would like to see much less laws in this
> > Nation, but that is getting off of the point of illegal immigration, and a
> > federal government who asked all Americans to forego their civil liberties
> > in the name of National Security, when at the same time, our federal
> > government refused to secure our national borders, allowing for anyone, to
> > include folks who frequently sport dirty laundry on their heads, to enter
> > our Nation, without any accountability.
>
> > Further, Bruce, like most thinking Americans and all conservatives, finds it
> > repulsive that we, as taxpayers, are footing the bill for these illegal
> > aliens, predominately from Mexico, to include their health care, the
> > schooling of their children, their food subsidies, and their criminal
> > mischief and what that causes to our society both fiscally and socially.
>
> > These are not racist sentiments, nor is there any of the conservatives that
> > I know of, who are Anti-Mexican.  No one wants to curtail any individual or
> > their family from wanting to better themselves, their families,  or to
> > prohibit anyone from prospering.  Of course, it is hard for me to understand
> > why these folks are not in their own Nation demanding that a corrupt
> > government start addressing the poverty; the lack of services;  the neglect
> > of an infrastructure, especially with a land that is ripe with natural
> > resources and a vibrant labor pool, but as most socialists and
> > liberals believe, these folks think that America owes them something, and I,
> > like many thinking, conservative Americans resent that.  I tend to believe
> > that Bruce and Zeb do also.
>
> > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Hollywood 
> > <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > > bruce,
>
> > > First thing I learned about the law was that in many cases it has
> > > nothing whatsoever to do with justice. You sound like a little kid
> > > crying to mama that "it's just not FAIR!!!". Check into Hotel Reality
> > > lad.
> > > I hate to be the one to have to break this to you, it saddens me
> > > somewhat to burst your little bubble. Oh yeah, and Santa Claus is also
> > > not real.
>
> > > Tell me lad, who's version of "justice" would you like to measure
> > > everything against?
>
> > > On Jul 11, 4:10 pm, bruce majors <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Yes and as we all know law and justice are identical aren't they
>
> > > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Hollywood <[email protected]
> > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > bruce,
>
> > > > > Yeah, they are called LAWS. Duuuuuuh.....
> > > > > Ya' think the FBI would give the slightest fuck if I were to decide I
> > > > > have the RIGHT to rob a bank? OR the INS if I think it's RIGHT to
> > > > > ignore our immigration laws? Feel free to do what you think is right
> > > > > lad, just be prepared to take the consequences if the law in this
> > > > > country runs counter to what you think is right.
> > > > > Guess what? Some radical Islamics think it is right and moral to
> > > > > strangle their daughter for wearing a mini-skirt. Here in St. Louis we
> > > > > called that murder and arrest your sorry ass.
> > > > > My, my, bruce defending Islamic nut-jobs because they are only doing
> > > > > what they think is right and moral.
>
> > > > > On Jul 11, 9:49 am, bruce majors <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > It's a more abstract discussion than that Holly
> > > > > > You believe that what governments say is important and has something
> > > to
> > > > > do
> > > > > > with what is wrong or right
>
> > > > > > You believe they are the source of rights
>
> > > > > > You are wrong
>
> > > > > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Hollywood <
> > > [email protected]
> > > > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > > > bruce,
>
> > > > > > > When I visit Mexico I do it legally. It's not called a "visit" 
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > you cross a border illegally. My, my look at all the conservatives
> > > > > > > defending illegal aliens and encouraging the violation of American
> > > law
> > > > > > > and sovereignty. What has suddenly happened to you lads?
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 11, 9:33 am, bruce majors <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > States don't have a right to tell non-violent people where they
> > > can
> > > > > > > travel.
> > > > > > > >  If someone invites them to visit they should be able to
>
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Hollywood <
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > bruce,
>
> > > > > > > > > Sure, just so long as they do it LEGALLY.
> > > > > > > > > So, you really do NOT want to solve the illegal alien problem?
> > > You
> > > > > > > > > WANT to allow CERTAIN people to break American immigration 
> > > > > > > > > laws
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > no significant punishment or consequences? Gee, I thought you
> > > lads
> > > > > > > > > were all about law & order, personal responsibility and doing
> > > > > > > > > something about unemployment. Guess not.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 8:45 am, bruce majors <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > People should be free to work and live where they like
> > > > > > > > > > Just not to live off taxpayers
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Hollywood <
> > > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > > > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > bruce,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I got an idea. Why don't we simply dry up the reason they
> > > are
> > > > > > > coming
> > > > > > > > > > > here illegally? They come here for jobs, to work here
> > > > > illegally.
> > > > > > > Send
> > > > > > > > > > > govt. agents, INS or whomever to raid plants and look for
> > > > > illegal
> > > > > > > > > > > workers. And, of course, deport those illegals but more
> > > > > importantly
> > > > > > > > > > > provide punsihment to the people that hire them that would
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > significant enough to stop them from ever even THINKING of
> > > > > doing
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > again. Throw a few plant managers and HR managers in jail,
> > > fine
> > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > significantly enough to put a stop to the illegal activity
> > > of
> > > > > > > hiring
> > > > > > > > > > > illegals. What good does it do to fime a company a few
> > > bucks if
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > are saving 10 times that amount by hiring the illegals? If
> > > i
> > > > > commit
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > crime that nets me a profit of $1 million dollars and I'm
> > > > > caught
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > the fine is $100,000.00 with no jail time why on earth
> > > would I
> > > > > NOT
> > > > > > > > > > > commit that crime again, first chance I got?
> > > > > > > > > > > Oh yeah, and forbid any company caught hiring illegals 
> > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > > > bidding on any city, county, state or federal govt.
> > > contracts
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > least on year or so. No, maybe it would be tough to do 
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > to
> > > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > > > > homeowner that hires and illegal to cut
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to