Frederick, Well hell, think about it. Who DOSEN'T show more class than bruce? If I was KIT i'd consider that statement a "left-handed compliment" at best.
On Jul 12, 1:13 pm, Frederick The Moderate <[email protected]> wrote: > Well Keith, that was a complete load and you know it. Although I like > the "Oh gee, I haven't had a chance to read the thread" attempt at a > complete dodge, the conclusion is inescapable. Bruce was just slinging > his usual bs and you were siding with Bruce only because of the > personalities and obviously not because of the points being made. It's > cool Keith, at least you have a bit of class. > So again obviously this was not some abstract conversation about the > rights of governments in general. Bruce's cop out when he realizes his > bullshit is being walked all over is to wax poetic and then act as if > others are somehow, just not on his level (of complete bullshit). I > even anticipated this because it's so predictibel from him and I > wrote: > "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..." Which he was nice enough to prove with his very next post ;-) > This was a very specific topic about the rights of illegal aliens and > the obligation (or in Bruce's replies "rights") of our government to > enforce immigration laws. The Reader's Digest version so you won't cop > out to the ""Gee, i didn't have time to read it all" thing again: > 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 " and 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 at > > all, 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? > > So Keith, it's cool. You seem to be a more civil version of Bruce. You > will agree with whatever BS he slings, as long as it's in opposition > to Holly or anyone you consider a bit too "left" for your taste. It's > not about the point, it's about just blindly agreeing with those who > subscribe to similar ideology. > If nothing else, you display more class than Bruce - which is about as > tough as being shorter than Yao Ming ;-) > > On Jul 12, 8:10 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Good Morning Fred, (And Bruce!!) > > > I haven't got down to the end of this thread, to even read what all Bruce's > > response was, but I wanted to respond to Fred's post regarding my post last > > night, and being in defense of Bruce and Zeb, as opposed to Holly. > > > I am a Libertarian, in the same vain and ideologies that the Cato Institute, > > Neal Boortz, Ronald Reagan, and most conservatives are Libertarian. To some > > degree, I believe in most of the same tenets that M.A. Johnson, (Michael > > Johnson, a member of our group who I also give a lot of grief too!! LOL!) > > holds dear, and subscribes to. > > > Based on many of the posts that Bruce has posted, and my several > > conversations with Bruce, I believe Bruce to hold more of a "Libertarian > > Party" ideology. At one point in time, when I became so disgusted with the > > Republican Party, (and they with me! I was literally kicked out of the > > Republican Party in Charlotte North Carolina some 18 years ago!!) I joined > > the Libertarian Party, wherein I learned the true definition of > > "clusterfuck". > > > I have a number of issues that I disagree with the Libertarian Party's > > platform, (as I do with the Republicans and the Democrats, each to varying > > degrees) one of which, is the Libertarian Party's belief in open borders. > > I fundamentally disagree with this issue, especially after what transpired > > on September 11, 2001. > > > In that sense, yes, Bruce and I do not see eye to eye, and I find it hard to > > believe that Bruce was advocating that plank of the Libertarian Party. > > Bruce did go on to say, that he believed those that had entered this Nation > > illegally should be arrested and prosecuted, (my words not his) which brings > > me to Holly. > > > With all due respect, (and I sincerely, genuinely like Holly) there are > > times when Holly writes stuff here, that has absolutely nothing to do with > > the main premise of the conversation. Holly rarely stands for anything, and > > usually attempts to sling bullets at any conservative ideal, issue, or > > proposition, yet never criticizes or berates far left liberal, socialist > > causes or "cause celebre').....Many times, Holly is off on some little side > > show, that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Last > > night, after perusing the thread, it was my opinion that this was where > > Holly was attempting to go, especially with Zeb. > > > Condescending?? I like "biting" as an adjective much better!!! > > > Have a great Sunday Fred!! > > > Keith In Tamp > > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 12:39 AM, 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 at > > > all, 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 > > ... > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
