Hello Fred? WTF???
What is it that you believe this thread is about? What is the major point of this thread? What is it it that you are in disagreement with Bruce about? Somewhere, I got lost in the shuffle. If you go down (or up) from this thread, you will see my point about Holly. Some ignorant statement about Ronald Reagan not being a Libertarian, but rather a Republican. Yes, we will remain civil on this board. Its one thing to attack an individual's political philosophy or ideas, and its quite another to just sling nasty personal attacks at one another. That goes for Bruce, me, every other member on this board, it matters not what your political philosophy is. Nevertheless, the mudslinging and nasty barbs are unbecoming from you....Just as they are from Bruce. That crap stops now. We will continue to allow for Holly to "shine the light" on inconsequential matters that have nothing to do with the issues at hand, or that are being discussed in any particular thread. Again, you have lost me in whatever point that it is you are attempting to make. I clearly said that Bruce and I don't see eye to eye on Immigration, he holds Libertarian Party tenets, as opposed to a Libertarian Ideology, and again, this is just but one example, of why I ask Holly to read the posts several times before he responds. I could not have made it any clearer above. On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 2:13 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 > > > > 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 > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป- 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
