Replies

... but Bush hasn't tightened down on [the borders].

That's not true. The southern borders have been greatly tightened around all the heavily-populated regions in recent years, and hence the increase of immigration through the desert.

*... but Bush hasn't tightened down on [the borders].

**That's not true. The southern borders have been greatly tightened around all the heavily-populated regions in recent years, and hence the increase of immigration through the desert.

Incorrect, again. The diversion of Illegals to the deserts was the result of Clinton's "Operation Gatekeeper."

A Freeper's Introduction to Rhetoric (Part 7, False Cause and Begging the Question)

Posted by general_re
On 12/30/2003 11:34:11 AM PST with 27 comments

Introduction to Logic | Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen
False Cause
It is obvious that any reasoning that relies on treating as the cause of some thing or event what is not really its cause must be seriously mistaken. But often we are tempted to suppose, or led to suppose, that we understand some specific cause-and-effect relation when in fact we do not. The nature of the connection between cause and effect, and how we determine whether such a connection is present or absent, are central problems of inductive logic and scientific method. These problems are discussed in detail in Part Four of this book. Presuming the reality of...

Fallacious argumentation from you, again.

"....and hence the increase of immigration through the desert."

I doubt terrorists would mind crossing the desert. Hell, they might even prefer it.

Basically, I was talking about the 'number' of illegals. I don't see that the number of illegals coming into this country has depreciated since 9/11.

The southern borders have been greatly tightened around all the heavily-populated regions in recent years, and hence the increase of immigration through the desert.

Meanwhile, those of us who live in the desert are getting boned. I think one of my neighbors came up with the right answer:

"Under the RICO statutes, it is illegal for criminal activity to be moved across state lines. So why did the federal government conspire to and succeed in moving the UDA problem out of El Paso and San Diego into the remote southern parts of Arizona? Perhaps it all boils down to votes. A lot less people, hence a lot less votes. Why are my rights to live in peace in a rural environment less important than a San Diego or an El Paso urbanite? It is not right, nor is it just, nor is it legal. If we do not protest, there will be nothing left to protect."