[WRhine]

Nice straw man. Too bad it won't stand up on its own.

It's not a straw man. It's an Observation. An Observation based on the past histories of a number of posters here that defend and/or make excuses--at every turn--for the lawlessness that illegal immigration breeds in America but suddenly get righteous about "the law" when a hot-tempered judge hands down an extreme penalty for a frivolous infraction.

To help it stand, you'll have to cite examples of the "many of the posters" that take these conflicting positions. If you're right, it should be easy to do.

LOL. Oh, I see, I have to PROVE the validity of my observation to YOU. I have a better idea. Why don't YOU follow some of these characters around for awhile and watch them in action. Should be an eye-opening experience for you.

[beezdotcom]

LOL. Oh, I see, I have to PROVE the validity of my observation to YOU.

You don't have to do anything of the sort. I'm not your daddy.

But your Observation served to dismiss those (like myself) who might have valid reasons for leaning in favor of this judge, by lumping them in with those who are soft on illegal imiigration (unlike myself).

Sure, you can say that "you weren't talking about me", and that I'm jumping to conclusions. Perhaps. However, by being NON-specific in your Observation, it could easily lead people to think that you were making such a generalization - and you darn well know it.