Posted on 09/30/2007 10:12:11 AM PDT by traviskicks
Edited on 09/30/2007 4:01:53 PM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
to not protect our rights from external threats and to not fight back in self defense when war is declared on you twice is malpractice.
Liar (and a jaw-droppingly inept one, at that). "Enforced immigration laws" obviously and demonstrably would NOT "ban Muslims from immigrating here" -- your original claim -- any more than it would "ban" Frenchmen, or practicing voodoo priestesses, or Aboriginal bush children from doing so, outright. Our existing immigration laws -- the very things you're asserting (idiotically) would be "enforced" in the first place -- have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of banning Muslims qua Muslims.
Humiliate yourself further, by all means, if you'd like. I, for one, always enjoy a little cabaret with my evening meal.
Libertarians are Conservatives that haven't grown up yet and like to smoke dope.
Interesting tagline. I’ve looked around quite a bit and I can’t seem to find anywhere that Ron Paul is advocating surrender to anyone. Maybe you could enlighten me.
Yes, it does cost money. The price goes up every couple of years.
And I find it odd that you would label that statement a "Woefully inadequate mini-doc".
Would you prefer a 10,000 page government statement or study, made by 86 different government committees, that takes years to produce?
Hmmm.
I'd say his statement was, to the point, and right on the money and makes more sense that Bush's entire 6 plus years of this open border, lawless free for all.
And I find it odder still, in turn, that you're flailing about so desperately in the patent attempt to distract from the original point under discussion
Uh, I was just commenting on the article in the link provided by the other poster, while you seem consumed by some tit for tat word game you're playing with the person who posted the link to the statement on immigration.
The statement or the link regarding immigration makes perfect sense, no?
To all antiwar moonbats, Paulistas included:
Hey, if you don't like FR and or our support the war policies leave. Go find a website that supports your unfortunate, short-sighted and misguided antiwar efforts. It's really that simple.
In case you antiwar Paulistas haven't noticed, Free Republic supports the war effort 100%. Many of our chapters protest against the antiwar moonbats either weekly, monthly or whenever the opportunity arises. The DC Chapter has been protesting against the antiwar moonbats EVERY Friday night at Walter Reed for three years.
Free Republic has co-sponsored several cross country caravans and hundreds of rallies in cities all across the country and in DC against the antiwar moonbats and in support of our Commander-in-chief, our troops, the war effort and our Gold Star and Blue Star families, many of whom are FReepers.
When you are supporting antiwar moonbats you are working against Free Republic's mission, hurting our efforts, hurting our families who have lost loved ones or have loved ones involved in the fighting, hurting our troops, damaging their morale, working against our efforts to defeat the enemy, and, in fact, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Antiwar moonbats are the domestic enemy. Antiwar moonbats willingly give aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime. In my book, that's tantamount to treason. Ron Paul is an antiwar moonbat. You figure it out. If antiwar moonbats are the enemy and Ron Paul is an aid and comfort supplying antiwar moonbat, then Ron Paul IS the enemy!
If you Paulistas are looking for support on FR for an antiwar moonbat who is giving aid and comfort to our enemies, you're nuts! Free Republic will NEVER support antiwar moonbats!
As far as our official policy on Ron Paul is concerned, it's the same policy we have for his antiwar moonbat allies the traitors Harry Reid, Chuckie Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, Barbara Streisand, Jane Fonda, CodePink, International Answer, et al and their flaming antiwar spam monkeys. Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!
Where the hell did you guys ever get the idea that enemy supporting antiwar moonbats would be welcome on FR?
That plain enough for you or do I need to spell it out?
My new tag line! Dibs! DIBS -- !!! ;)
I never said anything about "throw the race to her".
Paul reminds me of Perot. Lots of tawk...
My post was based on probability. No, Paul didn't say it specifically, but securing the borders and enforcing immigration laws equals no Muslims coming here to wreak havoc.
How embarrassing. For you.
Please don't attempt to clumsily change the subject under discussion by frantically hopping up and down and pinwheeling your arms like that. For the record: by your "yes, yes," then, I take you -- as another vocal and (putatively) knowledgeable Ron Paul supporter -- are admitting, openly, that the assertion that Ron Paul would ensure that "Muslims would be banned from immigrating here" is, in plain point of fact, a great, whopping, steaming pile? A simple, straightforward YES or NO, please.
Why are you so strenuously avoiding doing so, I don't wonder...?
PING to post #168
Why should my doing so distress you so? I mean, It's not as if you've been caught lying in plain and open view or anything, right...?
No, Paul didn't say it specifically
Oh. It IS as if you've been caught lying in plain and open view, then.
securing the borders and enforcing immigration laws equals no Muslims coming here to wreak havoc.
You've already been corrected on this once, for pity's sake. There are no "existing immigration laws" to "enforce" which would "equal no Muslims coming here." None. Zip. Nada.
If I'm wrong: CITE them, with verifiable links provided. (You've already more than amply demonstrated that no other FReepers hereabouts need take your word, unsupported, for any such assertions.)
Go ahead. Humiliate me. Make me grovel and cringe, if you can, by all means.
[::... tick... tick... tick... tick... tick... :]
I don't do BDSM, sorry.
You don't "do" the truth evidently, either.
That's okay. We both know the real score, here.
And now, so does everyone else.
You need to read this. ;)
Now, do I dare ask you to respond to my questions?
Second thought, maybe this is too risky...
Yeah...Lets just ferget it.
I see you're constantly pinging the moderator and others here...Strange...So I'll just not comment or voice my opinions to you...I think avoiding you would be wise.
Have fun!
Does this come with subtitles? LOL!!!
Now, do I dare ask you to respond to my questions?
Still haven't answered MINE, yet. (Three spastic dodges on your part, now -- and counting!)
I think avoiding you would be wise.
The part I always love best is when they inevitably start belly-crawling away, whimpering like whipped spaniel pups. A jaded thrill, I know... but: there you have it. ;)
OK, I'll play just a minute or so more with you. What is this burning question that I have allegedly avoided?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.