Posted on 10/17/2011 6:38:46 PM PDT by smoothsailing
By JERI CLAUSING and PAUL DAVENPORT Associated Press
October 17,2011
"It was a joke," Cain said emphatically. "I apologize if I offended anyone. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa."
(Excerpt) Read more at kttc.com ...
I'm running through in ascending order. You are so clueless, I'm feeling bad now about arguing with you. Of course tomorrow you'll pretend this never happened and go on to another thread and pretend people are ignoring you.
“I don’t think it helps us to scapegoat illegals”
Liberal comment.
Liberalism is a mental disorder chuck. Like the CheeZburger cat, You haZ it!
You simply cannot shoot unarmed people. The Geneva Accords outlaw it. Your comment that Mexico is shooting people crossing their border is untrue. An interview by Wolf Blitzer of President Calderon of Mexico:
BLITZER: From the Washington Times “Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to reenter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.”
Blitzer – Is that true?
CALDERON: It was true, but it is not anymore. We derogate or we erased that part of the law. Actually, the legal immigration is not a — is not a crime in Mexico. Not anymore, since one year ago. And that is the reason why we are trying to establish our own comprehensive public policy talking about, for instance, immigrants coming from Central America…
You are a liar.
My record here is public. Post a single thread where I defended “love of abortion” “gay marriage” “gays in the military” or any other liberal idea.
Since I don’t recognize your screen name, I’ll indulge you one time, but I don’t suffer fools and won’t bother again, because we are through with this crap.
In 2007, I had not chosen a candidate. I fell in love with the idea of Fred Thompson, but he was not in the race. I looked at the platforms and proposals of all the candidates, and decided on that basis which candidates I could support. The list for me was relatively large. I rejected Giuliani and McCain, sent money to Duncan Hunter, and waited.
When I saw a republican candidate falsely attacked, I defended that candidate. I even defended Giuliani from false attacks about his handling of 9/11, even though I would never support him for President.
There were many false attacks on Mitt Romney. I will not detail them here, I will not repeat them here, I will not offer the defence of them here, or defend my defense of them here. The rules of this site are clear, and as I have no interest in Mitt Romney in this election, I have no desire to speak of it. But in order to answer your specific scurrilous and false charge, I will say the following. Again though, I will not defend my position on these issues, will not argue with people who disagree with me, and have no intention of advancing these arguments here.
In my opinion, Romney was falsely attacked on allowing gay marriage in Mass. I didn’t defend gay marriage, I defended against what I saw as the false attack that he deliberately allowed and in fact brought about gay marriage. If you have any interest in that argument, go to the archives, I have full citations of legal experts proving my points, and won’t defend it here.
In my opinion, Romney’s stated positions were sufficiently pro-life for his current candidacy in 2007. I was not alone in this opinion, as he received endorsements from pro-life leaders and politicians, although not “the endorsement” or specific organizations. I never defended his past pro-abortion policies, I defended his then-current stance as being a change for the better that I thought we could take a chance on if we had to.
In my opinion, he was falsely accused of supporting changing the policy of gays in the military, based on a quote he made about addressing it later; I felt that same quote showed he wasn’t going to do it during his presidency, but argued only that his quote didn’t support the claim he would.
In my opinion, his platform was conservative. I posted his platform. I also defended his record on guns in Mass, based on quotes from the NRA, and I defended him against a charge that in my opinion was false that he claimed an ‘endorsement’. That was a technical argument over the use of the words “support of”.
In all those arguments and defenses, I never told anybody to vote for Mitt Romney, and I never said I was voting for Mitt Romney, because at that time I had not made any such decision. It was clear though that Duncan Hunter wasn’t cutting it.
When Thompson entered the race, I declared my support for him. I sent him money. I circulated petitions for him to get him on the ballot in Virginia. At that time, Thompson was fading somewhat, and I decided to also circulate petitions for Romney. Also by that time, it was clear Hunter was going to drop out — he didn’t even get on the Virginia ballot.
Tancredo dropped out, and endorsed Mitt Romney. That was a surprise. And McCain started coming back. A lot of tancredo and hunter supporters argued that Thompson was a stalking horse for McCain, and I argued against that, but it was clear that Thompson’s entry had given McCain the chance to regroup and come back. Giuliani became an also-ran. There was Thompson, Huckabee, McCain, Romney, and Giuliani. Hunter was gone, tancredo was gone (I defended tancredo when he was attacked for hiring illegals to work on his house). WHoever you think were all these “conservatives”, none of them ever became a viable candidate, and it wasn’t MY fault.
I publicly stated my support for Romney when Thompson dropped out. I couldn’t bring myself to support Giuliani, and I, like many others, decided Romney while a chance certainly spoke a more conservative message than McCain ever did.
Too many poeple confuse defending a candidate against perceived false charges with supporting a candidate. I have YET to support a candidate in this cycle. I have not sent any candidate money. I have not endorsed anyone, or written any editorials backing a candidate. I am undecided. But, I have written posts here defending Bachmann, Cain, and Perry from attacks I thought were false. In my opinion, there have been a lot more false attacks on Perry than the other candidates, so I have defended him more.
I defended Palin as well, although rarely because she had so many supporters that I wasn’t needed.
So it is possible that 4 years from now I will be accused of “supporting Perry from the start”, possibly without me ever actually supporting him. My guess is I’ll end up supporting Perry, but I’m still holding out hope for Cain, and maybe I’d be persuaded to back Gingrich.
But it clearly is a lot simpler for YOUR position if you just refuse to accept that Cain SUPPORTS Romney now, and to deny he supported him before it didn’t matter in 2008, and to falsely depict my record from 2007-2008 in order to blunt some perception of your candidate you don’t like.
Sorry, but your chosen candidate has said clearly that he would support Romney over Perry. So, are you willing to be the first Freeper here to publicly announce that, in a race between Romney and Perry, you’d chose Romney?
Just to be clear — nothing in this post is intended to RE-ARGUE the points from 2008. I have explained them simply to set the record straight about what I actually defended in that race, NOT to make the defense here. I am not supporting Mitt Romney, would definitely pick Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich, Santorum, and Cain over Romney. I would choose Romney over Huntsman and Ron Paul (but I wouldn’t defend that choice here).
But I won’t let people lie about my record. I was always open and honest about what I was doing, and why. I never tried to hide who I could support, I disclosed my donations and my political activity. I never asked anybody else to vote for anybody.
And I haven’t in this cycle either. I’ve defended poeple against charges, but not lobbied for votes.
Easier. If you look at the post before your inane comment here, you will see that it is a respons to comment 187. IN other words, while you were making up rediculous “reasons” why I hadn’t responded to post 203, I was still reading posts in the 100 range and responding to them. I responded to post 203 when I got there.
You could have saved yourself the embarrassment of looking as foolish as Norm if you had just paid a bit of attention.
He's at THREE percent in Florida. He's done.
Our State has spent our own money, time and lives doing the job that is reserved to the Feds by the Constitution. Our Governor has led where the Feds have refused.
Governor Perry has been active in border security and controlling illegal immigration since early in his first term as Governor.
During his first Session of the Texas Legislature, he vetoed a bill that would have allowed illegal aliens to obtain drivers’ licenses. (We got a law that prohibits them, this year. It takes a while when our Legislature only meets for 4 months every 2 years.)
Immediately after September 11, 2001 attacks on Washington, DC and New York’s World Trade Center, the Governor helped coordinate the deployment of 530 National Guardsmen at airports all over the State. In November 2001, he added 133 more to the number of National Guards posted at 27 airports in Texas. http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/4233/
In October 1, 2001, Governor Perry announced the creation of the Governor’s Task Force on Homeland Security. http://governor.state.tx.us/news/executive-order/4440/
In June, 2002, the Governor announced that Texas would receive Federal grants for building border security facilities at the border crossings. These facilities would inspect trucks and other vehicles that cross from Mexico into Texas. (there were none before 2002). http://governor.state.tx.us/news/speech/10787/
In May, 2002, the Governor used funds from his own office to institute Counter Terrorism training at the Port of Houston and another separate program to train state and local law enforcement. http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/4322/
When the Texas Legislature refused to fund his program to implement a "virtual border" using camera surveillance to augment "boots on the ground," so he used money from the Governor’s discretionary fund. In some cases, local sheriffs and cities refused to cooperate and their opposition impeded full implementation of the program.
And then, here's more:
Unfortunately, the Federal government which has the Constitutional duty to protect our borders has refused to fund the necessary manpower and equipment and has also been negligent in identifying, arresting, and deporting illegal aliens. Governor Perry has focused on border security to control illegal invasion in the first place, both in Texas and the greater United States. He advocates what he calls “boots on the ground:" patrolling the border, with agents, planes, drones, and helicopters.
Governor Perry supports strategically placed fencing in urban areas and not the rural fence that doesn’t work well when placed 1/4 mile from the Rio Grand. More here from National Public Radio. This article from the LA Times, gives an example of the unintended consequences of unwise placement of the fence, resulting in Texans whose homes have been fenced off from the rest of the US.
While there are National Guard troops on the 2000 mile border with Mexico, only 250 of the 1200 are deployed along the 1200 miles of Texas' border. Perry has repeatedly asked for more. Read this news report from a year ago. He also pushed the Federal government to allow the military practice to their skills with unmanned Predator aircraft along our border ("They’ve gotta practice somewhere.”)
As a direct result of the Governor alerting Texas Republican Congressmen about President Obama’s plan to remove the National Guard after less than 6 months, we'll have them longer. News report, here, from June, 2011 about the extension. Texas (along with our costs from eleven ICE detention center detainees being dumped in the State by Homeland security, our support of Katrina refugees, and our natural disasters like Ike, wildfires, and tornadoes) is expected to pay for our own Guard if we want them here after September.
Watch and listen to Governor Perry talking with Fox News Greta van Susteren about the border, that "boots on the ground" phrase, and the problems with the fence. (You can see and hear the Texas Ranger helicopters in the background.)
He created the Ranger Recon force, sending 150 Texas Rangers (Motto:"One riot, one Ranger") to the border along with helicopters and Texas Guardsmen, paid for with Texas state funds. "Operation Linebacker" and "Border Star" were efforts from 2006 and 2007: Gov. Perry Implements and Leads Operation Border Star From 2009: Gov. Perry Expanding Operation Border Star – Sends Rangers, Guard to the Border.
Texas spends over $200 million a year on the cost of jailing illegal aliens that the feds bring here. In addition, we’ve spent $79 million of our own Texas tax funds on troops, helicopters.
When the Texas Legislature refused to fund his program to implement a "virtual border" using camera surveillance to augment "boots on the ground," so he used money from the Governor’s discretionary fund. In some cases, local sheriffs and cities refused to cooperate and their opposition impeded full implementation of the program.
The following are from the Governor's News room:
Tuesday, June 07, 2011: Gov. Perry Adds Sanctuary Cities to Special Session Call He also added bills to approve "Secure Communities" and a ban on Texas driver license for illegal aliens.
"Gov. Rick Perry announced the addition of legislation relating to the abolishment of sanctuary cities, the use of the federal Secure Communities program by law enforcement agencies, and the issuance of driver’s licenses and personal identification certificates to the special session call.
“Texas owes it to the brave law enforcement officials, who put their lives on the line every day to protect our families and communities, to give them the discretion they need to adequately do their jobs,” Gov. Perry said.
“Abolishing sanctuary cities in Texas, using the federal Secure Communities program and ensuring that only individuals who are here legally can obtain a valid Texas driver’s license sends a clear message that Texas will not turn a blind eye to those breaking our laws.”
Tuesday, May 10, 2011 Gov. Rick Perry on House Passage of House Bill 12.
Friday, May 27, 2011: Gov. Perry Takes a Major Step in Securing the Integrity of the Electoral Process; Signs legislation requiring voters to present photo ID at polling places
Tuesday, June 28, 2011: Statement by Gov. Rick Perry Regarding Sanctuary City Legislation
2005: Gov. Perry works with the 16-member Texas Border Sheriff’s Association to deter illegal immigration and prevent border-related crime - Creates ‘Operation Linebacker” - Awards $6 Million to Border Counties for Border Security
2007: Gov. Perry Praises Progress of Statewide Radio Communications Capabilities
2010: Governor Perry’s Letter to Barack Obama (2010)
2010: Gov. Perry: Federal Government Must Take Action To Prevent Spillover Violence from Mexico Requests Predator Drones and National Guard Troops along Border (2010)
2010: Governor’s Perry’s Homeland Security Strategic Plan for Texas, 2010 - 2015 (in pdf)
2010: Gov. Perry Releases Texas Homeland Security Strategic Plan 2010-2015 \
Well if Wolf and Calderon say it, I would never suppose that it could happen then. After all, Calderon says that drugs are illegal too. Sorry. Not buying that. But it doesn’t matter regardless. He ...”admitted that it WAS true”... the LAWS were on the books. You can choose to believe him that they are no longer ‘enforced’. I don’t. I do notice that as soon as the govt “officially’ stopped killing southern crossers that the Zetas and others miraculously started immediately killing a scarily similar number of southern crossers in the very same areas..... Gee, I wonder if....nah...couldn’t be. Mexico has such an uncorrupt, open and honest government. They’d NEVER lie to us.
Secondly, As I said and you failed to dispute, Geneva anything does not override the US Constitution and it’s mandates/authority. Nor any border law we choose to enact. Any person illegally violating a border of a country can be classified as an invader and that’s the bottom line. Our border, Mexico’s, Canada’s or any other.
I cannot believe people are on a Conservative website making the argument you just made. You are not only against us defending our border with force but you want us to put our law subservient to the whims of an extraconstitutional treaty?
Are you insane? No really, Are you insane?
Step back, take a breath and say it out loud to see how nuts your argument sounds. I’m serious. You may then realize what the rest of us do.
If a person willfully tries violating ANY national border they are subject to being repelled by force, deadly or otherwise. I suggest you research thousands of years of world AND 200+ years of American history.
Thank you for answering. Your answer is illogical, and also violates the norms of human behavior. Let me deal with the “illogical” part, because that is factual in nature.
You say first that we can “shoot any illegal invader attempting to violate the border of the USA.”
That can mean two things. The first would be that we can shoot them BEFORE they cross over the line, if we see them and think they are TRYING to. Which would mean you are claiming the right for americans to shoot mexicans on mexican soil, if we think they are trying to cross our border. The absurdity of that concept is so painfully obvious that I will assume you didn’t mean that. If you did, I’m sorry but there’s no hope for you.
The second would be that we can shoot them after they have crossed the border, and are standing on American soil.
EXCEPT that, in your next sentence, you say “if an illegal is already IN America, they should be immediately deported”. Well, if the illegal crossed the border, they are IN America. So first you said we could shoot them as soon as they were standing on our soil, and then you said we shouldn’t shoot them, but deport them. Which is it?
Or do you believe we can shoot them within X feet of the border, but should deport them if they are further from the border?
Or do you believe we can shoot them when they FIRST enter, but if they have been here more than X minutes, we can no longer shoot them but have to deport them?
It simply makes no sense to say we can shoot them when they first cross, but not if we catch them later. What if we detect a crossing with our security, and we catch them 20 miles away in a van? Do we shoot them, or deport them?
As for the norms of human behavior — no respected country in this world shoots people who are simply illegally crossing their border, accept in times of war. No country is going to support such a policy by other countries against their citizens.
If you want to argue that point, start with a single referenced citation of U.S. or international law which would support your position, or cite any developed country which has a policy of shooting anybody who crosses their borders. If you have none, you are just blowing smoke. Since you claim that it is “OK, alright, and desirable”, it is your job to find evidence for that claim. The lack of evidence is what shows that it is NOT OK, it is NOT alright, and it is not desirable.
To make that clear, I can’t find the immigration laws of a hundred countries to show that they DON’T shoot illegals. I did a google search on “countries that kill illegals”, and there were no hits for countries that actually do so.
You could prove your side by finding ONE developed country that has the policy. Otherwise, it’s just your warped opinion.
I will note two things in support of my argument. Our constitution grants all humanity certain rights, including the right to life. We also have the 8th amendment, against cruel or unusual punishment. Our constitution also grants the right to a trial before sentence is passed.
Our jurisprudence allows for police to use deadly force, but only in strictly defined situations where there is a clear and imminent threat of harm. And our Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of our rights, and our jurisprudence, extends to all humans within our borders, including those here illegally.
We do have the death penalty in this country, but only for a small set of heinous crimes, mostly involving murder, and only after both a court finding, and a lengthy appeals process. We are very serious about NOT killing people until we are absolutely sure they deserve it, or when it is absolutely necessary because of an immienent threat.
There is no way that a person crossing our border would meet ANY of the definitions under which our laws or our constitution allow for the punishment of death. It is disporportionate to the crime, and an affront to the value and sanctity of human life.
That you would claim that it is desirable to kill a human being for trying to step over a line into our country shows a profound LACK of judgement and a profound lack of respect for the life that our Creator has given us, and the constitution which acknowledges life as a fundamental right not to be so lightly dismissed.
The standard for a military conflict is of course different, and if we were at war with Mexico, we could well have a shoot-on-crossing rule, although the rules of war would likely preclude using such an order to shoot clearly civilian targets, or to shoot troops who were crossing the border but in an act of surrender, in which case we would take them into custody.
But despite the effort of a few to confuse the issue, we aren’t talking about war, or a military base being defended, so that is a moot point.
I’m glad you had the courage to finally voice your opinion, and while I respect you for that courage, I find your position indefensible, without logical or legal merit, and a sign of a deficiency in judgement.
I can imagine cases where I would support shooting someone crossing the border — like if there was a mob crossing at once, and some of them appeared to be armed, and they were running at the border agents, the agents would have to shoot and hope it stopped the mob from continuing. But that would be a matter of imminent threat, and again moot to the argument at hand.
And of course, I think our border agents should be allowed to shoot anybody, on EITHER side of the border, that fires a shot at them. But that is another different argument, and therefore again moot for this discussion.
Dport them, secure the border, throw them in jail — but you can’t just kill people for entering your country. It’s uncivilized.
That seems to be another broken record of yours, saying “you cannot read” instead of actually making an argument.
But since I eventually stumbled across the post where you answered the question, I have responded to that post. I’m just running an hour or more behind you in the thread.
Of course, you are ignorant of many things, including my entire history.
I don’t expect any better, it is lazy dishonesty to make up false claims instead of defending your position.
The way Perry has been at the debates, I’m convinced that a competent campaign manager would have adopted a strategy wheere Perry simply IGNORED the debates for the 1st two months, and concentrated on fundraising. He had great poll numbers anyway, so he was getting press without the debates. He would have slipped, but also would have intrigued. It would have been unconventional, and avoided him debating before he was really prepared for it.
It was what I was afraid would happen to Palin had she entered the race, so it wasn’t surprising, although having heard Perry speak in person, and having watched him on TV and in videos, I was surprised at his debate performance, because he’s really a good articulate speaker, and does well answering questions.
I still hypothesize that his back treatment didn’t work so well, and that he is medicated for the pain, and it distracts him and makes him tired (I’ve had back issues so I know how that works). He also looks stiff, which would be explained by a back thing. Again, a smart candidacy would have noticed that and held him out of the debates.
On the other hand, I think being at 7% gives him some room to breathe. He’s not necessarily the target now, and can break out his plans and proposals. Most people won’t pay attention until November.
McCain was near the top of the polls for a long time in 2008. Then he fell to single digits. He shot back in December, for no apparent reason other than people started paying attention, he gave some good speeches, and polled well in NH one time. Next thing you know, he’s the frontrunner and Giulini is history.
In a poll released today, Cain was leading, with Romney close behind, and Perry at 13%. But the interesting part of the poll was that 67% of the respondents said they could switch their support.
I wish Perry had just run away with it. I think he’s good enough for the job, and it would have ensured Romney was gone, and given us lots of time to put together the fight against Obama. But he didn’t, and if he doesn’t get more support, there will be no reason for me to ever “support” him, since he won’t be able to win.
My real concern now is that I am liking Cain less and less the more I learn about him, and I’m afraid he is just the “consolation prize” candidate for all the Palin supporters. In another conversation I said it’s like Cain won the musical chairs contest, because he was sitting down when Palin dropped out.
I don’t expect it, but if Perry picked up in the next few debates, and Palin endorsed him, I think enough Palin supporters would back him to make Cain a memory. I see Cain as a much more risky candidate (not as risky as Romney was in 2008, but still risky). I say that because he has no record, only talk, and his talk is increasingly erratic and unpredictable.
I also think 9-9-9 is too disruptive, and as the details are revealed, it looks more complicated and less desirable. And it just doesn’t look serious (see my point about how he expected it to pass into law next month through the supercommittee).
But he certainly appears to be a good conservative, and so I hold out hope for him, especially if Perry can’t get his bearings.
What the hell are you talking about? The argument was that our connservatives in the audience were booing the guy who ASKED the question because he was gay. THAT was the lie that we were countering by pointing out that the audience was booing the QUESTION he asked. The booing happened before Mitt answered the question, and nobody suggested people were booing Mitt's answer.
I don't even know what Mitt's answer WAS, because i only saw the clip on youtube which ended when the booing happened. I could care less what Mitt's answer was. I never said ONE WORD about Mitt's answer. My guess is either you are just making things up again, or you confused me with someone else.
As to Cain "lying", One of his SUPPORTERS said he was lying. I argued that he was NOT lying. I said that many times in the thread, so I don't know how you missed that.
Projection Chuck. Another liberal trait youpossess. You pretty much got the whole set. Lies. Romney support, using libs talking points, denial of reality, projection, duck/dodge/misdirection... And all in one thread.
Please, spare us your wisdom and go back to DU or KOS where your Anti defense/Pro Illegal views are welcome.
And it’s not my fault if you went on for hours posting about me not answering your question when I had. What WERE all those posts about in the mean time then? Were you just blathering? Of course you were.
Based on your premise, we have no borders and should stand by and let anyone cross illegally...would you feel the same if it was Iran, after all they would be no different that Mexican.
Or is it just certain nationalities that should be allowed to illegally enter our country...how do you feel about illegals from Saudi Arabia, communist china etc....If they resist arrest from border patrol, you seem to think we should give them a free pass, maybe ever some money so they can buy some food..
That is my answer to your first paragraph and you come off as a bleeding heart old lady living in a house full of cats...
For your second paragraph, first action is not shooting anyone, but arresting them. If they resist, and run shoot them...damn right, we don't know if they are smuggling narcotics or terrorists from the middle east.
Citizens that live near the border should be able to shoot anyone trespassing on their property, but one stupid ass judge gave the illegals a man ranch cause he shot at one. The illegal sued, so if that's what you believe, your belief sucks big time....Do you think the judge was correct in giving an American citizens ranch to a group of illegals..???
Many would like hear your opinion on that one...
You must not pay too much attention to what many illegals have done. Murder, manslaughter, rape and were caught. They were illegals should we just send them back to mexico because the poor souls are victims of American judicial system.
What should be done with those that commit crimes, felonies and murder/rape. Whats your suggestion about the tunnels dug by drug loads under the border. Should they be allowed to just simply walk across and not be bothered.
When you stop an illegal, you have no idea of their past or what they intend to do...Far better to stop, arrest and if they run, shoot them like you would any criminal on the streets that resisted arrest and many of these illegals carry some pretty heavy weapons...
The rest of your post is just as stupid..Oh and by the way, the mexican military has invaded us at the southern border, they were spotted 70 miles inside our borders.... Wake up or shut up. Answer if you must, but don't expect me to read it...I have a low tolerance for stupid in my old age....
Like Clint says''get off my lawn" as I LOL at you..
PS my sister's boyfriend is a legal tex-mex and he hates the illegals, they think they are too good to stand in line like the rest of the legal immigrants have...you have some warped idea that these illegals are just innocent people. They aren't that why we call the ILLEGALS. They use to be called WET BACKS which was the description of how they got here. Swimming the Rio Grande River...but that is politically incorrect. Thats why I used it...grow up
Your entire response is a non-sequitor. It has no bearing on the discussion of the comment to which you are responding, and your conclusions are fabricated and without foundation.
I’ve never said anything to suggest there aren’t firefights on our border. And I’ve said that our border agents should have the right to fire back, here and also in other threads on the topic. I certainly don’t believe Janet, nor did I say anything in this thread that could lead a sane person to believe that. The comment you are responding to was about whether Mexico shoots illegals who cross their border — and my links show conclusively that this is not their policy.
Arguing that Mexico is much stricter about illegals in their country isn’t germaine to the discussion, I don’t dispute it as I actually provided links PROVING it; but it doesn’t show that they shoot illegals, and it doesn’t justify us shooting illegals for simply crossing the border.
Our border security is problematic. Perry is fighting the war on his own, without federal assistance, in his state. HIS troopers are being fired upon. He has to spend his state’s tax dollars trying to save our country from border incursions. He’s the only person running for President who has actually secured a border, and it’s ludicrous for him to be attacked as an “open borders” candidate.
I’ve always been for securing the border. I simply don’t support the lunacy of killing people for crossing the border.
Truthful comment, something you would rarely get from a liberal. It does us no good to blame all our problems on illegals. They are a problem, but not THE problem. Obama is THE problem. Killing illegals crossing our border won’t solve the Obama problem.
You are like a broken record. I’ve tried to discuss the issues with you on an adult basis, but you don’t seem to want to be an adult here, opting for name-calling and false personal attacks.
Your ignorance is on display, which I can say with authority because you made the mistake of actually commenting on my personal life history, of which I am an expert, and you are clearly clueless.
You can’t win when you make up stuff about people’s personal lives. “You can’t read” — when I clearly read every piece of drivel you write, and even quote it and answer it? It’s an absurd argument to be repeating over and over like a broken record.
“duck/dodge/misdirection”? Anybody reading this thread will see that I have gone out of my way to fully, and in many cases more than fully, try to answer your questions, show the error of your arguments, provide links to actual facts which refute your claims, and explain exactly what my opinions are. I can be accused of many things (longwinded being the most common), but ducking? NEVER. I don’t duck. I will argue my position with anybody at any time.
“Liberal arts college”? Don’t make me laugh. “Liberal”? If you had a clue, you’d be ashamed of your ignorance (or should be).
“Anti-Defense”? Again, if you only knew the truth. “Pro-Illegal”? That would be counter to 4 years of published opinions, although I certainly am not as anti-illegal as you are, since I don’t want to kill them on sight, and don’t have a heart attack over a border state letting kids pay in-state tuition to college (I opposed that in MY state, where it was MY tax dollars).
Fortunately, I don’t have to answer to ignorant posters on the internet. My writings here will stand or fall on their own, with those who can be persuaded. People who agree with your style of uncivil discourse are rarely persuadable in any case.
It’s kind of sad though, because you clearly have some writing skills, and so it seems you should be able to argue your position without the personal attacks and slanders. And I’m pretty sure you have some good reasons, at least in your own mind, for your opinions.
So I don’t understand your refusal to actually offer up your arguments, instead of just asserting your conclusions and calling people who disagree with you names.
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.