Replies

I actually ANSWERED your question, you are just too stupid to read apparently. You are like a broken record, writing stupid things and ignoring responses, not explaining your position, and resorting to name-calling as if it’s a debating tactic.

I’m not surprised — your position is devoid of sense, decensy, or moral standing. You ask if it is OK to kill people for crossing the border, we all tell you NO, and you refuse to take NO as an answer.

You apparently think that because we all would support shooting an armed thug threatening the life of a border agent, that this means we should all support killing every illegal who tries to cross the border. We don’t, your candidate doesn’t, and your unlikely to find more than a fringe group who would agree with that principle.

Heck, I don’t even know if YOU agree with it, since you REFUSE to answer your OWN question, or anybody elses questions.

And lest you missed it, or maybe you have a mental deficiency of some sort and can’t remember things after you read other things — NO. NO NO NO.

It is NOT all right to shoot people for simply crossing our border. NO. There is no rational, moral, or ethical basis for killing a human being for trespassing. NO.

Now, can you anser, do you think it IS OK to shoot other human beings for crossing a border?

I don’t know if you know this, because you seem pretty clueless, but by your standard, we should all be dead, and this country should still be the territory of the indian tribes. Columbus should have been shot on sight, for invading their territory.

And I hope you are never on an international flight that has to land in a different country, because by your apparent argument, that country has every right to blow your plane out of the sky, since you didn’t get legal passage to land in those countries.

Your basic flaw in your argument is that you want to take a specific, justifiable instance where it would be OK to use deadly force to defend a border, and use that to argue that every person crossing a border without permission should be killed.

But it is so much easier for those of us who disagree to provide NUMBEROUS counter-examples of people who illegally cross borders who NOBODY would support being killed. And since your argument APPEARS to be that all illegal crossers can be shot on sight, you have to prove that EVERY one of the illegals deserves and can rightfully be shot. We only have to present ONE counterexample where you are wrong, and your argument falls.

The sad thing is that I think you actually believe you are winning an argument because we would use troops to defend our border from a military invasion, as if that is somehow equivalent to people crossing our borders to try to earn a living.

And then you mistakenly think that if we don’t want to kill people, we want them to get away with their illegal behavior. But since most people don’t support the type of sharia law where every minor offense is punishable by death, your argument falls flat.

And lest you are distracted again by my vain attempts to educate you, NO NO NO NO NO. You cannot shoot people simply for crossing your border. It is a violation of accepted international practice, probably a treaty violation with Mexico, certainly will be an international incident and will be roundly and rightfully condemned by hte world community. NO, we do not support other countries shooting americans on sight for illegally crossing their borders, and we cannot shoot people for illegally crossing our borders. NO.

Are you so clueless to try to claim I still haven’t answered your question?