Replies

Unlike YOU, I actually read the article. In it, it said that most were NOT YET FULLY VETTED. I quoted what was IN THE ARTICLE, so just HOW is that "distorting the known facts" ?

It is you, who makes us all sound STUPID, by emotionally reacting to my post, sans comprehending what I actually did post.

Unlike YOU, I actually read the article. In it, it said that most were NOT YET FULLY VETTED. I quoted what was IN THE ARTICLE, so just HOW is that "distorting the known facts" ? It is you, who makes us all sound STUPID, by emotionally reacting to my post, sans comprehending what I actually did post.

A direct quote from the article would indicate you either didn't really read it, can't read very well or emotionally reacted before getting to an important money line.

"Eligible recruits are required to have legal status in the U.S., such as a student visa, before enlisting."

You can decide which. I don't know you well enough to make the call. Either way, you make us look bad.

and being a damned ILLEGAL ALIEN

An exact quote from your post. (the one that is central to my original reply.) An assertion totally unsupported by any single fact in the article. My intent was to point out that when you put emotional, angry and apparently hateful elements in a post that is unsupported by the post, you make yourself look bad and by association the rest of us. Don't try using DACA as a counter. I don't agree with DACA, but technically it does give the recipient temporary legal status.

You do site several points from the article which somewhat indicate that you read it. However, again they do not in anyway validate your "damned Illegal Aliens" assertion. Had you instead of putting angry unsupported invective placed any of those points in your original post, which most people on the thread would have read, you may have helped educate some people and prompted discussion among others. Instead you wait until post 73 when next to nobody is reading it and all you are doing is attempting to validate bad behavior which you easily could have corrected in the future without the need for further comment.

At this point, you either understand or not that I was calling you for your behavior not your point of view. I would prefer that those on FreeRepublic be viewed as thoughtful, educated, involved and Respectful. It improves our standing as a meaningful political forum. If you prefer those on FreeRepublic to be viewed as obnoxious jerks, you need not change in any way. I would prefer that you leave out the extraneous invective and help educate people with facts in the posts that people will actually read. It is as always, your choice. I shall not concern myself further with you. As they say, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink."