I take it that you have conceded the accuracy and the appropriateness of my point.
Good decision.
Here is my reply, in return....
Your reply stated...
In the last four presidential elections, there have been posters on this forum who have directly opposed posters whose primary concern is border security, and attacked them for remaining firm on that.
I am not aware of any posters who made those claims. I guess that in my 10 years of posting, on FR, I somehow have missed said posters and those posts.
The flood of illegals and the purpose behind it has been clear since the Nixon administration.
Yes. On that we can agree.
When some yahoo on this forum insists that voters who vote third part solely over border enforcement “wants Clinton, Gore, Kerry, or Obama” or “is a purist” they are and have been by inference insisting that stopping the intended overwhelming of the electorate with third world socialists.
Some of them of course have gotten pretty filthy. They insisted that the real reason border Hawks wouldn't vote for Romney was Mormonism. Yes, there were Freepers who threw the “if you won't vote to have the republican party help erase the border then you are a religious bigot” card.
Again, I must've have missed those posters/posts. I don't recall anyone ever saying those things....especially about the 'erasing the border, or you are a bigot' posts.
We didn't get where we are now with the illegals deciding key races due to vote laws not being enforced without people working to put the breaks on it. But we have had (and still do) people who want something else to the point that they will support globalists with an “R” on the ticket if they are promised a capital gains reduction, of a rollback of some tax or another, or an oil policy they desire. All of those things are nice, but effectively throwing our sovereignty away to get them is a bad idea, and attacking those who oppose throwing our sovereignty away through the importation of socialists has gone on for a long time.
On this, too, we can both agree!!
Do you wish to concede my point now, or shall we start doxing posters who have made exactly the statements I am referring to, and debate whether or not attacking border hawks specifically for being border hawks can be done without becoming an open borders advocate by simple reciprocity?
No need to call anyone out, specifically (I do hope you aren't able to dox posters), we can just refer to specific positions that some may take (as you have so nicely done).
I'll go as many rounds as you want to go.
No, I have no desire to do that. Was just wanting more meat on that bone you through out :-) Appreciate the detailed reply, to my request.
Take care!
*Through out s/b threw out.