Local approach to illegal immigrants
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I just love the way you f***ers justify murder
Please quote a post from me that reflects your statement. I have repeatedly stated that I do not personally believe in abortion as a means of contraception, while simultaneously supporting the courts decision regarding the sad sad attempts at legislating solutions to problems such as this one. As Ed points out the rightist platform claims to be against governmental interference but then contradicts itself time and time again by passing new law after law that does just that, interfere, under the guise of "solving problems". You can't solve every problem with new legislation, it's just not possible and, as a principle, is supposed to be part of a true conservative platform. Meanwhile you never addressed the gaps, putting it mildly, in the rightist stance on Abortion. But in true (D)espeiresque quality, resorted to name calling when your argument falls apart.
led mike
led mike wrote:
Meanwhile you never addressed the gaps, putting it mildly, in the rightist stance on Abortion. But in true (D)espeiresque quality, resorted to name calling when your argument falls apart.
There it is again. Why are you so obsessed with me? Are you in love?
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Is it still reasonable
to do nothing? hell, I'm all for pure anarchy.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
You miss the point Mike. We have existing laws that make illegal immigrants, well "illegal". That fact that they are not enforced does not mean we need to make new laws that interfere with actual citizens. Not to mention has anyone considered how these new laws will/can be enforced? Stop making more and more stupid laws just because we can't figure out how to enforce the laws we already have! Is this the same problem solving approach you use to develop software? Bad, bad… really bad.
led mike
-
There isn't a shred of fact in anything Ed posted (as usual). It is all leftist propaganda and talking points aimed at making Americans afraid of themselves - which works to make them support the left - which has obviously worked on Ed and you. You are correct that the "little man" comment was too much. But I was pissed at the time. However, I would ask you to note that I didn't refer to him as 'ignorant' and 'pathetic'. I'm a bigger man than that. :rolleyes:
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
note that I didn't refer to him as 'ignorant' and 'pathetic'.
Right because it's not name calling in general that you guys railed on about it was the actual names themselves. :rolleyes:
Stan Shannon wrote:
There isn't a shred of fact in anything Ed posted (as usual).
Wow. I don't even know how to respond to that. Ed's post speaks for itself, it is almost nothing but facts. The sad facts of the contradictions in the right wing platform.
led mike
-
led mike wrote:
Meanwhile you never addressed the gaps, putting it mildly, in the rightist stance on Abortion. But in true (D)espeiresque quality, resorted to name calling when your argument falls apart.
There it is again. Why are you so obsessed with me? Are you in love?
-
What's the problem? Are you embarrassed by the things you say? Not being able to back them up is one thing but you shouldn't be embarrassed. Where is your conviction?
led mike
led mike wrote:
What's the problem? Are you embarrassed by the things you say? Not being able to back them up is one thing but you shouldn't be embarrassed. Where is your conviction?
Seriously, though. I didn't even post anything in this thread and you mentioned me (in an insulting way while criticizing Stan above for insulting Ed) at least twice. So what's up with that? Why are you obsessed with me? You know I'm married and don't swing that way, right? Do I need to be concerned? Do I need to involve the government by obtaining a restraining order?
-
led mike wrote:
What's the problem? Are you embarrassed by the things you say? Not being able to back them up is one thing but you shouldn't be embarrassed. Where is your conviction?
Seriously, though. I didn't even post anything in this thread and you mentioned me (in an insulting way while criticizing Stan above for insulting Ed) at least twice. So what's up with that? Why are you obsessed with me? You know I'm married and don't swing that way, right? Do I need to be concerned? Do I need to involve the government by obtaining a restraining order?
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Do I need to involve the government by obtaining a restraining order?
I doubt that would work. You probably need some new legislation. That thinking should come natural for you.
led mike
Seriously. You're getting creepy.
-
Seriously. You're getting creepy.
-
meh, I am seriously holding back because I only half beleive that you believe all the garbage you post.
led mike
led mike wrote:
meh, I am seriously holding back because I only half beleive that you believe all the garbage you post.
Holding back what? More obsession? Don't you think that's a little weird? Do you have any history of mental illness?
-
led mike wrote:
meh, I am seriously holding back because I only half beleive that you believe all the garbage you post.
Holding back what? More obsession? Don't you think that's a little weird? Do you have any history of mental illness?
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Do you have any history of mental illness?
Actually there is quite a good history of mental illness in your posts here in the Soapbox. I imagine most shrinks would consider it a gold mine.
led mike
Why are you avoiding the question? I'm concerned about your unhealthy obsession with me and feel that I deserve to know whether or not this is going to materialize into violence.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Do you have any history of mental illness?
Actually there is quite a good history of mental illness in your posts here in the Soapbox. I imagine most shrinks would consider it a gold mine.
led mike
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Is it still reasonable
to do nothing? hell, I'm all for pure anarchy.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
As supporters of the 2nd amendment say, let's enforce existing laws before we start writing new ones.