Adios, Amigo (Mal and summary executions)

[SirNitram]

Name a few.

Soaring trade deficit. National debt rising so fast the Debt Clock will run out of room. Multiple government scandals. Collapsing automotive industry. Skyrocketing oil prices. International tension on the rise. A war that was launched on lies killing more Americans by the hour. A country that simply won't be rebuilt desipte promises otherwise.

Good. Illegal immigration is among them. Local economic depression, I'm pretty certain, is probably on some level contributing to a few of those you listed.

No, it is not. The ten billion alleged in damages are a drop in the bucket of most of these, and a drop in the sea of all of them. Try again, troll.

[Mal_Reynolds]

For fuck's sake, your entire fucking argument is based on a series of goddamned equivocations! Do you honestly not understand the difference between an invasion in the informal sense and a military invasion, you shitwit? Are you honestly so stupid as to actually think the Southwestern US is being militarily occupied by a foreign power? You're so retarded your bullfuckery is making me cringe through a computer, you bigoted asshole.

Are the concepts of undeclared war, demographic takeover or military escort beyond your limited mental facilities?

[brianeyci]

demographic takeover

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh nooooooooooooooooooooooo the fucking sand niggers are taking over the country! Quick, gerrymander the ridings even further so they can't turn the United States into Mexico II! And while you're at it you can divy them up so the spics, niggers, chinks, wops, fags and liberals don't have a say either!!!!!!!!!

Wow.

Brian

[Zero]

For fuck's sake, your entire fucking argument is based on a series of goddamned equivocations! Do you honestly not understand the difference between an invasion in the informal sense and a military invasion, you shitwit? Are you honestly so stupid as to actually think the Southwestern US is being militarily occupied by a foreign power? You're so retarded your bullfuckery is making me cringe through a computer, you bigoted asshole.

Are the concepts of undeclared war, demographic takeover or military escort beyond your limited mental facilities?

Undeclared war requires military conquest, demographic takeover would imply that the illegals weren't leaving, which many do after making enough cash to do something decent back in mexico, and Surlethe has been shown numerous times to contain more than decent mental facilities, whereas you're reguarded as enough of a moron to be moved to the sewer.

[Mal_Reynolds]

Waiting for evidence.

I'm sorry, I didn't read that sentence. If you're going to ignore the evidence already presented, I'll simply ignore further requests for it. Fair is fair.

No evidence was ignored. I'm waiting for the percentages.

Bullshit. Read it again.

You have again failed to present evidence that there is no impediment for many other individuals. You simply refuse. Probably because your argument is dead in the water.

I have no intention of supporting the claim that there is no impediment, because I never made that claim. I only refuted your implication that no one gets through legally.

A strawman fallacy. Shock. Amazement. Only not, because you're a troll.

There's no strawman there. You want your quote thrown back at you?

If the entry is onerous, burdensome, and full of roadblocks(And when this is true for those coming from Japan and England with full employment already, it's doubly so for these poor fucks), it is not a realistic option.

Obviously, it is a realistic option, because hundreds of thousands of them per annum realistically exercise it.

The pixie in my ear says it's wrong. Dispute. The. Data.

Burden of proof -- substantiate the existence of a pixie in your ear. I have already substantiated the reality of undocumented wars. You have so far attacked only the source, not the validity of the sourced information. I'll take that as concession.

You have not. You have cited Wikipedia, a source which can be altered by anyone, at anytime. It is not credible.

The malleability of the source is irrelevant. The data presented by the source is relevant. You still won't address the data, instead continuing to focus on the source itself. Your bullshit basically boils down to "They could be wrong!" but you can't be arsed to show that they are wrong.

Or we can simply live in the real world of logical debate and realize it's a worthless source, just like Wikipedia.

The real world of logical debate stipulates that attacking the source without disputing the data it presents is a fallacy.

You have cited Wikipedia, a source which can be altered by anyone, at anytime. It is not credible. Logical debate does not debate data that is not credible.

It debates data, period. It does not bitch and whinge and moan about the credibility of the source without verifying or falsifying the data.

Negative. Ad Hominem is attacking the man, you illiterate monkey.

The definition is not that narrow, and for good reason. Yes, that's what the translation from the Latin reads, but in application it simply means to attack the source without refuting that which the source presents.

If a source is not credible, it's claims are not credible, therefore they need not be discussed in detail. Are you this dense?

Are you that ignorant? Are you claiming that the Korean fucking War did not happen?

I've not attacked you as a part of my argument yet. I have pointed out Wikipedia is a worthless source.

Precisely -- you have attacked the source of the data rather than falsifying the data itself.

By this logic, one must individually refute every impossibility in the Bible to declare it is not a credible source on historical and scientific data.

Not at all -- one must refute only one. You have yet to refute even one military action detailed within the disputed source.

It merely points out you're a gullible moron who tries to use a worthless source to try and puff himself up.

And now you've committed ad hominem, even by your rudimentary understanding of the term.

No, I've insulted you.

Without substantiating the insult as relevant to the particulars of the argument -- which would require you to refute even one claim of the sourced material to establish my gullibility -- that's still an ad hominem.

I'm waiting for you to actually debate, instead of shoving the Burden Of Proof away from yourself at every instance.

I've done no such thing.

Oh. And concession accepted on all the points you've failed to reply to.

There's concessions here? Would you be a doll and bring me some popcorn, please?

[SirNitram]

<Snip Repetition>

Let's summarize.

1) I REFUSE TO TALK ABOUT HOW MANY ARE TURNED AWAY! THOSE FUCKING SAND-NIGGERS SHOULD BE GRATEFUL ANY GET THROUGH!

2) STOP IGNORING MY BULLSHIT SOURCE!

3) I DON'T KNOW WHAT CONCESSIONS ARE, BUT I KNOW LOGICAL DEBATE! I R WINNING!

You ignore context, credibility of sources, and refuse to even answer points when you can't debate them. I see no reason to expend effort on you. Your fate is in the hands of the Senate, where it should be.

[Surlethe]

For fuck's sake, your entire fucking argument is based on a series of goddamned equivocations! Do you honestly not understand the difference between an invasion in the informal sense and a military invasion, you shitwit? Are you honestly so stupid as to actually think the Southwestern US is being militarily occupied by a foreign power? You're so retarded your bullfuckery is making me cringe through a computer, you bigoted asshole.

Are the concepts of undeclared war, demographic takeover or military escort beyond your limited mental facilities?

What kind of gibbering, gum-flapping cretin thinks spewing non-sequiturious shit will support his point? You're so fucking stupid you think that an undeclared war (which hasn't been shown to exist) is reason to invade the country which didn't declare war on us; you think a demographic takeover (like the ones black people have done in urban areas) is bad in of itself; and you think the military escorts (another claim for which I've seen no evidence) have automatically been provided by the Mexican government instead of simply corrupt soldiers or former soldiers who now work for smugglers. That is, you're a fucking idiot, and a racist one to boot. Go to hell, shitlicker, and enjoy your stay.

In the interest of fairness, I should note I just voted in your ban poll, and your stupidity has vindicated my position beyond any reasonable doubt. I won't miss you, motherfucker.

[Mal_Reynolds]

Well, this has been amusing -- but I just received a PM threatening me with banning unless I concede. That's not logical argument, that's pure bullying. From what I saw looking around this site before joining, I was struck by this being a place where a logical argument could be made on its rational merit, not on its emotional palatability, and not on questions of political correctness.

It sure as hell didn't look like a place where arguments are won through bullying.

[SirNitram]

It sure as hell didn't look like a place where arguments are won through bullying.

Ah, the bluster and puffing up of a cretin who can't argue, and thus will declare that everyone else was illogical. Why don't I beleive in this magical PM you claim? It's not like the Admin here are that subtle; when they take matters beyond the Senate, they simply knock you off the board publically.

You're a liar.

[Mal_Reynolds]

It sure as hell didn't look like a place where arguments are won through bullying.

Ah, the bluster and puffing up of a cretin who can't argue, and thus will declare that everyone else was illogical. Why don't I beleive in this magical PM you claim? It's not like the Admin here are that subtle; when they take matters beyond the Senate, they simply knock you off the board publically.

You're a liar.

You want proof, here it is:

For one thing, your position on illegal immigration is crazy. The other thing is, you keep this shit up where you ignore logic and all ethical arguments in favor of your nationalistic bullshit is going to get you banned. You've already been moved to the sewer. You're only a few steps away from being banned. You really ought to start thinking about conceding.

[Zero]

Alright Mal, I'm gonna lay it all out for you really straight and simple. First off, you're wrong about Mexico 'invading' the states. Demographic takeover really only translates down to you being a xenophobic racist fuck. Demographic takeover could occur legally as well. Besides that, you've yet to sufficiently show that the Mexican military intentionally intruded into the states. Most of the minor intrusions are believed to be accidental, and are stated to be such. If the border patrol folks didn't agree, then they ought to have said something on their official government website thingy. Since they haven't, you're just talking out of your ass, and cherry-picking quotes from old news articles.

The military intrusions during which military men shot at police and border patrol typically deal with drug smuggling, and are more likely to be related to gang activity, since Mexico has nothing to gain by selling americans vast amounts of weed. The cash goes to the drug cartels. Besides this, it's well known that gangs and drug cartels have recruited from the Mexican military, as well as their equivalent of the FBI, called the AIF.

link

You also seem to believe that the biggest problem the US faces is illegal immigration, but that's been shown to be false several times in this thread, so I wont reiterate.

Your notions of undeclared war are also false. Yes, there have been many undeclared wars in the past, but these still boiled down to military actions. Illegal immigration isn't a military action, and like I said before, your claims of a demographic takeover are obviously racist, and damned stupid, too. You're going to say that it's a stretch for me to say that the uniformed soldiers were working for drug cartels when firing upon US soldiers, but both the US and Mexico are aware of the situation, and are trying to stop it. Since Mexican soldiers aren't coming into the US and declaring land under the control of the Mexican military, you're full of shit. The undeclared wars in US history all involved military deployments with the intent of gaining control of an area of land.

You're basically full of shit. Concede already.

[Aaron]

You want proof, here it is:

For one thing, your position on illegal immigration is crazy. The other thing is, you keep this shit up where you ignore logic and all ethical arguments in favor of your nationalistic bullshit is going to get you banned. You've already been moved to the sewer. You're only a few steps away from being banned. You really ought to start thinking about conceding.

You fucking idiot, thats a PM from a regular board member giving you a friendly warning that you're gong to be banned if you keep up your behavior. There's already a ban poll in the Senate for you.

[SirNitram]

It sure as hell didn't look like a place where arguments are won through bullying.

Ah, the bluster and puffing up of a cretin who can't argue, and thus will declare that everyone else was illogical. Why don't I beleive in this magical PM you claim? It's not like the Admin here are that subtle; when they take matters beyond the Senate, they simply knock you off the board publically.

You're a liar.

You want proof, here it is:

For one thing, your position on illegal immigration is crazy. The other thing is, you keep this shit up where you ignore logic and all ethical arguments in favor of your nationalistic bullshit is going to get you banned. You've already been moved to the sewer. You're only a few steps away from being banned. You really ought to start thinking about conceding.

You gullible retard, Zero's not even a Senator! He couldn't ban Darkstar!

[Zero]

For one thing, your position on illegal immigration is crazy. The other thing is, you keep this shit up where you ignore logic and all ethical arguments in favor of your nationalistic bullshit is going to get you banned. You've already been moved to the sewer. You're only a few steps away from being banned. You really ought to start thinking about conceding.

That's proof that I'm trying to offer you helpful advice, so you don't get banned. I can't threaten you, as I'm not an administrator. Sorry for trying to give you good advice, jackass.

[Soontir C'boath]

Well, this has been amusing -- but I just received a PM threatening me with banning unless I concede. That's not logical argument, that's pure bullying. From what I saw looking around this site before joining, I was struck by this being a place where a logical argument could be made on its rational merit, not on its emotional palatability, and not on questions of political correctness. It sure as hell didn't look like a place where arguments are won through bullying.

Yea, sure. It's pretty clear from your previous posts that you're the one being emotional with the "wetbacks are making a demographic takeover and they're not us!" bullshit you have going.

[brianeyci]

Demographic takeover is the catchphrase for "I want my country pure and white." Look up demographic takeover in google or just find a White Supremacist website and you'll see their position on demographic takeover.

Demographic takeover is a racist sentiment. People are people whether they are white, black or blue. Illegal aliens can't vote and only citizens can vote, so demographic takeover's code for I'm a racist. A citizen's a citizen and a white citizen has as much to vote for as a black one or an asian one or a hispanic one.

Brian

[Zero]

Since when the hell is offering advice and trying to help someone NOT get banned considered a goddamned threat?

[SirNitram]

Since when the hell is offering advice and trying to help someone NOT get banned considered a goddamned threat?

You talked to a racist twit reciting nothing but memes. He'll interperate anything he doesn't like as a threat. To himself, to racial purity of his country, to whatever. I do apologize if my comment to the little monkey was taken as a slur against you; I merely sought to make it clear that any 'threat' was nonexistant.

[Aaron]

Since when the hell is offering advice and trying to help someone NOT get banned considered a goddamned threat?

Don't worry about it, he's clearly a moron and a low grade one at that.

[Darth Wong]

Some people think that "logical argument" means "play nice and don't get on my case for failing to produce evidence to support my claims". What Shitwit doesn't realize is that if he submitted a paper to a review board in a university and refused to provide sources for his claims other than bloggers repeating each other, they would flunk him. "A place for logical argument" doesn't mean "you can get away with bloody murder and no one will do anything to you".

[Surlethe]

Well, this has been amusing -- but I just received a PM threatening me with banning unless I concede. That's not logical argument, that's pure bullying.

Hey, genius, that wasn't a ban threat; that was fucking advice. Your actual ban poll is here.

From what I saw looking around this site before joining, I was struck by this being a place where a logical argument could be made on its rational merit, not on its emotional palatability, and not on questions of political correctness.

It is! Why the fuck do you think you're being dogpiled? Surely the idea that your arguments and position might be invalid has occurred to you? Or are you simply just that stupid?

It sure as hell didn't look like a place where arguments are won through bullying.

They're not, fuckwit. If you don't like it here, then get the fuck out, you little pissant dipshit.

EDIT: tags

EDIT 2: spelling. Thanks, Elheru Aran

[Darth Wong]

I wonder where people like him get this idea that "logical argument" means that the standards are less strict. It means the opposite: standards are more strict, and you can't participate if you ignore those standards.

[Mal_Reynolds]

Alright Mal, I'm gonna lay it all out for you really straight and simple. First off, you're wrong about Mexico 'invading' the states. Demographic takeover really only translates down to you being a xenophobic racist fuck.

Wrong. Demographic takeover really translates to numbers of non-citizens occupying U.S. territory.

Demographic takeover could occur legally as well.

No it couldn't, because if it happened legally it wouldn't be a takeover, just a demographic shift within America's citizenry.

Besides that, you've yet to sufficiently show that the Mexican military intentionally intruded into the states.

See the links posted in the thread this one was split from.

Most of the minor intrusions are believed to be accidental, and are stated to be such.

200+ in a 10 year period. That's like your neighbor accidentally wandering into your house 23 times in one year, or just under twice, every month.

If the border patrol folks didn't agree, then they ought to have said something on their official government website thingy. Since they haven't, you're just talking out of your ass, and cherry-picking quotes from old news articles.

They do.

The military intrusions during which military men shot at police and border patrol typically deal with drug smuggling, and are more likely to be related to gang activity, since Mexico has nothing to gain by selling americans vast amounts of weed.

Nothing except a vast amount of income from vast amounts of drug sales of vast amounts of weed.

The cash goes to the drug cartels.

And from the drug cartels into the Mexican economy, which needs all the help it can get, and which help the Mexican government permits -- and according to the second sourced article in the other thread, assists and the accounts of Mexican military escorting and forcibly defending drug shipments, assists.

Source 1.
Source 2.
Source 3: Stratfor
ICE Most Wanted information on Guillen (current as of 12/12/05)

Besides this, it's well known that gangs and drug cartels have recruited from the Mexican military, as well as their equivalent of the FBI, called the AIF.

And this means what? Are they recruiting their uniforms and equipment as well?

You also seem to believe that the biggest problem the US faces is illegal immigration, but that's been shown to be false several times in this thread, so I wont reiterate.

I've never said, even once, that illegal immigration is the biggest problem the US faces. Anywhere.

Your notions of undeclared war are also false. Yes, there have been many undeclared wars in the past, but these still boiled down to military actions. Illegal immigration isn't a military action.

It is supported by military action -- or if you prefer, paramilitary action which Mexico's government takes no steps to end.

...and like I said before, your claims of a demographic takeover are obviously racist, and damned stupid, too.

As I've already made clear, race is irrelevant to the issue.

You're going to say that it's a stretch for me to say that the uniformed soldiers were working for drug cartels when firing upon US soldiers, but both the US and Mexico are aware of the situation, and are trying to stop it.

Substantiate that Mexico's government is taking any active steps to end the problem.

Since Mexican soldiers aren't coming into the US and declaring land under the control of the Mexican military, you're full of shit.

No, Mexican civilians are coming into the US and declaring personal ownership of property, and when this is jeopardized, Mexican military assets ensure that it happens.

The undeclared wars in US history all involved military deployments with the intent of gaining control of an area of land.

That's because our undeclared wars occurred in areas where open warfare was already ongoing.

You're basically full of shit. Concede already.

I am neither full of shit, nor will I concede when I'm not wrong.

[Mal_Reynolds]

I wonder where people like him get this idea that "logical argument" means that the standards are less strict. It means the opposite: standards are more strict, and you can't participate if you ignore those standards.

SirNitram has failed pretty spectacularly so far to show that I've employed fallacious argument, and has flatly refused to concede his own fallacies. Would you like to take a shot at it?

[SirNitram]

I wonder where people like him get this idea that "logical argument" means that the standards are less strict. It means the opposite: standards are more strict, and you can't participate if you ignore those standards.

SirNitram has failed pretty spectacularly so far to show that I've employed fallacious argument, and has flatly refused to concede his own fallacies. Would you like to take a shot at it?

Keep lying. I stand by the record. You are free to still meet your burden of proof, but I can see you'd rather defend the idea that 'Demographic Takeover' is anything but a phrase racists use to declare that the area's not 'pure' enough.