Adios, Amigo (Mal and summary executions)

[Zero]

This proves precisely jack shit. Should I go and quote the KKK to prove you're a racist? Several people of a demographic group - in this case hispanics - advocating a position doesn't mean all do. Using your same style, I could claim that all white men want all mexicans dead. It doesn't make it true.

And since not all of those men were illegal immigrants, you are very clearly being a racist fuck.

[Zero]

*snip bullshit about ad hominem*

Nitram didn't claim it was necessarily wrong, he just said that the source wasn't credible, which wikipedia isn't.

If that's true, then it wasn't an ad hominem. It was a red herring.

A red herring is when you bring up something irrelevant to the topic at hand, and claim it's relevant. You cited wikipedia as your source for your bullshit about undeclared wars, and he said that wikipedia wasn't a reliable source of information. There's no red herring there, jackass.

[Mal_Reynolds]

This proves precisely jack shit. Should I go and quote the KKK to prove you're a racist?

You have a memory like a goldfish, junior. You said it isn't a demographic takeover because illegals have no political power. I just demonstrated that, in fact, they do have a not inconsiderable level of proxy political power.

[Zero]

This proves precisely jack shit. Should I go and quote the KKK to prove you're a racist? Several people of a demographic group - in this case hispanics - advocating a position doesn't mean all do. Using your same style, I could claim that all white men want all mexicans dead. It doesn't make it true.

And since not all of those men were illegal immigrants, you are very clearly being a racist fuck.

This was in response, by the way, to your quotations on the previous page.

[Mal_Reynolds]

Nitram didn't claim it was necessarily wrong, he just said that the source wasn't credible, which wikipedia isn't.

If that's true, then it wasn't an ad hominem. It was a red herring.

A red herring is when you bring up something irrelevant to the topic at hand, and claim it's relevant. You cited wikipedia as your source for your bullshit about undeclared wars, and he said that wikipedia wasn't a reliable source of information. There's no red herring there, jackass.

Jesus, this is so basic...

If he pointed out Wikipedia's lack of credibility in lieu of refuting the historical record of undeclared warfare by the U.S., it was an ad hominem. If he pointed out Wikipedia's lack of credibility for no reason other than he just happened to fucking feel like it, it was a red herring.

Take. Your head. Out. Of your ass.

[Mal_Reynolds]

This proves precisely jack shit. Should I go and quote the KKK to prove you're a racist? Several people of a demographic group - in this case hispanics - advocating a position doesn't mean all do. Using your same style, I could claim that all white men want all mexicans dead. It doesn't make it true.

And since not all of those men were illegal immigrants, you are very clearly being a racist fuck.

This was in response, by the way, to your quotations on the previous page.

Yeah, that's exactly what I thought it was, thanks for stating the obvious.

[Zero]

This proves precisely jack shit. Should I go and quote the KKK to prove you're a racist?

You have a memory like a goldfish, junior. You said it isn't a demographic takeover because illegals have no political power. I just demonstrated that, in fact, they do have a not inconsiderable level of proxy political power.

Illegals can't vote, either way. Let's take a look at who you quoted...

William Delgado : not an illegal immigrant

George W. Bush : not an illegal immigrant

Art Torres : not an illegal immigrant

Vicente Fox : not an illegal immigrant

Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo : not an illegal immigrant

Mario Obledo : born in San Antonio, not an illegal immigrant

Jose Pescador Osuna : not an illegal immigrant

Richard Alatorre : born and raised in LA, not an illegal immigrant


Do you see a trend here, fucktard? This is racist bullshit you're spewing. None of the men quoted are illegal.

[Mal_Reynolds]

This proves precisely jack shit. Should I go and quote the KKK to prove you're a racist?

You have a memory like a goldfish, junior. You said it isn't a demographic takeover because illegals have no political power. I just demonstrated that, in fact, they do have a not inconsiderable level of proxy political power.

Illegals can't vote, either way. Let's take a look at who you quoted...

William Delgado : not an illegal immigrant

George W. Bush : not an illegal immigrant

Art Torres : not an illegal immigrant

Vicente Fox : not an illegal immigrant

Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo : not an illegal immigrant

Mario Obledo : born in San Antonio, not an illegal immigrant

Jose Pescador Osuna : not an illegal immigrant

Richard Alatorre : born and raised in LA, not an illegal immigrant


Do you see a trend here, fucktard? This is racist bullshit you're spewing. None of the men quoted are illegal.

No, but they're all quoted voicing support for illegal immigration, and if they vote along the same lines they're spewing, it doesn't matter that they aren't themselves illegal, because they support the illegals' activities with their political positions.

Do you see the trend there, fucktard?

[Zero]

Jesus, this is so basic...

If he pointed out Wikipedia's lack of credibility in lieu of refuting the historical record of undeclared warfare by the U.S., it was an ad hominem. If he pointed out Wikipedia's lack of credibility for no reason other than he just happened to fucking feel like it, it was a red herring.

Take. Your head. Out. Of your ass.

Take your head out of your own ass, you motherfucking idiot. Read your own quoted shit again:

It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make.

It's NOT always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. It even said that if someone's known to be unreliable for information, then the credibility of their claims is lessened. Wikipedia was your source of facts, and its characteristically unreliable. Pointing this out isn't an ad hominem, since it can be valid to point out that a source is unreliable. The claims aren't necessarily wrong, but they aren't necessarily true, either, so since the claims of wikipedia may be wrong, or may not be, you can't base a substantial argument off of them.

Get it yet, dumbass?

[Grasscutter]

And he's still NOT answered the questions of whether to not he wishes to apply his insane policy of 2 strikes and you're dead to minors, the old, infirm, and the like.

Unaccompanied minors, the elderly and the infirm are probably not the ones coming via coyote.

Last time I checked you were giving three options for immigrants: "come legally, don't come, eat a bullet." I don't remember you saying that having armed escorts was a prerequisite for use of lethal force.

Even if you did state that it was a requirement and I missed it, you still aren't answering the question. What happens if minors, the elderly ARE being escorted by armed men? Are you or are you not going to shoot them?

And you STILL haven't addressed the people who have pointed out the possibility that the men in camos weren't part of the Mexican army, or if they are, the possibility that they are rogue or corrupt elements and not conducting a sanctioned operation.

[Mal_Reynolds]

Look, you people accused me of trolling, I think fair is fair -- I think you all are trolling.

No one could be by accident as bone-goddamn-dense as the people I've interacted with here today.

I'm absolutely serious -- those of you who've displayed your arrogance and your ignorance to me on this board today are either deliberately trolling or naturally self-deluded, pathetic idiots.

[Zero]

No, but they're all quoted voicing support for illegal immigration, and if they vote along the same lines they're spewing, it doesn't matter that they aren't themselves illegal, because they support the illegals' activities with their political positions.

Do you see the trend there, fucktard?

So fucking what? By that logic, slaves had political power in the early republic, because northern white people supported their freedom. The illegal immigrants themselves wield no real political power.

[Mal_Reynolds]

And he's still NOT answered the questions of whether to not he wishes to apply his insane policy of 2 strikes and you're dead to minors, the old, infirm, and the like.

Unaccompanied minors, the elderly and the infirm are probably not the ones coming via coyote.

Last time I checked you were giving three options for immigrants: "come legally, don't come, eat a bullet." I don't remember you saying that having armed escorts was a prerequisite for use of lethal force.

Even if you did state that it was a requirement and I missed it, you still aren't answering the question. What happens if minors, the elderly ARE being escorted by armed men? Are you or are you not going to shoot them?

In that circumstance, the armed men would be repelled with force, their charges escorted home unharmed.

And you STILL haven't addressed the people who have pointed out the possibility that the men in camos weren't part of the Mexican army, or if they are, the possibility that they are rogue or corrupt elements and not conducting a sanctioned operation.

Threat of military retaliation would force Mexico to either:

1. Recall them or commit to open warfare, if they are Mexican military, or
2. Engage force against them themselves or abandon them to our military if they're not.

[Mal_Reynolds]

No, but they're all quoted voicing support for illegal immigration, and if they vote along the same lines they're spewing, it doesn't matter that they aren't themselves illegal, because they support the illegals' activities with their political positions.

Do you see the trend there, fucktard?

So fucking what? By that logic, slaves had political power in the early republic, because northern white people supported their freedom. The illegal immigrants themselves wield no real political power.

And neither group needed to have political power of their own to accomplish their objectives, your concession will be accepted at the front desk on your way out.

[CarsonPalmer]

Mal Reynolds, does the fact that there is not one person who has even agreed with you on a quibbling detail give you any idea of how wrong you are?

[General Zod]

Mal Reynolds, does the fact that there is not one person who has even agreed with you on a quibbling detail give you any idea of how wrong you are?

While not involved in the thread beyond sheer morbid amusement, I do feel compelled to point out that you just described an Appeal to Popularity fallacy. The amount of people agreeing doesn't necessarily mean that their position is more correct.

[Mal_Reynolds]

Mal Reynolds, does the fact that there is not one person who has even agreed with you on a quibbling detail give you any idea of how wrong you are?

While not involved in the thread beyond sheer morbid amusement, I do feel compelled to point out that you just described an Appeal to Popularity fallacy. The amount of people agreeing doesn't necessarily mean that their position is more correct.

Thank you!

[General Zod]

Mal Reynolds, does the fact that there is not one person who has even agreed with you on a quibbling detail give you any idea of how wrong you are?

While not involved in the thread beyond sheer morbid amusement, I do feel compelled to point out that you just described an Appeal to Popularity fallacy. The amount of people agreeing doesn't necessarily mean that their position is more correct.

Thank you!

Also, my simply pointing that out doesn't necessarily mean I'm agreeing with anyone's position. I was just pointing out that Carson was being fallacious.

[Mal_Reynolds]

While not involved in the thread beyond sheer morbid amusement, I do feel compelled to point out that you just described an Appeal to Popularity fallacy. The amount of people agreeing doesn't necessarily mean that their position is more correct.

Thank you!

Also, my simply pointing that out doesn't necessarily mean I'm agreeing with anyone's position. I was just pointing out that Carson was being fallacious.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you had sided with the evil, evil monster. Just expressing appreciation that somebody else fielded one of the superfluity of fallacies that have been coming at me in fucking volleys here.

[Zero]

No, but they're all quoted voicing support for illegal immigration, and if they vote along the same lines they're spewing, it doesn't matter that they aren't themselves illegal, because they support the illegals' activities with their political positions.

Do you see the trend there, fucktard?

So fucking what? By that logic, slaves had political power in the early republic, because northern white people supported their freedom. The illegal immigrants themselves wield no real political power.

And neither group needed to have political power of their own to accomplish their objectives, your concession will be accepted at the front desk on your way out.

Are you fucking joking? Do you really think that blacks had political power in early america, that women wielded a lot of political power before they were given the right to vote, or that anyone who can't directly influence the political process can really be said to have political power?

Someone defending the interests of a group of people != that group of people having political power.

[Mal_Reynolds]

So fucking what? By that logic, slaves had political power in the early republic, because northern white people supported their freedom. The illegal immigrants themselves wield no real political power.

And neither group needed to have political power of their own to accomplish their objectives, your concession will be accepted at the front desk on your way out.

Are you fucking joking? Do you really think that blacks had political power in early america, that women wielded a lot of political power before they were given the right to vote, or that anyone who can't directly influence the political process can really be said to have political power?

YOU. FUCKING. MORON.

READ WHAT I FUCKING WROTE.

Someone defending the interests of a group of people != that group of people having political power.[/quote]

[Mal_Reynolds]

Jesus fuck... my blood pressure... Jesus fucking crapped...

No. I am NOT saying they had political power of their own.

I am saying that none of those group, nor illegal aliens, NEED political power of their own, because political power is being exercised ON THEIR BEHALF BY THOSE WHO DO HAVE IT.

[Mal_Reynolds]

Look, either you're trolling or you're genuinely fucking stupid, so I'm done with this subject.

If you're trolling, you're the one who should be banned.

If you're either genuinely too stupid or too lazy to read and understand what I'm actually saying, then you should be fucking pitied.

[Stravo]

Jesus fuck... my blood pressure... Jesus fucking crapped...

No. I am NOT saying they had political power of their own.

I am saying that none of those group, nor illegal aliens, NEED political power of their own, because political power is being exercised ON THEIR BEHALF BY THOSE WHO DO HAVE IT.

You know what jackass? There are plenty of people here that exert political power for foreign governments (ie. Israel) and may I point out that Israel has committed espeionage against us and they still get support. How is this any different than groups exerting political power on behalf of illegals? Or is Israel the right skin tone/culture/religious background for your tastes?

I don't see you decrying the political power by proxy exerted by quite a few fucking entities that happen to not be illegals - Saudi Arabia, Israel, Great Britain, the EU in general, South American govenrments, the Holy See in Rome. Need I go on? Now why is this particular exercise of political clout that disturbing to you? Why do you make it sound like the start of the great conspiracy to bring the SouthWest back under Mexican control when all it is is the natural progression of a distinct class growing in numbers where numbers = power and influence.

[Zero]

Jesus fuck... my blood pressure... Jesus fucking crapped...

No. I am NOT saying they had political power of their own.

I am saying that none of those group, nor illegal aliens, NEED political power of their own, because political power is being exercised ON THEIR BEHALF BY THOSE WHO DO HAVE IT.

Okay, but how does this in any way reflect or validate your claim of a demographic takeover? These same people could defend illegal immigrants with or without the massive amounts of illegal immigrants here. The 'demographic takeover' that you claimed, which is what the whole bit about illegal immigrants having power or not is all about, makes no sense if the illegals themselves can't wield any direct political power. People could use political processes and powers on their behalf whether or not they were sending millions of people into this country every year.

So what do I have wrong?