Adios, Amigo (Mal and summary executions)

[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.

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?

What you have wrong is, you're ignoring the fact that the two necessary pillars of a domestic takeover are present and active based solely on the fact that the displacing demographic is being assisted in achieving their objectives rather than achieving them through direct political control.

[Stravo]

What you have wrong is, you're ignoring the fact that the two necessary pillars of a domestic takeover are present and active based solely on the fact that the displacing demographic is being assisted in achieving their objectives rather than achieving them through direct political control.

Domestic takeover?? So you mean the natural progression of population shifts is now a hostile act? When blacks move into a neighboprhood and start exerting influence that's a takeover? I just want to be clear on what you are asserting.

You are saying that a group of people without any rights or legal status are going to take over a portion of the country. Holy shit call out the Marines.

Not only that but now there are these nasty people that are assisting them in the takeover...you know...American citizens that are exercising their right to vote and push for whatever the fuck agenda they wish because it's a free country and all and if it be immigration reform or pro-Illegal immigration rights that's not democracy - that's a domestic takeover.

Yeah...um, how do you type that clearly with your hood on?

[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.

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?

It has nothing to do with skin tone, or culture or religious background, and I wish you'd act like a big boy already and stop putting words in my mouth that I've consistently and repeatedly refuted. Any foreign influence over our government presents jeopardy to the American people, regardless of which foreign interest is exerting that influence.

Now why is this particular exercise of political clout that disturbing to you?

Because I see it every fucking time I walk into a store in my neighborhood and will not get any service because I'm American and speak English. Because I know people personally who have been on the receiving end of theft, vandalism and violence at the hands of people who have no legal right even to be here. Because I know people who are skilled laborers in the middle of employers who won't hire them because as citizens they would be entitled to a livable wage. I'm sitting in the middle of this shitstorm, and I think I've got a much -- much -- better fucking view of it than you have.

Why do you make it sound like the start of the great conspiracy to bring the SouthWest back under Mexican control

Because some of their politicians, and some of our politicians, say it is -- and when I drive down the street in my city, I can see that's what it is.

when all it is is the natural progression of a distinct class growing in numbers where numbers = power and influence.

Because that class is a class of criminals -- by definition.

[SirNitram]

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

And here's the crux of the stupidity we have here, folks. This retard's idea of 'fair' is Fox News Fair And Balanced. Plus the WoI, racist catchphrases, and 'no u!!!!' style of fallacy defense, I think we got ourselves another fine example of a dumbass.

[Mal_Reynolds]

What you have wrong is, you're ignoring the fact that the two necessary pillars of a domestic takeover are present and active based solely on the fact that the displacing demographic is being assisted in achieving their objectives rather than achieving them through direct political control.

Domestic takeover?? So you mean the natural progression of population shifts is now a hostile act?

No, I mean the occupation for foreign territory without the consent of the target government or people to do so is a hostile act, and a fairly old and time-honored one.

When blacks move into a neighboprhood and start exerting influence that's a takeover?

This is not about race.
This is not about race.
This is not about race.
This is not about race.
This is not about race.
This is not about race.
This is not about race.
This is not about race.
This is not about race.

Just to make sure you read it at least once.

I just want to be clear on what you are asserting.

No, you obviously don't want to be clear on what I'm asserting, or you fucking would be by now.

You are saying that a group of people without any rights or legal status are going to take over a portion of the country.

With the assistance of politicians and military assets from their home country, and sympathetic politicians in ours, they already are.

Okay, I admit it -- you suckered me back into your troll again. For awhile.

[SirNitram]

*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.

Wrong again, child. I realize you have to dig into the Bag O' Fallacies everytime your lies are smashed down, but you're misapplying again. If you have no credible source for your claims, it's unsupported. Unsupported claims are not accepted here. D.R. 6. Basic fucking rule of the site. Not that yu read that, I'm sure...

[Mal_Reynolds]

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

And here's the crux of the stupidity we have here, folks. This retard's idea of 'fair' is Fox News Fair And Balanced.

More ad hominem...

Plus the WoI, racist catchphrases, and 'no u!!!!' style of fallacy defense, I think we got ourselves another fine example of a dumbass.

More ad hominem...

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

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.

Wrong again, child. I realize you have to dig into the Bag O' Fallacies everytime your lies are smashed down, but you're misapplying again. If you have no credible source for your claims, it's unsupported. Unsupported claims are not accepted here. D.R. 6. Basic fucking rule of the site. Not that yu read that, I'm sure...

A dollar says he notices your spelling error, and ignores everything else about your post.

[Stravo]

You are saying that a group of people without any rights or legal status are going to take over a portion of the country.

With the assistance of politicians and military assets from their home country, and sympathetic politicians in ours, they already are.

Okay, I admit it -- you suckered me back into your troll again. For awhile.

Nice of you to omit the part where I assert that the people HERE in THIS country are supporting illegal immigration rights by exercising their rights as voters and citizens to support whatever cause they wish. We call it democracy. I take it in your dim view they must be some sort of traitor to their country, correct?

[SirNitram]

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

And here's the crux of the stupidity we have here, folks. This retard's idea of 'fair' is Fox News Fair And Balanced.

More ad hominem...

Plus the WoI, racist catchphrases, and 'no u!!!!' style of fallacy defense, I think we got ourselves another fine example of a dumbass.

More ad hominem...

OH NOES TEH BAD MANE WENT AND MOCKED STUPIDITY! QUIK, CALL IT AD HOMINEM!

Kiddie, you haven't addressed any of my points in a while, preferring to whine and throw the burden of proof of yourself. Anytime you want to re-engage in debate, I'll be adding meat to the fire.

[Zero]

What you have wrong is, you're ignoring the fact that the two necessary pillars of a domestic takeover are present and active based solely on the fact that the displacing demographic is being assisted in achieving their objectives rather than achieving them through direct political control.

If they're being assisted, it's by americans, or at least lobbying agencies, which most illegal immigrants won't have enough bank to support. They're being assisted by people who have a right to the political power they wield. What's your objection to this? Do you think that anyone supporting a foreign power should be excluded from normal democratic political process?

You're making it sound like some kind of takeover from mexico, when even you've got to admit that the illegals are being supported by americans, not mexicans.

It has nothing to do with skin tone, or culture or religious background, and I wish you'd act like a big boy already and stop putting words in my mouth that I've consistently and repeatedly refuted. Any foreign influence over our government presents jeopardy to the American people, regardless of which foreign interest is exerting that influence.

So you're opposed to any foreign power influencing the actions of the US? You're opposed to all international lobbying agencies, opposed to helping every country in the world but the US? Do you promote a crazy isolationist policy, and think we should bomb anyone who disturbs us? You have to promote some sort of isolationalist policy if you really believe all foreign influence on our government is a bad thing.

Because I see it every fucking time I walk into a store in my neighborhood and will not get any service because I'm American and speak English. Because I know people personally who have been on the receiving end of theft, vandalism and violence at the hands of people who have no legal right even to be here. Because I know people who are skilled laborers in the middle of employers who won't hire them because as citizens they would be entitled to a livable wage. I'm sitting in the middle of this shitstorm, and I think I've got a much -- much -- better fucking view of it than you have.

If you're going to bring up shit like that, maybe I should explain that I'm descended from illegals, and your proposition would have had my great-great-great ancestors shot. But I won't bring that up as part of any argument, because quite frankly, our personal positions and personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant.

Besides that, it was in reference to a question about foreign countries exercising influence over the US, not really directly about illegal immigration, so your whole spiel about how "THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!!" is irrelevant to his comment.

[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.

Wrong again, child. I realize you have to dig into the Bag O' Fallacies everytime your lies are smashed down, but you're misapplying again. If you have no credible source for your claims, it's unsupported.

The burden of proof still lies on you, because although you attack Wikipedia as a credible source, the information presented on that specific page is acknowledged historical fact. You can attack Wikipedia all you like, but unless you're prepared to refute the acknowledged historical facts they present, your attack against Wikipedia is ad hominem. I cited the fucking definition, you arrogant snot-filled fuck, so like I told Darth Wong, read it and fucking weep.

Unsupported claims are not accepted here.

And historical claims are supported by more than the source you dismissed, so attacking the immediate source does not render them unsupported.

D.R. 6. Basic fucking rule of the site. Not that yu read that, I'm sure...

No, I apparently missed out on the 'SirNitram is a fucking expert despite the fact that he's fucking wrong." Clause.

[SirNitram]

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

Wrong again, child. I realize you have to dig into the Bag O' Fallacies everytime your lies are smashed down, but you're misapplying again. If you have no credible source for your claims, it's unsupported.

The burden of proof still lies on you, because although you attack Wikipedia as a credible source, the information presented on that specific page is acknowledged historical fact. You can attack Wikipedia all you like, but unless you're prepared to refute the acknowledged historical facts they present, your attack against Wikipedia is ad hominem. I cited the fucking definition, you arrogant snot-filled fuck, so like I told Darth Wong, read it and fucking weep.

Here's me yawning, again, at your petulant, three-year-old style demands. If you knew anything about logical, adult discourse, you'd realize all you need to do to get me to debate the data. But you declaring it's accepted and fact? Nope, not enough. C'mon, kiddie. Can you muster it up?

Unsupported claims are not accepted here.

And historical claims are supported by more than the source you dismissed, so attacking the immediate source does not render them unsupported.

C'mon, then. Work out how to get it to be supported. You're at least, what, 11? Maybe 13? 14 on the outside? I realize puberty is hard on a growing lad, but you can work it out.

D.R. 6. Basic fucking rule of the site. Not that yu read that, I'm sure...

No, I apparently missed out on the 'SirNitram is a fucking expert despite the fact that he's fucking wrong." Clause.

Awwwww, aren't you cute, being upset and stamping your feet, failing to live up to the very simple demands of our board. You're just such an adorable brat when you throw a tantrum!

[Zero]

And historical claims are supported by more than the source you dismissed, so attacking the immediate source does not render them unsupported.

The source you quoted was wikipedia, which is historically unreliable. If it's supported by other sources, then show them. The claim that they exist isn't enough to get you by here at SDN, even if your claims are true. I'll help you out, since you seem to be on the losing side...

http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm

That's from the department of the navy at the naval historical center, and it documents instances of use of the US by armed forces, including both declared and undeclared wars.

Note: To all the happy viewers, in no way, shape, or form do I agree with him. Just thought I'd throw the little fellow a hint.

[Mal_Reynolds]

What you have wrong is, you're ignoring the fact that the two necessary pillars of a domestic takeover are present and active based solely on the fact that the displacing demographic is being assisted in achieving their objectives rather than achieving them through direct political control.

If they're being assisted, it's by americans, or at least lobbying agencies, which most illegal immigrants won't have enough bank to support.

Which is still irrelevant, because they exercise political influence indirectly through their mere presence even if not directly through political action -- and public marches and protests do count as direct political action. You still looooooose.

They're being assisted by people who have a right to the political power they wield. What's your objection to this? Do you think that anyone supporting a foreign power should be excluded from normal democratic political process?

Yes. And those in political office swear an oath (not sure the exact wording) to pursue the interests of the American people. Illegal immigration is not in the interest of the American people. Big business, yes, but big business is not "the people", now is it?

You're making it sound like some kind of takeover from mexico, when even you've got to admit that the illegals are being supported by americans, not mexicans.

It doesn't matter who is supporting them, their interests are in conflict with the interests of the American people, which is who the politicans are supposed to be representing.

It has nothing to do with skin tone, or culture or religious background, and I wish you'd act like a big boy already and stop putting words in my mouth that I've consistently and repeatedly refuted. Any foreign influence over our government presents jeopardy to the American people, regardless of which foreign interest is exerting that influence.

So you're opposed to any foreign power influencing the actions of the US?

Yes. Absolutely.

You're opposed to all international lobbying agencies

Yes.

opposed to helping every country in the world but the US?

Yes.

Do you promote a crazy isolationist policy, and think we should bomb anyone who disturbs us?

No. I promote the crazy policy that America should direct its help toward its own citizens first, and then play Mother Theresa only with what's left over.

You have to promote some sort of isolationalist policy if you really believe all foreign influence on our government is a bad thing.

Yeah, I think the Isolationist policy America practiced up until WW1 was working fairly well, actually. It would need to be not strict isolationism, obviously, but certainly not the extreme shit we're doing now, where we help everyone else so hard we fuck our own people.

Because I see it every fucking time I walk into a store in my neighborhood and will not get any service because I'm American and speak English. Because I know people personally who have been on the receiving end of theft, vandalism and violence at the hands of people who have no legal right even to be here. Because I know people who are skilled laborers in the middle of employers who won't hire them because as citizens they would be entitled to a livable wage. I'm sitting in the middle of this shitstorm, and I think I've got a much -- much -- better fucking view of it than you have.

If you're going to bring up shit like that, maybe I should explain that I'm descended from illegals, and your proposition would have had my great-great-great ancestors shot. But I won't bring that up as part of any argument, because quite frankly, our personal positions and personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant.

Your great-great-great-great ancestors were illegal? What, did they sneak across the Texas border? I'm sorry, but it's not a perfect fit if you're going for an analogy to modern border violation.

Besides that, it was in reference to a question about foreign countries exercising influence over the US, not really directly about illegal immigration, so your whole spiel about how "THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!!" is irrelevant to his comment.

It is, even if only indirectly, because foreign influence within our government is what has them doing practically nothing when polls show that the majority of Americans want our troops on the border to put a stop to the shit.

[Noble Ire]

Mal_Reynolds, I wonder (forgive me if a similar scenario has already been posed) if you might answer the following:

Let's say that a European country, say Ireland, is stricken by a plague/natural disaster/famine, and people begin fleeing it in droves. Sympathetic parties in the US government, along with other nations around the world, relax and expidite their immigration processes for that nation, allowing unprescedented numbers of people from that country to flood our borders. Is this a cultural invasion?

Certainly, they're not coming illegally, but they are coming in numbers sufficent to seriously effect whatever communities they choose to inhabit, and by their destitute state, will inevitably take jobs and public works money from other American citizens. Is it appropriate to defy the government to combat this influx? Is harsh or deadly force necessary? Surely, some of them might still have interests in their homeland's own stakes and survival, and might use the new population in the US to facilitate these goals. Is this not an attack on our very national culture?

[Mal_Reynolds]

[quote="SirNitram"]<snip puerile bullshit>[quote]

Let me ask you a very simple -- very simple question.

Do you acknowledge that the United States participated in the Korean War?

[Mal_Reynolds]

Mal_Reynolds, I wonder (forgive me if a similar scenario has already been posed) if you might answer the following:

Let's say that a European country, say Ireland, is stricken by a plague/natural disaster/famine, and people begin fleeing it in droves. Sympathetic parties in the US government, along with other nations around the world, relax and expidite their immigration processes for that nation, allowing unprescedented numbers of people from that country to flood our borders. Is this a cultural invasion?

Certainly, they're not coming illegally

And that's where your argument falls apart. This is not about legal immigrants. It's not about refugees, because illegal Mexican aliens aren't fleeing a sudden catastrophe.

[SirNitram]

<snip things Mal Can't Rebutt>

Let me ask you a very simple -- very simple question.

Do you acknowledge that the United States participated in the Korean War?

Of course. And Zero even did what you were too busy throwing a three year old tantrum to do: Provided a credible source to your claims, instead of demanding I accept it on your say so.

So pat yourself on the back, kid. After nine pages, you've successfully(Albeit, only with help from someone who disagrees with you) made one point: The US has engaged in undeclared military actions. Of course, you have yet to prove the Mexican army has.

Seeing how you try and defend this point, after your whining, screaming, and ranting like a spoiled daycare kid, will be amusing.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

And these have what to do with your argument for shooting everyone who comes across the border?

[Noble Ire]

And that's where your argument falls apart. This is not about legal immigrants. It's not about refugees, because illegal Mexican aliens aren't fleeing a sudden catastrophe.

So what exactly is this about, then? What makes Mexican immigrants so different? Are you honestly proporting that the Mexican governement is using their people to try and take over the United States?

[Mal_Reynolds]

<snip things Mal Can't Rebutt> Of course. And Zero even did what you were too busy throwing a three year old tantrum to do: Provided a credible source to your claims, instead of demanding I accept it on your say so.

As you just demonstrated, at least one example is historical fact that you yourself are not stupid enough to try to dismiss when presented it point blank.

You, sir, were doing nothing more than being a fucking cunt.

So pat yourself on the back, kid. After nine pages, you've successfully(Albeit, only with help from someone who disagrees with you) made one point: The US has engaged in undeclared military actions. Of course, you have yet to prove the Mexican army has.

You're right -- I have yet to prove it. What I intend to force you to do is concede that such a scenario is not only possible, but plausible in light of the evidence.

Or I would, if we had not just now determined conclusively that you have, in fact, been trolling.

We're done. I won't tolerate trolls, and if this board doesn, then it isn't a board I want any part of.

[Stravo]

And that's where your argument falls apart. This is not about legal immigrants. It's not about refugees, because illegal Mexican aliens aren't fleeing a sudden catastrophe.

So what exactly is this about, then? What makes Mexican immigrants so different? Are you honestly proporting that the Mexican governement is using their people to try and take over the United States?

With the assistance of traitors and snakes within our own borders. Don't forget the part where people exercising their democratic rights are helping bring this nation down.

[Zero]

Oh no, it looks like we've lost a great mind of SDN today! How will we fare without Mal, the guy who so rationally outlines his plan to invade mexico, and execute illegals trying to enter the country? WHY!!!!

(note the sarcasm)

[SirNitram]

Let me ask you a very simple -- very simple question.

Do you acknowledge that the United States participated in the Korean War?

Of course. And Zero even did what you were too busy throwing a three year old tantrum to do: Provided a credible source to your claims, instead of demanding I accept it on your say so.

As you just demonstrated, at least one example is historical fact that you yourself are not stupid enough to try to dismiss when presented it point blank.

I just like enforcing the rules. Why? Because it makes immature, whining brats like you run in circles, spending.. What was it.. Three, four pages throwing tantrums over, instead of following the rules?

Thanks. I needed the comedy.

You, sir, were doing nothing more than being a fucking cunt.

Come now. I'm an asshole. And I enjoy working my craft on gullible fucks like you.

So pat yourself on the back, kid. After nine pages, you've successfully(Albeit, only with help from someone who disagrees with you) made one point: The US has engaged in undeclared military actions. Of course, you have yet to prove the Mexican army has.

You're right -- I have yet to prove it. What I intend to force you to do is concede that such a scenario is not only possible, but plausible in light of the evidence.

Woah, man. You, evidence? I'm not sure that's possible, let alone plausible!

C'mon, kid, let's see some. At this rate, you'll only have your evidence by, oh, page 16.

Or I would, if we had not just now determined conclusively that you have, in fact, been trolling.

Check it, kid; Supermoderator. I am given free hand in enforcing the rules, including D.R.6, which requires sources. Credible sources

We're done. I won't tolerate trolls, and if this board doesn, then it isn't a board I want any part of.

In other words, you're going to run away because you can't stand how easy it is for intelligent people to fuck you up and make you run in circles.

It was all in your hands, kid. YOu could have presented credible evidence at any time.