72 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0
Let me ask you this. If Obama himself drafted the bill, would it be racist? I guess not in your estimation. How can you be this stupid? Either the bill is racist, or it is not. That Kobach drafted it has no bearing on whether the bill itself is racist.
I'm done at this point. You aren't even arguing and your stupidity is so blatantly obvious that I don't even have to point it out.
My God, you set new standards of stupidity every time you open your mouth.
Let me use an example. Suppose I enter the country perfectly legally on a work visa. With that work visa, I am able to get a driver's license, and for all intents and purposes, I appear to be a citizen. However, once that work visa expires, I am not "required" to turn in my driver's license. So, even if I am pulled over and I have my driver's license, I may still be in the US illegally. Extreme situation, sure, but the loopholes are there.
Just to be clear, I am not disputing to law's idea. But, unless you require people to carry proof's of their immigration status (which this can eventually lead to), this law will be subject to so many lawsuits and problems that it will cause more problems then it will solve. The best part about this law is that people are now paying attention to illegal immigration. Excluding people like our friend __o_, most people see AZ's overwhelming support of this law as an indication that the situation has become intolerable,
If they really want to solve illegal immigration, they need to do two things. First, make it easier to become a citizen, and control their entry. Add benefits to becoming a citizen, and their won't be a need to swim the river. The controlling aspect will be requirements on speaking English, no crime records, established work and living space, etc.... They then need to punish those companies that pay illegals under the table, and reward those companies that hire them on and pay them through the payroll. Do this, and you will solve the PROBLEMS that illegal immigration brings.
Riley's point is that unless the government does something to stop this problem, people will resort to more drastic measures. Sure, this time around they used the government as a means of stopping it. What makes you think that people won't take things into their own hands when the government fails? History tells us that people are more than willing to do so. What makes you think that things will be different this time?
And by the way, it isn't just whites who are for this law. Whites don't make up the 70% approval rating for the law. Your claims, unlike the claims that you've failed to provide for Tancredo, are undoubtedly racist. Racism goes both ways, especially since whites aren't the majority.
Illegal immigration doesn't have to involve race. If you are an illegal immigrant, then you are subject to penalties that are set in place for illegals. That's it. But liberals cry out that we are racist because we are discriminating against Mexicans. Never mind the fact that the majority of illegal immigrants are Mexican, anything that punishes illegal immigration is hate laden bigotry.
Here's what you fail to understand. I did not use a "trick" or "game" of logic. I used a fairly well known logical proof that you have obviously not studied. And because of that fact, you had no choice but to shrug it aside as a "trick of logic" (I love that by the way. Do you have any more examples of tricks of logic?)
If it was so ridiculous, prove it wrong. I take the time to respond to your "silly" responses, so return the favor. Humor a "crazy" person. Show how it is a trick, or a game and how it doesn't prove anything. Otherwise, your argument is simply "Nuh uh!"
Yes, you are correct. It is "possible" to discuss illegal immigration without resorting to racism. However, it is the liberals who immediately bring up the race card which simply clouds the issue. Possible, yes. Probable, no.
Yes Panzo, this is a generalization. But, would you care to point out what the problem is?
"Also, how do you say this: "
Because he really doesn't offer anything in the context of the argument. An ad hominem attack is not a contribution. Neither is a claim like "Haha, you're so crazy that you not worth arguing against". I ought to just ignore him, but I cannot resist pointing out his logical fallacies and cop outs. But, to clarify, I don't count either of those as contributions to a discussion.
Considering the fact that you never actually refuted (or even attempted for that matter) my argument, I'd say that you blinding pride is the saddest thing of all.
I don't know what Tancredo has to offer for you besides a different stance. Here's the thing about "inflammatory rhetoric." Anyone who comes out against illegal immigration is instantly labeled a racist and a bigot. So, at that point, ANYTHING that they say becomes inflammatory because it's seen as an attack on Mexicans. So, once again, you fail to acknowledge any view that contradicts your sad and supplied view of the world and set aside.
From my point of view, you offer NOTHING when it comes to any given discussion. You either A. go straight for the ad hominem attack, or B. simple dismiss the argument as laughable. So, what do YOU have to offer? At least Tancredo can open his mouth without bashing the person he's arguing with. It's called a double standard by the way. Liberals are renowned for it.
Boy, if everyone on this blog followed the same standards, no one would ever acknowledge your existence. You're a liberal halfwit who clearly has no grasp of logic. You don't believe in God even when it is proven to you, and you also use ad hominem attacks whenever you professor-supplied arguments fail in the face of any scrutiny. In fact, why does anyone even talk to this guy? I honestly do it for laughs. You literally make me laugh, _o___. You are SO predicable that I could type out a script and you would follow exactly.