Obama wants to legitimize the 20 million illegal aliens - do you agree?

[numinus]

When one side in a debate runs out of arguments and stoops to personal insult, then that party loses.

Check and mate.

When both sides run our of arguments and stoop to personal insult, the debate is over, and it's a draw.

Stalemate.

My position is as unassailable as a fianchettoed king. A frontal assault would only get you mauled for the effort.

 

[PLC1]

My position is as unassailable as a fianchettoed king. A frontal assault would only get you mauled for the effort.

And yet, you have run out of valid arguments and stooped to the level of personal insult once again.

Nope. stalemate it is.

 

[Andy]

And yet, you have run out of valid arguments and stooped to the level of personal insult once again.

Nope. stalemate it is.

I'm confused. His response to my points were "Americans are Fat" and "Social Security is mandated insurance". How exactly are responses like that a 'stalemate'? They do not even apply to the topic at hand. That was the point of my Chocolate is TASTY joke. Should I say "ha you can't prove me wrong so it's a stalemate!"?

 

[PLC1]

I'm confused. His response to my points were "Americans are Fat" and "Social Security is mandated insurance". How exactly are responses like that a 'stalemate'? They do not even apply to the topic at hand. That was the point of my Chocolate is TASTY joke. Should I say "ha you can't prove me wrong so it's a stalemate!"?

That harks back to a debate I had with Numinus, during which he ran totally out of arguments and began to use personal insults instead. I declared a "checkmate." Both of you have done the same thing here. Some of his comments:

Or are you delusional like libmasher?

Your stupidity grows tiresome. I said no such thing. Point my post out or shut up.

What american education? Are you pretending that you have any education to speak of?

Those just from the last post. You were making similar statements. None of the above have any bearing on the topic at hand, hence, my judgment of "stalemate". Both of you have run out of real arguments and stooped to personal insult. Debate over, no winners.

 

[Andy]

That harks back to a debate I had with Numinus, during which he ran totally out of arguments and began to use personal insults instead. I declared a "checkmate." Both of you have done the same thing here. Some of his comments:

Those just from the last post. You were making similar statements. None of the above have any bearing on the topic at hand, hence, my judgment of "stalemate". Both of you have run out of real arguments and stooped to personal insult. Debate over, no winners.

lol Ok.. I see what you mean. I suppose... when I get to where I am making clear direct points, and get responded to with points not even remotely connected with the topic at hand (a trend I dubbed "Numism"), I have a hard time not humoring it with sarcasm.

But this invaluable information. At least I understand this is a common thing with him, and I should do like I started in the Chavez thread where I have completely ignored him. I'll still humor myself in the China debate just because he still makes me laugh there. Best to you.

 

[numinus]

And yet, you have run out of valid arguments and stooped to the level of personal insult once again.

Nope. stalemate it is.

Why do you find it necessary for me to give other arguments when nobody has rationally addressed the arguments I have already offered, hmmm?

When an individual is a citizen in EVERYTHING but name, what is the point of withholding citizenship, hmmm?

 

[numinus]

I'm confused. His response to my points were "Americans are Fat" and "Social Security is mandated insurance". How exactly are responses like that a 'stalemate'? They do not even apply to the topic at hand. That was the point of my Chocolate is TASTY joke. Should I say "ha you can't prove me wrong so it's a stalemate!"?

Your only argument is that their presence is illegal. While it may be true, it's illegality is based on this or that quota set in this or that embassy.

Clearly, the benefits derived by the overall economy outweigh your illegality nonsense.

 

[numinus]

That harks back to a debate I had with Numinus, during which he ran totally out of arguments and began to use personal insults instead.

Its not a matter of how many arguments you propose -- rather the weight of each and every one of them.

I do not insult -- except when a person is utterly bereft of any intellectually redeeming qualities -- in which case, it no longer is an insult but fact.

 

[PLC1]

Its not a matter of how many arguments you propose -- rather the weight of each and every one of them.

I do not insult -- except when a person is utterly bereft of any intellectually redeeming qualities -- in which case, it no longer is an insult but fact.

Sure, Numinus, sure you do. Of course, the weight you give to the arguments have nothing at all to do with their validity, or the facts that back them up, or logic, or reason, or anything like that.

Go ahead and declare victory if you'd like. You have certainly taken on a minority position. I believe your posts are the first ones I've read actually supporting illegal immigration, and I've been reading a couple of different forums. Whether the poster describes himself as a rightie, a leftie, or something else, one common thread seems to be that illegal immigration needs to be addressed.

Arguments against illegal immigration:
There are no controls over who comes. Some of the illegals are also undesirables.
There are no controls over the number of new immigrants. Often, we get more than we can absorb.
If we have no control of our borders, we have lost our national sovereignty.
There is nothing to screen out terrorists, or keep them from joining the tide of illegals.
The illegals bring with them drugs and gang affiliations that we already have in too great an abundance in this country.


Now, of course, you won't see any weight to the above arguments, and so won't address them. I don't believe you or anyone else can really address such issues and still espouse the philosiphy that illegal aliens should be allowed to cross the border at will, but go ahead, try.

 

[numinus]

Sure, Numinus, sure you do. Of course, the weight you give to the arguments have nothing at all to do with their validity, or the facts that back them up, or logic, or reason, or anything like that.

I do not make arguments not based on facts and logic.

Go ahead and declare victory if you'd like.

I KNOW I'm right. No need to declare an obvious fact.

You have certainly taken on a minority position.

Since when are facts and logic democratic, eh?

I believe your posts are the first ones I've read actually supporting illegal immigration, and I've been reading a couple of different forums.

Of course. I do not bother with popular positions. The more unpopular, the better.

Whether the poster describes himself as a rightie, a leftie, or something else, one common thread seems to be that illegal immigration needs to be addressed.

Illegal immigration needs to be addressed in a different manner from the 20 million de facto immigrants.

Arguments against illegal immigration:
There are no controls over who comes. Some of the illegals are also undesirables.
There are no controls over the number of new immigrants. Often, we get more than we can absorb.
If we have no control of our borders, we have lost our national sovereignty.
There is nothing to screen out terrorists, or keep them from joining the tide of illegals.
The illegals bring with them drugs and gang affiliations that we already have in too great an abundance in this country.

You are addressing potential illegal immigrants -- not the one's already embedded in us society. You might want to read the thread topic.

Now, of course, you won't see any weight to the above arguments, and so won't address them. I don't believe you or anyone else can really address such issues and still espouse the philosiphy that illegal aliens should be allowed to cross the border at will, but go ahead, try.

I do not address them because they have nothing to do with the thread topic. Create another thread and address it to your heart's content.

In this thread, the 20 million illegal immigrants living in the us is the problem and in my opinion, there is NO OTHER LOGICAL SOLUTION except the one I provided. Build a 30 feet wall..., deport their ass out..., one even suggested a concentration camp -- all are wishful thinking that has no basis, whatsoever, on facts and logic.

 

[PLC1]

I do not make arguments not based on facts and logic.



I KNOW I'm right. No need to declare an obvious fact.



Since when are facts and logic democratic, eh?



Of course. I do not bother with popular positions. The more unpopular, the better.



Illegal immigration needs to be addressed in a different manner from the 20 million de facto immigrants.



You are addressing potential illegal immigrants -- not the one's already embedded in us society. You might want to read the thread topic.



I do not address them because they have nothing to do with the thread topic. Create another thread and address it to your heart's content.

In this thread, the 20 million illegal immigrants living in the us is the problem and in my opinion, there is NO OTHER LOGICAL SOLUTION except the one I provided. Build a 30 feet wall..., deport their ass out..., one even suggested a concentration camp -- all are wishful thinking that has no basis, whatsoever, on facts and logic.

Amnesty was tried once, back in '86. I'm not so sure you're old enough to remember the result, but I am. It was a disaster, and the 20 million (or so) we currently have is largely a result of that poor decision.

As for your taking minority positions, I really appreciate that. This forum wouldn't be any fun if everyone agreed. Of course, minority positions often don't have much in the way of fact to back them up, which is why they are minority positions.

 

[9sublime]

As for your taking minority positions, I really appreciate that. This forum wouldn't be any fun if everyone agreed. Of course, minority positions often don't have much in the way of fact to back them up, which is why they are minority positions.

What everyone says about a new idea like gravity, or the earth being round.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Amnesty was tried once, back in '86. I'm not so sure you're old enough to remember the result, but I am. It was a disaster, and the 20 million (or so) we currently have is largely a result of that poor decision.

Bingo. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.

 

[Andy]

Bingo. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.

Or in Nums case, trying to say Fat Americans are support for Amnesty and expecting it to suddenly make sense to everyone.

We tried this thing before it didn't work. Now we should simply enforce the laws we have... the end.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Time to start the mass deportations. Round them up, ship them south, get them going walling off Mexico. When it's done, deport them. If they try to come back, shoot them.

My wife is still in favor of simply rounding up all illegal aliens and shooting them.