Text 26978, 144 rader
Skriven 2007-02-04 23:19:24 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 26976 av John Hull (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: Presidential race
=========================
John Hull -> Ed Hulett wrote:
 JH> Ed Hulett -> Ross Cassell wrote:
 EH>> Ross Cassell -> Ed Hulett wrote:
 RC>>> Hello Ed!

 RC>>> 04 Feb 07 00:37, you wrote to me:

 RC>>>>> Considering that a criminal didnt polititely treat his or her
 RC>>>>> victims, what makes you think they deserve polite treatment, they
 RC>>>>> are entitled to their constitutional rights, not entitled to be
 RC>>>>> held in high esteem.

 EH>>>> I didn't say anything about being "held in high esteem," I said
 EH>>>> treated politely. There *is* a difference.

 RC>>> It is a requirement for the police, the jailers and any officer of
 JH> the
 RC>>> court to behave professionally when detaining, arresting,
 JH> confining or
 RC>>> trying the criminal, if this is what you meant, ok I agree.

 EH>> This is what I mean. John, OTOH, said they should be shot merely for
 EH>> crossing the border.


 JH> Liar.  I said no such thing.

Read below:

 JH> EARL CROASMUN -> John Hull wrote:
 ~>>> It'll be the usual clusterf*ck.  Hillary and Obama will bleed each other
 EC>> dry,
 ~>>> Kerry will self destruct again.  I'm watching Tom Tancredo at the
 EC>> moment.  He's
 ~>>> got some good ideas on handling the wetback problem.

 EC>> It would be interesting to see what those "good ideas" are, but first,
 EC>> could you elaborate some on this "wetback problem" you speak of?  You
could
 EC>> start by explaining what you mean by "wetback."

 JH> Please, Earl, don't be condescending.  You know perfectly well what the
term means.

 JH> I'm not interested in being solicitous of anyone's feelings.  I want the
damn border shut down, period.
 JH> If you can't come in legally, then you don't get in at all, and if you
try, you run the risk of getting shot.

 JH> And any US business owner that gets caught hiring illegals runs the risk
of doing hard time.

 JH> Can't be any more blunt than that.

So your comment above "and if you try, you run the risk of getting shot" 
didn't mean actually shooting them?

And this:

 JH> Ed Hulett -> John Hull wrote:
 EH>> John Hull -> EARL CROASMUN wrote:
 JH>>> EARL CROASMUN -> John Hull wrote:
 ~>>>>> It'll be the usual clusterf*ck.  Hillary and Obama will bleed each
 JH>>> other
 EC>>>> dry,
 ~>>>>> Kerry will self destruct again.  I'm watching Tom Tancredo at the
 EC>>>> moment.  He's
 ~>>>>> got some good ideas on handling the wetback problem.

 EC>>>> It would be interesting to see what those "good ideas" are, but
 EH>> first,
 EC>>>> could you elaborate some on this "wetback problem" you speak of?
 JH>>> You could
 EC>>>> start by explaining what you mean by "wetback."

 JH>>> Please, Earl, don't be condescending.  You know perfectly well what
 EH>> the
 JH>>> term means.

 JH>>> I'm not interested in being solicitous of anyone's feelings.  I
 EH>> want the
 JH>>> damn border shut down, period.  If you can't come in legally, then you
 JH>>> don't get in at all, and if you try, you run the risk of getting shot.

 EH>> Just how do we "shut down the border," John?

 JH> It's very simple.  You put up a 14 ft razorwired fence, augmented with
sensors.
 JH> You declare a one mile "no man's land" from the fence inland.  You patrol
the line with
 JH> armed UAV's and Army or National Guard or Border Patrol ground units. 
Anyone who breaches
 JH> the fence gets one opportunity to surrender or they get shot.


 EH>> And, did you know that the majority of illegals don't even come close to
 EH>> water as they cross the border?

 JH> Don't be so damn literal.


 JH>>> And any US business owner that gets caught hiring illegals runs the
 EH>> risk
 JH>>> of doing hard time.

 EH>> There's that crux of the situation. If they couldn't get hired on
 EH>> somewhere, they'd not bother entering the country illegally.

 JH>>> Can't be any more blunt than that.

 EH>> The use of the term "wetback" isn't right no matter how you feel about
 EH>> the issue of illegal aliens.

 JH> Why? Does that offend your sensibilities?  Tough.  'Wetback' is a synonym
for illegal alien and you know it.
 JH> I refuse to use 'illegal immigrant' because they aren't immigrants,
they're f*cking invaders! And, before
 JH> anybody says anything, I don't care one whit what nationality they are, or
what their ethnic background is.
 JH> If they aren't legal, they're invaders and should be treated accordingly.

Your comment, "Anyone who breaches the fence gets one opportunity to surrender
or they get shot." doesn't really mean actually shooting them?

Show me the lie, John.

Ed

-- 
"But the safety of the people of America against dangers from
foreign force depends not only on their forbearing to give
just causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing
and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to invite
hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are
pretended as well as just causes of war."

-- John Jay (Federalist No. 4)


Linux User#: 416016
Linux Machine#: 323569

--- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060717 Debian/1.
 * Origin: Veritas Vos Leberabit! (1:123/789.0)