Text 27017, 145 rader
Skriven 2007-02-05 16:03:02 av John Hull (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 26978 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: Presidential race
=========================
Ed Hulett -> John Hull wrote:
 EH> 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.

 EH> Read below:

 JH>> EARL CROASMUN -> John Hull wrote:
 ~>>>> It'll be the usual clusterf*ck.  Hillary and Obama will bleed each
 EH> 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?
 EH> 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 term means.

 JH>> I'm not interested in being solicitous of anyone's feelings.  I
 EH> 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
 EH> you try, you run the risk of getting shot.

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

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

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

 EH> 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,
 EH> then you
 JH>>>> don't get in at all, and if you try, you run the risk of getting
 EH> 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
 EH> with sensors.
 JH>> You declare a one mile "no man's land" from the fence inland.  You
 EH> patrol the line with
 JH>> armed UAV's and Army or National Guard or Border Patrol ground
 EH> 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
 EH> 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
 EH> about
 EH>>> the issue of illegal aliens.

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

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

 EH> Show me the lie, John.

 EH> Ed

Are you English impaired, Ed?  Both of the statements you quoted trying to
prove I said "gun them down" contains one little word - "or".  That clearly
gives them an opportunity to avoid being shot.  Its the old "either/or"
construction, Ed.  What don't you understand about that?

Btw, don't bother apologizing, because I know you won't mean it.

--- Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)
 * Origin:  (1:123/789.0)