Text 27036, 117 rader
Skriven 2007-02-06 08:32:06 av John Hull (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 27030 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: Presidential race
=========================
Ed Hulett -> John Hull wrote:
 EH> John Hull -> Ed Hulett wrote:
 JH>> Ed Hulett -> John Hull wrote:
 EH>>> John Hull -> Ed Hulett wrote:

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


 JH>>>>>> Liar.  I said no such thing.

 EH>>>>> Read below:

 EH>>> <snip>

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

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

 EH>>> <snip>

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

 EH>>>>> And this:

 EH>>> <snip>

 JH>>>>>>>> Please, Earl, don't be condescending.  You know perfectly well
 EH>>> what 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
 EH>>> 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
 EH>>> with sensors.
 JH>>>>>> You declare a one mile "no man's land" from the fence inland.
 EH>>> You 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>>> <snip>

 EH>>>>> Show me the lie, John.

 EH>>>>> Ed

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

 EH>>> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

 EH>>> I knew you'd use semantics to weasel out of what you said. In the
 EH>>> process you try to change what I said. Nowhere have I claimed you
 EH> used
 EH>>> the words "gun them down."

 EH>>> BTW, the word "or" is only used in the second quote.

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

 EH>>> There is no reason for me to apologize, John. I'm not the one
 EH> advocating
 EH>>>  shooting someone for merely crossing the border.

 JH>> Words mean things, you moron!

 EH> Yes, they do.

 JH>> Ross sure called it right when he said
 JH>> your putting your own prejudices and sensibilities on me.

 EH> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

 EH> No, John, Ross, like you, is wrong. There is no justification for
 EH> calling illegal aliens "wetbacks" and calling for them to be shot if
 EH> they cross the border.

 EH> It has nothing to do with me, John, and everything to do with you. You
 EH> can't even refrain from name-calling. If you had a tenable plan for
 EH> reducing the number of illegals crossing the border, you'd not feel it
 EH> necessary to attack me for challenging your plan.

 JH>> I couldn't care less if my terminology offended you, or if you
 EH> don't like the
 JH>> solution I suggested.  You went off the deep end and got all self
 JH>> rightious.

 EH> Heh heh... No, you went off the deep end, John, when you thought no one
 EH> would challenge your plan to shoot illegals for crossing the border.

 EH> Ed

And you continue to mischaracterize what I said.  Repeat the lie long enough
and loud enough and it becomes the truth.  Classic liberalism.

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