ANOTHER attack on the United States
- Thread starter layoutshooter
- Start date
HEY! I NEVER said I wanted to shoot them all. That is a total fabrication and only meant to cause problems in here. There is no call for that.
They DO however, KNOW they are breaking US law, and THEY DON'T CARE if they break our laws. There HAS to be consequences for that. Right now, they are being rewarded for their law breaking.
There will come a time, IF we ever bother to close and control our borders, that there WILL be deaths. We are already being fired upon, and when we clamp down, if we ever do so, that will increase. At NO time should we EVER accept enemy fire and over flights by the forces of a foreign power. Right now, we are.
I would be interested in knowing just how people intend to STOP those who are entering illegally, from entering, without using SOME kind of force, deadly or otherwise.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Dude,
You ain't even in the same book ... let alone being anywhere near to being on the same page ...
... lol ...
I'm sorry. You confused me when you stated, "Invaders are always shot when defending a border. That is the chance you take when you choose to invade/enter ILLEGALLY, break the law, etc etc etc." And since you've insisted your use of the word "IS correct," and since Muttly and his little friend wholeheartedly concur, I'm sure you can understand my confusion, and I hope you won't see it as a, what was it? oh, yes, a "total fabrication." Maybe give me some slack and call it a partial fabrication, considering it wasn't fabricated at all.
Yes, they know, and they don't care, because we're allowing them to break it without consequences. What kind of consequences are you suggesting, dare I ask, and for whom? Who, exactly, are you blaming for this?
Yeah, the Mexican drug cartels are pretty powerful.
Whatever it is I vote for otherwise.
I NEVER once said, Kill them all.
Do you HONESTLY believe that the "cartels" are doing this all by their lonesome?
I would LOVE to know how YOU would close, and control, our borders without the use of force. THAT would be a GREAT story to here, or at least really funny!
Do you HONESTLY believe that the "cartels" are doing this all by their lonesome?
I would LOVE to know how YOU would close, and control, our borders without the use of force. THAT would be a GREAT story to here, or at least really funny!
You said: "Invaders are always shot when defending a border." No ambiguity, no exceptions - so how is it that you now claim you didn't say it?
The total fabrication is entirely in your backpeddling on statements that get challenged. That is what "causes problems in here": changing your tune. Claiming you were misunderstood, etc, etc, etc.
Despite the convoluted [and totally nonsensical] explanation in post 56, laws cannot be invaded - they are intangible entities, lacking any space to invade.
The word you wanted was 'evade', admit it.
Are illegal aliens VIOLATING our border laws? Yes or no?
Did he say ALL invaders are always shot? You see, there is some ambiguity and exceptions there.
Using "ALL" would be unnecessary, and redundant. "Invaders are always shot." Always, means always, and would necessarily encompass "all." If you are an invader you will be shot, since invaders are always shot.
As it is, his statement is unqualified and absolute. For there to be some ambiguity and exceptions there, he would have to explicitly state them with qualifiers such as "some" or "many" or "most." But he didn't do that.
I'm beginning to understand why it is so difficult to have a meaningful conversation with you, since you lack a fundamental understanding of the meanings of words, and in how to put words together to mean something comprehensible, because you consistently say something other than what you mean. By the same token, people make simple, unambiguous statements and you fail to understand their meaning. You've even demonstrated an astonishing lack of ability to comprehend basic dictionary entries. It's really quite remarkable. And frustrating. And disappointing.
Last edited:
It's your reading comprehension that sucks.
Really? I'm the one that fails to see ambiguity in an absolute, and fails to see exceptions when there are none. You, on the other hand, manage to see ambiguity inside an absolute, and can find exceptions where they have been expressly eliminated.
Yeah, no, I have to concur with the face palm here. You're really not helping you case at all.
Unless, of course, it was your intention to invoke Pee Wee Herman with an "I know you are but what am I?" type of response. If that's the case, then you nailed it.