From: Carbon on
On Tue, 11 May 2010 10:31:59 -0700, dene wrote:
> <bknight(a)> wrote in message
> news:m44ju5hbdrpf9b2o5revnestdf2k4kt3m0(a)
>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 10:16:25 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)>
>> wrote:
>>> A chance to do what?
>> C'mon Greg. That's perfectly clear. I wouldn't dare ask you, or
>> anyone else, for the answer to the illegal alien problem because its so
>> complicated, , but I will ask you this:
>> Do you think BAR's suggestion (now said four times here) that anyone
>> crossing our borders illegally should be summarily killed?
>> That only requires a simple yes or no.
> I believe I answered the question earlier. Bert is wrong about this but
> at least he has the guts to offer a solution.

I suppose mass murder is a solution. It's a deeply retarded one, even by
Bert's low standards, but it is a solution.

> I don't believe securing our borders is particularily complicated.
> It's a matter of political will.

It's a matter of tilting at windmills. To really secure the borders,
including both coasts and the Canadian border, would cost billions if
not hundreds of billions of dollars. Tourism into this country is
already bordering on unbearable. This would pretty much kill what's left
of that industry. Not to mention driving up the costs of goods in many
industries, etc. There is NO WAY that all these undocumented workers are
doing enough damage to the country to justify the cost of hunting them
down and getting rid of them.

> My question to John remains. He seems to imply that an illegal should
> have a chance to prove himself. I think not.

From: Carbon on
On Tue, 11 May 2010 11:17:20 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)> wrote in message
> news:4be8a809$0$16094$9a6e19ea(a)
>> On Mon, 10 May 2010 12:00:08 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
>>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:4be78b05$0$4851$9a6e19ea(a)
>>>> This Dobbsian anti-immigration hysteria (THEY'RE SPREADING
>>>> LEPROSY!!!) surfaces whenever the Republicans are out of office,
>>>> and dies away again when they get back in. All this racism does
>>>> wonders for rallying the true believers, but the reality is that
>>>> many important industries are dependent on undocumented workers.
>>>> Tyson Foods, et al, do not care which party is in power; they will
>>>> grease however many palms it takes to ensure that their cheap labor
>>>> pool is left alone.
>>>> So, my take is that the money does not want immigration reform,
>>>> therefore it will not happen. Also, it's very possible that illegal
>>>> workers are a net gain to the economy. I have never heard a
>>>> coherent argument to the contrary from the right.
>>> You refuse to listen.
>> Of course I listen. I listen to all the empty slogans from the
>> anti-immigration ideologues. I listen to their little theories. My
>> favorite so far is Bert's suggestion to just shoot illegal aliens.
>> Perhaps it could be made into some sort of reality television show.
>> You know, like The Running Man. Think of the ratings.
> Umm, the thing you liberals cant seem to grasp is it's not
> anti-immigration, it's anti-ILLEGAL immigration.

Obviously, everything that is declared illegal is automatically
From: bknight on
On Tue, 11 May 2010 20:02:10 -0400, BAR <screw(a)> wrote:

>Your problem Bobby is that you refuse to address the hard problems. And,
>your refusal to adress the hard problems is then transferred to everyone
>else. You would rather sit back, throw your hands in the air and say
>live and let live. When in reality that attitude is what continually
>gets us in trouble.
Your problem, Bert, is that you've established yourself as a loony,
idiotic, half-baked, fool. You excise those parts of others' posts
that show these traits and simply go on as you actually have a
reasonable thought.

The issue is whether or not a person should lose their life over
simply crossing a border illegally. If you truly believe this you're
to be pitied. Every simple-minded example you've given has shown
this. You can't compare a border crossing with someone entering your
home. One has absolute probabilities of causing bodily harm, the
other doesn't. However, in your shallow thinking they're the same.
Tattooing is also a suggestion of yours and you don't even see the
parallels of this to Germany in the 30s, or maybe you think that was a
good idea.

You're a cretin and a fool.

From: Carbon on
On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:38:28 -0400, BAR wrote:
> In article <4be775b9$0$19254$9a6e19ea(a)>,
> nobrac(a) says...
>> On Sun, 09 May 2010 19:32:04 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
>>> On May 9, 9:13 am, Carbon <nob...(a)> wrote:
>>>> Please provide proof that putting the US military on the border and
>>>> shooting anyone trying to enter the country illegally is a good
>>>> idea.
>>> Proof? We don't need no stinking proof. It is clearly a good idea.
>> Ken, are you sure you don't want to re-think this one a little bit?
>> Bert here is advocating murdering everyone who appears like they
>> might be trying to cross the border illegally.
> Carbs, you have it all wrong. There is a definite zone the deliniates
> the division between the USA and Mexico. What I advocate is to start
> shooting those who cross the division between Mexico and the USA.
> There are already laws in Mexico and the USA that make it illegal to
> cross in either direction. What I am proposing is immediate summary
> judgement. This only needs to be done every once in a while to remind
> people of the penalty of commiting the illegal international act.

What is it you expect this idiot xenophobia to accomplish? I mean, aside
from blowing billions or trillions of dollars, killing the tourism
industry, changing the cost of goods in many industries, and generally
doing untold billions of dollars in economic harm?
From: Carbon on
On Tue, 11 May 2010 18:42:37 -0400, BAR wrote:
> In article <4be8ade2$0$22444$9a6e19ea(a)>,
> nobrac(a) says...
>> On Mon, 10 May 2010 19:57:09 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>> In article <b7a230ab-06a3-4fd7-9b9d-c3656cb2d549
>>>>, johnb505(a) says...
>>>> On May 9, 10:32 pm, kenpitts <ken.p...(a)> wrote:
>>>>> On May 9, 9:13 am, Carbon <nob...(a)> wrote:
>>>>>> Please provide proof that putting the US military on the border
>>>>>> and shooting anyone trying to enter the country illegally is a
>>>>>> good idea.
>>>>> Proof? We don't need no stinking proof. It is clearly a good idea.
>>>> If you're stupid and barbaric.
>>> Do you have locks on the doors of your house and cars? If yes, why?
>> Please tell me you're not trying to equate murdering Mexicans with
>> locking doors.
> Keeping illegals out of our country is just like keeping burglars out
> of your house. In that sense it is the same thing. What you and your
> ilk fail to understand is that illegal is illegal regardless of
> whether you agree with the law.

We studied personality types in college psychology. There is a segment
of the population that is unable to distinguish the difference between
law and morality. They think that all laws are good laws and be
followed, no matter how pointless or ridiculous. These people suffer
from a condition called stupidity.