In article <675b3ac1$0$3068681$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>
> On Dec 12, 2024 at 11:12:43 AM MST, ""Scout"" wrote
> <vjf93n$2sgn6$3@dont-email.me>:
>
> >
> >
> > "Snit" <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:675b211c$0$212420$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com...
> >> On Dec 12, 2024 at 10:25:15 AM MST, ""Scout"" wrote
> >> <vjf6ac$2rvu0$5@dont-email.me>:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Snit" <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:675b13de$3$3827$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com...
> >>>> On Dec 12, 2024 at 9:15:08 AM MST, ""Scout"" wrote
> >>>> <vjf31m$1esc2$23@dont-email.me>:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Snit" <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:675a0912$6$2385532$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com...
> >>>>>> On Dec 11, 2024 at 2:46:36 PM MST, "Baxter" wrote
> >>>>>> <vjd17r$1nulf$3@dont-email.me>:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote in news:6759ee2e$2$3068683
> >>>>>>> $882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2024 at 12:51:40 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> >>>>>>>> <6759ed13$13$3828$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In article <vjcps6$1mhot$3@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>>>>>> bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
> >>>>>>>>> says...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>> news:6759b2d9$8$1895507
> >>>>>>>>>> $882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> In article <vjcbbm$1jlje$2@dont-email.me>, bax02
> >>>>>>> _spamblock@baxcode.com
> >>>>>>>>>>> says...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> news:p27jlj5kt9q7d5evijc2dqef3rf8lnhbba@4ax.com:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -hh wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, here's another example of a lack of critical thinking
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> skills
> >>>>>>>>>>>> within
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the GOP:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [quote]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sen. Hawley spars with witness over impact of mass
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> deportations:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hawley: "Here's the Democrats' plan: take the 13M-plus
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegals
> >>>>>>> who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are here, taking jobs...flood[ing] the labor force..."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Witness: "They can't flood the labor force if they're already
> >>>>>>> part
> >>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the labor force."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [/quote]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Only an idiot would think that's a winning rebuttal from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Witness.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Millions of illegals have flooded the labor market, and still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> are.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Another example of a lack of critical thinking skills from -
> >>>>>>>>>> highhorse.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> His response will be deleted, unread.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> There is no flood of citizens that want those jobs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> There will be and at higher wages.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> higher, MUCH higher prices for your food. And empty shelves until
> >>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>> can recruit and train those workers. From time to time some have
> >>>>>>> tried
> >>>>>>>>>> those jobs, they flat cannot keep up with those immigrants.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Your racism aside, if they have work visas there should be no
> >>>>>>>>> problem.
> >>>>>>>>> See how that works?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I do. You don't.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ==============
> >>>>>>> Why Legal Immigration Is Nearly Impossible
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> America traditionally had few immigration restrictions, but since the
> >>>>>>> 1920s, the law has banned most aspiring immigrants. Today, fewer than
> >>>>>>> 1
> >>>>>>> percent of people who want to move permanently to the United States
> >>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>> do so legally. Immigrants cannot simply get an exception to immigrate
> >>>>>>> any
> >>>>>>> more than restaurateurs in the 1920s could simply get an exception to
> >>>>>>> sell alcohol.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/why-legal-immigration-nearly-
> >>>>>>> impossible#
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We as a country created a black market immigration system and then
> >>>>>> blame
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> immigrants.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You could say the same about moonshiners, drug dealers, and so on..
> >>>>
> >>>> You can make weak analogies. Sure.
> >>>
> >>> Well, we make alcohol illegal, thus moonshiners. We made certain drugs
> >>> illegal, thus drug dealers, Seems like a very direct and straightforward
> >>> comparison to me.
> >>
> >> You are incorrect. Those substances are not people.
> >
> > And who said they were? Moonshiners and Drug Dealers are certainly people..
> > which we created by making something illegal.
>
> A substance being illegal and a person being here illegally are not the same.

Nice spin.
> >
> >> But it is somewhat apt --
> >> those substances are more dangerous and yet alcohol is legal and weed is
> >> more
> >> and more so. We realized prohibitions do not work.
> >
> > And yet, we've put a LOT of people in jail for those crimes even though we
> > made not have eliminated it.
>
> Not in contention. And we have not learned.

No, YOU have not learned.
> >
> >
> >>> But I can see your issue with those, you seem them as crimes.. while
> >>> illegal
> >>> immigration you feel shouldn't be a crime.
> >>
> >> Where did I say it should not be seen as a crime? Speeding is a crime. Jay
> >> walking is a crime. I just think we should keep it in perspective and look
> >> at
> >> the bigger picture.
> >
> > Oh, so it's ok to violate the law just as long as the "big picture" is
> > breaking the law, any law, is acceptable?
>
> How so? Again: I am saying to keep things in perspective... not to ignore law
> breaking. Then again I will say I have no issue with jury nullification and
> civil disobedience. But this is getting more philosophical than needed.
> >
> > Who decides what laws matter? Can I decide that the laws that keep me from
> > murdering you shouldn't count and thus in the "big picture" you're not
> > really relevant and your death doesn't matter?
>
> You can decide that. There will be consequences.

and he spins away again.
> >
> > Please tell me who gets to decide such matters?
>
> Each person can decide for themselves, but there can be consequences.

Who decides the consequences?
> >
> > Seems to me that's why we have laws to tell us those things are wrong...
>
> Are you assuming what is illegal is wrong by definition?

The law is the law.
>
> >
> >>>>> If you break the law, you are responsible for your own actions.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then Trump should be in prison for his felonies.
> >>>
> >>> As should Biden and Hunter.
> >>>
> >>> Yet I don't see you complaining about them.
> >>
> >> He is not relevant here and he has not been convicted of multiple
> >> felonies, no
> >> less been found liable for sexual assault. Nor was he tied to Jan. 6.
> >> Trying
> >> to equate Hunter with this is absurd.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> For the reasons stated. False equivalencies are false.
>
> > Innocent people don't need pardons from their fathers.
>
> Please tell me how you came to this conclusion, keeping in mind the current
> situation where the incoming president has openly talked about using the
> justice system to punish those that oppose him.

You really need to get a nap.
> >
> > After all, it's not the first time that Biden has used his office to protect
> > his son from possible criminal prosecution.
> >
> > meanwhile I would note that the only reason Biden wasn't prosecuted is that
> > he was deemed to mental incapacitated to stand trial..
>
> Cite.
>
> > yet was perfectly
> > capable of not only continuing to carry out the office of President but to
> > seek reelection.
> >
> > You can't have it both ways.
>
> I need not have it YOUR way, which is not representative of my views.

You still can't have it both ways.
>
> >>>
> >>>> Much worse than a misdemeanor
> >>>> of illegally entering the country.
> >>>
> >>> And yet, you want to excuse them from punishment or even responsibility
> >>> even
> >>> as you hold Trump to a different standard.
> >>
> >> Incorrect.
> >
> > So why did Democrats spend over 4 years protecting Hunter Biden?
>
> What leads you to this conclusion?

You really are blind.
> >
> >
> >>> Does the word hypocrisy mean anything to you?
> >>
> >> You made a false assumption that led to false conclusions.
> >
> > What assumption?
>
> you want to excuse them from punishment or even responsibility
> even as you hold Trump to a different standard.
>
> You made that up.
> >
> >>>>> It's like claiming that it's hard to get a pilot's license so we should
> >>>>> allow people without them to fly anyway.
> >>>>
> >>>> False equivalency is false.
> >>>
> >>> On the contrary,
> >>
> >> By definition it is true.
> >
> > If the equivalency is false... but if it's not false then it's true.
>
> False equivalencies are false. That was my comment. You disagreed. I suppose
> you wanted to say your false equivalency in specific was not false, but you
> failed to make that argument.
> >
> >>> they are very much the same. A permit to allow you to do
> >>> something that otherwise would be illegal for you to do.
> >>>
> >>> So once again we see your attempt to impose a double standard based on
> >>> your
> >>> prejudices.
> >>
> >> Incorrect.
> >
> > Totally correct.
>
> You make up claims, attribute them to me, say they are inconsistent, then work
> to hold me accountable for your actions. This is weak argumentation on your
> part and suggests you do not feel you can make a reasoned argument.
>
> >>>> Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
> >>>> cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
> >>>> somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
> >>>
> >>> Who is attacking the messenger? I'm simply pointing out the
> >>> inconsistencies
> >>> and issues with your message.
> >>
> >> This is my standard .sig.
> >
> > Then maybe you should live up to it.
> >
>
> If you have any example otherwise by all mean note it. I am being very
> respectful as you make up claims and falsely attribute them to me. I find many
> who troll get quite annoyed at me for doing so... I do not see it as my job to
> always correct such falsehoods. It is your job to try to defend your claims or
> to accept you spoke in error.

Damn you're dumb.