Thomas Jefferson - still relevant

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

OK, Merc.
I'm not into calling names

I can easily say that I oppose the idea of changing the 14th Amendment
to disenfranchise the citizenship of anyone born in the territorial USA (i.e., group (c))

So basically if a Prego woman pays a human smuggler to get her across the border before she has birth you are ok with that, and so you support human smuggling operations South of the Border which exploit people? Wow, I would not have expected that of an avowed liberal.

I don't know the skin color, the racial motives, or how extremist the person is who wants to change that,
so I won't go down the "white racist extermist" name-calling road with you, if that is your intent.

I did not bring it up so don't try to displace it on to me, Rich made the connection. You bought into it with your "duck" comment. All of that is on the two of you guys, not me....

Is that enough from me, or what is it you really want to know or show ?

I really can't believe that you can continue to not answer the questions put to you....

Why do you avoid the question? Wow.... I really expected more out of a more mature person than what you are currently avoiding...

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

So basically if a Prego woman pays a human smuggler to get her across the border before she has birth you are ok with that, and so you support human smuggling operations South of the Border which exploit people? Wow, I would not have expected that of an avowed liberal.

Awww Merc, that's a sad ploy.

I did not bring it up so don't try to displace it on to me, Rich made the connection. You bought into it with your "duck" comment. All of that is on the two of you guys, not me....

I'm confused. which post comes first, #16 or #18 ?
It might be helpful to re-read RL's post before answering.
I don't think his post contains the words "white racist extremist",
but unfortunately they are in #16

I really can't believe that you can continue to not answer the questions put to you....

Why do you avoid the question? Wow.... I really expected more out of a more mature person than what you are currently avoiding...

Sorry I didn't come up to your expectations... twice.
We should both try harder next time because the immigration policies could be a good discussion.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Sad ploy? That's reality, pregnant women crossing the border, having babies here.

Wasn't it white racists that enacted, and enforced with vigor every day, all those Jim Crow laws?

[Lamplighter]

OK, so the pregnant woman is "reality".
The sad ploy is Merc's attempt to divert our discussion off to yet another, different, political issue.

RichLevy's first sentence (in what Merc quoted) did refer to Jim Crow times, and RL wrote it in a past tense.
But his second sentence spoke to current activities in the politics of US immigration policies.
Subsequently Merc has tried to impose his "white racist extremists" on these current immigration issues.

I believe we can have a much better discussion without the use of such epithets, and I hope we will.

[xoxoxoBruce]

But if it walks like a duck, call it a fucking duck, that's honest discussion.

[Lamplighter]

No it's not honest discussion to have someone force you to say words you don't intend to use.

[xoxoxoBruce]

You have to decide if your discussing philosophies and concepts, or reality. If it's the latter, then it doesn't walk like a duck, it's a fucking duck.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Sad ploy? That's reality, pregnant women crossing the border, having babies here.

Wasn't it white racists that enacted, and enforced with vigor every day, all those Jim Crow laws?

My point exactly.

And don't draw parallels between people who enacted Jim Crow Laws, White Racist Extremists, and those who are opposed to illegal immigration. Stop dancing around the issue and using comparisons that have nothing to do with each other, because those who enacted the Jim Crow laws were White Racist Extremists, and those who oppose illegal immigration are nothing of the kind.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You have to decide if your discussing philosophies and concepts, or reality.
If it's the latter, then it doesn't walk like a duck, it's a fucking duck.

This discussion is getting overly complex because xoB's issues
come from separate postings in this thread.

And as I posted earlier...
It's the reader's option to interpret when it is walking like a duck,
and thereby adopt Merc's epithet language

Now the reader has the option to decide if it's reality or not,
and thereby adopt xoB's new action-figure.

I leave it to others to chase after Merc's "sad ploy"
that lead to this drift into the differences between
"philosophies, concepts, and reality"

[xoxoxoBruce]

This discussion is getting overly complex because xoB's issues
come from separate postings in this thread.

Well duh, that's why it's called a thread, posts don't stand alone. Except for an occasional off topic, most posts should relate to the topic at hand. If the thread drifts, try to follow along, or at least point out what post you're responding to.

It's the reader's option to interpret when it is walking like a duck,

That's the problem, how the fuck can we discuss an issue if you don't make it perfectly clear what you saying?

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You have to decide if your discussing philosophies and concepts, or reality. If it's the latter, then it doesn't walk like a duck, it's a fucking duck.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Well duh, that's why it's called a thread, posts don't stand alone. Except for an occasional off topic, most posts should relate to the topic at hand. If the thread drifts, try to follow along, or at least point out what post you're responding to.

That's the problem, how the fuck can we discuss an issue if you don't make it perfectly clear what you saying?

No, not "Duh", xoB. There's your epiphany !

We now see that since it wasn't perfectly clear which posts
you were responding to with regards to your animated "duck",
and which post(s) you were responding to with regards to "reality",
you got sucked right into Merc's "Sad Ploy".

So while we've had a bit of fun, it has not been very illuminating,
and as you point out we've not been able to discuss any more issues.
Maybe things will go better next year.

Happy New Year to all, and to all a Good Night.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It's not been illuminating because you keep dancing around the issues.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

It's not been illuminating because you keep dancing around the issues.

Clearly you are posting about TheMercenary. Obvious because he is doing the dancing and evading. And because your post did not start with "Originally Posted by ..." with the relevant quoted sentences.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Awww Merc, that's a sad ploy.



I'm confused. which post comes first, #16 or #18 ?
It might be helpful to re-read RL's post before answering.
I don't think his post contains the words "white racist extremist",
but unfortunately they are in #16



Sorry I didn't come up to your expectations... twice.
We should both try harder next time because the immigration policies could be a good discussion.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

We should both try harder next time because the immigration policies could be a good discussion.

I agree, just don't call those who oppose illegal immigration something like those who enacted Jim Crow Laws, who were by and large White Racist Extremists.