Trump Surges Among Likely Republican Primary Voters

[Anthony60]

Really? Aren't these illegal immigrants, once detained, prisoners of the State or Federal Government (just like ordinary prisoners after conviction)? Aren't they foreign born individuals that are being detained and moved by the United States (like prisoners of war)?

POW's are the same as illegal immigrants???

If you believe that the United States, after it has detained, relocated, and housed Prisoners - be they of war or because they were convicted following a violation of a State or Federal Crime -

I didn't say either way...

if you believe that the United States has a responsibility to ensure that they are properly fed, clothed, housed, not subjected to torture, or otherwise put in an obvious situation where severe harm can result, then you should absolutely feel the same towards illegal immigrants.

Again, didn't say. You are assuming.

Do we provide criminals or prisoners of war with a comfortable life? No. Should we? No.

But do we have a responsibility to ensure that they are safe while in our custody? Absolutely. Does that responsibility extend to where or how we should release those individuals? Absolutely.

Depends on the conditions. If we take POW's on the battlefield they will probably be exposed to some pretty dangerous conditions, eh?
So, what is the point? If we have a responsibility for POW's, then we have a responsibility for illegals? I think they are two completely different things.

 

[Montecresto]

I don't care about your question.

I made my point in a previous post to another person...you jumped in with your deflection. I don't abide by deflection. If you don't know that by now, consider yourself informed.

Sense you lack the testicals to do so, I'll do it for you, NEVER! :lamo

 

[digitusmedius]

Why do you bring up irrelevant issues that have nothing to do with what I said? I mean, the debt ceiling...that has no bearing on what I was talking about.

Perhaps you don't even KNOW what I'm talking about...we know about your disregard for history.

It's pretty clear YOU don't know what you're talking about. You keep putting up these vague references Reagan being betrayed by dems and the Boehner "nixing" the schemes of dems and none of it bears any resemblance to reality.

 

[Shooterman35]

It's my way of pointing out that neither party is going to step on the toes of big business which isn't interested in such enforcement, and YOU know this.

I have to agree with this. Whether Federalist, Whigs, or Republicans, that party has always been a party of corporatists and merchantilists. Once the DIMS left their agrarian ways and moved into the northern states, they became as bad, if not worse, than PUBS. Cheap labor is the mainstay of both parties.

 

[digitusmedius]

If we take POW's on the battlefield they will probably be exposed to some pretty dangerous conditions, eh?
So, what is the point? If we have a responsibility for POW's, then we have a responsibility for illegals? I think they are two completely different things.[/QUOTE]

Any detainee (i.e., any person held in custody against their will) for any reason falls under international human rights conventions to which this country is a signatory. Those international laws, which we demand be followed by all the rest of the world, also apply to us whether you think American "exceptionalism" grants us immunity or not. It does not.

 

[Mycroft]

It's pretty clear YOU don't know what you're talking about. You keep putting up these vague references Reagan being betrayed by dems and the Boehner "nixing" the schemes of dems and none of it bears any resemblance to reality.

Well, then...prove me wrong instead of just claiming it's all fantasy.

Heck, I offered to provide links...but you weren't interested.

 

[MrT]

POW's are the same as illegal immigrants???



I didn't say either way...



Again, didn't say. You are assuming.





Depends on the conditions. If we take POW's on the battlefield they will probably be exposed to some pretty dangerous conditions, eh?
So, what is the point? If we have a responsibility for POW's, then we have a responsibility for illegals? I think they are two completely different things.

I did not say they are the same, I said they are similar. For the reason I state: they are both foreign individuals detained by our government. And I "made the assumption" because I was finishing the argument. If you accept that prisoners should be treated respectfully by the United States, then you should believe that illegal immigrants deserve the same treatment.

And enemy combatants, once captured and detained, are removed from the dangerous conditions. Any new dangers imposed upon them are by the hand of our government. And setting aside the simple fact that we would violate the international laws and agreements that we made by endangering the PoWs, it is our responsibility to treat them respectfully because we want and expect our enemies to do the same with our troops, when captured.

 

[Mycroft]

Sense you lack the testicals to do so, I'll do it for you, NEVER! :lamo

Hey...when you deflect, you are left to answer your own question. See how that works?

 

[digitusmedius]

Just like the other guy...you bring up irrelevant points.

Can't you just answer my questions?

When did you ask any questions?

 

[digitusmedius]

Well, then...prove me wrong instead of just claiming it's all fantasy.

Heck, I offered to provide links...but you weren't interested.

Prove what wrong? You haven't provided even a single example of any of these bizarre claims you've made. It's impossible to tell if you're a real person or a computer programmed just to keep typing the same nonsense over and over.

 

[Mycroft]

When did you ask any questions?

Post #167

Come on, dude...try to keep up, eh?

 

[Mycroft]

Prove what wrong? You haven't provided even a single example of any of these bizarre claims you've made. It's impossible to tell if you're a real person or a computer programmed just to keep typing the same nonsense over and over.

LOL!!

Dude...you are the one who has said that my statements about Democrats breaking their promises is all a fantasy. Now you don't want to back yourself up?

 

[digitusmedius]

Post #167

Come on, dude...try to keep up, eh?

Hey, "bro," when you post questions to someone else (#167), I'm not likely to see them unless you let me know at the time, "dude." But, at least we're getting somewhere with these questions:

So tell me...when have the Republicans made a deal with the Democrats to build a wall or fence on the Mexican border in return for amnesty...and then reneged and not build it?

If you're suggesting there was something about a building a wall in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 then, like I said, you have no idea what you're talking about. The first (and only as far as I can tell) law about a border fence was passed in 2006 with strong bi-partisan support. It was a stupid idea that led to a stupid law and it hasn't really worked which is what was predicted. As far as I know this worthless, boondoggle of a fence is still being built since it's somebody's big pork-barrel windfall.

Or...tell me...when have the Republicans made a promise to a Democratic President to reduce spending if he'll raise taxes...and then not reduce a thing?

What promise to reduce spending? Again, a make-believe, never happened "event" (as I predicted we'd get from you if you actually tried to tell us what you were talking about). For 6 of Reagan's 8 years in office he had a republican senate. Reagan never vetoed a single budget bill (although he did veto some supplemental bills in 1982, all but one of which withstood overturn attempts). The one which was overturned got the required 2/3 vote in the republican controlled senate. So, who betrayed Reagan? Senate republicans, not dems.

So, any more false accusations that need correcting?

 

[digitusmedius]

see below

 

[Mycroft]

Hey, "bro," when you post questions to someone else (#167), I'm not likely to see them unless you let me know at the time, "dude." But, at least we're getting somewhere with these questions:



If you're suggesting there was something about a building a wall in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 then, like I said, you have no idea what you're talking about. The first (and only as far as I can tell) law about a border fence was passed in 2006 with strong bi-partisan support. It was a stupid idea that led to a stupid law and it hasn't really worked which is what was predicted. As far as I know this worthless, boondoggle of a fence is still being built since it's somebody's big pork-barrel windfall.



What promise to reduce spending? Again, a make-believe, never happened "event" (as I predicted we'd get from you if you actually tried to tell us what you were talking about). For 6 of Reagan's 8 years in office he had a republican senate. Reagan never vetoed a single budget bill (although he did veto some supplemental bills in 1982, all but one of which withstood overturn attempts). The one which was overturned got the required 2/3 vote in the republican controlled senate. So, who betrayed Reagan? Senate republicans, not dems.

So, any more false accusations that need correcting?

You really do need to learn history instead of wearing your blinders.

 

[digitusmedius]

LOL!!

Dude...you are the one who has said that my statements about Democrats breaking their promises is all a fantasy. Now you don't want to back yourself up?

A bit premature on your crowing, "bro." See my response above to the nonsense you put in #167.

 

[digitusmedius]

You really do need to learn history instead of wearing your blinders.

I'll take that as your admission that you did not have a clue about any of the crap you were posting. Here's a suggestion: try to learn the difference between, I'll be kind here, fantasy and history. You're full of the former and void on the latter.

 

[Mycroft]

I'll take that as your admission that you did not have a clue about any of the crap you were posting.

Oh, I know exactly what I'm talking about. But you have yet to establish where I'm wrong.

 

[digitusmedius]

Well, then...prove me wrong instead of just claiming it's all fantasy.

Done and done. And, not just wrong, but bizarrely, weirdly and perturbedly wrong. Your imagination is a bit over the edge, "dude."

 

[digitusmedius]

Oh, I know exactly what I'm talking about. But you have yet to establish where I'm wrong.

You're so off the mark you can't even see straight much less read coherently.

 

[Mycroft]

Done and done. And, not just wrong, but bizarrely, weirdly and perturbedly wrong. Your imagination is a bit over the edge, "dude."

And yet, you provide no proof...just talk.

Heck, you don't even OFFER any proof.

They have an expression for people like you in Texas..."All hat and no cattle".

 

[Montecresto]

Hey...when you deflect, you are left to answer your own question. See how that works?

There was no deflection, I answered your question. There is no excuse for the Democratic Party not enforcing their agreement. There's also no excuse for a subsequent GOP congress not enforcing it. But there is a reason, and I long ago exposed your hypocritical criticism of one party for neglecting to do what the other party does as well, and made plain that you're just another partisan hack, who has no interest in secure borders and just uses the issue to beat the democrats with. And that's how it works.

 

[digitusmedius]

And yet, you provide no proof...just talk.

Heck, you don't even OFFER any proof.

They have an expression for people like you in Texas..."All hat and no cattle".

You should really take a long nap. You need rest.

 

[Anthony60]

I did not say they are the same, I said they are similar. For the reason I state: they are both foreign individuals detained by our government. And I "made the assumption" because I was finishing the argument. If you accept that prisoners should be treated respectfully by the United States, then you should believe that illegal immigrants deserve the same treatment.

And enemy combatants, once captured and detained, are removed from the dangerous conditions. Any new dangers imposed upon them are by the hand of our government. And setting aside the simple fact that we would violate the international laws and agreements that we made by endangering the PoWs, it is our responsibility to treat them respectfully because we want and expect our enemies to do the same with our troops, when captured.

And they never do, our guys are always getting tortured. How much further off the topic of securing our borders are you going to go? Like clockwork, I say!

 

[Mycroft]

You should really take a long nap. You need rest.

If you keep on talking to me in that condescending manner, I predict you won't last long on this forum.

In any case, it's on you.

You are dismissed.