More on Illegal Immigration...

[Qdrop]

a semi-thread merge or sorts...
http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=66039

let's keep this conversation moving.

Ace, you doubted the validity of the cut/paste's...can you back that up?

i'd be the first to admit there is ALOT of bullshit/misconstrewed statistical claptrap out there...and i steer clear of such, and do NOT re-post that garbage....

just looking for stuff that is substantiated or at least were presented by established social/gov't figures.

none of that is lies.
to aruge otherwise, you must show your research.

[Ace42X]

I could, but there is really no point. You know they are bunkum just as well as I do. There is no case to answer. Come back with something other than O'Reilly esque nonsense and there might be something worth discussing.

[Qdrop]

I could, but there is really no point. You know they are bunkum just as well as I do. There is no case to answer. Come back with something other than O'Reilly esque nonsense and there might be something worth discussing.

Ace, i know backpeddling when i see it.

if you have nothing to attack, then be seated.

but i would like very much to debate this with you.


would it be agreeable if I said you were, in fact, a hermaphroditic conservative....but when pressed for proof, simply stated that "i don't have the time or interest...anyone can see that ace is a hermaphroditic conservative....must I REALLY go about proving what EVERYBODY already knows..."

[Ace42X]

Ace, i know backpeddling when i see it.

Bullshit do you, otherwise you'd not be confusing the issue.

Here's a taster:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/borderpatrol.asp

You paste that as if it somehow justifies or supports the fact that a redneck southern border patrol officer who knows more about how many mexicans you can fit into a fruit crate than he does about what they actually get up to on either side of the border is of some significance. His testimony before congress is equally farcical, dressing up his subjective and unsubstantiated opinion as fact by throwing in some dubious and irrelevant statistics.

One of the first sources you cited, and it was trash, hardly bodes well for the rest, does it? Now, do I have to waste my time going through the rest of the bollocks you posted showing how the rest of it is slanted drivel? Because it ain't gonna happen. Believe it or not, I do have better things to do than rebutting the misrepresentations of the statistical evidence of each of those sources, when their shot-comings should be self-evident to you, if you were not blinded by your desire to enter into yet another dick-swinging contest.

If you want to play, at least pick a decent game, ok?

[Qdrop]

Bullshit do you, otherwise you'd not be confusing the issue.

Here's a taster:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/borderpatrol.asp

You paste that as if it somehow justifies or supports the fact that a redneck southern border patrol officer who knows more about how many mexicans you can fit into a fruit crate than he does about what they actually get up to on either side of the border is of some significance. His testimony before congress is equally farcical, dressing up his subjective and unsubstantiated opinion as fact by throwing in some dubious and irrelevant statistics. you're just arguing bias with your own bias.

but at least his bias comes from actually WORKING IN THE FIELD, AND HAVING REAL WORLD EXPERIANCE WITH WHAT HE TALKS OF.
what about you?
it may be bias vs. bias...but at least he has a leg to stand on.

and his statistics are dubious and irrelevant? can you prove this?
anyone can type that...but can you back that up?

no points for you.

One of the first sources you cited, and it was trash pure opinion.,

hardly bodes well for the rest, does it? Now, do I have to waste my time going through the rest of the bollocks you posted showing how the rest of it is slanted drivel? Because it ain't gonna happen. Believe it or not, I do have better things to do than rebutting the misrepresentations of the statistical evidence of each of those sources, when their shot-comings should be self-evident to you, if you were not blinded by your desire to enter into yet another dick-swinging contest. yes, cause you're usually ABOVE such things. i'm sure all would agree with that.

very well. sit down.

[Ace42X]

but at least his bias comes from actually WORKING IN THE FIELD, AND HAVING REAL WORLD EXPERIANCE WITH WHAT HE TALKS OF.

Bullshit. Stop being such a fuckhead. His experience has nothing to do with either the contents of his letter or his testimony. The statistical evidence he cites doesn't even come from a state ADJACENT to his, let alone something he has experience of. His field is to do with searching boxes, and putting the cuffs on, and as such is totally beside the point. Or are you saying that border patrollers are now policing the neighbourhoods of LA? Now fuck off unless you are going to come up with something half decent.

[Qdrop]

Bullshit. Stop being such a fuckhead. His experience has nothing to do with either the contents of his letter or his testimony. The statistical evidence he cites doesn't even come from a state ADJACENT to his, let alone something he has experience of. His field is to do with searching boxes, and putting the cuffs on, and as such is totally beside the point. Or are you saying that border patrollers are now policing the neighbourhoods of LA? Now fuck off unless you are going to come up with something half decent.

his field as a border patrol officer directly connects him to all of the points he was raising and the stats he was citing. he obviously did his own research based on concerns that were raised by his years on the job.

are they all 100% accurate, in context, and unbiased?

find out Ace. you hae PLENTY of time.

stop playing the stubborn child "i don't wanna...you can't make me."

i think you realize your knowledge and research on this subject is terribley thin...and you don't want that to be exposed in debate.

i'm certainly no expert...but i have no fear of open dialogue....

[Ace42X]

his field as a border patrol officer directly connects him to all of the points he was raising and the stats he was citing.

Bullshit. That's like saying "my dad's a security officer at the bank, so he knows all about finance.

Really, are you reading what you are typing? Fuck off until you come back with an opinion worth voicing.

[Qdrop]

Bullshit. That's like saying "my dad's a security officer at the bank, so he knows all about finance.


a terribley inappropriate annalogy.

a security officer at a bank does not handle finance.

a border patrol officer handles arrests, detentions, interrogations....he will naturally have working knowledge of the immigrants origination, arrest statistics, intentions, cycles, etc.

a poor refute on your part.

[fucktopgirl]

so illegal immigration will be stop and maybe in a bloddy mess!


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/15/immigration/index.html

[Ace42X]

a terribley inappropriate annalogy.

Only in so far as it totally undermines your argument, and makes a nonsense of it. If you look at it in terms of totally and legitimately refuting your point, it is both apt and effective. Your unwillingness to admit that you fucked up with a lame ass ipse dixit doesn't change the facts.

a border patrol officer handles arrests, detentions, interrogations....he will naturally have working knowledge of the immigrants origination, arrest statistics, intentions, cycles, etc.

All of which is completely irrelevent to anything that has been said. Yes, you are right, he handles arrests (putting on the cuffs), detention (locking the door), interrogations (finding out where they come from so they can send them back, and how they got in so they can plug the gap). They will not handle "statistics", nor any of the other two meaningless vagueries you added to pretend you had a leg to stand on.

"Intentions." - What, "I'm gonna become the greatest salsa singer of the decade!" ?

"Cycles" ? - The wax and wane of Carribou populations?

BULLSHIT.

a poor refute on your part.

See, and this is why I don't think there is anything more to be said on the topic. It refuted you completely and totally, and if you are too stubborn to see undeniable, self-evident fact, then fuck you. Proclaim yourself winner, whatever. Fact of the matter is you are wrong, anyone reading this can see you are wrong, and I think, in your heart of hearts, you know you're wrong too and you are STILL trying to draw out an argument just because you missed shouting at people on the board while it was down.

[Qdrop]

Only in so far as it totally undermines your argument, and makes a nonsense of it. If you look at it in terms of totally and legitimately refuting your point, it is both apt and effective. Your unwillingness to admit that you fucked up with a lame ass ipse dixit doesn't change the facts. no, it did nothing of the sort.
rather than actual debate...you shout out some biased remarks, back them up with nothing...
and then say "obviously you are wrong and just too stubborn to see it" in some form or other.

i'm really losing respect for you, here.



All of which is completely irrelevent to anything that has been said. Yes, you are right, he handles arrests (putting on the cuffs), detention (locking the door), interrogations (finding out where they come from so they can send them back, and how they got in so they can plug the gap). They will not handle "statistics", nor any of the other two meaningless vagueries you added to pretend you had a leg to stand on.

"Intentions." - What, "I'm gonna become the greatest salsa singer of the decade!" ?

"Cycles" ? - The wax and wane of Carribou populations?

he would have a good knowledge of where they came from, why, when...some history...
knowledge of repeat offenders.
and after years on the job, would have a good understanding of the statistics of relevant issues.




See, and this is why I don't think there is anything more to be said on the topic. It refuted you completely and totally, and if you are too stubborn to see undeniable, self-evident fact, then fuck you. Proclaim yourself winner, whatever. Fact of the matter is you are wrong, anyone reading this can see you are wrong, and I think, in your heart of hearts, you know you're wrong too and you are STILL trying to draw out an argument just because you missed shouting at people on the board while it was down.
you're flaggrantly taking your own insecurities on this matter and turning them over on me.
how utterly transparent.

what's up with you, man?
did someone hijack Ace's account?

[Ace42X]

no, it did nothing of the sort.

It did. Fullstop. Argue until you are blue in the face, you are wrong. QED. No more to be said on it. Now I know it is hard for the almighty Q-drop to accept that he got served like every other reactionary moron on the board, but tough. That's what happened. Just like Racerstang's creationism got canned.

I told you from the off to come back with something of merit, but you didn't listen, and now you have to live with the fact that you got shat on because your argument relied on bullshit biased crap of the sort Gismo regularly posts out of his e-mail spam.

Live with it.

[Qdrop]

It did. Fullstop. Argue until you are blue in the face, you are wrong. QED. No more to be said on it. Now I know it is hard for the almighty Q-drop to accept that he got served like every other reactionary moron on the board, but tough. That's what happened. Just like Racerstang's creationism got canned.

I told you from the off to come back with something of merit, but you didn't listen, and now you have to live with the fact that you got shat on because your argument relied on bullshit biased crap of the sort Gismo regularly posts out of his e-mail spam.

Live with it.

hah...okay man.
we'll let the readers decide.

[Ace42X]

hah...okay man.
we'll let the readers decide.

A pointless exercise, I'd win solely because you are universally disliked. I'm the only person who ever supports you when you make a valid point.

[QueenAdrock]

you're just arguing bias with your own bias.

Just reading both your arguments about illegal immigration is enough to make me scream. You both accuse the other of doing exactly what you are, and are too pigheaded to even *consider* the other person's argument, you just are so intent on proving the other person is wrong because of pride issues.

I'd say it's a sad day in the political forum, but frankly it happens all the time. 'Tis a shame.

[Qdrop]

A pointless exercise, I'd win solely because you are universally disliked. you're no prize pig on this board either ace.

I'm the only person who ever supports you when you make a valid point. which is why i am stunned with your bullshit racial charges, of you which you KNOW i have none.

seriously man, you really fucked up today.
that was just uncalled for and cowardly.

[befsquire]

do you two really need to use the quote feature when it's essentially just the two of you in this thread, posting to each other? especially when the thread was made solely for you two to argue in?

no need to quote me. either one of you can just answer one or both questions and i'll pretty much know you're talking to me and i'll be able to figure out what it corresponds to.

[marsdaddy]

Is there actually anything in this thread on "illegal" immigration? What about legal immigration. Maybe if we started up a slave trade again, we wouldn't be in this economic/social dilemna.

[Ace42X]

You might not have figured this out, Beth, but by using the quote feature you are able to respond to individual aspects of a post without causing confusion over precisely WHAT in a single post you are replying to. This helps to keep the discussion at least in the realms of what was said, rather than in the realms of "what you thought the other person might've been implying in general over the rambling course of a post, etc." And given how often people get the wrong end of the stick ANYWAY, it is clearly pretty essential.

Also, it is a good habit to get into, because you may have noticed that in the User CP options, you can use other non-linear threading mechanisms, which means that if you quote someone you reply within that "thread" of replies, rather than it being just tagged onto the end of posts out of sequence.

There are other reasons why, but they are pretty much offshoots of the above. So, does that resolve this case of curiosity? Or were you just trying to have a bitchy little dig again, because you have nothing better to do than criticise other people's *considerate* netiquette?

[EN[i]GMA]

Well that was productive.

As far as I followed the line of 'debate', Ace just proved Q-Drop wrong in a debate about whether or not they were going to debate.

[befsquire]

wasn't being bitchy. this time. i was truly curious since it's pretty much you and he arguing about arguing. i'm sorry -- debating. seems like when it's just the two of you it isn't as necessary as when others are in the thread, and that it essentially becomes a point / counterpoint on a few mere things rather than the whole argument.