Projecting, aren't we?
Where did I say that I wanted to place troops "in desolate areas"? Where did I "complain" in a "hypocritcal" [sic] manner, as you allege?
Here's what I actually said, right at post 80:
The best that can be done to reasonably ensure the security of U.S. territory and lawfully-present persons within said territory, while simultaneously preserving their individual freedom and liberty, is three-fold: one, enforce valid immigration law; two, remove the incentives for foreign nationals to enter and reside in the United States illegally, or, i.e., no more public benefits, no more anchor baby citizenship, no more free education, etc; and three, abide by the Second Amendment, which defines the unconditional right of the individual to bear arms, whether in defense of self, household, and property or in defense of community (via a militia).
All I called for was the enforcement of valid immigration law, the removal of incentives for foreign nationals to enter and reside in the United States illegally, and a boost to the Second Amendment.
Is that "hyperbole," or are you just sniffing glue?
How long do we fight them? As long as it takes if it minimizes a repeat of 911. [sic]
Perhaps you meant to say "minimizes [the potential for] a repeat of 911" [sic]. But, unlike you, I'm not going to put words in the mouth of a fellow Freeper, so I'll just assume that you meant that you are okay with "a repeat of 911" [sic], so long as it is "minimize[d]," whatever that may mean.
Let me remind you that the 9/11 hijackers were admitted to the U.S. by federal immigration services as lawful visitors and abused the same systems to obtain drivers' licenses and bank accounts that illegal aliens have abused. Want to prevent another 9/11? Stop terrorists as they try to cross into U.S. territory. Allow U.S. citizens trained and certified by the government to carry weapons aboard planes as deputy air marshals. Empower U.S. citizens and lawful residents of U.S. territory to defend themselves against would-be terrorists so that, next time a bunch of terrorists try to hijack an airliner, or a rail car, or a bus, instead of planes flying into the ground or building, they will land safely at U.S. airports with dead terrorists and live passengers and crew aboard.
THAT is how you prevent another 9/11.
But don’t worry, Brave Americans continue to volunteer, you won’t have to sully your hands.
Brave Americans...like Marine Cpl. Brian Mathews, who, after returning home from Iraq for the 2006 holidays, was murdered by an drunk illegal alien driver while on a date, right?
"A guy goes to war and has no problems with that. He comes back to the States, and it's supposed to be our safe place."—Marine Cpl. Garrett Farris, on the death of Marine Cpl. Brian Mathews
Oh, I forgot, Bush kept us--including that poor Marine, God rest his soul--"safe," and Cpl. Farris is just an idiot. /sarc
after you spew the hyperbole of Ron Paul.
That's funny, considering the link on his views on immigration that you yourself provided at post 70 makes quite a bit of sense, unless you're a globalist RINO or a Democrat with a "New World Order" agenda. No amnesty, no benefits, no free hospital care, no birthright citizenship, allow police to ask about immigration status, etc. Do you have a problem with any of those? Or perhaps you think that the illegal alien is not of any significant concern to Americans, probably because, as you implied earlier, there are no illegal aliens (or organized criminal gangs smuggling drugs and only God knows what else) crossing the border ["place Troops in desolate areas where they will die of bordem waiting for someone to come in?" (sic)]?
You know, it's also funny that you whine about sending U.S. troops to "desolate areas where they will die of bordem" [sic] while openly backing sending U.S. troops to desolate places like Afghanistan where many of them will probably die, period. But hey, some poor Afghani opium farmer will have "freedom," right? [Not to mention the opportunity to export more poppy to the West!] Nevermind the fact that some U.S. troops who return home might just be killed in car accidents caused by illegal aliens that Federal authorities just don't want to deal with. Nevermind the fact that young U.S. taxpayers like myself will have to contend with the debts incurred in our name by globalist warhawks, in addition to the many "compassionate[ly] conservative" domestic hydras that they spawned.
But hey, go right on ahead and ignoring the white elephant in the room (the illegal alien invasion, Aztlan separatists, criminal gangs, illegal alien terrorists, etc.) while chasing after Wilsonian windmills (foreign nation-building).
There hasn’t been another attack on our soil and you follow Ron Paul.
‘Nuff said.
And don’t even talk to me about illegal immigrants, you have no idea.
But, ending incentives won’t stop the terrorists.
That is what we were discussing, not drunk illegals who shouldn’t be here.
But tell me, how does the messiah Ron Paul propose to prevent terrorists who wish us harm from crossing the border? Bloviate on that, not drunk drivers.
Incidentally, one of my buddies from ‘Nam lost his leg to one.
Paul opposes a fence, so what steps will he take to block terrorists, not Mexicans, from crossing the border?
Better yet, just ignore this and me, I tire of fools quickly.
“Do you have a problem with any of those? Or perhaps you think that the illegal alien is not of any significant concern to Americans, probably because, as you implied earlier, there are no illegal aliens”
Could be just another “Bush Repub-likkin” that doesn’t have a problem with illegals because the GOP wants to compete for their votes, never mind that those votes are illegal as well.
Good post, rabscuttle385. I don't have any big disagreement with it. But the statement above shows that DakotaRed has never cracked open a copy of the Constitution. Only an idiot would suggest that the Feds have no business securing our borders. Why put so much effort into arguing with some DU troll?