Thread: Obama's message to Criminal aliens in the U.S.

Crocket,

I think that your question hits the nail on the head, because I don't believe that "cassie" is "cassie" any more than that "she" is here to seriously discuss solutions to illegal immigration. I'll leave it to your imagination to determine other reasons that "she" may be here...

Could you possibly be suggesting a resemblence to a certain mythical creature who resided beneath bridges, extracting toll money from unsuspecting passersby?

Originally Posted by cassie

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by cassie

Originally Posted by mkfarnam

Gore`s not running for the "Peabody Award" I mean President.
God forbid.

Then I'll vote for Hillary

Again proving that you don't give a rat's behind about the issue of illegal immigration.

Read my message Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:27 am ( PST ).
I said I can vote Tancredo only if he is running as an independent and openly opposes the war in Iraq. If he wins the GOP nomination, I can't vote for him. If he supports the war, I can't vote for him. If he runs as an independent + opposes the war I can ( maybe ) vote for him. But Hillary is a woman, why should only males be president ?

I'll answer the rest later, I've to answer some mails.

Your posts aren't making sense. Hillary's position on illegal immigration is unacceptable, as has been clearly demonstrated. Your pretense that Tom Tancredo is the only option whose views on immigration are acceptable seems more rooted in subterfuge than substance. In other words, you are creating a falsely limited set of options predicated on a false set of criteria, then compounding the error by introducing the irrelevant question of gender. Additionally, you are clearly relegating the issue of the invasion by hostile illegal aliens to a lower priority than other issues to the point that it appears to be a tertiary concern of yours at best, and that's assuming that it is an issue to you at all. It is my suspicion that do not share the views of the vast majority of posters here as regards illegal immigration. For that reason and others, I would suggest that this is not the site for you and that Nomoremex's analogy of your attempting to preach Satanism at a Southern Baptist church is apt. The only reason that a Satanist would attempt such a thing is for the purpose of intentional disruption and troublemaking. I would say that the empty-headed repetition of a desire to vote for one of several potential presidential candidates whose views on immigration are antithetical to those of people who are active in the issues championed by this site amounts to a similar form of intentional disruption and troublemaking.

For a period of a few weeks, I would say that the people on this site could have been expected to put up with your nonsensical ramblings for the purpose of educating you on the issue and perhaps steering your decision-making process in a more productive direction. But what we have gotten instead is just banal repetition of fallacy and error that contradicts any claim of a desire to become better informed on the issues related to immigration and particularly illegal immigration. I perceive that you are mocking this site and simply taunting its members with insipid and mindless droning. Others may feel free to reach a different conclusion, though I would certainly be interested in an explanation of the logic behind such a conclusion.

Originally Posted by Nomoremex

Crocket,

I think that your question hits the nail on the head, because I don't believe that "cassie" is "cassie" any more than that "she" is here to seriously discuss solutions to illegal immigration. I'll leave it to your imagination to determine other reasons that "she" may be here...

Could you possibly be suggesting a resemblence to a certain mythical creature who resided beneath bridges, extracting toll money from unsuspecting passersby?

It is no coincidence that I bear an occasional resemblance to a billygoat gruff.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by cassie

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by cassie

Originally Posted by mkfarnam

Gore`s not running for the "Peabody Award" I mean President.
God forbid.

Then I'll vote for Hillary

Again proving that you don't give a rat's behind about the issue of illegal immigration.

Read my message Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:27 am ( PST ).
I said I can vote Tancredo only if he is running as an independent and openly opposes the war in Iraq. If he wins the GOP nomination, I can't vote for him. If he supports the war, I can't vote for him. If he runs as an independent + opposes the war I can ( maybe ) vote for him. But Hillary is a woman, why should only males be president ?

I'll answer the rest later, I've to answer some mails.

Your posts aren't making sense. Hillary's position on illegal immigration is unacceptable, as has been clearly demonstrated. Your pretense that Tom Tancredo is the only option whose views on immigration are acceptable seems more rooted in subterfuge than substance. In other words, you are creating a falsely limited set of options predicated on a false set of criteria, then compounding the error by introducing the irrelevant question of gender. Additionally, you are clearly relegating the issue of the invasion by hostile illegal aliens to a lower priority than other issues to the point that it appears to be a tertiary concern of yours at best, and that's assuming that it is an issue to you at all. It is my suspicion that do not share the views of the vast majority of posters here as regards illegal immigration. For that reason and others, I would suggest that this is not the site for you and that Nomoremex's analogy of your attempting to preach Satanism at a Southern Baptist church is apt. The only reason that a Satanist would attempt such a thing is for the purpose of intentional disruption and troublemaking. I would say that the empty-headed repetition of a desire to vote for one of several potential presidential candidates whose views on immigration are antithetical to those of people who are active in the issues championed by this site amounts to a similar form of intentional disruption and troublemaking.

For a period of a few weeks, I would say that the people on this site could have been expected to put up with your nonsensical ramblings for the purpose of educating you on the issue and perhaps steering your decision-making process in a more productive direction. But what we have gotten instead is just banal repetition of fallacy and error that contradicts any claim of a desire to become better informed on the issues related to immigration and particularly illegal immigration. I perceive that you are mocking this site and simply taunting its members with insipid and mindless droning. Others may feel free to reach a different conclusion, though I would certainly be interested in an explanation of the logic behind such a conclusion.

I NEVER denied that the war is my # 1 concern and illegal immigration # 2. That's why I told that I can only vote for Tancredo if he openly opposes the war and runs as an independent, and not for the Republicans. The Republicans are responsible for my number 1 concern.

If Tom loses the GOP nomination, he can still run as an independent, and I told that I may / consider to vote for him only if he openly rejects the war. That you think that the war is fine is your pov, but I think it's wrong and I can and will make my decision for a candidate who opposes the war. I can't vote for a person that is tough on illegal immigration but loves this war in Iraq. I even told that Buchanan is the only honest person who opposes the war and is tough on immigration, yet he won't run.

Hillary supported the war, but only because she was lied to, now she opposes it. The Democrats or independents are the only ones who can end this war, the Republicans can't. I don't trust them.

Cassie: where did you buy the gi-normous spoon?

Cassie,

NO ONE but bush loves the war in iraq. The next president, whoever it may be will want to end it asap.

The people who keep saying that the repubs LOVE the war in iraq are all dem liberals pandering to the mindless masses.
This war is vietnam with sand and mosques. In VM we withdrew and the vacuum was filled immediately by the very enemy we were fighting.
To exit the wrong way means a direct terror hwy stretching from iran to syria, unopposed.

Bush got us into this and it's going to take more than half a brain (ANY new president) to get us out correctly. NO ONE ELSE LOVES THIS WAR but BUSH.

Originally Posted by Nomoremex

Cassie,

NO ONE but bush loves the war in iraq. The next president, whoever it may be will want to end it asap.

The people who keep saying that the repubs LOVE the war in iraq are all dem liberals pandering to the mindless masses.
This war is vietnam with sand and mosques. In VM we withdrew and the vacuum was filled immediately by the very enemy we were fighting.
To exit the wrong way means a direct terror hwy stretching from iran to syria, unopposed.

Bush got us into this and it's going to take more than half a brain (ANY new president) to get us out correctly. NO ONE ELSE LOVES THIS WAR but BUSH.

I memory serves, it was the Klintons who deployed our military and dropped more bombs than any other president since VN & before 9/11.

Hmmm, isn't that a hoot.

Originally Posted by Nomoremex

Cassie,

NO ONE but bush loves the war in iraq. The next president, whoever it may be will want to end it asap.

The people who keep saying that the repubs LOVE the war in iraq are all dem liberals pandering to the mindless masses.
This war is vietnam with sand and mosques. In VM we withdrew and the vacuum was filled immediately by the very enemy we were fighting.
To exit the wrong way means a direct terror hwy stretching from iran to syria, unopposed.

Bush got us into this and it's going to take more than half a brain (ANY new president) to get us out correctly. NO ONE ELSE LOVES THIS WAR but BUSH.

Ok, I should have said supports this war instead of loving this war. What is Tancredo going to do to stop the war ? Is he willing to end it ? Maybe we can't leave right now, but I just want to see a president who's goal is to stop it. I want a president who stops the war and is tough on illegal immigration, the only one I can think of is Buchanan, but he's not running, but I hope he changes his mind

Cassie, hey there, me again...

Notwithstanding the present political environment and situation we are now in... Here's something to consider... I have 4 questions, which, I think are instructive and even educational to some extent:

1. Who was President leading up to and during WWI?
2. Who was President leading up to and during WWII?
3. Who was President leading up to and during Korean War?
4. Who was President leading up to and during the Vietnam War?

Q. Ask yourself, which one of those (Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy/ Johnson) were Republicans?
A. None.

Bush the Sr.'s activities in GulfWarI (which I happened to agree with), and Bush the Jr's present activities (which I do not agree with) really do represent a break in the overall pattern of wars, diplomacy, isolationism, etc. with respect to political affiliation.

Look, I'm not for Wars, and I don't like the current thing in Iraq either,
and I've never been in a war either, and I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican. But, in all fairness ...both political parties are guilty of initiating this thing, and that historically-speaking at least, the Republicans have been better at keeping us OUT of wars than Democrats in the larger view of things... (just IMHO, with the benefit of 2 yrs of PolSci/Foreign Policy in the subject matter from my undergraduate days...)

cassie wrote:
Read my message Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:27 am ( PST ).
I said I can vote Tancredo only if he is running as an independent and openly opposes the war in Iraq.

Code:

If he wins the GOP nomination, 
I can't vote for him.

If he supports the war, I can't vote for him. If he runs as an independent + opposes the war I can ( maybe ) vote for him. But Hillary is a woman, why should only males be president ?

I'll answer the rest later, I've to answer some mails.

This board is seriously focused on fighting "against" illegal immigration.

You have made it clear that you dislike the GOP`s, that`s fine, but your above post makes it even more evident that your decisions are of a personal matter and not reasons to which addresses the fight against illegal immigration.