From: -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Can You Tell Us WHY You Want Illegal Alien Gang Members
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 13:16:48 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Skeeter OG <invalid@none.com> wrote:
> In article <1601913815.766801634.333602.recscuba_google-
> huntzinger.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>
>> Skeeter OG <invalid@none.com> wrote:
>>> In article <vtqbjq$6bga$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> chine.bleu@yahoo.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On 16/4/25 18:41, pothead wrote:
>>>>>>>> Did Laken Riley get due process?
>>>>>>>>>>> She's dead because an illegal migrant killed her.
>>>>>>>>>>> And there are many others like her.
>>>>>>>>> She's dead because a PERSON killed her.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and that person was an illegal immigrant.
>>>>> Bingo.
>>>>> And totally preventable.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the point the libbys ignore.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So no illegal immigrants then no murders.
>>>
>>> Who said that? Oh YOU did.
>>
>> Yet it is historically correct.
>
> No it isn't. Are all liberals as dumb as you?
It is precisely what youâre trying to implyâ¦and are now trying to play dumb
when youâve been called out for it.
>>>> The concept of an 'illegal immigrant' is only from the 1920s.
>>>
>>> Cross the right way.
>>
>> So the ?right? way would be to have a totally fair & impartial system which
>> doesn?t contain racist, misogynistic, or bigoted exclusions ? right?
>
> The right way. What part of that don't you understand?
Dodge attempted.
Again: does the ârightâ way would be to have a totally fair & impartial
system which does not contain racist, misogynistic, or bigoted exclusions?
Because what we have today is not ârightâ by these metrics. And by you
trying to dodge acknowledgment of this, youâre effectively admitting that
our current immigration policy is not right.
>>>> No murders during the nineteenth century. Nobody was shot in the
>>>> back of their head whilst watching a play.
>>
>> Gosh, no snappy retort attempt on this satirical comment, eh?
>
> Because it was a stupid statement.
Not stupid at all: youâre merely mad that your attempt to imply/create
causality from nothing has been called out as logically invalid.
-hh