Just Heard, 680 Illegals Scooped Up By ICE

[Correll]

I think it is very relevant, for a person's motivation and intent to be considered, when they are discussing policy.


YOu post as though you are offering constructive criticism. But you dont' WANT the policy to succeed.


That is relevant.

I already noted, it's largely irrelevant what I want. I absolutely want the employers hammered for hiring illegals.

You claimed it, but your claim makes no sense. As I explained.


YOu post as though you are offering constructive criticism. But you dont' WANT the policy to succeed.



Your posting style, allowing people to think you are offering constructive criticism, is dishonest.


You and yours are committing a fraud on the American people.

I state exactly what I believe.

NOt really. You are being very misleading, in a number of ways.


Your goal is the best interests of people, as a whole.

I believe that to be the best interest of the nation.

BUt you speak, without being clear about that, in a setting where the assumption is that the goal of the debate is to find the best way to serve AMERICAN peoples' interests.

I'm not as hateful towards others as you are. I don't know what else to tell you.

You were very clear that you base your policy positions on what is good for all people, regardless of nationality.


Walking that back, or lying about it now, that I call you on it, is cowardly and dishonest.

 

[Correll]

America is not just a geographic location.


It is a nation.


You have admitted that you feel no loyalty to your fellow Americans, and indeed, support American government policy not based on what serves their interests; but what serves the interests of non-Americans.


Participation in the American Political process, if you feel no loyalty to the group, is morally and ethically wrong.

We disagree with what serves our interests. I believe the ideas that planted the Statue of Liberty serves our interests. I believe the words of the founders serve our interests.

A disagreement over HOW to best serve the interests of the American people, is assumed to be the basis of any discussion of American policy.


BUt you have admitted that that is not your goal.

Last time. We disagree on the interests. That is all. I won't cover this again.

You see ALL people as equally deserving, and support American government policy accordingly.

That's what the Constitution notes. All men....... The vast majority of the Constitution covers all men.

Thus, when you say, "our interests" you are LYING, because the premise of any discussion of American policy is that Americans are talking about AMERICANS, when they say, "we".

The courts have ruled that the Constitution covers all men.

But that is not who YOU are referring to, when you say "We" is it?


Try to be honest. Even if it burns you.

I've been clear on what I mean.

Sort of. sometimes.


But other times, you use vague terms to mislead people into thinking that you are on their side, when you are not.


That is dishonest of you. And immoral.


YOu are basically treasonous.


YOu really should renounce your American citizenship.

No idea what you are ranting about.

My point was very clear. You argued strongly and clearly against the idea of basing American policy on the best interests of Americans, because you see all men as equal.


Even when I pointed out the obvious flaws in that argument.


You are not, in your heart, an American citizens, and should adjust your legal paper work accordingly.


It is the right thing to do.

 

[pknopp]

I already noted, it's largely irrelevant what I want. I absolutely want the employers hammered for hiring illegals.

You claimed it, but your claim makes no sense. As I explained.


YOu post as though you are offering constructive criticism. But you dont' WANT the policy to succeed.



Your posting style, allowing people to think you are offering constructive criticism, is dishonest.


You and yours are committing a fraud on the American people.

I state exactly what I believe.

NOt really. You are being very misleading, in a number of ways.


Your goal is the best interests of people, as a whole.

I believe that to be the best interest of the nation.

BUt you speak, without being clear about that, in a setting where the assumption is that the goal of the debate is to find the best way to serve AMERICAN peoples' interests.

I'm not as hateful towards others as you are. I don't know what else to tell you.

You were very clear that you base your policy positions on what is good for all people, regardless of nationality.


Walking that back, or lying about it now, that I call you on it, is cowardly and dishonest.

It's like slamming your fingers over and over in a car door. If you wish to continue to ignore what I say, so be it. I believe that the country seeing to the good of all people is good for the country.

 

[pknopp]

We disagree with what serves our interests. I believe the ideas that planted the Statue of Liberty serves our interests. I believe the words of the founders serve our interests.

A disagreement over HOW to best serve the interests of the American people, is assumed to be the basis of any discussion of American policy.


BUt you have admitted that that is not your goal.

Last time. We disagree on the interests. That is all. I won't cover this again.

You see ALL people as equally deserving, and support American government policy accordingly.

That's what the Constitution notes. All men....... The vast majority of the Constitution covers all men.

Thus, when you say, "our interests" you are LYING, because the premise of any discussion of American policy is that Americans are talking about AMERICANS, when they say, "we".

The courts have ruled that the Constitution covers all men.

But that is not who YOU are referring to, when you say "We" is it?


Try to be honest. Even if it burns you.

I've been clear on what I mean.

Sort of. sometimes.


But other times, you use vague terms to mislead people into thinking that you are on their side, when you are not.


That is dishonest of you. And immoral.


YOu are basically treasonous.


YOu really should renounce your American citizenship.

No idea what you are ranting about.

My point was very clear. You argued strongly and clearly against the idea of basing American policy on the best interests of Americans, because you see all men as equal.


Even when I pointed out the obvious flaws in that argument.

You never did. You stated that you disagreed. That's life.

You are not, in your heart, an American citizens, and should adjust your legal paper work accordingly.


It is the right thing to do.

Hopefully you now feel better.

 

[Correll]

You claimed it, but your claim makes no sense. As I explained.


YOu post as though you are offering constructive criticism. But you dont' WANT the policy to succeed.



Your posting style, allowing people to think you are offering constructive criticism, is dishonest.


You and yours are committing a fraud on the American people.

I state exactly what I believe.

NOt really. You are being very misleading, in a number of ways.


Your goal is the best interests of people, as a whole.

I believe that to be the best interest of the nation.

BUt you speak, without being clear about that, in a setting where the assumption is that the goal of the debate is to find the best way to serve AMERICAN peoples' interests.

I'm not as hateful towards others as you are. I don't know what else to tell you.

You were very clear that you base your policy positions on what is good for all people, regardless of nationality.


Walking that back, or lying about it now, that I call you on it, is cowardly and dishonest.

It's like slamming your fingers over and over in a car door. If you wish to continue to ignore what I say, so be it. I believe that the country seeing to the good of all people is good for the country.

What if there was a situation where the "good of all people" was in conflict with the "good of the country"?


Would you side with America or "all people"?

 

[Correll]

A disagreement over HOW to best serve the interests of the American people, is assumed to be the basis of any discussion of American policy.


BUt you have admitted that that is not your goal.

Last time. We disagree on the interests. That is all. I won't cover this again.

You see ALL people as equally deserving, and support American government policy accordingly.

That's what the Constitution notes. All men....... The vast majority of the Constitution covers all men.

Thus, when you say, "our interests" you are LYING, because the premise of any discussion of American policy is that Americans are talking about AMERICANS, when they say, "we".

The courts have ruled that the Constitution covers all men.

But that is not who YOU are referring to, when you say "We" is it?


Try to be honest. Even if it burns you.

I've been clear on what I mean.

Sort of. sometimes.


But other times, you use vague terms to mislead people into thinking that you are on their side, when you are not.


That is dishonest of you. And immoral.


YOu are basically treasonous.


YOu really should renounce your American citizenship.

No idea what you are ranting about.

My point was very clear. You argued strongly and clearly against the idea of basing American policy on the best interests of Americans, because you see all men as equal.


Even when I pointed out the obvious flaws in that argument.

You never did. You stated that you disagreed. That's life.

You are not, in your heart, an American citizens, and should adjust your legal paper work accordingly.


It is the right thing to do.

Hopefully you now feel better.

I did more than just state my disagreement. I pointed out the inherent dishonesty of your actions.


That you lied about that, is just more dishonesty.

 

[pknopp]

I state exactly what I believe.

NOt really. You are being very misleading, in a number of ways.


Your goal is the best interests of people, as a whole.

I believe that to be the best interest of the nation.

BUt you speak, without being clear about that, in a setting where the assumption is that the goal of the debate is to find the best way to serve AMERICAN peoples' interests.

I'm not as hateful towards others as you are. I don't know what else to tell you.

You were very clear that you base your policy positions on what is good for all people, regardless of nationality.


Walking that back, or lying about it now, that I call you on it, is cowardly and dishonest.

It's like slamming your fingers over and over in a car door. If you wish to continue to ignore what I say, so be it. I believe that the country seeing to the good of all people is good for the country.

What if there was a situation where the "good of all people" was in conflict with the "good of the country"?


Would you side with America or "all people"?

I can't not speak on vague "what if's". I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know that it's even possible.

 

[Correll]

NOt really. You are being very misleading, in a number of ways.


Your goal is the best interests of people, as a whole.

I believe that to be the best interest of the nation.

BUt you speak, without being clear about that, in a setting where the assumption is that the goal of the debate is to find the best way to serve AMERICAN peoples' interests.

I'm not as hateful towards others as you are. I don't know what else to tell you.

You were very clear that you base your policy positions on what is good for all people, regardless of nationality.


Walking that back, or lying about it now, that I call you on it, is cowardly and dishonest.

It's like slamming your fingers over and over in a car door. If you wish to continue to ignore what I say, so be it. I believe that the country seeing to the good of all people is good for the country.

What if there was a situation where the "good of all people" was in conflict with the "good of the country"?


Would you side with America or "all people"?

I can't not speak on vague "what if's". I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know that it's even possible.

Nothing vague about it. A simple question of motive and loyalty.


You are an American citizen with no sense of loyalty to your fellow citizens, and who likes to hide or minimize that fact in discussions.

 

[pknopp]

I believe that to be the best interest of the nation.

I'm not as hateful towards others as you are. I don't know what else to tell you.

You were very clear that you base your policy positions on what is good for all people, regardless of nationality.


Walking that back, or lying about it now, that I call you on it, is cowardly and dishonest.

It's like slamming your fingers over and over in a car door. If you wish to continue to ignore what I say, so be it. I believe that the country seeing to the good of all people is good for the country.

What if there was a situation where the "good of all people" was in conflict with the "good of the country"?


Would you side with America or "all people"?

I can't not speak on vague "what if's". I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know that it's even possible.

Nothing vague about it. A simple question of motive and loyalty.


You are an American citizen with no sense of loyalty to your fellow citizens, and who likes to hide or minimize that fact in discussions.

If you can't give me an example, I have to assume there are no examples to discuss.

 

[Correll]

You were very clear that you base your policy positions on what is good for all people, regardless of nationality.


Walking that back, or lying about it now, that I call you on it, is cowardly and dishonest.

It's like slamming your fingers over and over in a car door. If you wish to continue to ignore what I say, so be it. I believe that the country seeing to the good of all people is good for the country.

What if there was a situation where the "good of all people" was in conflict with the "good of the country"?


Would you side with America or "all people"?

I can't not speak on vague "what if's". I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know that it's even possible.

Nothing vague about it. A simple question of motive and loyalty.


You are an American citizen with no sense of loyalty to your fellow citizens, and who likes to hide or minimize that fact in discussions.

If you can't give me an example, I have to assume there are no examples to discuss.

Do you know, that there is no question, about my personal political beliefs, that I would be afraid to answer, as you are afraid to answer this one?


That is because I am not trying to hide my motives or loyalty from anyone.


You are.

 

[pknopp]

It's like slamming your fingers over and over in a car door. If you wish to continue to ignore what I say, so be it. I believe that the country seeing to the good of all people is good for the country.

What if there was a situation where the "good of all people" was in conflict with the "good of the country"?


Would you side with America or "all people"?

I can't not speak on vague "what if's". I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know that it's even possible.

Nothing vague about it. A simple question of motive and loyalty.


You are an American citizen with no sense of loyalty to your fellow citizens, and who likes to hide or minimize that fact in discussions.

If you can't give me an example, I have to assume there are no examples to discuss.

Do you know, that there is no question, about my personal political beliefs, that I would be afraid to answer, as you are afraid to answer this one?


That is because I am not trying to hide my motives or loyalty from anyone.


You are.

You haven't asked me a question. You made a vague claim. Ask a specific question.

 

[Correll]

What if there was a situation where the "good of all people" was in conflict with the "good of the country"?


Would you side with America or "all people"?

I can't not speak on vague "what if's". I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know that it's even possible.

Nothing vague about it. A simple question of motive and loyalty.


You are an American citizen with no sense of loyalty to your fellow citizens, and who likes to hide or minimize that fact in discussions.

If you can't give me an example, I have to assume there are no examples to discuss.

Do you know, that there is no question, about my personal political beliefs, that I would be afraid to answer, as you are afraid to answer this one?


That is because I am not trying to hide my motives or loyalty from anyone.


You are.

You haven't asked me a question. You made a vague claim. Ask a specific question.

And now you are playing games with semantics.



So typical.

 

[pknopp]

I can't not speak on vague "what if's". I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know that it's even possible.

Nothing vague about it. A simple question of motive and loyalty.


You are an American citizen with no sense of loyalty to your fellow citizens, and who likes to hide or minimize that fact in discussions.

If you can't give me an example, I have to assume there are no examples to discuss.

Do you know, that there is no question, about my personal political beliefs, that I would be afraid to answer, as you are afraid to answer this one?


That is because I am not trying to hide my motives or loyalty from anyone.


You are.

You haven't asked me a question. You made a vague claim. Ask a specific question.

And now you are playing games with semantics.



So typical.

If it's a legitimate question, why can you not give me a real example? I believe what is good for the people is good for the nation. You say you disagree. Provide an example.

 

[Correll]

Nothing vague about it. A simple question of motive and loyalty.


You are an American citizen with no sense of loyalty to your fellow citizens, and who likes to hide or minimize that fact in discussions.

If you can't give me an example, I have to assume there are no examples to discuss.

Do you know, that there is no question, about my personal political beliefs, that I would be afraid to answer, as you are afraid to answer this one?


That is because I am not trying to hide my motives or loyalty from anyone.


You are.

You haven't asked me a question. You made a vague claim. Ask a specific question.

And now you are playing games with semantics.



So typical.

If it's a legitimate question, why can you not give me a real example? I believe what is good for the people is good for the nation. You say you disagree. Provide an example.

Because any real example, will give you opportunities to muddy the waters by making various and often dishonest claims, while the real underlying principle gets buried.


And that is, that you are an American citizen, who feels no loyalty to your fellow citizens, yet participates in the political process and public debate, pretending that your motivation and goal is the best interests of your fellow Americans.

 

[pknopp]

If you can't give me an example, I have to assume there are no examples to discuss.

Do you know, that there is no question, about my personal political beliefs, that I would be afraid to answer, as you are afraid to answer this one?


That is because I am not trying to hide my motives or loyalty from anyone.


You are.

You haven't asked me a question. You made a vague claim. Ask a specific question.

And now you are playing games with semantics.



So typical.

If it's a legitimate question, why can you not give me a real example? I believe what is good for the people is good for the nation. You say you disagree. Provide an example.

Because any real example, will give you opportunities to muddy the waters by making various and often dishonest claims, while the real underlying principle gets buried.


And that is, that you are an American citizen, who feels no loyalty to your fellow citizens, yet participates in the political process and public debate, pretending that your motivation and goal is the best interests of your fellow Americans.

LOL. We disagree. That's life. Not everyone is going to agree with you.

 

[Correll]

Do you know, that there is no question, about my personal political beliefs, that I would be afraid to answer, as you are afraid to answer this one?


That is because I am not trying to hide my motives or loyalty from anyone.


You are.

You haven't asked me a question. You made a vague claim. Ask a specific question.

And now you are playing games with semantics.



So typical.

If it's a legitimate question, why can you not give me a real example? I believe what is good for the people is good for the nation. You say you disagree. Provide an example.

Because any real example, will give you opportunities to muddy the waters by making various and often dishonest claims, while the real underlying principle gets buried.


And that is, that you are an American citizen, who feels no loyalty to your fellow citizens, yet participates in the political process and public debate, pretending that your motivation and goal is the best interests of your fellow Americans.

LOL. We disagree. That's life. Not everyone is going to agree with you.

This is not about any disagreement, but about you not having the interests of your fellow Americans as your goal, in discussions of American policy.


Your pretense of confusion on that point, is not credible.


Please stop being dishonest.

 

[pknopp]

You haven't asked me a question. You made a vague claim. Ask a specific question.

And now you are playing games with semantics.



So typical.

If it's a legitimate question, why can you not give me a real example? I believe what is good for the people is good for the nation. You say you disagree. Provide an example.

Because any real example, will give you opportunities to muddy the waters by making various and often dishonest claims, while the real underlying principle gets buried.


And that is, that you are an American citizen, who feels no loyalty to your fellow citizens, yet participates in the political process and public debate, pretending that your motivation and goal is the best interests of your fellow Americans.

LOL. We disagree. That's life. Not everyone is going to agree with you.

This is not about any disagreement, but about you not having the interests of your fellow Americans as your goal, in discussions of American policy.


Your pretense of confusion on that point, is not credible.


Please stop being dishonest.

I note that I am supporting America. You say I am not but can not explain to me how I am not.

Unless you have a specific question, I'm done with this.

 

[protectionist]

People are people. Period.

This is a perfect example of the internationalist, globalist, anti-American attitude of the left, and a perfect illustration of why Americans should never vote for Democrats, who do not represent them. These traitors represent the people of the world, not the American people.

It's just like Obama said, in a speech in Germany, when he openly admitted his internationalism, by saying >> "I am a citizen of the world."

That's not his job. His job is to be an AMERICAN citizen, and represent the AMERICAN people, not the people of the world.

 

[protectionist]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

 

[protectionist]

Nope. There are plenty who believe as I do.

And you are all globalist, anti-American traitors, who need to be defeated on all election days, and stopped from attaining American political power, since you don't represent America.