Why don't you Libtard/ Progressives/ Democrats just say it?

[SmarterthanYou]

Dude it was your straw man; I predicted that you'd make it, and within one minute, you did.

I pwned you epically and had a great laugh this morning. :lol:

you didn't 'pwn' jack. I laid the trap for you as you blindly walked down it. You saw it in time, which is good, but instead of backing off and maybe rethinking your position, you thought it would be better to call that logic trap a strawman and hope nobody noticed it.

you failed.

 

[DamnYankee]

you didn't 'pwn' jack. I laid the trap for you as you blindly walked down it. You saw it in time, which is good, but instead of backing off and maybe rethinking your position, you thought it would be better to call that logic trap a strawman and hope nobody noticed it.

you failed.

Dude. Anyone who reads posts 90-94 realizes exactly what occurred.

Now man-up and admit it to yourself. :lol:

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Dude. Anyone who reads posts 90-94 realizes exactly what occurred.

Now man-up and admit it to yourself. :lol:

they realize you walked right in to a trap and tried to bluff your way out of it. You know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it.

If you'd like to 'man up' yourself, try answering the very legitimate question or at least verifying your claim.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Dude explain to me how that happened.

Dude, that's the way it works. Go to the Department of Homeland Security's Bureau for Immigration Services (BIS) and look it up your self. The steps for a foreign national, who marries a US Citizen, becoming a nationalized citizen are as follows;

First they must marry a US Citizen (duh).
Next they must legally obtain a visa to enter the United States.
Next they must apply for and receive Temporary Resident Alien Status and hold that status for 1 year.
After 1 year they must apply for and receive Permanent Resident Alien Status and hold that status for 3 to 5 years before they can apply for US Citizenship. (That's 4 to 6 years when you include processing times for BIS documents, and the 1 year as a temporary resident alien).

When they meet those conditions they can apply for US Citizenship if they also meet the following conditions.

They have a sponsor (if the sponsor is a spouse, who is a US Citizen, they can apply after their 3rd year as a permanent resident alien, if it is a US Citizen that is not their spouse they they must wait 5 years. If they have no US Citizen as a sponsor they must wait 10 years.).

They have demonstrated good moral character as a permanent resident.

They apply for US Citizenship with USBIS and provide the required documentary evidence.

They undergo a personal interview by USBIS personnel.

They learn to Speak, read and write in English.

They pass an examination on US History and Civics.

They denounce all alliegences to any other nation and pledge allegience to the United States of America (usually in a formal ceremony).

At this point, they can be issued their US Citizenship.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Dude. Anyone who reads posts 90-94 realizes exactly what occurred.

Now man-up and admit it to yourself. :lol:

Anyone who reads this can only come to the conclusion that you do not respect their rights, freedoms or liberties and that you only care about your own.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Anyone who reads this can only come to the conclusion that you do not respect their rights, freedoms or liberties and that you only care about your own.

he knows he walked right in to a trap. he's trying real hard not to be embarrassed. I can't blame him.....too much.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

he knows he walked right in to a trap. he's trying real hard not to be embarrassed. I can't blame him.....too much.

Social conservatives always do. One of most obvious calling cards of a social conservative is that they only care about their rights, not yours.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Social conservatives always do. One of most obvious calling cards of a social conservative is that they only care about their rights, not yours.

with all due respect, so do most liberals.

 

[DamnYankee]

they realize you walked right in to a trap and tried to bluff your way out of it. You know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it.

If you'd like to 'man up' yourself, try answering the very legitimate question or at least verifying your claim.

Dude, it looks like I gave you too much credit back there. I said to Solitary that you had the balls to be specific in an argument, and here you go showing your lack of balls to man-up when I predicted your straw man, and one minute later you delivered it.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Dude, it looks like I gave you too much credit back there. I said to Solitary that you had the balls to be specific in an argument, and here you go showing your lack of balls to man-up when I predicted your straw man, and one minute later you delivered it.

you 'predicted' a strawman because you KNEW you got set up in a trap. It looked like your only way out of being embarrassed. admit it. my question was no strawman, especially since you're the one that set the premise for it.

again, you walked right in to a trap. You know it, I know it, and so does everyone else.

 

[DamnYankee]

you 'predicted' a strawman because you KNEW you got set up in a trap. It looked like your only way out of being embarrassed. admit it. my question was no strawman, especially since you're the one that set the premise for it.

again, you walked right in to a trap. You know it, I know it, and so does everyone else.

Wow. You don't even see your straw man? If not there's no way you can me smarter than me.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Wow. You don't even see your straw man? If not there's no way you can me smarter than me.

can't see a strawman if there is no strawman. keep wishing there was though, i'm sure that makes you feel better.

you can man up and answer the question anytime though.

 

[DamnYankee]

OK let me explain this to you as simply as possible.

My argument was stated: “Solitary should have no expectation of privacy talking to a non-citizen of the US from a foreign territory with known terrorist activity.” [emp added]

You then ax’d: “how would they know it's terrorist activity?”

I replied: “Because its Pakistan, duh.”, then I *prepared for your straw man*.

To which you predictably replied: “so all Pakistanis[sic] are terrorists?”

My argument discussed a “territory”, and you created a caricature of that by asserting that I meant ‘“all” citizens in that territory’, meeting the definition of a straw man precisely.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

OK let me explain this to you as simply as possible.

My argument was stated: “Solitary should have no expectation of privacy talking to a non-citizen of the US from a foreign territory with known terrorist activity.” [emp added]

You then ax’d: “how would they know it's terrorist activity?”

I replied: “Because its Pakistan, duh.”, then I *prepared for your straw man*.

To which you predictably replied: “so all Pakistanis[sic] are terrorists?”

My argument discussed a “territory”, and you created a caricature of that by asserting that I meant ‘“all” citizens in that territory’, meeting the definition of a straw man precisely.

total fail.

you stating that the government would know it's terrorism related simply because it's pakistan infers that you think all pakistanis are terrorists. That is in no way asking or posing a strawman if YOU YOURSELF posit the theory.

admit it, you got trapped and tried to step over it instead of backing out gracefully, like you should have. Now you have to sit here and look all stupid trying to mask your foolishness as a strawman.

 

[DamnYankee]

Wow.

 

[Socrtease]

You hate the Constitution, treat it like a joke, ignore it when you can and want to dump it in the trash heap.

This is the biggest bullshit statement made by a righty in a long time on this board. Lets talk about the left and right view of the constitution.

The left hates the second amendment, they pretend it was only intended to be a collective right even though they cannot EVER tell me the difference between the "people" in the second and the fourth amendments. They also have far to broad a view of the necessary and proper clause.

The right, on the other hand has screamed for years about the 4th amendment. They call it a technicality, they say that just because the police violated it does not mean that the evidence should excluded, even though there is no other remedy for an illegal search.

The right has until just recently fought like hell to do away with miranda, which ensures that a defendant KNOWS he has a right not to speak with the police.

The right also hates the 9th amendment, they hate the fact that it says that even though there are rights not enumerated in the constitution, we the people still have other rights, including privacy, which are constitutionally protected.

The right in this country has worked hard to limit free speech rights, it was the right that tried to prosecute someone for wearing a patch that said fuck the draft, the right that thinks sexual imagery is not protected expression and the right that has tried over and over again to limit freedom of expression ONLY to actually speech.

The right believes that freedom of religion applies to only the majority religions and it has been the right that has fought tirelessly to limit Jehova's Witnesses rights to NOT say the pledge of alliegence, to require that non-believers be subject to prayers at graduations, in class, and during state funded school sports activities. The right sees no problem with requiring non-believers to sit quietly while the rest of you use state funded bully pulpits to pray to your god only.

The ACLU, a liberal organization has been the ONLY organization to work overtime to insure that civil liberties are enjoyed by the minorities as well as the majority, hell it was ONLY the ACLU that fought for the American Nazi party's right to assemble and give their hate filled speeches.

Finally, it was conservatives that worked so hard to keep schools segregated. Don't go off on the fact that it was democrats in the south that were behind that because democrats in the south in the 40's and 50's that WERE the most conservative. It was the right wing hero Strom Thurmond that fought for segregation and ran for president on that platform. For most of the 20th century it was conservatives that fought civil liberties and civil rights at every turn.

 

[WinterBorn]

Wow, I go spend a little time outside and miss all the fun. lol

But SM got pwnd by two more people, so that always makes for entertaining reading.

 

[DamnYankee]

This is the biggest bullshit statement made by a righty in a long time on this board. Lets talk about the left and right view of the constitution.

The left hates the second amendment, they pretend it was only intended to be a collective right even though they cannot EVER tell me the difference between the "people" in the second and the fourth amendments. They also have far to broad a view of the necessary and proper clause.

The right, on the other hand has screamed for years about the 4th amendment. They call it a technicality, they say that just because the police violated it does not mean that the evidence should excluded, even though there is no other remedy for an illegal search.

The right has until just recently fought like hell to do away with miranda, which ensures that a defendant KNOWS he has a right not to speak with the police.

The right also hates the 9th amendment, they hate the fact that it says that even though there are rights not enumerated in the constitution, we the people still have other rights, including privacy, which are constitutionally protected.

The right in this country has worked hard to limit free speech rights, it was the right that tried to prosecute someone for wearing a patch that said fuck the draft, the right that thinks sexual imagery is not protected expression and the right that has tried over and over again to limit freedom of expression ONLY to actually speech.

The right believes that freedom of religion applies to only the majority religions and it has been the right that has fought tirelessly to limit Jehova's Witnesses rights to NOT say the pledge of alliegence, to require that non-believers be subject to prayers at graduations, in class, and during state funded school sports activities. The right sees no problem with requiring non-believers to sit quietly while the rest of you use state funded bully pulpits to pray to your god only.

The ACLU, a liberal organization has been the ONLY organization to work overtime to insure that civil liberties are enjoyed by the minorities as well as the majority, hell it was ONLY the ACLU that fought for the American Nazi party's right to assemble and give their hate filled speeches.

Finally, it was conservatives that worked so hard to keep schools segregated. Don't go off on the fact that it was democrats in the south that were behind that because democrats in the south in the 40's and 50's that WERE the most conservative. It was the right wing hero Strom Thurmond that fought for segregation and ran for president on that platform. For most of the 20th century it was conservatives that fought civil liberties and civil rights at every turn.

All bullshit and unsubstantiated opinion. For example, Thurmond was a Democrat when he pulled that bullshit. So were Byrd and Gore and they were against civil rights too.

 

[Socrtease]

All bullshit and unsubstantiated opinion. For example, Thurmond was a Democrat when he pulled that bullshit. So were Byrd and Gore and they were against civil rights too.

And the Democratic party was the conservative party in the 40's and 50's, which I said in my post and you so conveniently ignored. You are willfully ignorant of your past because it does not suit your political leanings today. Strom Thurmond was indeed a democrat and became a republican when the Democratic party became the party of civil liberties and civil rights.

 

[WinterBorn]

And the Democratic party was the conservative party in the 40's and 50's, which I said in my post and you so conveniently ignored. You are willfully ignorant of your past because it does not suit your political leanings today. Strom Thurmond was indeed a democrat and became a republican when the Democratic party became the party of civil liberties and civil rights.

Nice sign, Soc. I do love a woman with a nice ass. And Cote is one I could do again.