Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/27/10 04:27 PM, Patton3 wrote: 1. That assumes that granting amnesty would ultimately lead to all Americans living the life of beggars.

No, it anticipates your sentiment that every little bit helps, which is why everyone should give a little. However, if you truly believe that, then there's no reason why you yourself should stop at a little, unless of course you only care so much.

2. Secondly, it assumes that in order to show care/support for people you have to devote yourself to them without the slightest restraint. For example...
If I claim all persons in this country should respect the sacrifices made by our troops, is my point moot because I'm not a member of the military? Is it moot because I don't give every last, single dime of my money to the USO?

In that case you aren't compelling people to give that money. When you give to charity yourself, you are making a moral choice. When you force others to do the same, you are issuing a dictate. Now, perhaps you believe it's so important for such and such a group to be helped that it justifies taking that choice away from everyone else, but to believe this and not yet have done everything in your own power to solve the problem...it lacks integrity and shows a great disregard for the freedom of others.

As well, understand that monetary issues to many people are not the only angle from which we should look at things. Looking at the world from a purely monetary perspective is often cold and harsh, forgetting that the things you're putting dollar signs on are human beings.

Human beings are overrated. I may care a lot about my friends and family, and may fight to protect them, but I sure as hell wouldn't demand that a complete stranger do the same. But that's a whole other ethical argument.

Sorry, meant to be one long post

At 4/27/10 12:25 AM, peanutfoot932 wrote: Okay, that's enough of that. Seriously, you "competition is great except when it's with those damn foreigners" people are really starting to irritate me.

Whoever said it's because they are foreigners? Did you not read the "poor" and "uneducated" part?

At 4/27/10 01:50 PM, poxpower wrote: What if they stopped only young people? From now on, cops stop everyone who looks sort of under 30 and searches them for drugs! Let's say that 95% of drugs were found on people under 30. Wow, that's brilliant, right?

You honestly believe that police are going to waste their time accosting every single Hispanic person they see? That there's no such thing as cause to suspect someone may be an illegal immigrant?
Or lets put it another way: Do you think that all Arizona police departments hire racists? Do you think that a racist profiling cop can do whatever he likes because of this law with no consequences?

What if instead of trying to put the majority of the punishment on immigrants, we put the punishments on the companies that hired them?

Imagine this: $10,000 fine per immigrant per day if a company is found hiring illegals. Companies will then realize illegal immigrants are more expensive than their worth, and start checking for ID. If there's no work, there's no incentive to move to the US, and the problem solves itself.

*Very important note guys. Simply reiterating*:

An officer in Arizona can not pull over someone just to inquire about their "status". They must first make lawful contact with civilians via other means, as in a traffic stop, for example. The new Arizona law also states that police officers can only check immigration status where practical, and with respect toward their civil rights. I'm only paraphrasing. The new law says this in this nifty little pdf. file.

Another interesting thing. I'm not trying to sway the tide of this discussion by using the "go with the crowd" argument, but a shitload of Arizona residents support this, as well as 84% of Republicans and 51% of democrats.

Just a few things to think about.

At 4/27/10 09:51 PM, Musician wrote: What if instead of trying to put the majority of the punishment on immigrants, we put the punishments on the companies that hired them?

Imagine this: $10,000 fine per immigrant per day if a company is found hiring illegals. Companies will then realize illegal immigrants are more expensive than their worth, and start checking for ID. If there's no work, there's no incentive to move to the US, and the problem solves itself.

But wait, here's the problem. Politicians tend to be lacking in this certain body part called the testicles. See, these politicians get elected and re-elected often, and so they need campaign money. Where do they get most of their contributions from? Small and large businesses alike. If they legislate a new law that'd make the penalty that high, without phasing it in properly, then these businesses might stop contributing to those certain politicians, or simply leave. But a penalty in general isn't a bad idea, it's just that $10,000 a day would be overkill.

At 4/27/10 09:51 PM, Musician wrote: What if instead of trying to put the majority of the punishment on immigrants, we put the punishments on the companies that hired them?

Imagine this: $10,000 fine per immigrant per day if a company is found hiring illegals. Companies will then realize illegal immigrants are more expensive than their worth, and start checking for ID. If there's no work, there's no incentive to move to the US, and the problem solves itself.

Because as I've mentioned before, Illegal immigrants are a net positive when it comes to federal tax collections. The federal government, like in the case of Tobacco, has found itself at an impass. I wants the incredibly lucrative tax revenues generated from the sin taxes, but it wants to position itself in such a way that it is discouraging the consumption of these things.

Personally, I support this bill wholeheartedly. I have been immensely irritated by the fact that honest people who enter this country legally have enough respect to EARN their green card and learn about our country while others simply hop the fence and come across illegally. Those who come in illegally are committing an act that is illegal and they are therefore criminals, plain and simple. You cannot argue this point, they are criminals by definition.

But what bothers me most about all of this, is that despite the fact that these criminals are flagrantly disregarding our immigration laws without the slightest hint of respect for them, they are indignantly outraged that we would dare think to enforce them. Even more astounding is that they have the audacity to argue whether it is legal to enforce a law that would crackdown on illegals!

I can understand concerns about racial profiling. LEGAL immigrants and citizens should not suffer any hardships as they have every right to be here. Still, I don't see any other way to deal with these assinine people, and from a pragmatic standpoint it is essential. There is no point in even having laws if the people are allowed to simply disregard them with impunity.

At 4/26/10 01:02 PM, Proteas wrote: Wait... they made it illegal to be an illegal immigrant in this country?

They illegalized illegal immigrants?

BLAGH!!!

My thoughts exactly, has it really gotten to the point that we need to make something illegal that was already illegal? Honestly, I've never understood why somebody would be here illegally unless it's for purposes nefarious. You can't tell me people are ignorant of whether or not they're here legally (unless perhaps we're talking about an expired work visa or something, I can understand how somebody might make the mistake of not checking their paperwork closely).

I've always felt the best way to deal with the issue is if you catch an illegal you give them two choices:

1. We immediately jail you for deportation

or

2. We jail you, but provide you access to the materials and whatever you will need to take and pass a citizenship exam and become a legal resident

What would be so difficult about that?

At 4/27/10 04:58 PM, Memorize wrote: Right, because our troops weren't put in Korea by a liberal, or in Britain by a liberal, or in Germany by a liberal.

They haven't been removed by a conservative either. Neither liberals nor conservatives have removed troops from the countries you mentioned, but I have heard at least one liberal (Bill Maher) advocate their removal.

I'm not saying that automatically gives liberals the edge, it doesn't. It just means your "liberals aren't for troop removal from these areas" blanket statement can be proven false, and that it's not like the conservatives have done any fucking better. So in the end, I fail to see why the fuck you even brought this up to try and turn into an exclusive liberal bash issue when it's clearly an issue both sides can (and rightfully so I think) be bashed over.

At 4/27/10 03:34 PM, riemannSum wrote: Ok, so to make this clear, I'm going to quote: "so what you need to do is make mexico a better place to live, and magicaly less and less illegal immigrants will come here ."

So make Mexico a better place to live... So that the immigrants will want to live there and not here. Well for that to be true Mexico would have to be a better alternative than the U.S.

So, as the quote says we would have to make Mexico the better place - not the Mexicans - us. The ones with the problem.

What I said was that this would cost MORE money, making the burden caused by illegals much greater, and thereby making no sense to do whatsoever.

Couldn't figure that out Captain Ad Hominem?

Yes they're two different issues. Yet magically they seem to be correlated! What was totally weird about what I said is how I didn't include them as the same issue but -- wait instead of just explaining it I'll break it down for you so you don't say something equally as stupid as the last thing you said.

Oh, oh, we can spend even MORE money than we waste on illegals to develop Mexico's infrastructure, we can even send our military to solve their horrible government and drug cartel problem!

We have part A of the sentence - About spending more money to develop Mexico's infrastructure

Then, part B (AFTER the comma!) - Where I state that we can "EVEN" send our military to solve their problems.

See what I did there? I stated something stupid and ridiculous which was on topic of the argument, then I said something even STUPIDER and MORE RIDICULOUS to make the first part look even stupider

Don't patronize me kiddo, you know damn well you put words into his mouth, crossing into another country illegally is a pain in the ass, Mexico wouldn't have to be better than the USA to effectively stop illegal immigrants from coming over, it would only need to be good enough that the incentive wouldn't be enough. Yet you attack him as if he said we should make Mexico better than the USA.

Also the any increased action to stop drug cartels would be ineffective and expensive, I was saying the only way to kill them off is to make legal ways to obtain the drugs they produce. And you are implying that brute force would be the only way we could possibly stop them.

And so you don't put words into my mouth, my own personal opinion is that we need to pressure Mexico's government into doing a much better job than they're currently doing.

At 4/28/10 01:09 AM, Gorgonof wrote: And so you don't put words into my mouth, my own personal opinion is that we need to pressure Mexico's government into doing a much better job than they're currently doing.

And finally someone answers my question...about twenty or so posts later. Thank you.

Now kindly help me out and elaborate on this idea:

-What exactly could the Mexican government be doing better?
-How would you put pressure on their government to make it happen?
-How could this backfire on the US, and what is the best way to prevent that?

Now for the angriest, most bitter vitriol ever seen:

BLARGHHH HURR Although this bill does provide necessary RWRAARRR GLIAARRRRHHGH!!!!111!!! measures that the federal government has failed to provide, this bill will ultimately fail RLALRAHHH GYYARGHAAAAA!!!!!

Simply put, I cannot see it surviving the Pfft! DUUUUURRRR!!!!!! oncoming legal challenges. WRARHHRARARRRRRRRRR According to CNN, California (if I remember right) tried something similar to this, and the result was a whole host of legal challenges that wore down the state and weakened the bill to almost nothing. In the end, California put in a lot for nothing GHYARRRRRRGHHHARRH!!!!

BLLLLARRRHHHHH The best thing to do is to start over with a better bill, not too far from this one (in light of the public support), but one that can actually pass consitutional muster and addresses the situation without the spectre of racial profiling and overstepping state government bounds (and government bounds in general WRARRRRQOHIOAKLTHAIOJKLTHIONAKLAHTIOHAHT AAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!1111!!!!!!!)

At 4/28/10 01:20 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: And finally someone answers my question...about twenty or so posts later. Thank you.

Now kindly help me out and elaborate on this idea:

-What exactly could the Mexican government be doing better?
-How would you put pressure on their government to make it happen?
-How could this backfire on the US, and what is the best way to prevent that?

It wouldn't be easy, but it would help if America legalized and regulated all drugs, it would deal a huge financial blow to the criminal organizations that are currently controlling Mexico's government, also our immigration system is inefficient and needs an overhaul, it can take up to 3 years to get a visa, so many people just sneak in.

I am pretty sure they always wanted to do it but America has been afriad of hispanics and blacks. They are becoming majority.

At 4/28/10 12:02 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

They haven't been removed by a conservative either.

That's my point.

At least the Conservatives will argue to secure their country's own border with their own National Guard while having our military all over the world.

I'm trying to figure out our liberal politician's logic in keeping our troops to secure the borders of other nations all over the world... but no, we couldn't possibly do that here.

Neither liberals nor conservatives have removed troops from the countries you mentioned, but I have heard at least one liberal (Bill Maher) advocate their removal.

I've heard many people, though more from Conservatives than Liberals (ironically enough).

There's Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, Lew Rockwell, Adam Kokesh, Jason Chaffetz.

I think you should include Denis.

At 4/28/10 03:14 AM, Memorize wrote: I've heard many people, though more from Conservatives than Liberals (ironically enough).

There's Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, Lew Rockwell, Adam Kokesh, Jason Chaffetz.

I think you should include Denis.

Oh good, a jolly-"Liberal" bash. I'm so glad your wannabe-intelligent self graced this thread with your incompetence, otherwise, who would have noticed that we have an incumbent in the office of President of the United States advocating for the timed withdrawal of US troops from the hell hole of Iraq at this very moment? Oh, and lets forget his predecessor who wanted to make this another Vietnam to secure Iraqi oil potential.

It's quite obvious you are another partisan hack who advocates for anything the "conservative" dick shoves down your throat.

The funny thing is, we as a nation have been doing racial profiling since we founded the mother fucker. It will never change. Border control does it all day long.

At 4/28/10 01:09 AM, Gorgonof wrote:
Don't patronize me kiddo, you know damn well you put words into his mouth, crossing into another country illegally is a pain in the ass, Mexico wouldn't have to be better than the USA to effectively stop illegal immigrants from coming over, it would only need to be good enough that the incentive wouldn't be enough. Yet you attack him as if he said we should make Mexico better than the USA.

It would have to be very close for a few reasons. One - the U.S. has a reputation to Mexicans of a better life and more money. Two - It's really not that much of a pain in the ass. Three - Seriously? I attacked him as if he said that? Oh no. It made a valid point which you're disregarding because I took it to an extreme, kiddo.

Also the any increased action to stop drug cartels would be ineffective and expensive, I was saying the only way to kill them off is to make legal ways to obtain the drugs they produce. And you are implying that brute force would be the only way we could possibly stop them.

I said one thing about drug cartels, which, might I add, was NOT a serious point. But wait I broke that down for you barney style... Maybe you need to be patronized more? Stop acting like that was a serious point - or even my main point (as that's the only one you're refuting).

And so you don't put words into my mouth, my own personal opinion is that we need to pressure Mexico's government into doing a much better job than they're currently doing.

Cute, we do that though and it doesn't work.

At 4/28/10 08:13 AM, riemannSum wrote:
It would have to be very close for a few reasons. One - the U.S. has a reputation to Mexicans of a better life and more money. Two - It's really not that much of a pain in the ass. Three - Seriously? I attacked him as if he said that? Oh no. It made a valid point which you're disregarding because I took it to an extreme, kiddo.

You didn't make a valid point, you said something absolutely ridiculous.

I said one thing about drug cartels, which, might I add, was NOT a serious point. But wait I broke that down for you barney style... Maybe you need to be patronized more? Stop acting like that was a serious point - or even my main point (as that's the only one you're refuting).

I never said anything to you in malice, I only pointed out a fallacy you made, stop taking it personal and being an ass.

Cute, we do that though and it doesn't work.

Honestly, what are we doing? The current attitude I see is that illegal is something to be controlled, rather than going after the causes, there are two big problems on our side of the border, which you conveniently ignored.

A lot of other people criticized your post, but if something was missed than post it again, I don't have time to read what everybody said.

At 4/27/10 11:57 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: My thoughts exactly, has it really gotten to the point that we need to make something illegal that was already illegal?

It is not making illegal what's already illegal.

It's making police to inquiry your citizenship status, which seems okay on the first level-- but racial profiling is a huge problem with it, though proponents of the law are really downsizing it. (But they're not the ones with the lower end of the stick.)

Police aren't sure looking for illegal Swedes in Arizona... that's for sure.

And the part of the problem is confidence. Are police gonna be trustworthy enough to not abuse the law? Because this is also part of the whole police-citizen dynamics of relationship.

Yes, there are things written in place saying how they're supposed to use it, yet it's the confidence.

And a bigger component is the race relationship.
When you got a white tea bagger coming to an opponents rally and calling everyone wetbacks... well... how can't people not see this problem?

Yeah, I can understand that there's a huge problem in Arizona with the cartel and human trafficking. But those are asymptotic problems. Real issues are really political relationships between Mexico and the United States...

Today, we're still enacting laws like the NAFTA. Before, growers could gain like a (to make up a price...) a buck on corn. (I think that's what I remember...) Now, it's 2 cents per corn.

I'm not too much an expert on this, but here's a linky--

Part of the problem is sutainability and giving fair chance to people. So, laws like this make the poor into more poor? What do they do?

1.) Go into crime (like human traficing and the cartel) = problems in the US
2.) Go the the US and find work = problems in the US
3.) Join up with the Zapatistas = problems in the US AND Mexico.

If we wanna help-- we got to find some way to stimulate the Mexican economy and to fix the crime there too. That's the truth to it, though Republicans won't care about anything else but the US interests (heck... not even the US interest... THEIR interests is more like it.)

At 4/28/10 04:21 AM, drDAK wrote:

Oh good, a jolly-"Liberal" bash. I'm so glad your wannabe-intelligent self graced this thread with your incompetence, otherwise, who would have noticed that we have an incumbent in the office of President of the United States advocating for the timed withdrawal of US troops from the hell hole of Iraq at this very moment? Oh, and lets forget his predecessor who wanted to make this another Vietnam to secure Iraqi oil potential.

Oh, you mean the withdrawal that BUSH had set up with the Iraqi Government before Obama even took office?

The same withdrawal that redefines "combat troops" and withdrawals the "real" ones so slowly while replacing them with contractors to the point where we won't be out until well after Obama's second term?

The same withdrawal Obama is currently carrying out?

Hey! What ever happened to that 16 months he was talking about?

It reminds me of when he railed against the FISA bill... only to vote in favor of it.

Or the times he railed against the Patriot Act... only to extend it once he got into office.

It's quite obvious you are another partisan hack who advocates for anything the "conservative" dick shoves down your throat.

Really?

Is that why you continue to support Bush's policy's through Obama as a Proxy?

Or is it that you only support a Democrat to do all those things?

At 4/27/10 11:57 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
1. We immediately jail you for deportation

or

2. We jail you, but provide you access to the materials and whatever you will need to take and pass a citizenship exam and become a legal resident

What would be so difficult about that?

Pardon mi espaneol, y no accentes, por menos que prefero numero dos.

At 4/28/10 02:02 PM, Gorgonof wrote:
You didn't make a valid point, you said something absolutely ridiculous.

Ok, seriously, I'm getting tired of having to slow down for you so I can explain things. Sarcasm CAN be used to make a point! (See what I did there? Probably not.)

By taking what I said and applying simple logic to it we can ascertain that my point was that it would be a waste of money and time to try and make Mexico better using our own resources - more so that it's self defeating. All we're doing is changing the problem.

Honestly, based off of our short discussion here I'm not surprised you didn't pick that out.

I never said anything to you in malice, I only pointed out a fallacy you made, stop taking it personal and being an ass.

No one accused you of malice in any form. I can't find where I said anything like that. Actually what I wrote was me getting frustrated that you can't figure out the point of anything I'm saying even AFTER I've taken it - literally - step by step. And, by god, I can't find the fallacy. If you're STILL talking about what you thought was me making two problems one, I already explained that to you too. Seriously, if your next post follows this trend I might off myself.

Honestly, what are we doing? The current attitude I see is that illegal is something to be controlled, rather than going after the causes, there are two big problems on our side of the border, which you conveniently ignored.

Ok, wow, so are you reading or what?

That comment was about us doing something to make Mexico better. You're now talking about illegal aliens. My god. Yes, correlated but not the topic right now.

Now - what are the two big problems which I must have missed somewhere and ignored? And by ignored I mean they were never brought up as a topic, I'm going to venture a guess that you threw them in somewhere and expected me to drag two or three words out of a paragraph and argue about it. Quotes please.

Also - I never ventured to solve this problem so PLEASE don't act like I'm coming up with solutions here.

A lot of other people criticized your post, but if something was missed than post it again, I don't have time to read what everybody said.

LOL'd. Ok so looking back through the topic... One person posted a reply to me other than you. And that was mid page one before you were here and that post people 'criticized' existed. So unless you're providing quotes here about something that I'm blind to - shut the fuck up. I'm about done with you just making stuff up and not even attempting to read the words I write before you reply.

In fact the only person to reply to EITHER of us since we began our discussion (apart from ourselves) was Dawnslayer asking you a question.

But who knows, maybe I'm completely dumb and blind.

At 4/28/10 11:27 PM, riemannSum wrote:

:Blah blah blah I'm implying you're a dipship

Seriously dude, fuck off. You're a complete asshole and I'm not wasting time on you.

At 4/29/10 12:43 AM, Gorgonof wrote:

At 4/28/10 11:27 PM, riemannSum wrote: Blah blah blah I'm implying you're a dipship

Seriously dude, fuck off. You're a complete asshole and I'm not wasting time on you.

I lol'd. Is that it? You can't refute anything? You want to talk logical fallacies, I'm pretty sure you just committed a big one.

At 4/29/10 12:52 AM, riemannSum wrote:

At 4/29/10 12:43 AM, Gorgonof wrote:

At 4/28/10 11:27 PM, riemannSum wrote: Blah blah blah I'm implying you're a dipship

Seriously dude, fuck off. You're a complete asshole and I'm not wasting time on you.

I lol'd. Is that it? You can't refute anything? You want to talk logical fallacies, I'm pretty sure you just committed a big one.

You've made numerous ad hominems and bare assertions, so you shouldn't talk about logical fallacies.

I'm assuming you're a troll, great job, you've almost pissed me off.

At 4/29/10 01:01 AM, Gorgonof wrote:
I'm assuming you're a troll, great job, you've almost pissed me off.

Come now, let's not turn this into something personal. Why don't you refute the points I made earlier?

At 4/29/10 01:23 AM, riemannSum wrote:

At 4/29/10 01:01 AM, Gorgonof wrote:
I'm assuming you're a troll, great job, you've almost pissed me off.

Come now, let's not turn this into something personal. Why don't you refute the points I made earlier?

Nah, you already made it personal by trolling, I have better things to do.

At 4/28/10 05:17 PM, fli wrote: It is not making illegal what's already illegal.

It looks like it from here.

It's making police to inquiry your citizenship status, which seems okay on the first level-- but racial profiling is a huge problem with it, though proponents of the law are really downsizing it. (But they're not the ones with the lower end of the stick.)

Why do you keep ignoring the part that they'd need a legit reason to stop you first? Like the old rule in Jersey about seatbelts where they couldn't stop you just because it was unbuckled, they needed you doing something else wrong first. I'm sorry but, how the fuck do we catch illegals without some aspect of profiling and going "hmm, that guy looks suspicious, let me go check him out"?

Police aren't sure looking for illegal Swedes in Arizona... that's for sure.

How many illegal Swedes really would be in Arizona or anywhere anyway? I mean...let's be honest, what's the predominance of your illegal population that close to the Mexican border? Why...Mexicans ain't it! Come on man...I thought you were smarter then to trot out stuff like this.

And the part of the problem is confidence. Are police gonna be trustworthy enough to not abuse the law? Because this is also part of the whole police-citizen dynamics of relationship.

That's why we have things like IA and other ways to assess the police and get crooked cops off the force. We shouldn't enforce a law that has clear limits on what and when the cops can inquire as to citizenship just because some cops might be assholes? Really? Did we decide white cops couldn't investigate black murder suspects because of Mark Furman? Because I'm sure you'll declare I'm making a leap, it seems relevant to me. If we're going to start saying "well we can't have this law because it might be enforced abusively" then we really can't have ANY laws can we?

Yes, there are things written in place saying how they're supposed to use it, yet it's the confidence.

See above points.

And a bigger component is the race relationship.
When you got a white tea bagger coming to an opponents rally and calling everyone wetbacks... well... how can't people not see this problem?

What the hell does this have to do with anything? What does this have to do with a clearly defined law to catch CRIMINALS!

Yeah, I can understand that there's a huge problem in Arizona with the cartel and human trafficking. But those are asymptotic problems. Real issues are really political relationships between Mexico and the United States...

I thought the real problem here was people hopping the border and then hiding out from the INS. That at least seems to be a problem the law here wants to address. But you tell me about the political relationship and how we can fix it. Because it seems to me like Mexico is pretty friggin corrupt and opportunities are almost nil...so unless by "political relationship" you mean "we should be fixing their country"...

Part of the problem is sutainability and giving fair chance to people. So, laws like this make the poor into more poor? What do they do?

Well, they can come over here legally and obtain citizenship just like my immigrant forefathers did, how about that?

If we wanna help-- we got to find some way to stimulate the Mexican economy and to fix the crime there too. That's the truth to it, though Republicans won't care about anything else but the US interests (heck... not even the US interest... THEIR interests is more like it.)

I really think it's getting to be where America DOES at some point have to draw a line about who we can and can't help and fix. We have massive unemployment in our own country, we have menial retail jobs being slashed by the corporate parent (I work at a Wal-Mart facility and we've gone from 800 total jobs down to 300) we continue to expand debt, the deficit, the dollar continues to lose value and there's threats all the time that it could lose it's status as the international standard. Plus we're funding two wars, the largest military on earth, and reforming health care. Rich Uncle Sam is stretched to the limit and beyond and at some point he has to face up to it. Dirt poor immigrants have been coming to this country forever, getting legalized, and finding a way to make it, sometimes not glamorously, but they do it. So with that in mind, why can't that happen here as well? Why should we be expected to reward criminal behavior in this respect? Why can't we enact something like I suggested where instead of amnesty, or handing illegals driver's licenses and other such nonsense, we take a "get your citizenship, or get out" stance when a violator is caught? Isn't that compassionate enough?

At 4/29/10 01:30 AM, Gorgonof wrote:
Nah, you already made it personal by trolling, I have better things to do.

So, tell me how I was trolling? So I made a little fun at you and all of a sudden my points are disregarded and I'm nothing but a troll? Sounds to me like you were wrong. This is convenient.