James G. Keegan, Jr.
gmail.com> wrote:> Craig Chilton -- Help to make the USA
> Bigotry-FREE!
mchsi.com> wrote:
Psssttt!!! James! Got FACTS yet?
(LOL!!! Of course not.)
[[[ James' COWARDICE continues... and as long as
it does, THIS post will appear to remind everone
of that. If he ever presents any refuting FACTS,
I'll repond accordingly. *Meanwhile*, we can all
sit back and watch the spectacle of his continuing
to make a monumental FOOL of himself. ]]]
In response to my earlier post, all James did was make these
two comments:
> What you think is irrelevant. your argument has been
> proven to be false.
And THAT was an outright lie. NO one in here has been
able YET to present one single FACT that would argue
credibly against ANY part of my stance.
And:
> Denial doesn't change the facts.
And as I just pointed out, he wouldn't know a fact if it bit
him in the butt. And he just keeps right on PROVING it to all
of us!
===> And then he DELETED the above, and said:
> Which was sufficient to prove your argument and assertions
> to be untrue.
(And of course, he proved NO such thing, presented NO
FACTS, and continues to make a babbling FOOL of himself.)
> Incidentally, if i did what you claim, then you demean all
> readers by telling them what they could have clearly seen.
To the contrary. I *compliment* the readers by acknowledging
the EASE with which *they* can recognize the OBVIOUS facts to
which YOU are so astoundingly OBLIVIOUS.
> Perhaps you were trying to divert attention from your
> bigoted failed arguments and false claims, eh?
[[[[ Today, he said, about his two VACUOUS & unsubstantive
comments above:
"those comments must have been quite compelling since
you reposted your response twice. All they really did, Craig,
was prove that your false allegation was, in fact, false;
something I suspect you knew before posting.
READERS: Is he REALLY *that* bone-ignorant? So much
so as to be unable to see OBVIOUS facts, and ones he
can't even BEGIN to refute? Looks like it! So as long as
he responds with such tripe, I'll continue to reply with
the SUBSTANTIVE and FACT-filled post, below. ]]]]
= = = = = = = = =
In response to my earlier post, all James did was make these
two comments:
> What you think is irrelevant. your argument has been
> proven to be false.
And THAT was an outright lie. NO one in here has been
able YET to present one single FACT that would argue
credibly against ANY part of my stance.
And:
> Denial doesn't change the facts.
And as I just pointed out, he wouldn't know a fact if it bit
him in the butt. And he just keeps right on PROVING it to all
of us!
[[ And thesen he DELETED the above, and said:
> Which was sufficient to prove your argument and assertions
> to be untrue.
(And of course, he proved NO such thing, presented NO
FACTS, and continues to make a babbling FOOL of himself.)
> Incidentally, if i did what you claim, then you demean all
> readers by telling them what they could have clearly seen.
To the contrary. I *compliment* the readers by acknowledging
the EASE with which *they* can recognize the OBVIOUS facts to
which YOU are so astoundingly OBLIVIOUS.
> Perhaps you were trying to divert attention from your
> bigoted failed arguments and false claims, eh?
[[[ READERS: Read all of this closely, and take note that
he has done NOTHING to prove that ANY points I
have made are in ANY way flawed, false, or bigoted.
NOR, obviously, will he EVER be able to do so. Since NO
FACTS even *exist* that support his maniacal opposition. ]]]
HERE are the **facts** that he CONTINUES to DUCK:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
James G. Keegan, Jr.
gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 Jun 2008 00:30:22 GMT,
James G. Keegan, Jr. gmail.com> wrote:> Craig Chilton
mchsi.com> wrote:>> James G. Keegan, Jr.
gmail.com> wrote:>>> Craig Chilton
mchsi.com> wrote:>>>> James G. Keegan, Jr.
gmail.com> wrote:>>>>> Craig Chilton
mchsi.com> wrote:
[[[ READERS: It's important for you to take note of the
points that I made in the last post, which were OMITTED
by James (and therefore DUCKED) in THIS response.
All of that is between these lines: &#&#&#&#&#. ]]]
[[[ Oh. One more thing, readers. See if you can find ANY
**FACTS** in any of his comments. ]]]
&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#
>>>>>> But NOW I suddenly have YOU two on my case. A couple of
>>>>>> people I've always respected and had thought were fellow egali-
>>>>>> tarians. What the heck is THAT all about?!?
>>>>> Oh, it's far more than just me and Galen .... it is a bunch of
>>>>> others too. Perhaps none are your favorites, but doesn't it strike
>>>>> you as a bit "odd" that more than a dozen people have all said
>>>>> essentially the same thing to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> it would be a good exercise for you to read your own posts in
>>>>> response to the posts shooting down your plan for obvious reasons.
>>>> For OBVIOUS reasons?
>>> For obvious reasons.
>>>> Consider this:
>>>>
>>>> -- There's a good reason for calling them ILLEGAL aliens.
>>> you haven't supported that allegation, although your reasons
>>> for doing so have become increasingly clear.
>> There's a LAW against coming into the country without the
>> proper documentation. Even from Canada. Thus, the interlopers
>> are LAW-BREAKERS. That's a synonym for "illegal aliens."
>>
>> My ONLY reason for calling them that is because that is what
>> they ARE. So I won't sugar-coat the situation by pretending they
>> are anything LESS than that.
>>
>> It's called "being HONEST."
>>>> They ARE here illegally.
>>> That's a huge stretch as the vast majority of those you speak of are
>>> employed.
>> Those that are employed who don't have fake documents, and therefore
>> are being paid under the table, are TAX CHEATS as well as being illegal
>> aliens. Those who DO have forged documents, and thereby pay taxes,
>> are law-breakers by virtue of having FORGED documents. Thus *compound-
>> ing* their crime of being ILLEGAL aliens.
>>>> Ray fischer is too dishonest to [[[ even use the word, "illegal."
>>>> He calls them "immigrants." They are not immigrants. They
>>>> are criminal, law-breaking interlopers, plain and simple. How
>>>> can ANY sensible person condone that? ]]]
>> You dishonestly OMITTED the portion above, that is in brackets
>> ( [[[ ]]] ), now restored. It's interesting how people do that when
>> the facts they don't like put them on the spot. Have you been taking
>> lessons from Ray?
>>> Ray is not to blame for your racism.
>> What "racism?" I don't have a racist molecule in my body. MOST
>> (but not all) illegal aliens come from Mexico. What sort of "racist"
>> against Mexicans would go to college in Mexico City and live with a
>> Mexican family? And shortly befor that, I was a Civil Rights worker
>> in Jackson Mississippi, in the early '60s. Get SERIOUS!!
&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#&#
The above omissions by you are DAMNING to your "arguments."
>>>> -- ILLEGAL aliens are a slap in the face to the millions of people
>>>> who worked HARD to *properly* become legal residents and
>>>> citizens. For the interlopers to get away with that is the
>>>> ULTIMATE insult to them.
>>> Your allegation is de facto false. do you need me to explain why?
>> Yes.
> If what you said were true, then several different groups of those
> "millions of people who worked HARD to *properly* become legal residents
> and citizens" would be calling for measures to oust those you refer to as
> "ILLEGALS." they have not done so, nor will they. as I said, "your
> allegation is de facto false."
There is NO good reason for their not DEMADING that the illegals
leave. I think they are avoiding doing that because they fear some
sort of reprisals. Only THEY could tell us the nature of those reprisals,
should that be the case. But their faces HAVE bgeen slapped. HARD!!
By the continuing presence of the law-flouting ILLEGALS.
>> I can't imagine their being the slightest flaw in what I
>> just said.
> That's the scariest part.
Naw. The SCARY part is your purported opposition to what I've been
saying, without your being able to present so much as even ONE valid
argument against ANY of it. (In your case, that would be a situation of
a mind being a terrible thing to WASTE.)
> Prior to this thread, i considered you to be fairly sane and reasonable.
I still am. But YOU very clearly have a problem. You can't come up
with so much as even ONE single good reason to oppose anything I have
said. And you played the CRAVEN COWARD to a "T" by DUCKING most
of my earlier response to you, above.
Credibility clearly is NOT your long suit.
-- Craig Chilton
mchsi.com>
{ In case the archivers screw it up, as Google usually does,
that e-mail address, above is: xanadu222 AT mchsi.com }
