The analogy you are looking for is "a bunch of uninformed rubes who happened to wander in" and those people would be rightly ignored.

You think the liberals ITT are behaving like mathematicians in contrast??

oh dont be so obtuse

My math thesis defence is coming up soon. Stop giving me ****ing nightmares.

Me too! I don't want flayings left and right, but content wise it think the quality goes down if you just dismiss it out of hand.

#It'sthrowbacnighteveryonegetoutyourolduniforms

This is quickly evolving into that time we spent literally thousands of posts determining whether or not you should shoot someone if they stole a candy bar from you.

And that thread PREDATED Trayvon Martin.

Attack the ideas and not the people and you'll be fine.

I wish I could go back in time and kill myself before I read any of your posts.

THIS ****ING GUY RIGHT HERE!!!!

We at least all have no further need to deduce whether or not killing unarmed people trying to cross a border is one of the times killing is acceptable. We got that one nailed a long time ago.

Really this is a game theory question. We need to shoot just enough immigrants to balance our range or something.

Maybe make only one out of every four rounds live.

note that i did not comment on liar.

Donald Trump
48 %
Marco Rubio
29 %
Jeb Bush
10 %
Ted Cruz
10 %

It's tedious to like rollback the evolution of political thought back to the French Revolution to explain basic morality to internet clowns though. I agree wholeheartedly and have argued many times in the past on this forum that rights ideologies are mere shared collective realities and not necessarily built from logical deduction from first principles.

Even so they are known and even intuitive for most, should require almost no explanation:

1. the state should not use deadly force except as an absolute last resort
2. even if laws are very difficult to enforce, that does not justify the state resorting to deadly force to increase the efficiency of law enforcement
3. the use of deadly force, going all the way back to common law regimes, were reserved for instances where someone was in immediate life threatening danger, and that includes law enforcement
4. numerous international rights documents and tons of American jurisprudence and judicial decisions establish the principle that immigrants do not lie outside protection of the law
5. the underlying principles of #3 are that migration is a basic human right, insofar as control of the border should broadly respect people's right to cross it without harassment or life threatening endangerment, and that lack of paperwork should cause at worst deportation, not death.
6. Mutual and reciprocal respect for the principle that migration is a basic human right allows Americans the luxury of moving to other countries, vacation, and travel for business, so selfishly all Americans should wish for broad respect of migration rights
7. historical precedent has shown that countries which disrespect the rights of migrants are often horrible places and indicative of states which disrespect and abrogate other forms of human rights and liberties
8. historical precedent has shown that countries which shoot people for non violent offenses are often horrible places and indicative of states which disrespect and abrogate other forms of human rights and liberties

I'm not even getting into the practical realities of how INS or random border patrol types are supposed to exercise their judgement about which migrants to shoot and not mistakenly gun down a wayward traveler or someone with no intent to cause a crime.

There's probably an 9 and beyond I'm way too lazy to bother with.

Should we have to roll this out every time an Alex has a thought about the way the world should work? It's a bit of inane burden shifting from idiots to normal people to explain basic human rights and frankly just normal decency lest clowns claim victory over political correctness or whatever. Not every dumb, evil idea needs some tedious refutation. Alex's idea is evil, wrong, and very stupid. There's nothing to discuss.

rcp?

Do you interpret The Third Man as a tragedy about how the saintly and enlightened Harry Lime is destroyed by a world that is too irrational to accept his wisdom?

Dvaut,

Great, thanks! Will you admit that was more productive than Fly spewing off about how AWice is an authoritarian racist? And that you are basically the only one making this kind of effort ITT?

The wisdom of diluting penicillin for profit?

He already answered that in his post, try reading it.

PS he's still just making fun of you.

$20,000 a life, in 1940s currency! Think of all the good you could do!

hey alex, do you actually speak any spanish or are you one of those types who rented a place in a gated community and didnt make any mexican friends because you always look over your shoulder when you're out around town?

BREAKING: Houston grand jury investigating fetal tissue videos declines to indict Planned Parenthood, indicts videographers instead.

lol fiorina
lol Inso0

ahahahaha nice

Here are a few:

theslot.jezebel.com/marco-rubios-pro-life-advisory-board-is-full-of-weirdos-1754318316

link? quick please.

the scales of justice decide to prosecute the appropriate party

thank you american justice system. sometimes you are ****ed up, but sometimes you hold the nuts.