Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

The illegal Mexican immigrants who have sought and found refuge in the U.S are not fleeing the debauchery that plagues Mexico. They are spreading the debauchery into the U.S. Consequently, they are debauching, following invasion, the U.S. to make it just like the land they left.

Do they not fly the Mexican flag in the U.S.? Yes, just like the fly it in Mexico, in the front of a vermin infested residence wherein twenty people split the cost of rent of a two room and bath shack which is owned by some moronic liberal seeking to prevent a foreclosure from his favored WallStreet Bank! (There are some conservatives who are equally guilty of the same. Maybe they are closet liberals who are too afraid of being hostile toward foreign invaders. All for the sake of exploiting a gaggle of illegal, Mexican immigrants to protect their social status and a cherished ‘Credit score’!)

Do you know why the Mexican president, California, and Washington DC. oppose Arizona’s immigration law?

All of them are fearful of a half-million Dora Explorers, which now reside in Arizona, migrating to their lands.

(Have you heard any of them inviting Arizona’s illegal population? Personally, I would have thought the president of Mexico would have wanted his citizens back in his country to do the same wonderful job they are doing in Arizona. But I guess he too realizes his country is better off without them.)

Think of my argument like this:

Spanking is necessary, but when the spanking is insufficient for correction then ban their ass.

We can correct the tormented (lol), but let's cast the demons out even when the demon is the moderator.

If I am the Chief, yes. I can differentiate betwixt necesssary abuse and blatant,unnecessary insult.

Furthermore, I am for spanking! But I also think it is prudent to recognize the process of correction even when it means appropriate ad-hominem.

If this is true, it is not the remedy for a problem that is the result of inadequate moderation by the authors of the debates wherein we participate.

Solution:

Moderators, as responsible authors, can either A: start moderating their debates and banning the abusers therefrom, or B: lose the authorization to create debates. And thusly the enforcement of these measures shall create a debating atmosphere that is intolerant of abusive argument which is abusive for the sake of being abusive.

Furthermore, let’s not abandon the advancement of the pursuit of greater intelligence because of quasi problems with quasi solutions for the sake of quasi intelligence. And let it be known any attempt to now negate ‘hasty generalizations’ because of an uncomfortable ‘hasty generalization’ (and it is about sentiment towards certain generalizations) will lead to the slippery slope of more negations of other categories of generalizations. All of which concluding with the last generalization: There is truth!

Do we not think some truths are offensive?

But whatever is decided, take heed:

Don’t ban generalizations; ban moderators who derive some sense of pleasure from the un-restrained intellectual sadists who get their rocks off by practicing intellectual sadism. For if it is decided to ban one category of generalization, that decision sanctions intellectual sadism in all other generalizations.

(We can’t ban stupidity, but intellectual abusiveness must be moderated.)

Well said!

I too am aware of Joe's intent; I agree.

My post is meant to speak of the nuance of quantity in discourse.

Like this:?

Kuklapolitan(4252) Disputed 5 points

Since when did being Patriotic become an accusation? You drinking that hula-whoop-whoop juice again or what?

506 days ago | Tagged As: Liberals

Support | Dispute | Report Really? YES|NO Report Submitted

This is the second highest rated post in the "Who's more patriotic?" debate. The highest vote count is 6!

Liberals have the highest vote count as of today!

You will note the post is two questions. No argument!

Upvoting questions is another example of a retarded response.

A near-retard will down-vote an intelligent argument because it is retarded in his mind. Hell, even this assertion is beyond the grasp of a retard and will be down-voted by the same.

Why on earth do we keep getting these broad generalization over and over again.

There is no broad generalization. Why? There is no reason to think Joe is thinking of all, most, or all but a few liberals.

He did not affirm:

a) All liberals…

b) Most liberals…

c) All or most female liberals…

d) All of most male liberals…

e) Blah,blah,blah.

The term ‘liberals’ only allows us to infer: at least two liberals…

To claim it is a broad generalization is to fall prey to our assumed and imputed distribution of the subject, not his. So, we might care to ask him of the number of liberals he speaks of. Albeit, the truth of the matter is that there are many liberals and conservatives who resort to name-calling. And yet if it is found that most of these groups do resort to that tactic, the real question would then be:

Why is it broadly true that both liberals and conservatives resort to name-calling?

Hello Joe,

Americans like to govern. And they certainly despise the governance of the opposition.

It is like this: We are sovereign, but they are not.