ZHawke wrote: You certainly are getting good at your deflections. There have been numerous questions I've asked, not specifically directed at you, but asked none-the-less. You've never been shy in stepping in to "defend" others thus far. Why should stepping in to answer questions be any different?
Now you're just peeing on the fire without reason. You want every comment you don't want to answer to be on topic and then pull this. What is good for the goose, should be shoved where gander sees no sun, or something like that.
ZHawke wrote: You certainly are getting good at your deflections. There have been numerous questions I've asked, not specifically directed at you, but asked none-the-less. You've never been shy in stepping in to "defend" others thus far. Why should stepping in to answer questions be any different?
Now you're just peeing on the fire without reason. You want every comment you don't want to answer to be on topic and then pull this. What is good for the goose, should be shoved where gander sees no sun, or something like that.
Another fine example of deflection. Please excuse me while I discuss things with Rick. He tried to make a deal with me, and I'll try to accommodate him.
Rick wrote: I'll make a deal with you Z, I will answer one or more direct question with a direct and to the point answer if you do the same. No deflections, no saying it could be this or it could be that... just my best and most reasoned opinion. Pick any question in this thread that I have not answered and I will do the same. Lets see how that works out.
Ok, Rick - let's play.
A long time ago in this very thread, the following exchange took place:
ZHawke wrote:
Rick wrote:
ZHawke wrote:
BlazerBob wrote: My recommendations? what difference would they make? I just vote.
As a point of interest it was not that long ago that immigration reform had bipartisan consensus. Even Grady, LJ, archer and myself agreed on much. Does anyone else remember that?
I believe immigration reform still has bipartisan support. I happen to believe, though, that some Republicans in Congress are willing to throw immigration reform under the bus, so to speak, in order to derail anything and everything Obama tries. That's an opinion - nothing more.
I wouldn't want any of my elected representatives to vote on any half-assed bill that doesn't stress border security above all else. We are going to repeat this nonsense every couple decades and the really bad people we don't want here will continue to walk across the border. To invoke the "you just hate Obama" card, is to discount the real problem of our porous border. Now, tell me how it's impossible to secure it with all the technology we have today.
Like what, specifically?
The "like what, specifically" was directed to the border security issue. That seems to be a really big one from what I've been seeing. So, in that vein, I'll ask again what, specifically, would you do to address border security? Along those same lines, how, specifically, would you address the costs, both direct and indirect, that would go along with providing adequate border security?
That's enough to start with. There were quite a few more questions I asked that remain unanswered. All you need do is go back through both the threads currently dealing with the immigration issue to find them and answer them.
Rick wrote: I'll make a deal with you Z, I will answer one or more direct question with a direct and to the point answer if you do the same. No deflections, no saying it could be this or it could be that... just my best and most reasoned opinion. Pick any question in this thread that I have not answered and I will do the same. Lets see how that works out.
Ok, Rick - let's play.
A long time ago in this very thread, the following exchange took place:
ZHawke wrote:
Rick wrote:
ZHawke wrote:
BlazerBob wrote: My recommendations? what difference would they make? I just vote.
As a point of interest it was not that long ago that immigration reform had bipartisan consensus. Even Grady, LJ, archer and myself agreed on much. Does anyone else remember that?
I believe immigration reform still has bipartisan support. I happen to believe, though, that some Republicans in Congress are willing to throw immigration reform under the bus, so to speak, in order to derail anything and everything Obama tries. That's an opinion - nothing more.
I wouldn't want any of my elected representatives to vote on any half-assed bill that doesn't stress border security above all else. We are going to repeat this nonsense every couple decades and the really bad people we don't want here will continue to walk across the border. To invoke the "you just hate Obama" card, is to discount the real problem of our porous border. Now, tell me how it's impossible to secure it with all the technology we have today.
Like what, specifically?
The "like what, specifically" was directed to the border security issue. That seems to be a really big one from what I've been seeing. So, in that vein, I'll ask again what, specifically, would you do to address border security? Along those same lines, how, specifically, would you address the costs, both direct and indirect, that would go along with providing adequate border security?
That's enough to start with. There were quite a few more questions I asked that remain unanswered. All you need do is go back through both the threads currently dealing with the immigration issue to find them and answer them.
Ok Z, even though I asked an unanswered question first, I'll answer yours first. But, you must answer one of mine... your own answer, not a link, and no deflections, deal? But first, I must watch the Broncos beat down the Dolphins.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Deal. But I still don't quite understand why providing links that verify, validate, and/or substantiate my views is a bad thing. Opinions matter, yes. So do factual data sources that back them up - at least from my perspective. That being said, I'll try to accommodate your request.
ZHawke wrote: You certainly are getting good at your deflections. There have been numerous questions I've asked, not specifically directed at you, but asked none-the-less. You've never been shy in stepping in to "defend" others thus far. Why should stepping in to answer questions be any different?
Now you're just peeing on the fire without reason. You want every comment you don't want to answer to be on topic and then pull this. What is good for the goose, should be shoved where gander sees no sun, or something like that.
Another fine example of deflection. Please excuse me while I discuss things with Rick. He tried to make a deal with me, and I'll try to accommodate him.
A link that is factual is supplemental to your opinion. A link of someone else's opinion is just not answering a question.
ZHawke wrote: You certainly are getting good at your deflections. There have been numerous questions I've asked, not specifically directed at you, but asked none-the-less. You've never been shy in stepping in to "defend" others thus far. Why should stepping in to answer questions be any different?
Now you're just peeing on the fire without reason. You want every comment you don't want to answer to be on topic and then pull this. What is good for the goose, should be shoved where gander sees no sun, or something like that.
Another fine example of deflection. Please excuse me while I discuss things with Rick. He tried to make a deal with me, and I'll try to accommodate him.
A link that is factual is supplemental to your opinion. A link of someone else's opinion is just not answering a question.
I'd say that a link that is factual goes beyond being supplemental. It verifies, validates, and substantiates an opinion. Thus far, I haven't see very many links from those of a more conservative bent in any of these forums, much less a link to another opinion or factual data. There have been a lot of generalizations and blanket statements made, but little, if anything, to actually back them up.
With all due respect, do you consider that to be "factual"? I ask because I also found two other sites that pretty much refute what's being put forward in this one, one from the White House back in 2007 and the other from FactCheck.org.
