Seriously thoughtful How do you plan to prove you are a citizen?

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by mvisconte

3) Hm... yes, I think it does. The context there is that these people were sent to prison for horrible acts that they committed. They have lost (hopefully for the time being) their right to mix in the humane humans. As many inhabitants of jails have to real plans or interest in doing anything but "time", this is a further reminder that they are separated for a reason. I truly don't see how it harms them. If it caused them physical harm, I would be against it. If I considered it torture, I would be against it. I am not against it.



Good point. Although my understanding is that these individuals have done enough to warrent being treated this way. I could be wrong, but I am afraid that I still would not see the harm in pink undies.

...

Getting rapists off Scot-free is shameful. Getting child molesters off with a slap on the wrist is an offense to human dignity. I think that the prisoners would get over having to wear pink undies. Taking the liberty of persons awaiting trial that have not posted bond is unfortunate... nothing more. There are plenty of crooked lawyers who will argue to a judge that just because their "client" is a previous felon, has been in a violent confrontation, or has already fled prosecution on several occasions, that he really IS good enough to be released on reduced bail or his own recognizance.

Sentences of one year or less are served in the county jail. Sentences of more than one year are served in a state Department of Corrections facility. For less severe cases, a defendant may be sentenced to a term of probation. The court may impose conditions of probation that could include jail time, community service and counseling. Defendants may also be ordered to pay restitution to their victims.

source http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.go...Procedures.asp

So we are not talking of convicted rapists or murderers. In this case it is only persons awaiting trial or petty criminals with short sentences. The types of people we're talking about are pickpockets, shoplifters, loud drunks, people who get into bar fights, not hardened criminals.

As for getting persons even guilty ones off scott free as you say, it is a tragedy. It is also necessary to preserve the rights of people like you or me. If I were ever to be accused of a crime (and by a funny coincidence I was last week but luckily for me the police dismissed it as silly to accuse someone of assault for killing the character of someone you don't like in an online game) I'd be quite glad to know that someone would have to prove me guilty and I'd have the chance to defend myself and a professional to help me with that. I'm willing to risk a few of the guilty going free to reduce the chance of wrongful imprisonment, I'm just selfish that way.

And to that end, being jailed before trial is unfortunate and being given pink undies would not bother me I own plenty of pink undies, they're not the point, they illustrate the point. Increasing human misery for its own sake is not the goal of a civilized society no matter who the human is. Aldous Huxlex said Rolling in the muck is not the best way of getting clean.

Originally Posted by mvisconte

Although I don't consider the ACLU as a credible source, I understand your concerns. You might as well quote from Chairman Mao or Geobbels -- as far as I'm concerned (with their current record), it's propaganda. Perhaps we could just lock up the ACLU lawyers (I am sorry, I couldn't resist a punch line). Yes, a citizen does have a right to prepare a defense, and to have legal counsel should s/he not be able to afford one. Time honored tradition. Good thing. However, in the current practice of the legal system, too many lawyers getting too many guilty people off the hook, and also bankrupting good people, leaves a sour taste in one's mouth. We're arguing separate points here.


...


Food poisoning is icky. Starvation is criminal. Lack of medical care for serious issues should be looked into, and fixed from some outside humanitarian organization if they can keep it in their pants enough to treat those who are seriously suffering, and not argue that denying the Playboy Channel is cruel and unusual. I don't have a lot of sympathy for those kinds of organizations.

Your personal opinion of the ACLU non-withstanding. They are an organization dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of every person inside the United States. it is unfair to godwin them just because you disagree. They defend scumbags like Fred Phelps but when he can spout his insane hateful bullshit I know that I'm free to bitch about the current copyright laws, once again you take the good you take bad... In this case they made a court filing so perhaps we can agree that when these things are being alleged in court we should give pause and wonder what on earth is going on with this jail? There is a history of judgments against the jail and sheriff. Then perhaps from there see what the judge has to say about it.

I assume you're going to disagree with me so here's my parting thought. Justice is the realm of the courts but mistreating someone just lowers you to their level. I prefer to keep the moral high ground.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

.....but mistreating someone just lowers you to their level. I prefer to keep the moral high ground.

That completely depends on what "mistreating" means. And as far as you and the moral high ground.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by kennyc

That completely depends on what "mistreating" means. And as far as you and the moral high ground.

You're right I got into the muck to yell back at you after you followed me form thread to thread trolling me, and mistreatment is adding "punishment" that wasn't sentenced by a court. The amount of mistreatment doesn't change what it is. Mistreatment could be not providing reasonable visiting hours and procedures, it could be withholding food or water, it could be beatings, it could be forcing someone to stand on one foot till they fall over, it can be many things great and small.

I'm arguing for decent treatment for people no matter what they may have done, you find threads where I've posted and make snotty comments so while I'm far from perfect at least I'm not you. So why don't you go call the copyright police on people who sing happy birthday at children's parties or something.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

At this point I'm going to have to disclaim responsibility for your ignorance.

Also, your reality check just bounced.

this is one of the problems with trying to debate anything with you. you have -0- facts and figures, and haul back and throw threats and insults at anyone that is trying to have a civil conversation with you.

so I ask again... have you a dog in this fight or do you just like to stir the pot?

can you link to any of these oh so tragic occurrences you have been spouting off abbout?

where and how did my statements conflict?

and just in general, try dropping the attitude and see if a productive debate might ensue

[zelda_pinwheel]

This thread looks like it is getting out of hand. Please, everyone, remember our guidelines (if you want to check them out, just click the link at the bottom of any page, or follow this one) and keep it civil or we will close this thread.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

...throw threats and insults...

Threats? No, I have not previously made threats. Now, this is a threat - I will mock you unless you can come up with a previous threat I have made.

so I ask again... have you a dog in this fight or do you just like to stir the pot?

I do not own a dog (And I don't discuss other people's business without their permission).

can you link to any of these oh so tragic occurrences you have been spouting off abbout?

The issue with legal immigrants? The law isn't active yet.
The issue with Arpio? Well documented, you can start with Wikipedia.

and just in general, try dropping the attitude and see if a productive debate might ensue

MY attitude? LMAO. Get real, I'm discussing a very real and very narrowly focused problem and I'm getting shit slung at me for it. You and your buddy are on the offence here. You've in the past done precisely the same when I've objected to Amazon's policy's, so it's hardly an isolated instance: no, I don't lockstep your views, wow - what an amazing reason for your hostility.

Once more, I have not and will not comment on the illegal immigrant side of this, and think carrying ID is fine. Your attacks are purely on legal immigration.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Threats? No, I have not previously made threats. Now, this is a threat - I will mock you unless you can come up with a previous threat I have made.

go ahead.

I do not own a dog (And I don't discuss other people's business without their permission).

are you this ignorant really? or is this just another not answering tactic? what is your issue here? do you have some personal experience with this topic?

The issue with legal immigrants? The law isn't active yet.
The issue with Arpio? Well documented, you can start with Wikipedia.

I thought we were talking about the immigration law, not the sheriff

MY attitude? LMAO. Get real, I'm discussing a very real and very narrowly focused problem and I'm getting shit slung at me for it. You and your buddy are on the offence here. You've in the past done precisely the same when I've objected to Amazon's policy's, so it's hardly an isolated instance: no, I don't lockstep your views, wow - what an amazing reason for your hostility.
I'm pretty sure zelda wasn't addressing me when she came in here with her moderator hat on. who is my buddy? and what shit has been slung at you? I'm trying to convey real time experience with immigration laws here in the states. something that you more than obviously have absolutely no idea about. I don't know what you are talking about with Amazon. if we have had a dissagreement about them, then all I can say is gee... bitter and grudge much? are you capable of starting a new conversation with people? or are they all the same?

Once more, I have not and will not comment on the illegal immigrant side of this, and think carrying ID is fine. Your attacks are purely on legal immigration.

I could have sworn we were discussing how we were to prove that we were legal residents and the pros and cons of carrying ID. and I am fairly certain that you have carried on AT LENGTH about people getting lost in the system. I've asked you for some proof of this, and you seem to be unwilling or unable to come up with anything.

[DawnFalcon]

You're the one who hammers away at every chance, constantly attacking and - again here - making things up. I never said, or meant "lost in the system": they are not lost, they are simply in a category which puts them in peril under this badly worded law.

And, you're lying about my experience with the US immigration system, given I've stated I have had contact with it. This is a simple statement of fact, not some mythical attack. Further, you are repeatedly asking for details I will not give since I will not share other people's private information without their permission. This is what having ethics means, since you seem to have very little experience of dealing with them.

Then you turn round and pretend you didn't agree with a certain other person in this thread, or that you haven't attacked legal immigration. Funny that.

(And I note you couldn't come up with a previous threat. What a surprise. Not.)

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

If you're a legal immigrant? You're screwed.

It's common for processing times to make your papers technically out of date. It was not an immigration offence, however. This bill? Makes that an offence. And there is basically nothing you can do to speed the processing up.

Sigh.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Screwed!

The Federal government has a quite pragmatic view of this, but in the (frankly common, the delays are nuts) situation your papers are out of date because of processing delays (but are still essentially valid) and you get stopped for any reason in AZ, you've now automatically committed an offence (which in turn can and will probably affect your immigration status...).

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

...

If tax is the dividing line, then surely all taxpayers, citizen or not, should have equal access.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Yes, shame about the legal immigrants whose processing time was delayed, not like they belonged in America anyway.

*sigh*

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

I don't really care about "fair" (or unfair, to be clear), I care about the legal immigrants it's going to screw over who can do precisely zero about it (you can't speed up processing dates). It's a poorly worded law, quite apart from anything else.

Consequences, not intentions.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Yes, because the Arizona's police chief has stated the law is a disgrace and that he won't enforce it.



Cite the law.



I count "the Federal government have not processed my papers quickly enough" as "without due cause" for arresting someone. Which view the Federal government, but not AZ with this law, share.



Yes, ignoring the problems does tend to make them go away. Oh, wait...

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

So basically, you have no idea how legal immigration works, do you? This is not a visa (temporary stay) issue, it's an immigration (path to legal residence) one, The Federal government issues you papers. They do get "out of date", but because it's due to their own slow processing times they don't hold this against you. You are still required to update the government if you change anything in your status.

You are calling, directly, for deporting most legal immigrants who have been waiting, in many cases years, to be processed. Just to be clear.

Y'know, if there were less people who were hostile to the idea that people might have beliefs different to them, we might not need to be so paranoid about international terrorists. Cram that where you wish.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

If they try and enforce it, they'll be faced with an expensive federal discrimination lawsuit. If they don't enforce it, they'll be faced with a less expensive state lawsuit, and can call on the Federal government to help with the defence.

Hmm.

And your statement is very close to "I was just following orders".

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Yea, except that wasn't the claim. The claim was "anyone in authority". If "anyone in law enforcement" had been the claim, I would of agreed.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

I was making a point.

And oh, "surrender your rights, they don't matter anyway".

Sigh, there's a reason I hate the American left more than the American right, and periodically they remind me why. (Hint: not every country feels it needs to spent the vast sums the American government does spying on everything!)

To be plain, actually, I'm for Brin*'s plan of giving everyone, not just the government, access to all the cameras.

(*D.Brin, _The Transparent Society_)

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

It is *technically* not correct to have your paperwork out of date, although they don't deport you for it. However, If you commit crimes, you may be deported. Having out of date paperwork is a crime under this law, because it doesn't recognise the issue of processing delays.

You can spout off all you like about illegal immigration, it's still going to screw a lot of perfectly legal, working immigrants and you are explicitly defending that.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Nope, most countries take years to do immigration stuff. However, most countries are smart enough not to put expiry dates directly onto the papers involved, making people's papers look out of date.

Screwing those people over, as you're directly advocating, when they are the people who have followed the rules is plain wrong.



If you want to describe yourself that way, I'm not going to disagree!

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Police? If you're job is paid by the government, you are responsible for enforcement of this law.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

...Once more, it's EVERYONE paid by the AZ government, not just police officers. The garbage man has to query your immigration status if he suspects you're an illegal!

And no, "probable cause" is precisely what this law dosn't require.

You're "sorry" you'll end up throwing many legal immigrants out because of federal processing delays they don't control. Just acceptable collateral damage, ey? Blatant xenophobia, all of it. "They cause crime!111!!!" Or not.

In the meantime, btw, in the industry I work in? You're bleeding 5000 jobs a year (sounds small, but it's a small and high margin sector) to Canada, because Canadian companies can and do tap the global talent pool.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Ah, I missed that. And that's only police, bear in mind, not every other state employee who has precisely the same responsibility as before.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Joebill - Yes, so this bill screws over (and I cannot think anything but deliberately from how carefully it's worded) a LOT of legal immigrants, because of paperwork processing delays outside their control.

But yet you're supporting it. Two-faced.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Self-justification and sophistry.

This bill specifically causes problems for people with their federal paperwork out of date, which is, again, common (and the Federal government, to be plain, do not consider this a problem for the people involved, since it's the Federal government's own fault). You, plain and simple, want them to get into legal trouble and deported, which is the likely result of being in AZ after this as a legal immigrant, since federal processing delays on paperwork are only increasing.

If you're in that situation and say organised crime know? Oh yea, you're screwed one way or another. What a wonderful thing to wish onto legal immigrants.

(And guess what? I have to prove I can work in the EU as well. I'm not calling for mass deportions...)

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

You're claiming that this won't affect legal immigrants. This is completely untrue. You are doing this, and lying your head off in the hope that people won't notice. They have.

You can be a perfectly legal immigrant, and if your papers are out of date because of federal processing delays - something you have no control over, and does not in any way per the federal government make your presence in America illegal or mean you won't proceed towards residency - then you're committing a crime simply by being in Arizona.

Absolutely sophistry. Strong, blatant, hysteric sophistry even. The only option you're giving them is "leave Arizona". That is what you are, directly, calling for by endorsing this law. Period.

(I don't care about the "wider issues", I'm discussing this law and it's impact)

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

"Sigh. Come here legally. Otherwise, no."

When in fact, what you are actually saying is "Do not come here", since that is the effect of the law.

And right, thanks for clarifying you're simply xenophobic.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Nate, have you actually read my specific complaint?

The issue is that there are years-long waits for processing in many parts of the US system, and many of them don't issue new paperwork until that processing is done. While the Federal government considers people waiting to be legally in the country, their origional paperwork is out of date.

Those people are committing a crime because of this law, and that crime can and will affect their immigration status! Legal immigrants, allways committing a crime because of something completely outside their control!

But go on, I want to see you defend that, and the sort of thought process behind it.

(And, to be selective about the bigotry you oppose is to be insincere in your approach)

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

That is what you are saying by supporting this bill. Period. It's the effect.
No amount of sophistry on your part makes it any less true.

If there was a different bill, my view might be different. But I can only look at what is actually proposed, and that's that simply visiting a library in Arizona might well get a legal immigrant deported from America once this bill goes live.

And I'd point my ancestors were considered immigrants into the UK at the time of WW2, so your point is simply not applicable to me.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

No, what's rude is to repeat a lie repeatedly in the hope that people will fall for it. The effect is the effect, trying to state this bill will do otherwise is simply wrong. It WILL impact many legal immigrants. Sorry, formerly legally immigrants, now simply unwanted right alongside the illegals.

And if you want an insult, though, "Ah, so you're in training to be a politician, that's why you're lying".

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

If they don't want to be called that, then they should not behave in that way.

Trying to deny the effect of what they call for is simply denial, not something which deserves bonus points.

I can understand complaints about illegal immigrants, even when those perceptions - such as the crime rate - are basically illusionary (see the article I linked), but when bitching starts about the legal immigrants there is a problem with that society.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Assumption: Only the "law enforcement community" must enforce this law. This is untrue. Everyone paid by the state is required to enforce this law.



Assumption: They they were not already being abusive. Heard of Joe Arpaio? I certainly have, and I'm not even American.



Assumption: "On the spot". Has not been stated in this thread, and certainly not by me.



Assumption: Committing crimes does not affect your immigration status. It does. This will lead to people who were legal immigrants being deported simply because of this law.



Assumption: That anyone stated this in this thread, again I have not. I've made the point that, through no fault of their own, many perfectly legal immigrants are committing a crime under this law because of Federal paperwork processing delays.



Assumption: That there was ever anyone in this thread saying anything of the sort. At all.

Also, for the record, what is your take on Apartheid and the Jim Crow laws?



Hm, and why might that be? Also, well done, you've managed to Godwin your own argument.

Yea, no wonder you're confused. See, for starters, there are these things called legal immigrants and they're not the same as illegal ones...

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Nope! Godwin's law is as follows: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

It says nothing whatsoever about "comparing someone" just a comparison.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

No, it's just generally abused into suiting a variety of meanings, as many famous "laws" are. That doesn't mean those uses are correct.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

From the factsheet:

"Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state..."



He's one of the main vocal backers.



Deliberately had at least two people killed and one paralysed for life, yes.



So giving him more tools to abuse is a good idea?



You already elect your law enforcement leaders, and that's where much of the issue comes from in the first place. Oversight of the wrong (politically motivated) sort is worse, afaik, than lax oversight.



Many laws not essential to the functioning of the state and protection of people's freedoms, yes. The law should never, ever, be an ass.



Mm-hum. HE HAD AT LEAST TWO PEOPLE MURDERED. Shit, there's nothing someone won't defend.



Not as long as there's a death grip on the numbers entering legally, no effective control over the border and higher wages on the American side. All you do is ensure the Coyote's grip over the people they've trafficked.

Same reasoning you're using as is used in the War on Drugs, remind me how well that's going? (Hint: drug import volume's up again)




Here, for example. Offences can lead to deportation.



I believe you're ducking the question. Those laws were entirely legal, and you have called for adherence to all laws. Your not answering the question is an answer in itself, you realise?



Assumption: You're "offending" the "occassional" legal immigrant. The correct words are "deporting" and "a large proportion of". To explain, see, legal immigrants are the people from other countries you want sticking around, and removing them is not generally considered a good thing.

A simple wording change would protect legal immigrants, but the Governor of Arizona has refused to do so. This means you can't realistically pretend that this is about anything but ALL immigrants, legal and illegal both.



Well, you said it, not me. But hey, thanks for admitting it.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Thanks for proving precisely where on the wingnut spectrum you are.



Yes, it's called ethics.



And again, you evidently have not heard that there are these things called "legal immigrants" and "permanently residents", who are not citizens, but are not supposed to be thrown out of the country.

What a surprise. Oh, have a tissue to wipe up the frothing at your mouth.




Yes. His policy, his responsibility. Period.



Yes, you and your kind.



No, that's just the standard histrionic crap which you throw up at anyone who disagrees with you, in the hope that it actually has some bearing on anything they've said. I have not and will not take any position on illegal immigrants in this thread, so your attack is and can only be on legal immigrants.

I'll pass that along.



...And we find out that you know precisely NOTHING about the process. What a surprise!

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Once again: Sure, but was that paperwork always technically "in-date"? In America, it's often not (although as far as the Federal government, who are supposed to control immigration, are concerned, you're stikk in America legally! - it's the Fed's own processing delays after all). And that means...oops, crime under this law. Despite the fact that the Federal government thinks you're a legal immigrant.

It's a situation where you can do everything right in legal immigration terms and still get screwed. And it's an easy fix, which the Governor is refusing to make. (Oh, they said "We won't use it like that". To which my response, as ever, is "well, you'll have no problem changing the wording then")

Honestly, I'm in favour of a low-cost card which acts as proper ID, drivers licence, donor card and carries critical medical warnings and so on. Verifying it's citizens identity *where the citizen requests it* is one of the proper functions of government. There shouldn't be any logging of usage, though.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

If you change track in immigration you can be left with old ID for several YEARS. This isn't a VISA renewal issue.

And hey, I don't set your driving licence rules. Also, I was suggesting it go into an ID card rather than the other way round.

(Oh...for someone who is not-me, you're making some assumptions about how much I've had in the way of interactions with US immigration. For others, not myself, yes, but...)

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Of course not, dual intent should be anathema and nobody should marry a US citizen.

....

Want a side dish with your rampant Xenophobia?

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

So why did you attack changing immigration track then, given there are perfectly valid reasons to do so?

Your attacks, rather than your later defence, are telling.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Well yes, I'm perfectly aware that's your philosophy.



Sorry, I don't hear voices in my head, and I'm not interested in helping you deal with yours.



No, you've proved yourself wrong, I quite agree! And of course you can't actually answer the question, because you have no idea.



Of course expecting you to be aware of what the American constitution actually says is a stretch, sorry about that.



Hint: A little bit of smoke, lots of air.



No, I'll leave your there-espoused views on the inferiority of anyone not of your race to you, I'm tolerant of people with different skin colours.




It's called sarcasm. You don't get it. Don't feel bad, you're American, it's cultural. But of course I wouldn't deploy it en-mass against you, no.



Yes, how dare I actually hold views different from your own. Bearing in mind you're apparently still under the delusion that I'm some form of socialist.



Why would I do that? Again, you are just proving that you have absolutely no idea what my political views or why I consider job mobility important, and are making yourself look amazingly like a horse's rear end in doing so.



Why would I want your head? It's worthless.



Yes.



Lol.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

At this point I'm going to have to disclaim responsibility for your ignorance.

Also, your reality check just bounced.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Threats? No, I have not previously made threats. Now, this is a threat - I will mock you unless you can come up with a previous threat I have made.



I do not own a dog (And I don't discuss other people's business without their permission).



The issue with legal immigrants? The law isn't active yet.
The issue with Arpio? Well documented, you can start with Wikipedia.



MY attitude? LMAO. Get real, I'm discussing a very real and very narrowly focused problem and I'm getting shit slung at me for it. You and your buddy are on the offence here. You've in the past done precisely the same when I've objected to Amazon's policy's, so it's hardly an isolated instance: no, I don't lockstep your views, wow - what an amazing reason for your hostility.

Once more, I have not and will not comment on the illegal immigrant side of this, and think carrying ID is fine. Your attacks are purely on legal immigration.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

You're the one who hammers away at every chance, constantly attacking and - again here - making things up. I never said, or meant "lost in the system": they are not lost, they are simply in a category which puts them in peril under this badly worded law.

And, you're lying about my experience with the US immigration system, given I've stated I have had contact with it. This is a simple statement of fact, not some mythical attack. Further, you are repeatedly asking for details I will not give since I will not share other people's private information without their permission. This is what having ethics means, since you seem to have very little experience of dealing with them.

Then you turn round and pretend you didn't agree with a certain other person in this thread, or that you haven't attacked legal immigration. Funny that.

(And I note you couldn't come up with a previous threat. What a surprise. Not.)

you're a real piece of work you know? so here they are... all of your posts in this thread. now everyone can follow all of the twists, turns, manipulations, editing and so on. I highly recommend you look up the definition of lying to start with. it's an EXTREMELY offensive slander. it might help if you understood our laws a little better as well. try to figure out where Arpio actually is in the scheme of the state's hierarchy. try to stop painting all sorts of gloom scenarios without having some FACTS behind them. that's all I've asked for. no names. just the facts that you could get on the internet.

[DawnFalcon]

Wow, you can multi-quote a bunch of comments, most of which were not addressed to you and then virtually spit in my face. Get over yourself, you're hunting for an agenda which is not there*. Denying the effects of what you support is simply...denial.

HINT: I USE SARCASM ALL THE TIME, IT IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK

Also, your support for Arpio is sickening and I am not your linkbot.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Wow, you can multi-quote a bunch of comments, most of which were not addressed to you and then virtually spit in my face. Get over yourself, you're hunting for an agenda which is not there*. Denying the effects of what you support is simply...denial.

HINT: I USE SARCASM ALL THE TIME, IT IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK

Also, your support for Arpio is sickening and I am not your linkbot.

what the hell!!!???? ok, taking a page from your book... YOU'RE LYING!!!! I have never said anything supportive about Arpio.

you seriously need a time out

[Sparrow]

If this thread is going to carry on like this, would it be better to shut it down?
I can't see it resolving itself any other way.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

what the hell!!!????

I cannot help you with damnation, I'm afraid, everyone's burden on that is their own. (sarcasm, not an attack...)

ok, taking a page from your book... YOU'RE LYING!!!!

...about? I am pretty darn specific about this for a reason.

I have never said anything supportive about Arpio.

"try to figure out where Arpio actually is in the scheme of the state's hierarchy" Isn't support? Okay, well, sorry about that then, but it certainly sounds that way.

you seriously need a time out

You seriously need a hug. (And no, I am NOT volunteering)

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

"try to figure out where Arpio actually is in the scheme of the state's hierarchy" Isn't support? Okay, well, sorry about that then, but it certainly sounds that way.

)

no, it's a truth, a fact. something that you seem to have some difficulties with. seriously you need a time out. go take a walk, smell a flower, pet a kitten, a puppy, caress a snake, whatever makes your socks go up and down.

I've gotten numerous PMs about you and how unhinged you seem to be. I'm done with you. go froth elsewhere

[DawnFalcon]

Ah yes, yet another in a long line of attacks which you use on anyone who dares to disagree with your view of the world.

And how many, precisely? Anyone who has PM'ed Kindle want to stand up for themselves? I don't believe you, because of your history of blatant lies. This is yet another, again.

Pattern, thou hast formed. It's so darn annoying when the people who disagree with you won't roll over when you bully them!