As usual, WRONG "conclusion" by R-W'ers regarding Albuquerque rally

[jc456]

no they weren't they were rioting, and that isn't in the constitution. Post up that constitutional point. I'll wait for a long time. you should actually learn about it it is the US's.

Oh and while you're at it, post up the one that says one can take away the rights of another.

Ever hear of martial law?

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

post up the excerpt that warrants riots. that's all.

Just did.

I searched and it wasn't there.

yes it is, did you read the article?

well then post the excerpt. S0n I did a search on martial law and there was absolutely nothing there. And I'm not sure what martial law has to do with riots.
Wikipedia.

"Martial law
Martial law is the imposition of the highest-ranking military officer as the military governor or as the head of the government, thus removing all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government."

 

[daws101]

Ever hear of martial law?

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

post up the excerpt that warrants riots. that's all.

Just did.

I searched and it wasn't there.

yes it is, did you read the article?

well then post the excerpt. S0n I did a search on martial law and there was absolutely nothing there. And I'm not sure what martial law has to do with riots.
Wikipedia.

"Martial law
Martial law is the imposition of the highest-ranking military officer as the military governor or as the head of the government, thus removing all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government."

nope I provided the information it's on you to find it.

 

[jc456]

post up the excerpt that warrants riots. that's all.

Just did.

I searched and it wasn't there.

yes it is, did you read the article?

well then post the excerpt. S0n I did a search on martial law and there was absolutely nothing there. And I'm not sure what martial law has to do with riots.
Wikipedia.

"Martial law
Martial law is the imposition of the highest-ranking military officer as the military governor or as the head of the government, thus removing all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government."

nope I provided the information it's on you to find it.

nope, sorry gene. it don't work that way. you made claim prove your claim. I didn't see it. you must show or you violate the rules of the forum.

 

[daws101]

Just did.

I searched and it wasn't there.

yes it is, did you read the article?

well then post the excerpt. S0n I did a search on martial law and there was absolutely nothing there. And I'm not sure what martial law has to do with riots.
Wikipedia.

"Martial law
Martial law is the imposition of the highest-ranking military officer as the military governor or as the head of the government, thus removing all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government."

nope I provided the information it's on you to find it.

nope, sorry gene. it don't work that way. you made claim prove your claim. I didn't see it. you must show or you violate the rules of the forum.

I did prove it
the rest is your own personal problem.

 

[jc456]

I searched and it wasn't there.

yes it is, did you read the article?

well then post the excerpt. S0n I did a search on martial law and there was absolutely nothing there. And I'm not sure what martial law has to do with riots.
Wikipedia.

"Martial law
Martial law is the imposition of the highest-ranking military officer as the military governor or as the head of the government, thus removing all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government."

nope I provided the information it's on you to find it.

nope, sorry gene. it don't work that way. you made claim prove your claim. I didn't see it. you must show or you violate the rules of the forum.

I did prove it
the rest is your own personal problem.

oh, ok, well it wasn't in here in this thread. but hey, thanks for playing, I see you have no value to the discussion and only squawking.

 

[daws101]

yes it is, did you read the article?

well then post the excerpt. S0n I did a search on martial law and there was absolutely nothing there. And I'm not sure what martial law has to do with riots.
Wikipedia.

"Martial law
Martial law is the imposition of the highest-ranking military officer as the military governor or as the head of the government, thus removing all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government."

nope I provided the information it's on you to find it.

nope, sorry gene. it don't work that way. you made claim prove your claim. I didn't see it. you must show or you violate the rules of the forum.

I did prove it
the rest is your own personal problem.

oh, ok, well it wasn't in here in this thread. but hey, thanks for playing, I see you have no value to the discussion and only squawking.

rationalizing your stupidly

 

[Correll]

Looking at the pics I assume that the crowd is mostly American citizens who are driven to the point of violence at the thought of American policy serving American interests.

The fact that American citizens are so upset that US policy might be good for America that they wave the flag of another nation to show that they are more concerned about the interests of that nation and that nation's citizens is

WORSE,

than if the rioters were all illegals.

Not a bad contribution to this thread....Without EVER condoning violence, could it be that AMERICAN CITIZENS who are proud of their Mexican heritage are upset over an openly bigoted charlatan wants to become president and represent the xenophobic interests of a small minority of white [mostly] male constituents?

No.

1. Any assumption that White (mostly male) constituents or Trump is racist is insulting and invalid.

2. The White Majority has every right to want it's interests to be served by American Policy. And to politically pursue those interests.

3. The lack of concern these Mexican Americans show for their fellow Americans is disheartening, and undermines the very idea of America.

bullshit.

Fuck you.

 

[daws101]

Looking at the pics I assume that the crowd is mostly American citizens who are driven to the point of violence at the thought of American policy serving American interests.

The fact that American citizens are so upset that US policy might be good for America that they wave the flag of another nation to show that they are more concerned about the interests of that nation and that nation's citizens is

WORSE,

than if the rioters were all illegals.

Not a bad contribution to this thread....Without EVER condoning violence, could it be that AMERICAN CITIZENS who are proud of their Mexican heritage are upset over an openly bigoted charlatan wants to become president and represent the xenophobic interests of a small minority of white [mostly] male constituents?

No.

1. Any assumption that White (mostly male) constituents or Trump is racist is insulting and invalid.

2. The White Majority has every right to want it's interests to be served by American Policy. And to politically pursue those interests.

3. The lack of concern these Mexican Americans show for their fellow Americans is disheartening, and undermines the very idea of America.

bullshit.

Fuck you.

incisive retort!

 

[Correll]

3. The lack of concern these Mexican Americans show for their fellow Americans is disheartening, and undermines the very idea of America.

Exactly what German-Americans once stated about the Irish immigrants...The Irish-Americans about Italians, Italian-Americans about Puerto Ricans, etc., etc. etc.

If Andrew Carnegie had not been able to staff his mills with desperate immigrants right off the boat, do you think that wages would have been higher or lower?

they were extremely low to start with .
false equivalence .

False Equivalence?

False equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency"



The equivalence is the Law of Supply and Demand.

IN both cases there was a limited pool of labor, being increased with the importation of cheap foreign labor, with the support of the rich for the purpose of cheaper labor.


What are the "additional factors" that makes this "apparent equivalence" not equal?



"Low wages" to start with, does not detract from the Law of Supply and Demand point.

 

[Correll]

Looking at the pics I assume that the crowd is mostly American citizens who are driven to the point of violence at the thought of American policy serving American interests.

The fact that American citizens are so upset that US policy might be good for America that they wave the flag of another nation to show that they are more concerned about the interests of that nation and that nation's citizens is

WORSE,

than if the rioters were all illegals.

Not a bad contribution to this thread....Without EVER condoning violence, could it be that AMERICAN CITIZENS who are proud of their Mexican heritage are upset over an openly bigoted charlatan wants to become president and represent the xenophobic interests of a small minority of white [mostly] male constituents?

No.

1. Any assumption that White (mostly male) constituents or Trump is racist is insulting and invalid.

2. The White Majority has every right to want it's interests to be served by American Policy. And to politically pursue those interests.

3. The lack of concern these Mexican Americans show for their fellow Americans is disheartening, and undermines the very idea of America.

bullshit.

Fuck you.

incisive retort!

Says the asshole who's response to my three point post, to someone else, was "bullshit".

Soo, fuck you some more.

Here, if you want something more.

 

[daws101]

3. The lack of concern these Mexican Americans show for their fellow Americans is disheartening, and undermines the very idea of America.

Exactly what German-Americans once stated about the Irish immigrants...The Irish-Americans about Italians, Italian-Americans about Puerto Ricans, etc., etc. etc.

If Andrew Carnegie had not been able to staff his mills with desperate immigrants right off the boat, do you think that wages would have been higher or lower?

they were extremely low to start with .
false equivalence .

False Equivalence?

False equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency"



The equivalence is the Law of Supply and Demand.

IN both cases there was a limited pool of labor, being increased with the importation of cheap foreign labor, with the support of the rich for the purpose of cheaper labor.


What are the "additional factors" that makes this "apparent equivalence" not equal?



"Low wages" to start with, does not detract from the Law of Supply and Demand point.

so we agree you based your bullshit on the false equivalence fallacy.

 

[jc456]

well then post the excerpt. S0n I did a search on martial law and there was absolutely nothing there. And I'm not sure what martial law has to do with riots.
Wikipedia.

"Martial law
Martial law is the imposition of the highest-ranking military officer as the military governor or as the head of the government, thus removing all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government."

nope I provided the information it's on you to find it.

nope, sorry gene. it don't work that way. you made claim prove your claim. I didn't see it. you must show or you violate the rules of the forum.

I did prove it
the rest is your own personal problem.

oh, ok, well it wasn't in here in this thread. but hey, thanks for playing, I see you have no value to the discussion and only squawking.

rationalizing your stupidly

more squawking still nothing to say.

 

[daws101]

Not a bad contribution to this thread....Without EVER condoning violence, could it be that AMERICAN CITIZENS who are proud of their Mexican heritage are upset over an openly bigoted charlatan wants to become president and represent the xenophobic interests of a small minority of white [mostly] male constituents?

No.

1. Any assumption that White (mostly male) constituents or Trump is racist is insulting and invalid.

2. The White Majority has every right to want it's interests to be served by American Policy. And to politically pursue those interests.

3. The lack of concern these Mexican Americans show for their fellow Americans is disheartening, and undermines the very idea of America.

bullshit.

Fuck you.

incisive retort!

Says the asshole who's response to my three point post, to someone else, was "bullshit".

Soo, fuck you some more.

Here, if you want something more.

 

[daws101]

nope I provided the information it's on you to find it.

nope, sorry gene. it don't work that way. you made claim prove your claim. I didn't see it. you must show or you violate the rules of the forum.

I did prove it
the rest is your own personal problem.

oh, ok, well it wasn't in here in this thread. but hey, thanks for playing, I see you have no value to the discussion and only squawking.

rationalizing your stupidly

more squawking still nothing to say.

yes you are..

 

[Correll]

3. The lack of concern these Mexican Americans show for their fellow Americans is disheartening, and undermines the very idea of America.

Exactly what German-Americans once stated about the Irish immigrants...The Irish-Americans about Italians, Italian-Americans about Puerto Ricans, etc., etc. etc.

If Andrew Carnegie had not been able to staff his mills with desperate immigrants right off the boat, do you think that wages would have been higher or lower?

they were extremely low to start with .
false equivalence .

False Equivalence?

False equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency"



The equivalence is the Law of Supply and Demand.

IN both cases there was a limited pool of labor, being increased with the importation of cheap foreign labor, with the support of the rich for the purpose of cheaper labor.


What are the "additional factors" that makes this "apparent equivalence" not equal?



"Low wages" to start with, does not detract from the Law of Supply and Demand point.

so we agree you based your bullshit on the false equivalence fallacy.

You claimed False Equivalence and stated, low wages as the reason.

But low wages does not prevent the Laws of Supply and Demand from working.

Your post claiming that I was agreeing with you is a fucking lie.

My question stands.





If Andrew Carnegie had not been able to staff his mills with desperate immigrants right off the boat, do you think that wages would have been higher or lower?

 

[Correll]

No.

1. Any assumption that White (mostly male) constituents or Trump is racist is insulting and invalid.

2. The White Majority has every right to want it's interests to be served by American Policy. And to politically pursue those interests.

3. The lack of concern these Mexican Americans show for their fellow Americans is disheartening, and undermines the very idea of America.

bullshit.

Fuck you.

incisive retort!

Says the asshole who's response to my three point post, to someone else, was "bullshit".

Soo, fuck you some more.

Here, if you want something more.

Nothing in your shit replies says anything of relevance.

My points stand.


No.

1. Any assumption that White (mostly male) constituents or Trump is racist is insulting and invalid.

2. The White Majority has every right to want it's interests to be served by American Policy. And to politically pursue those interests.

3. The lack of concern these Mexican Americans show for their fellow Americans is disheartening, and undermines the very idea of America.

 

[daws101]

Exactly what German-Americans once stated about the Irish immigrants...The Irish-Americans about Italians, Italian-Americans about Puerto Ricans, etc., etc. etc.

If Andrew Carnegie had not been able to staff his mills with desperate immigrants right off the boat, do you think that wages would have been higher or lower?

they were extremely low to start with .
false equivalence .

False Equivalence?

False equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency"



The equivalence is the Law of Supply and Demand.

IN both cases there was a limited pool of labor, being increased with the importation of cheap foreign labor, with the support of the rich for the purpose of cheaper labor.


What are the "additional factors" that makes this "apparent equivalence" not equal?



"Low wages" to start with, does not detract from the Law of Supply and Demand point.

so we agree you based your bullshit on the false equivalence fallacy.

You claimed False Equivalence and stated, low wages as the reason.

But low wages does not prevent the Laws of Supply and Demand from working.

Your post claiming that I was agreeing with you is a fucking lie.

My question stands.





If Andrew Carnegie had not been able to staff his mills with desperate immigrants right off the boat, do you think that wages would have been higher or lower?

asked and answered .
the power of mania is strong with this one.

 

[daws101]

bullshit.

Fuck you.

incisive retort!

Says the asshole who's response to my three point post, to someone else, was "bullshit".

Soo, fuck you some more.

Here, if you want something more.

Nothing in your shit replies says anything of relevance.

My points stand.


No.

1. Any assumption that White (mostly male) constituents or Trump is racist is insulting and invalid.

2. The White Majority has every right to want it's interests to be served by American Policy. And to politically pursue those interests.

3. The lack of concern these Mexican Americans show for their fellow Americans is disheartening, and undermines the very idea of America.

bullshit.

 

[Correll]

If Andrew Carnegie had not been able to staff his mills with desperate immigrants right off the boat, do you think that wages would have been higher or lower?

they were extremely low to start with .
false equivalence .

False Equivalence?

False equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency"



The equivalence is the Law of Supply and Demand.

IN both cases there was a limited pool of labor, being increased with the importation of cheap foreign labor, with the support of the rich for the purpose of cheaper labor.


What are the "additional factors" that makes this "apparent equivalence" not equal?



"Low wages" to start with, does not detract from the Law of Supply and Demand point.

so we agree you based your bullshit on the false equivalence fallacy.

You claimed False Equivalence and stated, low wages as the reason.

But low wages does not prevent the Laws of Supply and Demand from working.

Your post claiming that I was agreeing with you is a fucking lie.

My question stands.





If Andrew Carnegie had not been able to staff his mills with desperate immigrants right off the boat, do you think that wages would have been higher or lower?

asked and answered .
the power of mania is strong with this one.

Yes. YOu said, False equivalence because of low wages (i think, you were not clear)


But low wages doesn't mean that the Law of Supply and Demand was not working then, as it is now.

Unless you can explain why you think that it does, you are engaged in the content free practice of Argument b Assertion.

My question stands.

If Andrew Carnegie had not been able to staff his mills with desperate immigrants right off the boat, do you think that wages would have been higher or lower?

 

[daws101]

they were extremely low to start with .
false equivalence .

False Equivalence?

False equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency"



The equivalence is the Law of Supply and Demand.

IN both cases there was a limited pool of labor, being increased with the importation of cheap foreign labor, with the support of the rich for the purpose of cheaper labor.


What are the "additional factors" that makes this "apparent equivalence" not equal?



"Low wages" to start with, does not detract from the Law of Supply and Demand point.

so we agree you based your bullshit on the false equivalence fallacy.

You claimed False Equivalence and stated, low wages as the reason.

But low wages does not prevent the Laws of Supply and Demand from working.

Your post claiming that I was agreeing with you is a fucking lie.

My question stands.





If Andrew Carnegie had not been able to staff his mills with desperate immigrants right off the boat, do you think that wages would have been higher or lower?

asked and answered .
the power of mania is strong with this one.

Yes. YOu said, False equivalence because of low wages (i think, you were not clear)


But low wages doesn't mean that the Law of Supply and Demand was not working then, as it is now.

Unless you can explain why you think that it does, you are engaged in the content free practice of Argument b Assertion.

My question stands.

If Andrew Carnegie had not been able to staff his mills with desperate immigrants right off the boat, do you think that wages would have been higher or lower?

The song remains the same.