Examples of the Hysterical pro-illegal immigration crowd

[sirs]

No, calling a non answer a non answer is what it was.  Asking you what WOULD you call them with the response of what you wouldn't call them, is NOT an answer "I don't like".  It's a non-answer.  Simple as that

You just don't pay attention do you? Or you're just dumber than dirt. I've explained all of this already, at least twice. Against my better judgment, I'll try again.

To start with, "Lemme guess, you want to simply refer to them as somewhat misguided?  Perhaps 'well intentioned'?" is, ahem, not a question asking me what would I call them. You asked if I would use those terms. To which I said no. Most folks with a general grasp of the English language will understand that my reply is a direct answer to what you asked. Later, and by 'later' I mean after I gave that answer to that question, you then said, "I'll look forward to you clarifying the appropriate Prince-approved adjective that should be applied to folks calling law enforcement and legislators nazis & racists for actually enforcing the law". In my reply to that I said (and now repeat for the second time):

As for what other terms I might use, I believe I mentioned a couple way back when I first objected to the whole 'hysteria' bit. Actually, I think you used the phrase "in hysterics". Anyway, genius, I'll use whatever I feel is appropriate, though apparently unlike you I do try not to jump immediately to hyperbolic nonsense. Well, I don't have to try that hard, because I generally just don't do it anyway. I learned along time ago that jumping immediately to hyperbolic nonsense is stupid, willfully ignorant, irrational and not in the least bit useful in constructing a substantive argument.

That is exactly an answer to what term would I use.

NO TERM is a NON ANSWER.  That was what the repeated questions were all about.  You didn't like the adjective I was using, so I kept asking you for one you would use (i.e. approve of), and you keep giving the same dren of what you wouldn't call them, and claim that's your answer.  Wow, and you want to keep calling me dumber than dirt.  Prince, just say, I refuse to call out anyone calling law enforcment, legislaters and supporters on the rule of law, as it relates to this AZ law, as fascists & racists.   Like that sort of puts you "above the fray", when all it does is reinforce how institutionalized you apparently are on this topic, and that even folks making completely asanine ignorant remarks like calling law enforcment racists and nazis, gets a pass from you since I can only speculate that apparently their "cause" is your cause, that of condemning our current immigration law, and this AZ law in particular

Just say so

And clearly is an answer you don't like, because if you liked it, you wouldn't be trying to tell me how it doesn't answer your question. Yes, my answer does not give you a list of words and terms, but that is not necessary to answer your question, and I feel no need for your approval.

No clearly it's an answer that doesn't answer the question.  My fondness or non-fondness isn't in play here, sorry to say

Now, if I were Tee, I'd be throwing a hissy fit about now.  Alas, I have a tad more composure, plus can directly point to how it's not a lie.  I specifically asked a direct question.  You answered by not answering, then insist your non answer is an answer, that I simply "don't like"  That pretty much sums it up.  To this point, at least.  Any more derrogatories you wish to toss my way?  Just curious

Yeah, I got one. Boldfaced liar. Not only did I answer your questions, I repeated and explained my answers to you. To claim that I had no plans to address what I have clearly addressed several times, even before this post, is to tell a lie. You lied.

Sorry.....you're clearly is about as clear as the Missouri River.  I clearly demonstrated how it wasn't.  Your aim to avoid making judgements on ignorant morons who profess to claim how AZ law enforcment, their legisature, their Governor, and supporters of current federal immigration law are akin to racists & nazis is what is "clearly" demonstrated, for all to see.  And your repetition of that position in not passing judgement & claiming that's "your answer that I don't like" is specific to how you obviously had no plans to address this.  Not sure why you want to keep harping this point however, as its there for all to see.  Let's move on, shall we?

Or are you compelled to get the last word in, and/or call me some more names?   *sigh*

[Universe Prince]

NO TERM is a NON ANSWER.

Again with the yelling. Does your chest puff out a little more when you type in all caps? Anyway, I did not say, 'no term'. You're clearly not paying attention.

That was what the repeated questions were all about.  You didn't like the adjective I was using, so I kept asking you for one you would use (i.e. approve of), and you keep giving the same dren of what you wouldn't call them, and claim that's your answer.

No, Sirs. That is not my answer to what would I use. I have explained this at least three times. You're either intent on lying about what I said, or just willfully being too stupid to grasp the meaning of what I have said.

Wow, and you want to keep calling me dumber than dirt.

When you act that way, yeah. Polite objection to your choice of words was met with mocking ridicule and suggestions that I am incapable of substantive debate. Did you think I was going to thank you for that?

Prince, just say, I refuse to call out anyone calling law enforcment, legislaters and supporters on the rule of law, as it relates to this AZ law, as fascists & racists.

Once again, if I had meant to express that in some way, I would have said it. I did not say it. Can you guess why? I doubt you can. I did not say it because I do not refuse to call out people who label law enforcement, legislators and supporters of the rule of law fascists and racists. Not that I expect you to grasp that concept. But most other English speaking people who read it will.

Prince, just say, I refuse to call out anyone calling law enforcment, legislaters and supporters on the rule of law, as it relates to this AZ law, as fascists & racists.   Like that sort of puts you "above the fray", when all it does is reinforce how institutionalized you apparently are on this topic, and that even folks making completely asanine ignorant remarks like calling law enforcment racists and nazis, gets a pass from you since I can only speculate that apparently their "cause" is your cause, that of condemning our current immigration law, and this AZ law in particular

There you go again. Pretending to be a mind reader. Unfortunately for your career as a party entertainer, you are a complete failure as a mind reader. Nothing you said in the above paragraph reflects my thinking or positions on the matter in any way, shape, manner, property, fashion, semblance or form. Which you would know already, if, rather than just making unintelligent assumptions, you had bothered to ask me what I think.

No clearly it's an answer that doesn't answer the question. [...] I clearly demonstrated how it wasn't.

What you demonstrated, and continue to demonstrate, is a complete lack of reading comprehension and/or honesty.

Your aim to avoid making judgements on ignorant morons who profess to claim how AZ law enforcment, their legisature, their Governor, and supporters of current federal immigration law are akin to racists & nazis is what is "clearly" demonstrated, for all to see.

Sigh. Again with the stupid mind reading. Here is a clue: Ask me what my position is on those people. Assumption only makes an ass out of you and mption.

And your repetition of that position in not passing judgement & claiming that's "your answer that I don't like" is specific to how you obviously had no plans to address this.

Except, of course, for all the times I did address it.

Not sure why you want to keep harping this point however, as its there for all to see.

Well, see, you got me a little upset with the constant attempts to claim I mean something I've never said, and snide remarks indicating I'm some how being unreasonable and incapable of substantive debate because I dared to argue and support my argument that you were wrong to label certain folks who were not exhibiting hysteria as hysterical. So I'm handing you rope, hand over fist, watching you make the same stupid arguments over and over and over, never once paying attention to what I said or how it applies to what you said. You just keep insisting I'm not answering you because, basically, I'm not telling you what you want to see. And you keep trying to tell me what I believe, as if somehow you have the inside track to my thoughts. You keep talking as if you're some sort of mind reading genius while you completely fail to grasp even the most basic meaning of what I have actually said. There for all to see, you say? Yeah, Sirs, your display of infantile arguments is there for all to see. Your failure to grasp that 'no' is an answer to a question, your failure to grasp that "I would use whatever term I feel is appropriate" does not mean "I won't call them anything," and your utterly imbecilic and wholly erroneous attempt to explain what I think when you have never even bothered to ask me what I actually think, it is all there for everyone to see. Yes, you asked me if I would use this term or that term. You asked for a list of terms. But you did not ask what I think. And when I gave you an answer that explained my thinking in part, you did not examine it, ask further questions or apply it to your question. No, you just jumped to calling it a non-answer. Why is it a non-answer? Your full justification is that it is a non-answer because you say it is. Yeah, that is on display for people to see too. The record may not reflect well on my behavior, but it most certainly does not flatter you.

Let's move on, shall we?

Or are you compelled to get the last word in, and/or call me some more names?   *sigh*

You could have moved on a long time ago. Back when I first objected to the phrase "in hysterics", you could simply have said, "I can see your point, Prince, but I disagree" and that likely would have been the end of it. But you didn't do that. You started blustering about how the rhetoric most certainly was the very definition of hysteria, and insinuating that if I did not agree with you then there must be something wrong with me. You're still trying to insinuate that, with your "how institutionalized you apparently are" and the "Your aim to avoid making judgements on ignorant morons" and the like. When I first made my objection, I did not say there was something wrong with you. I said I thought your use of the term was wrong. I expressed my opinion about the choice of words without saying that I thought calling those people hysterical was just as stupid as those people calling law enforcement, at al, Nazis and fascists and racists. I tried to keep my objection polite. You just started with the insinuations and moved on to trying to claim I was somehow on their side since I wasn't agreeing with you. You said I was enabling them and questioned my ability to engage in substantive debate. You began the insulting commentary.

I don't claim to be a victim. I could have chosen to walk away at any time. I did not make that choice, and no one is to blame for that but me. You goaded me, and I let you. But you have no ground to put this on me as if I have some how forced you to continue making your asinine comments and your wholly nonsensical arguments. You made your own choice just like I did. And just like my choice is my fault, your choice is your fault and no one else's.

But I'm done now. You've grabbed enough rope, and I think you've got the noose around your neck. So I'm done. I'll say no more to you in this thread. You, Sirs, have the last word. Berate me to your heart's content. Though I think you'll only be kicking the box out from under you.

[Christians4LessGvt]

i think you guys should just "agree to disagree"
it has reached a point of debating the debating
reasonable people can just arrive at different conclusions

[sirs]

NO TERM is a NON ANSWER.

Again with the yelling. Does your chest puff out a little more when you type in all caps? Anyway, I did not say, 'no term'. You're clearly not paying attention.

Let's hope for your sake, no one is paying attention to your repetition of the same dren

Prince, just say, I refuse to call out anyone calling law enforcment, legislaters and supporters on the rule of law, as it relates to this AZ law, as fascists & racists.

Once again, if I had meant to express that in some way, I would have said it. I did not say it. Can you guess why? I doubt you can. I did not say it because I do not refuse to call out people who label law enforcement, legislators and supporters of the rule of law fascists and racists. Not that I expect you to grasp that concept. But most other English speaking people who read it will.

Your grand verbosity, minus the pertinent answer to the direct question posed, is what most other English speaking people who read, will

No clearly it's an answer that doesn't answer the question. [...] I clearly demonstrated how it wasn't (a lie as you claim).

What you demonstrated, and continue to demonstrate, is a complete lack of reading comprehension and/or honesty.

Possibly the former, yet that's largely debatable given this back and forth clarity of events in this thread.  Not the latter, as I've cleardly demonstrated how its not.  

Your aim to avoid making judgements on ignorant morons who profess to claim how AZ law enforcment, their legisature, their Governor, and supporters of current federal immigration law are akin to racists & nazis is what is "clearly" demonstrated, for all to see.

Sigh. Again with the stupid mind reading. Here is a clue: Ask me what my position is on those people. Assumption only makes an ass out of you and mption.

I've already tried......multiple times in fact, with the effort to find the "pre-approved Prince adjective".  Again, for all to see and read

And your repetition of that position in not passing judgement & claiming that's "your answer that I don't like" is specific to how you obviously had no plans to address this.

Except, of course, for all the times I did address it.

Except of course for all the times you haven't

Not sure why you want to keep harping this point however, as its there for all to see.

Well, see, you got me a little upset with the constant attempts to claim I mean something I've never said, and snide remarks indicating I'm some how being unreasonable and incapable of substantive debate because I dared to argue and support my argument that you were wrong to label certain folks who were not exhibiting hysteria as hysterical.

Well Prince, when you fail to provide the judging I kept asking for, one then is left to speculate why.  When one fails to provide a simple response to simple question, one is left to deduce for themselves what the answer would likely be, given the parameters & disposition of the person failing to answer in the 1st place.  This wasn't a "So, how long have you been beating your wife" kinda question.  You took exception to my use of the (appropriate) word hysteria in judging folks demonstrating woeful idiocy & ignorance, so when asked what you'd use, you kept (and still do) repeating what you wouldn't call them, and have called that "your answer in plain sight"

Sorry, that's not

Let's move on, shall we? Or are you compelled to get the last word in, and/or call me some more names?   *sigh*

You've grabbed enough rope, and I think you've got the noose around your neck. So I'm done. I'll say no more to you in this thread. You, Sirs, have the last word. Berate me to your heart's content. Though I think you'll only be kicking the box out from under you.

And for the rest to have read, (of they were so bored, they continued to do so), I haven't been the one doing the berating, or insulting, or namecalling.  Condescending tone?, yea, I concede that.  Intermittent sarcasm in posting extremes of what you might answer?, yea, guilty of that too.  Repetative name calling & berating?, nope, all you big fella

i think you guys should just "agree to disagree"
it has reached a point of debating the debating
reasonable people can just arrive at different conclusions

Sounds reasonable to me

[Christians4LessGvt]