Dear Texas Lake Jetski Idiots

Damn, sorry Iggy. I thought you wanted to "win" another one so I left it to you.

Besides it's hard to argue with you when I for the most part agree with you. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. The guy is dead. There is nothing anyone can do about it. Mexico doesn't care if the guy is dead. The US isn't going to use political clout to solve a drug related murder in another country. If the guy had been kidnapped, maybe. But he wasn't, he was killed.

I'm sorry for the lady's loss, but people get killed doing stupid things all the time. It was his time. End of story. In a week or so the news outlets will figure that out and it will fall off the back page of the paper.

edited because I suck at spelling.

/thread.

poop wins

Poop- you owe me a new keyboard. I will ship you this one, when you get the Coke out of it, you may use it as you see fit.

If a american enters Mexico and something bad happens its the Americans fault.

If a Mexican illegally enters America and something bad happens its the Americans fault.

Liberals and the Mexican government go nuts when they think illegal mexicans are not treated fairly in this country.

Liberals and the Mexican government look the other way when a American visiting Mexico gets treated unfailry or in this case killed.

I dont get it.

That's because liberals hate America (Americans).

I'm sure the new Republican senate will solve this problem too.

poopshovel wrote: /thread.

sorry man.. Link is broken.

Hint: If you're going to slander me.. Post this.. You can't be poor to live here..

by all rights I should be a young republican.

Cone_Junky wrote: That's because liberals hate America (Americans). I'm sure the new Republican senate will solve this problem too.

correct.

Liberals hate jesus and america. mostly jesus.

For the record, Igno, I called you out for saying this woman needed to kill herself because you didn't want to listen to her anymore. But I guess you were too busy formulating what you THOUGHT I was going to say when you saw my avatar to actually read what I was saying...

In reply to ignorant:

uhh, looks like most of the households are between 10k and 150k income, with a tail above 150 and a tail below 10k... not sure what you're claiming that proves, but it looks pretty average, maybe a bit elevated because its in the northeast.

and slander, wow, now you're projecting

ignorant wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: That's because liberals hate America (Americans). I'm sure the new Republican senate will solve this problem too.

correct. Liberals hate jesus and america. mostly jesus.

Not true. I buy all the toys and everything.

Christalmighty iggy. The chart showed your city's population by race; latinos making up ~3%. The assertion being that the "Immigration problem? There's no immigration problem!" argument usually comes from those with less than 5% south-of-the-border folks in their town. I know we're not best buds or anything, but do you honestly think I'd ever knock on someone for how much money they make?

So anyway, looks like your town and my town's racial makeup are similar. By your logic, assuming I put a big "Messicans stay out" sign at the front of my neighborhood, should I be able to mow down a crew of mexican landscapers if they dare set foot on my turf? I mean, they're not U.S. citizens, and they're probably just here to sell drugs, right? Couple that with the fact that they're in the land of the inbred, racist rednecks, and they just got what they had comin' to 'em! They were asking for it! Look at the way they were dressed!

"Slander?" C'mon dude. Apply vagisil, rinse, repeat.

PS: The field trip to Norcross invitation is still open whenever you're ready. I'll buy the tequila y cervasas, and unlike 15 years ago, we can probably score some underage hookers and crack, if that's your thing.

Hopefully, this linky no breaky:

Cone_Junky wrote: That's because liberals hate America (Americans). I'm sure the new Republican senate will solve this problem too.

Actually, the dems held onto 51 out of 100 seats in the US Senate. It's the House of Representatives in which the reps will enjoy a 239 to 189 majority.

They're called "facts". Check 'em out.

1988RedT2 wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: That's because liberals hate America (Americans). I'm sure the new Republican senate will solve this problem too.

Actually, the dems held onto 51 out of 100 seats in the US Senate. It's the House of Representatives in which the reps will enjoy a 239 to 189 majority. They're called "facts". Check 'em out.

You're right, I said Senate and not House. So hopefully the new Republican HOUSE will fix the problem. Fact=straight.

1988RedT2 wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: That's because liberals hate America (Americans). I'm sure the new Republican senate will solve this problem too.

Actually, the dems held onto 51 out of 100 seats in the US Senate. It's the House of Representatives in which the reps will enjoy a 239 to 189 majority. They're called "facts". Check 'em out.

Facts mean nothing to Cone_Junky, unless they come from the sources he chooses to believe - or the voices in his head.

poopshovel wrote: Christalmighty iggy. The chart showed your city's population by race; latinos making up ~3%. The assertion being that the "Immigration problem? There's no immigration problem!" argument usually comes from those with less than 5% south-of-the-border folks in their town. I know we're not best buds or anything, but do you honestly think I'd ever knock on someone for how much money they make? So anyway, looks like your town and my town's racial makeup are similar. By your logic, assuming I put a big "Messicans stay out" sign at the front of my neighborhood, should I be able to mow down a crew of mexican landscapers if they dare set foot on my turf? I mean, they're not U.S. citizens, and they're probably just here to sell drugs, right? Couple that with the fact that they're in the land of the inbred, racist rednecks, and they just got what they had comin' to 'em! They were asking for it! Look at the way they were dressed! "Slander?" C'mon dude. Apply vagisil, rinse, repeat. PS: The field trip to Norcross invitation is still open whenever you're ready. I'll buy the tequila y cervasas, and unlike 15 years ago, we can probably score some underage hookers and crack, if that's your thing. Hopefully, this linky no breaky:

I'm sorry man, but I don't remember in this thread where I actually addressed immigration.

Unfortunately I don't have a network to stream my opinions to me on a 24 hour cycle.

But I would classify that as a written error, not a lack of facts.

Datsun1500 wrote: In reply to ignorant: So it looks like most are between $35K and $125K? Sounds pretty average. What does that really prove? There are some on this board that make less than $35K and some that make more than $125K. There are some on this board that are unemployed, and some that make $1MM+ a year. So?

I would say if you were going to make fun of me, do it because of my age and relative affluence.. The race thing makes no sense cause I didn't talk about immigration or any race related subject in this thread.

Estimated median household income in 2008: $101,999 (it was $80,660 in 2000) Glastonbury: $101,999 Connecticut: $68,595

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/city/Glastonbury-Connecticut.html#ixzz155eJqYue

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html Median household income in the US was $52k in 2008.

your idea of "average" is wrong.

Cone_Junky wrote: Unfortunately I don't have a network to stream my opinions to me on a 24 hour cycle. But I would classify that as a written error, not a lack of facts.

of course you do, there are all of the networks not named fox news to stream liberal biased crap to you, you just don't care because their message aligns with your opinions.

ignorant wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Christalmighty iggy. The chart showed your city's population by race; latinos making up ~3%. The assertion being that the "Immigration problem? There's no immigration problem!" argument usually comes from those with less than 5% south-of-the-border folks in their town. I know we're not best buds or anything, but do you honestly think I'd ever knock on someone for how much money they make? So anyway, looks like your town and my town's racial makeup are similar. By your logic, assuming I put a big "Messicans stay out" sign at the front of my neighborhood, should I be able to mow down a crew of mexican landscapers if they dare set foot on my turf? I mean, they're not U.S. citizens, and they're probably just here to sell drugs, right? Couple that with the fact that they're in the land of the inbred, racist rednecks, and they just got what they had comin' to 'em! They were asking for it! Look at the way they were dressed! "Slander?" C'mon dude. Apply vagisil, rinse, repeat. PS: The field trip to Norcross invitation is still open whenever you're ready. I'll buy the tequila y cervasas, and unlike 15 years ago, we can probably score some underage hookers and crack, if that's your thing. Hopefully, this linky no breaky:

I'm sorry man, but I don't remember in this thread where I actually addressed immigration.

I don't remember in this thread where I said or implied squat about how much money you make(???)

So anyway, looks like your town and my town's racial makeup are similar. By your logic, assuming I put a big "Messicans stay out" sign at the front of my neighborhood, should I be able to mow down a crew of mexican landscapers if they dare set foot on my turf? I mean, they're not U.S. citizens, and they're probably just here to sell drugs, right? Couple that with the fact that they're in the land of the inbred, racist rednecks, and they just got what they had comin' to 'em! They were asking for it! Look at the way they were dressed!

You're right, everything not Fox is liberal biased, because Fox says so.

I get my news from local (Fox actually!), NPR, AP, and I entertain myself with conservative AM Talk and The Daily Show.

But I know, NPR are elitist liberals because they ALWAYS have both sides discussing an issue or at least extend the invitation to have them on. Commies!

How often does Savage, O'Reilly, Beck, Hedgecock, or Limbaugh have opposing viewpoints on thier topics?

Kinda sad how John Stewart can disprove Fox "facts" and reveal the disgusting bias of a 24/7 propaganda machine with just 17 minutes/4 days a week.

Edited to include that I almost forgot my favorite show- This Week with Christaine Amanpour. But that's only when I get up early enough to watch. But they have a round table discussion with multiple viewpoints, so that has to be liberal biased too.

In reply to Cone_Junky:

even john stewart is shocked how many people think the daily show is a real news show.

you're naming off a lot of editorial type shows, even though o'reilly does have both viewpoints on the show when discussing the right/wrong aspects of topics.

and 3....2...1... before you say anyone who goes on a Fox news show as a liberal viewpoint is just a shill and only there to be proved wrong.

oh, and yes, everything not fox news is liberal biased because I said so, if you can do it, so can i. not because it was fed to me by some 24/7 news cycle channel whatever you're blathering about.

you bitch about fox running 24/7 and how everything else is perfectly middle of the road, when they're doing the same thing

Strizzo wrote: In reply to Cone_Junky: even john stewart is shocked how many people think the daily show is a real news show. you're naming off a lot of editorial type shows, even though o'reilly does have both viewpoints on the show when discussing the right/wrong aspects of topics. and 3....2...1... before you say anyone who goes on a Fox news show as a liberal viewpoint is just a shill and only there to be proved wrong.

Right/wrong? Projecting a little there?

"Editorial" shows are the backbone of Fox News.

John Stewart is the ONLY one who advertises as a FAKE NEWS SHOW. Any of you're heroes claim that? I also watch him for ENTERTAINMENT (which I clearly said).

So NPR and AP is biased right? remember when Fox, the Bush Admin, and Rumsfield scolded the "media" for reporting false truths about the horrors of the war in Iraq. Rumsfeld went on national TV as a representative of the party to claim that the media was lying, everything is hunky-dory over there.
Course now wikileaks has 100's of thousands of military documents proving all the "liberal media" reports were 100% true. So just because you and you're party call anyone who reports facts as liberal media, doesn't mean they're actually liberal media. Whereas FOX does not deny that it is a purely Republican based "news" network.