Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=179378
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:43 pmPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:09 pmTimminz wrote:jimboston wrote:Timminz wrote:jimboston wrote:The Dept. of Customs and Immigration does NOT go around Boston rounding people up randomly and shipping them to other countries. This ISN'T happening... please don't suggest it does.
Them Canajuns is gettin all up in yer 'chusetts.
Please do modify my posts. No thanks.
I will please as I do with your posts. Thanks.
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:53 pmjimboston wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:The point I was making was that you don't seem to believe there IS a problem with legal citizens having documents. For you to continue to hold the line that "everyone has documents".. and "they are not difficult to obtain" means you are intentionally ignorant.
Yep... "everyone" has them... or can get them without serious issues.
... yes I put "everyone" in quotes. Obviously there is some small fraction of the population that may have a hard time getting ID. Even if LIberals where right... and the percentage is higher than I believe... this WOULD NOT EFFECT legal immigrants. Legal immigrants BY DEFINITION have ID.
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:19 pmPhatscotty wrote:what part of that is drawl?
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:49 amTimminz wrote:Phatscotty wrote:what part of that is drawl?
Those Bostonians: they sure know how to bastardize the English language.
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:08 pmfadedpsychosis wrote:Timminz wrote:Phatscotty wrote:what part of that is drawl?
Those Bostonians: they sure know how to bastardize the English language.
unlike dem dere cannadians doncha noo...
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:24 pmTimminz wrote:fadedpsychosis wrote:Timminz wrote:Phatscotty wrote:what part of that is drawl?
Those Bostonians: they sure know how to bastardize the English language.
unlike dem dere cannadians doncha noo...
Parah Salin is not Canadian, thank god.
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:33 pmTimminz wrote:fadedpsychosis wrote:Timminz wrote:Phatscotty wrote:what part of that is drawl?
Those Bostonians: they sure know how to bastardize the English language.
unlike dem dere cannadians doncha noo...
Sarah Palin is not Canadian, thank god.
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:18 pmjimboston wrote:Symmetry wrote:I seem to have made a few people angry by bringing this up. There are replies in thread for people who don't go along with the idea.
What idea?
You don't seem to have one.
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:09 pmPLAYER57832 wrote:jimboston wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:The point I was making was that you don't seem to believe there IS a problem with legal citizens having documents. For you to continue to hold the line that "everyone has documents".. and "they are not difficult to obtain" means you are intentionally ignorant.
Yep... "everyone" has them... or can get them without serious issues.
... yes I put "everyone" in quotes. Obviously there is some small fraction of the population that may have a hard time getting ID. Even if LIberals where right... and the percentage is higher than I believe... this WOULD NOT EFFECT legal immigrants. Legal immigrants BY DEFINITION have ID.
So you are under the impression that legal immigrants can vote?
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:11 pmSymmetry wrote:jimboston wrote:Symmetry wrote:I seem to have made a few people angry by bringing this up. There are replies in thread for people who don't go along with the idea.
What idea?
You don't seem to have one.
Says the dude with a family guy avatar.
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:12 pmjimboston wrote:Symmetry wrote:jimboston wrote:Symmetry wrote:I seem to have made a few people angry by bringing this up. There are replies in thread for people who don't go along with the idea.
What idea?
You don't seem to have one.
Says the dude with a family guy avatar.
Ad Hominem in Action!
Don't bother trying to clarify your point or anything... just attack me.
Reported to MOD.. personal attack.
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:24 pmSymmetry wrote:jimboston wrote:Symmetry wrote:jimboston wrote:Symmetry wrote:I seem to have made a few people angry by bringing this up. There are replies in thread for people who don't go along with the idea.
What idea?
You don't seem to have one.
Says the dude with a family guy avatar.
Ad Hominem in Action!
Don't bother trying to clarify your point or anything... just attack me.
Reported to MOD.. personal attack.
Good luck with that.
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:29 pmjimboston wrote:Symmetry wrote:jimboston wrote:Symmetry wrote:jimboston wrote:Symmetry wrote:I seem to have made a few people angry by bringing this up. There are replies in thread for people who don't go along with the idea.
What idea?
You don't seem to have one.
Says the dude with a family guy avatar.
Ad Hominem in Action!
Don't bother trying to clarify your point or anything... just attack me.
Reported to MOD.. personal attack.
Good luck with that.
Again not a reply with any content.
So you agree your previous post was the definition of an Ad Hominem attack on my person?
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:34 pmSymmetry wrote:No, both as a poster and as a fan of dictionaries.
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:36 pmjimboston wrote:Symmetry wrote:No, both as a poster and as a fan of dictionaries.
You're soooooo smart. I wish I could be smart like you.
Of course, it'd be funny if your insult was actually on target or accurate in some way. Since it's not...
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:39 pmSymmetry wrote:Yeah, I guess a large part of the thread has come to be about the peculiar use of Americans to say someone is illegal without the presumption of innocence pre-trial.
The thread is was it is I suppose.
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:43 pmthegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:Yeah, I guess a large part of the thread has come to be about the peculiar use of Americans to say someone is illegal without the presumption of innocence pre-trial.
The thread is was it is I suppose.
Okay. Weird reason for a thread, but okay.
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:48 pmPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:49 pmSymmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:Yeah, I guess a large part of the thread has come to be about the peculiar use of Americans to say someone is illegal without the presumption of innocence pre-trial.
The thread is was it is I suppose.
Okay. Weird reason for a thread, but okay.
Presumption of innocence is weird?
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:53 pmthegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:Yeah, I guess a large part of the thread has come to be about the peculiar use of Americans to say someone is illegal without the presumption of innocence pre-trial.
The thread is was it is I suppose.
Okay. Weird reason for a thread, but okay.
Presumption of innocence is weird?
No, presumption of innocence is good. I'm not following your logic of going from "weird reason for a thread" to "presumption of innocence is weird."
Do you have any evidence or other background for your assertion that Americans say someone is illegal without the presumption of innocence?
Do you understand the American criminal justice system at all (not just the immigration system, anything)?
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:56 pmSymmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:Yeah, I guess a large part of the thread has come to be about the peculiar use of Americans to say someone is illegal without the presumption of innocence pre-trial.
The thread is was it is I suppose.
Okay. Weird reason for a thread, but okay.
Presumption of innocence is weird?
No, presumption of innocence is good. I'm not following your logic of going from "weird reason for a thread" to "presumption of innocence is weird."
Do you have any evidence or other background for your assertion that Americans say someone is illegal without the presumption of innocence?
Do you understand the American criminal justice system at all (not just the immigration system, anything)?
I would be surprised if they don't. I'm not sure I'd be quite as annoyed at someone pointing out that it's incorrect, and that presumption of innocence is important.
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:59 pmthegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Do you have any evidence or other background for your assertion that Americans say someone is illegal without the presumption of innocence?
I would be surprised if they don't. I'm not sure I'd be quite as annoyed at someone pointing out that it's incorrect, and that presumption of innocence is important.
You'd be surprised if they don't? Ha... okay.
I'm not annoyed, I'm just confused.
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:08 pmSymmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Do you have any evidence or other background for your assertion that Americans say someone is illegal without the presumption of innocence?
I would be surprised if they don't. I'm not sure I'd be quite as annoyed at someone pointing out that it's incorrect, and that presumption of innocence is important.
You'd be surprised if they don't? Ha... okay.
I'm not annoyed, I'm just confused.
Edited.
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:09 pmthegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Do you have any evidence or other background for your assertion that Americans say someone is illegal without the presumption of innocence?
I would be surprised if they don't. I'm not sure I'd be quite as annoyed at someone pointing out that it's incorrect, and that presumption of innocence is important.
You'd be surprised if they don't? Ha... okay.
I'm not annoyed, I'm just confused.
Edited.
I'm even more confused. I'm going to report you for trolling.