More Americans killed by illegal aliens than Iraq war, s

[ggw]

â?¢ In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.

[Sage 703]

The unspeakable human costs aside...
 
 Could we also factor in the number of people who died from lack of health care coverage?  How about those that died in urban centers that aren't getting government renewal funds?  How about those that will die because they are receiving a substandard education and will resort to violence to sustain themselves in the future?  How about seniors who die because they can't afford prescription drugs?  Or how about those who may die in future terrorist attacks because we've failed to secure our ports and enact effective security measures at airports?  Shouldn't your point also address that the money spent in Iraq could have been spent securing borders to ensure that fewer illegal aliens pass into this country?
 
 ...or any of the other possible scenarios where the billions upon billions of dollars spent in Iraq could have been better spent in the United States...
 
 To simplify this argument down to a simple comparison between "killed by illegal aliens" and "killed by the Iraq war" is reductionist and stupid.  It doesn't prove or really say anything, and simply serves to incite arguments.
 
 Try THINKING about the issues - and their complexities - before taking a stance.

[lagas]

I think this thread talks more about the stupidity of war than the ethnicity of assassinations...
 
 but then again, I guess that I really dont know...

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

I guess the bottom line is that we should draft illegal aliens and send them to fight the war in Iraq, since they are so succcessful at killing?

[allmy$to930]

Dupek: You haven't posted this yet. It seems to be right up your alley (flawed statistics, political agendas, and pathetic organizations).
 
 Let's move to Iraq!
 
 http://www.gunowners.org/op0622.htm

Originally posted by callat703:
  The unspeakable human costs aside...
 
 Could we also factor in the number of people who died from lack of health care coverage?  How about those that died in urban centers that aren't getting government renewal funds?  How about those that will die because they are receiving a substandard education and will resort to violence to sustain themselves in the future?  How about seniors who die because they can't afford prescription drugs?  Or how about those who may die in future terrorist attacks because we've failed to secure our ports and enact effective security measures at airports?  Shouldn't your point also address that the money spent in Iraq could have been spent securing borders to ensure that fewer illegal aliens pass into this country?
 
 ...or any of the other possible scenarios where the billions upon billions of dollars spent in Iraq could have been better spent in the United States...
 
 To simplify this argument down to a simple comparison between "killed by illegal aliens" and "killed by the Iraq war" is reductionist and stupid.  It doesn't prove or really say anything, and simply serves to incite arguments.
 
 Try THINKING about the issues - and their complexities - before taking a stance.

Argumentum ad Logicam. Argumentum ad Hominem.  Go start your own topic.

[Frank Gallagher]

What month is illegal alien history month, and what channel is IAET? (and don't say sci-fi coz I already thought of it)

Originally posted by allmy$to930:
  Dupek: You haven't posted this yet. It seems to be right up your alley (flawed statistics, political agendas, and pathetic organizations).
 
 Let's move to Iraq!
 
      http://www.gunowners.org/op0622.htm    

Changing the subject because one's Kung-Fu is weak, are we?
 
 Bede says it best:
 look, if your sole purpose for disparaging the report is because you think the organization putting out the source is wrong, no matter what the report says, that's ad hominen (attacking the source as being untrustworthy, instead of attacking the report). a much more constructive criticism of the report would be to read it, provide "facts" and "numbers" of your own to dispute it.
 
 just because you disagree with the source does not mean they are "wrong," and because you agree with another source does not means they're "right."
 
     <img src="http://marknicodemo.mu.nu/archives/duh_Garfield.jpg" alt=" - " />

[alex]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  â?¢ In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.

Which is out of how many hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens in Los Angeles?  Of course there is going to be a high number, considering they are either undocumented or have documentation that is out of date, making them harder to find.
 
 How about we talk about why and how illegal aliens continue to come through our borders, rather than post baiting statistics that tend to have racial undertones, whether done purposely or not.
 
 Oh wait, that would be "Argumentum ad Logicam," correct?

[allmy$to930]

Depek replied: Changing the subject because one's Kung-Fu is weak, are we?
 
 Bede says it best:
 look, if your sole purpose for disparaging the report is because you think the organization putting out the source is wrong, no matter what the report says, that's ad hominen (attacking the source as being untrustworthy, instead of attacking the report). a much more constructive criticism of the report would be to read it, provide "facts" and "numbers" of your own to dispute it.
 
 just because you disagree with the source does not mean they are "wrong," and because you agree with another source does not means they're "right."
 

I am not just dismissing it because of the group that published it.  Actually, if you read my post, you will see that I claim you have the "trifecta" of flawed statistics, political agendas, and patethic organizations.  I posted the link, not to display my kung fu skills, but because it has so many parallels to your original "study" that it fits right in this thread.
 
 Would you deny that that the two studies are similar in their conclusions, methods, and/or agendas?
 
 If something looks like shit, and smells like shit...chances are it is shit. The study you posted is most definately shit.
 
 Finally, can you please retire the phrases "chicken little", "ad hominem", and "the boy who cried wolf"?  They are not clever or adding to your posts.

[sweetcell]

Originally posted by allmy$to930:
 

Finally, can you please retire the phrases "chicken little", "ad hominem", and "the boy who cried wolf"?  They are not clever or adding to your posts. [/b]

since when has cleverness or quality of contribution been deciding factors in what this dude posts?  besides, using latin automatically makes your argument stronger.  just ask lawyers.

[sonickteam2]

chicken little is latin?

[sweetcell]

no, but "the boy who cried wolf" is.
 
 just occurred to me: mr. "ad hominem" himself recently dismissed a person's point because it contained typos.  talk about addressing the substance!  argumentum ad idiotum.

[sonickteam2]

rectum?
 
 damn near killed em!!!