🚀 go-pugleaf

In message <3d19f903_2@newsa.ev1.net>, "Marcus Taliaferro" wrote:
> Michael, Michael, Michael,
> 
> I don't like seeing any body die. Well that's not true, but that is for
> discussion in alt.deathrow_inmates. Any way, what difference does it make if
> someone dies because its "illegal" or "in spite of". Seven died and 31
> injured. Americans are still dying. Three American families lost relatives
> due to the "illegal" activity. But I guess that's OK since they were not
> part of your liberal family. The coyotes are still in business. Illegal
> means illegal, against the law, not to be done. If you want the borders
> open, then change the laws. Until then, every illegal should be deported.
> The borders are currently closed and the government should be enforcing the
> laws we currently have on the books. I want nothing more, but nothing less.
> Laws were made for a reason, not to be kept only when it suits your purpose.
> Laws protect us, that is why we have them. Without law we have anarchy. But
> the liberals think the laws were made for some one else. To be obeyed only
> on occasion. If you don't like closed borders, go to the polls in Nov and do
> what the rest of us do and VOTE. I think you will see some changes come Nov
> 2002. I can't wait until Nov 2004. Bush is going to lose worse than Nixon
> whupped up on Goldwater in '68. BTW I'm not the one whining here. NEXT
> M
> 

Some laws are intended to protect us, but many laws are not.  Even laws that
are intended to protect us don't always achieve their goals;  sometimes they
create worse problems.  In some ways, you're as bad as the "liberals" you
complain about: "The law is the law, never mind the consequences." 
  I can't think like that--bad laws create bad consequences, and should not be
tolerated just because they're "laws", *especially* if people are dying because
of them.
Vote?  Oh yes, I vote, but you're seriously deluded if you think one person's
vote is terribly significant, especially if one's views are contrary to the
mainstream.  Democracy is a poor way to make big and important decisions, and
is hardly synonymous with freedom.
  If anything changes in the next major election cycle or two, it will be a
swing back towards the liberal view that you seem to despise.  The Republican
Party knows that they can't run anybody too conservative for president, or he
will get clobbered by any halfway decent Democratic candidate.  Therefore, I
can't imagine who you think is going to win in 2004.
  By the way, Nixon didn't run against Goldwater, both of whom were
Republicans.  Goldwater lost to Democrat Lyndon Johnson in '64, and then Nixon
beat Johnson in '68.