Illegal alien rights in the U.S.
in [Golf]
|
From: BAR on 14 May 2010 17:28 In article <alangbaker-6A8B16.13053914052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > In article <hsk9t2$4e2$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, > "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > > > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > news:alangbaker-33AC4A.12402514052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > In article <2DhHn.5812$0M5.1687(a)newsfe07.iad>, > > > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > > > > > >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > >> news:alangbaker-BD19D6.12181214052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > >> > > > >> > Fact: parents exercise their children's rights and those children only > > >> > get to make their own choices in certain areas as the reach certain > > >> > ages. > > >> > > >> Quite possibly the most idiotic comparison I have ever seen. > > > > > > Why? > > > > > > You started by comparing to ways in which a fetus dies. How is mine > > > different? > > > > > > Try and say something that actually addresses the point. > > > > If a parent gives consent to kill their child... > > As I said: rights held in trust are given to the child at different > times. > > The right to life is given over at birth. Why? Why birth? What is the difference between conception, 24 weeks gestation and birth or 3 months post birth. The child still can't do anything for itself.
From: BAR on 14 May 2010 17:41 In article <alangbaker-DED8E0.11440714052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > In article <855cqaFelhU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > news:alangbaker-656F4A.00591414052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > In article <MPG.265643159bd6602a989efa(a)news.giganews.com>, > > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > > > In article <l9rnu5dugg77jus2l08hs6ms20udi7bo9h(a)4ax.com>, > > > > bknight(a)conramp.net says... > > > > > > > > > > This should clear up one misconception here. > > > > > > > > > > The fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution says: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property > > > > > ...without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its > > > > > jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. > > > > > > > > > > ...The Supreme Court has ruled that these provisions apply to all > > > > > ...persons in the U.S., without regard to race, or nationality. > > > > > ...Therefore, U.S. residents -- legal and illegal -- have > > > > > ...constitutional rights such as equal protection of the law and the > > > > > ...right to due process. > > > > > > > > There are exceptions. > > > > > > Such as? > > > > The personnel of an invading army. > > > > -Greg > > How so? > > While they are invading, defending oneself is allowed. Once they are > captured, they are afforded due process of law. They are prisoners of war and are treated under the Geneva Conventions.
From: Alan Baker on 14 May 2010 18:00 In article <MPG.26578a804076d8db989f15(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <alangbaker-6A8B16.13053914052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > > > In article <hsk9t2$4e2$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, > > "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > > > > > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > news:alangbaker-33AC4A.12402514052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > > In article <2DhHn.5812$0M5.1687(a)newsfe07.iad>, > > > > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > > > > > > > >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > >> news:alangbaker-BD19D6.12181214052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > >> > > > > >> > Fact: parents exercise their children's rights and those children > > > >> > only > > > >> > get to make their own choices in certain areas as the reach certain > > > >> > ages. > > > >> > > > >> Quite possibly the most idiotic comparison I have ever seen. > > > > > > > > Why? > > > > > > > > You started by comparing to ways in which a fetus dies. How is mine > > > > different? > > > > > > > > Try and say something that actually addresses the point. > > > > > > If a parent gives consent to kill their child... > > > > As I said: rights held in trust are given to the child at different > > times. > > > > The right to life is given over at birth. > > Why? Why birth? What is the difference between conception, 24 weeks > gestation and birth or 3 months post birth. The child still can't do > anything for itself. Why 18 for full rights as an adult? -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Alan Baker on 14 May 2010 18:00 In article <MPG.26578a3a85a35773989f14(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <alangbaker-A71DED.13063314052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > > > In article <a0iHn.5394$rE4.2372(a)newsfe15.iad>, > > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > > > > > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote in message > > > news:855od9FlraU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > > > > > > "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote in message > > > > news:hsk9t2$4e2$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > > > >> > > > >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > >> news:alangbaker-33AC4A.12402514052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > >> > In article <2DhHn.5812$0M5.1687(a)newsfe07.iad>, > > > >> > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > >> >> news:alangbaker-BD19D6.12181214052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > Fact: parents exercise their children's rights and those children > > > > only > > > >> >> > get to make their own choices in certain areas as the reach > > > >> >> > certain > > > >> >> > ages. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Quite possibly the most idiotic comparison I have ever seen. > > > >> > > > > >> > Why? > > > >> > > > > >> > You started by comparing to ways in which a fetus dies. How is mine > > > >> > different? > > > >> > > > > >> > Try and say something that actually addresses the point. > > > >> > > > >> If a parent gives consent to kill their child... > > > > > > > > Exactly. Baker's isn't presenting a serious argument. He's just > > > > trolling. > > > > > > Sadly, I don't think so. I think he is really that much of a cement > > > head. > > > That's why I'm not wasting anymore time with him on this. > > > > So explain why sending a child to his or her room is not reason for a > > charge of forcible confinement... > > Is the resentment from your childhood coming through? Spend a little too > much time locked in your room? LOL -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Alan Baker on 14 May 2010 18:03
In article <MPG.2657871a8175bc1b989f11(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <alangbaker-9AB73F.11414914052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > > > > > What rights are not codified in the US constitution as the US > > > constitution exists today? > > > > The document is very clear that there are rights in doesn't enumerate. > > > > You don't seriously disagree with this, do you? > > > > > > > > If you kill a pregnant mother you can be charged with two murders. > > > However, if you kill an unborn child, via abortion, you cannot be > > > charged with murder. What is the difference? The unborn child is dead > > > either way. > > > > Parents hold their offsprings rights in trust. A parent can decide that > > they will move self and child across the country and if the child > > doesn't like it, confine the child to his or her room. > > > > But if a third party does that, it's called kidnapping. > > > > What's the difference in that case? > > Are you of the opinion that the US constitution is a living document? I'm of the opinion that it explicitly states that the rights it lists are not the only rights that exist. > > I am of the opinion that if you want to change the US constitution you > do it through the process it defines and get an amendment passed. It's not a change. > > The problem is that rights come from the creator and the creator did not > and will not give you the "right" to steal your neighbors property to > fund your desires. A document that is one of the base documents of our > laws specifically proscribes stealing. What an odd thing for you to say? How does that advance your argument in this case? Fact: parents are charge with exercising various rights on behalf of their offspring. Fact: it is a different times that those offspring are given those rights to exercise for themselves. The right to life is just the first that the child is given to exercise for itself. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> |