Liberal solution to illegal immigration
in [Golf]
|
Prev: March of the Titans (brief video re: White Race, 1 min, 30sec)
Next: What the heck is Tiger doing?
From: John B. on 14 May 2010 10:20 On May 14, 4:44 am, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > In article > <59ace2a0-ef4d-4b2a-8514-301868861...(a)a34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 12, 8:06 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 10 May 2010 17:54:31 -0700 (PDT), "John B." > > > > <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >On May 10, 8:20=A0pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 10 May 2010 09:25:59 -0700 (PDT), "John B." > > > > >> <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >If narcotics are made legal and easy to buy, will drug addiction - and > > > >> >the many problems it imposes on society - go up or down? > > > > >> The many problems imposed on society by drugs being illegal will go > > > >> down. > > > > >Those problems include violent crime, disease, poverty, prostitution, > > > >child abuse and neglect, homelessness. Why would legalizing drugs > > > >cause them to diminish? > > > > I have no doubt that legalizing drugs would reduce violent crime > > > significantly. It would reduce those diseases associated with people > > > sharing needles like HIV and hepatitis. It would probably reduce > > > homelessness a bit. Prostitution would stay about the same but women > > > would no longer have to sell themselves to pay for their drug habits. > > > Children of addicts would also benefit because their parent's would no > > > longer be in jail and have to steal to buy drugs. > > > What people fail to understand is that most of the negative things > > > associated with drug abuse are the result of drugs being illegal, not > > > the drugs themselves. > > > You have yet to explain how or why legalizing drugs would have any of > > these effects. Legal or illegal, people still have to pay for them. > > Because a black market charges far more for drugs than they actually > cost to provide. > > -- > Alan Baker > Vancouver, British Columbia > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> So does any market. It's called making a profit.
From: William Clark on 14 May 2010 11:15 In article <MPG.26571432bedc66d3989f0d(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <clark-A9BFC7.07535414052010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > > > In article <MPG.26570128e6ab5426989f03(a)news.giganews.com>, > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <va9pu51uhst8rar2kqthuicb8hbi7mjoef(a)4ax.com>, > > > howard(a)brazee.net says... > > > > > > > > On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:59:35 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> >If the person is charged with illegal entry only, they are NOT sent > > > > >> >to > > > > >> >trial... they are turned over to U.S. Customs and get a "hearing," > > > > >> >which is totally different from a trial. The normal result is > > > > >> >deportation. > > > > >> > > > > >> What if the person is innocent? > > > > > > > > > >Any non-citizen of the US who is here legally is required to have > > > > >proof > > > > >of their authority to be in the US on their person at all times. This > > > > >is > > > > >a federal law and a condition of their entry into the US. > > > > > > > > > >Therefore, there can be no innocence. > > > > > > > > Citizens can be charged with illegal entry. > > > > > > Any one can be charged with any thing. Courts do not have a finding of > > > innocence, it is either guilty or not guilty. > > > > They have a presumption of innocence, unless guilt can be proved. > > Innocent is, therefore, the status quo. > > > A presumption of innocence is not a finding of innocence. Yes it is, until a finding of guilty is arrived at.
From: dene on 14 May 2010 12:47 "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-593FF9.07524114052010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <MPG.2657015a88d3397989f04(a)news.giganews.com>, > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > In article <alangbaker-201299.01450114052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > > alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > > > > > In article <MPG.26564053374fa0c7989ef4(a)news.giganews.com>, > > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > > > In article <sfjmu5h5ebhlmmtja8mpno8a503sr375gt(a)4ax.com>, > > > > howard(a)brazee.net says... > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 12 May 2010 16:33:27 -0700, Loudon Briggs <larebe(a)bbz.net> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >If the person is charged with illegal entry only, they are NOT sent to > > > > > >trial... they are turned over to U.S. Customs and get a "hearing," > > > > > >which is totally different from a trial. The normal result is > > > > > >deportation. > > > > > > > > > > What if the person is innocent? > > > > > > > > Any non-citizen of the US who is here legally is required to have proof > > > > of their authority to be in the US on their person at all times. This is > > > > a federal law and a condition of their entry into the US. > > > > > > > > Therefore, there can be no innocence. > > > > > > Cite the actual law... > > > > Sorry, Canada Boy, I'm not interested in playing your game. > > Game, set, and match to Alan. Only you would declare a troll to be victorious. -Greg
From: William Clark on 14 May 2010 13:47 In article <855cu5Ffe6U1(a)mid.individual.net>, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > news:clark-593FF9.07524114052010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <MPG.2657015a88d3397989f04(a)news.giganews.com>, > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <alangbaker-201299.01450114052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > > > alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > > > > > > > In article <MPG.26564053374fa0c7989ef4(a)news.giganews.com>, > > > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > In article <sfjmu5h5ebhlmmtja8mpno8a503sr375gt(a)4ax.com>, > > > > > howard(a)brazee.net says... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 12 May 2010 16:33:27 -0700, Loudon Briggs <larebe(a)bbz.net> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >If the person is charged with illegal entry only, they are NOT > sent to > > > > > > >trial... they are turned over to U.S. Customs and get a > "hearing," > > > > > > >which is totally different from a trial. The normal result is > > > > > > >deportation. > > > > > > > > > > > > What if the person is innocent? > > > > > > > > > > Any non-citizen of the US who is here legally is required to have > proof > > > > > of their authority to be in the US on their person at all times. > This is > > > > > a federal law and a condition of their entry into the US. > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, there can be no innocence. > > > > > > > > Cite the actual law... > > > > > > Sorry, Canada Boy, I'm not interested in playing your game. > > > > Game, set, and match to Alan. > > Only you would declare a troll to be victorious. > > -Greg Only you would deny the undeniable.
From: Alan Baker on 14 May 2010 14:35
In article <MPG.2657021d228081d4989f05(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <alangbaker-FCCA0B.01273814052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > > > In article <MPG.2656547f6fa23213989efe(a)news.giganews.com>, > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <aa7f0e4a-180d-4494-bc15-6430927db7d3 > > > @h9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > > On May 13, 6:01�pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <08aa20a5-5d71-4a75-b127-d34cdbb5e645 > > > > > @a34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 5:55�pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 12 May 2010 10:24:29 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: > > > > > > > > "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > >news:4be9f0e7$0$19807$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > >> There is NO WAY that all these undocumented workers are doing > > > > > > > >> enough > > > > > > > >> damage to the country to justify the cost of hunting them down > > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > > >> getting rid of them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tell that to Arizona. > > > > > > > > > > > > They're certainly going to spend a lot of money with their new > > > > > > > pogrom. > > > > > > > > > > > They sure are. What are they going to do with the people they > > > > > > arrest > > > > > > under the new law? Drive them to the ICE Field Office in Phoenix > > > > > > and > > > > > > dump them there? Arizona is a huge state. Or will they call the ICE > > > > > > office and demand that they come and get them, then hold them for a > > > > > > week or more until someone from ICE can take an entire day out of > > > > > > his > > > > > > schedule to go pick them up? The AZ law doesn't give local > > > > > > jurisdictions authority to deport illegal aliens - only to arrest > > > > > > them. > > > > > > > > > > The law is having its intended effect. > > > > > > > > How do you know? They just passed the goddamn thing. > > > > > > Can't think past your rage. > > > > Can't articulate your evidence for claim? > > Your brain surgeons can't see that the issues is now front and center in > the US and it is being talked about and hopefully the federal government > will actually perform its duty and protect the citizens of the US from > these foreign invaders that are causing harm to the US. > > Sometimes you need a cattle prod to get the fat lazy cow, federal > government, moving in the direction that the citizens of the US want it > to go. So the intended effect of an outrageous law is to get people talking about the problem? That's your claim? LOL -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> |