From: Carbon on
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:51:59 -0400, BAR wrote:
> In article <4bec8c45$0$4893$9a6e19ea(a)>,
> nobrac(a) says...
>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 18:26:48 -0400, BAR wrote:
>> > In article <4beb2457$0$4865$9a6e19ea(a)>,
>> > nobrac(a) says...
>> >> On Wed, 12 May 2010 08:27:16 -0400, BAR wrote:
>> >> > In article <6hsju5ps13t3chal0m69rq4ad9lvt1h89u(a)>,
>> >> > bknight(a) says...
>> >> >
>> >> >> You're a cretin and a fool.
>> >> >
>> >> > At leat I am willing to do something about problems.
>> >>
>> >> If your solution is shooting people in the face, then perhaps
>> >> everyone would be better off if you weren't.
>> >
>> > You have to start the discussion somewhere. I chose to start it at an
>> > extreme.
>> Oh I see. You propose something so mindbendingly stupid that every
>> other solution looks brilliant.
> Way to go, avoid the issue altogether. Grant everyone amnesty.

Being the fool that you are, you completely failed to listen to what was
actually said. No one here backed amnesty.
From: Carbon on
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:48:39 -0400, BAR wrote:
> In article <4bec8a2d$0$4880$9a6e19ea(a)>,
> nobrac(a) says...
>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:20:27 -0400, R&B wrote:
>>> On 2010-05-11 12:25:04 -0400, MNMikeW said:
>>>> "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:2010051023553696677-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom...
>>>>> On 2010-05-10 13:25:58 -0400, MNMikeW said:
>>>>>> "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:2010050723254273798-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom...
>>>>>> For you to mindlessly assert that such things don't happen only
>>>>>>> shows your own ignorance -- or stubborn insistence on keeping
>>>>>>> your head stuck firmly in the sand (or elsewhere just as dark).
>>>>>> I never said they never happen. But for you to mindlessly assert
>>>>>> that this will be the norm only shows your ignorance.
>>>>> I never said it was the norm.
>>>>> You said, "Riiiiiiight," as if to suggest it hardly ever happens.
>>>>> It happens with surprising regularity. Somewhere.
>>>>> To assert otherwise is a lie.
>>>> But the way this law is being painted by the left you'd think this
>>>> law does exactly that. Allows for the police to profile at will.
>>>> This is not the case at all. In fact it was modified to make sure it
>>>> was more than clear.
>>> Describe for me what some who is "illegally here" looks like.
>> Anyone who looks Hispanic.
> Anyone who looks Canadian.

Poor Bert. Always the same little platitudes.
From: Don Kirkman on
On Fri, 14 May 2010 16:34:30 -0400, BAR <screw(a)> wrote:

>In article <u00ru51bi8a06ahhd0r0fujagq6if278pt(a)>, donsno2
> says...

>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:42:17 -0400, BAR <screw(a)> wrote:

>> >In article <va9pu51uhst8rar2kqthuicb8hbi7mjoef(a)>,
>> >howard(a) says...

>> >> On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:59:35 -0400, BAR <screw(a)> 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.

>> It's rare, but in fact there are times when, after considering all the
>> evidence against a defendant, the judge will pronounce him factually
>> innocent. Even Google knows about it. Close, but only a cigarillo.

>There are differences between pronouncements and findings.

Could you please elaborate?

Do you honestly believe there is a material difference between a
finding and a signed court order pronouncing a person factually
innocent? And do you think a judge would sign such a pronouncement if
he was not convinced it was true?
Don Kirkman
From: Jack Hollis on
On Thu, 13 May 2010 14:27:12 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
<johnb505(a)> wrote:

>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.

Actually it's been explained a few times already. Obviously you
haven't been paying attention.

>And why are children of drug addicts better off having their parents
>at home? Do you think junkies make good parents?

If drugs were legal, they would have a lot better chance of being good
From: BAR on
In article <6rkru5hhhvbnd1cn7sn3dmbqpajj5riu6t(a)>,
howard(a) says...
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 18:26:25 -0400, BAR <screw(a)> wrote:
> >> If I am stopped, and they ask to see my legal papers, I can claim to
> >> be a citizen - and I would be even telling the truth. I suspect
> >> others will lie. Either case, we won't show the papers.
> >
> >Lying to law enforcement is a crime. Therefore, if you are not a citizen
> >and you say you are a citizen you have committed another crime.
> There are occasions where a cop has reasonable evidence that a crime
> has occurred. This law shouldn't be needed for the cop to pick up a
> person with such evidence. And it is not an unreasonable
> requirement for anybody who has been picked up for a crime to provide
> identification information.
> Speaking broken English or having an ethnic appearance is not in
> itself reasonable evidence that one is not a citizen.

You are projecting. Projecting your biases onto others.