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: Alan Baker on 15 May 2010 05:56 In article <856nk2Fj9oU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > news:4bedd5c5$0$4868$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:43:07 -0400, BAR 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. > > > > What game would that be? Defending your bullshit? > > You know the game Baker plays, Carbs. > > -Greg What game is that: the game where you should actually have some evidence to support what you claim? LOL -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: William Clark on 15 May 2010 09:24 In article <4bedd54e$0$4868$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2010 16:31:10 -0400, BAR wrote: > > In article <clark-18AE4C.11152114052010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > > state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > >> 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: > >>>> > >>>>> 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. > > > > The "wise" ramblings of a liberal mind. > > Don't you ever get tired of playing the fool? Oh, but he does it so well.
From: John B. on 15 May 2010 09:49 On May 15, 5:36 am, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > In article > <f4dde301-6779-4317-ae04-21581e56e...(a)o15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 14, 7:45 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, 13 May 2010 14:27:12 -0700 (PDT), "John B." > > > > <johnb...(a)gmail.com> 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. > > > I've been paying very close attention, and you have not explained it. > > > > >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 > > > parents. > > > A junkie is a better parent if heroin is legal than if it's illegal? > > Yup. > > > You can't be serious. Did the end of Prohibition make alcoholics > > better parents? > > Would banning nicotine make nicotine addicts better or worse parents? > It is truly idiotic to think that the legality of an addictive substance has some bearing on its effects, or to compare cigarettes to heroin.
From: John B. on 15 May 2010 09:50 On May 15, 5:56 am, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > In article <856nk2Fj9...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > > "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > >news:4bedd5c5$0$4868$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > > On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:43:07 -0400, BAR wrote: > > > > In article <alangbaker-201299.01450114052...(a)news.shawcable.com>, > > > > alangba...(a)telus.net says... > > > >> In article <MPG.26564053374fa0c7989...(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR > > > >> <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > >>> In article <sfjmu5h5ebhlmmtja8mpno8a503sr37...(a)4ax.com>, > > > >>> how...(a)brazee.net says... > > > >>>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 16:33:27 -0700, Loudon Briggs <lar...(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. > > > > What game would that be? Defending your bullshit? > > > You know the game Baker plays, Carbs. > > > -Greg > > What game is that: the game where you should actually have some evidence > to support what you claim? > > LOL You mean like the evidence you presented to support your claim that legalizing heroin would make junkies better parents?
From: Carbon on 15 May 2010 10:30
On Sat, 15 May 2010 06:50:48 -0700, John B. wrote: > On May 15, 5:56 am, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > >> What game is that: the game where you should actually have some >> evidence to support what you claim? >> >> LOL > > You mean like the evidence you presented to support your claim that > legalizing heroin would make junkies better parents? I admit I know next to nothing about narcotics. But I would not be surprised if there wasn't some reasonably functional range between total withdrawal and being completely blasted. Say the parent is in a program where they get enough heroin to keep them thinking straight, but not enough to get wasted. The US is too Puritanical a place to be so rational about drug addiction, but it's conceivable at least. Isn't it? |