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: BAR on 16 May 2010 20:45 In article <2010051617062190893-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom>, none_of_your_business(a)all.com says... > > On 2010-05-13 19:33:43 -0400, BAR said: > > > In article <2010051318202741171-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom>, > > none_of_your_business(a)all.com says... > >> > >>> 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. > > > > Look in the mirror. > > > So now you're wanting to declare people who were born in Kansas City as > "illegals?" > > Methinks you've fallen off the edge, Bert. > > Not that this is news. Me thinks you don't understand my response. But, that is normal for you because it doesn't fit your wanted answer.
From: John B. on 16 May 2010 21:19 On May 16, 7:57 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Sun, 16 May 2010 07:17:58 -0700 (PDT), "John B." > > <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Who says they're able to function? What do you know about drug > >addiction? Have you ever known a drug addict? Tobacco is not a mind- > >altering substance, so your comparison is not valid. > > I knew plenty of junkies and under the right conditions, they can > function quite well. Rush Limbaugh was addicted to opiates for years > and no one knew about it. Of course, he had enough money to buy as > much Oxy as he needed. > > I had a close friend who was a heroin addict and he was a very > successful salesman for a heavy equipment manufacturer. The guy made > tons of money and never had to worry about scoring drugs. During the > day he'd take enough smack to keep from getting sick and at night, if > he wanted, he would get wasted. The next morning, he was in better > shape than a lot of alcoholics are. Did he have kids?
From: John B. on 16 May 2010 21:26 On May 16, 8:13 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Sun, 16 May 2010 11:55:53 -0700 (PDT), "John B." > > > > <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On May 16, 10:31=A0am, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 16 May 2010 02:01:22 -0700 (PDT), alan <alangba...(a)telus.net> > >> wrote: > > >> >Heroin addicts today are in pretty much that precise fix (if you'll > >> >pardon the pun): they have to pay exorbitant prices to feed their > >> >addiction and it impacts their ability to discharge the duties of a > >> >normal life. A heroin addict who is receiving treatment with methadone > >> >is able to function, so =A0why would they not be able to function if > >> >they were being treated by smaller doses of heroin instead? > > >> They use methadone because it gets around the laws against heroin. > >> Methadone has some advantages because you only need one oral dose a > >> day rather that 4 or 5 if you shoot smack. =A0Most addicts will tell you > >> that they prefer smack to methadone. =A0 > > >> Again, most of the negative aspects of heroin are because it's > >> illegal. =A0A heroin addict with a reliable affordable supply of drugs > >> can lead a fairly normal life. > > >I have known and been around heroin addicts. They do NOT lead normal > >lives. > > Of course not. However, if heroin was legal they could. Is that right? Is giving birth to a heroin-addicted baby part of a normal life? Is neglecting your responsibilities because you're fucked up part of a normal life? Is getting into a car wreck because you're fucked up part of a normal life? Legal heroin has exactly the same effect on people as illegal heroin.
From: John B. on 16 May 2010 21:29 On May 16, 8:16 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Sun, 16 May 2010 13:26:36 -0700 (PDT), "John B." > > > > <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> No. Because the cost of getting heroin is so high they cannot lead > >> normal lives. > > >> -- > >> Alan Baker > >> Vancouver, British Columbia > >> <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> > > >It is clear that you know absolutely nothing about drug addiction. > >Addicts don't behave the way they do simply because illegal drugs are > >expensive. It's the addiction itself that keeps them from being > >responsible, productive members of society. I've seen this myself. You > >obviously haven't. As I said before, anybody who thinks a junkie is > >going to become a good parent if only we would legalize heroin is > >utterly ignorant of the effects of drug addiction. > > You really don't know what you're talking about. I know exactly what I'm talking about.
From: Carbon on 16 May 2010 23:20
On Sun, 16 May 2010 20:45:49 -0400, BAR wrote: > In article <2010051617062190893-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom>, > none_of_your_business(a)all.com says... >> On 2010-05-13 19:33:43 -0400, BAR said: >>> In article <2010051318202741171-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom>, >>> none_of_your_business(a)all.com says... >>>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> Look in the mirror. >> >> So now you're wanting to declare people who were born in Kansas City >> as "illegals?" >> >> Methinks you've fallen off the edge, Bert. >> >> Not that this is news. > > Me thinks you don't understand my response. But, that is normal for > you because it doesn't fit your wanted answer. Are you sure it wasn't because your answer made no sense? |