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: bknight on 26 May 2010 08:18 On Tue, 25 May 2010 23:26:07 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gdstrue(a)aol.com> wrote: <clip> >If Bert had a history of ridiculous assertions, then you would be >correct in calling him a troll. <clip> > >-Greg If? LOL. BK
From: John B. on 26 May 2010 09:09 On May 26, 4:30 am, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > In article > <5f055df8-8c12-4b3c-8fbc-d8a2b883e...(a)q13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 16, 3:19 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > In article > > > <18666b86-000c-4610-953c-6707d9b43...(a)l6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, > > > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 15, 10:06 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:48:45 -0700, dene wrote: > > > > > > "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > > > > > >news:4beeaff2$0$4870$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > > > > >> 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? > > > > > > > Good parenting requires sobriety. > > > > > > If the requirement is stone cold sobriety at all times then the vast > > > > > majority of Americans are bad parents. > > > > > That is not a requirement. But addiction to drugs or alcohol causes a > > > > person to be consumed with his/her need to be under the influence all > > > > the time. Addicts and alcoholics are irresponsible and self-absorbed. > > > > They spend money that their families need to live on. They have > > > > trouble holding jobs. A close friend of mine, now dead, was a terrible > > > > alcoholic. His wife estimated that he spent $12,000/year on liquor. > > > > I've seen families wrecked by alcoholism and drug addiction. And now > > > > Jack and Alan would have you believe that legalizing drugs would > > > > reduce these problems. > > > > So then from that incident you would argue that alcohol should be banned? > > > > -- > > > Alan Baker > > > Vancouver, British Columbia > > > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> > > > That's a stupid question, but the answer is no. > > Why not? > An even stupider question.
From: Carbon on 26 May 2010 18:56 On Tue, 25 May 2010 23:26:07 -0700, Dene wrote: > On May 25, 9:43 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 25 May 2010 18:40:47 -0700, Dene wrote: >>> On May 25, 2:17 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: >>>> In article <8624nqF3r...(a)mid.individual.net>, >>>> "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>> "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:860s8sFvc8U1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>>> >>>>>> I'd be happy to, if it wasn't for the fact that a troll is >>>>>> demanding it. >>>>> >>>>> For the little pissant that he is, he is awful demanding. >>>> >>>> I'm not in the slightest demanding, Mike. I'm *observing*. >>>> >>>> In this case, I observe that Greg was happy to argue until someone >>>> actually asked him to provide some support for his claims. >>> >>> I'm always happy to back up my opinion unless the question comes >>> from a pissant troll. >> >> Taking issue with something you said is not trolling. Arguing that we >> should gun down everyone we think may be crossing the border >> illegally, THAT'S trolling. > > Asking one nit picky question after another without asserting anything > yourself is trolling. He's not interested in an honest discussion. He > wants attention at the expense of whomever takes his bait. > > If Bert had a history of ridiculous assertions, then you would be > correct in calling him a troll. He doesn't whereas Baker's M.O. is > constant, in this forum and others. Greg, have you read Bert's posts?
From: dene on 27 May 2010 02:52 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4bfda708$0$15324$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Tue, 25 May 2010 23:26:07 -0700, Dene wrote: > > On May 25, 9:43 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 25 May 2010 18:40:47 -0700, Dene wrote: > >>> On May 25, 2:17 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > >>>> In article <8624nqF3r...(a)mid.individual.net>, > >>>> "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>>>> "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote in message > >>>>> news:860s8sFvc8U1(a)mid.individual.net... > >>>>> > >>>>>> I'd be happy to, if it wasn't for the fact that a troll is > >>>>>> demanding it. > >>>>> > >>>>> For the little pissant that he is, he is awful demanding. > >>>> > >>>> I'm not in the slightest demanding, Mike. I'm *observing*. > >>>> > >>>> In this case, I observe that Greg was happy to argue until someone > >>>> actually asked him to provide some support for his claims. > >>> > >>> I'm always happy to back up my opinion unless the question comes > >>> from a pissant troll. > >> > >> Taking issue with something you said is not trolling. Arguing that we > >> should gun down everyone we think may be crossing the border > >> illegally, THAT'S trolling. > > > > Asking one nit picky question after another without asserting anything > > yourself is trolling. He's not interested in an honest discussion. He > > wants attention at the expense of whomever takes his bait. > > > > If Bert had a history of ridiculous assertions, then you would be > > correct in calling him a troll. He doesn't whereas Baker's M.O. is > > constant, in this forum and others. > > Greg, have you read Bert's posts? Yeah....I read most of them. The only bizarre one that comes to mind was his "blast em at the border" idea. However, it's pretty tame when you consider Brown's posts. The rest of Bert's stands seem reasonable. Where am I wrong? -Greg
From: dene on 27 May 2010 02:55
"Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message news:alangbaker-C86487.01322226052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > In article > <9429f0c5-ab7b-4fb3-8e7e-5f9a6c00974d(a)11g2000prv.googlegroups.com>, > Dene <gdstrue(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On May 25, 7:17 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > In article > > > <8c46bbc7-aee3-4c59-b515-8ca0b3679...(a)11g2000prv.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dene <gdst...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On May 25, 2:35 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > > > In article > > > > > <302b0f2d-24dd-44de-a3f7-2622fe128...(a)o12g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 25, 4:51 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > > <f2f2b894-dae9-43f1-8b59-355f541d2...(a)o39g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 24, 9:24 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > In article <860kgdFr8...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > > > > > > > > > > "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > >news:alangbaker-D14129.17300624052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > > > > > > > > > In article <860fkdF48...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > > > > > > > > > "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > > >news:alangbaker-87D661.13473523052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > In article <85ghk7F3j...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > > > > >news:alangbaker-CE0843.14323318052010(a)news.shawcable.co > > > > > > > > > > > > > >m... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > > > > > > > > <f60067b2-63ec-4af0-8ab5-d48556475...(a)i31g2000vbt.googlegroups > > > > > > > > > > .com > > > > > > > > > > >, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 18, 1:22 am, Alan Baker > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <alangba...(a)telus.net> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <a420c80e-7878-42af-b5eb-74279c58b...(a)c7g2000vbc.googlegro > > > > > > > > > > > > ups. > > > > > > > > > > > > com> > > > > > > > > > > > > , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 17, 8:01 pm, Jack Hollis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <xslee...(a)aol.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 16 May 2010 18:19:02 -0700 (PDT), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > B." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I had a close friend who was a heroin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > addict > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> he > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> was > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > very > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> successful salesman for a heavy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > equipment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> manufacturer. > > > > > > > > > > > > =A0The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> made > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> tons of money and never had to worry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> scoring > > > > > > > > > > drugs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =A0During > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> day he'd take enough smack to keep from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>getting > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> sick > > > > > > > > > > and at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > night, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> if > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> he wanted, he would get wasted. =A0The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > next > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> morning, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> he > > > > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> better > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> shape than a lot of alcoholics are. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Did he have kids? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, but he was married. But there was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > him > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have made it impossible to be a good > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > parent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, this may surprise you, but most junkies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rich > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > successful. Most are poor and pathetic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Being junkies for something that costs what > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > black > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > market > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drugs > > > > > > > > > > > > cost > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > helps to make them that way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan Baker > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vancouver, British Columbia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF016 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2/we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > b.jp > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > g> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see. And lowering the price is going to turn > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > responsible, productive citizens, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It will certainly help some maintain themselves > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > while > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > still > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > > > able > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to hold down a job, buy food, shelter, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Name an employer who wants to hire a junkie. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Name an employer who wants to hire an alcoholic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Neither....obviously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So then you advocate making alcohol illegal do you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. I advocate not adding to an existing problem. > > > > > > > > > > Besides...alcohol > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > addicting to the majority of the public. Meth is. > > > > > > > > > > > > Really? And you know this, how? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Alan Baker > > > > > > > > > Vancouver, British Columbia > > > > > > > > > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> > > > > > > > > > > > What percentage of people who ever drink alcohol would you guess > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > alcoholics? And what percentage of those who ever use meth would > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > guess are addicts? > > > > > > > > > > I'd say a far higher percentage that there are alcoholics among > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > who drink alcohol. > > > > > > > > > I'd say you're dead wrong. Most people who drink are not alcoholics. > > > > > > Many, if not most, people who use meth, crack or heroin are addicts. > > > > > > > > I'm agreeing that there is a higher percentage of meth users who are > > > > > addicted than alcohol users who are alcoholics. > > > > > > > Didn't I assert that in an earlier post? It's no wonder you troll. > > > > You simply do not have the intellect to carry on a normal discussion. > > > > > > No. That is not what you asserted. > > > > > > What a pity you can't even comprehend what you've written yourself. > > > > > > -- > > > Alan Baker > > > Vancouver, British Columbia > > > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>- Hide quoted > > > text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > I know exactly what I said, troll. Of course there is a higher > > percentage of addiction, per capita, between meth users and those > > drink alcohol. Meth is far more addictive, which is why it's so > > dangerous. Only an idiot and a troll would demand I cite the obvious. > > No. You cannot draw that conclusion from your stated "facts". > > Meth is illegal to a degree that people who aren't addicted to it avoid > using it at all for the reason of its illegality. Hence, there is a skew > of the statistics towards those who *are* addicted. So....if Meth were legal, then the percentage of addicts would be the same, per capita, as alcoholics? -Greg |