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: Don Kirkman on 30 May 2010 02:02 On 30 May 2010 03:37:29 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >On Sat, 29 May 2010 13:06:20 -0700, Don Kirkman wrote: >> On Sat, 29 May 2010 06:13:21 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> >> wrote: >>> And on all sides we will find examples of people who adjust their >>> ethics to fit their wants. I see as much of this on the Right as I >>> do in the Left. >> Also true. But don't equate that with situational ethics, which holds >> that there is an flexible but reasoned ethical approach to social >> problems. SE is not adjusting to fit one's wants but adjusting to fit >> the needs of the situation. IOW, it's a flexible approach, not a >> legalistic approach. Earlier, I think it was you who mentioned "What >> would Jesus do"; part of the authorities' opposition to Jesus was that >> he rejected their legalism and taught reasoned behavior based on the >> *principles* of their religion. >Most of those who sneer at situational ethics have no idea what it >means. But I wasn't sneering. :-) I actually hoped to do a bit of educating. -- Don Kirkman donsno2(a)charter.net
From: BAR on 30 May 2010 06:34 In article <4c01dc8b$0$12469$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:49:14 -0400, BAR wrote: > > In article <4c01268a$0$4969$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >> On Sat, 29 May 2010 09:34:24 -0400, BAR wrote: > >>> In article <4c010d8b$0$5032$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > >>> nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >>>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 07:20:04 -0400, BAR wrote: > >>>>> In article <4c005d51$0$4835$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > >>>>> nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >>>>>> On Fri, 28 May 2010 19:28:05 -0400, BAR wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> How is your visa? Has it expired? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I win yet again. > >>>>> > >>>>> So your visa is up to date? Don't you have a green card yet? > >>>> > >>>> Poor Bert, reduced to blurting out the same ridiculous platitudes > >>>> over and over. Seems like there are some pretty serious side > >>>> effects to having a walnut-sized brain. But hey, at least you > >>>> remember to breathe so it's not all bad. > >>> > >>> Is your visa up to date? Has it expired? Or, are you a green card > >>> holder. There is no shame in answering the question. But, it does > >>> put your position on the issue into the proper light. > >>> > >>> I will assume that you are here on a visa and that you have > >>> overstayed your visa. Your leanings on the issue are similar to > >>> those of illegal aliens. > >> > >> Your leanings on the issue are similar to those of idiots. > > > > You views are biased due to the fact that you are on the verge of > > being an illegal alien yourself. > > As a differently abled person, I guess you must not realize how retarded > your posts are. When do I get the handicapped license plate. That will get me a good parking place at the golf course and I will get a clip on flag that will allow me to drive my golf cart anywhere except on the tee box or the surface of the green or in the bunkers.
From: BAR on 30 May 2010 06:36 In article <4c01de56$0$15837$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:48:04 -0400, BAR wrote: > > In article <4c012614$0$4969$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >> On Sat, 29 May 2010 09:32:24 -0400, BAR wrote: > >>> In article <4c010e27$0$5032$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > >>> nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >>>> > >>>> You don't realize that the problem is complex because you are > >>>> incapable of complex thought. Hope this helps. > >>> > >>> In Prince William County Virginia they started to crack down on > >>> illegal aliens. All of the illegal aliens moved out of the county > >>> and the crime rate dropped nearly 40%. Forty percent, that is an > >>> amazing amount of crime attributed to illegal aliens. I just wish my > >>> county had the balls to implement the same thing but, we are a > >>> sanctuary county and you can see the writing on the wall. Gangs are > >>> moving in, the school system's once stellar record, either 1 or 2 in > >>> the nation, is in free-fall. Our jail demographics are 50% illegal > >>> alien and 50% non-illegal alien. > >>> > >>> Again, the problem is one of political will and not complexity. > >> > >> You probably imagine you've established some sort of causal > >> connection between the crime rate and illegal immigration in these > >> two counties. Please refer to my previous comment, above. > > > > Enforce the law and the crime rate goes down. Don't enforce the law > > and the crime rate stays the same or goes up. > > Except for those times when enforcing the law causes the crime rate to > go up. For example, Prohibition. Of course, since you are without > complexity you see the world in the same light... Prohibition was misguided. Prostitution is a complex question. Someplace's it is legal and some places it isn't legal.
From: Jack Hollis on 30 May 2010 09:00 On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:29:29 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: >My position is that I don't know all the answers, but killing people out >of hand is just plain wrong. As an ex law enforcement officer may I interject that the US Constitution has ruled on the issue of use of deadly force. "Federal constitutional standards permit law enforcement officers to use deadly force to apprehend criminal suspects when there is "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm...to the officer or to others..." and if deadly force "is necessary" to effect the apprehension. This formulation of the constitutional rule by the Supreme Court suggests two factors - dangerousness and necessity - as relevant to the question whether deadly force is constitutionally permissible. With respect to "dangerousness," the Court has suggested that "...if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm...," the officer reasonably could conclude that the suspect is dangerous." I don't think that just being an illegal alien meets any of those requirements.
From: Jack Hollis on 30 May 2010 09:05
On Fri, 28 May 2010 19:33:25 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >I find it highly interesting that your friends form south of the US >border will jail illegal aliens for two years for their first offense >and jail them for ten years for their second offense. Do you support >this? Do you support this? Do you believe that the US should adopt this? I'd deport them for the first offense. It costs too much money to detain someone. Prison time would be appropriate for a second offense. Next I would make it impossible for any illegal alien to ever become a citizen and children born to illegal's in the US are not citizens. Of course, the people who really belong in prison are the people who hire illegal's as workers. |