From: kenpitts on
On May 6, 9:02 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 06 May 2010 15:55:59 -0700, dene wrote:
> > "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:4be3419f$0$4888$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> >> On Thu, 06 May 2010 10:26:03 -0700, dene wrote:
> >>> "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:alangbaker-BBDD34.09552206052010(a)news.shawcable.com...
>
> >>>>> They can't hold jobs. They go on welfare. They get sick and
> >>>>> require medical care they can't pay for. They have children that
> >>>>> they can't properly care for and those children grow up to be
> >>>>> screw-ups who impose further costs on society.
>
> >>>> They're doing all that *now*.
>
> >>> And the problem would worsen if it were legal.  Duh!
>
> >> You're sure of this?
>
> > I'm sure about human nature.  Laws and consequences do much to temper
> > our behavior.
>
> The Netherlands has an extremely liberal policy wrt drugs and all the
> evidence I've seen suggests that the per capita social/financial costs
> are much lower.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And Amsterdam is an absolute cesspool because of their lax attitudes.

Ken
From: bknight on
On Thu, 6 May 2010 19:50:56 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com>
wrote:

>
><bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:lst6u558516t6krh1hi33sm5lfuu5pfcto(a)4ax.com...
>
>
>> >If you do, what's the distinction between shoot on sight and Bert's
>> >scenario?
>> >
>> >-Greg
>> >
>> You must be kidding.
>>
>> First, I'm not sure that shoot-to-kill orders are given in either of
>> your cases. If so it would be to prevent that person from doing
>> bodily harm.
>>
>> You would actually consider killing someone that is looking to find a
>> better life for himself or his family?
>>
>>
>> There is absolutely no parallel.
>>
>> BK
>
>Shoot to kill is definitely the standing order at the Bangor Nuclear Sub
>Base. It's posted on a huge sign for all to see. Each year, warships come
>to Portland as part of the Rose Festival. As a Coast Guard Auxiliarist, we
>help enforce a security zone around those ships. If a boat of any sort
>strays into that zone, they are met with specially trained Coast Guard
>warriors who will destroy the boat and persons who head toward the ships.
>There are four of these craft, with warriors mounting 50 cal machine guns on
>their bows.

OK. I said "if so".
This makes sense because there is the threat of destruction or death.
>
>So....the distinction between our sovereign borders and the security zone I
>described is exactly what?
>
>-Greg
>
There is absolutely no parallel and you know it. You don't kill a
person who is not a threat to do bodily harm. Period.

Forget the legal aspect, WWJD?

I understand BAR's shallow thinking, but you're smarter than that.

BK

From: bknight on
On Thu, 6 May 2010 19:55:13 -0700 (PDT), kenpitts <ken.ptts(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>On May 6, 9:25�pm, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 May 2010 18:28:42 -0700 (PDT), kenpitts <ken.p...(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 6, 6:09�pm, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 6 May 2010 18:44:47 -0400, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
>> >> >I would use the US military to secure our borders. Anyone attempting to
>> >> >cross at any point other than an official US border crossing will be
>> >> >shot dead on sight.
>>
>> >> This kind of shallow thought is to be expected of you. �The death
>> >> penalty, without legal recourse?
>>
>> >> You're pitiful.
>>
>> >> BK
>>
>> >That's about what the Mexicans do on their southern border.
>>
>> >Ken
>>
>> � That's absolutely stupid Ken.
>>
>> We're supposed to be above such heinous actions in our country and you
>> want to emulate �third world thinking?
>>
>> BK- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I don't advocate murdering them, But they should be turned around as
>caught. Without exception. I want eople who are here illegally to go
>home. BTW, my wife and in-laws are **legal** immigrants.
>
>Ken

If you don't advocate murder why then give the childish response that
they do it> That indicates that if its ok for them, its ok for us.

BK
From: kenpitts on
On May 6, 8:52 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 06 May 2010 18:33:37 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
> > On May 6, 8:21 pm, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> They are a huge burden in communities along the border. Their
> >> presence here has no appreciable effect on the national economy.
>
> >> Finding them all, confirming their status and sending them all back
> >> would cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
>
> > I would bet the ranch California's economic crisis would be far less
> > without all the illegal aliens.
>
> Really? How do you imagine that?

You can't really be that stupid. Just a KoolAid drinker who thinks
that state and federal governments are unlimited sources of money to
be spent in Robin Hood fashion. California has spent themselves into
oblivion and a big chunk of that has been spent on the millions of of
illegals that are there. Prisons, health care, schools and all the
rest.

Ken
From: Carbon on
On Thu, 06 May 2010 19:58:10 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
> On May 6, 9:02 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 May 2010 15:55:59 -0700, dene wrote:
>>> "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4be3419f$0$4888$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>> On Thu, 06 May 2010 10:26:03 -0700, dene wrote:
>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:alangbaker-BBDD34.09552206052010(a)news.shawcable.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They can't hold jobs. They go on welfare. They get sick and
>>>>>>> require medical care they can't pay for. They have children that
>>>>>>> they can't properly care for and those children grow up to be
>>>>>>> screw-ups who impose further costs on society.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They're doing all that *now*.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the problem would worsen if it were legal.  Duh!
>>>>
>>>> You're sure of this?
>>>
>>> I'm sure about human nature.  Laws and consequences do much to temper
>>> our behavior.
>>
>> The Netherlands has an extremely liberal policy wrt drugs and all the
>> evidence I've seen suggests that the per capita social/financial costs
>> are much lower.
>
> And Amsterdam is an absolute cesspool because of their lax attitudes.

Are you sure? Because according to the UN's 2009 human development index
the Netherlands is 6th and the US is 13th. I trust you're enough of a
grown up avoid accusing the UN of bias for reaching a conclusion you
find inconvenient...

http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2009/