From: Carbon on
On Thu, 06 May 2010 20:01:57 -0700, dene wrote:
> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4be374bc$0$18672$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> On Thu, 06 May 2010 15:55:59 -0700, dene wrote:
>>> "Carbon" <nobrac(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" <alangbaker(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.
>
> I prefer a traditional, god-fearing, moral society vs a socialistic,
> god-less, immoral society.

I prefer reason. Stuffing the jails full of kids busted for pot for the
sake of appearing tough on crime is insane. The cost is astronomical.
There are no positive benefits. The war on drugs is a total failure.

The current policies don't even make sense. They're a joke.
From: Carbon on
On Thu, 06 May 2010 20:04:05 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
> 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.

I really admire your simplistic worldview. Anyway, statistically there
are costs to society that undocumented workers incur. You are correct
that emergency healthcare is definitely one of those costs. On the other
hand, a large percentage of them pay taxes and SS and all kinds of other
things for benefits they cannot legally receive. They save billions for
their employers, which saves money for everyone else when they buy
goods.

There are negatives. But there are also positives. To just declare that
everything about illegal immigration is bad demonstrates that you don't
even know how to think about the issue.
From: Alan Baker on
In article <4dq6u550cojoi62he4ggmv54ae5tigfr1g(a)4ax.com>,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 05 May 2010 21:55:58 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <sv24u5dn8eh0ea9e9qgk58l3fnnsm00ika(a)4ax.com>,
> > Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 05 May 2010 13:31:17 -0500, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote:
> >>
> >> >Marijuana only. You can't be serious about legalizing heroin,
> >> >cocaine or meth.
> >> >
> >> >BK
> >>
> >> All drugs should be legal.
> >>
> >> Synthetic heroin, known as methadone , is distributed free to
> >> "patients" on methadone maintenance programs.
> >
> >Wow, Jack: you continue your run of being wrong.
> >
> >Methadone is *not* synthetic heroin.
>
>
> Sorry Alan, but methadone is classified as a "synthetic opioid." It
> works on the opioid receptors and is cross tolerant with all other
> opioids. It also has all the same effects, including being highly
> addictive.

And being a synthetic opioid does *not* make it synthetic heroin.

>
> However, it is chemically different than opiods, if that's what you
> mean.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: dene on

<bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message
news:ec07u59s6ms5i0v91rfcgorc976hcsqnu3(a)4ax.com...
> 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

You are assuming that I advocate deadly force at the border. I don't, nor
did I implicitly say so. However, the idea of using force does have merit,
especially since our military protects it's own in such a manner. Are our
borders any less important? Practically speaking....if violent force is
needed to stop the influx, so be it. Taser, stun guns....whatever. It's
time to seal the border....period.

-Greg


From: dene on

"Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4be38b88$0$4867$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> On Thu, 06 May 2010 20:01:57 -0700, dene wrote:
> > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:4be374bc$0$18672$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> >> On Thu, 06 May 2010 15:55:59 -0700, dene wrote:
> >>> "Carbon" <nobrac(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" <alangbaker(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.
> >
> > I prefer a traditional, god-fearing, moral society vs a socialistic,
> > god-less, immoral society.
>
> I prefer reason. Stuffing the jails full of kids busted for pot for the
> sake of appearing tough on crime is insane. The cost is astronomical.
> There are no positive benefits. The war on drugs is a total failure.
>
> The current policies don't even make sense. They're a joke.

The laws and penalties regarding Pot are lax. I'm talking about the hard
stuff.

-Greg