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 7 May 2010 17:39 In article <1589e95f-6267-4184-9cf9- 0e1e723950bf(a)j33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > You're right. Not everyone who crosses the border illegally is simply > desperate for work, but most of them are. Regardless of their > motivation for coming here, shooting them on sight or putting tattoos > on their foreheads like the Nazis did to Jews (on the arm) are not > things that advanced, civilized societies do. I think we can solve the > illegal immigration problem without descending into barbarism. > Enlighten us with some details about your solutions to the massive influx of unskilled laborors crossing our southern border. Talking points are not allowed. Real solutions are required. If you say "comprehensive immigration reform" we will know that you are only interested in granting amnesty every 5 to 10 years.
From: Alan Baker on 7 May 2010 17:57 In article <511ffec6-74cf-440a-9583-24a04a13795f(a)d39g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 7, 12:19�pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > In article <nve8u51igl1c24u0frf9uq4hm6sp1eg...(a)4ax.com>, > > > > > > > > �bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: > > > On Fri, 7 May 2010 09:10:14 -0700, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >"Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > >news:alangbaker-37FBCB.08595907052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > >> In article <ZpWEn.49$Ak3...(a)newsfe16.iad>, > > > >> �"Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > > > > > >> > >> Legalizing drugs is far from a conservative stance, Bobby. �Very > > > >liberal > > > >> > >> indeed. > > > > > >> > > Actually, it is hard-core libertarian. > > > > > >> > True, which explains why I support it. > > > > > >> As do I. > > > > > >Uh huh. > > > > > >-Greg > > > > > I agree with Greg on this. �Marijuana is one thing for which I support > > > legalization. �The hard stuff...no. �If heroin or cocaine was legal > > > there would be a ton of ordinary people trying it that would never do > > > so if there were legal consequences. �If you think that DUI is bad > > > with alcohol is bad........and that's just the tip of the iceberg. > > > > > BK > > > > So punish people WHEN THE ACTUALLY DO HARM TO OTHERS. > > > > -- > > Alan Baker > > Vancouver, British Columbia > > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> > > Right! Let people drive drunk and only arrest them if they get in a > wreck and maim or kill somebody! That's not analogous and you know it. Let people drink, and when they engage in behaviour that reckless endangers others, then arrest them. And strangely, that's worked out pretty well. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Alan Baker on 7 May 2010 18:00 In article <387c4b19-c099-4bd2-9fc3-06b15ab84029(a)d19g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 7, 1:12�pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > In article <84ivubF8j...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > > > > > > �"MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > <bkni...(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > > >news:pdh8u51hjtqck6u02ngmie5man0v822pv1(a)4ax.com... > > > > On Fri, 07 May 2010 09:42:28 -0700, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> > > > > wrote: > > > > > >>In article <muf8u51phqasbvjgjo7g0js016enqqu...(a)4ax.com>, > > > >> bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: > > > > > >>> On Fri, 07 May 2010 09:19:33 -0700, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > >>> >In article <nve8u51igl1c24u0frf9uq4hm6sp1eg...(a)4ax.com>, > > > >>> > bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: > > > > > >>> >> I agree with Greg on this. �Marijuana is one thing for which I > > > >>> >> support > > > >>> >> legalization. �The hard stuff...no. �If heroin or cocaine was > > > >>> >> legal > > > >>> >> there would be a ton of ordinary people trying it that would never > > > >>> >> do > > > >>> >> so if there were legal consequences. �If you think that DUI is bad > > > >>> >> with alcohol is bad........and that's just the tip of the iceberg. > > > > > >>> >> BK > > > > > >>> >So punish people WHEN THE ACTUALLY DO HARM TO OTHERS. > > > > > >>> So open the flood gate of legal drugs �TO MILLIONS WHO MIGHT THEN DO > > > >>> HARM TO OTHERS. > > > > > >>"Might" is not "will". > > > > > > OK then. �So open the flood gate of legal drugs �TO THOUSANDS WHO WILL > > > > THEN DO HARM TO OTHERS. > > > > > >>The most basic tenet of our society is the freedom to do what each of > > > >>us > > > >>wants to pursue happiness. It's only when our behaviour *actually* > > > >>harms > > > >>others that it is supposed to have limits imposed upon it. > > > > > > The most basic tenet of our society is keeping us safe from those who > > > > would bring harm to us. � When your happiness puts me at risk it is a > > > > basic wrong. �Period. > > > > > > It's insane to give such freedom when you are assured that it will, in > > > > fact, cause harm to others. �Your opinion would be different if a > > > > loved one was killed by someone driving a car while high on cocaine. > > > > If not, you're certainly in the minority. > > > > > > BK > > > > > I've had two friends die from drugs. One with coke, one meth. Our society > > > would end as we know it if these drugs were ever legalized. > > > > What complete and utter bullshit.. > > > Well, gosh, that's a compelling argument. It was appropriate to the argument it was refuting. "Our society would end as we know it..." Please. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Carbon on 7 May 2010 18:38 On Fri, 07 May 2010 11:45:24 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: > "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote in message > news:2010050711524348319-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom... >> On 2010-05-07 08:54:54 -0400, MNMikeW said: >>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message >>> news:4be34111$0$4888$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >>>> On Thu, 06 May 2010 12:49:06 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: >>>>> "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:2010050612314318056-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom... >>>>> >>>>>> But as to the Arizona law specifically... >>>>>> >>>>>> But where the Arizona law really runs into problems is where >>>>>> police in that state won't stop me because I "look" illegal, but >>>>>> they could stop Maria or Miguel, my neighbors, who are both >>>>>> second-generation US citizens, both born in this country to >>>>>> immigrant citizens of the US. That's where this law runs into >>>>>> serious constitutional questions. And that's why I oppose it. It >>>>>> places legal citizens in situations we've only read about in >>>>>> history books and seen in movies about the Gestapo in Germany. >>>>>> It's unAmerican. >>>>> >>>>> This is wrong Randy. The law specifically states there must be >>>>> lawful contact BEFORE any paper checking can happen. They cannot >>>>> simply pull you over for looking a specific way. >>>> >>>> Yeah, because the police would never routinely pull visible >>>> minorities over like that. >>> >>> Like they do now right? >> >> Yes, like they do right now. > > Riiiiiiight. We all agree then.
From: Carbon on 7 May 2010 18:51
On Thu, 06 May 2010 22:52:43 -0700, dene wrote: > "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. Millions of kids went to jail for pot. It is still a massive problem. As for the hard stuff: in purely practical terms, prohibition is usually ineffective. It would be useful to give some thought to solutions that are more likely to be effective. Decriminalization would save billions of dollars every year, if anyone cares about that. You'll gag at this, but: I watched a documentary once about a heroin addict in Amsterdam. Twice a day he went to some free clinic for his fix. Good quality stuff, free needle. Government mandated counselling. No jail. Why? Because jail doesn't work and is expensive. This way, that guy isn't crawling through someone's kitchen window to steal their TV. Obviously no one wants heroin addicts. But this is the cheapest way to deal with them. Also, I have read that their system is much more effective than the US one. For all the money spent here on prohibition and jails and all the rest of it, per capita drug use is lower there than here. |