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: John B. on 7 May 2010 19:11 On May 7, 5:39 pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <1589e95f-6267-4184-9cf9- > 0e1e72395...(a)j33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(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. I would If I thought you were capable of enlightenment.
From: John B. on 7 May 2010 19:12 On May 7, 5:57 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > In article > <511ffec6-74cf-440a-9583-24a04a137...(a)d39g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > "John B." <johnb...(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. > You've changed your standard from harm to reckless endangerment.
From: John B. on 7 May 2010 19:17 On May 7, 6:51 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Thu, 06 May 2010 22:52:43 -0700, dene wrote: > > "Carbon" <nob...(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" <nob...(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" <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. > > >>> 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. I think that has more to do with the nature of their society than with their drug program. Per capita alcoholism is much lower there, too. Dutch people just don't like to drink the way we do.
From: Alan Baker on 7 May 2010 19:30 In article <abc0d550-58de-4dad-8b36-91e4f3c974cc(a)k19g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 7, 5:57�pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > In article > > <511ffec6-74cf-440a-9583-24a04a137...(a)d39g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > > �"John B." <johnb...(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. > > > You've changed your standard from harm to reckless endangerment. Our society has long recognized that when someone actually engages in activities (such as -- in this case -- operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated) that impose a direct and undue risk of injuring others, there is no need that there be actual harm. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Jack Hollis on 7 May 2010 19:43
On Thu, 6 May 2010 19:59:03 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: >People should be personally responsible for the things you mentioned. >However, none of the things you describe, in of themselves, are as addictive >or destructive as cocaine, heroin, or meth. Hence the laws and >consequences. > >-Greg I'm not arguing that drugs are good. I'm saying that making drugs illegal not only doesn't solve any of the problems caused by drug use, it actually makes things much worse. As far as I can see, drug laws accomplish absolutely nothing and do a huge amount of harm. |