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: Howard Brazee on 7 May 2010 21:33 On Thu, 6 May 2010 20:01:57 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: >I prefer a traditional, god-fearing, moral society vs a socialistic, >god-less, immoral society. You mean like Afghanistan? -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Howard Brazee on 7 May 2010 21:34 On Fri, 07 May 2010 08:19:48 -0500, Horvath(a)net.net wrote: >How can they pay SS when they have no SS number? Do they pay income >taxes? state and local taxes? The only taxes they pay are sales tax, >liquor tax and cigarette tax. They use a fake SS card. Paying in money which they will never get back. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Alan Baker on 7 May 2010 22:33 In article <ane9u591dpep1utm8kvbgi3lmncle69933(a)4ax.com>, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > On Fri, 07 May 2010 17:58:05 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> > wrote: > > >In article <22d9u5p6vjeupjfdpkeot2g5h89oc7ns9j(a)4ax.com>, > > Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 07 May 2010 11:30:25 -0500, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > >> > >> >So open the flood gate of legal drugs TO MILLIONS WHO MIGHT THEN DO > >> >HARM TO OTHERS. > >> > >> It's an assumption that legalization would increase drug use. Fact is > >> that drugs are easily available to anyone who wants them. Right now, > >> it's easier for a High School kid to get illegal drugs than alcohol. > >> So the idea that legalization would increase drug use is by no means a > >> proven hypothesis. And even if it did, most people who try drugs, or > >> alcohol, never develop a problem. > > > >Yup. > > > >And currently, almost every seller of alcohol has a strong incentive not > >to sell to minors: the threat of losing one's license to sell alcohol. > > > >Drug sellers have no such incentive not to sell to children. > > As you are wont to say "LOL". > > BK It's the simple truth. Selling alcohol to minors is a very small problem. Selling drugs to minors is big business. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Alan Baker on 7 May 2010 22:34 In article <36e9u55fi552pto25hgoodsr5n05g1ghqh(a)4ax.com>, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > On Fri, 07 May 2010 20:50:47 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> > wrote: > > >On Fri, 07 May 2010 11:30:25 -0500, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > > > >>So open the flood gate of legal drugs TO MILLIONS WHO MIGHT THEN DO > >>HARM TO OTHERS. > > > >It's an assumption that legalization would increase drug use. > > Legalized drugs will be far less expensive which validates that > assumption. Sorry, but no. > >Fact is that drugs are easily available to anyone who wants them. Right > >now, > >it's easier for a High School kid to get illegal drugs than alcohol. > > Ridiculous Jack. All a kid needs for alcohol is a fake ID, or one > person of age to buy it...at hundreds of stores anywhere in his > hometown. To get drugs is far more difficult and expensive. Far easier to get drugs. Those who sell them don't care about ID: fake or otherwise. > > >So the idea that legalization would increase drug use is by no means a > >proven hypothesis. > > > And even if it did, most people who try drugs, or alcohol, never develop a > > problem. > > Alcoholism is rampant, and drug use is far more entrapping. Sorry, but I'd like to see you support that. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: R&B on 7 May 2010 23:25
On 2010-05-07 12:45:24 -0400, MNMikeW said: > "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. >> >> Randy >> > Riiiiiiight. Are you serious, Mike? Do you honestly believe that police don't stop people strictly because of the color of their skin? It happens every day. Maybe not everywhere. But somewhere, it happens every day. I personally know a half-dozen people -- responsible adults, all of whom are model citizens -- who have been pulled over by racist cops who just wanted to hassle a black person. And yes, I was even once in the car with someone when it happened. I've seen it first hand. We weren't speeding. We weren't breaking any laws. And the cop was verbally rude and abusive. It was clear that he just wanted to intimidate my friend. The fact is, 99 percent of cops are good people. It's that 1 percent that give the rest a bad name in the minds of some. But the fact remains, when you put a badge on someone's shirt and a gun on their belt, some people get an inflated sense of power and they just want to use it. On a lesser scale, even without a badge and a gun, you put some people in a position of presumed authority, they will let their presumed "power" go to their heads. Like when I was broadcasting a PGA TOUR event once and one of the volunteers threatened to have me removed from the grounds because I was walking inside the ropes, even though I had the credentials clearly on my arm entitling me to be there. The same guy even started physically assaulting one of our female reporters WHILE SHE WAS TALKING ON THE AIR!!! Obviously, this is not the same as racist behavior. But it serves to demonstrate the same principle -- that certain people, when given a little bit of power, will abuse it. And if they happen to be racist cops (which ain't all that uncommon), it can lead to some rather explosive circumstances. For you to mindlessly assert that such things don't happen only shows your own ignorance -- or stubborn insistence on keeping your head stuck firmly in the sand (or elsewhere just as dark). Randy |