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 8 May 2010 13:24 In article <1f420670-011e-4a96-88ed-1009efba5290 @q8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > On May 8, 10:23�am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > In article <6f62031e-5ed6-40d8-b298-f4a9bf022326 > > @k19g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 5:31�pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > In article <15e109f3-c8f4-4e85-b67e-00e442e6c3d9 > > > > @e1g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > The Marielitos who came here in 1980 are the most successful immigrant > > > > > group in the U.S. They have built a highly prosperous diaspora in > > > > > > Where's your proof? > > > > > In Miami. > > > > Yet again Johnny has not real proof. > > I've spent lots of time there and I've seen it for myself. If you did > a little research on the S. Florida Cuban community, you might learn > something. But I guess you can't be bothered with that. I spent quite a bit of time in south Florida in the mid 80's. Nobody like the Cubans. I was warned by severa latin american friends of mine that the Cuban parts of Miami were to be avoid during the day and god help you if you were caught there at night. There were also clubs and such that the Cubans had taken over and I was told which ones they were and was told to stay away from them. Also, the Cuban my cousin got mixed up with was a real pices of work. The only way to stop him from abusing my cousin and thier daughter was to get him locked up in prision. You still haven't provided any proof that the Cubans from the boat lift in 1980 were the most successful immigrant group in the US.
From: Alan Baker on 8 May 2010 14:33 In article <84kmkjF9ouU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:98b86b30-e699-4bd9-8c48-fb8a007fbc38(a)e1g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On May 7, 10:34 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > In article <36e9u55fi552pto25hgoodsr5n05g1g...(a)4ax.com>, > > > > bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: > > > On Fri, 07 May 2010 20:50:47 -0400, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >On Fri, 07 May 2010 11:30:25 -0500, bkni...(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. > > > Is it now? Why don't you go out right now and buy a gram of coke if > it's so easy. Let us know how you do. > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Agree. I wouldn't know where to begin to buy cocaine. Trying going to a night club. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Don Kirkman on 8 May 2010 16:11 On Fri, 07 May 2010 21:04:24 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: >On Fri, 07 May 2010 10:23:16 -0700, Don Kirkman <donsno2(a)charter.net> >wrote: >>Actually, in the late 18th century before the US drug laws outlawed >>it, morphine was widely used among middle class professionals. Doctors >>and nurses may have been using it in greater numbers than other >>groups. Some well-known medical professionals of the time were >>addicted--and no effect on their work was ever noticed by their peers. >>I can't put my fingers on the paper I wrote forty years ago proposing >>legalization (as England had already done) to provide names and >>citations , but the situation is far more complex that most people >>want to believe.. >The most likely opium addict in 18th Century America was a middle >class housewife. They had a redily available cheap supply and most >suffered very few negative consequences. In reality, an opium addict >who has drugs is harmless. However, one who doesn't have drugs is >very dangerous. Cocaine was sold over the counter in Coca Cola and >society didn't fall apart. What happened to the 19th century, which I discussed? The regulation only began in 1905 and became solidified with the Harrison Act of 1914. Where were housewives getting a "readily [sic!] available cheap supply" of opium unless they had a stereotypical Chinese opium den in their neighborhood? (The Chinese were largely in the Western states in the 19th century, from around 1850.) As I said, I have long since lost my paper and its cites, but my sources pointed to the ready availability of morphine to doctors and nurses, and named several well connected pillars of society of the pre-drug law era as morphine addicts. (Holmes was English, so he doesn't count, but his cocaine and morphine habit was countenanced by society.) Housewives were not part of their observations. Since the drugs were tacitly legal--because there was no regulation--availability was never in question and therefore the main danger was to the user, not to society. For the record, I'm less inclined to legalizing now than I was then, but I still lean that way. And I spent over 20 years within a large justice system, mostly criminal justice and part of it on the streets. >Again, most of the negative aspects of drugs are due to the fact that >they're illegal. I thought that's what my response indicated? -- Don Kirkman donsno2(a)charter.net
From: John B. on 8 May 2010 16:14 On May 8, 1:24 pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <1f420670-011e-4a96-88ed-1009efba5290 > @q8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > On May 8, 10:23 am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > In article <6f62031e-5ed6-40d8-b298-f4a9bf022326 > > > @k19g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > On May 7, 5:31 pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <15e109f3-c8f4-4e85-b67e-00e442e6c3d9 > > > > > @e1g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > The Marielitos who came here in 1980 are the most successful immigrant > > > > > > group in the U.S. They have built a highly prosperous diaspora in > > > > > > Where's your proof? > > > > > In Miami. > > > > Yet again Johnny has not real proof. > > > I've spent lots of time there and I've seen it for myself. If you did > > a little research on the S. Florida Cuban community, you might learn > > something. But I guess you can't be bothered with that. > > I spent quite a bit of time in south Florida in the mid 80's. Nobody > like the Cubans. I was warned by severa latin american friends of mine > that the Cuban parts of Miami were to be avoid during the day and god > help you if you were caught there at night. There were also clubs and > such that the Cubans had taken over and I was told which ones they were > and was told to stay away from them. > > Also, the Cuban my cousin got mixed up with was a real pices of work. > The only way to stop him from abusing my cousin and thier daughter was > to get him locked up in prision. > > You still haven't provided any proof that the Cubans from the boat lift > in 1980 were the most successful immigrant group in the US. Nobody liked the Cubans, huh? That says a lot about the kind of people you hang around with. I've spent a lot of time in Calle Ocho and other parts of Little Havana and all I've seen is middle class people and prosperous businesses. Have you heard of any significant problems, e.g., poverty, crime, drug abuse, etc. in the Cuban community since 1980? I sure haven't.
From: bknight on 8 May 2010 16:39
On Sat, 8 May 2010 10:06:51 -0700 (PDT), "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On May 8, 8:56�am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: >> In article <25a14d64-41a8-4d52-a412-0f4b7b382759 >> @q30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... >> >> > Your use of the word "reciprocity" might hold water if the Mexicans >> > were in the habit of shooting Americans who cross the Rio Grande >> > illegally, but I don't think they are. >> >> The Mexicans have laws that the enforce against illegal immigrants. This >> is the point of reciprocity Johnny. We need to adopt the policy of >> reciprocity. >> >> Mexicans nationals cannot own property in the US. >> >> Mexicans illegally in the US are jailed for 2 years upon their first >> offense, then deported. >> >> Mexicans illegally in the US are jailed for 10 years upon their second >> offense, then deported. >> >> You are smart enough to know what I was talking about but, you just >> wanted to play dumb so that you could support the open borders policy. > >I wasn't playing dumb. I do not support an open borders policy. >Adopting on our southern border the tactics that (you say) the >Mexicans use on their southern border is not reciprocity. If the >Mexicans had a policy of raping Guatemalan women and girls that enter >Mexico illegally, I suppose you'd say we should do the same. LLLLLLarry thinks so, Bert just wants to kill them. I don't know anyone who supports an open borders policy, I don't either. BK |