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: Jack Hollis on 8 May 2010 21:10 On Fri, 07 May 2010 17:56:52 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: >In article <9ea9u5lt0233slp5n8lniu7rq427kerpq2(a)4ax.com>, > Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 06 May 2010 22:34:26 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> >> wrote: >> >> >And being a synthetic opioid does *not* make it synthetic heroin. >> >> Of course it does. Heroin is a non-synthetic opioid. > >Jack, that is nonsense. Agreed, not worth arguing about.
From: Alan Baker on 8 May 2010 21:12 In article <e9313f6a-885e-44f8-b4cb-5362aeb48277(a)b7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 8, 7:01�pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > In article <vunbu5h4vpn0f3edg9q2n03slsuhm87...(a)4ax.com>, > > how...(a)brazee.net says... > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 8 May 2010 08:56:27 -0400, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > >Mexicans nationals cannot own property in the US. > > > > > Why not? > > > > It is all part of the reciprocity argument. Non Mexicans are not allowed > > to be majority owners of property in Mexico. Just turn the tables on > > them when in our contry. > > How is that reciprocal when Americans can own property in Mexico? Some property. There is indeed a law in Mexico that prohibits foreign nationals from owning property within 100km of any border or within 50km of a coastline. My brother now "owns" a condo in Play del Carmen and had to work within this law by having a bank actually own the property in trust for him. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Alan Baker on 8 May 2010 21:13 In article <mh2cu59cq5jivkcf4m9djcagci6qfio95m(a)4ax.com>, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > On Sat, 8 May 2010 08:56:27 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > >Mexicans nationals cannot own property in the US. > > Let's see some proof of this. > > BK <http://www.mexonline.com/propmex.htm> -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Jack Hollis on 8 May 2010 21:18 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. In addition, because of the high price of illegal drugs, users frequently sell drugs to their friends and acquaintances to support their habit. This tends to increase drug use. I don't know anyone who sells alcohol other than licensed dealers. I don't think that legalizing drugs would have too much effect on use at all. Most drug users start when they're young and most HS or College kids can get drugs if they want them and they know that have very little chance of being arrested. In fact the illegality of drugs can be attractive to rebellious youth.
From: Alan Baker on 8 May 2010 21:30
In article <8r2cu5l9blcj2fvrirbadmo080f89ogkv4(a)4ax.com>, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Fri, 07 May 2010 17:56:52 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> > wrote: > > >In article <9ea9u5lt0233slp5n8lniu7rq427kerpq2(a)4ax.com>, > > Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 06 May 2010 22:34:26 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >And being a synthetic opioid does *not* make it synthetic heroin. > >> > >> Of course it does. Heroin is a non-synthetic opioid. > > > >Jack, that is nonsense. > > Agreed, not worth arguing about. The don't spout nonsense. "synthetic opiod" is not equivalent to "synthetic heroin". -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> |