From: John B. on
On May 9, 10:32 pm, kenpitts <ken.p...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 9, 9:13 am, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 09 May 2010 09:58:26 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > > In article <4be6bd3c$0$21861$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> > >> On Sun, 09 May 2010 01:07:56 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > >>> In article <e9313f6a-885e-44f8-b4cb-5362aeb48277
> > >>> @b7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says...
>
> > >>>> How is that reciprocal when Americans can own property in Mexico?
>
> > >>> Please provide proof that US nationals can be majority owners of
> > >>> real property in Mexico.
>
> > >> Please provide proof that rounding up undocumented workers by the
> > >> thousands and murdering them is a good idea.
>
> > > Nice try buddy. The legal term is illegal aliens.
>
> > > I never said anything about rounding up illegal aliens and murdering
> > > them. What I said is we round up illegal aliens and we ship them back
> > > to their country of origin.
>
> > > What we need to do is put the US military on our borders and shoot
> > > anyone trying to enter the country illegally.
>
> > Please provide proof that putting the US military on the border and
> > shooting anyone trying to enter the country illegally is a good idea.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Proof? We don't need no stinking proof. It is clearly a good idea.
>
> Ken

If you're stupid and barbaric.
From: John B. on
On May 9, 11:17 pm, kenpitts <ken.p...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 9, 9:38 pm, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 9 May 2010 19:32:04 -0700 (PDT), kenpitts <ken.p...(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On May 9, 9:13 am, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 09 May 2010 09:58:26 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > >> > In article <4be6bd3c$0$21861$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > >> > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> > >> >> On Sun, 09 May 2010 01:07:56 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > >> >>> In article <e9313f6a-885e-44f8-b4cb-5362aeb48277
> > >> >>> @b7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says...
>
> > >> >>>> How is that reciprocal when Americans can own property in Mexico?
>
> > >> >>> Please provide proof that US nationals can be majority owners of
> > >> >>> real property in Mexico.
>
> > >> >> Please provide proof that rounding up undocumented workers by the
> > >> >> thousands and murdering them is a good idea.
>
> > >> > Nice try buddy. The legal term is illegal aliens.
>
> > >> > I never said anything about rounding up illegal aliens and murdering
> > >> > them. What I said is we round up illegal aliens and we ship them back
> > >> > to their country of origin.
>
> > >> > What we need to do is put the US military on our borders and shoot
> > >> > anyone trying to enter the country illegally.
>
> > >> Please provide proof that putting the US military on the border and
> > >> shooting anyone trying to enter the country illegally is a good idea..- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >Proof? We don't need no stinking proof. It is clearly a good idea.
>
> > >Ken
>
> > I'm truly sorry that you think this Ken.  It's reprehensible and I
> > thought better of you.
>
> > BK- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You don't think it is a good idea to enforce our border and turn
> around people who are entering illegally? I am the one who feels sorry
> for you.
>
> I may have already related this. Before my brother in law became a
> citizen, he crossed the border from Vancouver and had forgotten his
> green card. He was detained for one hour while his information was
> verified. It was indeed verified. He had to pay a nominal fine for not
> being in possession of his green card and then he was on his way.
> Please explain to me how this is a problem for people who are suppsed
> to be here. Be here  legally if you want to be here. My wife and all
> my in-laws are legal residents.
>
> Those who are not legal should go back from whence they came. No
> exceptions, zero tolerance.
>
> Ken

You didn't say they should be turned back. You said they should be
shot.
From: John B. on
On May 10, 12:28 am, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote:
> In article <84pen9Fo3...(a)mid.individual.net>,
>
>
>
>  "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> > "Jack Hollis" <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:6b4cu5t9lse4nqb11m6vgkfgf6pq8obspn(a)4ax.com...
> > > On Fri, 07 May 2010 19:17:45 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >On Thu, 06 May 2010 21:00:34 -0400, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com>
> > > >wrote:
>
> > > >>I'm an ex police officer and I saw the futility of drug laws first
> > > >>hand.  Putting people in jail for using drugs is idiotic.  They should
> > > >>legalize all drugs and immediately release all the people in prison
> > > >>for possession of drugs, or possession with intent to sell, as long as
> > > >>there were no extraneous circumstances like gun possession or
> > > >>resisting arrest.
>
> > > >Legalize the drugs, but be careful about releasing criminals just
> > > >because the crime was redefined.   Especially those who were in
> > > >dangerous criminal organizations.
>
> > > Once drugs were legal, those dangerous organizations would be out of
> > > the drug business.
>
> > Really.  Gambling is legal in Nv.  Did that keep the Mob out?  What finally
> > rooted them out of Vegas was good law enforcement.  Same thing applies with
> > the drug cartels.
>
> What rooted them out was cost/benefit analysis.
>
What ran the Mafia out of Las Vegas was a relentless assault by the
FBI.
From: John B. on
On May 10, 1:27 am, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote:
> In article <84pileFb6...(a)mid.individual.net>,
>
>
>
>  "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message
> >news:alangbaker-76C820.21285909052010(a)news.shawcable.com...
> > > In article <84pen9Fo3...(a)mid.individual.net>,
> > >  "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Jack Hollis" <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:6b4cu5t9lse4nqb11m6vgkfgf6pq8obspn(a)4ax.com...
> > > > > On Fri, 07 May 2010 19:17:45 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >On Thu, 06 May 2010 21:00:34 -0400, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com>
> > > > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > >>I'm an ex police officer and I saw the futility of drug laws first
> > > > > >>hand.  Putting people in jail for using drugs is idiotic.  They
> > should
> > > > > >>legalize all drugs and immediately release all the people in prison
> > > > > >>for possession of drugs, or possession with intent to sell, as long
> > as
> > > > > >>there were no extraneous circumstances like gun possession or
> > > > > >>resisting arrest.
>
> > > > > >Legalize the drugs, but be careful about releasing criminals just
> > > > > >because the crime was redefined.   Especially those who were in
> > > > > >dangerous criminal organizations.
>
> > > > > Once drugs were legal, those dangerous organizations would be out of
> > > > > the drug business.
>
> > > > Really.  Gambling is legal in Nv.  Did that keep the Mob out?  What
> > finally
> > > > rooted them out of Vegas was good law enforcement.  Same thing applies
> > with
> > > > the drug cartels.
>
> > > What rooted them out was cost/benefit analysis.
>
> > Baloney.  Bad guys went to prison.  Those who remained sold out.  Watch
> > Casino.  It depicts the story quite well.
>
> > -Greg
>
> "Casino"? You get your history from the movies????
>
> LOL
>
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

At least he gets it from somewhere, unlike you.
From: MNMikeW on

"Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4be49bce$0$12435$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> On Fri, 07 May 2010 08:01:16 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:4be3461c$0$18607$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>> On Thu, 06 May 2010 18:34:15 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>>> In article <4be2ad6b$0$4893$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
>>>> nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>>
>>>>> So ends our discussion of the blindingly obvious.
>>>>
>>>> Why, because you said so? Did you go to the Billy Clark school of
>>>> discussion?
>>>
>>> The notion that politicians of both parties routinely do favors in
>>> exchange for campaign contributions is so self-evidently true that I
>>> thought even people as biased as yourself would instantly grasp it. I
>>> sincerely apologize if I have over-estimated your capacity for
>>> rational thought.
>>
>> Tell us the party the continually rails against big business yet is
>> always in the top spots on the contribution lists. Take a guess who
>> the biggest recipient of BP money was in 2008. You know, the company
>> with the boot on their throats.
>
> Oh god. You're actually suggesting that one group of politicians is
> somehow less corrupt than another group of politicians, when both groups
> face the same pressures to raise money to get re-elected, etc. etc.?
>
> I'm not even sure where to start with that. Washington is an equal
> opportunity corruptor.

It is. But is seems its only corruption when the right does it. Otherwise
its just politics as usual in D.C. And the right aren't the ones railing
against big business.