From: William Clark on
In article <84rstnF3qdU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
"dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:

> "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:wclark2-BDBE82.21024310052010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article <4be8a897$0$22215$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 10 May 2010 18:55:39 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > > > In article <457cf279-2014-443a-b7f5-ee36a8baf4d3
> > > > @k31g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says...
> > > >> On May 9, 9:58� am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> 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.
> > > >>
> > > >> You also said that illegal aliens caught here should be tattooed,
> > > >> like the Nazis did to Jews.
> > > >
> > > > No, I said we should tattoo those caught here as illegal aliens and
> > > > then deport them. The scarlet letter has its uses.
> > >
> > > Your idiot impression is extremely good.
> >
> > Er, I don't think it's an impression - it's the real thing.
>
> Late to the party, Billy. Perhaps the subject of illegal immigration was
> making you nervous.
>
> -Greg

No, it was the infantile toing and froing that just had me too bored to
be bothered. Case in point . .
From: John B. on
On May 10, 10:18 pm, kenpitts <ken.p...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 8:42 am, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 9 May 2010 20:17:33 -0700 (PDT), 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:
> > >> >> > 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 -
>
> > >> >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-
> > >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.
>
> > At this moment it isn't sorry that I'm feeling for you, but I want to
> > give you the benefit of the doubt.
>
> > >Those who are not legal should go back from whence they came. No
> > >exceptions, zero tolerance.
>
> > >Ken
>
> > I have no problem with that at all, and I have no problem with
> > enforcing our border.
>
> > Let's just get this straight.  Say that there's a 40 year old man
> > living in Mexico with his wife, two sons and a daughter.  His wife is
> > not well and he hasn't worked in weeks.  Can't find a job.  One of his
> > compadres tells him that across the border in Texas he can get a job
> > paying $20 dollars a day working in the fields, so in desperation he
> > makes a 50 mile trip on foot, and crosses the border,hoping to stay a
> > couple of weeks then return home to try to find work there again.
>
> > Please don't tell me you would murder this man that's only trying to
> > put food in his family's stomach, doing labor that no U.S. citizen
> > will do.
>
> > BK- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Where did I ever advocate gunning these people down? I'm saying
> apprehend them and send the back - real simple. Just like Mexico does
> on their southern border.
>
> The ten million or more that are here are a huge burden on the border
> states. Send them back too. It's been done before under Truman and
> Eisenhower.
>
> I do not agree that nobody would do those jobs. These businesses will
> adjust their wages and their conditions to fill th void. I've cleaned
> the equipment in a butcher shop. I have been a grease monkey at a
> mechanic shop. I have chipped paint in the Navy. People who need a job
> will take a job. I knew that first hand before I had a career.
>
> Ken

Then why aren't people clamoring for those jobs now?
From: John B. on
On May 10, 11:20 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4be8c384$0$4977$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 10 May 2010 19:21:32 -0700, dene wrote:
> > > "Howard Brazee" <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote in message
> > >news:tbahu5pcbiskjlm6mt2gtrsd7h2po9l1ms(a)4ax.com...
> > >> On Mon, 10 May 2010 09:25:59 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
> > >> <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> If narcotics are made legal and easy to buy, will drug addiction - and
> > >>> the many problems it imposes on society - go up or down?
>
> > >> Total amount?   We're guessing.    What happened when Prohibition was
> > >> repealed?
>
> > >> The population of abusers will likely be different.    We won't have as
> > >> many problems with criminal gangs.   The people working on the problem
> > >> will be social workers, freeing up police to do other vital work.
>
> > > A flock of social workers.  Just what our society needs.  Prison is more
> > > effective.  Cleans up the addicts and makes them think twice about using
> > > again.
>
> > The US incarcerates a larger percentage of its own citizens than any
> > other first world country. That war on drugs is gonna be won any year
> > now!!!
>
> It's also resulted in a dramatically lower crime rate than before.  Bad guys
> are staying where they belong.
>
> -Greg

Increased incarceration rates are one of many factors that have
lowered the crime rate. It's not even the principal one.
From: John B. on
On May 11, 7:33 am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
> In article <co2gu5d0meg5o9ptmefk7gv8fbdsq59...(a)4ax.com>,
> bkni...(a)conramp.net says...
>
> > I have no problem with that at all, and I have no problem with
> > enforcing our border.
>
> > Let's just get this straight.  Say that there's a 40 year old man
> > living in Mexico with his wife, two sons and a daughter.  His wife is
> > not well and he hasn't worked in weeks.  Can't find a job.  One of his
> > compadres tells him that across the border in Texas he can get a job
> > paying $20 dollars a day working in the fields, so in desperation he
> > makes a 50 mile trip on foot, and crosses the border,hoping to stay a
> > couple of weeks then return home to try to find work there again.
>
> > Please don't tell me you would murder this man that's only trying to
> > put food in his family's stomach, doing labor that no U.S. citizen
> > will do.
>
> What if this same man was caught stealing to provide for his family. Is
> his action any less illegal?
>
> The issue at hand is do laws have meaning and should the law breaker be
> treated the same in the eyes of the law.
>
> What if this same man kill the owner of a store while he was stealing to
> provide for his family?
>
> We always hear from the left that we are a nation of laws, that the
> police and the courts will protect us, however, when our laws, police
> and courts need to protect us we are told that they guy was just trying
> to provide for his family. What do you think the guy who had his goods
> stolen was doing? He was trying to provide for his family and doing so
> within the law.
>
> I have yet to see, hear or read of a legal exception that states that
> the law doesn't apply when the person's post-transgression explanation
> was I was just trying to provide for my family.
>
> Legality and convictions are two separate classifications. You can be
> illegally performing an act and not have been convicted of the act which
> doesn't make the act any less illegal.

You've changed your standard from crossing the border to robbing and
killing after crossing the border. So your argument now is that
everyone who enters the country illegally should be presumed a thief
and a murderer and shot before he gets the chance. Right?
From: John B. on
On May 11, 7:38 am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
> In article <4be775b9$0$19254$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 09 May 2010 19:32:04 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
> > > On May 9, 9:13 am, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Please provide proof that putting the US military on the border and
> > >> shooting anyone trying to enter the country illegally is a good idea..
>
> > > Proof? We don't need no stinking proof. It is clearly a good idea.
>
> > Ken, are you sure you don't want to re-think this one a little bit? Bert
> > here is advocating murdering everyone who appears like they might be
> > trying to cross the border illegally.
>
> Carbs, you have it all wrong. There is a definite zone the deliniates
> the division between the USA and Mexico. What I advocate is to start
> shooting those who cross the division between Mexico and the USA. There
> are already laws in Mexico and the USA that make it illegal to cross in
> either direction. What I am proposing is immediate summary judgment.
> This only needs to be done every once in a while to remind people of the
> penalty of committing the illegal international act.

Just pick one off every now and then to make a point, eh? That's
murder. It would make the United States an international pariah (like
when Bush was president). It would trigger riots in Los Angeles,
Houston and elsewhere. It would trigger attacks on U.S. Embassies in
Latin America. But every cloud has a silver lining: it would brand
Republicans as barbarians and murderers and keep them out of power for
a very long time.