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: bknight on 11 May 2010 11:37 On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:33:51 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >In article <co2gu5d0meg5o9ptmefk7gv8fbdsq59f1t(a)4ax.com>, >bknight(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 penalty for stealing is???? > >The issue at hand is do laws have meaning and should the law breaker be >treated the same in the eyes of the law. Now we're getting somewhere. You're exactly right. > >What if this same man kill the owner of a store while he was stealing to >provide for his family? Then he would be put on trial for murder. That's what the law is. What American citizen are you going to shoot just in case he might kill someone in the future? > >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. The law Bert. The law. There is no law in the U.S. that punishes illegal entry by death. > >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. Non sequitur. > >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. Bert, you're a blithering idiot. You've made more asinine statements trying to legitimize this shooting thing than it deserves. You don't have a legal leg to stand on. You don't have a moral leg to stand on. You don't have a brain. BK
From: MNMikeW on 11 May 2010 12:17 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4be8a809$0$16094$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Mon, 10 May 2010 12:00:08 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: >> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message >> news:4be78b05$0$4851$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> >>> This Dobbsian anti-immigration hysteria (THEY'RE SPREADING >>> LEPROSY!!!) surfaces whenever the Republicans are out of office, and >>> dies away again when they get back in. All this racism does wonders >>> for rallying the true believers, but the reality is that many >>> important industries are dependent on undocumented workers. Tyson >>> Foods, et al, do not care which party is in power; they will grease >>> however many palms it takes to ensure that their cheap labor pool is >>> left alone. >>> >>> So, my take is that the money does not want immigration reform, >>> therefore it will not happen. Also, it's very possible that illegal >>> workers are a net gain to the economy. I have never heard a coherent >>> argument to the contrary from the right. >> >> You refuse to listen. > > Of course I listen. I listen to all the empty slogans from the > anti-immigration ideologues. I listen to their little theories. My > favorite so far is Bert's suggestion to just shoot illegal aliens. > Perhaps it could be made into some sort of reality television show. You > know, like The Running Man. Think of the ratings. Umm, the thing you liberals cant seem to grasp is it's not anti-immigration, it's anti-ILLEGAL immigration.
From: MNMikeW on 11 May 2010 12:19 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4be8ac3a$0$5010$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Mon, 10 May 2010 11:48:52 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: >> "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. > > The Obama administration seems to be attempting to curb the influence of > lobbyists in Washington. LOL! And he's doing this by putting them in his administration.
From: MNMikeW on 11 May 2010 12:25 "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote in message news:2010051023553696677-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom... > On 2010-05-10 13:25:58 -0400, MNMikeW said: > >> "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote in message >> news:2010050723254273798-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom... >>> 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? >>> >> Does it happen, sure. Does it happen a lot, no. There are bad apples in >> every group. >> >>> 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. >> >> Did they say anything racist? Or you just assuming. >>> >>> 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. >> >> I've ran into a few prick cops as most people have. There must have been >> a reason for >> the stop. >>> >>> 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. >> >> Yes, this is true for any group. Except for politicans, where it's >> reversed. ;-) >>> >>> 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. >> >> Yes there a few of those out there. >> >> 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!!! >> >> I did volunteer work at the 3M Championship up here a few years ago. We >> didnt have that much power to do that. ;-). >>> >>> >>> 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). >>> >> I never said they never happen. But for you to mindlessly assert that >> this will be the norm only shows your ignorance. > > I never said it was the norm. > > You said, "Riiiiiiight," as if to suggest it hardly ever happens. > > It happens with surprising regularity. Somewhere. > > To assert otherwise is a lie. > > Randy > But the way this law is being painted by the left you'd think this law does exactly that. Allows for the police to profile at will. This is not the case at all. In fact it was modified to make sure it was more than clear.
From: dene on 11 May 2010 13:16
"John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:971993e3-6952-4b02-90ad-f3a4ed741a87(a)b7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... 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? -------------------------------------------------------------- A chance to do what? -Greg |