50
   

What should be done about illegal immigration?

 
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 05:40 pm
@High Seas,
Btw, O'Bill, why this contempt for the law?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 05:42 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
I didnt say that there were no restrictions on alcohol.
You used the words ALCOHOL PROHIBITION.

And since alcohol is not prohibited in thise country, your entire question was based on an invalid premise, so no answer was possible.

As for the drug laws, I am of two opinions.
What you do in the privacy of your own home is none of my business.
However, if you get behind the wheel stoned, then it becomes my business.
And if you have an accident and kill someone while you are stoned, its a death penalty offense.

I could go further into detail, but I know we will disagree on the subject and I am in to good a mood to fight with you about it.
High Seas
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 05:49 pm
@mysteryman,
Don't bother with him any longer, MM: it's just not worth your time - or mine, for that matter. I'm outta here, going to Berlin for a business project, may stay as long as a month. Good to see you posting again Smile
OCCOM BILL
 
  0  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 06:09 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

High Seas wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
.....Perhaps it would be more akin to flaunting pre-civil rights laws? ....

We only have to comply with applicable law , not ancient historical laws, nor laws in other jurisdictions - how can you not know that? It's pretty basic.
What are you babbling about? No one suggested otherwise....

YOU did - in a quote from one of your previous posts here.
Laughing Suggesting a more apt comparison of violations somehow suggests to you that the older laws are still in force? This logical leap is yours alone.

If I told you I think Loving v. Virginia is comparable to the current "gay marriage" issue, would you conclude that I believe anti-miscegenation laws are still valid? Who do you think you are fooling with this silliness?

High Seas wrote:
Quote:
Perhaps it would be more akin to flaunting pre-civil rights laws? You know, like people having the gall to perform [b]marriages between whites and non-whites, despite it being "ILLEGAL!"[/b] They naturally argued there was nothing inherently racist in the law, because it was applied evenly to whites and non-whites alike.

YOU're the one babbling about ancient laws - get over it,
Get over what? Being amused by your contortions? Just how do you define "ancient" anyway? Loving wasn't decided on till 1967 and the last state (Alabama) to knock anti-miscegenation laws off their books didn't do so until the year 2000 (hope dies last?) That qualifies as "ancient" to you? Do you think you're immune from laws created before 1967 on the grounds that they are "ancient"? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 06:14 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

OCCOM BILL previously wrote:

High Seas wrote:

And anyway why would anybody ever bother with your worthless legal opinions when you can't even distinguish between "flaunt" and "flout" ??
I haven't (and don't) offer "legal opinions" and saw no purpose in “distinguishing between flaunt" and "flout"”, as I understood Finn’s usage of the word just fine....)

YOU wrote this nonsense - Finn didn't. It's YOUR post that's being quoted, not his: maybe you're incapable of following the link? You probably like flaunting your meager knowledge of laws no longer in force - in addition to flouting the currently applicable ones. Even more probable is the case you genuinely can't tell the difference between the two Smile It's not often that I find myself in complete agreement with Advocate who keeps calling you O'Moron, but this is one of those rare occasions.

Are you really that stupid? All anyone need do to see the truth (that I was following Finn) is scroll up. Here, I'll do it for you:
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
There are immigration laws. Flaunt them if you will, but how do you argue there is a difference between you and someone who flaunts civil rights laws?
Perhaps it would be more akin to flaunting pre-civil rights laws? You know, like people having the gall to perform marriages between whites and non-whites, despite it being "ILLEGAL!" They naturally argued there was nothing inherently racist in the law, because it was applied evenly to whites and non-whites alike.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 06:15 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

Btw, O'Bill, why this contempt for the law?
I have contemp for many laws I find unjust. Don't you?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  0  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 06:17 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

Don't bother with him any longer, MM: it's just not worth your time - or mine, for that matter. I'm outta here, going to Berlin for a business project, may stay as long as a month. Good to see you posting again Smile
Having your dishonest foolishness exposed isn't much fun, eh? No reason for MM to discontinue his more cordial discourse. Enjoy your trip!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 06:22 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Snap

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 06:31 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

I didnt say that there were no restrictions on alcohol.
Not in those exact words... you said: "Last time I checked, alcohol was a legal substance in the US, and available to anyone over 21 that wanted to buy it". One can only assume that when you wrote "available to anyone over 21", you meant "legal to anyone over 21... because, like marijuana and border-crossing, there was never really a time that it wasn't available. Not sure why you felt (feel) like you needed to duck such a simple question.


mysteryman wrote:
You used the words ALCOHOL PROHIBITION.

And since alcohol is not prohibited in thise country, your entire question was based on an invalid premise, so no answer was possible.
Bizarre complication, that... Nazi Germany no longer exists either. Does that mean you're unable to comment on that too?
mysteryman wrote:
As for the drug laws, I am of two opinions.
What you do in the privacy of your own home is none of my business.
However, if you get behind the wheel stoned, then it becomes my business.
And if you have an accident and kill someone while you are stoned, its a death penalty offense.

I could go further into detail, but I know we will disagree on the subject and I am in to good a mood to fight with you about it.
I don't disagree with your take on drugs. Death Penalty seems a bit harsh, but I won't quibble over it. What punishments do you favor for those who peacefully get a little high in their own home?
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 07:44 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

okie wrote:

Careful, common sense is not allowed here on these discussions, mysteryman.
I think there's been a misunderstanding here, Okie. I promise you; you will not get in any trouble if you lift your erroneously self-imposed moratorium on the use of common sense.


Could you possibly referring to the opinions that we should either enforce the law or amend the law? Can I refer the cops to your house when and if I get caught for speeding or running red lights that I don't like anymore?

I used to think the opinions on this forum were as bizarre as they could ever be, but I think they are getting more bizarre by the day, Bill, thanks to you and all fellow libs.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 06:27 am
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
Bizarre complication, that... Nazi Germany no longer exists either. Does that mean you're unable to comment on that too?


It means that I am unable to comment on their legal code or their internal policies, because I wasnt there.
I wasnt born till 16 years AFTER nazi Germany fell.
I can comment on their effect on history, but since I wasnt there it is all second hand knowledge.

Quote:
What punishments do you favor for those who peacefully get a little high in their own home?


As long as they are in their own home...none
As long as they dont allow children access to their drugs.

BUT, when they step out of their house they had better be clean and straight, if they arent then they go to jail.
And since driving while stoned is a choice they make, then they choose to accept the consequences for killing someone, and that consequence is the death penalty (or it should be).

okie
 
  0  
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 10:38 am
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I don't disagree with your take on drugs. Death Penalty seems a bit harsh, but I won't quibble over it. What punishments do you favor for those who peacefully get a little high in their own home?


One request at least, please do not post inane opinions on online debate forums, because it causes alot of angst out here, especially with normal folks with common sense.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 10:59 am
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

We continue to have this discussion because idiots like O'Moron, Brownie, George, et al., feel that we can pick and choose what laws to enforce. Since they love illegals, they oppose immigration-law enforcement.

Advocate, hello, the people you are calling idiots are all fellow liberals or Democrat voters. You must be one conflicted person, Advocate? I keep reminding you of the obvious, that you vote for a political party that does exactly the opposite of what you want in regard to immigration policy, as well as policy toward Israel. Why are you surprised at this?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 12:57 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

It means that I am unable to comment on their legal code or their internal policies, because I wasnt there.
I wasnt born till 16 years AFTER nazi Germany fell.
I can comment on their effect on history, but since I wasnt there it is all second hand knowledge.


Well, so if I get you right, I can't say/write anything about German laws and internal policies pre-1945 because I was born in 1949? Just to the effects on history with second or even third hand knowledge?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 07:20 am
@Walter Hinteler,
No, because you lived under the after effects of their rule.
Germany was divided because of them, Germany was still in shambles because of them, and Germany lost millions of its own citizens because of them.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 11:05 am
@mysteryman,
In that case the principle of cause and effect would effect all Europe, the USA, Russia and ... and ...

I lived under the after effects of the principle "cuius regio, eius religio" (Augsburg, 1555), under the "Principal Conclusion of the Extraordinary Imperial Delegation", and some other historic treaties, wars, rulers quite more than under under the after effects of the Nazi rule.

What I mean is that certainly everyone can write, comment, criticise, speculate etc about such without living there, having felt some "effects", and so on.

Sorry, since this has really not much to do with illegal immigration in the USA (though perhaps a bit with that in Europe).
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  5  
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 12:10 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
One request at least, please do not post inane opinions on online debate forums, because it causes alot of angst out here, especially with normal folks with common sense.

Ow, the irony! It burns! It burns!
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 12:57 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Advocate wrote:

We continue to have this discussion because idiots like O'Moron, Brownie, George, et al., feel that we can pick and choose what laws to enforce. Since they love illegals, they oppose immigration-law enforcement.

Advocate, hello, the people you are calling idiots are all fellow liberals or Democrat voters. You must be one conflicted person, Advocate? I keep reminding you of the obvious, that you vote for a political party that does exactly the opposite of what you want in regard to immigration policy, as well as policy toward Israel. Why are you surprised at this?
[/quote

Certainly there are many Dems who are, overall, idiots. The three (one a Rep) to whom I referred had directed at me either ad hominem or deprecatory comments, which were totally unjustified. Further, contrary to your allusion, most Dems are supportive of Israel. Dems in general are far more intellectual than Reps, and have learned that Israel is the only democracy in the ME, a great ally of the USA, and a fantastic bargain relative to the loans from us.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 01:45 pm
@Advocate,
Is President Obama (who supports a path to citizenship and is quietly slowing immigration enforcement) an "idiot"?

I pose this question to both Okie and Advocate.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 07:21 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

Is President Obama (who supports a path to citizenship and is quietly slowing immigration enforcement) an "idiot"?

I pose this question to both Okie and Advocate.



When it comes to the illegals issue, yes.

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 11/27/2021 at 08:45:10