www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:55:39 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:My personal preferences have not changed. Your error.
It'd also be easier if you posted in HTML! <span class="moz-smiley-s3"><span>well... you didn't up until a few posts ago. sorry if i don't follow your personal (and ever-changing) preferences
;-) </span></span><br>
and rather stick with the usenet standard. (its' not a law, though, so i guess you don't care :)Exactly!
It's irrespective if it is my vision or not. The facts remain. It is the law. Sorry you have such difficulties with facts.<blockquote type="cite"if that's your vision of the law and proper law enforcement, we can stop right here. there's no way we get anywhere.
cite="" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">"[EMAIL PROTECTED]">I think that's
exactly what police shouldn't do: use e.g. jaywalking to target people
they don't like, like for example that guy who seemed to smile at his
sister the other day in the park...<br>
</blockquote>
Sorry dude but that's the law. <br>
You have an odd way of thinking. Which country is the leader in say production of diamonds? Come on now. Look it up but don't use any stats...No they don't. The US is indeed the leader of the world in many aspects, none of which need earning, just stats.<br>stats don't define leadership. maybe who's champion, but not who's leader.
Perhaps you should do a little historical research about what a *true* democracy is.Good. Cause we ain't no democracy. We're a representative republic. True democracy is a pack of wolves and a rabbit deciding what to have for dinner!<br>then i really wonder why the president wants to bring democracy to iraq.
you should get a clue. republic (defined as representative democracy) is still democracy, or else it wouldn't be called representative democracy. that's like saying that a sportscar is not a car.
"representative republic" is pretty much nonsense. republic means "representative democracy," so the "representative" part is already included.
re-pub-lic (ri pub'lik) n.
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch and is usu. an elected
or nominated president.
3. the form of government of such a state.
de-moc-ra-cy (di mok'ruh see) n. pl. <-cies>
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
does any of this ring a bell? maybe you look up the constitution every now and then.Out of curiosity I searched the Constitution for words like democracy, democratic, etc. They do not appear in the Constitution. ;-)
I know what I'm doing! All I'm saying is that I did not start it. My assumption is if somebody listed other groups to crosspost to then I assume they wanted it posted that way and it's not my place to remove them.I do not read, nor post to alt.visa.us. Any crossposting is a result of other people's crossposting - not mine. I simply reply.<br>not knowing what one is doing is not really a good excuse for anything. fact is that you _are_ crossposting.
Well we're not talking about you - we're talking about illegal aliens - 7 - 8 million of them, which is a problem that needs to be addressed now, much like the heart attack victim in the analogy.If we draw an analogy to somebody coming into the an emergency room with a heart attack you'd be there screaming "We need to stop all the fast food chains - that's what caused this man's heart attack" and I'd be saying - "perhaps we should treat him first"!<br>well, i'm not having a heart attack. maybe my pinky is bleeding. but that doesn't need the attention of a doctor (in may case -- your mileage may vary).
Yes I did. However I fail to see what your point is here.You can't have it both ways. If you put more resources on prevention you're gonna take resources from enforcement thus a more relaxed enforcement of current violators which, to me, allows violators to get off. <br>didn't you say earlier that not being able to catch all is no excuse for not spending whatever is available to catch as many as is possible with those resources?
there are many serious opinions that state that going at serious things with a fresh mind, a good dose of humor and free from calcified obstructions brings better and quicker solutions. at least that's what successful people do in their business. and that's what i'm trying toI'm not laughing. I do not believe laughing at problems will do anything to help.
do.
(and i'm not in the heart attack situation that you envision yourself.)What the hell are you talking about? I didn't say I was in a heart attack situation nor that you were.
What law do you speak of?"... adopted the practice of stopping "Mexican-looking" citizens on the street and asking for identification. "<br>so following the law where it doesn't fit your agenda is an "old PC thing"? i thought your agenda was to uphold the law, any law (including the probable cause thing). maybe you just outed yourself as a big hypocrite?
</blockquote>
Ah, that old PC thing. It'll be the death of us...<br>
you may not know it, but asking for documentation without probable cause is not legal. and a mexican-looking face doesn't uphold in court as probable cause for illegal immigration. that's the law -- it's as simple as that.Nobody said they were asking for documentation just for having a Mexican looking face. What makes you say they had no probably cause? Are you saying that looking Mexican it not a good indicator that you are indeed Mexican?!? What does the question "Are you a US citizen" on a job application fer anyway?
??? So is it illegal or not? You waffle too much... Just above you state "asking for documentation without probable cause is not legal" and here you contradict yourself!I'm not convinced that it is illegal. Can you cite the law that says it is? (And not "unreasonable search and seizure" 'cause I do not think it is unreasonable).<br>I don't happen to think that the activity is, or should be, illegal.
well, the evidence is that it got abandoned because it was illegal. and by the law, the mere fact that one belongs to a certain race is not probable cause for anything. (this is actually a constitutional law -- again, you may check the constitution against your "opinions" every now and then; at least, if you cherish our legal system.)Really? I highly doubt that the Constitution itself says that. Can you cite the reference?
show me a single case where a judge admitted probable cause for search or seizure being "this guy looked like a mexican/black/japanese/north-european/whatever race."Are we talking immigration law or some other classification of law? And besides we are not talking about search or seizure anyway.
Sorry but your views are all over the map at times and very tough to follow.So then you agree - we should not be giving illegals a DL...<br>are you suffering from dementia? i must have stated that at least a few times in this thread. maybe you should write less and read (or think) more.
There are many unscrupulous people who perform such services. I don't personally know them as I am an American citizen and got my SS# a long, long time ago thus I don't have a need to get another one, legally or illegally. Are you somehow saying that getting an illegal SS# is hard to do?!? I do recall seeing many news programs and other stories about how easy it is to do.again: how do you get a SSN illegally??? How can I get a SSN illegally?How do illegal immigrants get a SSN?<br><br>You get the SSN illegally.
Let me guess - you didn't bother to ask them why they wanted to check your documents right?cite="" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">"[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Here I was sitting on the porch of an empty house somewhere in the LA area, getting ready for the night (something really common in Europe, I've done it countless times in many countries over there), when a police car stopped, a really bright spot was pointed at me, and two police
officers stepped out. One remained at the car, with some kind<br> of big gun aimed at me, the other came slowly towards me with his handgun ready to fire. I didn't feel too well... But after some document checking and a short conversation, they were convinced that I was harmless, and just told me to leave and not to do this here anymore. Which I did :)<br>
Sounds like you were in a bad area or something.no, exactly the opposite. in a bad area, nobody would have cared (and i might have got robbed or so instead).
Listen idiot. Practice what you preach! Did I say you blamed anybody? No. You read what I post! I asked you a frigging question - a non rhetorical question, which, of course, you conveniently neglect to answer. I asked the question specifically because I wanted an answer. You tell a story that on the face of it looks like perhaps you might hold some animosity against the police for checking you out. Maybe even you do blame them for something or other. Lord only knows why you decided to tell us all that story. So I ask a simple question for clarification and you blast me back implying I don't read what you write. Of course I do. And I ask questions. There is nothing wrong with that. But, instead you deflect the question and then imply it was my error. You do this constantly and I'm quite tired of it. To me it just shows the weaknesses in your argument more than anything else.Do you really blame the police for spotting something suspicious and checking it out?<br>again, the reading thing. where did i blame anybody? would you do us all a favor and only respond when you actually read the post?
So then how can we trust that much of your other arguments?yes, you are correct. i didn't mean to say that americans use guns to wash their dishes, for example.AFAIK, they use it usually for shooting :)<br>You claim that "Americans use guns to do everything" is therefore baseless...<br>
It's just what is. Sorry you have difficulties with such concepts.Now is we were a true democracy the law(s) would already have been changed..that "true democracy" thing could use a reality check, with a dictionary or so for example. or is this your personal code?
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
