#71
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger!
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 5:52:54 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 17:14:53 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich wrote: On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 1:42:27 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 11:27:06 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote: On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 8:03:08 AM UTC-8, sms wrote: On 2/11/2020 6:57 AM, jbeattie wrote: snip Its that whole pesky Constitutional thing and the requirement or reasonable suspicion for a police stop. It has nothing to do with buying a drink, driving a car or opening a bank account. That darn constitution. Trump thinks that it's some kind of communist manifesto. Maybe that is why he is not only enforcing it but putting originalist judges on the Supreme Court. Too bad so many people are blind to enforcing the actual Constitution. Being here illegally gives you absolutely no Constitutional rights. And in fact NO ONE is bothering illegals here that aren't criminals committing crimes. Trump well knows that they add to the economy and that they can be and usually are good citizens. Sanctuary laws are made SPECIFICALLY to protect felons. They prevent state prisons and jails from informing ICE when felons are being released. Democrats are releasing violent criminals into the general population and pretending that is somehow good for America. Have you even read the Constitution? The Fifth Amendment states that “no person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Last time I and SCOTUS looked, a person includes a person -- unless your originalist judges interpret person to mean "citizen" -- which would be adding to the plain language of the Amendment. |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger!
On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 8:09:06 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 5:14:56 PM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote: On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 1:42:27 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 11:27:06 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote: On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 8:03:08 AM UTC-8, sms wrote: On 2/11/2020 6:57 AM, jbeattie wrote: snip Its that whole pesky Constitutional thing and the requirement or reasonable suspicion for a police stop. It has nothing to do with buying a drink, driving a car or opening a bank account. That darn constitution. Trump thinks that it's some kind of communist manifesto. Maybe that is why he is not only enforcing it but putting originalist judges on the Supreme Court. Too bad so many people are blind to enforcing the actual Constitution. Being here illegally gives you absolutely no Constitutional rights. And in fact NO ONE is bothering illegals here that aren't criminals committing crimes. Trump well knows that they add to the economy and that they can be and usually are good citizens. Sanctuary laws are made SPECIFICALLY to protect felons. They prevent state prisons and jails from informing ICE when felons are being released. Democrats are releasing violent criminals into the general population and pretending that is somehow good for America. Have you even read the Constitution? The Fifth Amendment states that “no person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Last time I and SCOTUS looked, a person includes a person -- unless your originalist judges interpret person to mean "citizen" -- which would be adding to the plain language of the Amendment. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger!
On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:55:23 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 8:09:06 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 5:14:56 PM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote: On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 1:42:27 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 11:27:06 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote: On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 8:03:08 AM UTC-8, sms wrote: On 2/11/2020 6:57 AM, jbeattie wrote: snip Its that whole pesky Constitutional thing and the requirement or reasonable suspicion for a police stop. It has nothing to do with buying a drink, driving a car or opening a bank account. That darn constitution. Trump thinks that it's some kind of communist manifesto. Maybe that is why he is not only enforcing it but putting originalist judges on the Supreme Court. Too bad so many people are blind to enforcing the actual Constitution. Being here illegally gives you absolutely no Constitutional rights. And in fact NO ONE is bothering illegals here that aren't criminals committing crimes. Trump well knows that they add to the economy and that they can be and usually are good citizens. Sanctuary laws are made SPECIFICALLY to protect felons. They prevent state prisons and jails from informing ICE when felons are being released. Democrats are releasing violent criminals into the general population and pretending that is somehow good for America. Have you even read the Constitution? The Fifth Amendment states that “no person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Last time I and SCOTUS looked, a person includes a person -- unless your originalist judges interpret person to mean "citizen" -- which would be adding to the plain language of the Amendment. Also, sanctuary laws may or may not affect reporting to the NCIS/HSIN. In the Fuentes case, for example, the arrest was reported, and ICE knew that Khan was being held -- and knew where to send the detainer request. ICE has to know a suspect is being held before it can even send a detainer request, but rather than going to get them, they request a 48 hour hold so they can finish their doughnuts and coffee -- which require jurisdictions to hold suspects after they have been arraigned and posted bail. That is not without risk. ICE also knows where these people live, and if bail has been granted, so does the court and the bondsman. Anyone with access to a court docket can see where the suspect lives, the terms of release, etc.., etc. It's not rocket science. Khan and every other released criminal is on the radar. -- Jay Beattie. Jay, if you want to give rights to anyone that can get across any border or swim onto any shore you have no rights for anyone. We have a legal way to enter this country if you do not do that you are a criminal, period. My Grandfather was illegally here in the states but the moment he got to the bay area he filed for citizenship. In order to prevent people from leaving their ships cargo freighters from all over the world would avoid ports of entry. The lessons of the gold rush were plain enough. The entire waterfront in San Francisco was entirely covered with ghost ships. Even the captains of these vessels would leave the ships - contrary to the True Believers - not to run to the gold fields but to be in a land where they could be free. Everyone that entered through ports of entry would file on the spot for citizenship and eventually the papers would catch up with you. BUT THEY FILED. Now the law is totally ignored. It is so bad that all of the farm workers that could easily get a green card leading to citizenship don't even bother because it is so much easier to just walk across. I realize that you want to take the Constitution literally but we'll just have to see what the Supreme Court has to say and it seems to me that they have frowned a bit as of late on giving rights to anyone here illegally. Tom, you were praising "originalist" judges -- judges who give effect to the literal terms of the Constitution. Now you are saying you want activist judges who interpret the Constitution to achieve a political goal? -- Jay Beattie. Jay, what does the Constitution say about immigration? Not much. Go read it and report back. Pay particular attention to the 14th Amendment. -- Jay Beattie. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger!
On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 9:09:17 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:55:23 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote: On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 8:09:06 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 5:14:56 PM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote: On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 1:42:27 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 11:27:06 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote: On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 8:03:08 AM UTC-8, sms wrote: On 2/11/2020 6:57 AM, jbeattie wrote: snip Its that whole pesky Constitutional thing and the requirement or reasonable suspicion for a police stop. It has nothing to do with buying a drink, driving a car or opening a bank account. That darn constitution. Trump thinks that it's some kind of communist manifesto. Maybe that is why he is not only enforcing it but putting originalist judges on the Supreme Court. Too bad so many people are blind to enforcing the actual Constitution. Being here illegally gives you absolutely no Constitutional rights. And in fact NO ONE is bothering illegals here that aren't criminals committing crimes. Trump well knows that they add to the economy and that they can be and usually are good citizens. Sanctuary laws are made SPECIFICALLY to protect felons. They prevent state prisons and jails from informing ICE when felons are being released. Democrats are releasing violent criminals into the general population and pretending that is somehow good for America. Have you even read the Constitution? The Fifth Amendment states that “no person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Last time I and SCOTUS looked, a person includes a person -- unless your originalist judges interpret person to mean "citizen" -- which would be adding to the plain language of the Amendment. Also, sanctuary laws may or may not affect reporting to the NCIS/HSIN. In the Fuentes case, for example, the arrest was reported, and ICE knew that Khan was being held -- and knew where to send the detainer request.. ICE has to know a suspect is being held before it can even send a detainer request, but rather than going to get them, they request a 48 hour hold so they can finish their doughnuts and coffee -- which require jurisdictions to hold suspects after they have been arraigned and posted bail. That is not without risk. ICE also knows where these people live, and if bail has been granted, so does the court and the bondsman. Anyone with access to a court docket can see where the suspect lives, the terms of release, etc., etc. It's not rocket science. Khan and every other released criminal is on the radar. -- Jay Beattie. Jay, if you want to give rights to anyone that can get across any border or swim onto any shore you have no rights for anyone. We have a legal way to enter this country if you do not do that you are a criminal, period.. My Grandfather was illegally here in the states but the moment he got to the bay area he filed for citizenship. In order to prevent people from leaving their ships cargo freighters from all over the world would avoid ports of entry. The lessons of the gold rush were plain enough. The entire waterfront in San Francisco was entirely covered with ghost ships. Even the captains of these vessels would leave the ships - contrary to the True Believers - not to run to the gold fields but to be in a land where they could be free. Everyone that entered through ports of entry would file on the spot for citizenship and eventually the papers would catch up with you. BUT THEY FILED. Now the law is totally ignored. It is so bad that all of the farm workers that could easily get a green card leading to citizenship don't even bother because it is so much easier to just walk across. I realize that you want to take the Constitution literally but we'll just have to see what the Supreme Court has to say and it seems to me that they have frowned a bit as of late on giving rights to anyone here illegally. Tom, you were praising "originalist" judges -- judges who give effect to the literal terms of the Constitution. Now you are saying you want activist judges who interpret the Constitution to achieve a political goal? -- Jay Beattie. Jay, what does the Constitution say about immigration? Not much. Go read it and report back. Pay particular attention to the 14th Amendment. -- Jay Beattie. I will repeat - what has that to do with illegal immigration? Just because you've apparently been making a killing off of defending illegals in court doesn't mean that we don't have the right to treat them as illegal. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger!
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 06:54:02 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote: On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 5:52:54 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote: On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 17:14:53 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich wrote: On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 1:42:27 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 11:27:06 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote: On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 8:03:08 AM UTC-8, sms wrote: On 2/11/2020 6:57 AM, jbeattie wrote: snip Its that whole pesky Constitutional thing and the requirement or reasonable suspicion for a police stop. It has nothing to do with buying a drink, driving a car or opening a bank account. That darn constitution. Trump thinks that it's some kind of communist manifesto. Maybe that is why he is not only enforcing it but putting originalist judges on the Supreme Court. Too bad so many people are blind to enforcing the actual Constitution. Being here illegally gives you absolutely no Constitutional rights. And in fact NO ONE is bothering illegals here that aren't criminals committing crimes. Trump well knows that they add to the economy and that they can be and usually are good citizens. Sanctuary laws are made SPECIFICALLY to protect felons. They prevent state prisons and jails from informing ICE when felons are being released. Democrats are releasing violent criminals into the general population and pretending that is somehow good for America. Have you even read the Constitution? The Fifth Amendment states that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Last time I and SCOTUS looked, a person includes a person -- unless your originalist judges interpret person to mean "citizen" -- which would be adding to the plain language of the Amendment. Also, sanctuary laws may or may not affect reporting to the NCIS/HSIN. In the Fuentes case, for example, the arrest was reported, and ICE knew that Khan was being held -- and knew where to send the detainer request. ICE has to know a suspect is being held before it can even send a detainer request, but rather than going to get them, they request a 48 hour hold so they can finish their doughnuts and coffee -- which require jurisdictions to hold suspects after they have been arraigned and posted bail. That is not without risk. ICE also knows where these people live, and if bail has been granted, so does the court and the bondsman. Anyone with access to a court docket can see where the suspect lives, the terms of release, etc., etc. It's not rocket science. Khan and every other released criminal is on the radar. -- Jay Beattie. Jay, if you want to give rights to anyone that can get across any border or swim onto any shore you have no rights for anyone. We have a legal way to enter this country if you do not do that you are a criminal, period. My Grandfather was illegally here in the states but the moment he got to the bay area he filed for citizenship. In order to prevent people from leaving their ships cargo freighters from all over the world would avoid ports of entry. The lessons of the gold rush were plain enough. The entire waterfront in San Francisco was entirely covered with ghost ships. Even the captains of these vessels would leave the ships - contrary to the True Believers - not to run to the gold fields but to be in a land where they could be free. Tom, the largest percentage of the "49'ers", as they were called came from the east coast of the U.S. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Gold_Rush "It is estimated that approximately 90,000 people arrived in California in 1849, about half by land and half by sea. Of these, perhaps 50,000 to 60,000 were Americans, and the rest were from other countries" Are you arguing that there was no freedom on the east coast of the U.S. in 1849? Or simply telling lies again? Everyone that entered through ports of entry would file on the spot for citizenship and eventually the papers would catch up with you. BUT THEY FILED. I don't know what period you are referring to but I can assure you that in 1969 when I brought my first wife from Japan to the U.S. one couldn't simply waltz up to an immigration counter and get a free pass to go into the U.S. In our case there was a special law that applied to the foreign wife of an active duty serviceman but we had to process the paper work at the Tokyo embassy before we left for America. It appears that once again Old Tommy doesn't know what he is talking about. Now the law is totally ignored. It is so bad that all of the farm workers that could easily get a green card leading to citizenship don't even bother because it is so much easier to just walk across. I realize that you want to take the Constitution literally but we'll just have to see what the Supreme Court has to say and it seems to me that they have frowned a bit as of late on giving rights to anyone here illegally. -- cheers, John B. On your smartest day you couldn't even pass for a fool. Firstly some 350,000 people started for California on three routes - Across the plains by wagon train, shipping down to the isthmus of Panama, hiking across and catching another ship there to sail to San Francisco (most ships never made it as far as Los Angeles) and by ship, around Cape Horn. Over half of those rounding the Horn died of starvation. Most of the rest by malnutrition caused disease. Crossing Utah a large percentage lost their teams from lack of fodder. Those that took the northern route through Montana settled in Washington and Oregon if they got past Idaho. Of that 350,000 only 60,000 of the original Americans arrived in San Francisco and half of those died of starvation or disease in the first year. Those that crossed Panama were particularly hard hit and only 10% of them were not killed by typhus or malaria. Really? Truly? So prove it Tom. Can you document that? Or is it just you telling lies? No more smoking the funny stuff and dreaming, just the truth Tom. So you claim that 350,000 left for the gold fields? Left from where? Can you prove it? My Grandfather arriving in 1889 had somewhat a different immigration system than in 1969 but it is plain that you don't really understand the world around you at all. Do you mean that because, as you have told us, your grandfather was an illegal immigrant and my wife was a legal immigrant that I don't understand the immigration system in the period that I was subject to? Tom, you are right up full of the brown stuff. Tell us all how you worked on bombers when the B50 was never used as such. Whatever are you going on about? There was never a B-50? Gee whiz, you can look that up on the Internet... Search for "B-50 Bomber" and bingo you will find a site that says "The Boeing B-50 Superfortress is an American strategic bomber" - the first nine words... and you can't find them? Apparently in addition to being a dedicated liar you are too stupid to even look things op on the Internet. -- cheers, John B. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger!
On 2/17/2020 9:09 AM, jbeattie wrote:
snip Not much. Go read it and report back. Pay particular attention to the 14th Amendment. This is nothing. I just found out that our public schools have been teaching students with Arabic numerals. Someone needs to do something. A recent poll showed that LXXII% of Americans opposed teaching Arabic numerals, while only XXXIV% of Democrats were opposed. Typical commie Democrats. https://www.sciencealert.com/more-th...arabic-numbers |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger!
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:54:00 -0800, sms
wrote: On 2/17/2020 9:09 AM, jbeattie wrote: snip Not much. Go read it and report back. Pay particular attention to the 14th Amendment. This is nothing. I just found out that our public schools have been teaching students with Arabic numerals. Someone needs to do something. A recent poll showed that LXXII% of Americans opposed teaching Arabic numerals, while only XXXIV% of Democrats were opposed. Typical commie Democrats. https://www.sciencealert.com/more-th...arabic-numbers The problem that the English (Celts)only developed a single numbering system "Yan, Tyan, Tethera, Methera, Pimp", which was still in use up to the 1900's for counting sheep, in parts of the country. Unfortunately it doesn't lend itself well to the written page, or the science of mathematics, so the Arabic (heathen) system of writing numbers was adopted. -- cheers, John B. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger!
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:26:45 AM UTC, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:54:00 -0800, sms wrote: This is nothing. I just found out that our public schools have been teaching students with Arabic numerals. Someone needs to do something. A recent poll showed that LXXII% of Americans opposed teaching Arabic numerals, while only XXXIV% of Democrats were opposed. Typical commie Democrats. https://www.sciencealert.com/more-th...arabic-numbers The problem that the English (Celts) The English are not Celts, Slow Johnny. They're Jutes, Angles and Saxons. only developed a single numbering system "Yan, Tyan, Tethera, Methera, Pimp", which was still in use up to the 1900's for counting sheep, in parts of the country. Oh dear. You shoulda read more than the first sentence in you source, Slow Johnny. The very next sentence on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yan_Tan_Tethera tells an entirely different story of the development of the words among the English: "The word yan or yen for "one" in some northern English dialects generally represents a regular development in Northern English in which the Old English long vowel /ɑː/ ā was broken into /ie/, /ia/ and so on. This explains the shift to yan and ane from the Old English ān, which is itself derived from the Proto-Germanic *ainaz." And there's the Teutonic link I was just explaining to you. What price Celtic now, eh, Slow Johnny? Unfortunately it doesn't lend itself well to the written page, Does it lend itself well to writing on sheepskin? (Just for you, Slow Johnny, this is a sarcastic joke. You're forgiven for not getting it.) or the science of mathematics, so the Arabic (heathen) Heathen as contrasted with Christian? Oh dear, oh dear. You're the perfect illustration of one of my objections to Wikipedia, that it steers the ignorant wrong, and the lazy ignorant like you, Slow Johnny, further wrong. See, Slow Johnny, at the date these words entered the language, England was not yet converted to Christianity. The Anglo-Saxons expanding from the Jutish Kingdom of Kent worshipped my and their ancestor, Odin, whose hall was on the island off the coast of Denmark still named for that fact, Odense (of Odin's See, the word See meaning Seat still in the title modern bishops).. Of course, if by "heathens" you simply mean Mohammedans, you're welcome to your Islamophobia. More of the same ignorance and bone-headed stupidity, but I can't be bothered correcting you till kingdom come. In general, you should read the entire article on Wikipedia, and check every single fact against an authoritative source, before you come pretend to knowledge here. See, Slow Johnny, most of Wikipedia is written by people marginally more literate than you, but too often quite as broadly ignorant as you, and as wilfully blissful in their ignorance. It's a bad combination for creating an encyclopaedia which crowdsourcing is totally incapable of avoiding. One of my research assistants at its founding described Wikipedia as "the redbrick blight of the jumped-up techical college yobs," and so it has proved. By the way, when you study that article that so exposed your deepseated ignorance -- you will, won't you, Slow Johnny? -- you will discover that you needn't go past the first two sentences, which contradict each other (the second one, in your context of how *English* shepherds counted, is correct, not the first one), and thereby signal that the rest of the article will also be field manure that will embarrass you as an ignoramus the minute you run into someone better educated than the writers of that article. Andre Jute Linguist |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger!
On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 3:24:19 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 06:54:02 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich On your smartest day you couldn't even pass for a fool. Firstly some 350,000 people started for California on three routes - Across the plains by wagon train, shipping down to the isthmus of Panama, hiking across and catching another ship there to sail to San Francisco (most ships never made it as far as Los Angeles) and by ship, around Cape Horn. Over half of those rounding the Horn died of starvation. Most of the rest by malnutrition caused disease. Crossing Utah a large percentage lost their teams from lack of fodder. Those that took the northern route through Montana settled in Washington and Oregon if they got past Idaho. Of that 350,000 only 60,000 of the original Americans arrived in San Francisco and half of those died of starvation or disease in the first year. Those that crossed Panama were particularly hard hit and only 10% of them were not killed by typhus or malaria. Really? Truly? So prove it Tom. Can you document that? Or is it just you telling lies? No more smoking the funny stuff and dreaming, just the truth Tom. So you claim that 350,000 left for the gold fields? Left from where? Can you prove it? My Grandfather arriving in 1889 had somewhat a different immigration system than in 1969 but it is plain that you don't really understand the world around you at all. Do you mean that because, as you have told us, your grandfather was an illegal immigrant and my wife was a legal immigrant that I don't understand the immigration system in the period that I was subject to? Tom, you are right up full of the brown stuff. Tell us all how you worked on bombers when the B50 was never used as such. Whatever are you going on about? There was never a B-50? Gee whiz, you can look that up on the Internet... Search for "B-50 Bomber" and bingo you will find a site that says "The Boeing B-50 Superfortress is an American strategic bomber" - the first nine words... and you can't find them? Apparently in addition to being a dedicated liar you are too stupid to even look things op on the Internet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Gold_Rush http://mygoldrushtales.com/crossing-panama/ Since you never lived here why are you trying to pretend you know about it? The B50 was NEVER used as a bomber so don't pretend otherwise. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Danger! Danger! Get a flag! | Frank Krygowski[_4_] | Techniques | 26 | January 23rd 16 09:06 PM |
Danger! Danger! That cyclist there! You're in a shipping lane! | [email protected] | Techniques | 1 | October 14th 15 10:28 PM |
DANGER! DANGER! Beware wandering sheep if MTBing in Greece | Sir Ridesalot | Techniques | 25 | September 23rd 15 12:10 PM |
Danger! Danger! (Worst liability waiver?) | [email protected] | General | 16 | February 12th 08 09:18 AM |
DO NOT WEAR YOUR HELMLET!! DANGER, DANGER, danger | TJ | Mountain Biking | 4 | December 23rd 06 07:03 PM |