kelpdiver 2 #51 June 22, 2011 QuoteQuotethe difference between murder and homicide has been pointed out to you. Now what about justified rape? In your zero tolerance world a sixteen year old who consentually fucked a fifteen year old would get the same sentence as a forty year old who fucked a ten year old at knifepoint. Rape is rape, right? While apparently some states still record teenage sex as statuatory rape, most don't, and it's still distinct from rape. Definitions really do matter, Dan. When you're done steaming, come back. And rounding back to where we started, illegal aliens are pretty much identical in the crime committed. You're arguing that the impact of the crime varies, so it should be treated differently, but the crime itself remains consistent, unlike the awful attempt at counter examples you've tried to make on murder/rape. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #52 June 22, 2011 QuoteYou first - planning on coming up with something to rebut my position that they should be entering the country LEGALLY instead of getting a bye on being here ILLEGALLY? That would be great, if there actually were ways for people without college degrees to enter legally. Since there aren't (practically), it doesn't really solve the problem. And what about the millions of people already here? Is your only solution to throw them all out and have them all apply for the few legal enrty slots that they won't qualify for anyway? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #53 June 22, 2011 QuoteYou're arguing that the impact of the crime varies, so it should be treated differently, but the crime itself remains consistent, unlike the awful attempt at counter examples you've tried to make on murder/rape. Just because you don't like my examples doesn't make them awful. You're arguing from the standpoint of the current legal definition of illegal entry, which doesn't differentiate between individual cases. I can't refute that argument, since it is simply a statement of fact. The argument I'm trying to refute is the implied argument that the current system is just fine, including the single sanction of deportation you seem to favor. My argument is that the system would be better if individual circumstances, including intent and effect, were taken into account. Basically, you're arguing about what is, I'm arguing about what should be. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #54 June 22, 2011 So, you're saying it's ok for SOME people to break the law, so long as they're from the right demographic?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #55 June 22, 2011 QuoteSo, you're saying it's ok for SOME people to break the law, so long as they're from the right demographic? Seems to work for Wall St. bankers.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #56 June 22, 2011 No, I'm saying that individual circumstances should be taken into account when determining punishment and prosecutorial fervor. I think I've been abundantly clear about that. Would you care to state your own position on the matter? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #57 June 22, 2011 >So, you're saying it's ok for SOME people to break the law, so long as they're from the right demographic? Sure. GOP senators, for example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #58 June 22, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo, you're saying it's ok for SOME people to break the law, so long as they're from the right demographic? Seems to work for Wall St. bankers. And Obama administration officials/czars.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #59 June 22, 2011 QuoteNo, I'm saying that individual circumstances should be taken into account when determining punishment and prosecutorial fervor. I think I've been abundantly clear about that. Yes, you've been very clear that you think only SOME people should have to follow the law. QuoteWould you care to state your own position on the matter? Already did - go back and re-read it if you care to.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #60 June 22, 2011 Quote>So, you're saying it's ok for SOME people to break the law, so long as they're from the right demographic? Sure. GOP senators, for example. And Democrat Presidents/Congressmen.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #61 June 22, 2011 Quote>So, you're saying it's ok for SOME people to break the law, so long as they're from the right demographic? Sure. GOP senators, for example. It blows me away that you appear to think there's a dime's worth of difference between one side of the aisle and the other. It's like having a preference between Collie shit and Terrier shit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #62 June 22, 2011 >It blows me away that you appear to think there's a dime's worth of >difference between one side of the aisle and the other. There's really not. The same people defending Vitter wanted Wiener to step down. (And vice versa.) They have a very strong sense of morality and righteousness - as long as they can apply it to someone on "the other side." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #63 June 22, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo, you're saying it's ok for SOME people to break the law, so long as they're from the right demographic? Seems to work for Wall St. bankers. And Senator Vitter Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #64 June 22, 2011 QuoteYes, you've been very clear that you think only SOME people should have to follow the law. No, I've made it quite clear that I think everybody should follow the law, but that judges and prosecutors should have discretion about how the law is applied in individual cases. You can try to twist what I say all you want, you're the one that ends up looking silly. QuoteAlready did - go back and re-read it if you care to. I just re-read the whole thread, you have made no statements of substance whatsoever, except agreeing with GravityMaster that it is good that the Obama Administration is keeping up the deportation numbers. If that's your only position in the debate, I fail to see why you're still here. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #65 June 22, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo, you're saying it's ok for SOME people to break the law, so long as they're from the right demographic? Seems to work for Wall St. bankers. And Senator Vitter And Representative JeffersonMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #66 June 22, 2011 QuoteSorry, no, the language doesn't support your position. If your surmise were true, the language would have read "primary attention should be given this segment" instead of "consider leniency for this segment". It's basic triage. Concentrate the limited resources where most critical at first.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #67 June 22, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo, you're saying it's ok for SOME people to break the law, so long as they're from the right demographic? Seems to work for Wall St. bankers. And Senator Vitter And Representative Jefferson Dont you mean the EX-Representative Jefferson?? When are you going to support Senator Vitter being an EX Senator.... oh yeah.. bout the time that hell freezes over. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #68 June 22, 2011 QuoteQuoteYes, you've been very clear that you think only SOME people should have to follow the law. No, I've made it quite clear that I think everybody should follow the law, Then why are you posting in support of those who have entered the country ILLEGALLY? Quotebut that judges and prosecutors should have discretion about how the law is applied in individual cases. So, illegal isn't *really* illegal...so long as it's the RIGHT person. QuoteYou can try to twist what I say all you want, you're the one that ends up looking silly. Yeah, ok....whatever you spin say.... QuoteQuoteAlready did - go back and re-read it if you care to. I just re-read the whole thread, you have made no statements of substance whatsoever, except agreeing with GravityMaster that it is good that the Obama Administration is keeping up the deportation numbers. If that's your only position in the debate, I fail to see why you're still here. Post 30: "there's an existing LEGAL channel for entry" Post 48: "they should be entering the country LEGALLY"Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #69 June 22, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo, you're saying it's ok for SOME people to break the law, so long as they're from the right demographic? Seems to work for Wall St. bankers. And Senator Vitter And Representative Jefferson Dont you mean the EX-Representative Jefferson?? EX because he was voted out, not because the Dems forced his resignation. QuoteWhen are you going to support Senator Vitter being an EX Senator.... oh yeah.. bout the time that hell freezes over. Lemme know when you get around to supporting Clinton's impeachment for perjury and I'll look into Vitter's situation again.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #70 June 22, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo, you're saying it's ok for SOME people to break the law, so long as they're from the right demographic? Seems to work for Wall St. bankers. And Senator Vitter And Representative Jefferson Dont you mean the EX-Representative Jefferson?? EX because he was voted out, not because the Dems forced his resignation. QuoteWhen are you going to support Senator Vitter being an EX Senator.... oh yeah.. bout the time that hell freezes over. Lemme know when you get around to supporting Clinton's impeachment for perjury and I'll look into Vitter's situation again. [url "http://republicanoffenders.com/"]Mikees Hundreds of HEROS" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #71 June 22, 2011 Republican offenders. ( and not even going back 40 years as the list that Mikee will try to pawn off) Those not living up to that Moral Majority Party of Family Values standard they set for themselves Abramoff, Jack Adams, Tom Adams, Jim Aiken, Steve Alishtari, Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Allen, Bob Allen, Claude Allen, Bill Alonos, Miram Anderson, Tom Ankeney, Randal David Aragoncillo, Leandro Atchison, John David R. Bakker, Jim Barclay, Bruce Barnes, Martin G. Barter, Merrill Robert Beaird, John Bena, Parker J. Beres, Lou Beverage, Sam Biggins, Bob Binder, Alan Bird, Calvin Bland, Wilton Frederick Blessing, Louis Bloom, Philip H. Blundell, Brian Bobrick, Bill Boggio, Scott Botes, Stephan Boylan, Joe Brady, Kevin Brock, Darrell Broderick, Thomas Brooks, Howard L. Brown, Shawn Bryan, John Bundy, Ted Burcham, Tom Burghoff, Matthew Burt, John Allen Butler, John Cagle, Charles "Chig" Cappelli, Angelo Carona, Deborah Carona, Michael S. Carpenter, Jared Carroll, Cherie Casamento, Ricahard Casseday, Randall Childers, W.D. Childs, Keola Cianci, Vincent Clark, Donald Ross Coan, Kevin Collins, John J. Colyandro, John Condos, James Constantine, Lee Cooper, Nathan Corrigan, Larry Cortelyou, Scott Eller Coughlin ,Paul Coutretsis, Andrea Cowdery, John Craig, Larry Cramer, Carey Lee Crawford, Lester Cunningham, Randy “Duke” Curtin, John R. Dasen Sr., Richard A. Davis, Ronnie Davison, Pat DeLay, Tom Delgaudio, Richard A. DeShon, Ronnie Gene Dibble, Peter Dickens, Joshua Disponett, Dave Doolittle, John Doyle, Dan Doyle, Victoria Doyle, Brian J. Druce, Thomas Druen, Dan Elizondo, Nicholas Ellef ,Peter Elliott, Matthew Joseph Ellis, James Fabian, Alan Fawell, Scott Federici, Italia Fields, Vincent Fleischman, Donald Fletcher, Earnie Floren, Livvy Flory, Michael Floyd, Larry Dale Foggo, Kyle “Dusty” Fossella, Vito J. Fox., Galen Franklin, Larry Gallagher, Dennis Gardner, Richard Garofalo, Dave Gillin, William Giordano, Philip Glavin, Matthew Gosek, John Goyette, Richard R. Graves, David Grethen, Mark A. Griles, J. Steven Groe, Trish Habay, Jeffrey Hamilton Jr., John J. Hansen, Shaun Harbin, Ben Harding, Russell Harris, Mark Hazlette, Tim Healy, Chris Heaton, William Heldreth, Howard Scott Hicks, Brian Hiller, Bradley R. Hintz, Mike Hoffman, Debra V. Holland, Robert Holt, Delecia Hooks Sr., Michael Hopfengardner, Bruce D. Horsley, Neal Houchen, Pamela J. Hughes, J. Marshall Hurley, Steven M. Iadanza, Richard Matricarid, Edmund III Isenhour, James K. Jacoby, Mark James, Rayfield Janklow, Bill Jensen, Scott Jones, Jody Juliano, Richard Kaelin, Jeffrey Kauffman, Allen D. Kelty, Matt Kerik, Bernie Kidan, Adam Kimmerling, Earl "Butch" King, Lawrence E. "Larry" Jr. Klaudt, Ted Kline, Ronald C. Kohring, Vic Kontogiannis, Thomas Kott, Pete Knapp, Max Lambert, James R. Law, David Lay ,Michael Aaron Leonard, Richard Leung, Katrina Libby, I. Lewis "Scooter" Limbaugh, Rush Linnen, Stephen Loeper Jr., F. Joseph Looper, Byran "Low Tax" Loren-Maltese, Betty Lukens, Donald "Buz" Luongo, Gerald J. Malloy, Patrick G. Malone, Lance Manuel, Thomas G. Martin, Hayes Mathes Jr., James R. Matricardi, Edmund III Matthews, Jon Maysky, Eugene McCurnin, Joseph McGee, Charles McGuire, Patrick Lee Meadows, Cory Merla, John Michael, John Mixon, Michael Monteleone Jr., Joseph Morency, Nicholas Murgatroyd, Dick Murphy Jr., Glenn Muschany, Scott Nash, James J. Neal, Rebecca Newton, Chris Ney, Bob Nguyen, Tan Nielsen, Jeffrey Nighbert, Bill Nixon Jr., Kenneth E. Noe, Bernadette Noe, Thomas Noonan, Thomas J. Novak, Lawrence Nugent, Johnny O’Grady, Raymond Oleen, Lana Ortloff, George Chris Owens, Leonard Ray Palughi, Anthony J. Parker, Brent Patti, Jeffrey Pazuhanich, Mark Privette, Coy Prokos, Alexandra Pugh, Edward Rader, Dennis L. Randall, Tom Randall, Jeffrey Kyle Rathmann, Rolf Ravenel, Thomas Raymond, Allen Regola, Robert Renzi, Rick Rice, Steve Ring, Kevin Ringo, Robert R. RoBold, Warren Rosen, Steve Rowland, John Rudy, Tony Russell, Beverly Ryan, George Safavian, David Hossein Scanlon, Michael Scannapieco, Matthew V. Schepp, Brent Schofield, Robert T. Schrenko, Linda Scott, Randy Seidensticker, Mark Shaner, Matt Shortridge, Tom Siljander, Mark Deli Skandalakis, Mitch Skiles, Paul Slocum, William Smeltzer Jr., Fred C. Smith, Rick Stanley, Roger “The Hog Stevens, Ted Stillwell, Roger Stroupe Jr, Wade Stumbo, Bobby Sumrow, Ray Swartz, David Symington, Fife Taff, Adam Taft, Bob Tanonaka, Dalton Tate, Mark Tebano, Armando Teele, Arthur Temple, Merle Thompson, Joe Thompson, Donald Thomson, Gary Russell Tobin, James Treffinger, James Trout, Harold Anthony "Tony" Tristano, Michael Turbyfill, Basil Van Vleet, Rick D. Vanderwall, Robin Velella, Guy J. Vellanoweth, Robert Volz, Neil Wade, Mitchell Walker, Derek Walters, Nick Warner, Larry Weissmann, Keith Weldon ,Terance Westberg, Craig Westlake, John E. "Jack" Westmoreland, Keith Weyhrauch, Bruce White, C. Stephen Wilkes ,Brent Williams, Robin Wilson, Bob Zachares, Mark Zimmerman, Al Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #72 June 22, 2011 Nothing on Clinton, Jeanne? Imagine that....Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #73 June 22, 2011 QuotePost 30: "there's an existing LEGAL channel for entry" Post 48: "they should be entering the country LEGALLY" This whole thread is about people who are already here ILLEGALLY. You have yet to say anything about what should happen to them. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #74 June 22, 2011 QuoteQuoteYou're arguing that the impact of the crime varies, so it should be treated differently, but the crime itself remains consistent, unlike the awful attempt at counter examples you've tried to make on murder/rape. Just because you don't like my examples doesn't make them awful. You're arguing from the standpoint of the current legal definition of illegal entry, which doesn't differentiate between individual cases. I can't refute that argument, since it is simply a statement of fact. The argument I'm trying to refute is the implied argument that the current system is just fine, including the single sanction of deportation you seem to favor. My argument is that the system would be better if individual circumstances, including intent and effect, were taken into account. Basically, you're arguing about what is, I'm arguing about what should be. I entered the conversation because you tried to use the ruse of zero tolerance for crime being another example of zero intelligence. No absolutes you proclaimed. And sorry, there are absolutes. Some crime, and I listed two, does not have grey area. Uncontrolled illegal immigration has a few positives, and a lot of negatives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #75 June 22, 2011 QuoteThis whole thread is about people who are already here ILLEGALLY. You have yet to say anything about what should happen to them. A logical, rational reader should be able to draw a conclusion based on my prior comments. That said, evidently I need to spell it out for you. Anyone in the country illegally should be deported and have to re-enter using the existing LEGAL system. Based on your prior argument, you evidently feel nothing should be done to those who are caught from the increased scrutiny of employers - after all, they're "contributing to the country economically".Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
