What to do with all these criminals at our border??
What to do with all these criminals at our border??
So now that SCOTUS has sided with the POTUS on asylum seekers, it's timeto
resume our argument over whether or not people are illegal.
My argument is this: It's illegal to come to the USA from, for example, Honduras and request asylum; people from Honduras have other countries along the way where they can request asylum.
What to do with all these criminals at our border??
What to do with all these criminals at our border??
You need to differentiatem I think, between criminals on the one hand
and on the other hand those individuals on the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
What we need to do is remove all the reasons to come to the US. No more free stuff; no more easy ways to get into the country. They're illegal
I don't have a problem with a hand up. It's when it becomes a hand out (even to citizens) where things become problematic and when it's drawing
You need to differentiatem I think, between criminals on the one hand at>WD> and on the other hand those individuals on the pursuit of life,
liberty and happiness.
What are we going to do with this mixed group of criminals and ambitious, polite, not racist, illegal immigrants?
You need to differentiatem I think, between criminals on the one hand at>WD> and on the other hand those individuals on the pursuit of life, at>WD> liberty and happiness.
What are we going to do with this mixed group of criminals and ambitious, polite, not racist, illegal immigrants?
The same thing as "with justice and liberty for all" ... a phrase that you undoubtedly parroted an ungracious amount of time without devoting any attention to what you were actually saying.
It doesn't say "with justice and liberty for 'some of us'".
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to
the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.
People are legal regardless of who they are or where they are from.
People from any country can request asylum. The US cannot tell
anybody where to go in order to do so.
What criminals?
It doesn't say "with justice and liberty for 'some of us'".
No, I don't.
People from any country can request asylum. The US cannot tell
anybody where to go in order to do so.
It doesn't say "with justice and liberty for 'some of us'".
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
No, I don't.
No, I don't.
Obviously because you dont know it.
People are legal regardless of who they are or where they are from.
Not according to federal law.
People from any country can request asylum. The US cannot tell
anybody where to go in order to do so.
You show me where that's codified.
The US has the right to deny anyone entrance.
What criminals?
Quit insulting the rest of the echo's intelligence, Lee.
It doesn't say "with justice and liberty for 'some of us'".
You're right. The SCOTUS just ruled that illegal aliens (let's use the right term) have no right to due process since they aren't citizens. So, inherently, you're quite right.
"For all" needs to be amended to "for all citizens and legal immigrants". Not illegal aliens.
No, I don't.
1) You know damn well that's not what the orignal quote meant in context, Ward, so stop being obtuse.
2) I'd hope not. You're not a US citizen.
erasingPeople from any country can request asylum. The US cannot tell
anybody where to go in order to do so.
They just did. Want to erase the US supreme court after you get done
the electoral college?
Not being a citizens of the USA I could be hanged for
treason after having pledged allegiance to the flag of
a country who has been continuous at war with someone
or something for most of its 243 years of existance.
IOW, non-citizens who are not legal immigrants can be shot on site. Without fear of being charged of murder.
Lee Lofaso wrote to aaron thomas <=-
People are legal regardless of who they are or where they are from.
My argument is this: It's illegal to come to the USA from, for example, Honduras and request asylum; people from Honduras have other countries along the way where they can request asylum.
People from any country can request asylum. The US cannot tell
anybody where to go in order to do so.
Let's not forget Germany which started both World Wars only to get their asses handed to them both times.
toIOW, non-citizens who are not legal immigrants can be shot on site.
Without fear of being charged of murder.
Leave it to you to pull a strawman out when you don't have anything else
fall back on.
BTW, it's "sight", not "site".
Until you have actual facts to represent your opinions
and not lame logical fallacies,
I'm just not going to respond.
Your drivel gets old after a while though admittedly you're easy to bait.
Too bad you're not a real person. It'd be fun to meet you.
No, I don't.
Obviously because you dont know it.
Not being a citizens of the USA I could be hanged for treason after having pledged allegiance to the flag of a country who has been continuous at war with
someone or something for most of its 243 years of existance.
Not being a citizens of the USA I could be hanged for
treason after having pledged allegiance to the flag of
a country who has been continuous at war with someone
or something for most of its 243 years of existance.
Better to fight for one's survival than roll over and play dead which nearly all of Europe has done for its existance.
Let's not forget Germany which started both World Wars only to get their asses handed to them both times.
I will never understand how anyone let Hitler take power and once he
was in power how they allowed him to do the awful things he did.
Thats one reason why the 2nd amendment means something to me.
Ward Dossche wrote to Sean Dennis <=-
Let's not forget Germany which started both World Wars only to get their asses handed to them both times.
World war 1 was started by Austria ...
Al Miller wrote to Sean Dennis <=-
I will never understand how anyone let Hitler take power and once he
was in power how they
allowed him to do the awful things he did. Thats one reason why the
2nd amendment means
something to me.
should we point out that the 2nd amendment is specific
to states' militias and not to individual ownership??
too many misread, misunderstand, misconstrue what the
2nd is about in the same what they get the 1st amendment wrong...
inLet's not forget Germany which started both World Wars only to get their
asses handed to them both times.
I will never understand how anyone let Hitler take power and once he was
power how they allowed him to do the awful things he did.
Thats one reason why the 2nd amendment means something to me.
On 2019 Sep 14 21:29:18, you wrote to Sean Dennis:
I will never understand how anyone let Hitler take power and once he was in power how they allowed him to do the awful things he did.
look at what DT is doing and you will see exactly how it happened... i'm waiting for the declaration of martial law and then it'll be much too late to do anything...
Thats one reason why the 2nd amendment means something to me.
have you forgotten that germany confiscated folks' weapons after they were required to list them? once the list is created (and it is), they can easily come and get them and the 2nd goes out the door...
should we point out that the 2nd amendment is specific to states' militias and not to individual ownership?? too many misread, misunderstand, misconstrue what
the 2nd is about in the same what they get the 1st amendment wrong...
wasin
power how they allowed him to do the awful things he did.
And to think he did it without FoxNews!
Thats one reason why the 2nd amendment means something to me.
It only means something to the NRA and gun manufacturers.
should we point out that the 2nd amendment is specific to states'
militias and not to individual ownership?? too many misread,
misunderstand, misconstrue what the 2nd is about in the same what
they get the 1st amendment wrong...
You don't know about McDonald v. Chicago?
The Supreme Court has also addressed this issue in District of
Columbia v. Heller but the McDonald v. Chicago cleared up some
ambiguity left by the first case.
From Wikipedia's article on McDonald v. Chicago: "The right to keep
and bear arms for self defense in one's home is protected under the
Second Amendment, and is incorporated against the states through
either the Due Process Clause or Privileges or Immunities Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment. United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded."
No, the Second Amendment is not specific to "states' militias".
I will never understand how anyone let Hitler take power and once he
was in power how they allowed him to do the awful things he did.
look at what DT is doing and you will see exactly how it happened...
i'm waiting for the declaration of martial law and then it'll be much
too late to do anything...
I’m not sensing that at all I think you are being paranoid on that one.
Thats one reason why the 2nd amendment means something to me.
have you forgotten that germany confiscated folks' weapons after they
were required to list them? once the list is created (and it is),
they can easily come and get them and the 2nd goes out the door...
Every one I own is registered already and that doesn’t scare me at
all. If they start mass confiscation I hopefully wont be the first
door they knock on. It’s the democrats that worry me about gun confiscation some of them are saying they are going to do it as part
of their sales pitch. Trump seems to be 2A friendly at this point.
should we point out that the 2nd amendment is specific to states'
militias and not to individual ownership?? too many misread,
misunderstand, misconstrue what the 2nd is about in the same what
they get the 1st amendment wrong...
I understand the wording and the debate on this. This one will potentially be resolved in the SCOTUS one day.
What makes things worse is that I live in Maryland where the only
people that can carry firearms are the police(who are only minutes
away when seconds matter) and the criminals. Fortunately, I dont feel
the need or fear to walk around armed at least for the places I visit
and in my home I am covered.
There are two, and only two, intellectually-honest debate tactics -
1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent's *facts*.
2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent's *logic*.
There are two, and only two, intellectually-honest debate tactics -
1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent's *facts*.
2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent's *logic*.
I beg to differ.
Some of us actually try to make our own points in a solid manner
rather than to limit ourselves to get lost in the position of
somebody else.
I don't need to prove other people wrong if I can prove myself
right.
On 09-17-19 01:45, Lee Lofaso <=-
spoke to Richard Falken about Asylum Seekers <=-
There are two, and only two, intellectually-honest debate tactics -
1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent's *facts*.
2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent's *logic*.
I beg to differ.
Some of us actually try to make our own points in a solid manner
rather than to limit ourselves to get lost in the position of
somebody else.
I don't need to prove other people wrong if I can prove myself
right.
The individual making the original claim does not have to prove
anything. After all, he/she is the one making the claim.
Therefore, it is up to others to prove him/her wrong. If they
can (without resorting to intellectually dishonest debate tactics,
such as name calling, etc.).
Man never set foot on the moon and returned safely back to earth.
I don't need to prove other people wrong if I can prove myself right.
The individual making the original claim does not have to prove
anything. After all, he/she is the one making the claim. Therefore,
it is up to others to prove him/her wrong.
There are two, and only two, intellectually-honest debate tactics -
1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent's *facts*.
2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent's *logic*.
I beg to differ.
Some of us actually try to make our own points in a solid manner
rather than to limit ourselves to get lost in the position of
somebody else.
I don't need to prove other people wrong if I can prove myself
right.
The individual making the original claim does not have to prove
anything. After all, he/she is the one making the claim.
There are times when I agree with the point you are making (or trying to make in some obscure way). THIS is not one of them. If someone makes a claim, it is up to them to provide the credible evidence for that claim. It is not up to someone else to disprove the claim -- although sometimes that is all that can be done.
Therefore, it is up to others to prove him/her wrong. If they
can (without resorting to intellectually dishonest debate tactics,
such as name calling, etc.).
Nope.
isMan never set foot on the moon and returned safely back to earth.
And then there are other times when you are on the lunatic fringe. That
one of them.
I don't need to prove other people wrong if I can prove myself right.
The individual making the original claim does not have to prove
anything. After all, he/she is the one making the claim. Therefore,
it is up to others to prove him/her wrong.
very incorrect and you know it... you've even argued the opposite numerous times in the past...
narrativeheI will never understand how anyone let Hitler take power and once
was
in
power how they allowed him to do the awful things he did.
And to think he did it without FoxNews!
I wont try and deflect this to the democrats and the false Russian
as tempted as I am. :)
I dont think Fox News would support Trump or any POTUS staying in office when their term is up.
You have 5 more years max just suck it up. ;)
Thats one reason why the 2nd amendment means something to me.
It only means something to the NRA and gun manufacturers.
I’m sure it does to them.
narrative
as tempted as I am. :)
Since it worked last time, why not do it again? Especially with
a job approval rating of 38% or less, that would seem like a winning
ticket for the orange one.
I dont think Fox News would support Trump or any POTUS staying in office when their term is up.
You have 5 more years max just suck it up. ;)
Fake another 9-11 type event and declare martial law. No more
elections to worry about. America will have its own dictator for
life.
Or just rig the election. With or without Russian help.
Thats one reason why the 2nd amendment means something to me.
It only means something to the NRA and gun manufacturers.
I’m sure it does to them.
All they care about is the profits they make. Not the people killed/murdered by those weapons of war.
On 09-18-19 19:03, Lee Lofaso <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Asylum Seekers <=-
The individual making the original claim does not have to prove
anything. After all, he/she is the one making the claim.
There are times when I agree with the point you are making (or trying to make in some obscure way). THIS is not one of them. If someone makes a claim, it is up to them to provide the credible evidence for that claim. It is not up to someone else to disprove the claim -- although sometimes that is all that can be done.
In law, the burden of proof is usually on the person who brings
a claim in dispute.
Nope.
The burden of proof differs depending on field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
Man never set foot on the moon and returned safely back to earth.
And then there are other times when you are on the
lunatic fringe. That is
one of them.
Some years ago FoxNews presented a special on this topic (the
show claimed the lunar landings were all faked). Are you saying,
or suggesting, that FoxNews is FakeNews?
I don't need to prove other people wrong if I can prove myself
right.
The individual making the original claim does not have to prove
anything. After all, he/she is the one making the claim. Therefore,
it is up to others to prove him/her wrong.
very incorrect and you know it... you've even argued the opposite
numerous times in the past...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
Burden of proof (onus probandi) - the obligation on a party in
a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
The burden of proof differs depending on field, as explained
in the article.
For example, in law, the burden of proof is on the person who
brings a claim in dispute. As Richard noted, as well as I.
mark lewis wrote to Sean Dennis <=-
one question is: does one have to be a member of a state's
official militia or are they required to join said official
militia if the need arises?
No, the Second Amendment is not specific to "states' militias".
i think that's still being debated in numerous circles :)
Dale Shipp wrote to Lee Lofaso <=-
There are times when I agree with the point you are making (or trying
to make in some obscure way). THIS is not one of them. If someone
makes a claim, it is up to them to provide the credible evidence for
that claim. It is not up to someone else to disprove the claim --
although sometimes that is all that can be done.
The individual making the original claim does not have to prove
anything. After all, he/she is the one making the claim.
There are times when I agree with the point you are making (or trying to
make in some obscure way). THIS is not one of them. If someone makes a
claim, it is up to them to provide the credible evidence for that claim.
It is not up to someone else to disprove the claim -- although sometimes
that is all that can be done.
In law, the burden of proof is usually on the person who brings
a claim in dispute.
That is what I said. Thanks for confirming it.
Nope.
The burden of proof differs depending on field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
That article also confirms what I said.
Man never set foot on the moon and returned safely back to earth.
And then there are other times when you are on the
lunatic fringe. That is
one of them.
Some years ago FoxNews presented a special on this topic (the
show claimed the lunar landings were all faked). Are you saying,
or suggesting, that FoxNews is FakeNews?
They usually are. FoxNews has been classified as an entertainment channel, not a news channel.
On 09-20-19 06:05, Lee Lofaso <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Asylum Seekers <=-
An individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case.
An individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case.
Again -- you are making a statement to confirm what I said. Prosecution is making a claim, it is up to them to prove it. It is not up to the defendant to disprove it.
On 09-22-19 00:48, Lee Lofaso <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Asylum Seekers <=-
Hello Dale,
An individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case.
Again -- you are making a statement to confirm what I said. Prosecution is making a claim, it is up to them to prove it. It is not up to the defendant to disprove it.
In law (criminal cases), there is presumption and there is burden
of proof.
When brought to trial, the individual is presumed innocent until
proven guilty, not the other way around.
How do you plead? Innocent, or guilty? If guilty, there is
nothing for the prosecution to question. The one who was charged
admits to having committed the crime.
What you are claiming is that the accused is presumed guilty
and must prove his/her own innocence. That is not the case in
our system of justice. In civil cases, your view prevails.
An individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case.
Again -- you are making a statement to confirm what I said.
Prosecution
is making a claim, it is up to them to prove it. It is not up to the
defendant to disprove it.
In law (criminal cases), there is presumption and there is burden
of proof.
When brought to trial, the individual is presumed innocent until
proven guilty, not the other way around.
How do you plead? Innocent, or guilty? If guilty, there is
nothing for the prosecution to question. The one who was charged
admits to having committed the crime.
What you are claiming is that the accused is presumed guilty
and must prove his/her own innocence. That is not the case in
our system of justice. In civil cases, your view prevails.
You seem to have lost your ability to understand simple English. I have never made such a claim as you state in your last paragraph.
You have got it totally backwards.
The person making the claim has the burden of proof.
I never said anything else, despite what you claim.
| Sysop: | Zazz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Mesquite, Tx |
| Users: | 7 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 20:19:37 |
| Calls: | 157 |
| Files: | 2,092 |
| Messages: | 144,237 |