A unique view of the law

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Message
Author
User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 26427
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: A unique view of the law

#51 Post by Bob Juch » Wed Jun 12, 2019 8:33 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
Beebs52 wrote: I'm thinkin you don't know much about WWJD.
Matthew 10:42 wrote:Whoever gives only a cup of cold water to one of these little ones to drink because he is a disciple, amen, I say to you, he will surely not lose his reward.
He was addressing his twelve disciples, not quite the same thing.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 10495
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: A unique view of the law

#52 Post by Estonut » Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:12 am

Estonut wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:It was THE LAW that Rosa Parks was supposed to sit in the back of that bus.
You are horribly ill-informed on that case, and, as usual, make things up.
Bob, I cannot find such a law. Please cite the one that you found after doing the research for yourself.
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
Jeemie
Posts: 7303
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:35 pm
Location: City of Champions Once More (Well, in spirit)!!!!

Re: A unique view of the law

#53 Post by Jeemie » Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:44 am

Beebs52 wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:Selfishness is acting to preserve your own interests. Your self interest isn't necessarily mine. You can't live on SS, so, to protect your future you may want to save and invest.
How is your self-interest served by illegals not entering the country?
I will answer with a question after saying I don't think all current illegal residents need to be deported.
Do you believe in sovereign states and controlled immigration?
I'm just asking a question. You made a claim "Your self interest is not necessarily mine". I'm interested in exploring that claim further.

I want to know how your self interest is served by illegals not entering the country.

Then we can move on to the other questions...thanks!
1979 City of Champions 2009

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 14888
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: A unique view of the law

#54 Post by Beebs52 » Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:22 am

Jeemie wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
How is your self-interest served by illegals not entering the country?
I will answer with a question after saying I don't think all current illegal residents need to be deported.
Do you believe in sovereign states and controlled immigration?
I'm just asking a question. You made a claim "Your self interest is not necessarily mine". I'm interested in exploring that claim further.

I want to know how your self interest is served by illegals not entering the country.

Then we can move on to the other questions...thanks!
Untracked criminals, disease, overburdened schools and medical facilities, untracked voters
Well, then

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 14888
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: A unique view of the law

#55 Post by Beebs52 » Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:30 am

Beebs52 wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
Beebs52 wrote: I will answer with a question after saying I don't think all current illegal residents need to be deported.
Do you believe in sovereign states and controlled immigration?
I'm just asking a question. You made a claim "Your self interest is not necessarily mine". I'm interested in exploring that claim further.

I want to know how your self interest is served by illegals not entering the country.

Then we can move on to the other questions...thanks!
Untracked criminals, disease, overburdened schools and medical facilities, untracked voters
Oh, in addition, why do I need a self interest? I just thought worries about ss were weird at best.
Well, then

User avatar
earendel
Posts: 13588
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:25 am
Location: mired in the bureaucracy

Re: A unique view of the law

#56 Post by earendel » Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:58 am

Bob Juch wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
Beebs52 wrote: I'm thinkin you don't know much about WWJD.
Matthew 10:42 wrote:Whoever gives only a cup of cold water to one of these little ones to drink because he is a disciple, amen, I say to you, he will surely not lose his reward.
He was addressing his twelve disciples, not quite the same thing.
I hate to intrude on this but Biblical interpretation is sort of my jam.

First off, the larger context of the passage: Jesus is addressing his 12 disciples, giving them a set of instructions as they are going out on their own to spread the word. He expands his words, however, to include "everyone" (verse 32) or "whoever" (verse 37).

Second, verse 42 should be translated as "whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple..." (not "because he is a disciple").

The expectation is that anyone who is one of Jesus's followers will give that drink to a "little one". So although it may be illegal to do so according to the administration, it is not wrong to do so; indeed it would seem to be a Christian duty.
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: A unique view of the law

#57 Post by Bob78164 » Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:30 am

Estonut wrote:
Estonut wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:It was THE LAW that Rosa Parks was supposed to sit in the back of that bus.
You are horribly ill-informed on that case, and, as usual, make things up.
Bob, I cannot find such a law. Please cite the one that you found after doing the research for yourself.
Dude, I lived in Alabama in the late 1960s.

And if your high school history class didn't teach you that Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to move to the back of the bus, then your education missed something.

In the meantime, it's taken me a while to get this onto the Batphone, but the point I've been making about Social Security is about to get wider dissemination. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
tlynn78
Posts: 8651
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Location: Montana

Re: A unique view of the law

#58 Post by tlynn78 » Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:40 am

“Not to point fingers at California, but why would you give free healthcare to illegal immigrants when your streets are littered with homeless legal residents, trash, and tents?" — Former NFL running back Herschel Walker
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine
You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. -Ayn Rand
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 26427
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: A unique view of the law

#59 Post by Bob Juch » Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:44 am

tlynn78 wrote:“Not to point fingers at California, but why would you give free healthcare to illegal immigrants when your streets are littered with homeless legal residents, trash, and tents?" — Former NFL running back Herschel Walker
The homeless have free healthcare available too.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: A unique view of the law

#60 Post by Bob78164 » Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:17 am

tlynn78 wrote:“Not to point fingers at California, but why would you give free healthcare to illegal immigrants when your streets are littered with homeless legal residents, trash, and tents?" — Former NFL running back Herschel Walker
We are extending Medi-Cal to residents under age 26 because we want them getting preventative care before they get sick, rather than waiting until after they get sick and going to an emergency room for treatment.

And also it's the right thing to do. Why would you want your neighbors to get sick because they can't afford a checkup? --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 14888
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: A unique view of the law

#61 Post by Beebs52 » Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:27 am

Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:“Not to point fingers at California, but why would you give free healthcare to illegal immigrants when your streets are littered with homeless legal residents, trash, and tents?" — Former NFL running back Herschel Walker
We are extending Medi-Cal to residents under age 26 because we want them getting preventative care before they get sick, rather than waiting until after they get sick and going to an emergency room for treatment.

And also it's the right thing to do. Why would you want your neighbors to get sick because they can't afford a checkup? --Bob
Assuming one takes advantage of preventative care. That is not a given. Ya gots some high profile antivaxers in Ca.
Well, then

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: A unique view of the law

#62 Post by Bob78164 » Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:54 am

Beebs52 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:“Not to point fingers at California, but why would you give free healthcare to illegal immigrants when your streets are littered with homeless legal residents, trash, and tents?" — Former NFL running back Herschel Walker
We are extending Medi-Cal to residents under age 26 because we want them getting preventative care before they get sick, rather than waiting until after they get sick and going to an emergency room for treatment.

And also it's the right thing to do. Why would you want your neighbors to get sick because they can't afford a checkup? --Bob
Assuming one takes advantage of preventative care. That is not a given. Ya gots some high profile antivaxers in Ca.
And we have a Legislature that has passed one of the strongest laws in the nation to require vaccinations before attending school. Only medical exemptions are accepted. I believe we are one of only two states with laws that stringent.

And based on evidence that some doctors are abusing the medical exemption process, the Legislature is advancing a bill requiring that those medical exemptions be reported to, and approved by, the Department of Health.

There are roughly 40 million people in California. A few of them are bound to be idiots. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
earendel
Posts: 13588
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:25 am
Location: mired in the bureaucracy

Re: A unique view of the law

#63 Post by earendel » Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:44 pm

Bob78164 wrote:There are roughly 40 million people in California. A few of them are bound to be idiots. --Bob
Wait for it... :mrgreen:
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 10495
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: A unique view of the law

#64 Post by Estonut » Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:03 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Estonut wrote:
Estonut wrote:You are horribly ill-informed on that case, and, as usual, make things up.
Bob, I cannot find such a law. Please cite the one that you found after doing the research for yourself.
Dude, I lived in Alabama in the late 1960s.

And if your high school history class didn't teach you that Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to move to the back of the bus, then your education missed something.
You said, "It was THE LAW that Rosa Parks was supposed to sit in the back of that bus." That is not true. The city law was that the first 10 rows on buses were reserved for white people. Rosa Parks was sitting in the 11th row. I have found no law that gave bus drivers authority to compel people to move. As I asked before, Please cite the one that you found after doing the research for yourself. It appears, again, that this is something you "knew," but were wrong about.
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 12780
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: A unique view of the law

#65 Post by BackInTex » Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:05 pm

Bob78164 wrote:There are roughly 40 million people in California. A few of them are bound to be idiots. --Bob

At least 8,753,788 idiots.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: A unique view of the law

#66 Post by Bob78164 » Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:08 pm

Estonut wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Estonut wrote:Bob, I cannot find such a law. Please cite the one that you found after doing the research for yourself.
Dude, I lived in Alabama in the late 1960s.

And if your high school history class didn't teach you that Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to move to the back of the bus, then your education missed something.
You said, "It was THE LAW that Rosa Parks was supposed to sit in the back of that bus." That is not true. The city law was that the first 10 rows on buses were reserved for white people. Rosa Parks was sitting in the 11th row. I have found no law that gave bus drivers authority to compel people to move. As I asked before, Please cite the one that you found after doing the research for yourself. It appears, again, that this is something you "knew," but were wrong about.
You're nitpicking. Whether the details of this specific instance of Jim Crow are completely right is beside the point. Or are you saying that it was immoral to require Ms. Parks to move from the 11th row of the bus on account of her race because it wasn't required by law, but it would have been perfectly moral to require Ms. Parks to move from the 10th row of the bus on account of her race because it was required by law? --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 10495
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: A unique view of the law

#67 Post by Estonut » Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:20 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Estonut wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:Dude, I lived in Alabama in the late 1960s.

And if your high school history class didn't teach you that Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to move to the back of the bus, then your education missed something.
You said, "It was THE LAW that Rosa Parks was supposed to sit in the back of that bus." That is not true. The city law was that the first 10 rows on buses were reserved for white people. Rosa Parks was sitting in the 11th row. I have found no law that gave bus drivers authority to compel people to move. As I asked before, Please cite the one that you found after doing the research for yourself. It appears, again, that this is something you "knew," but were wrong about.
You're nitpicking. Whether the details of this specific instance of Jim Crow are completely right is beside the point. Or are you saying that it was immoral to require Ms. Parks to move from the 11th row of the bus on account of her race because it wasn't required by law, but it would have been perfectly moral to require Ms. Parks to move from the 10th row of the bus on account of her race because it was required by law?
You cited something as law which was not. I thought that was funny, for someone who views his lawyering skills so highly. Now, a legal point (which, presumably, is your bread & butter) is "nitpicking!"
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 26427
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: A unique view of the law

#68 Post by Bob Juch » Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:29 pm

Estonut wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Estonut wrote:You said, "It was THE LAW that Rosa Parks was supposed to sit in the back of that bus." That is not true. The city law was that the first 10 rows on buses were reserved for white people. Rosa Parks was sitting in the 11th row. I have found no law that gave bus drivers authority to compel people to move. As I asked before, Please cite the one that you found after doing the research for yourself. It appears, again, that this is something you "knew," but were wrong about.
You're nitpicking. Whether the details of this specific instance of Jim Crow are completely right is beside the point. Or are you saying that it was immoral to require Ms. Parks to move from the 11th row of the bus on account of her race because it wasn't required by law, but it would have been perfectly moral to require Ms. Parks to move from the 10th row of the bus on account of her race because it was required by law?
You cited something as law which was not. I thought that was funny, for someone who views his lawyering skills so highly. Now, a legal point (which, presumably, is your bread & butter) is "nitpicking!"
She was arrested for refusing to follow the orders of the bus driver. Here's what the National Archives has to say:
On December 1, 1955, during a typical evening rush hour in Montgomery, Alabama, a 42-year-old woman took a seat on the bus on her way home from the Montgomery Fair department store where she worked as a seamstress. Before she reached her destination, she quietly set off a social revolution when the bus driver instructed her to move back, and she refused. Rosa Parks, an African American, was arrested that day for violating a city law requiring racial segregation of public buses.

On the city buses of Montgomery, Alabama, the front 10 seats were permanently reserved for white passengers. The diagram shows that Mrs. Parks was seated in the first row behind those 10 seats. When the bus became crowded, the bus driver instructed Mrs. Parks and the other three passengers seated in that row, all African Americans, to vacate their seats for the white passengers boarding. Eventually, three of the passengers moved, while Mrs. Parks remained seated, arguing that she was not in a seat reserved for whites. James Blake, the driver, believed he had the discretion to move the line separating black and white passengers. The law was actually somewhat murky on that point, but when Mrs. Parks defied his order, he called the police. Officers Day and Mixon came and promptly arrested her.

In police custody, Mrs. Parks was booked, fingerprinted, and briefly incarcerated. The police report shows that she was charged with "refusing to obey orders of bus driver." For openly challenging the racial laws of her city, she remained at great physical risk while held by the police, and her family was terrified for her. When she called home, she spoke to her mother, whose first question was "Did they beat you?"
https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/rosa-parks
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
tlynn78
Posts: 8651
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Location: Montana

Re: A unique view of the law

#69 Post by tlynn78 » Thu Jun 13, 2019 8:37 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol:
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine
You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. -Ayn Rand
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

User avatar
jarnon
Posts: 6264
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Location: Merion, Pa.

Re: A unique view of the law

#70 Post by jarnon » Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:04 am

Bob78164 wrote:And we have a Legislature that has passed one of the strongest laws in the nation to require vaccinations before attending school. Only medical exemptions are accepted. I believe we are one of only two states with laws that stringent.
New York State, which has a serious measles outbreak, just eliminated religious exemptions to vaccination. The vote was extremely close. Legislators of both parties struggled to balance parental rights with safeguarding public health.
Слава Україні!
עם ישראל חי

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: A unique view of the law

#71 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:47 am

I will tell you one of the worst ways this crisis effects me, and you.
Your whole stupid state is openly defying the laws of this country. Why? Because idiots like you are equating a untenable political position to things like Rosa Parks or Gandhi, and ooze self righteous outrage over anything you can think of relating to it. It is a poitical question, bob-tel. Do we want to control and know who enters this country, or do we want to have open borders. We have a whole section of the federal government set up to manage who gets to come into this country and to oversee non-citizens in this country. (Because we happen to be a sovereign nation). Why do we have that department of government and have always had that function of government, bob-tel? Why are the people who cross our borders in direct violation of our laws get an exemption?

If you want open-borders, bob-tel, tell your representatives to change the existing laws. Perhaps we can do away with a whole government department and save some money. But don't equate a political position with a moral crusade, because it's NOT.

OK, so what's to stop anyone else from defying laws they don't like because they don't like them? You are undermining the rule of law. Remember the law? Supposedly you went to school and it might have been one of the main subjects, after political indoctrination.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: A unique view of the law

#72 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:14 pm

I will tell you one of the worst ways this crisis effects me, and you.
Your whole stupid state is openly defying the laws of this country. Why? Because idiots like you are equating an untenable political position to things like Rosa Parks or Gandhi, and ooze self righteous outrage over anything you can think of relating to it. It is a political question, bob-tel. Do we want to control and know who enters this country, or do we want to have open borders. We have a whole section of the federal government set up to manage who gets to come into this country and to oversee non-citizens in this country. (Because we happen to be a sovereign nation). Why do we have that department of government and have always had that function of government, bob-tel? Why are the people who cross our borders in direct violation of our laws getting an exemption? Because they're more noble and deserving then those who apply to enter our country in the legal and prescribed fashion? Really? Do you think?

If you want open-borders, bob-tel, tell your representatives to change the existing laws. If you want to convince the American people that we need to let everyone into our country who wants to be here because it will fund their Social Security, knock yourself out. Tell them the truth about why you want open borders. Perhaps we can do away with a whole government department and save some money. But don't equate a political position with a moral crusade, because it's NOT. That seems to be your only tactic. To advance your political agenda, you make it into some kind of moral crusade, and you paint anyone who disagrees with you as an evil or deplorable person. Just as the ASSSHOLE did in a recent post to me. Just as Hillary did to those who didn't want to vote for her. Just as almost every democrat and MSMedia talking head does to trump. And did to GWBush. And Ronald Reagan.

OK, so what's to stop anyone else from defying laws they don't like because they don't like them? You are undermining the rule of law. Remember the law? Supposedly you went to school and it might have been one of the main subjects, after political indoctrination.

(I added to my previous post to make it clearer....)
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: A unique view of the law

#73 Post by Bob78164 » Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:40 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I will tell you one of the worst ways this crisis effects me, and you.
Your whole stupid state is openly defying the laws of this country. Why? Because idiots like you are equating an untenable political position to things like Rosa Parks or Gandhi, and ooze self righteous outrage over anything you can think of relating to it. It is a political question, bob-tel. Do we want to control and know who enters this country, or do we want to have open borders. We have a whole section of the federal government set up to manage who gets to come into this country and to oversee non-citizens in this country. (Because we happen to be a sovereign nation). Why do we have that department of government and have always had that function of government, bob-tel? Why are the people who cross our borders in direct violation of our laws getting an exemption? Because they're more noble and deserving then those who apply to enter our country in the legal and prescribed fashion? Really? Do you think?

If you want open-borders, bob-tel, tell your representatives to change the existing laws. If you want to convince the American people that we need to let everyone into our country who wants to be here because it will fund their Social Security, knock yourself out. Tell them the truth about why you want open borders. Perhaps we can do away with a whole government department and save some money. But don't equate a political position with a moral crusade, because it's NOT. That seems to be your only tactic. To advance your political agenda, you make it into some kind of moral crusade, and you paint anyone who disagrees with you as an evil or deplorable person. Just as the ASSSHOLE did in a recent post to me. Just as Hillary did to those who didn't want to vote for her. Just as almost every democrat and MSMedia talking head does to trump. And did to GWBush. And Ronald Reagan.

OK, so what's to stop anyone else from defying laws they don't like because they don't like them? You are undermining the rule of law. Remember the law? Supposedly you went to school and it might have been one of the main subjects, after political indoctrination.

(I added to my previous post to make it clearer....)
Like it or not, my state is in fact complying with the law -- in particular the Constitution you claim to revere. In particular, under the Constitution, the federal government has no right at all to require states to use their own resources to enforce federal laws or policies. My state has made the political decision to withhold our resources from Donny's efforts, and I can assure you that it's a decision that has majority support within California. If you don't like California's decision, you can either convince us to change our minds or you can convince people to change the Constitution. I won't hold my breath waiting.

And you seem to be utterly unable to resist caricaturing my actual position, presumably because you can't substantively respond to it. So I expect that ultimately my side will win the battle to get the law changed. In the meantime, you can count on me to continue to defend my friends and neighbors any way that's available to me. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: A unique view of the law

#74 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:49 am

Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:I will tell you one of the worst ways this crisis effects me, and you.
Your whole stupid state is openly defying the laws of this country. Why? Because idiots like you are equating an untenable political position to things like Rosa Parks or Gandhi, and ooze self righteous outrage over anything you can think of relating to it. It is a political question, bob-tel. Do we want to control and know who enters this country, or do we want to have open borders. We have a whole section of the federal government set up to manage who gets to come into this country and to oversee non-citizens in this country. (Because we happen to be a sovereign nation). Why do we have that department of government and have always had that function of government, bob-tel? Why are the people who cross our borders in direct violation of our laws getting an exemption? Because they're more noble and deserving then those who apply to enter our country in the legal and prescribed fashion? Really? Do you think?

If you want open-borders, bob-tel, tell your representatives to change the existing laws. If you want to convince the American people that we need to let everyone into our country who wants to be here because it will fund their Social Security, knock yourself out. Tell them the truth about why you want open borders. Perhaps we can do away with a whole government department and save some money. But don't equate a political position with a moral crusade, because it's NOT. That seems to be your only tactic. To advance your political agenda, you make it into some kind of moral crusade, and you paint anyone who disagrees with you as an evil or deplorable person. Just as the ASSSHOLE did in a recent post to me. Just as Hillary did to those who didn't want to vote for her. Just as almost every democrat and MSMedia talking head does to trump. And did to GWBush. And Ronald Reagan.

OK, so what's to stop anyone else from defying laws they don't like because they don't like them? You are undermining the rule of law. Remember the law? Supposedly you went to school and it might have been one of the main subjects, after political indoctrination.

(I added to my previous post to make it clearer....)
Like it or not, my state is in fact complying with the law -- in particular the Constitution you claim to revere. In particular, under the Constitution, the federal government has no right at all to require states to use their own resources to enforce federal laws or policies. My state has made the political decision to withhold our resources from Donny's efforts, and I can assure you that it's a decision that has majority support within California. If you don't like California's decision, you can either convince us to change our minds or you can convince people to change the Constitution. I won't hold my breath waiting.

And you seem to be utterly unable to resist caricaturing my actual position, presumably because you can't substantively respond to it. So I expect that ultimately my side will win the battle to get the law changed. In the meantime, you can count on me to continue to defend my friends and neighbors any way that's available to me. --Bob
State your actual position without pontificating or emotionalizing and I will respond in kind.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: A unique view of the law

#75 Post by Bob78164 » Sun Jun 16, 2019 11:14 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:I will tell you one of the worst ways this crisis effects me, and you.
Your whole stupid state is openly defying the laws of this country. Why? Because idiots like you are equating an untenable political position to things like Rosa Parks or Gandhi, and ooze self righteous outrage over anything you can think of relating to it. It is a political question, bob-tel. Do we want to control and know who enters this country, or do we want to have open borders. We have a whole section of the federal government set up to manage who gets to come into this country and to oversee non-citizens in this country. (Because we happen to be a sovereign nation). Why do we have that department of government and have always had that function of government, bob-tel? Why are the people who cross our borders in direct violation of our laws getting an exemption? Because they're more noble and deserving then those who apply to enter our country in the legal and prescribed fashion? Really? Do you think?

If you want open-borders, bob-tel, tell your representatives to change the existing laws. If you want to convince the American people that we need to let everyone into our country who wants to be here because it will fund their Social Security, knock yourself out. Tell them the truth about why you want open borders. Perhaps we can do away with a whole government department and save some money. But don't equate a political position with a moral crusade, because it's NOT. That seems to be your only tactic. To advance your political agenda, you make it into some kind of moral crusade, and you paint anyone who disagrees with you as an evil or deplorable person. Just as the ASSSHOLE did in a recent post to me. Just as Hillary did to those who didn't want to vote for her. Just as almost every democrat and MSMedia talking head does to trump. And did to GWBush. And Ronald Reagan.

OK, so what's to stop anyone else from defying laws they don't like because they don't like them? You are undermining the rule of law. Remember the law? Supposedly you went to school and it might have been one of the main subjects, after political indoctrination.

(I added to my previous post to make it clearer....)
Like it or not, my state is in fact complying with the law -- in particular the Constitution you claim to revere. In particular, under the Constitution, the federal government has no right at all to require states to use their own resources to enforce federal laws or policies. My state has made the political decision to withhold our resources from Donny's efforts, and I can assure you that it's a decision that has majority support within California. If you don't like California's decision, you can either convince us to change our minds or you can convince people to change the Constitution. I won't hold my breath waiting.

And you seem to be utterly unable to resist caricaturing my actual position, presumably because you can't substantively respond to it. So I expect that ultimately my side will win the battle to get the law changed. In the meantime, you can count on me to continue to defend my friends and neighbors any way that's available to me. --Bob
State your actual position without pontificating or emotionalizing and I will respond in kind.
I'm entirely comfortable with how I'm expressing myself. It's not going to change. Whether you change how you express your views is on you. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Post Reply