T1B

Board traffic

Moving Sale wrote:

Left Seater wrote: Most of us who are stopped on occasion understand we broke a law and sign up for defensive driving, take the insurance discount and move on.

But you have never been pulled over because you always follow the laws because it is so easy.

Wrong. Your reading comp sucks, no surprise. I said us. Last time I was stopped was in 2015. I was talking our boxer to the vet. She liked to ride in the front seat and look out the window. A cop happened by and saw her and waived me over. I learned that pets must be restrained in a car in San Antonio. I didn't know that prior but I do now. However that rule was out there for me to read when I moved here had I bothered to check. I didn't and I had to deal with it.

The officer took less than 5 minutes and explained my options and away we both went. No need for any attorney or getting all but hurt.

At least nobody's speeding here.
More like negligent operators.

Mikey wrote:Question:
What happens when you gather three or more Last Post Whores in one thread?

Wannabes or pros?

Illegal aliens need to go, period. They can apply for immigration or a green card if they want to live/work here.

Trump is using common sense, hence the rhetoric from the santuary party.

I don't give a shit how long they've lived here illegally. You give those who have broken the law amnesty and the flood gates open for all of Central and South America.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

LS,
So your argument in support of it not being impossible to drive legally is an example of you driving illegally because there are so many laws you didn't even know what you were doing was illegal?

Moving Sale wrote:As for the laws in America. There are too many. Many are vague and therefore hard to follow.

I agree with this.

This is done, as mvskkkal pointed out, on purpose.

Don't agree with this at all. I don't think there's a deliberate attempt to make it impossible to follow the law. I think it's more just the nature of the beast.

Not only do they need to be clearer they need to be fewer.

I agree with this.

You can suck juiced up badge dick all you want, but I prefer freedom.

I think everyone prefers freedom. Ignoring the first half of your sentence, I believe your statement is what's referred to as a "glittering generality." It's how we achieve freedom that matters, and we won't achieve it by telling cops they can't make stops for traffic law infractions. If it's "inconvenient" for criminals, all the more reason to condone it. The less criminals are able to get away with, the more free we all are as a society. Criminals are an enemy of freedom. So I get an occasional ticket for speeding or rolling through a stop sign (or driving with a loose dog in the car)...who really cares? It isn't that big of a deal.

Moving Sale wrote:LS,
So your argument in support of it not being impossible to drive legally is an example of you driving illegally because there are so many laws you didn't even know what you were doing was illegal?

That has fuck all to do with illegal aliens. Illegal aliens are not legally authorized to live and work in this country which makes living and working in this country problematic for them...because they aren't supposed to be here in the first fucking place. People who are actually legally authorized to live and work in this country do not have these problems.

Simple stuff really, unless you're a total dumbfuck...or a lying shitbag with an agenda.

I vote dumbfuck.

So Trump now wants to work with the Dems to extend DACA or pass a law to give them a "pathway to citizenship."

Does this change anybody's mind about whether or not the "dreamers" should be deported?

Is this a brilliant political move by Trump, a double feint leg fake, a trap for Chuck and Nancy, a sell-out to the namby pamby liberal snowflakes, or what?

What about Trump's "base?" Are they now going to suddenly turn around and start taking beginning Spanish lessons?

Mikey wrote:So Trump now wants to work with the Dems to extend DACA or pass a law to give them a "pathway to citizenship.

Isn't there already a "pathway to citizenship?"

Or do they now mean to say a "shortcut to citizenship?"

Just curious.

Correct. The pathway to citizenship is already laid out. Sounds like this would move them to the head of the line.

I'm all for our friends south of the border becoming legal citizens if that's what they want. But why would our government go out of it's way to give special treatment to those people who have already proven that they have no respect for the laws of our country? This makes no sense to me. Am I missing something here?

ML@Coyote wrote: Am I missing something here?

Yes, you are.

ML@Coyote wrote:I'm all for our friends south of the border becoming legal citizens if that's what they want. But why would our government go out of it's way to give special treatment to those people who have already proven that they have no respect for the laws of our country? This makes no sense to me. Am I missing something here?

Mikey wrote:Yes, you are.

Well, what am I missing exactly?

ML@Coyote wrote: Am I missing something here?

Mikey wrote:Yes, you are.

ML@Coyote wrote:Well, what am I missing exactly?

I'm pretty sure you already know, but in case you're a lot dumber than I think you actually are, I'll try to explain.

ML@Coyote wrote:I'm all for our friends south of the border becoming legal citizens if that's what they want. But why would our government go out of it's way to give special treatment to those people who have already proven that they have no respect for the laws of our country? This makes no sense to me. Am I missing something here?

This discussion is ostensibly about the "dreamers" and, whatever you think about how they should be dealt with,

1. I doubt you consider any of them to actually be your "friend," and vice versa.

2. They are not "south of the border." Most of them probably have not been south of the border since the day the arrived in the US, and many of them have never been "south of the border." But, of course, to you and your ilk it's all about Mexicans.

3. You say they have proven that they have no respect for the laws of our country. In fact, most of them probably are more law abiding than a large percentage of actual American citizens. They crossed the border through no choice of their own, and have had to be careful all of their lives not to break any laws. Any with a previous criminal record were not even eligible for DACA, and "dreamers" statistically have lower incarceration rates than native-born Americans of the same age and education level. The fact they they are still here doesn't mean that they don't respect our laws.

Mikey wrote: I'm pretty sure you already know, but in case you're a lot dumber than I think you actually are, I'll try to explain. This discussion is ostensibly about the "dreamers" and, whatever you think about how they should be dealt with,

So far we agree.

1. I doubt you consider any of them to actually be your "friend," and vice versa.

It isn't too smart to make this kind of an assumption. Your opening salvo has missed by a mile.

2. They are not "south of the border." Most of them probably have not been south of the border since the day the arrived in the US, and many of them have never been "south of the border." But, of course, to you and your ilk it's all about Mexicans.

By definition they're immigrants. Are you saying they're from Canada?

3. You say they have proven that they have no respect for the laws of our country.

They are in this country illegally. You make it sound like they're all innocent little children. They range in age from 15 to 36. I have some sympathy for the younger ones, but not for the others who had plenty of time to become citizens legally.

In fact, most of them probably are more law abiding than a large percentage of actual American citizens. They crossed the border through no choice of their own, and have had to be careful all of their lives not to break any laws.

That's like saying a bank robber is law abiding because he drives away from the scene very carefully to avoid getting pulled over.

Any with a previous criminal record were not even eligible for DACA, and "dreamers" statistically have lower incarceration rates than native-born Americans of the same age and education level. The fact they they are still here doesn't mean that they don't respect our laws.

The fact that they're here is a violation of the law. Why is it that people like you think everyone needs to bend over backwards to help these people rather than encouraging them to help themselves. I think it's because you actually think so little of these people that you believe they need your help in order to handle their affairs. By giving them special treatment, you are saying they're weak and incapable, which they aren't. Our country allows one million immigrants to become citizens each year. Despite what many would have you believe, becoming a legal citizen is not an impossible task.

You don't read so good.

Moving Sale wrote:You don't read so good.

Okay...I'm always looking for ways to improve myself. Give me one example of something in Mikey's post that I read incorrectly.

I clearly cited the applicable USC. The fact that they are here is not an indication that they have broken any law.

It's like you are impervious to facts.

I've read this argument from you before. But where specifically did Mikey say in his post that dreamers are legal citizens? And if they are legal, what's all the fuss about?

ML@stupid said: The fact that they're here is a violation of the law.


This just isn't true, but then all you do is parrot stuff you hear instead of thinking for yourself.

Well then why aren't you in court defending these people and explaining how they're not violating the law. Seems to be you have a solution to the entire problem.

Because I never applied for admission to practice in Federal Court.

Oh and nice white flag.

Why do you suppose there isn't someone who can practice in Federal court making your argument and winning cases?

And shove your tedious white flag bullshit up your ass.

I already told you. Most people aren't even brought into criminal court. Most deportations are civil actions you dense fuck.

Civil actions as in who is taking action against the immigrant?

The gov brings civil actions all the time. You can squirm all you want but that doesn't change the fact that being in the usa without papers isn't illegal.

Yes, the government brings civil actions all the time. The government brings civil actions when people violate laws. Otherwise they would have no cause to take the actions.

So we're back where we started. Illegal immigrants are in violation of the law.

How you function as an attorney is a mystery to me.

It's actually the United States Code. Some of it is criminal. Some of it is civil. Stick to digging ditches tard.

ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES 641 F. 3d 339

“As a general rule, it is not a crime for a movable alien to remain in the United States.”
Sin,
Justice Anthony Kennedy

Moving Sale wrote:It's actually the United States Code. Some of it is criminal. Some of it is civil. Stick to digging ditches tard.

ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES 641 F. 3d 339

“As a general rule, it is not a crime for a movable alien to remain in the United States.”
Sin,
Justice Anthony Kennedy

First, it's removable, not movable.

Second, I never said it was criminal. I said it was a violation of the law, which it is.

You said they have no respect for the laws when there is no proof they have broken any laws. They are, at most, removable under civil codes.

Civil codes are laws you fucking numbskull.

And yes, illegal aliens are removable. So thanks for proving my point.

I'm not laughing with you. I'm laughing at you!

They are not illegal aliens because they have not done anything illegal.

ML, You know why Miley and company are for them staying. It has fuckall to do with what's right or legal. Cali, a once safe "red state" is now safely democratic because of a large "south of the border" population. And yes Mikey, the overwhelming majority are from there. They sure as hell aren't Swedish.

If this population was anything other than a strong majority likely dem vote, they'd lose this concern for them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Moving Sale wrote:They are not illegal aliens because they have not done anything illegal.

So says the guy who claims it is impossible not to break laws. Nice logic.

They are not doing anything illegal as it relates to their immigration status. If they are illegal aliens then you are an illegal american.

Nice white flag.

Moving Sale wrote:They are, at most, removable under civil codes.

So what's the hold up?