Discussion:
What economists have gotten wrong for decades
(too old to reply)
Steve Carroll
2019-07-28 15:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Skeeter
2019-07-28 15:55:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 14:28:57 -0000 (UTC), Steve Carroll <"Steve
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 14:08:11 -0000 (UTC), Steve Carroll <"Steve
Also, a warning to everyone else: the Carroll k00k is now playing
silent-followup-to games in a desperate attempt to have the last word by
dishonest and sneaky means. Be cautious and make sure to restore any
snecked groups when replying to prove him wrong yet again.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
I believe she may be referring to the Kensi Method of Discussion®,
where she will reply in a totally different, renamed thread in an
effort to make the conversation difficult if not impossible to follow.
But I don't recall seeing you do that.
I guess I should ask the obvious... is "kensi" just another Snit sock?
I've seen people claiming "kensi" is a she but some of the arguments are
*very* much like those Snit puts up.
It's entirely possible. There are similarities. It may be one of
Snit's "transwoman personas" where- as Big Dog postulated- an overdose
of lavender oil resulted in the nascency of Kensi. I suppose one could
trace her usenet activities if one was so inclined.
I recall seeing someone referring to her as a female and so I did the
same and there was no protest. However, Kensi is very confused by sex
and gender so it's hard to tell. Most leftists seem like women anyway.
Kensi/Nads is Paul Derbyshire from Pembroke Canada. He/she/it will post
a "proof kook" response but it has been proven many times.
I thought the Nadega or whatever it was was similarly stupid. Paul,
eh? Canada explains a lot.
Sure it's not "Pauline?"
Oh, was this the one who claimed to have a PhD is physics or
something?
Kensi <Nads> claims such but has yet to provide an inkling of proof.
Also the fake FNVW known as Libtard is also a sock of the infamous
Nads/Kensi sybian riding duo.
I will have to go through my filters and make sure none of those are
being ignored! LOL
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/alt.free.newsservers/aRYJrLEg03Y
That's our kicktoy.
Skeeter
2019-07-28 15:57:22 UTC
Permalink
Many of these teens are in a group together and I have talked to the leader
and there will be a focus on some of the things you bring up. The school
“sex ed” is a joke. Will not go into more details in part because Carroll
might figure out what group and harass them.
So this "group" has a "leader"?

So now you invite gang members in to your house. Very interesting.
Skeeter
2019-07-28 16:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Many of these teens are in a group together and I have talked to the leader
and there will be a focus on some of the things you bring up. The school
“sex ed” is a joke. Will not go into more details in part because Carroll
might figure out what group and harass them.
So this "group" has a "leader"?
The group many of them are in — yes. Most youth organizations do. No, I
will not be more specific and help Carroll track them down and harass them.
Post by Skeeter
So now you invite gang members in to your house. Very interesting.
You cannot think of any youth focused groups other than gangs. That in
itself is scary.
You allow young children into your house and discuss gay and lesbo
stuff. In most places that would cause an investigation. I shall report
this behavior.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-28 16:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Many of these teens are in a group together and I have talked to the leader
and there will be a focus on some of the things you bring up. The school
“sex ed” is a joke. Will not go into more details in part because Carroll
might figure out what group and harass them.
So this "group" has a "leader"?
The group many of them are in — yes. Most youth organizations do. No, I
will not be more specific and help Carroll track them down and harass them.
Post by Skeeter
So now you invite gang members in to your house. Very interesting.
You cannot think of any youth focused groups other than gangs. That in
itself is scary.
You allow young children into your house and discuss gay and lesbo
stuff. In most places that would cause an investigation. I shall report
this behavior.
When you do, let them know we've been unable to confirm if Snit is
armed or not. Tell them to prepare for the worst, given his mental
health issues. Once he begins huffing essential oils, there's no
telling how he'll react to a simple knock on his door.
Skeeter
2019-07-28 16:51:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Many of these teens are in a group together and I have talked to the leader
and there will be a focus on some of the things you bring up. The school
?sex ed? is a joke. Will not go into more details in part because Carroll
might figure out what group and harass them.
So this "group" has a "leader"?
The group many of them are in ? yes. Most youth organizations do. No, I
will not be more specific and help Carroll track them down and harass them.
Post by Skeeter
So now you invite gang members in to your house. Very interesting.
You cannot think of any youth focused groups other than gangs. That in
itself is scary.
You allow young children into your house and discuss gay and lesbo
stuff. In most places that would cause an investigation. I shall report
this behavior.
When you do, let them know we've been unable to confirm if Snit is
armed or not. Tell them to prepare for the worst, given his mental
health issues. Once he begins huffing essential oils, there's no
telling how he'll react to a simple knock on his door.
They informed me that he is already under investigation. Time will tell
I guess.
Snit
2019-07-28 18:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Many of these teens are in a group together and I have talked to the leader
and there will be a focus on some of the things you bring up. The school
“sex ed” is a joke. Will not go into more details in part because Carroll
might figure out what group and harass them.
So this "group" has a "leader"?
The group many of them are in — yes. Most youth organizations do. No, I
will not be more specific and help Carroll track them down and harass them.
Post by Skeeter
So now you invite gang members in to your house. Very interesting.
You cannot think of any youth focused groups other than gangs. That in
itself is scary.
You allow young children into your house and discuss gay and lesbo
stuff. In most places that would cause an investigation. I shall report
this behavior.
What type of attention are you looking for here? Can you be more clear?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-28 22:58:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Many of these teens are in a group together and I have talked to the leader
and there will be a focus on some of the things you bring up. The school
“sex ed” is a joke. Will not go into more details in part because Carroll
might figure out what group and harass them.
So this "group" has a "leader"?
The group many of them are in — yes. Most youth organizations do. No, I
will not be more specific and help Carroll track them down and harass them.
Post by Skeeter
So now you invite gang members in to your house. Very interesting.
You cannot think of any youth focused groups other than gangs. That in
itself is scary.
You allow young children into your house and discuss gay and lesbo
stuff. In most places that would cause an investigation. I shall report
this behavior.
Snit hid again because the law has contacted him.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-28 15:57:49 UTC
Permalink
Snit
2019-07-28 15:58:26 UTC
Permalink
<https://abcnews.go.com/International/guatemalan-mother-begs-soldier-enter-us/story?id=64570713>
We may not want to believe it's possible but this woman could be the
mule carrying the biological agent that would've been released into the
local reservoir near Snit's drinking water (if karma is a thing ;) I'm
only half joking here... what do you suggest we do? Is there no middle
ground in your mind?
Hevonpaska.
Seriously, this is your argument? "<science fiction scenario>, therefore
we should suspend habeas corpus?"
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little
Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
      - Benjamin Franklin
He later backpedaled
If true, you should be able to show where I 'frontpedaled', right?
So let's see a quote where I claim people have no right to remain silent
(which is silly on its face because you can't *make* someone talk).
To 'kensi': I thought the asking of this hyperbolic hypothetical was
rather obvious but I'll clarify it for you, it was written in an effort
to ascertain the OP's thoughts on the level of restriction on the CBP
(but that doesn't mean I don't consider security job #1 of my gov't).
Regarding Franklin's famous quote, I'd submit that the "those" being
referenced are not members of the group known as "ourselves" in the
preamble of the U.S. Constitution. I'm assuming that this is among a
number of things recognized by the SCOTUS when giving something like the
border search exception a green light... the same goes for things like
Clinton's IIRIRA (even the 1st Congress recognized the need for border
searches and how they might rub up against the Constitution). To your
"habeas corpus" statement, Clinton already did that with the AEDPA.
Of course... I figure, at some point, you'll be forced ro recognize
reality.
pointing out evil acts by Clinton or Obama
as if this somehow means you win.
What would (or did I) "win"?
I don't know why I must keep repeating this, but: Clinton was not a
saint. Obama was not a saint.
The point here is, they're realists... all those who sat as POTUS and
remained silent about things like this know what part of their job is.
IOW, I believe that this doctrine does *not* 'follow the U.S.
Constitution' (providing we give full 4th Amendment protection to
non-citizens)
We should. Indeed, we must. The Founders did.
? The Founders prescribed a head tax, the idea of giving millions who
want to cross a bunch of free stuff would be appalling to them. (the 1st
Congress implemented methods to collect the tax).
The entire Bill of Rights
hardly even mentions "citizens".
The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the term
"ourselves" is used in the context of *why* the Constitution is being
written. The idea that "We" (any version of it, for any country on the
planet) can prescribe a legal doctrine that applies to *all* "people" on
the planet is off the chart loony... it's not merely child-like (only a
very young child might suggest it) it's flat out loony. You realize
that, right? Are you a U.S. citizen (or a citizen of *any* country that
uses Constitutional law)? If yes, you *should* know this basic aspect of
reality (read: fact).
It enjoins the *US Government* from
doing a wide variety of things *to anyone*.
The Bill of Rights is an incomplete list of the rights of U.S. citizens
that the "*US Government*" is charged with protecting, as such, it has
*nothing* to do with people who are *not* U.S. citizens. That the gov't
has decided to afford non-citizens certain rights is not as strong a
guarantee as it is to citizens. IOW, the "Bill of Rights" didn't do what
you claimed, some version of the Congress/SCOTUS came along *later* and
said, 'OK, we'll give *these* rights to non-citizens'... but the "Bill
of Rights" doesn't say squat about non-citizens.
Notably, this means even
people living in foreign countries far away (thus making "extraordinary
rendition" unConstitutional, among other things).
I know what it means and, unlike you, I'm also aware that it was the
You left out how all people are created equal. All. And how you excluded
darker skinned people — citizens or not — in your view of “we”, saying it
was acceptable in your view to profile people by race as non-citizens.
You also insist you have the right to not self incriminate when the police
question you about your harassment of others but say people of other races
should be forced to self incriminate on threat of being detained.
You backed yourself in a corner again so out came your attacks and your
socks and your use of the N-word and more.
Time for another of your public breakdowns.
Carroll snipped and ran. Of course.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-28 15:58:33 UTC
Permalink
For kids with parents like you — my house is s place they can be sure they
are safe at.
I am willing to bet Epstein said the same thing to his"children".
Snit
2019-07-28 16:06:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
For kids with parents like you — my house is s place they can be sure they
are safe at.
I am willing to bet Epstein said the same thing to his"children".
Irrelevant. But the fact Carroll has said that child abuse is not, in his
view, a crime unless you are caught is.

Notice how you do not call him out on that.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-28 16:12:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
For kids with parents like you — my house is s place they can be sure they
are safe at.
I am willing to bet Epstein said the same thing to his"children".
Irrelevant. But the fact Carroll has said that child abuse is not, in his
view, a crime unless you are caught is.
Notice how you do not call him out on that.
Because he never said that, you did. You admitted to being like Epstein.
Snit
2019-07-28 16:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
For kids with parents like you — my house is s place they can be sure they
are safe at.
I am willing to bet Epstein said the same thing to his"children".
Irrelevant. But the fact Carroll has said that child abuse is not, in his
view, a crime unless you are caught is.
Notice how you do not call him out on that.
Because he never said that, you did. You admitted to being like Epstein.
Remember, Carroll is responsible for his own words... EVEN IF you deny it.

It is not my job to get you to be reasonable.

Steve Carroll:
-----
Notably, it isn't considered child abuse until it's been adjudicated...
-----

He is 100% wrong. Child abuse happens without anyone outside the family
knowing about it, no less it ever being adjudicated. People commit all
sorts of crimes -- including misdemeanors and felonies -- without being
caught, tried, and convicted.

But Carroll wants to pretend his own actions are fine unless he is found
guilty in a court. In the past he has spoken of "law worship" -- his
moral development never grew past right and wrong being based on what
the authority finds out.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-28 16:47:02 UTC
Permalink
Snit
2019-07-28 18:04:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
For kids with parents like you — my house is s place they can be sure they
are safe at.
I am willing to bet Epstein said the same thing to his"children".
Irrelevant. But the fact Carroll has said that child abuse is not, in his
view, a crime unless you are caught is.
Notice how you do not call him out on that.
Because he never said that, you did. You admitted to being like Epstein.
Remember, Carroll is responsible for his own words... EVEN IF you deny it.
It is not my job to get you to be reasonable.
-----
Notably, it isn't considered child abuse until it's been adjudicated...
-----
He is 100% wrong.
I'm not wrong,
Bullshit. If you engage in child abuse it is wrong EVEN IF you are not
caught.

Below you change topics to adjudication. Not biting. No. Nobody said,
suggested, hinted, or implied that all crimes are adjudicated. That is
your straw man. The fact is if you abused children, as you suggest you
did, it is STILL a felony, even if you were never caught or put in
prison for it.

It does, however, tie into your public belittling of your kids and your
whining about your estrangement from them. And your multiple wives who
left you.
it's an allegation until proven otherwise. I realize you
want a fascist state (while hypocritically claiming your 'opponents'
do) but we don't have one... yet.
Post by Snit
Child abuse happens without anyone outside the family
knowing about it, no less it ever being adjudicated. People commit all
sorts of crimes
And people allege that all sorts of crimes have been committed. Got a
point? No, you don't.
Post by Snit
-- including misdemeanors and felonies -- without being
caught, tried, and convicted.
Unless your point is to hold them accountable without giving them a
'Water is wet!', there's just no need to point out that people do bad
things. We have the rule of law here, Snit, your insane paranoia aside,
I'm afraid you're just going to have to deal with that.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-28 20:34:37 UTC
Permalink
%
2019-07-28 20:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
For kids with parents like you — my house is s place they can be sure they
are safe at.
I am willing to bet Epstein said the same thing to his"children".
Irrelevant. But the fact Carroll has said that child abuse is not, in his
view, a crime unless you are caught is.
Notice how you do not call him out on that.
Because he never said that, you did. You admitted to being like Epstein.
Remember, Carroll is responsible for his own words... EVEN IF you deny it.
It is not my job to get you to be reasonable.
-----
Notably, it isn't considered child abuse until it's been adjudicated...
-----
He is 100% wrong.
I'm not wrong,
Bullshit. If you engage in child abuse it is wrong EVEN IF you are not
caught.
Below you change topics to adjudication.
As you've already engaged in an informal version of "adjudication" to
make your allegation (at the least, you *should* have assessed *some*
form of evidence), I changed nothing. Of course, it is *you*, so it's
possible your emotions just went into overdrive and you never bothered
to check things out at all.
Post by Snit
Not biting.
adjudication
1: the act or process of adjudicating a dispute
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adjudication>
(note: no mention of the law, a judge or a court)
adjudicate
3. to sit in judgment (usually followed by upon)
<https://www.dictionary.com/browse/adjudicate>
(note: no mention of the law, a judge or a court... sitting in "judgment"
but not *as* a "judge" capable of hearing cases in the legal system, it's
a thing!).
judgment
He regretted his hasty judgment"
<https://www.dictionary.com/browse/judgement?s=t>
(note: no mention of the law, a judge or a court... you should like this
one, Mr. Hasty... also, note how there is a "Law" entry... for people
with a clue that's a pretty big clue!)
So unless you're now going to claim that those you accuse are not
disputing it (good luck with that one!) you haven't just 'bitten',
you're past the digestion stage and into letting your sh*t out into the
world so people like me can correct you on it by holding a dictionary in
front of you and applying the common sense that 'OF COURSE' you 'judged'
the material you looked at to make your determination (your 'finding' or
'opinion'). Only an idiot would suggest he's done otherwise if he was
stupid enough to mention that he had "evidence", "proof", etc. And if he
didn't have "evidence"? His name was probably Michael Glasser.
it doesn't matter what his name is ,
he's got you hooked on replying to him ,
no matter what he calls himself
Snit
2019-07-29 00:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by %
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
For kids with parents like you — my house is s place they can
be sure they
are safe at.
I am willing to bet Epstein said the same thing to his"children".
Irrelevant. But the fact Carroll has said that child abuse is not, in his
view, a crime unless you are caught is.
Notice how you do not call him out on that.
Because he never said that, you did. You admitted to being like Epstein.
Remember, Carroll is responsible for his own words... EVEN IF you deny it.
It is not my job to get you to be reasonable.
-----
Notably, it isn't considered child abuse until it's been
adjudicated...
-----
He is 100% wrong.
I'm not wrong,
Bullshit. If you engage in child abuse it is wrong EVEN IF you are not
caught.
Below you change topics to adjudication.
As you've already engaged in an informal version of "adjudication" to
make your allegation (at the least, you *should* have assessed *some*
form of evidence), I changed nothing. Of course, it is *you*, so it's
possible your emotions just went into overdrive and you never bothered
to check things out at all.
Post by Snit
Not biting.
adjudication
1: the act or process of adjudicating a dispute
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adjudication>
(note: no mention of the law, a judge or a court)
adjudicate
3. to sit in judgment (usually followed by upon)
<https://www.dictionary.com/browse/adjudicate>
(note: no mention of the law, a judge or a court... sitting in "judgment"
but not *as* a "judge" capable of hearing cases in the legal system, it's
a thing!).
judgment
He regretted his hasty judgment"
<https://www.dictionary.com/browse/judgement?s=t>
(note: no mention of the law, a judge or a court... you should like this
one, Mr. Hasty... also, note how there is a "Law" entry... for people
with a clue that's a pretty big clue!)
So unless you're now going to claim that those you accuse are not
disputing it (good luck with that one!) you haven't just 'bitten',
you're past the digestion stage and into letting your sh*t out into the
world so people like me can correct you on it by holding a dictionary in
front of you and applying the common sense that 'OF COURSE' you 'judged'
the material you looked at to make your determination (your 'finding' or
'opinion'). Only an idiot would suggest he's done otherwise if he was
stupid enough to mention that he had "evidence", "proof", etc. And if he
didn't have "evidence"? His name was probably Michael Glasser.
it doesn't matter what his name is ,
he's got you hooked on replying to him ,
no matter what he calls himself
You can have him.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Snit
2019-07-29 00:20:58 UTC
Permalink
On 7/28/19 11:04 AM, Snit wrote:> On 7/28/19 9:47 AM, Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
For kids with parents like you — my house is s place
they can be sure they are safe at.
I am willing to bet Epstein said the same thing to
his"children".
Irrelevant. But the fact Carroll has said that child abuse
is not, in his view, a crime unless you are caught is.
Notice how you do not call him out on that.
Because he never said that, you did. You admitted to being like Epstein.
Remember, Carroll is responsible for his own words... EVEN IF you deny it.
It is not my job to get you to be reasonable.
Steve Carroll: >>> ----->>> Notably, it isn't considered child abuse until it's been
adjudicated... >>> ----->>>
He is 100% wrong.
I'm not wrong,
Bullshit. If you engage in child abuse it is wrong EVEN IF you are
not caught.
Below you change topics to adjudication. Not biting. No. Nobody said,
suggested, hinted, or implied that all crimes are adjudicated. That
is your straw man. The fact is if you abused children, as you suggest
you did, it is STILL a felony, even if you were never caught or put
in prison for it.
It does, however, tie into your public belittling of your kids and
your whining about your estrangement from them. And your multiple
wives who left you.
Carroll ran from this and pretended that by "adjudication" I must have
meant noting what he admits to in this group and not him being legally
adjudicated. More of his idiotic semantic games.

Bottom line, Carroll's comment is utter bullshit:

Steve Carroll:
-----
Notably, it isn't considered child abuse until it's been
adjudicated...
-----

The fact he pushes this crap is scary... and likely ties into his
belittling of his kids in public, and his whining about his estrangement
from them. And also might tie into why multiple wives of his have left him.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-29 01:04:54 UTC
Permalink
Snit
2019-07-29 01:13:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
On 7/28/19 11:04 AM, Snit wrote:> On 7/28/19 9:47 AM, Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
For kids with parents like you — my house is s place
they can be sure they are safe at.
I am willing to bet Epstein said the same thing to his"children".
Irrelevant. But the fact Carroll has said that child abuse
is not, in his view, a crime unless you are caught is.
Notice how you do not call him out on that.
Because he never said that, you did. You admitted to being like Epstein.
Remember, Carroll is responsible for his own words... EVEN IF you deny it.
It is not my job to get you to be reasonable.
Steve Carroll: >>> ----->>> Notably, it isn't considered child abuse until it's been
adjudicated... >>> ----->>>
He is 100% wrong.
I'm not wrong,
Bullshit. If you engage in child abuse it is wrong EVEN IF you are not
caught.
Below you change topics to adjudication. Not biting. No. Nobody said,
suggested, hinted, or implied that all crimes are adjudicated. That
is your straw man. The fact is if you abused children, as you suggest
you did, it is STILL a felony, even if you were never caught or put
in prison for it.
It does, however, tie into your public belittling of your kids and
your whining about your estrangement from them. And your multiple
wives who left you.
Carroll ran from this and pretended that by "adjudication" I must have
meant noting what he admits to in this group and not him being legally
adjudicated. More of his idiotic semantic games.
    -----
    Notably, it isn't considered child abuse until it's been
    adjudicated...
    -----
The fact he pushes this crap is scary... and likely ties into his
belittling of his kids in public, and his whining about his estrangement
from them. And also might tie into why multiple wives of his have left him.
Carroll snipped and ran from this. He wants to distance himself from his
obvious suggestion he engages is, or engaged in, child abuse.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-29 12:16:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
The fact he pushes this crap is scary... and likely ties into his
belittling of his kids in public, and his whining about his estrangement
from them. And also might tie into why multiple wives of his have left him.
No proof though huh?
Skeeter
2019-07-28 22:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Below you change topics to adjudication. Not biting. No. Nobody said,
suggested, hinted, or implied that all crimes are adjudicated. That is
your straw man. The fact is if you abused children, as you suggest you
did, it is STILL a felony, even if you were never caught or put in
prison for it.
It does, however, tie into your public belittling of your kids and your
whining about your estrangement from them. And your multiple wives who
left you.
Need a tissue Snit?
Snit
2019-07-29 00:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Below you change topics to adjudication. Not biting. No. Nobody said,
suggested, hinted, or implied that all crimes are adjudicated. That is
your straw man. The fact is if you abused children, as you suggest you
did, it is STILL a felony, even if you were never caught or put in
prison for it.
It does, however, tie into your public belittling of your kids and your
whining about your estrangement from them. And your multiple wives who
left you.
Need a tissue Snit?
It is worth crying over kids being abused, but currently I am not.
Thanks for asking.

How about you? Do you have any feelings for abused kids?

And have you figured out that New York City is within 100 miles of the
border of the country?

Skeeter:
-----
There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
-----

Seriously, that was one of your better nonsense claims. You will have to
work hard to beat it!
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-29 12:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Below you change topics to adjudication. Not biting. No. Nobody said,
suggested, hinted, or implied that all crimes are adjudicated. That is
your straw man. The fact is if you abused children, as you suggest you
did, it is STILL a felony, even if you were never caught or put in
prison for it.
It does, however, tie into your public belittling of your kids and your
whining about your estrangement from them. And your multiple wives who
left you.
Need a tissue Snit?
Snit snipped and ran.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-29 12:45:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Below you change topics to adjudication. Not biting. No. Nobody said,
suggested, hinted, or implied that all crimes are adjudicated. That is
your straw man. The fact is if you abused children, as you suggest you
did, it is STILL a felony, even if you were never caught or put in
prison for it.
It does, however, tie into your public belittling of your kids and your
whining about your estrangement from them. And your multiple wives who
left you.
Need a tissue Snit?
Snit snipped and ran.
HE does that a LOT. But then, he's just a mentally defective troll.
Skeeter
2019-07-28 16:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
For kids with parents like you — my house is s place they can be sure they
are safe at.
I am willing to bet Epstein said the same thing to his"children".
Irrelevant. But the fact Carroll has said that child abuse is not, in his
view, a crime unless you are caught is.
Notice how you do not call him out on that.
Because he never said that, you did. You admitted to being like Epstein.
Remember, Carroll is responsible for his own words... EVEN IF you deny it.
It is not my job to get you to be reasonable.
-----
Notably, it isn't considered child abuse until it's been adjudicated...
-----
He is 100% wrong. Child abuse happens without anyone outside the family
knowing about it, no less it ever being adjudicated. People commit all
sorts of crimes -- including misdemeanors and felonies -- without being
caught, tried, and convicted.
But Carroll wants to pretend his own actions are fine unless he is found
guilty in a court. In the past he has spoken of "law worship" -- his
moral development never grew past right and wrong being based on what
the authority finds out.
You sure do project about child abuse a lot, does this fit into the fact
that you invite children into your home to discuss sex matters with
them?
Snit
2019-07-28 18:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
For kids with parents like you — my house is s place they can be sure they
are safe at.
I am willing to bet Epstein said the same thing to his"children".
Irrelevant. But the fact Carroll has said that child abuse is not, in his
view, a crime unless you are caught is.
Notice how you do not call him out on that.
Because he never said that, you did. You admitted to being like Epstein.
Remember, Carroll is responsible for his own words... EVEN IF you deny it.
It is not my job to get you to be reasonable.
-----
Notably, it isn't considered child abuse until it's been adjudicated...
-----
He is 100% wrong. Child abuse happens without anyone outside the family
knowing about it, no less it ever being adjudicated. People commit all
sorts of crimes -- including misdemeanors and felonies -- without being
caught, tried, and convicted.
But Carroll wants to pretend his own actions are fine unless he is found
guilty in a court. In the past he has spoken of "law worship" -- his
moral development never grew past right and wrong being based on what
the authority finds out.
You sure do project about child abuse a lot, does this fit into the fact
that you invite children into your home to discuss sex matters with
them?
What type of attention are you looking for with this trolling?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-28 22:57:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
For kids with parents like you — my house is s place they can be sure they
are safe at.
I am willing to bet Epstein said the same thing to his"children".
Irrelevant. But the fact Carroll has said that child abuse is not, in his
view, a crime unless you are caught is.
Notice how you do not call him out on that.
Because he never said that, you did. You admitted to being like Epstein.
Remember, Carroll is responsible for his own words... EVEN IF you deny it.
It is not my job to get you to be reasonable.
-----
Notably, it isn't considered child abuse until it's been adjudicated...
-----
He is 100% wrong. Child abuse happens without anyone outside the family
knowing about it, no less it ever being adjudicated. People commit all
sorts of crimes -- including misdemeanors and felonies -- without being
caught, tried, and convicted.
But Carroll wants to pretend his own actions are fine unless he is found
guilty in a court. In the past he has spoken of "law worship" -- his
moral development never grew past right and wrong being based on what
the authority finds out.
You sure do project about child abuse a lot, does this fit into the fact
that you invite children into your home to discuss sex matters with
them?
Snit hid from this. LE might have already contacted him.
Skeeter
2019-07-28 15:59:14 UTC
Permalink
<https://abcnews.go.com/International/guatemalan-mother-begs-soldier-enter-us/story?id=64570713>
We may not want to believe it's possible but this woman could be the
mule carrying the biological agent that would've been released into the
local reservoir near Snit's drinking water (if karma is a thing ;) I'm
only half joking here... what do you suggest we do? Is there no middle
ground in your mind?
Hevonpaska.
Seriously, this is your argument? "<science fiction scenario>, therefore
we should suspend habeas corpus?"
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little
Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
      - Benjamin Franklin
He later backpedaled
If true, you should be able to show where I 'frontpedaled', right?
So let's see a quote where I claim people have no right to remain silent
(which is silly on its face because you can't *make* someone talk).
To 'kensi': I thought the asking of this hyperbolic hypothetical was
rather obvious but I'll clarify it for you, it was written in an effort
to ascertain the OP's thoughts on the level of restriction on the CBP
(but that doesn't mean I don't consider security job #1 of my gov't).
Regarding Franklin's famous quote, I'd submit that the "those" being
referenced are not members of the group known as "ourselves" in the
preamble of the U.S. Constitution. I'm assuming that this is among a
number of things recognized by the SCOTUS when giving something like the
border search exception a green light... the same goes for things like
Clinton's IIRIRA (even the 1st Congress recognized the need for border
searches and how they might rub up against the Constitution). To your
"habeas corpus" statement, Clinton already did that with the AEDPA.
Of course... I figure, at some point, you'll be forced ro recognize
reality.
pointing out evil acts by Clinton or Obama
as if this somehow means you win.
What would (or did I) "win"?
I don't know why I must keep repeating this, but: Clinton was not a
saint. Obama was not a saint.
The point here is, they're realists... all those who sat as POTUS and
remained silent about things like this know what part of their job is.
IOW, I believe that this doctrine does *not* 'follow the U.S.
Constitution' (providing we give full 4th Amendment protection to
non-citizens)
We should. Indeed, we must. The Founders did.
? The Founders prescribed a head tax, the idea of giving millions who
want to cross a bunch of free stuff would be appalling to them. (the 1st
Congress implemented methods to collect the tax).
The entire Bill of Rights
hardly even mentions "citizens".
The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the term
"ourselves" is used in the context of *why* the Constitution is being
written. The idea that "We" (any version of it, for any country on the
planet) can prescribe a legal doctrine that applies to *all* "people" on
the planet is off the chart loony... it's not merely child-like (only a
very young child might suggest it) it's flat out loony. You realize
that, right? Are you a U.S. citizen (or a citizen of *any* country that
uses Constitutional law)? If yes, you *should* know this basic aspect of
reality (read: fact).
It enjoins the *US Government* from
doing a wide variety of things *to anyone*.
The Bill of Rights is an incomplete list of the rights of U.S. citizens
that the "*US Government*" is charged with protecting, as such, it has
*nothing* to do with people who are *not* U.S. citizens. That the gov't
has decided to afford non-citizens certain rights is not as strong a
guarantee as it is to citizens. IOW, the "Bill of Rights" didn't do what
you claimed, some version of the Congress/SCOTUS came along *later* and
said, 'OK, we'll give *these* rights to non-citizens'... but the "Bill
of Rights" doesn't say squat about non-citizens.
Notably, this means even
people living in foreign countries far away (thus making "extraordinary
rendition" unConstitutional, among other things).
I know what it means and, unlike you, I'm also aware that it was the
Snit snipped and ran.
Skeeter
2019-07-28 15:59:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 14:08:11 -0000 (UTC), Steve Carroll <"Steve
Also, a warning to everyone else: the Carroll k00k is now playing
silent-followup-to games in a desperate attempt to have the last word by
dishonest and sneaky means. Be cautious and make sure to restore any
snecked groups when replying to prove him wrong yet again.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
I believe she may be referring to the Kensi Method of Discussion®,
where she will reply in a totally different, renamed thread in an
effort to make the conversation difficult if not impossible to follow.
But I don't recall seeing you do that.
I guess I should ask the obvious... is "kensi" just another Snit sock?
I've seen people claiming "kensi" is a she but some of the arguments are
*very* much like those Snit puts up.
Ah, now you run to your lie about me using socks as you do. You backed
yourself in a corner and are lashing out. Another of your very public
breakdowns.
Hi Joel.
Skeeter
2019-07-28 16:00:26 UTC
Permalink
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower* than
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of the police
speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
Snit
2019-07-28 16:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower* than
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of the police
speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the border, given
how about 65% of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border, and
about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not be free to “wander around”
where they live?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-28 17:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Snit
2019-07-28 18:08:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower* than
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of the police
speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the border, given
how about 65% of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border, and
about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not be free to “wander around”
where they live?
We've been over this already, 'free to “wander around” where they live'
still means they're subject to the border search doctrine.
A bigoted law you approve of... but then deny you are backing bigotry
even as you talk about your support of treating people differently based
on their race.

And with your socks you get even worse, including using the N-word.

You are openly bigoted and then cry victim when it is called out.
Continuously
whining on usenet about a law you don't like won't make it go away,
there are more effective venues for that.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-28 20:36:46 UTC
Permalink
Snit
2019-07-29 00:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you
stunt CBP from ascertaining necessary info or insist on
full 4th amendment protection for non-citizens it's
tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no reason
to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then
we have a huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he
cannot assume that that person is a "jumper". Without
some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked
of the police speaking to you about your harassment of
others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the
border, given how about 65% of the US population lives within 100
miles of a border, and about 75% of Hispanics, why should they
not be free to “wander around” where they live?
We've been over this already, 'free to “wander around” where they
live' still means they're subject to the border search doctrine.
A bigoted law you approve of... but then deny you are backing
bigotry even as you talk about your support of treating people
differently based on their race.
And with your socks you get even worse, including using the N-word.
You are openly bigoted and then cry victim when it is called out.
Carroll snipped and ran as he tried to change topics to the law and not
his bigotry. Of course.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
%
2019-07-29 01:20:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you
stunt CBP from ascertaining necessary info or insist on
full 4th amendment protection for non-citizens it's
tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no reason
to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then
we have a huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he
cannot assume that that person is a "jumper". Without
some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked
of the police speaking to you about your harassment of
others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the
border, given how about 65% of the US population lives within 100
miles of a border, and about 75% of Hispanics, why should they
not be free to “wander around” where they live?
We've been over this already, 'free to “wander around” where they
live' still means they're subject to the border search doctrine.
A bigoted law you approve of... but then deny you are backing
bigotry even as you talk about your support of treating people
differently based on their race.
And with your socks you get even worse, including using the N-word.
You are openly bigoted and then cry victim when it is called out.
Carroll snipped and ran as he tried to change topics to the law and not
his bigotry. Of course.
are you snit
Snit
2019-07-29 01:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by %
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you
stunt CBP from ascertaining necessary info or insist on
full 4th amendment protection for non-citizens it's
tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no reason
to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then
we have a huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he
cannot assume that that person is a "jumper". Without
some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked
of the police speaking to you about your harassment of
others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the
border, given how about 65% of the US population lives within 100
miles of a border, and about 75% of Hispanics, why should they
not be free to “wander around” where they live?
We've been over this already, 'free to “wander around” where they
live' still means they're subject to the border search doctrine.
A bigoted law you approve of... but then deny you are backing
bigotry even as you talk about your support of treating people
differently based on their race.
And with your socks you get even worse, including using the N-word.
You are openly bigoted and then cry victim when it is called out.
Carroll snipped and ran as he tried to change topics to the law and not
his bigotry. Of course.
are you snit
Most of the time.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
%
2019-07-29 01:38:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by %
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you
stunt CBP from ascertaining necessary info or insist on
full 4th amendment protection for non-citizens it's
tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no reason
to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then
we have a huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he
cannot assume that that person is a "jumper". Without
some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked
of the police speaking to you about your harassment of
others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the
border, given how about 65% of the US population lives within 100
miles of a border, and about 75% of Hispanics, why should they
not be free to “wander around” where they live?
We've been over this already, 'free to “wander around” where they
live' still means they're subject to the border search doctrine.
A bigoted law you approve of... but then deny you are backing
bigotry even as you talk about your support of treating people
differently based on their race.
And with your socks you get even worse, including using the N-word.
You are openly bigoted and then cry victim when it is called out.
Carroll snipped and ran as he tried to change topics to the law and not
his bigotry. Of course.
are you snit
Most of the time.
i notice you are causing snits among the patients
Snit
2019-07-29 02:02:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by %
Post by Snit
Post by %
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you
stunt CBP from ascertaining necessary info or insist on
full 4th amendment protection for non-citizens it's
tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no reason
to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then
we have a huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he
cannot assume that that person is a "jumper". Without
some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked
of the police speaking to you about your harassment of
others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the
border, given how about 65% of the US population lives within 100
miles of a border, and about 75% of Hispanics, why should they
not be free to “wander around” where they live?
We've been over this already, 'free to “wander around” where they
live' still means they're subject to the border search doctrine.
A bigoted law you approve of... but then deny you are backing
bigotry even as you talk about your support of treating people
differently based on their race.
And with your socks you get even worse, including using the N-word.
You are openly bigoted and then cry victim when it is called out.
Carroll snipped and ran as he tried to change topics to the law and not
his bigotry. Of course.
are you snit
Most of the time.
i notice you are causing snits among the patients
Do they look like me?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
%
2019-07-29 03:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by %
Post by Snit
Post by %
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you
stunt CBP from ascertaining necessary info or insist on
full 4th amendment protection for non-citizens it's
tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no reason
to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then
we have a huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he
cannot assume that that person is a "jumper". Without
some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked
of the police speaking to you about your harassment of
others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the
border, given how about 65% of the US population lives within 100
miles of a border, and about 75% of Hispanics, why should they
not be free to “wander around” where they live?
We've been over this already, 'free to “wander around” where they
live' still means they're subject to the border search doctrine.
A bigoted law you approve of... but then deny you are backing
bigotry even as you talk about your support of treating people
differently based on their race.
And with your socks you get even worse, including using the N-word.
You are openly bigoted and then cry victim when it is called out.
Carroll snipped and ran as he tried to change topics to the law and not
his bigotry. Of course.
are you snit
Most of the time.
i notice you are causing snits among the patients
Do they look like me?
for the most part yes , arms , legs , feet , fingers
vallor
2019-07-29 02:22:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by %
Post by Snit
Post by %
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt
CBP from ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th
amendment protection for non-citizens it's tantamount to an
open border. If an agent has no reason to hold a jumper he
didn't see cross the border then we have a huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot
assume that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of
probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower*
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of
the police speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the
border, given how about 65% of the US population lives within 100
miles of a border, and about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not
be free to “wander around” where they live?
We've been over this already, 'free to “wander around” where they
live' still means they're subject to the border search doctrine.
A bigoted law you approve of... but then deny you are backing
bigotry even as you talk about your support of treating people
differently based on their race.
And with your socks you get even worse, including using the N-word.
You are openly bigoted and then cry victim when it is called out.
Carroll snipped and ran as he tried to change topics to the law and
not his bigotry. Of course.
are you snit
Most of the time.
i notice you are causing snits among the patients
Funny you should mention "patient"...you got a bead on the guy's history?
--
-v
[cola snecked]
%
2019-07-29 03:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by vallor
Post by %
Post by Snit
Post by %
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt
CBP from ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th
amendment protection for non-citizens it's tantamount to an
open border. If an agent has no reason to hold a jumper he
didn't see cross the border then we have a huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot
assume that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of
probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower*
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of
the police speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the
border, given how about 65% of the US population lives within 100
miles of a border, and about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not
be free to “wander around” where they live?
We've been over this already, 'free to “wander around” where they
live' still means they're subject to the border search doctrine.
A bigoted law you approve of... but then deny you are backing
bigotry even as you talk about your support of treating people
differently based on their race.
And with your socks you get even worse, including using the N-word.
You are openly bigoted and then cry victim when it is called out.
Carroll snipped and ran as he tried to change topics to the law and
not his bigotry. Of course.
are you snit
Most of the time.
i notice you are causing snits among the patients
Funny you should mention "patient"...you got a bead on the guy's history?
no i don't but i have mine and i know it's worse
Checkmate
2019-07-29 04:33:59 UTC
Permalink
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate! In article <***@news.alt.net>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by %
Post by vallor
Post by %
Post by Snit
Post by %
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt
CBP from ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th
amendment protection for non-citizens it's tantamount to an
open border. If an agent has no reason to hold a jumper he
didn't see cross the border then we have a huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot
assume that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of
probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower*
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of
the police speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the
border, given how about 65% of the US population lives within 100
miles of a border, and about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not
be free to ?wander around? where they live?
We've been over this already, 'free to ?wander around? where they
live' still means they're subject to the border search doctrine.
A bigoted law you approve of... but then deny you are backing
bigotry even as you talk about your support of treating people
differently based on their race.
And with your socks you get even worse, including using the N-word.
You are openly bigoted and then cry victim when it is called out.
Carroll snipped and ran as he tried to change topics to the law and
not his bigotry. Of course.
are you snit
Most of the time.
i notice you are causing snits among the patients
Funny you should mention "patient"...you got a bead on the guy's history?
no i don't but i have mine and i know it's worse
Play it off like it's not, so people will like you better.
--
Checkmate ®
Copyright © 2019
all rights reserved

AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Awards (Post-Burnore)
Co-winner Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker
award May 2001, (Brethern of Beelzebub troll)
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award, Feb 2012

Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Usenet Shot-Caller

In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017
vallor
2019-07-29 04:42:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Checkmate
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
says...
Post by %
Post by vallor
Post by %
Post by Snit
Post by %
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you
stunt CBP from ascertaining necessary info or insist on
full 4th amendment protection for non-citizens it's
tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no reason
to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we
have a huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he
cannot assume that that person is a "jumper". Without some
sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower*
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked
of the police speaking to you about your harassment of
others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the
border, given how about 65% of the US population lives within
100 miles of a border, and about 75% of Hispanics, why should
they not be free to ?wander around? where they live?
We've been over this already, 'free to ?wander around? where
they live' still means they're subject to the border search
doctrine.
A bigoted law you approve of... but then deny you are backing
bigotry even as you talk about your support of treating people
differently based on their race.
And with your socks you get even worse, including using the N-word.
You are openly bigoted and then cry victim when it is called out.
Carroll snipped and ran as he tried to change topics to the law
and not his bigotry. Of course.
are you snit
Most of the time.
i notice you are causing snits among the patients
Funny you should mention "patient"...you got a bead on the guy's history?
no i don't but i have mine and i know it's worse
Play it off like it's not, so people will like you better.
Well, he had the sympathy of the house...until the bear got involved.
--
-v
Checkmate
2019-07-29 07:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate! In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@cultnix.org
says...
Post by vallor
Post by Checkmate
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
says...
Post by %
Post by vallor
Post by %
Post by Snit
Post by %
On 7/28/19 11:08 AM, Snit wrote:> On 7/28/19 10:15 AM, Steve
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you
stunt CBP from ascertaining necessary info or insist on
full 4th amendment protection for non-citizens it's
tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no reason
to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we
have a huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he
cannot assume that that person is a "jumper". Without some
sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is
*lower*
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked
of the police speaking to you about your harassment of
others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the
border, given how about 65% of the US population lives within
100 miles of a border, and about 75% of Hispanics, why should
they not be free to ?wander around? where they live?
We've been over this already, 'free to ?wander around? where
they live' still means they're subject to the border search
doctrine.
A bigoted law you approve of... but then deny you are backing
bigotry even as you talk about your support of treating people
differently based on their race.
And with your socks you get even worse, including using the N-word.
You are openly bigoted and then cry victim when it is called out.
Carroll snipped and ran as he tried to change topics to the law
and not his bigotry. Of course.
are you snit
Most of the time.
i notice you are causing snits among the patients
Funny you should mention "patient"...you got a bead on the guy's history?
no i don't but i have mine and i know it's worse
Play it off like it's not, so people will like you better.
Well, he had the sympathy of the house...until the bear got involved.
Nothing beats a bear.
--
Checkmate ®
Copyright © 2019
all rights reserved

AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Awards (Post-Burnore)
Co-winner Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker
award May 2001, (Brethern of Beelzebub troll)
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award, Feb 2012

Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Usenet Shot-Caller

In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017
Skeeter
2019-07-28 22:56:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower* than
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of the police
speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the border, given
how about 65% of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border, and
about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not be free to “wander around”
where they live?
We've been over this already, 'free to “wander around” where they live'
still means they're subject to the border search doctrine.
A bigoted law you approve of... but then deny you are backing bigotry
even as you talk about your support of treating people differently based
on their race.
And with your socks you get even worse, including using the N-word.
You are openly bigoted and then cry victim when it is called out.
Continuously
whining on usenet about a law you don't like won't make it go away,
there are more effective venues for that.
Snit ignored this, the truth hurts him.
Just Wondering
2019-07-28 23:47:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower* than
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of the police
speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the border, given
how about 65% of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border, and
about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not be free to “wander around”
where they live?
Where the land is private property, or is fenced-in public

property, the general public is NOT free to wander around
on it.
If you cross the US-Mexico border illegally, no matter
who owns it you're not free to wander around on it.
We've been over this already, 'free to “wander around” where they live'
still means they're subject to the border search doctrine.
Continuously whining on usenet about a law you don't like won't make
it go away, there are more effective venues for that.
Snit
2019-07-29 00:24:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower* than
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of the police
speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the border, given
how about 65% of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border, and
about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not be free to “wander around”
where they live?
Where the land is private property, or is fenced-in public
property, the general public is NOT free to wander around
on it.
  If you cross the US-Mexico border illegally, no matter
who owns it you're not free to wander around on it.
I said nothing of crossing the border, nor going anywhere else they are
not supposed to. These are people going to their home, their work, their
grocery stores... 65% of Americans live within 100 miles of a border...
and 75% of all Hispanic Americans. The idea that it is OK to profile
Hispanics IN THEIR OWN HOME TOWN and demand they carry ID or risk being
detained, or even merely stopped for doing NOTHING, is simply not
acceptable to anyone who is for equal rights.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-29 00:59:48 UTC
Permalink
Snit
2019-07-29 01:12:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower* than
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of the police
speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the border, given
how about 65% of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border, and
about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not be free to “wander around”
where they live?
Where the land is private property, or is fenced-in public
property, the general public is NOT free to wander around
on it.
  If you cross the US-Mexico border illegally, no matter
who owns it you're not free to wander around on it.
I said nothing of crossing the border,
Look up in this post. See all that talk about "open border",
You making false claims against others. Sure. You lie. So what.

But then we talked about profiling people by race -- racism... bigotry.
And you backed it. And then we talked about the "border" being anything
within 100 miles of the border.

And then I noted that this means about 65% of all Americans... or, of
those being profiled, 75% of all Hispanics.

Yes: 3 out of 4 Hispanic Americans... CITIZENS... can be profiled and
stopped as the go to work or to their home, as they go shopping or to
their church or synagogue or mosque or other house of worship. As they
go about their daily business.

Three out of four Hispanics... you "understand" why it is OK to have
their homes be in "Constitution free" zones even as you demand the
rights you deny others in terms of police speaking to you about your
harassment of others.

You are a hypocrite. And a bigot.
"the
border","jumper" and, you know..."The camps" (how does one get in
"But since you bring up the border..."
Do you think he 'brought up' the border for some other reason than why
we've all been talking about "the border" (i.e. "crossing" it, wandering
around in the 100 mile zone, etc.)? Why would anyone need to have "said"
anything *additional* in a conversation *about* the f*cking topic?
Post by Snit
nor going anywhere else they are
not supposed to. These are people going to their home, their work, their
grocery stores... 65% of Americans live within 100 miles of a border...
and 75% of all Hispanic Americans. The idea that it is OK to profile
Hispanics IN THEIR OWN HOME TOWN and demand they carry ID or risk being
detained, or even merely stopped for doing NOTHING, is simply not
acceptable to anyone who is for equal rights.
So you're saying... if a Norwegian male (who glows in the dark) looks
highly questionable, is standing next to a group of 8 year old Hispanic
girls who all are showing what a federal officer might view as visible
signs of stress, however minor, he should not be allowed to make an
inquiry, ask for ID, etc., if they're 99 miles from the border while
inside of the U.S.?
How far they are from the border is not relevant. If there is probable
cause then you can question someone. As there was with you in terms of
your harassment of others. But you have the right to remain silent and
are not required to show ID... same with others. Your demands for
special entitlements should not be a consideration.
If the guy remains silent should the officer just
walk away so that some politicizing jackass like you will whine how 'he
let those girls die because they weren't white'? How does it work in
that pea of a brain of yours? Some day, when you grow up, you might
realize that the world is a dangerous place and not every security
measure is designed just to take away rights.
Notice how you speak FOR me instead of reading what I write and showing
understanding. And then you accuse me of doing as you do. What a
hypocrite you are.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-29 01:31:39 UTC
Permalink
Snit
2019-07-29 01:34:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment
protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent
has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower* than
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of the police
speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the border, given
how about 65% of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border, and
about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not be free to “wander around”
where they live?
Where the land is private property, or is fenced-in public
property, the general public is NOT free to wander around
on it.
  If you cross the US-Mexico border illegally, no matter
who owns it you're not free to wander around on it.
I said nothing of crossing the border,
Look up in this post. See all that talk about "open border",
You making false claims against others.
Nah, anyone can see the words "open border" and the rest... higher in
this post.
Post by Snit
"the
border","jumper" and, you know..."The camps" (how does one get in
"But since you bring up the border..."
Do you think he 'brought up' the border for some other reason than why
we've all been talking about "the border" (i.e. "crossing" it, wandering
around in the 100 mile zone, etc.)? Why would anyone need to have "said"
anything *additional* in a conversation *about* the f*cking topic?
Post by Snit
nor going anywhere else they are
not supposed to. These are people going to their home, their work, their
grocery stores... 65% of Americans live within 100 miles of a border...
and 75% of all Hispanic Americans. The idea that it is OK to profile
Hispanics IN THEIR OWN HOME TOWN and demand they carry ID or risk being
detained, or even merely stopped for doing NOTHING, is simply not
acceptable to anyone who is for equal rights.
So you're saying... if a Norwegian male (who glows in the dark) looks
highly questionable, is standing next to a group of 8 year old Hispanic
girls who all are showing what a federal officer might view as visible
signs of stress, however minor, he should not be allowed to make an
inquiry, ask for ID, etc., if they're 99 miles from the border while
inside of the U.S.?
How far they are from the border is not relevant.
"Federal law allows certain federal agents to conduct search and
seizures within 100 miles of the border into the interior of the United
States."
Post by Snit
If there is probable cause then you can question someone.
Certain federal officers can without probable cause.
Post by Snit
If the guy remains silent should the officer just
walk away so that some politicizing jackass like you will whine how 'he
let those girls die because they weren't white'? How does it work in
that pea of a brain of yours? Some day, when you grow up, you might
realize that the world is a dangerous place and not every security
measure is designed just to take away rights.
Notice how you speak FOR me instead of reading what I write and showing
understanding.
No, but I noticed how you ran again, this time from a scenario that blew
your Utopian dream into dust.
You back bigoted Constitution free zones. I do not. Not sure what other
point you want to make, other than perhaps your hypocrisy or your
suggestion you have or do engage in child abuse.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-29 01:44:46 UTC
Permalink
(snip)
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
So you're saying... if a Norwegian male (who glows in the dark) looks
highly questionable, is standing next to a group of 8 year old Hispanic
girls who all are showing what a federal officer might view as visible
signs of stress, however minor, he should not be allowed to make an
inquiry, ask for ID, etc., if they're 99 miles from the border while
inside of the U.S.?
How far they are from the border is not relevant.
"Federal law allows certain federal agents to conduct search and
seizures within 100 miles of the border into the interior of the United
States."
Post by Snit
If there is probable cause then you can question someone.
Certain federal officers can without probable cause.
Post by Snit
If the guy remains silent should the officer just
walk away so that some politicizing jackass like you will whine how 'he
let those girls die because they weren't white'? How does it work in
that pea of a brain of yours? Some day, when you grow up, you might
realize that the world is a dangerous place and not every security
measure is designed just to take away rights.
Notice how you speak FOR me instead of reading what I write and showing
understanding.
No, but I noticed how you ran again, this time from a scenario that blew
your Utopian dream into dust.
You back bigoted Constitution free zones.
You back letting human sex traffickers easily evade federal officers.
Are you a child sex trafficker? Using the 'logic' you use on me, it
appears that must be the case <shrug>.
Skeeter
2019-07-29 12:14:24 UTC
Permalink
In article <qhlj2e$h88$***@dont-email.me>, "Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none
says...
Post by Steve Carroll
(snip)
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
So you're saying... if a Norwegian male (who glows in the dark) looks
highly questionable, is standing next to a group of 8 year old Hispanic
girls who all are showing what a federal officer might view as visible
signs of stress, however minor, he should not be allowed to make an
inquiry, ask for ID, etc., if they're 99 miles from the border while
inside of the U.S.?
How far they are from the border is not relevant.
"Federal law allows certain federal agents to conduct search and
seizures within 100 miles of the border into the interior of the United
States."
Post by Snit
If there is probable cause then you can question someone.
Certain federal officers can without probable cause.
Post by Snit
If the guy remains silent should the officer just
walk away so that some politicizing jackass like you will whine how 'he
let those girls die because they weren't white'? How does it work in
that pea of a brain of yours? Some day, when you grow up, you might
realize that the world is a dangerous place and not every security
measure is designed just to take away rights.
Notice how you speak FOR me instead of reading what I write and showing
understanding.
No, but I noticed how you ran again, this time from a scenario that blew
your Utopian dream into dust.
You back bigoted Constitution free zones.
You back letting human sex traffickers easily evade federal officers.
Are you a child sex trafficker? Using the 'logic' you use on me, it
appears that must be the case <shrug>.
He did admit to inviting children to his home to discuss sex issues.
Snit
2019-07-29 01:56:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt
CBP
from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment
protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent
has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we
have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower* than
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of
the
police
speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the
border,
given
how about 65% of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border, and
about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not be free to “wander around”
where they live?
Where the land is private property, or is fenced-in public
property, the general public is NOT free to wander around
on it.
     If you cross the US-Mexico border illegally, no matter
who owns it you're not free to wander around on it.
I said nothing of crossing the border,
Look up in this post. See all that talk about "open border",
You making false claims against others.
Nah, anyone can see the words  "open border" and the rest... higher in
this post.
Post by Snit
"the
border","jumper" and, you know..."The camps" (how does one get in
"But since you bring up the border..."
Do you think he 'brought up' the border for some other reason than why
we've all been talking about "the border" (i.e. "crossing" it, wandering
around in the 100 mile zone, etc.)? Why would anyone need to have "said"
anything *additional* in a conversation *about* the f*cking topic?
Post by Snit
nor going anywhere else they are
not supposed to. These are people going to their home, their work, their
grocery stores... 65% of Americans live within 100 miles of a border...
and 75% of all Hispanic Americans. The idea that it is OK to profile
Hispanics IN THEIR OWN HOME TOWN and demand they carry ID or risk being
detained, or even merely stopped for doing NOTHING, is simply not
acceptable to anyone who is for equal rights.
So you're saying... if a Norwegian male (who glows in the dark) looks
highly questionable, is standing next to a group of 8 year old Hispanic
girls who all are showing what a federal officer might view as visible
signs of stress, however minor, he should not be allowed to make an
inquiry, ask for ID, etc., if they're 99 miles from the border while
inside of the U.S.?
How far they are from the border is not relevant.
"Federal law allows certain federal agents to conduct search and
seizures within 100 miles of the border into the interior of the United
States."
Post by Snit
If there is probable cause then you can question someone.
Certain federal officers can without probable cause.
Post by Snit
If the guy remains silent should the officer just
walk away so that some politicizing jackass like you will whine how 'he
let those girls die because they weren't white'? How does it work in
that pea of a brain of yours? Some day, when you grow up, you might
realize that the world is a dangerous place and not every security
measure is designed just to take away rights.
Notice how you speak FOR me instead of reading what I write and showing
understanding.
No, but I noticed how you ran again, this time from a scenario that blew
your Utopian dream into dust.
You back bigoted Constitution free zones. I do not. Not sure what other
point you want to make, other than perhaps your hypocrisy or your
suggestion you have or do engage in child abuse.
Carroll snipped and ran from this and then lied about me. What a shock!
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-29 12:13:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
No, but I noticed how you ran again, this time from a scenario that blew
your Utopian dream into dust.
You back bigoted Constitution free zones. I do not. Not sure what other
point you want to make, other than perhaps your hypocrisy or your
suggestion you have or do engage in child abuse.
The law is the law, deal with it or STFU.
Just Wondering
2019-07-28 23:25:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower* than
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of the police
speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the border, given
how about 65% of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border, and
about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not be free to “wander around”
where they live?
Near the border isn't 100 miles from the border. It's more like
100 yards, or perhaps a half mile at most. Most of the border
area is desolate and there's no good reason to be just wandering
around there. Even if you're right about the 65% bit, that rules
out 99.99% of them. Border patrol agents probably know, or should
know, who the property owners are in their patrol area. Anyone
else is quite possibly a trespasser.
Snit
2019-07-29 00:27:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower* than
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of the police
speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the border, given
how about 65% of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border, and
about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not be free to “wander around”
where they live?
Near the border isn't 100 miles from the border.
I agree -- hence why I say the law is completely wrong. Glad we find
common ground on this. And I think those who back a bigoted law, or
other bigotry, are showing bigotry themselves.
Post by Just Wondering
It's more like
100 yards, or perhaps a half mile at most.
I could see that. Even then if you live on a border town you might live
half a mile from the border. But it at least makes more sense.
Post by Just Wondering
Most of the border
area is desolate and there's no good reason to be just wandering
around there.  Even if you're right about the 65% bit, that rules
out 99.99% of them.  Border patrol agents probably know, or should
know, who the property owners are in their patrol area.  Anyone
else is quite possibly a trespasser.
I doubt they know 75% of all Hispanic Americans. The idea of profiling
people merely for their race is wrong.

But, sure, if you see someone crossing the border, or right near the
border (your ranges are acceptable to me, with perhaps some exceptions
for needing permission on private property) then that is fine... but
even then profiling by race is wrong.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-29 01:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Snit
2019-07-29 01:20:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower* than
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of the police
speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the border, given
how about 65% of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border, and
about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not be free to “wander around”
where they live?
Near the border isn't 100 miles from the border.
I agree -- hence why I say the law is completely wrong.
I'm not all that hot on it but there isn't much of a choice.
We have the choice to NOT have "Constitution free" zones which include
about 2/3 of all Americans (and 3 out of 4 Hispanics who are the ones
being profiled).

The choice is to NOT profile and to respect the rights of others. This
is an easy choice... a choice anyone who takes equal rights as axiomatic
comes to easily.

But not you. You push your hypocrisy and bigotry and insist you should
have rights other people, including MOST US citizens, should not have.
Post by Snit
Glad we find
common ground on this. And I think those who back a bigoted law
Correction: Allegedly "bigoted law", you've yet to make that argument.
No correction needed: the law which is absolutely bigoted toward those
it says can be targeted for profiling. Remember, just because you back
bigotry that does not make it any less bigoted.

As far as making the argument that something which is clearly bigoted is
bigoted, there is no argument needed. Things which are clearly bigoted
in targeting people by race or religion or the like are, well, bigoted.
It takes a damned lot of work to try to pretend otherwise!
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
It's more like
100 yards, or perhaps a half mile at most.
I could see that. Even then if you live on a border town you might live
half a mile from the border. But it at least makes more sense.
He's basically telling you that you're doing all this whining over
something that generally doesn't happen.
People generally DO live within the 100 mile range... in fact 3 out of 4
Hispanic citizens do! Do not say it does not happen when it happens more
often than not!

Only in your world can you say 3/4 of X is something not often seen in X.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-29 01:40:30 UTC
Permalink
Snit
2019-07-29 01:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower* than
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of the police
speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the border, given
how about 65% of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border, and
about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not be free to “wander around”
where they live?
Near the border isn't 100 miles from the border.
I agree -- hence why I say the law is completely wrong.
I'm not all that hot on it but there isn't much of a choice.
We have the choice to NOT have "Constitution free" zones
Congress and the SCOTUS says we don't <shrug>.
We can focus on your "law worship" (I think that is what you called it
at one time) but it is simply a fact that we, as a country, can choose
to respect our Constitution -- even as we make it better in terms or
respecting equal rights (and other changes if needed).

Again: I get how you think it is fine to have bigoted Constitution free
zones... I do not. I get how that is the law... but I disagree with the
SCOTUS on this... I think rights matter.

We can disagree on this and other recent topics all we want... I will
NEVER back your hypocrisy, your bigotry, your comments about child abuse
not being a crime unless you are caught, etc.

I will insist on having high moral standards, no matter how fine you are
with your low standards.
Post by Snit
Correction: Allegedly "bigoted law", you've yet to make that argument.
No correction needed: the law which is absolutely bigoted
Sorry, merely pronouncing something isn't "proof".
Nobody said, suggested, hinted, or implied anything of the sort. You
simply make crap up.

Profiling by race is bigoted. You back such bigotry. I do not.

There is nothing complex here.
I cited the relevant
bit for you, all you need to do is point to the parts that are "bigoted"
to get your 'argument' off the ground.
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
It's more like
100 yards, or perhaps a half mile at most.
I could see that. Even then if you live on a border town you might live
half a mile from the border. But it at least makes more sense.
He's basically telling you that you're doing all this whining over
something that generally doesn't happen.
People generally DO live within the 100 mile range... in fact 3 out of 4
Hispanic citizens do! Do not say it does not happen when it happens more
often than not!
So, in your mind, you think federal agents are hanging around streets and
towns that are 50, 60, 70... 99 miles away... and they're "harassing"
more people than they "harass" within a 1/2 mile of *southern* border?
I think those streets that are within 100 miles of the border are within
100 miles of the border.

I know, mind blowing for you!

Seriously, how can you even pretend to argue against something as simple
as A = A.

Wait. You are the one who wanted to meet me in Vegas to discuss 2+2=4
(it was mind blowing for you) until I noted I would only do so in a
public place (the airport) and then you backed down. I ended up driving
to Vegas, not flying, but was there that weekend -- you had already said
you would not go.
LOL! You're high as a kite again, aren't you?
Classic projection.
Post by Snit
Only in your world can you say 3/4 of X is something not often seen in X.
So shows the stats supporting this... good luck ;)
You need stats to say 3/4 of X is the majority of X. Oy.

Seriously, why not try to understand what you read?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-29 02:17:13 UTC
Permalink
Snit
2019-07-29 02:26:07 UTC
Permalink
On 7/28/19 6:55 PM, Snit wrote:...
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
That does not answer the question. But since you bring
up the border, given how about 65% of the US population
lives within 100 miles of a border, and about 75% of
Hispanics, why should they not be free to “wander around”
where they live?
Near the border isn't 100 miles from the border.
I agree -- hence why I say the law is completely wrong.
I'm not all that hot on it but there isn't much of a choice.
We have the choice to NOT have "Constitution free" zones
Congress and the SCOTUS says we don't <shrug>.
We can focus on your "law worship" (I think that is what you called
it at one time) but it is simply a fact that we, as a country, can
choose to respect our Constitution -- even as we make it better in
terms or respecting equal rights (and other changes if needed).
Carroll snipped this and now says that the laws HE said were tied to
racial profiling are not really as he says.

Um. He even gave examples of different races and how they should be
treated. Differently. In his mind.

He is seeing how bigoted his crap is... but unless he makes a concerted
effort to note how bigoted his crap has been and apologize I will not
accept him as being now "woke" or whatever the hell he wants to cal it.
Post by Snit
Again: I get how you think it is fine to have bigoted Constitution
free zones... I do not. I get how that is the law... but I disagree
with the SCOTUS on this... I think rights matter.
We can disagree on this and other recent topics all we want... I
will NEVER back your hypocrisy, your bigotry, your comments about
child abuse not being a crime unless you are caught, etc.
I will insist on having high moral standards, no matter how fine you
are with your low standards.
Carroll snipped this, too, and then insisted that high moral standards
apply to... and I wish I was kidding on this.... "child sex traffickers,
dope smuggler, etc"

Yes... when high more standards are brought up, THOSE are the people
Carroll thinks of:

"child sex traffickers, dope smuggler, etc"

Utterly reprehensible... and it ties back to his claim that child abuse
is not, in his view, a crime unless you are caught.
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Correction: Allegedly "bigoted law", you've yet to make that argument.
No correction needed: the law which is absolutely bigoted
Sorry, merely pronouncing something isn't "proof".
Nobody said, suggested, hinted, or implied anything of the sort. You
simply make crap up.
Carroll did not, of course, own up to his mistake.

...
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
It's more like 100 yards, or perhaps a half mile at most.
I could see that. Even then if you live on a border town you
might live half a mile from the border. But it at least
makes more sense.
He's basically telling you that you're doing all this whining
over something that generally doesn't happen.
People generally DO live within the 100 mile range... in fact 3
out of 4 Hispanic citizens do! Do not say it does not happen
when it happens more often than not!
So, in your mind, you think federal agents are hanging around
streets and towns that are 50, 60, 70... 99 miles away... and
they're "harassing" more people than they "harass" within a 1/2
mile of *southern* border?
I think those streets that are within 100 miles of the border are
within 100 miles of the border.
I know, mind blowing for you!
Seriously, how can you even pretend to argue against something as
simple as A = A.
Carroll had no answer for this. He just ran... insisting I had not given
HIM a response. LOL! For him it is debatable if those who live within
100 miles of the border live within 100 miles of the border.

Is there anything he will NOT debate about? Carroll debates just to
debate... just to get attention.
Post by Snit
Wait. You are the one who wanted to meet me in Vegas to discuss
2+2=4 (it was mind blowing for you) until I noted I would only do so
in a public place (the airport) and then you backed down. I ended up
driving to Vegas, not flying, but was there that weekend -- you had
already said you would not go.
Carroll snipped and ran from this. If he would not run so much I would
respond to his posts more directly, but his dishonest snipping to pull
text out of context makes this a more reasonable way to respond.

And the fact I know he hates it makes it more fun. :)
Post by Snit
LOL! You're high as a kite again, aren't you?
Classic projection.
Post by Snit
Only in your world can you say 3/4 of X is something not often seen in X.
So shows the stats supporting this... good luck ;)
You need stats to say 3/4 of X is the majority of X. Oy.
Seriously, why not try to understand what you read?
Carroll had no response.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-29 02:56:49 UTC
Permalink
Snit
2019-07-29 16:21:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
On 7/28/19 6:55 PM, Snit wrote:...
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
That does not answer the question. But since you bring
up the border, given how about 65% of the US population
lives within 100 miles of a border, and about 75% of
Hispanics, why should they not be free to “wander around”
where they live?
Near the border isn't 100 miles from the border.
I agree -- hence why I say the law is completely wrong.
I'm not all that hot on it but there isn't much of a choice.
We have the choice to NOT have "Constitution free" zones
Congress and the SCOTUS says we don't <shrug>.
We can focus on your "law worship" (I think that is what you called
it at one time) but it is simply a fact that we, as a country, can
choose to respect our Constitution -- even as we make it better in
terms or respecting equal rights (and other changes if needed).
Carroll snipped this and now says that the laws HE said were tied to
racial profiling are not really as he says.
Carroll ran from this question and spewed delusional crap.

Carroll used specific races in his example... and now wants to deny it.

Carroll backed racial profiling... saying such bigotry was needed to
protect his rights. Yes, his claim is the rights of others must be
trampled on to protect his. And who are these "others" -- the people he
says are not a part of "We the People", citizens of the US who happen to
have darker skin.
Geezus, Snit! Why do you persist in believing you're me?! *You* are the
one who said the law is "bigoted" ("tied to racial profiling"), fool.
I'm the one who provided the relevant material so you could "prove" you
allegation. You've yet to do so.
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
I will insist on having high moral standards,
No, Snit, enabling child sex traffickers and dope smugglers and the
like, the way your 'solution' does, is not "having high moral
standards", it's idiocy.
See: Carroll, you just lie about my views non-stop. You never stop to
try to understand what you are arguing against.

Remember, I back equal rights -- to me they are axiomatic. When you
claim I believe otherwise you are lying. When you deny your own open
bigotry you are lying.
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Correction: Allegedly "bigoted law", you've yet to make that argument.
No correction needed: the law which is absolutely bigoted
Sorry, merely pronouncing something isn't "proof".
Nobody said, suggested, hinted, or implied anything of the sort. You
simply make crap up.
Carroll did not, of course, own up to his mistake.
Translation: Carroll used reality to whip your ass... again ;)
Notice Carroll feels the need to speak for others. Again.

Come on, Carroll, you have backed yourself into a corner again. Time for
your sock army to go on a frenzy.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-29 12:23:07 UTC
Permalink
Snit ran from this.
kensi
2019-07-29 10:19:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Seriously, why not try to understand what you read?
To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to
understand something, when his ego depends upon his not understanding it!"
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Snit
2019-07-29 16:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
Post by Snit
Seriously, why not try to understand what you read?
To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to
understand something, when his ego depends upon his not understanding it!"
Yup!
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-29 12:21:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment
protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent
has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we
have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower* than
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of the police
speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the border, given
how about 65% of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border, and
about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not be free to “wander around”
where they live?
Near the border isn't 100 miles from the border.
I agree -- hence why I say the law is completely wrong.
I'm not all that hot on it but there isn't much of a choice.
We have the choice to NOT have "Constitution free" zones
Congress and the SCOTUS says we don't <shrug>.
We can focus on your "law worship" (I think that is what you called it
at one time) but it is simply a fact that we, as a country, can choose
to respect our Constitution -- even as we make it better in terms or
respecting equal rights (and other changes if needed).
Again: I get how you think it is fine to have bigoted Constitution free
zones... I do not. I get how that is the law... but I disagree with the
SCOTUS on this... I think rights matter.
We can disagree on this and other recent topics all we want... I will
NEVER back your hypocrisy, your bigotry, your comments about child abuse
not being a crime unless you are caught, etc.
I will insist on having high moral standards, no matter how fine you are
with your low standards.
Post by Snit
Correction: Allegedly "bigoted law", you've yet to make that argument.
No correction needed: the law which is absolutely bigoted
Sorry, merely pronouncing something isn't "proof".
Nobody said, suggested, hinted, or implied anything of the sort. You
simply make crap up.
Profiling by race is bigoted. You back such bigotry. I do not.
There is nothing complex here.
I cited the relevant
bit for you, all you need to do is point to the parts that are "bigoted"
to get your 'argument' off the ground.
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
It's more like
100 yards, or perhaps a half mile at most.
I could see that. Even then if you live on a border town you might live
half a mile from the border. But it at least makes more sense.
He's basically telling you that you're doing all this whining over
something that generally doesn't happen.
People generally DO live within the 100 mile range... in fact 3 out of 4
Hispanic citizens do! Do not say it does not happen when it happens more
often than not!
So, in your mind, you think federal agents are hanging around streets and
towns that are 50, 60, 70... 99 miles away... and they're "harassing"
more people than they "harass" within a 1/2 mile of *southern* border?
I think those streets that are within 100 miles of the border are within
100 miles of the border.
I know, mind blowing for you!
Seriously, how can you even pretend to argue against something as simple
as A = A.
Wait. You are the one who wanted to meet me in Vegas to discuss 2+2=4
(it was mind blowing for you) until I noted I would only do so in a
public place (the airport) and then you backed down. I ended up driving
to Vegas, not flying, but was there that weekend -- you had already said
you would not go.
LOL! You're high as a kite again, aren't you?
Classic projection.
Post by Snit
Only in your world can you say 3/4 of X is something not often seen in X.
So shows the stats supporting this... good luck ;)
You need stats to say 3/4 of X is the majority of X. Oy.
Seriously, why not try to understand what you read?
Hey dimwit, you approve of profiling close to the border. Who crosses
the border? Brown people you moron, it's not racial profiling, it's
common sense profiling.
kensi
2019-07-29 10:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
We have the choice to NOT have "Constitution free" zones
Congress and the SCOTUS says we don't <shrug>.
Nonsense. Laws can be changed and even the Constitution amended. There's
only one single little thing in American law that is truly utterly
immutable, and that is a small portion of the Constitution that
specifies that every state shall have equal representation in the
Senate. That is THE ONE THING that can't be changed, even with
Constitutional amendments.

Regarding *everything* else, the American people, acting collectively,
have the choice.
So, in your mind, you think federal agents are hanging around streets and
towns that are 50, 60, 70... 99 miles away... and they're "harassing"
more people than they "harass" within a 1/2 mile of *southern* border?
Yes:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/us/politics/trump-border-patrol-searches.html

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/649187775/federal-agents-board-buses-100-miles-from-border-to-ask-are-you-a-u-s-citizen
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Steve Carroll
2019-07-29 13:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
Post by Snit
We have the choice to NOT have "Constitution free" zones
Congress and the SCOTUS says we don't <shrug>.
Nonsense. Laws can be changed and even the Constitution amended.
Of course... but until then, we have what we have. Pretending we don't
is... well, it's what Snit does.
Snit
2019-07-29 16:01:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by kensi
Post by Snit
We have the choice to NOT have "Constitution free" zones
Congress and the SCOTUS says we don't <shrug>.
Nonsense. Laws can be changed and even the Constitution amended.
Of course... but until then, we have what we have. Pretending we don't
is... well, it's what Snit does.
Notice how you speak FOR me... instead of actually understanding what I
have written.

You and I have different moral codes. For me equal rights is axiomatic.
For you, the law is the law and thus it must be right. Does not matter
to you if it is bigoted. When slavery was the law, it was the law... so
you would have defended it.

Then again, if a law goes against what you want then you hate it... you
WANT the bigoted laws. You promote bigotry and hypocrisy. You want the
law to serve YOU, and harm others. You want rights you deny others.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Snit
2019-07-29 16:39:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
Post by Snit
We have the choice to NOT have "Constitution free" zones
Congress and the SCOTUS says we don't <shrug>.
Nonsense. Laws can be changed and even the Constitution amended. There's
only one single little thing in American law that is truly utterly
immutable, and that is a small portion of the Constitution that
specifies that every state shall have equal representation in the
Senate. That is THE ONE THING that can't be changed, even with
Constitutional amendments.
I had not heard that before... not that it is LIKELY to change, but why
can it NOT be changed?
Post by kensi
Regarding *everything* else, the American people, acting collectively,
have the choice.
So, in your mind, you think federal agents are hanging around streets and
towns that are 50, 60, 70... 99 miles away... and they're "harassing"
more people than they "harass" within a 1/2 mile of *southern* border?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/us/politics/trump-border-patrol-searches.html
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/649187775/federal-agents-board-buses-100-miles-from-border-to-ask-are-you-a-u-s-citizen
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
kensi
2019-07-29 10:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
Near the border isn't 100 miles from the border.
I agree -- hence why I say the law is completely wrong.
I'm not all that hot on it but there isn't much of a choice.
Sure there is. The US got along fine for most of its existence without
this ludicrous Constitution-free zone. Until some McCarthyist scumbag
pitched a hissy in 1953.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Steve Carroll
2019-07-29 13:16:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
Near the border isn't 100 miles from the border.
I agree -- hence why I say the law is completely wrong.
I'm not all that hot on it but there isn't much of a choice.
Sure there is. The US got along fine for most of its existence without
this ludicrous Constitution-free zone. Until some McCarthyist scumbag
pitched a hissy in 1953.
As I've already shown, it's more than just one scumbag (and don't forget
Clinton's immigration deal, that I also mentioned).
Snit
2019-07-29 16:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
Near the border isn't 100 miles from the border.
I agree -- hence why I say the law is completely wrong.
I'm not all that hot on it but there isn't much of a choice.
Sure there is. The US got along fine for most of its existence without
this ludicrous Constitution-free zone. Until some McCarthyist scumbag
pitched a hissy in 1953.
Tie this to Carroll's use of different races and the "need" for
profiling and you have a very scary situation.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Just Wondering
2019-07-29 03:50:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower* than
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of the police
speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the border, given
how about 65% of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border, and
about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not be free to “wander around”
where they live?
Near the border isn't 100 miles from the border.
I agree -- hence why I say the law is completely wrong. Glad we find
common ground on this. And I think those who back a bigoted law, or
other bigotry, are showing bigotry themselves.
Post by Just Wondering
It's more like
100 yards, or perhaps a half mile at most.
I could see that. Even then if you live on a border town you might live
half a mile from the border. But it at least makes more sense.
Post by Just Wondering
Most of the border
area is desolate and there's no good reason to be just wandering
around there.  Even if you're right about the 65% bit, that rules
out 99.99% of them.  Border patrol agents probably know, or should
know, who the property owners are in their patrol area.  Anyone
else is quite possibly a trespasser.
I doubt they know 75% of all Hispanic Americans. The idea of profiling
people merely for their race is wrong.
But, sure, if you see someone crossing the border, or right near the
border (your ranges are acceptable to me, with perhaps some exceptions
for needing permission on private property) then that is fine... but
even then profiling by race is wrong.
If you're picking up everybody regardless of race who are at the
wrong place along the border, and they all just happen to be the
same race, that's not race profiling. Or are you suggesting that
the Border Patrol sees Scandinavians crossing the Mexico border
and doesn't stop them because they're the "right" skin color?
Siri Cruise
2019-07-29 02:32:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
Actually this is why immigration enforcement is so difficult and expensive in
the US. Once immigrants get mixed in with residents, the burden of proof falls
on the government. Citizens are not required to prove their citizenship withoiut
cause, and noncitizens don't have to prove they aren't lying if they claim to be
citizens.
Post by Just Wondering
Near the border isn't 100 miles from the border. It's more like
100 yards, or perhaps a half mile at most. Most of the border
Then why does ICE and/or CBP run checkpoints deep inside the country?
Post by Just Wondering
out 99.99% of them. Border patrol agents probably know, or should
know, who the property owners are in their patrol area. Anyone
else is quite possibly a trespasser.
They might know most people, but they aren't sheriffs or police. They have no
jurisdiction to deal with trespass on private land.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
Snit
2019-07-29 02:42:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
Actually this is why immigration enforcement is so difficult and expensive in
the US. Once immigrants get mixed in with residents, the burden of proof falls
on the government.
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
Post by Siri Cruise
Citizens are not required to prove their citizenship withoiut
cause, and noncitizens don't have to prove they aren't lying if they claim to be
citizens.
It possibly being a hard misdemeanor to prove does not mean we should
give up on the Constitution.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
Near the border isn't 100 miles from the border. It's more like
100 yards, or perhaps a half mile at most. Most of the border
Then why does ICE and/or CBP run checkpoints deep inside the country?
Up to 100 miles... which includes the majority of citizens!
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
out 99.99% of them. Border patrol agents probably know, or should
know, who the property owners are in their patrol area. Anyone
else is quite possibly a trespasser.
They might know most people, but they aren't sheriffs or police. They have no
jurisdiction to deal with trespass on private land.
And there is no possible way they know close to 2/3 of the citizens of
the country.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-29 03:54:18 UTC
Permalink
Siri Cruise
2019-07-29 08:11:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence.
Unless you're a member of Trump's federal gov't... right, Snit (most
especially working for the CBP)?
Anyone in Customs you know who has been thrown in prison on mere accusation?
U.S. citizens charged with a crime are afforded the presumption. If you
can't show you're a citizen or a reason why you belong here legally, you
Wrong. A person has no burden to prove citizenship or residency unless they are
stopped for some criminality that has nothing to do with immigration. If ICE
walks up to you on the street and asks your status, just tell thenm you're a US
citizens, and they have no further jurisdiction. They can't even demand to see
identification.
And, yes, even under your savior, Obama, expedited removal was used on
'What about.....?'
"The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is
considered innocent unless proven guilty. It was traditionally expressed
It is currently expressed by the Fifth Amendment.
reference to the presumption, I'm gonna stick with the legal context.
Then stick to the US Constitution, not common law.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
Steve Carroll
2019-07-29 13:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Snit
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence.
Unless you're a member of Trump's federal gov't... right, Snit (most
especially working for the CBP)?
Anyone in Customs you know who has been thrown in prison on mere accusation?
Irrelevant. My point was Snit's already tacitly pronounced them guilty
due to his unwillingness to recognize the reality that *should* what he
complained about go to trial (it hasn't), those involved are still
presumed innocent, the thing you guys are whining about for all undocumented
people, who often don't get a trial so there's no such presumption (a point
you're all missing). As this is fairly common knowledge, I can't believe I
even have to write this stuff. Are you a U.S. citizen? I can't imagine
anyone, at least, in the U.S., who hasn't heard of 'expedited removal'
(I even mentioned it in the post you're responding to). Put another way:
You guys aren't connecting all the dots here ;)
Post by Siri Cruise
U.S. citizens charged with a crime are afforded the presumption. If you
can't show you're a citizen or a reason why you belong here legally, you
Wrong. A person has no burden to prove citizenship or residency unless they are
stopped for some criminality
I'm talking about having met *some* level of a reason (you might have
noticed that cops are pretty creative in drumming them up).
Post by Siri Cruise
that has nothing to do with immigration. If ICE
walks up to you on the street and asks your status, just tell thenm you're a US
citizens, and they have no further jurisdiction. They can't even demand to see
identification.
That's your suggestion, lie to a federal officer (as opposed to
remaining silent)? In any event, reasons to engage, even if weak, may
still lead to finding yourself before a judge, which is likely to be a
problem if you're not a U.S. citizen. I'm reminded of the Austin chick
for whom the cops claimed was jaywalking so they asked her for ID, which
she refused to provide. I believe she was a white, U.S. citizen but she
was arrested. FYI: Cops can lie, too.
Post by Siri Cruise
And, yes, even under your savior, Obama, expedited removal was used on
'What about.....?'
I assume you're against expedited removal, as practiced by the Obama
administration, too (and others)?
Post by Siri Cruise
"The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is
considered innocent unless proven guilty. It was traditionally expressed
It is currently expressed by the Fifth Amendment.
Implicitly, yes... and as I was saying, it's all about being charged
with a crime and going to trial... the salient point here as
differentiated between an undocumented person who may get no trial.
Post by Siri Cruise
reference to the presumption, I'm gonna stick with the legal context.
Then stick to the US Constitution, not common law.
? Common law has nothing to do with it (and I did stick to the
Constitution).
Snit
2019-07-29 16:10:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Snit
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence.
Unless you're a member of Trump's federal gov't... right, Snit (most
especially working for the CBP)?
Anyone in Customs you know who has been thrown in prison on mere accusation?
Irrelevant. My point was Snit's already tacitly pronounced them guilty
due to his unwillingness to recognize the reality that *should* what he
complained about go to trial (it hasn't), those involved are still
presumed innocent, the thing you guys are whining about for all undocumented
people, who often don't get a trial so there's no such presumption (a point
you're all missing).
*ALL* people should have the legal presumption of innocence (though
there are different rules in war, this does not apply here).

Again, your worship of the law does not mean others cannot have more
mature moral codes.
Post by Steve Carroll
As this is fairly common knowledge, I can't believe I
even have to write this stuff. Are you a U.S. citizen? I can't imagine
anyone, at least, in the U.S., who hasn't heard of 'expedited removal'
You guys aren't connecting all the dots here ;)
Post by Siri Cruise
U.S. citizens charged with a crime are afforded the presumption. If you
can't show you're a citizen or a reason why you belong here legally, you
Wrong. A person has no burden to prove citizenship or residency unless they are
stopped for some criminality
I'm talking about having met *some* level of a reason (you might have
noticed that cops are pretty creative in drumming them up).
You talked before about profiling by race and you were for it (using
people of different races in your example).

You talked about how you demand rights when the police speak to you
about your harassment of others, but you do not think others should have
the rights you demand for yourself.

You backed Constitution-free zones that include 75% of the citizens you
backed the racial profiling of (Hispanics).
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Siri Cruise
that has nothing to do with immigration. If ICE
walks up to you on the street and asks your status, just tell thenm you're a US
citizens, and they have no further jurisdiction. They can't even demand to see
identification.
That's your suggestion, lie to a federal officer (as opposed to
remaining silent)? In any event, reasons to engage, even if weak, may
still lead to finding yourself before a judge, which is likely to be a
problem if you're not a U.S. citizen. I'm reminded of the Austin chick
for whom the cops claimed was jaywalking so they asked her for ID, which
she refused to provide. I believe she was a white, U.S. citizen but she
was arrested. FYI: Cops can lie, too.
A cop's action has a negative impact on someone white and FINALLY you
realize cops can lie, too. Wow.
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Siri Cruise
And, yes, even under your savior, Obama, expedited removal was used on
'What about.....?'
I assume you're against expedited removal, as practiced by the Obama
administration, too (and others)?
Post by Siri Cruise
"The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is
considered innocent unless proven guilty. It was traditionally expressed
It is currently expressed by the Fifth Amendment.
Implicitly, yes... and as I was saying, it's all about being charged
with a crime and going to trial... the salient point here as
differentiated between an undocumented person who may get no trial.
Not just non-citizens... remember, you refused to accept Hispanic
CITIZENS as a part of "we" in "We the People".
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Siri Cruise
reference to the presumption, I'm gonna stick with the legal context.
Then stick to the US Constitution, not common law.
? Common law has nothing to do with it (and I did stick to the
Constitution).
You stick to your view of the Constitution, even as you exclude darker
skinned citizens from your view of "We", others have more mature -- and
less bigoted -- moral codes.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-29 17:02:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Snit
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence.
Unless you're a member of Trump's federal gov't... right, Snit (most
especially working for the CBP)?
Anyone in Customs you know who has been thrown in prison on mere accusation?
Irrelevant. My point was Snit's already tacitly pronounced them guilty
due to his unwillingness to recognize the reality that *should* what he
complained about go to trial (it hasn't), those involved are still
presumed innocent, the thing you guys are whining about for all undocumented
people, who often don't get a trial so there's no such presumption (a point
you're all missing).
*ALL* people should have the legal presumption of innocence (though
there are different rules in war, this does not apply here).
And water is wet. Tell it to Kim Jong Un, Snit. I know you believe that
the U.S. should control "*ALL* people" but we can't grant ourselves that
power (not even in a Constitution). Personally, I wouldn't want such a
power, we've f*cked things up enough for our own as it is.

(snip rehash and false assumptions/lies)
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Implicitly, yes... and as I was saying, it's all about being charged
with a crime and going to trial... the salient point here as
differentiated between an undocumented person who may get no trial.
Not just non-citizens... remember, you refused to accept Hispanic
CITIZENS as a part of "we" in "We the People".
False.

Snit
2019-07-29 16:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Siri Cruise
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
Actually this is why immigration enforcement is so difficult and expensive in
the US. Once immigrants get mixed in with residents, the burden of proof falls
on the government.
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence.
Unless you're a member of Trump's federal gov't... right, Snit (most
especially working for the CBP)?
I disagree. I think in any trial EVERYONE should have the presumption of
innocence.
U.S. citizens charged with a crime are afforded the presumption.
But elsewhere you insisted this was not true for darker skinned citizens
who you denied were even a part of "We the People".
If you
can't show you're a citizen or a reason why you belong here legally, you
don't get anything but the presumption that you're not here legally and
away you might go, depending on circumstances (even people with an
expired visa waiver don't automatically get the "right" to have a hearing).
And, yes, even under your savior, Obama, expedited removal was used on
undocumented immigrants (who were nabbed within the 100 mile zone) in
the U.S. for less than 2 weeks.
If you can't show? Now you are insisting people must prove they are NOT
guilty (citizen or not). This goes against the legal presumption of
innocence, a right you demand for yourself when the police questioned
you about your harassment of others.
"The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is
considered innocent unless proven guilty.
Yet above you speak of how citizens must show they are a citizen... so
you toss this presumption out the window.
It was traditionally expressed
by the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the
burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”)."
This being a legal principle, the "one who declares" is, realistically,
in reference to a prosecutor making a charge. Being that *you* used the
word legal (geez... I hope you don't get all confused again) in
reference to the presumption, I'm gonna stick with the legal context.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-29 12:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
Like with Kavanaugh huh?
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-29 12:43:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 19:42:49 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect
example.

But, you'll run away from this.


More on Snit's trolling
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html

Over 100 people ridicule Snit
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html

Typical Snit trolling methods
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html

Snit's Troll Scoring
http://usenet.sandman.net/TrollScoring/Snit
Just Wondering
2019-07-29 03:53:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Just Wondering
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
Actually this is why immigration enforcement is so difficult and expensive in
the US. Once immigrants get mixed in with residents, the burden of proof falls
on the government. Citizens are not required to prove their citizenship withoiut
cause, and noncitizens don't have to prove they aren't lying if they claim to be
citizens.
Post by Just Wondering
Near the border isn't 100 miles from the border. It's more like
100 yards, or perhaps a half mile at most. Most of the border
Then why does ICE and/or CBP run checkpoints deep inside the country?
Post by Just Wondering
out 99.99% of them. Border patrol agents probably know, or should
know, who the property owners are in their patrol area. Anyone
else is quite possibly a trespasser.
They might know most people, but they aren't sheriffs or police. They
have no jurisdiction to deal with trespass on private land.
"Trespasser" means someone is where he shouldn't be. If a border
agent sees someone near the border where he shouldn't be, he has
jurisdiction to investigate and take the person into custody on
suspicion of violating federal immigration law.
kensi
2019-07-29 10:06:09 UTC
Permalink
Near the border isn't 100 miles from the border.  It's more like
100 yards, or perhaps a half mile at most.
CAUTION: Hazardous Machinery. Remain outside of yellow lines while
goalposts are in motion.
Most of the border area is desolate and there's no good reason to be
just wandering around there.
Who decides that? You?

BRB, I think I hear the phone.

It's France calling, they want their statue back.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Skeeter
2019-07-29 12:39:38 UTC
Permalink
In article <qhmgeg$10eh$***@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Most of the border area is desolate and there's no good reason to be
just wandering around there.
Who decides that? You?
Anyone with common sense.
Post by kensi
BRB, I think I hear the phone.
It's France calling, they want their statue back.
Snit
2019-07-29 16:46:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
Near the border isn't 100 miles from the border.  It's more like
100 yards, or perhaps a half mile at most.
CAUTION: Hazardous Machinery. Remain outside of yellow lines while
goalposts are in motion.
Most of the border area is desolate and there's no good reason to be
just wandering around there.
Who decides that? You?
BRB, I think I hear the phone.
It's France calling, they want their statue back.
I have been asking this of right wingers for some time:

-----
These huddled masses who are so tired and poor, yearning to breathe
free, need to find a country which has some major symbol suggesting it
is OK for them to go there. Where would they get the idea the US is in
any way such a country?
-----

Not one has been able to answer.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Snit
2019-07-28 16:02:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 14:08:11 -0000 (UTC), Steve Carroll <"Steve
Also, a warning to everyone else: the Carroll k00k is now playing
silent-followup-to games in a desperate attempt to have the last word by
dishonest and sneaky means. Be cautious and make sure to restore any
snecked groups when replying to prove him wrong yet again.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
I believe she may be referring to the Kensi Method of Discussion®,
where she will reply in a totally different, renamed thread in an
effort to make the conversation difficult if not impossible to follow.
But I don't recall seeing you do that.
I guess I should ask the obvious... is "kensi" just another Snit sock?
I've seen people claiming "kensi" is a she but some of the arguments are
*very* much like those Snit puts up.
Ah, now you run to your lie about me using socks as you do. You backed
yourself in a corner and are lashing out. Another of your very public
breakdowns.
Carroll snipped and ran. Of course.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-28 16:05:46 UTC
Permalink
kensi
2019-07-29 10:42:18 UTC
Permalink
That aside, do you think it's appropriate to counsel kids about topics
their parents might prevent them from being counseled about
"Appropriate"? Try "necessary". If the parents are neglecting to educate
their children on an important topic then it falls to the rest of
society to ensure that those children do not fall through the cracks.
It is even more basic than that. If one of my kids’ friends notes they have
a crush or is dating someone there is no reason for me to take notes and
make sure their parents know.
If you "counsel" someone's child on a topic where his/her "parents might
prevent them from being counseled" on, you're inserting yourself (in the
manner of a fascist)
Nicely projected, fascist. Meanwhile I see you believe that parents
should have the right to keep their children ignorant, even dangerously
so, up to negligently leaving them completely unprepared to cope in the
real world once they become adults, and that this right extends to a
right to prevent anyone else -- the state, schools, other concerned
parents, or organizations -- from filling in the gaps in their education.

This stupidity of yours is why the deep south has terribly high rates of
teen pregnancy, abortion, and STIs.
Given that you're into the destruction of history, books, etc.,
*pop!*
*fizz...*

Well, it looks like that's it for irony meter #74713 ...
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Skeeter
2019-07-29 12:41:51 UTC
Permalink
In article <qhmiib$1cs1$***@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Nicely projected, fascist. Meanwhile I see you believe that parents
should have the right to keep their children ignorant, even dangerously
so, up to negligently leaving them completely unprepared to cope in the
real world once they become adults, and that this right extends to a
right to prevent anyone else -- the state, schools, other concerned
parents, or organizations -- from filling in the gaps in their education.
When you feel the need to tell parents how to raise their children you
are the enemy.
mixed nuts
2019-07-29 12:51:31 UTC
Permalink
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Nicely projected, fascist. Meanwhile I see you believe that parents
should have the right to keep their children ignorant, even dangerously
so, up to negligently leaving them completely unprepared to cope in the
real world once they become adults, and that this right extends to a
right to prevent anyone else -- the state, schools, other concerned
parents, or organizations -- from filling in the gaps in their education.
When you feel the need to tell parents how to raise their children you
are the enemy.
The President can tell people how to raise their children. He has
special powers granted by tv people.
--
Grizzly H.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-29 14:15:44 UTC
Permalink
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Nicely projected, fascist. Meanwhile I see you believe that parents
should have the right to keep their children ignorant, even dangerously
so, up to negligently leaving them completely unprepared to cope in the
real world once they become adults, and that this right extends to a
right to prevent anyone else -- the state, schools, other concerned
parents, or organizations -- from filling in the gaps in their education.
When you feel the need to tell parents how to raise their children you
are the enemy.
You misunderstand them... they're 'rightfighters', you see <eyeroll>.
They're going to tell you what kind of 'education' your kid needs above
and beyond the indoctrina... uh 'education' they're already getting in
school and they'll be doing it for that age old reason, 'the good of
humankind' (you can't say mankind anymore, so I guess it's not really
all that "old").
Snit
2019-07-29 16:02:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Nicely projected, fascist. Meanwhile I see you believe that parents
should have the right to keep their children ignorant, even dangerously
so, up to negligently leaving them completely unprepared to cope in the
real world once they become adults, and that this right extends to a
right to prevent anyone else -- the state, schools, other concerned
parents, or organizations -- from filling in the gaps in their education.
When you feel the need to tell parents how to raise their children you
are the enemy.
You misunderstand them... they're 'rightfighters', you see <eyeroll>.
They're going to tell you what kind of 'education' your kid needs above
and beyond the indoctrina... uh 'education' they're already getting in
school and they'll be doing it for that age old reason, 'the good of
humankind' (you can't say mankind anymore, so I guess it's not really
all that "old").
I want kids to be educated -- and I want them to have honest,
comprehensive sex ed which reduces teen pregnancy and reduces abortions.

But I am not a member of the pro-abortion Republican party.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Snit
2019-07-29 16:49:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
That aside, do you think it's appropriate to counsel kids about topics
their parents might prevent them from being counseled about
"Appropriate"? Try "necessary". If the parents are neglecting to educate
their children on an important topic then it falls to the rest of
society to ensure that those children do not fall through the cracks.
It is even more basic than that. If one of my kids’ friends notes they have
a crush or is dating someone there is no reason for me to take notes and
make sure their parents know.
If you "counsel" someone's child on a topic where his/her "parents might
prevent them from being counseled" on, you're inserting yourself (in the
manner of a fascist)
Nicely projected, fascist. Meanwhile I see you believe that parents
should have the right to keep their children ignorant, even dangerously
so, up to negligently leaving them completely unprepared to cope in the
real world once they become adults, and that this right extends to a
right to prevent anyone else -- the state, schools, other concerned
parents, or organizations -- from filling in the gaps in their education.
This stupidity of yours is why the deep south has terribly high rates of
teen pregnancy, abortion, and STIs.
Given that you're into the destruction of history, books, etc.,
*pop!*
*fizz...*
Well, it looks like that's it for irony meter #74713 ...
Keep in mind this whole attack of Carroll's is based on my noting I have
kids (teens) and that their friends are welcome to my house and can talk
about pretty much anything they want, and can talk to me and I will be
honest in my responses.

Carroll finds this impossible to imagine. He also speaks about how child
abuse, to him, is not a crime unless one is caught, and how he is
estranged from his children and how multiple wives have dumped him.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Snit
2019-07-28 16:14:46 UTC
Permalink
That aside, do you think it's appropriate to counsel kids about topics
their parents might prevent them from being counseled about
"Appropriate"? Try "necessary". If the parents are neglecting to educate
their children on an important topic then it falls to the rest of
society to ensure that those children do not fall through the cracks.
It is even more basic than that. If one of my kids’ friends notes they have
a crush or is dating someone there is no reason for me to take notes and
make sure their parents know.
Now if they are in a dangerous situation, say dating a teacher or other
older person or whatever, of course I would take action. But for Carroll to
think teens having crushes is something weird and something I need to act
in is insane.
Many of these teens are in a group together and I have talked to the leader
and there will be a focus on some of the things you bring up. The school
“sex ed” is a joke. Will not go into more details in part because Carroll
might figure out what group and harass them.
And keep in mind Carroll has said that child abuse, in his view, is not a
crime unless one is caught. And has talked about his estrangement from his
kids and how multiple wives have left him. He is likely projecting his own
abuse of kids into me.
Ideally, the public school system would ensure every important topic was
taught, and would enrol 100% of the population, but there's this whole
"home-schooling" and private schooling thing, especially in the South,
fuelled by a mix of a) bigoted parents who want their kids to go to an
all-white school, b) profit-driven interests wrecking the public school
system and selling an alternative, and c) misogynistic or otherwise
fucked-up parents who specifically want to keep their offspring ignorant
about sexual matters particularly, usually religious kO0ks, and all of
these factions have outsized political clout.
There is a lot of that — but there is also good home schooling. Some
parents want their kids to learn more than the schools teach. If the kids
also are in library groups or sports or scouts or the like research shows
they often do better academically and socially. Takes a strong commitment
from the parents though.
Every *real* developed country, of course, has a universal education
system and a government that responds to bigoted, misogynist, or
otherwise evil or misguided parents' complaints by telling them to go
pound sand. The United States, by contrast, has governments at every
level that bend over backward to appease the most backward, ignorant,
and reactionary citizens in their districts, and also sky-high rates of
teen pregnancy, STDs, and other problems as a consequence.
Colorado handled this well and reduced their term pregnancy and abortion
rates. The right wingers, of course, are against everything they did.
Also, a warning to everyone else: the Carroll k00k is now playing
silent-followup-to games in a desperate attempt to have the last word by
dishonest and sneaky means. Be cautious and make sure to restore any
snecked groups when replying to prove him wrong yet again.
And this includes his sock explosion. He is having one of his very public
breakdowns. He cannot defend the US engaging in bigoted profiling — but
backs it anyway. He cannot defend the US abusing kids (and adults) as a
part of the redistribution of wealth to the rich — but backs it anyway. He
cannot defend his demanding of rights for himself he denies others. He
cannot explain why child abuse is not, to him, a crime unless you are
caught.
So he is doing what he does when he backs himself in a corner — lashing out
with horrid and false accusations and fishing for personal info about
people to use in his harassment.
Carroll snipped and ran from this babbling about me being a "counselor".
I am not (well, I used to be a camp counselor but I doubt that is what
he meant!). Carroll also lied about my views of history, of books, and
more. Just his normal non-stop lies to try to turn the tables away from
his own comments about how child abuse, to him, is not a crime unless
you are caught.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Crunchy Coder
2019-07-28 16:14:52 UTC
Permalink
That aside, do you think it's appropriate to counsel kids about topics
their parents might prevent them from being counseled about
"Appropriate"? Try "necessary". If the parents are neglecting to educate
their children on an important topic then it falls to the rest of
society to ensure that those children do not fall through the cracks.
It is even more basic than that. If one of my kids’ friends notes they have
a crush or is dating someone there is no reason for me to take notes and
make sure their parents know.
Now if they are in a dangerous situation, say dating a teacher or other
older person or whatever, of course I would take action. But for Carroll to
think teens having crushes is something weird and something I need to act
in is insane.
Many of these teens are in a group together and I have talked to the leader
and there will be a focus on some of the things you bring up. The school
“sex ed” is a joke. Will not go into more details in part because Carroll
might figure out what group and harass them.
And keep in mind Carroll has said that child abuse, in his view, is not a
crime unless one is caught. And has talked about his estrangement from his
kids and how multiple wives have left him. He is likely projecting his own
abuse of kids into me.
Where did Steve Carroll say that?
Do you have a msg-id or is this just another one of your lies?







I never said anything of the sort
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-28 16:16:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 12:14:52 -0400, Crunchy Coder
Post by Crunchy Coder
That aside, do you think it's appropriate to counsel kids about topics
their parents might prevent them from being counseled about
"Appropriate"? Try "necessary". If the parents are neglecting to educate
their children on an important topic then it falls to the rest of
society to ensure that those children do not fall through the cracks.
It is even more basic than that. If one of my kids´ friends notes they have
a crush or is dating someone there is no reason for me to take notes and
make sure their parents know.
Now if they are in a dangerous situation, say dating a teacher or other
older person or whatever, of course I would take action. But for Carroll to
think teens having crushes is something weird and something I need to act
in is insane.
Many of these teens are in a group together and I have talked to the leader
and there will be a focus on some of the things you bring up. The school
“sex ed” is a joke. Will not go into more details in part because Carroll
might figure out what group and harass them.
And keep in mind Carroll has said that child abuse, in his view, is not a
crime unless one is caught. And has talked about his estrangement from his
kids and how multiple wives have left him. He is likely projecting his own
abuse of kids into me.
Where did Steve Carroll say that?
Do you have a msg-id or is this just another one of your lies?
Sounds like a SnitLie®.
Skeeter
2019-07-28 16:50:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crunchy Coder
That aside, do you think it's appropriate to counsel kids about topics
their parents might prevent them from being counseled about
"Appropriate"? Try "necessary". If the parents are neglecting to educate
their children on an important topic then it falls to the rest of
society to ensure that those children do not fall through the cracks.
It is even more basic than that. If one of my kids’ friends notes they have
a crush or is dating someone there is no reason for me to take notes and
make sure their parents know.
Now if they are in a dangerous situation, say dating a teacher or other
older person or whatever, of course I would take action. But for Carroll to
think teens having crushes is something weird and something I need to act
in is insane.
Many of these teens are in a group together and I have talked to the leader
and there will be a focus on some of the things you bring up. The school
“sex ed” is a joke. Will not go into more details in part because Carroll
might figure out what group and harass them.
And keep in mind Carroll has said that child abuse, in his view, is not a
crime unless one is caught. And has talked about his estrangement from his
kids and how multiple wives have left him. He is likely projecting his own
abuse of kids into me.
Where did Steve Carroll say that?
Do you have a msg-id or is this just another one of your lies?
I never said anything of the sort
Snit twists words to try and appear to be "winning" something. Snit lies
about what he posts.
Snit
2019-07-28 18:11:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crunchy Coder
That aside, do you think it's appropriate to counsel kids about topics
their parents might prevent them from being counseled about
"Appropriate"? Try "necessary". If the parents are neglecting to educate
their children on an important topic then it falls to the rest of
society to ensure that those children do not fall through the cracks.
It is even more basic than that. If one of my kids’ friends notes they have
a crush or is dating someone there is no reason for me to take notes and
make sure their parents know.
Now if they are in a dangerous situation, say dating a teacher or other
older person or whatever, of course I would take action. But for Carroll to
think teens having crushes is something weird and something I need to act
in is insane.
Many of these teens are in a group together and I have talked to the leader
and there will be a focus on some of the things you bring up. The school
“sex ed” is a joke. Will not go into more details in part because Carroll
might figure out what group and harass them.
And keep in mind Carroll has said that child abuse, in his view, is not a
crime unless one is caught. And has talked about his estrangement from his
kids and how multiple wives have left him. He is likely projecting his own
abuse of kids into me.
Where did Steve Carroll say that?
Do you have a msg-id or is this just another one of your lies?
I never said anything of the sort
Why do you use socks to ask me where you said things? Use your common
account.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Snit
2019-07-28 18:34:58 UTC
Permalink
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Why is such a simple concept apparently so difficult for you to grasp?
A person who is seen near, but not crossing, the border could very
easily be a US citizen, or a legal resident, or etc. ... it's not as if
the border area is an unpopulated no-man's-land. And the parts of it
that are are parks that see recreational use by locals and tourists.
I lived in AZ on the border for a long time. If someone was seen
wandering around the desert by the border it was questionable. No reason
to be there.
You might see no reason for people to live in border cities and towns but
that is their home!
I lived in Douglas and Bisbee you moron. The border is desolate and no
reason for anyone to be wandering around there. If you come into my yard
I expect you to identify yourself.
You might see no reason to live in border towns but you do not get to
dictate where people live.
And there are many such places within 100 miles of the border. Over 65% of
all Americans live within 100 miles of a border. For Hispanics the percent
is even higher, more like 75%. These are their homes and jobs where they
travel — and should have full rights of any other citizen.
Not if they crossed illegally. 65% of all Americans live withen 100
miles of the border? That's just insane thinking.
How do you figure?
Right wingers back what is essentially a Constitution-free zone for the
majority of American citizens.
Our constitution is for citizens.
I am speaking of 65% of US citizens — and 75% of US Hispanic citizens.

The Constitution should apply to them, too. Right wingers want to remove
their rights.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-28 23:01:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Why is such a simple concept apparently so difficult for you to grasp?
A person who is seen near, but not crossing, the border could very
easily be a US citizen, or a legal resident, or etc. ... it's not as if
the border area is an unpopulated no-man's-land. And the parts of it
that are are parks that see recreational use by locals and tourists.
I lived in AZ on the border for a long time. If someone was seen
wandering around the desert by the border it was questionable. No reason
to be there.
You might see no reason for people to live in border cities and towns but
that is their home!
I lived in Douglas and Bisbee you moron. The border is desolate and no
reason for anyone to be wandering around there. If you come into my yard
I expect you to identify yourself.
You might see no reason to live in border towns but you do not get to
dictate where people live.
I never said that, you did.
Post by Snit
And there are many such places within 100 miles of the border. Over 65% of
all Americans live within 100 miles of a border. For Hispanics the percent
is even higher, more like 75%. These are their homes and jobs where they
travel — and should have full rights of any other citizen.
Not if they crossed illegally. 65% of all Americans live withen 100
miles of the border? That's just insane thinking.
How do you figure?
There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
Post by Snit
Right wingers back what is essentially a Constitution-free zone for the
majority of American citizens.
Our constitution is for citizens.
I am speaking of 65% of US citizens — and 75% of US Hispanic citizens.
So you separate the two? That's pretty racist of you.
Post by Snit
The Constitution should apply to them, too. Right wingers want to remove
their rights.
Show me where? If they didn't enter legally and go thru the proper
channels they are not American citizens.
Snit
2019-07-29 00:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Why is such a simple concept apparently so difficult for you to grasp?
A person who is seen near, but not crossing, the border could very
easily be a US citizen, or a legal resident, or etc. ... it's not as if
the border area is an unpopulated no-man's-land. And the parts of it
that are are parks that see recreational use by locals and tourists.
I lived in AZ on the border for a long time. If someone was seen
wandering around the desert by the border it was questionable. No reason
to be there.
You might see no reason for people to live in border cities and towns but
that is their home!
I lived in Douglas and Bisbee you moron. The border is desolate and no
reason for anyone to be wandering around there. If you come into my yard
I expect you to identify yourself.
You might see no reason to live in border towns but you do not get to
dictate where people live.
I never said that, you did.
You said that people had no reason to be wandering around "there" -- 100
miles from the border, even though 65% of Americans live "there", and
75% of Hispanic Americans live "there".

You have no right to tell them they have no reason to live "there". They
can live "there". They can work "there". They can go to church or the
grocery store "there". And they should be free from being harassed by
police merely for being non-white and living "there".
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
And there are many such places within 100 miles of the border. Over 65% of
all Americans live within 100 miles of a border. For Hispanics the percent
is even higher, more like 75%. These are their homes and jobs where they
travel — and should have full rights of any other citizen.
Not if they crossed illegally. 65% of all Americans live withen 100
miles of the border? That's just insane thinking.
How do you figure?
There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
Re-read your sentence and see if you can see how absolutely absurd it is.

Take your time.





Still not getting it?

OK, I will help you:

Loading Image...

Find New York on *that* map.

Now consider your comment:

Skeeter:
-----
There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
-----

What part of New York *State* do you think is not within 100 miles of
the border of the US? LOL!

Damn... I do not claim to be great with geography but WOW!

Thanks for the laughs!
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Right wingers back what is essentially a Constitution-free zone for the
majority of American citizens.
Our constitution is for citizens.
I am speaking of 65% of US citizens — and 75% of US Hispanic citizens.
So you separate the two? That's pretty racist of you.
Huh? Those are not separate groups... Hispanic citizens are a PART of
the group US citizens. And the focus on that subgroup is because they
are the ones targeted by racial profiling. Once again you play the right
wing game of merely NOTING bigotry from conservatives makes one a
bigot... to fight AGAINST bigotry is, to you, a bigoted action.

That is as insane as your claim that New York city is not within 100
miles of a border.
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
The Constitution should apply to them, too. Right wingers want to remove
their rights.
Show me where? If they didn't enter legally and go thru the proper
channels they are not American citizens.
American citizens are American citizens by definition! Remember, that is
who I am talking about: American citizens.

Oy... what a complete and utterly insane post from you. But the New York
City comment was the best. Damned... that was funny!
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-29 01:21:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Why is such a simple concept apparently so difficult for you to grasp?
A person who is seen near, but not crossing, the border could very
easily be a US citizen, or a legal resident, or etc. ... it's not as if
the border area is an unpopulated no-man's-land. And the parts of it
that are are parks that see recreational use by locals and tourists.
I lived in AZ on the border for a long time. If someone was seen
wandering around the desert by the border it was questionable. No reason
to be there.
You might see no reason for people to live in border cities and towns but
that is their home!
I lived in Douglas and Bisbee you moron. The border is desolate and no
reason for anyone to be wandering around there. If you come into my yard
I expect you to identify yourself.
You might see no reason to live in border towns but you do not get to
dictate where people live.
I never said that, you did.
You said that people had no reason to be wandering around "there" -- 100
miles from the border, even though 65% of Americans live "there", and
75% of Hispanic Americans live "there".
You have no right to tell them they have no reason to live "there". They
can live "there". They can work "there". They can go to church or the
grocery store "there".
And they can be asked for ID "there" <shrug>.
Post by Snit
And they should be free from being harassed by
police merely for being non-white and living "there".
Being that the border search doctrine applies to anyone of any color,
your comment isn't relevant.
Snit
2019-07-29 01:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Why is such a simple concept apparently so difficult for you to grasp?
A person who is seen near, but not crossing, the border could very
easily be a US citizen, or a legal resident, or etc. ... it's not as if
the border area is an unpopulated no-man's-land. And the parts of it
that are are parks that see recreational use by locals and tourists.
I lived in AZ on the border for a long time. If someone was seen
wandering around the desert by the border it was questionable. No reason
to be there.
You might see no reason for people to live in border cities and towns but
that is their home!
I lived in Douglas and Bisbee you moron. The border is desolate and no
reason for anyone to be wandering around there. If you come into my yard
I expect you to identify yourself.
You might see no reason to live in border towns but you do not get to
dictate where people live.
I never said that, you did.
You said that people had no reason to be wandering around "there" -- 100
miles from the border, even though 65% of Americans live "there", and
75% of Hispanic Americans live "there".
You have no right to tell them they have no reason to live "there". They
can live "there". They can work "there". They can go to church or the
grocery store "there".
And they can be asked for ID "there" <shrug>.
You do not care about bigoted Constitution free zones. Sure. We are in
agreement on that.
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
And they should be free from being harassed by
police merely for being non-white and living "there".
Being that the border search doctrine applies to anyone of any color,
your comment isn't relevant.
You spoke of it in terms of profiling by race.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-29 12:30:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Why is such a simple concept apparently so difficult for you to grasp?
A person who is seen near, but not crossing, the border could very
easily be a US citizen, or a legal resident, or etc. ... it's not as if
the border area is an unpopulated no-man's-land. And the parts of it
that are are parks that see recreational use by locals and tourists.
I lived in AZ on the border for a long time. If someone was seen
wandering around the desert by the border it was questionable. No reason
to be there.
You might see no reason for people to live in border cities and towns but
that is their home!
I lived in Douglas and Bisbee you moron. The border is desolate and no
reason for anyone to be wandering around there. If you come into my yard
I expect you to identify yourself.
You might see no reason to live in border towns but you do not get to
dictate where people live.
I never said that, you did.
You said that people had no reason to be wandering around "there" -- 100
miles from the border, even though 65% of Americans live "there", and
75% of Hispanic Americans live "there".
You have no right to tell them they have no reason to live "there". They
can live "there". They can work "there". They can go to church or the
grocery store "there".
And they can be asked for ID "there" <shrug>.
You do not care about bigoted Constitution free zones. Sure. We are in
agreement on that.
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
And they should be free from being harassed by
police merely for being non-white and living "there".
Being that the border search doctrine applies to anyone of any color,
your comment isn't relevant.
You spoke of it in terms of profiling by race.
No you did.
Skeeter
2019-07-29 12:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Why is such a simple concept apparently so difficult for you to grasp?
A person who is seen near, but not crossing, the border could very
easily be a US citizen, or a legal resident, or etc. ... it's not as if
the border area is an unpopulated no-man's-land. And the parts of it
that are are parks that see recreational use by locals and tourists.
I lived in AZ on the border for a long time. If someone was seen
wandering around the desert by the border it was questionable. No reason
to be there.
You might see no reason for people to live in border cities and towns but
that is their home!
I lived in Douglas and Bisbee you moron. The border is desolate and no
reason for anyone to be wandering around there. If you come into my yard
I expect you to identify yourself.
You might see no reason to live in border towns but you do not get to
dictate where people live.
I never said that, you did.
You said that people had no reason to be wandering around "there" -- 100
miles from the border, even though 65% of Americans live "there", and
75% of Hispanic Americans live "there".
I never said anything about 100 miles from the border, you did.
Post by Snit
You have no right to tell them they have no reason to live "there". They
can live "there". They can work "there". They can go to church or the
grocery store "there". And they should be free from being harassed by
police merely for being non-white and living "there".
I never said that either, you did. I lived on the border and if you are
wandering around the border you need a reason.
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
And there are many such places within 100 miles of the border. Over 65% of
all Americans live within 100 miles of a border. For Hispanics the percent
is even higher, more like 75%. These are their homes and jobs where they
travel — and should have full rights of any other citizen.
Not if they crossed illegally. 65% of all Americans live withen 100
miles of the border? That's just insane thinking.
How do you figure?
There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
Re-read your sentence and see if you can see how absolutely absurd it is.
Take your time.
I proved you wrong.
Post by Snit
Still not getting it?
https://afgj.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Constitution_Map1.jpg
Find New York on *that* map.
-----
There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
-----
What part of New York *State* do you think is not within 100 miles of
the border of the US? LOL!
Nice spin, but no go.
Post by Snit
Damn... I do not claim to be great with geography but WOW!
Thanks for the laughs!
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Right wingers back what is essentially a Constitution-free zone for the
majority of American citizens.
Our constitution is for citizens.
I am speaking of 65% of US citizens — and 75% of US Hispanic citizens.
So you separate the two? That's pretty racist of you.
Huh? Those are not separate groups... Hispanic citizens are a PART of
the group US citizens. And the focus on that subgroup is because they
are the ones targeted by racial profiling. Once again you play the right
wing game of merely NOTING bigotry from conservatives makes one a
bigot... to fight AGAINST bigotry is, to you, a bigoted action.
You separated the 2 in your above statement, you are guilty.
Post by Snit
That is as insane as your claim that New York city is not within 100
miles of a border.
I never said it was, you did.
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
The Constitution should apply to them, too. Right wingers want to remove
their rights.
Show me where? If they didn't enter legally and go thru the proper
channels they are not American citizens.
American citizens are American citizens by definition! Remember, that is
who I am talking about: American citizens.
But not people who cant prove it?
Post by Snit
Oy... what a complete and utterly insane post from you. But the New York
City comment was the best. Damned... that was funny!
You said 65% of Americans lived withen 100 miles from the border, I
proved you wrong. I'm just using your posting logic.
kensi
2019-07-28 20:07:45 UTC
Permalink
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Right wingers aren't crossing the border illegally.
No, they're merely killing people. Nothing to see here, move along ...
Proof K<SMACKAK00K!>
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/heather-heyer-james-fields-charlottesville-murderer-859182/
That's one.
You know me, I can flood this froup with link after link after link to
further examples if you insist on it.
go ahead i for one dare you to flood this group
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-28 20:09:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Right wingers aren't crossing the border illegally.
No, they're merely killing people. Nothing to see here, move along ...
Proof K<SMACKAK00K!>
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/heather-heyer-james-fields-charlottesville-murderer-859182/
That's one.
You know me, I can flood this froup with link after link after link to
further examples if you insist on it.
go ahead i for one dare you
More empty threats. [sigh]

LOL
Snit
2019-07-29 00:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Right wingers aren't crossing the border illegally.
No, they're merely killing people. Nothing to see here, move along ...
Proof K<SMACKAK00K!>
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/heather-heyer-james-fields-charlottesville-murderer-859182/
That's one.
You know me, I can flood this froup with link after link after link to
further examples if you insist on it.
go ahead i for one dare you to flood this group
Did you dare Carroll, too?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
%
2019-07-28 20:08:43 UTC
Permalink
If you're with a child they could reasonably suspect you've kidnapped
that child
Sheer nonsense. It takes more than "adult accompanying a child in a
public place" to establish even a reasonable suspicion, let alone
PROBABLE CAUSE, to suspect a kidnapping.
And before you say it, yes, it takes more than "brown-skinned adult
accompanying a child in a public place", too, you racist motherfucker.
Then why do we have the border search doctrine in place with backing by
the SCOTUS?
Corruption.
Creeping fascism.
The growing, and lamentable, tendency of supposedly progressive voters
to go for reactionary DINOs like Clinton during the primary voting process.
DNC sabotage of genuinely progressive candidates during the primary
voting process.
Which brings us back to the first item, corruption.
How was Clinton's IIRIRA 'Constitutionally' greenlighted?
Some unhygienic process involving material from the rectal cavities of
Roberts and Scalia, most likely. File under "don't really want to know,
and can we *please* just get rid of them all and appoint a whole new
bench once Trump's gone?"
Any "other law enforcement" can't do what a border agent can, so you
*must* be against that if we are to believe what you're writing... yet,
we know such things are in existence so you *must* disagree with their
existence because they enable CBP officers to do what "other law
enforcement" officer can't.
they have already got powers approximating those of the Gestapo, now
there's a fascist in the White House to give them their marching orders,
and the brain-dead "border zone" contains the workplaces and residents
of a sizable majority of the citizenry, since the coastal cities are so
populous.
If not disbanded outright they certainly need to be cut back down to size.
no they don't
Checkmate
2019-07-29 04:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate! In article <***@news.alt.net>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by %
If you're with a child they could reasonably suspect you've kidnapped
that child
Sheer nonsense. It takes more than "adult accompanying a child in a
public place" to establish even a reasonable suspicion, let alone
PROBABLE CAUSE, to suspect a kidnapping.
And before you say it, yes, it takes more than "brown-skinned adult
accompanying a child in a public place", too, you racist motherfucker.
Then why do we have the border search doctrine in place with backing by
the SCOTUS?
Corruption.
Creeping fascism.
The growing, and lamentable, tendency of supposedly progressive voters
to go for reactionary DINOs like Clinton during the primary voting process.
DNC sabotage of genuinely progressive candidates during the primary
voting process.
Which brings us back to the first item, corruption.
How was Clinton's IIRIRA 'Constitutionally' greenlighted?
Some unhygienic process involving material from the rectal cavities of
Roberts and Scalia, most likely. File under "don't really want to know,
and can we *please* just get rid of them all and appoint a whole new
bench once Trump's gone?"
Any "other law enforcement" can't do what a border agent can, so you
*must* be against that if we are to believe what you're writing... yet,
we know such things are in existence so you *must* disagree with their
existence because they enable CBP officers to do what "other law
enforcement" officer can't.
they have already got powers approximating those of the Gestapo, now
there's a fascist in the White House to give them their marching orders,
and the brain-dead "border zone" contains the workplaces and residents
of a sizable majority of the citizenry, since the coastal cities are so
populous.
If not disbanded outright they certainly need to be cut back down to size.
no they don't
Kensi's a moron. I don't need to prove it, because she does that for me.
--
Checkmate ®
Copyright © 2019
all rights reserved

AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Awards (Post-Burnore)
Co-winner Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker
award May 2001, (Brethern of Beelzebub troll)
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award, Feb 2012

Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Usenet Shot-Caller

In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017
Checkmate
2019-07-29 04:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate! In article <***@news.alt.net>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by %
If you're with a child they could reasonably suspect you've kidnapped
that child
Sheer nonsense. It takes more than "adult accompanying a child in a
public place" to establish even a reasonable suspicion, let alone
PROBABLE CAUSE, to suspect a kidnapping.
And before you say it, yes, it takes more than "brown-skinned adult
accompanying a child in a public place", too, you racist motherfucker.
Then why do we have the border search doctrine in place with backing by
the SCOTUS?
Corruption.
Creeping fascism.
The growing, and lamentable, tendency of supposedly progressive voters
to go for reactionary DINOs like Clinton during the primary voting process.
DNC sabotage of genuinely progressive candidates during the primary
voting process.
Which brings us back to the first item, corruption.
How was Clinton's IIRIRA 'Constitutionally' greenlighted?
Some unhygienic process involving material from the rectal cavities of
Roberts and Scalia, most likely. File under "don't really want to know,
and can we *please* just get rid of them all and appoint a whole new
bench once Trump's gone?"
Any "other law enforcement" can't do what a border agent can, so you
*must* be against that if we are to believe what you're writing... yet,
we know such things are in existence so you *must* disagree with their
existence because they enable CBP officers to do what "other law
enforcement" officer can't.
they have already got powers approximating those of the Gestapo, now
there's a fascist in the White House to give them their marching orders,
and the brain-dead "border zone" contains the workplaces and residents
of a sizable majority of the citizenry, since the coastal cities are so
populous.
If not disbanded outright they certainly need to be cut back down to size.
no they don't
Is this the thread about the camps?
--
Checkmate ®
Copyright © 2019
all rights reserved

AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Awards (Post-Burnore)
Co-winner Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker
award May 2001, (Brethern of Beelzebub troll)
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award, Feb 2012

Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Usenet Shot-Caller

In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017
%
2019-07-28 20:08:58 UTC
Permalink
If they're brown in a border zone it's possible they get profiled...
even out of a border zone... it happens... look at the example of those
women in Montana (that's one stupid cop, speaking Spanish isn't a
reason).
Do you understand how the views you express and the policies you *do*
back inevitably lead to events like that and inevitably escalate into
naked fascism?
so
Just Wondering
2019-07-28 22:36:22 UTC
Permalink
If they're brown in a border zone it's possible they get profiled...
even out of a border zone... it happens... look at the example of those
women in Montana (that's one stupid cop, speaking Spanish isn't a
reason).
Do you understand how the views you express and the policies you *do*
back inevitably lead to events like that and inevitably escalate into
naked fascism?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
Just Wondering
2019-07-28 22:41:32 UTC
Permalink
That aside, do you think it's appropriate to counsel kids about
topics their parents might prevent them from being counseled about
"Appropriate"? Try "necessary". If the parents are neglecting to educate
their children on an important topic then it falls to the rest of
society to ensure that those children do not fall through the cracks.
But "society" doesn't do that, in the educational system individual
teachers do. Many of those teachers are known to do things like
indoctrinate kids in left wing political philosophy, unreasoning
fear of firearms, etc. Of course, as long as they teach bullshit
YOU approve of, you're fine with this.
Snit
2019-07-29 00:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
That aside, do you think it's appropriate to counsel kids about
topics their parents might prevent them from being counseled about
"Appropriate"? Try "necessary". If the parents are neglecting to
educate their children on an important topic then it falls to the rest
of society to ensure that those children do not fall through the cracks.
But "society" doesn't do that, in the educational system individual
teachers do.
No. Actually in many states, including AZ, they teach incorrect
information and harmful information -- pushing religious crap on kids.
Post by Just Wondering
Many of those teachers are known to do things like
indoctrinate kids in left wing political philosophy, unreasoning
fear of firearms, etc.  Of course, as long as they teach bullshit
YOU approve of, you're fine with this.
I say teach comprehensive sex ed and do other things to reduce teen
pregnancy and abortions... but I am not a Republican, the pro-abortion
party.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-29 12:32:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
But "society" doesn't do that, in the educational system individual
teachers do.
No. Actually in many states, including AZ, they teach incorrect
information and harmful information -- pushing religious crap on kids.
So your "freedom" does not include freedom of religion? Are you a
hypocrite?
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-29 12:46:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
But "society" doesn't do that, in the educational system individual
teachers do.
No. Actually in many states, including AZ, they teach incorrect
information and harmful information -- pushing religious crap on kids.
So your "freedom" does not include freedom of religion? Are you a
hypocrite?
He's probably one of these guys that protests "In God We Trust"
appearing on money.
kensi
2019-07-29 09:31:56 UTC
Permalink
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Right wingers aren't crossing the border illegally.
No, they're merely killing people. Nothing to see here, move along ...
Proof K<SMACKAK00K!>
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/heather-heyer-james-fields-charlottesville-murderer-859182/
That's one.
You know me, I can flood this froup with link after link after link to
further examples if you insist on it.
Flood away buttercup, no one reads them anyway.
Your concession is accepted.

kensi 1 - 0 Skeeter
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Skeeter
2019-07-29 12:35:43 UTC
Permalink
In article <qhmeec$jrr$***@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Right wingers aren't crossing the border illegally.
No, they're merely killing people. Nothing to see here, move along ...
Proof K<SMACKAK00K!>
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/heather-heyer-james-fields-charlottesville-murderer-859182/
That's one.
You know me, I can flood this froup with link after link after link to
further examples if you insist on it.
Flood away buttercup, no one reads them anyway.
Your concession is accepted.
kensi 1 - 0 Skeeter
What did I concede to? Damn you're still as dumb as you were before you
put me in your fake kilfile.
kensi
2019-07-29 09:33:21 UTC
Permalink
If you're against this, and it appears you'd have to be, then you should
also be against airport searches,
Why? There's a *huge* difference between voluntary searches (you present
yourself at airport security, or at a border crossing, fully expecting
the search, and you can choose not to do so -- at the cost of not being
able to fly or cross that border, of course) and being randomly stopped
and searched in the street.
Skeeter ran from this.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Skeeter
2019-07-29 12:36:14 UTC
Permalink
In article <qhmeh1$jrr$***@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
If you're against this, and it appears you'd have to be, then you should
also be against airport searches,
Why? There's a *huge* difference between voluntary searches (you present
yourself at airport security, or at a border crossing, fully expecting
the search, and you can choose not to do so -- at the cost of not being
able to fly or cross that border, of course) and being randomly stopped
and searched in the street.
Skeeter ran from this.
Obsession noted, Skeeter had nothing to do with this.
Snit
2019-07-29 16:40:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
If you're against this, and it appears you'd have to be, then you should
also be against airport searches,
Why? There's a *huge* difference between voluntary searches (you
present yourself at airport security, or at a border crossing, fully
expecting the search, and you can choose not to do so -- at the cost
of not being able to fly or cross that border, of course) and being
randomly stopped and searched in the street.
Skeeter ran from this.
And he and other right wingers will continue to.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
kensi
2019-07-29 09:41:40 UTC
Permalink
The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the term
"ou<SMACKAK00K!>
Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
i.e. the 1789 document containing the first ten Amendments, not the
original, unamended 1787 Constitution that preceded it.
written. The idea that "We" (any version of it, for any country on the
planet) can prescribe a legal doctrine that applies to *all* "people" on
the planet is off the chart loony...
It doesn't. It applies to the U.S. government, enjoining it from doing a
variety of things *to* (in most instances) all people on the planet.
The Bill of Rights is an incomplete list of the rights of U.S. citizens
Wrong. It is not limited to citizens.
that the "*US Government*" is charged with protecting
Wrong. Charged with *not violating*.
Notably, this means even people living in foreign countries far away
(thus making "extraordinary rendition" unConstitutional, among other
things).
I know what it means
You keep proving otherwise. Indeed, you keep proving yourself to be
stone ignorant about almost everything. You can't even operate your
newsreader right! Half of your post was in your .sig instead of where it
belonged, above the sig separator.

*smh*
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Steve Carroll
2019-07-29 13:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the term
"ou<SMACKAK00K!>
Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
Post by kensi
i.e. the 1789 document containing the first ten Amendments, not the
original, unamended 1787 Constitution that preceded it.
written. The idea that "We" (any version of it, for any country on the
planet) can prescribe a legal doctrine that applies to *all* "people" on
the planet is off the chart loony...
It doesn't. It applies to the U.S. government, enjoining it from doing a
variety of things *to* (in most instances) all people on the planet.
That's what I just said... it's a limit on what they can do with respect
to "the people" of the United States. The phrase: "We the People of the
United States" means exactly what it says, nothing more. Now tell it to
Snit, who is unquestionably confused over this.
Post by kensi
The Bill of Rights is an incomplete list of the rights of U.S. citizens
Wrong. It is not limited to citizens.
LOL! Technically, it is (because of *who* "We the People" are, as I;ve
already explained) but that's not what I was referring to (read the 9th
Amendment).
Post by kensi
that the "*US Government*" is charged with protecting
Wrong. Charged with *not violating*.
It's their job to 'protect' (or if you prefer: "preserve", as in the
7th Amendment) our rights from being violated. The idea that the gov't
'protects' (or secures) our rights is as old as the gov't itself <shrug>.
How can someone be "Wrong" for pointing that out? Please explain.
Post by kensi
Notably, this means even people living in foreign countries far away
(thus making "extraordinary rendition" unConstitutional, among other
things).
I know what it means
You keep proving otherwise.
Perhaps to you... but I'm not that concerned ;)
Snit
2019-07-29 16:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by kensi
The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the term
"ou<SMACKAK00K!>
Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
I will stick to the idea that even darker skinned citizens are a part of
"We the People of the United States of America". I get it... your
bigoted world view excludes them. But they are still citizens. They
*should* have all the same rights as other citizens. Your desire to
exclude them as a part of "we" is reprehensible.
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by kensi
i.e. the 1789 document containing the first ten Amendments, not the
original, unamended 1787 Constitution that preceded it.
written. The idea that "We" (any version of it, for any country on the
planet) can prescribe a legal doctrine that applies to *all* "people" on
the planet is off the chart loony...
It doesn't. It applies to the U.S. government, enjoining it from doing a
variety of things *to* (in most instances) all people on the planet.
That's what I just said... it's a limit on what they can do with respect
to "the people" of the United States. The phrase: "We the People of the
United States" means exactly what it says, nothing more. Now tell it to
Snit, who is unquestionably confused over this.
Your bigoted denial that darker skinned citizens are a part of "We the
People" is reprehensible.
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by kensi
The Bill of Rights is an incomplete list of the rights of U.S. citizens
Wrong. It is not limited to citizens.
LOL! Technically, it is (because of *who* "We the People" are, as I;ve
already explained) but that's not what I was referring to (read the 9th
Amendment).
Post by kensi
that the "*US Government*" is charged with protecting
Wrong. Charged with *not violating*.
It's their job to 'protect' (or if you prefer: "preserve", as in the
7th Amendment) our rights from being violated. The idea that the gov't
'protects' (or secures) our rights is as old as the gov't itself <shrug>.
How can someone be "Wrong" for pointing that out? Please explain.
Post by kensi
Notably, this means even people living in foreign countries far away
(thus making "extraordinary rendition" unConstitutional, among other
things).
I know what it means
You keep proving otherwise.
Perhaps to you... but I'm not that concerned ;)
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Snit
2019-07-29 16:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the term
"ou<SMACKAK00K!>
Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
i.e. the 1789 document containing the first ten Amendments, not the
original, unamended 1787 Constitution that preceded it.
As you noted:
-----
Trump supporters might be surprised at how far the Constitution extends
toward non-citizens once they're inside the country, however. Cases
extending back to the 1800s, including ones brought by Chinese
immigrants challenging the arbitrary seizure of their property, have
established the rights of non-citizens under the Fourth and Fifth
Amendments including due process and the right to a jury.
-----

But Carroll argued AGAINST me yesterday when I noted darker skinned
CITIZENS were a part of "We the People".
Post by kensi
written. The idea that "We" (any version of it, for any country on the
planet) can prescribe a legal doctrine that applies to *all* "people" on
the planet is off the chart loony...
It doesn't. It applies to the U.S. government, enjoining it from doing a
variety of things *to* (in most instances) all people on the planet.
The Bill of Rights is an incomplete list of the rights of U.S. citizens
Wrong. It is not limited to citizens.
that the "*US Government*" is charged with protecting
Wrong. Charged with *not violating*.
Notably, this means even people living in foreign countries far away
(thus making "extraordinary rendition" unConstitutional, among other
things).
I know what it means
You keep proving otherwise. Indeed, you keep proving yourself to be
stone ignorant about almost everything. You can't even operate your
newsreader right! Half of your post was in your .sig instead of where it
belonged, above the sig separator.
*smh*
Carroll engaged in "law worship" but knows almost nothing of the law,
and does not respect the legal presumption of innocence or even
understand what it means.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
kensi
2019-07-29 09:42:54 UTC
Permalink
You backed yourself in a corner again so out came your attacks and your
socks and your use of the N-word and more.
Time for another of your public breakdowns.
*goes to make popcorn*
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Skeeter
2019-07-29 12:37:25 UTC
Permalink
In article <qhmf2u$sfs$***@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
You backed yourself in a corner again so out came your attacks and your
socks and your use of the N-word and more.
Time for another of your public breakdowns.
*goes to make popcorn*
Snit and Kensi playing tag team. It's so cute.
Snit
2019-07-29 16:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
You backed yourself in a corner again so out came your attacks and your
socks and your use of the N-word and more.
Time for another of your public breakdowns.
*goes to make popcorn*
Look for a bunch of "weird" names all jumping in -- and using racial
slurs, attacking me with vague accusations, targeting my personal life, etc.

Carroll's socks are not hard to spot.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
kensi
2019-07-29 09:44:03 UTC
Permalink
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
If they're brown in a border zone it's possible they get profiled...
even out of a border zone... it happens... look at the example of those
women in Montana (that's one stupid cop, speaking Spanish isn't a
reason).
Do you understand how the views you express and the policies you *do*
back inevitably lead to events like that and inevitably escalate into
naked fascism?
If you come into my yard without permission I am going to want to know
who you are. Same as the border you imbecile.
I see you still haven't learned the difference between private property
and countries, or between their respective boundaries. Very different
things, governed by very different laws.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Skeeter
2019-07-29 12:37:56 UTC
Permalink
In article <qhmf53$sfs$***@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
If you come into my yard without permission I am going to want to know
who you are. Same as the border you imbecile.
I see you still haven't learned the difference between private property
and countries, or between their respective boundaries. Very different
things, governed by very different laws.
Damn you're dumb. Just damn dumb.
kensi
2019-07-29 09:44:58 UTC
Permalink
I lived in AZ on the border for a long time. If someone was seen
wandering around the desert by the border it was questionable. No reason
to be there.
What about one of you gun nuts' favorite pastime: hunting?
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Skeeter
2019-07-29 12:38:27 UTC
Permalink
In article <qhmf6p$sfs$***@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
I lived in AZ on the border for a long time. If someone was seen
wandering around the desert by the border it was questionable. No reason
to be there.
What about one of you gun nuts' favorite pastime: hunting?
You are not allowed to hunt there, do your homework idiot.
Snit
2019-07-29 16:56:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
I lived in AZ on the border for a long time. If someone was seen
wandering around the desert by the border it was questionable. No reason
to be there.
What about one of you gun nuts' favorite pastime: hunting?
Good point. And he ignores how many desert cities / towns are near the
border!
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
kensi
2019-07-29 09:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Our constitution is for citizens.
Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG!

Here, let me further educate both you and Ko0ky Carroll on this score:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-the-constitution-protect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/

Go ahead and dismiss that as "lying lib media", if you dare.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Snit
2019-07-29 16:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
Our constitution is for citizens.
Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-the-constitution-protect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/
Go ahead and dismiss that as "lying lib media", if you dare.
-----
Trump supporters might be surprised at how far the Constitution extends
toward non-citizens once they're inside the country, however. Cases
extending back to the 1800s, including ones brought by Chinese
immigrants challenging the arbitrary seizure of their property, have
established the rights of non-citizens under the Fourth and Fifth
Amendments including due process and the right to a jury.
-----

Carroll's law worship will not include this. Count on it.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
kensi
2019-07-29 09:57:00 UTC
Permalink
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect.
You are indeed.
We are in favor of probable cause being required before law enforcement
can fuck up your life, yes.
Then I guess you're SOL 'cuz the "We" that comprises society have
lowered the "probable cause" standard.
Incorrect. The only legal way for "society" to lower that standard would
be to pass a Constitutional amendment changing the text of the Fourth
Amendment. I am unaware of such an amendment having passed.

In particular, it would take, the last time I checked, majorities in 3/4
of the states and supermajorities in the House and Senate, so well over
half the total population would have to agree to lower that standard.
I'm not aware of any such widespread agreement. I expect it would poll
well only among Rapepublicans, so maybe 30-40% of the voting population,
far less than the percentage needed to get an amendment passed to the US
Constitution.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Snit
2019-07-29 16:42:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect.
You are indeed.
Carroll does not get the presumption of innocence it if does not support
something he wants.
Post by kensi
We are in favor of probable cause being required before law
enforcement can fuck up your life, yes.
Then I guess you're SOL 'cuz the "We" that comprises society have
lowered the "probable cause" standard.
Incorrect. The only legal way for "society" to lower that standard would
be to pass a Constitutional amendment changing the text of the Fourth
Amendment. I am unaware of such an amendment having passed.
In particular, it would take, the last time I checked, majorities in 3/4
of the states and supermajorities in the House and Senate, so well over
half the total population would have to agree to lower that standard.
I'm not aware of any such widespread agreement. I expect it would poll
well only among Rapepublicans, so maybe 30-40% of the voting population,
far less than the percentage needed to get an amendment passed to the US
Constitution.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
kensi
2019-07-29 10:26:22 UTC
Permalink
I believe she may be referring to the Kensi Method of Discussion®,
where she will reply in a totally different, renamed thread in an
effort to make the conversation difficult if not impossible to follow.
Proof, ko0k?
But I don't recall seeing you do that.
I guess I should ask the obvious... is "kensi" just another Snit sock?
Don't be absurd.
I've seen people claiming "kensi" is a she but some of the arguments are
*very* much like those Snit puts up.
Perhaps because arguments supporting human rights, the rule of law, and
Constitutional rights tend to resemble other arguments supporting human
rights, the rule of law, and Constitutional rights?
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Snit
2019-07-29 16:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
I believe she may be referring to the Kensi Method of Discussion®,
where she will reply in a totally different, renamed thread in an
effort to make the conversation difficult if not impossible to follow.
Proof, ko0k?
None will be offered. Klaus, as far as I have seen, NEVER backs his claims.
Post by kensi
But I don't recall seeing you do that.
I guess I should ask the obvious... is "kensi" just another Snit sock?
Don't be absurd.
Carroll insists "Everyone is Snit"
Post by kensi
I've seen people claiming "kensi" is a she but some of the arguments are
*very* much like those Snit puts up.
Perhaps because arguments supporting human rights, the rule of law, and
Constitutional rights tend to resemble other arguments supporting human
rights, the rule of law, and Constitutional rights?
ABSOLUTELY! Carroll cannot understand how liberals can back equal rights
and see them as axiomatic. To him ALL people who do this must be me.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
kensi
2019-07-29 10:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Kensi/Nads is Paul Derbyshire from Pembroke Canada. He/she/it will post
a "proof kook" response but it has been proven many times.
Of course it hasn't, liar.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Skeeter
2019-07-29 12:40:19 UTC
Permalink
In article <qhmhlo$15sa$***@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Kensi/Nads is Paul Derbyshire from Pembroke Canada. He/she/it will post
a "proof kook" response but it has been proven many times.
Of course it hasn't, liar.
You on the defense again?
kensi
2019-07-29 10:29:02 UTC
Permalink
Kensi <Nads> claims such but has yet to provide an inkling of proof.
Also the fake FNVW known as Libtard is also a sock of the infamous
Nads/Kensi sybian riding duo.
I see you are still fond of paranoia. Also of making unsubstantiated and
outlandish allegations and treating them as if they were uncontroversial
facts.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-29 10:57:22 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 12:29:02 +0200, kensi
Post by kensi
Kensi <Nads> claims such but has yet to provide an inkling of proof.
Also the fake FNVW known as Libtard is also a sock of the infamous
Nads/Kensi sybian riding duo.
I see you are still fond of paranoia. Also of making unsubstantiated and
outlandish allegations
Yeah, buddy- that's Kensi's job! LOL
Skeeter
2019-07-29 12:40:50 UTC
Permalink
In article <qhmhpd$15sa$***@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Post by kensi
Kensi <Nads> claims such but has yet to provide an inkling of proof.
Also the fake FNVW known as Libtard is also a sock of the infamous
Nads/Kensi sybian riding duo.
I see you are still fond of paranoia. Also of making unsubstantiated and
outlandish allegations and treating them as if they were uncontroversial
facts.
To much defense cupcake.
Snit
2019-07-29 16:47:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
Kensi <Nads> claims such but has yet to provide an inkling of proof.
Also the fake FNVW known as Libtard is also a sock of the infamous
Nads/Kensi sybian riding duo.
I see you are still fond of paranoia. Also of making unsubstantiated and
outlandish allegations and treating them as if they were uncontroversial
facts.
Making personal attacks is a way for Skeeter to avoid backing his claims.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
chrisv
2019-07-29 12:18:43 UTC
Permalink
If it odd you think in such terms when you hear adults merely working
with and mentoring kids. Says a lot about you.
Maybe, but that mentally-ill thing should not be advising anyone, on
anything.
--
"If Freedom is so important to people in COLA, why not move to a more
Free system?" - some thing, attacking the GPL nad its supporters
Steve Carroll
2019-07-29 13:13:21 UTC
Permalink
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
Post by chrisv
If it odd you think in such terms when you hear adults merely working
with and mentoring kids. Says a lot about you.
Maybe, but that mentally-ill thing should not be advising anyone, on
anything.
+1
vallor
2019-07-29 16:45:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
If it odd you think in such terms when you hear adults merely working
with and mentoring kids. Says a lot about you.
I didn't write that, it was from a quoted message.
Post by chrisv
Maybe, but that mentally-ill thing should not be advising anyone, on
anything.
At least, not without supervision, such as within group therapy or
something.
--
-v
chrisv
2019-07-29 14:00:13 UTC
Permalink
[citation needed], k0ok.
You are not being reasonable.
How so, ko0k?
Exhibit one, in the case to prove the left-wingers can also be
unreasonable idiots: "kensi"
You have failed to build your case for that claim. Just repeating it
with more elaborate wording does not suffice, koOk.
Your claim that concentration camps never have the same end goal of
extermination "at first" was false. Some certainly did, "at first".

If anyone is the kook, it's the person (you) who tries to draw any
parallel at all, from the Nazi camps and ours.
Loading...