Conquer Club

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Do you have any evidence or other background for your assertion that Americans say someone is illegal without the presumption of innocence?

I would be surprised if they don't. I'm not sure I'd be quite as annoyed at someone pointing out that it's incorrect, and that presumption of innocence is important.

You'd be surprised if they don't? Ha... okay.

I'm not annoyed, I'm just confused.

Edited.

I'm even more confused. I'm going to report you for trolling.

Good luck with that.

Good point. MeDeFe's got your back.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Do you have any evidence or other background for your assertion that Americans say someone is illegal without the presumption of innocence?

I would be surprised if they don't. I'm not sure I'd be quite as annoyed at someone pointing out that it's incorrect, and that presumption of innocence is important.

You'd be surprised if they don't? Ha... okay.

I'm not annoyed, I'm just confused.

Edited.

I'm even more confused. I'm going to report you for trolling.

GD... we should have been able to figure out by now that Symmetry is trying to fill the vacuum left by PimpDave. Yes, I agree he's doing a poor job, but let's give him an E for Effort.

You know I can still read your posts, right?

Symmetry wrote:You know I can still read your posts, right?

You can read?

Maybe you are like my 5yo.. you can read the words, but you lack comprehension.

jimboston wrote:

Symmetry wrote:You know I can still read your posts, right?

You can read?

Maybe you are like my 5yo.. you can read the words, but you lack comprehension.

You have a 5 year old? Do the parents know?

Symmetry wrote:

jimboston wrote:

Symmetry wrote:You know I can still read your posts, right?

You can read?

Maybe you are like my 5yo.. you can read the words, but you lack comprehension.

You have a 5 year old? Do the parents know?

Again Ad Hominem... do you ever reply with substance?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Good point. MeDeFe's got your back.

I've definitely got something here, but I'm not sure what the hell it is.

Are you guys going to go back to debating about the fact that a couple hundred US citizens are deported from the USA every year (http://stateswithoutnations.blogspot.de/search/label/ICE%20deporting%20US%20citizens), and about how hard or easy it is to get ID in the USA, and how the deportation process could or should be improved?
Or should I just lock this thread?

MeDeFe wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Good point. MeDeFe's got your back.

I've definitely got something here, but I'm not sure what the hell it is.

Are you guys going to go back to debating about the fact that a couple hundred US citizens are deported from the USA every year (http://stateswithoutnations.blogspot.de/search/label/ICE%20deporting%20US%20citizens), and about how hard or easy it is to get ID in the USA, and how the deportation process could or should be improved?
Or should I just lock this thread?

1) This guy told ICE he wasn't a citizen to avoid jail. Then he files a suit against the gov't when they listen to him???

"What becomes clear in this report is that once Lyttle, who has a long, well-documented record in the criminal databases as a U.S. citizen, indicates he wants to go to Mexico ... and so agrees that he is from Mexico and tells the ICE agent at a jail where he is classified as bipolar that he wants her to set it all up.

2) Close the thread because the OP is only using it as a platform to insult people.

Enough with the closed threads already. Do you get butthurt easily or what?

jimboston wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Good point. MeDeFe's got your back.

I've definitely got something here, but I'm not sure what the hell it is.

Are you guys going to go back to debating about the fact that a couple hundred US citizens are deported from the USA every year (http://stateswithoutnations.blogspot.de/search/label/ICE%20deporting%20US%20citizens), and about how hard or easy it is to get ID in the USA, and how the deportation process could or should be improved?
Or should I just lock this thread?

1) This guy told ICE he wasn't a citizen to avoid jail. Then he files a suit against the gov't when they listen to him???

"What becomes clear in this report is that once Lyttle, who has a long, well-documented record in the criminal databases as a U.S. citizen, indicates he wants to go to Mexico ... and so agrees that he is from Mexico and tells the ICE agent at a jail where he is classified as bipolar that he wants her to set it all up.

2) Close the thread because the OP is only using it as a platform to insult people.

Scroll down, there's more than one case documented. And then there's a link "Older Posts" which takes you to a second page that's as long as the first one. In all there seem to be six pages. Also: "Bipolar" as in the mental disorder, I'm sure you've heard of it.

Go on, read the rest of it. Familiarise yourself with the appeals process which can take months or years. Those are months or years during which a US citizen is held against their will by an agency that legally has no jurisdiction over US citizens, without being provided with an attorney or being allowed any of the rights which are legally granted to them.

Here's an article providing something of an overview.
http://www.thenation.com/article/thin-ice


As for the second point, for now we'll see how this develops.

MeDeFe wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Good point. MeDeFe's got your back.

I've definitely got something here, but I'm not sure what the hell it is.

Are you guys going to go back to debating about the fact that a couple hundred US citizens are deported from the USA every year (http://stateswithoutnations.blogspot.de/search/label/ICE%20deporting%20US%20citizens), and about how hard or easy it is to get ID in the USA, and how the deportation process could or should be improved?
Or should I just lock this thread?

I'm not sure because I'm still not sure I understand what this thread is about. Is it about the presumption of innocence? Is it about the presumption of innocence with respect to deportation proceedings? Is it about deportation proceedings generally?

If there was only some way we could get Symmetry to be less obtuse...

By the way, I skimmed the blog you've posted and noticed there was very little, if any, discussion of due process or removal proceedings.

thegreekdog wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Good point. MeDeFe's got your back.

I've definitely got something here, but I'm not sure what the hell it is.

Are you guys going to go back to debating about the fact that a couple hundred US citizens are deported from the USA every year (http://stateswithoutnations.blogspot.de/search/label/ICE%20deporting%20US%20citizens), and about how hard or easy it is to get ID in the USA, and how the deportation process could or should be improved?
Or should I just lock this thread?

I'm not sure because I'm still not sure I understand what this thread is about. Is it about the presumption of innocence? Is it about the presumption of innocence with respect to deportation proceedings? Is it about deportation proceedings generally?

If there was only some way we could get Symmetry to be less obtuse...

By the way, I skimmed the blog you've posted and noticed there was very little, if any, discussion of due process or removal proceedings.

You could possibly start by posting a bit less about how obtuse I am, how I'm on your list, and other such nonsense.

What would you like me to explain?

I guess this has gone the way of illegal as describing "illegal immigrants", so it seems to me that that your questions are tied.

Are "illegal immigrants" actually illegal if they haven't received a trial judging their actions against the law? Should declaring someone to have done something illegal be part of the judicial process? Or should there be a presumption of innocence prior to a trial?

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Good point. MeDeFe's got your back.

I've definitely got something here, but I'm not sure what the hell it is.

Are you guys going to go back to debating about the fact that a couple hundred US citizens are deported from the USA every year (http://stateswithoutnations.blogspot.de/search/label/ICE%20deporting%20US%20citizens), and about how hard or easy it is to get ID in the USA, and how the deportation process could or should be improved?
Or should I just lock this thread?

I'm not sure because I'm still not sure I understand what this thread is about. Is it about the presumption of innocence? Is it about the presumption of innocence with respect to deportation proceedings? Is it about deportation proceedings generally?

If there was only some way we could get Symmetry to be less obtuse...

By the way, I skimmed the blog you've posted and noticed there was very little, if any, discussion of due process or removal proceedings.

You could possibly start by posting a bit less about how obtuse I am, how I'm on your list, and other such nonsense.

What would you like me to explain?

I guess this has gone the way of illegal as describing "illegal immigrants", so it seems to me that that your questions are tied.

Are "illegal immigrants" actually illegal if they haven't received a trial judging their actions against the law? Should declaring someone to have done something illegal be part of the judicial process? Or should there be a presumption of innocence prior to a trial?

Stop whining.

Is your problem that the phrase "illegal immigrants" is applied haphazardly to people who may or may not be actual illegal immigrants?

thegreekdog wrote:
Stop whining.

Is your problem that the phrase "illegal immigrants" is applied haphazardly to people who may or may not be actual illegal immigrants?

TGD... do you actually expect to get a real answer from him?

You know he's not going to clarify his "point" because he doesn't have one.

jimboston wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:
Stop whining.

Is your problem that the phrase "illegal immigrants" is applied haphazardly to people who may or may not be actual illegal immigrants?

TGD... do you actually expect to get a real answer from him?

You know he's not going to clarify his "point" because he doesn't have one.

Was that your point? Thanks for the contribution, as always.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Good point. MeDeFe's got your back.

I've definitely got something here, but I'm not sure what the hell it is.

Are you guys going to go back to debating about the fact that a couple hundred US citizens are deported from the USA every year (http://stateswithoutnations.blogspot.de/search/label/ICE%20deporting%20US%20citizens), and about how hard or easy it is to get ID in the USA, and how the deportation process could or should be improved?
Or should I just lock this thread?

I'm not sure because I'm still not sure I understand what this thread is about. Is it about the presumption of innocence? Is it about the presumption of innocence with respect to deportation proceedings? Is it about deportation proceedings generally?

If there was only some way we could get Symmetry to be less obtuse...

By the way, I skimmed the blog you've posted and noticed there was very little, if any, discussion of due process or removal proceedings.

You could possibly start by posting a bit less about how obtuse I am, how I'm on your list, and other such nonsense.

What would you like me to explain?

I guess this has gone the way of illegal as describing "illegal immigrants", so it seems to me that that your questions are tied.

Are "illegal immigrants" actually illegal if they haven't received a trial judging their actions against the law? Should declaring someone to have done something illegal be part of the judicial process? Or should there be a presumption of innocence prior to a trial?

Stop whining.

Is your problem that the phrase "illegal immigrants" is applied haphazardly to people who may or may not be actual illegal immigrants?

Whoah- dude, that was your take on the topic- applying the word illegal to immigration. Don't get pissy because I accommodate your take on the thread. No need to get upset.

With regards to your application of the term illegal regarding immigrants, I would think that there are some problems, if you're asking my opinion.

I guess I'd ask you how many "illegal" immigrants there are?

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Good point. MeDeFe's got your back.

I've definitely got something here, but I'm not sure what the hell it is.

Are you guys going to go back to debating about the fact that a couple hundred US citizens are deported from the USA every year (http://stateswithoutnations.blogspot.de/search/label/ICE%20deporting%20US%20citizens), and about how hard or easy it is to get ID in the USA, and how the deportation process could or should be improved?
Or should I just lock this thread?

I'm not sure because I'm still not sure I understand what this thread is about. Is it about the presumption of innocence? Is it about the presumption of innocence with respect to deportation proceedings? Is it about deportation proceedings generally?

If there was only some way we could get Symmetry to be less obtuse...

By the way, I skimmed the blog you've posted and noticed there was very little, if any, discussion of due process or removal proceedings.

You could possibly start by posting a bit less about how obtuse I am, how I'm on your list, and other such nonsense.

What would you like me to explain?

I guess this has gone the way of illegal as describing "illegal immigrants", so it seems to me that that your questions are tied.

Are "illegal immigrants" actually illegal if they haven't received a trial judging their actions against the law? Should declaring someone to have done something illegal be part of the judicial process? Or should there be a presumption of innocence prior to a trial?

Stop whining.

Is your problem that the phrase "illegal immigrants" is applied haphazardly to people who may or may not be actual illegal immigrants?

Whoah- dude, that was your take on the topic- applying the word illegal to immigration. Don't get pissy because I accommodate your take on the thread. No need to get upset.

With regards to your application of the term illegal regarding immigrants, I would think that there are some problems, if you're asking my opinion.

I guess I'd ask you how many "illegal" immigrants there are?

Yeah, see, here's the thing. I still have no idea what your point is. I suppose you've proven the point that this discussion is pointless.

TGD- if you want to discuss the application of the term illegal- the topic of this thread, to your particular pet example- immigration, then do so. I've given you space to do that. I've engaged you with a few basic responses. Your response has been consistently that you don't know what my point is, as if that paralyses you to make your own points with regards to your own practical application of the word "illegal".

You seem baffled by your own own arguments.

Symmetry wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Kind of a test of how far you believe in due process this one.

I don't understand the question. Are you talking about an illegal immigrant? Are you speaking of a particular case?

More of a hypothetical. Could an immigrant be presumed illegal under the law without due process, which assumes innocence?

Seems to be your "particular pet example."

And here was my response...

thegreekdog wrote:What do you mean by "presumed illegal?"

At some point prior to an arrest, there is a belief by the arresting agent that the person he or she is arresting is an illegal immigrant. This alleged illegal immigrant is likely placed in holding. This occurs with any other person allegedly violating the law.

In any event, due process applies to immigrants, legal and illegal, so it's kind of a moot point.

You did not appear to respond to this so, again, I'm not sure where you've gotten the idea that Americans presume illegality before innocence. If that's your point. Because I really don't know what your point is. I would imagine you could easily type out a point if you were interested in having a discussion.

Tone down the general bbsitchiness and you're likely to get a nicer response.

With regards to your point, you seem to be making an important distinction between those suspected illegal and those convicted.

Would that be a fair take to bring bring us back on an even keel?

Symmetry wrote:Tone down the general bbsitchiness and you're likely to get a nicer response.

With regards to your point, you seem to be making an important distinction between those suspected illegal and those convicted.

Would that be a fair take to bring bring us back on an even keel?

It's difficult for me to determine what you find bitchy (or bbsitchiness, whatever that means). Perhaps you could provide an example of what an appropriate post from me would be in order to illicit a nicer response from you. Although I'll hold you to that example for all time, so careful.

To get back to what may be the point (I honestly still don't know), yes, I think there is a distinction between those suspected illegal and those convicted.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Tone down the general bbsitchiness and you're likely to get a nicer response.

With regards to your point, you seem to be making an important distinction between those suspected illegal and those convicted.

Would that be a fair take to bring bring us back on an even keel?

It's difficult for me to determine what you find bitchy (or bbsitchiness, whatever that means). Perhaps you could provide an example of what an appropriate post from me would be in order to illicit a nicer response from you. Although I'll hold you to that example for all time, so careful.

To get back to what may be the point (I honestly still don't know), yes, I think there is a distinction between those suspected illegal and those convicted.

So I guess I can ask you again, how many illegal immigrants are there in your country?

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Tone down the general bbsitchiness and you're likely to get a nicer response.

With regards to your point, you seem to be making an important distinction between those suspected illegal and those convicted.

Would that be a fair take to bring bring us back on an even keel?

It's difficult for me to determine what you find bitchy (or bbsitchiness, whatever that means). Perhaps you could provide an example of what an appropriate post from me would be in order to illicit a nicer response from you. Although I'll hold you to that example for all time, so careful.

To get back to what may be the point (I honestly still don't know), yes, I think there is a distinction between those suspected illegal and those convicted.

So I guess I can ask you again, how many illegal immigrants are there in your country?

As I stated before, I have no idea.

Did you want me to give you some estimate in the millions (similar to what was done, for example, during the passage of the Affordable Care Act) so that you could make the point that we're calling people "illegal" people who have not been convicted? I can do that if it would help you make your point. Alternatively, you could just do it yourself. It's easy to find those statistics on google or bing or whatever search engine you use. Or we could just keep playing this fun game.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Tone down the general bbsitchiness and you're likely to get a nicer response.

With regards to your point, you seem to be making an important distinction between those suspected illegal and those convicted.

Would that be a fair take to bring bring us back on an even keel?

It's difficult for me to determine what you find bitchy (or bbsitchiness, whatever that means). Perhaps you could provide an example of what an appropriate post from me would be in order to illicit a nicer response from you. Although I'll hold you to that example for all time, so careful.

To get back to what may be the point (I honestly still don't know), yes, I think there is a distinction between those suspected illegal and those convicted.

So I guess I can ask you again, how many illegal immigrants are there in your country?

As I stated before, I have no idea.

Did you want me to give you some estimate in the millions (similar to what was done, for example, during the passage of the Affordable Care Act) so that you could make the point that we're calling people "illegal" people who have not been convicted? I can do that if it would help you make your point. Alternatively, you could just do it yourself. It's easy to find those statistics on google or bing or whatever search engine you use. Or we could just keep playing this fun game.

I don't get why you're "dogging" me on this- I'm not irritated that you didn't want to answer the question, or didn't know how to find out.

You're getting overly worried that i might push you to make a point that doesn't agree with your ideals? Is that what concerns you?

Because there's clearly something that concerns you about questioning the application of the word illegal.

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Tone down the general bbsitchiness and you're likely to get a nicer response.

With regards to your point, you seem to be making an important distinction between those suspected illegal and those convicted.

Would that be a fair take to bring bring us back on an even keel?

It's difficult for me to determine what you find bitchy (or bbsitchiness, whatever that means). Perhaps you could provide an example of what an appropriate post from me would be in order to illicit a nicer response from you. Although I'll hold you to that example for all time, so careful.

To get back to what may be the point (I honestly still don't know), yes, I think there is a distinction between those suspected illegal and those convicted.

So I guess I can ask you again, how many illegal immigrants are there in your country?

As I stated before, I have no idea.

Did you want me to give you some estimate in the millions (similar to what was done, for example, during the passage of the Affordable Care Act) so that you could make the point that we're calling people "illegal" people who have not been convicted? I can do that if it would help you make your point. Alternatively, you could just do it yourself. It's easy to find those statistics on google or bing or whatever search engine you use. Or we could just keep playing this fun game.

I don't get why you're "dogging" me on this- I'm not irritated that you didn't want to answer the question, or didn't know how to find out.

You're getting overly worried that i might push you to make a point that doesn't agree with your ideals? Is that what concerns you?

Because there's clearly something that concerns you about questioning the application of the word illegal.

So we're going to keep playing the fun game? Cool.