Who says it can't happen here?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Special army unit ready to be deployed on American soil just before Nov. elections (Update)
|
Who says it can't happen here?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Special army unit ready to be deployed on American soil just before Nov. elections (Update)
Our criminal gangs are mainly lebanese, refos we were stupid enough to take pity on, but Indians are becoming a problem, we got a lot of those from Fiji and they think they are special. What I don't like about these groups is they tend to take over neighbourhoodsQuote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Same things happen here, just different ethnic groups. They don't try to assimilate at all, they feel they are ENTITLED to do what they want, when they want... they feel any attempt to hold them to the standards everyone else has to live with is a personal attack on them.. and cry rascism.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
And expecting them to learn our language is somehow violating THEIR rights.
HELLO... if you move to France for example.. expect to learn French... move to Germany, expect to learn German... etc.
Hell, if I moved to Australia... I'd expect to have to learn the intricacies of your Australian Dialect. I wouldn't expect everyone there to have to learn the American Dialect to suit me. And I am sure you know the many differences between our dialect and yours... or even Queens English which would be far less different to you.
Take a look at what we each call car parts for example... and how different they are.
Hello:
Some of us have presented evidence that illegals DON'T commit crimes beyond their proportion of the populace. Others have presented polar opposite data.
You, the reader, have a CHOICE of which position you believe. It's not surprising to me which one you have chosen, but CHOOSE you did.
excon
Nobody here has presented ANY evidence of that Illegals do NOT commit disporportionally HIGH crimes of every tiype. when all the proof they DO exists in every courthouse and every prison in the nation.
WHen in fact Every single illegal IS a criminal. Illegals have a 100% crime rate... of AT LEAST one crime.. most commit many more.
Being in this country without legal papers IS a crime in and of itself.
Liberals who ignore proof every day even when its in their face... do so because they want to be a good party member. Just like in Stalins day.
Hello again, smoothy:Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
SAYING it doesn't make it so. Presenting EVIDENCE might.
excon
You have presented NONE...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I have... IF what you claim had ANY merit at all, the Hispanic Polulation of the Prisons would not excede the percentage of legal Hispanics in this country.
WHich You are incapible of doing.
There IS a law requiring papers to reside in this country if you are NOT a citizen.
THat makes 100% of the illegal population a criminal.
Prove otherwise.
Hello again, smoothy:Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
That's why I LOVE arguing with you. You move the goalposts all the time. But, I'm going to agree with you - ALL the illegals are here illegally.
But, that isn't what you said earlier... It's OK. That's why I'm here.
excon
Really... is 100% of the American public criminals, if so of what crimes?
Because even elementery school students who understand fractions at all will understand that if 100% of a certain group do something... and another group ( just pulling a number out of the air on this one... ) has 24% percent doing it too, that first group IS disporportionatly represented.
Hello again, smoothy:
Keep going. You're making MY argument for me.
excon
What world are you living on...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Its clear to everyone you are the one who is blowing smoke on this topic.
100% of one group Proves they have a disporportionatly HIGHER representation than 25% of another group. 4-1 higher in fact.
NOT what you are arguing at all.
Illegals are NOT the law abiiding nice people that exist in your world.
And in case its not abundently clear to you... Illegals are NOT the same as Legal immigrants.
Hello again, smoothy:Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
You DO know that people can READ what we've written. Even you can go back, if that'll help. But, it's OK. I'll remind everyone WHAT this argument is about, and that will be my LAST word on THAT.
YOU proposed that illegals commit MORE crime than their representative proportion of the community as compared to citizens. To be CLEAR, you were NOT simply speaking about their status as illegal. You were speaking about OTHER crime.
When you were presented with statistics from a STUDY rather than your right wing web sites, you CHANGED your tune. Now, you're saying they're criminals simply because they're in the country illegally.
Everybody who can READ, can see for themselves HOW you move the goalposts without missing a beat. But, that's OK. That's why I'm here.
excon
Lawmakers in Arizona have made a few changes to the law "just to take away the silly arguments and the games, the dishonesty that's been played."
One change is they've replaced the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest."
So ex, are you OK with asking for ID after a "lawful stop, detention or arrest?"
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Not really. It'll take some more tinkering before it'll pass constitutional muster... And, I don't know exactly how that's going to play out.. But, I'll bet it'll be about the term "reasonable suspicion" as opposed to the constitutional standard of "probable cause", and the idea that people can sue the cops if they don't think the cops hassled enough Mexicans. THAT part of the law is truly bizarre, even for Arizona.
My reservations are also about how the law is carried out, although Joe Arpio has NEVER cared much about the law anyway. He makes regular sweeps, and he only messes with the brown skinned people. I don't think you can consider the constitutionality of the law WITHOUT considering the actions of Sheriff Joe. They ARE related.
excon
PS> (edited) What I think is even more bizarre than the Arizona law, is the congress thinking the time isn't right to consider immigration reform. What??
... as oppsed to all those legal applicants for immigration who are forced to provide all types of details about themselves before admission.
Hello again, tom:
It doesn't surprise me that you equate being required to provide information before you're let in, to being required to provide information because you don't want to be thrown out.
Don't be confused by my response. Had the federal government enforced our laws, there WOULDN'T be established FAMILY'S here, and it's the breaking up of those family's that I object to. On the other hand, if the government HAD secured the border, there wouldn't BE any long standing family's here, and I'd have NO objection to throwing the recently arrived illegal OUT.
I've often times spoken about the legal concept of estoppal. It means, in essence, that if a wrong goes unrighted, after the person/entity is put on notice of the wrong, and doesn't DO anything about it, the wrong, isn't wrong anymore.
It applies here.
excon
Illegals DO commit MORE than their representative share of crime. THere are countless statistics out there as to the huge numbers of criminals in prison that have committed other crimes... and have been caught. You choose to ignore that because the Democrat party is telling you to ignore the facts and believe their hype.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
THe fact YOU sit here post after post and Claim illegals are essentually the most innocent bunch of people on the face of the earth is completely unsuportible.
All Illegals are crimninals... not all legal residents and citizens are criminals.
THat right there Proves your claim they commit crime in no higher percentages than any other group of people is completely false.
You find anywhere I have ever said being here illegally is NOT a crime... it IS a crime.. and has been a crime for a very long time.
Illegal Latinos are NOT a special group above the law any more than Illegal Russians, Illegal Chinese or Illegal Indians are.
YOU are the one making that claim... provide a link to the post and make reference to the post number. Neither of us are moderators and can go back and edit old posts either way once they lock.
Otherwise it shows that all you say is essentually made up and as fraudulent as that claim.
Your messiah the current Commander and thief has no moral ground here since most of Obamas appointees and staff are criminals themselves.
How many Tax cheats does he have on staff as proof. If YOU cheated on your taxes like they did do YOU think you would have gotten off so easy and still been offered a big job after the fact? I seriously doubt it.
Status has NOTHING to do with your claims...
THey violated US law... they have in fact committed a crime. A Federal Crime... as well as state Crime in same places... many have committed far more crimes too.
False Id's are a crime... false ID's using another real persons SSI is yet another crime, driving without a Valid drivers license is a crime... and yes, they can send you to jail for that. Illegals can't get a legal drivers license under the law. And so on.
Just who died and appointed Latinos gods chosen people anyway.
Hello again, smoothy:
We've been here before. You say this, and I say that. You say you didn't say it, and I say you did. I ain't going to do 4th grade stuff with you, smoothy.
excon
You CAN'T back up your claim of what I said because its as Bogus and full of Bu**it as Obama is.
Because IF there was a shred of proof... you could easily dig it up and refer to it. After all, neither of us can go back and edit or delte last weeks, or last months threads because neither of us has godlike powers here.
Admins or Moderators (if the Admin allows it) can do it... we however can't.
Thus present a previous claim that's beyond our edit window... or just admit you lied and made it up.
Hello again, smoothy:Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Now we've regressed to 2nd grade. I ain't playing.
excon
YOU made a false claim, you can't and won't prove directed specifically at ME.. be man enough to admit YOUR mistake... and we can let it drop.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
Verify at: The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR): Immigration and Welfare
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
Verify at: The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget | Center for Immigration Studies
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
Verify at: The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget | Center for Immigration Studies
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscrip...01/ldt..0.HTML
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscrip...01/ldt.01.HTML
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnncom/%20TRANscr...01/ldt.01.HTML
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.CNN.com/TRANscrip...01/ldt.01.HTML http://cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML%3E;"; rel="nofollowcnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML%3E;
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.HTML
9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSC%20...01/ldt.01.HTML
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn..com/TRANscri...2/ldt..01.HTML <" href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0606/12/ldt.. 01.HTML%3E; target=_blank" href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0606/12/ldt.. 01.HTML%3E; rel="nofollowhttp://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0606/12/ldt.. 01.. HTML%3E
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries.. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the US from the Southern border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report:
12. The National policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'
Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.....eportation.PDF
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their countries of origin.
Verify at: http://www..rense.com/general75/niht.htm <" href="http://www.rense.com/general75/nihthtm%3E; target=_blank" href="http://www.rense.com/general75/nihthtm%3E; rel="nofollowhttp://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm%3E ;
14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .'
Verify at: http: // www.drdsk.com/articleshtml <%20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml <" href="http://20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml%3E; target=_blank" href="http://20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml%3E; rel="nofollowhttp://20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml%3E
The total cost is a whopping $ 3383 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AND IF YOU'RE LIKE ME HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS $338,300,000,000.00 WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.
Ex, you think it's OK for the guy who just wants to blow your leaves to stick around, right? Then why won't the Dems let farmers in the central California valley have some water instead of letting it just go out to sea so the guy who just wants to pick a few almonds can have a job?
http://www.investors.com/image/ISS2b...28_345.jpg.cms
They don't care, their 'compassion' is more for some delta smelt than that brown-skinned family just trying to have a better life.
It's strange you know, because we have been inundated with American film, hell since the FTA we even have your ads on TV, we understand the American dialect. Sienfeld even does ads over here, can't get work in the states I guess. We have a little difficulty with your humour since we tend to mature in our twenties, but we understand you without difficulty and I would like to dispel the idea we don't use the Queen's english although a well modulated voice is harder to find these days. I expect you have some difficulty with bonnets and boots on cars but no well dressed car should be without them and surprise, we do have cars that run on gas, but what do you call that stuff you put in cars that run on CNG..Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
The big cultural difference between us is Gun Culture, it is foreign to our nature to reach for a gun or to carry a weapon, aside from being illegal
For us here in the U.S. CNG is Compressed Natural Gas.(CNG). There is another gas product here that we use called propane. It's a liquid to gas product and many homes and cars run on it. Maybe that's what you were thinking of in looking for a different name?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Oh trust me... I learned all the british automotive terminology from a Bently manual many years ago.. when I owned a British Sports car.. thank god for photos the let me learn what they really were.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
That and writing a lease for an Apartment with a guy from England. Boy THAT was fun... since it was a furnished apartment and the entire inventory was listed in it.
Yeah... Propane = LPG , CNG = VERY high pressure natual gas in a tank.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
You call the fuel you put in cars "gas", which we call petrol, so what do you call the gas you in put in cars that run on CNG or propane, no, I was just looking for the collogual term because I had never heard it or is it that cars run on gas no matter what form it takes? The gas we use for fuel in homes is called natural gas when reticulated and LNG when bottled. Just trying to understand linguistic differencesQuote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
CNG or Propane are the correct terms for those types of gases. Maybe what provides confusion is in the gasoline we use there are 3 different grades. And the old name for premium gas was called ethyl. Ive heard the term pertrol for gasoline and benzene referring to diesel. Fuel. CNG isn't real popular yet here but propane is fairly common. We also run Natural gas (unliquified) into homes for heating cooking etc.
For cars in general they run on gas (gasoline) or diesel most commonly. Others run on propane and so does a lot of industrial equiptment like forklifts and such. It comes in a bottle as liquid and then gets converted to low pressure so the engine can consume it. Last is CNG. That is still faily rare here. It too is kept in a bottle and is liquid then converted to low pressure for the engine to use.
Each is its own independent fuel.
I've always been confused about what an apartment actually is. I have come to the conclusion it might be what we call a unit or a semi. We also have flats which you might term a bed sit or is that an english term. You see for us, a unit is something you own and a flat is something you rent. Very confusing. We have the added confusion that what you call a house always appears to be multi-storied whereas what we term a house you call a bungalow, a term that has disappeared from our language. Adding to the confusion we don't have basements or attics, just don't have that much stuff I guessQuote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Ill see if I can't add to your confusion a little :)Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Here a "house" is a stand alone dwelling. It can be single story or multi story. From there they are broken down into style of home. Bungalow, ranch, estate etc.
An apartment is a dwelling attatched to other units. If there are only 2 units its called a duplex (but each single unit is still called an apartment). In the case of side by side units that are more then one story but only 2 dwellings those can be called townhouse. They share 1 common wall. Usually in the middle.
Yes you certainly have not clarifed the usage. We would agree that a house is a stand alone dwelling. We wouldn't describe style in that manner so ranch or estate would have no meaning to us in describing a house. Our descriptions would be more related to period, such as contemporary, victorian, colonial, federation, which probably have no meaning to you, and anything bigger than an suburban block might be termed acerage or a property. An estate is a group of houses usually developed for lower income families or just a subdivision of a suburban area. What you call a duplex we would call semi detached, a row of attached buildings is called a terrace and a townhouse is something that has only crept in recently as a form of development. Basically townhouses are separated by garages whilst terraces are older and might not have a garage. Multi story unit developments are called simply units or a block of unitsQuote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
It is very interesting how usage differs from place to place and yet we can still understand each other
It funny how some is almost the same but different. We also use these three as descriptive to a style of home; contemporary, victorian, colonial.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Also terms like salt box and art deco. Go figure. Lol.
I very much doubt if colonial means the same to you as it does to me. Might be a separation of a couple of hundred years there. And of course revolutonary would have a very different meaning. Can't imagine a salt box but we do have some very nice art deco theatres. In houses I could only imagine something with round windows, odd angles, and a black and white colour scheme. Here's one that might throw you, sand stock, referring to convict made, and probably recycled, bricks and of course, we don't have adobe unless it is very contemporaryQuote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
We also call houses; contemporary, victorian, colonial, brown stone, stucco. Etc however it primarily refers to the architecture/design of the house.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Some of those terms don't have equivalents here and I suspect some have very different meanings which is what we were really discussing, the different meanings or understandings applied to the same word. To me victorian means something with multi stories, multiple fronts, and steep roofs or follies like turrets. Colonial would date from about 1800 and have high ceilings and large verandahsQuote:
Originally Posted by Stringer
Sorry ex for hijacking it here.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
This may help as a picture is worth 1000 words and easier to type :)
Check this link for home views for you comparisons.
Ref:
Home Style Guide - Home Styles and Home Architecture
Good post Dad.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Yes dad there is a big difference as I saidQuote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
New Homes - Complete Home
As dad threads only get hijacked when they become boring
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:18 PM. |