Posted by cccp1014 on 6/26/2018 10:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2018 10:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/26/2018 10:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2018 10:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/26/2018 10:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2018 9:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 6/26/2018 9:36:00 AM (view original):
Seriously, how are you so freakin' stupid about so many things? "Due process", by whatever definition you want to use, involves someone or some group determining if some other person or group has done something illegal. Pursuing and catching that person or group is most certainly a vital step in that. You want to have Judges and juries sit in a courtroom with no defendant. Never mind, you're dumb enough to say yes.

I almost never open your posts because 99% of the time they are unintelligible rants of an idiot and, while this one is also the rant of an idiot, it’s hilarious. So, here we go.

CCCP is arguing that due process isn’t working so it needs to be eliminated when dealing with illegal immigrants.

He also cited the BP not pursuing the coyote as a failure of due process.

So...um...which is it? Should we give the coyote due process and bring him to trial? Or should we let him go without pursuit?

bad luck, wait. What exactly is your operational definition of "due process" please?

I like this one: "Fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement".

Thanks

Due process is a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law.

Does that apply to citizens or to anyone who steps on US soil?

How is sending an illegal back denying them life, liberty or property?

1. They don't own property in the US
2. We aren't taking their life
3. Liberty is earned not given just by stepping on US soil. They are free to go back to their country and reapply to enter the US legally.

So by your own operational definition we are not denying these persons their due process.

Anyone on US soil. Due process is the only process available to determine if someone doesn’t belong. If we deport people who do belong here, we are depriving them of liberty.

OK, what sort of due process do you want to give to people who are obviously here as illegals?

• Do we provide them attorneys
• Do we provide them food and shelter and medicine
• What time frame do we allocate per case

How do you intend to pay for all this? US tax $$?

Would it not make more sense to increase border security and to provide an expedited level of due process by empowering our border agents?

I know it is difficult for you to use logic. I do. But can you at least sort off see where I am coming from here?

Vegas odds state you won't answer my questions. LOL

The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as obviously. We can deny entry to people outside. Once they are here, they get due process.

Posted by all3 on 6/26/2018 10:31:00 AM (view original):
Dumb*ss b_l arguing that pursuing and hopefully catching the "alleged" criminal is not part of Due Process - classic. Only those who walk right into the Police Station are part of it in his World, I guess. What will this imbecile argue next, that people should be able to pick their gender every day, or maybe that left-handed 2nd basemen have an advantage, or that polls are gospel? (The list goes on and on . . . and on . . . and on.)

He will argue that people should be able to pick their age. I feel like I am 65 so give me the Senior Citizens discount....

If you can’t afford to provide due process to all of the people you arrest, the answer isn’t skip due process for some of them. The answer is arrest less people until you can afford to provide due process to all.

You can't possibly be this naive.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2018 10:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/26/2018 10:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2018 10:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/26/2018 10:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2018 10:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/26/2018 10:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2018 9:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 6/26/2018 9:36:00 AM (view original):
Seriously, how are you so freakin' stupid about so many things? "Due process", by whatever definition you want to use, involves someone or some group determining if some other person or group has done something illegal. Pursuing and catching that person or group is most certainly a vital step in that. You want to have Judges and juries sit in a courtroom with no defendant. Never mind, you're dumb enough to say yes.

I almost never open your posts because 99% of the time they are unintelligible rants of an idiot and, while this one is also the rant of an idiot, it’s hilarious. So, here we go.

CCCP is arguing that due process isn’t working so it needs to be eliminated when dealing with illegal immigrants.

He also cited the BP not pursuing the coyote as a failure of due process.

So...um...which is it? Should we give the coyote due process and bring him to trial? Or should we let him go without pursuit?

bad luck, wait. What exactly is your operational definition of "due process" please?

I like this one: "Fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement".

Thanks

Due process is a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law.

Does that apply to citizens or to anyone who steps on US soil?

How is sending an illegal back denying them life, liberty or property?

1. They don't own property in the US
2. We aren't taking their life
3. Liberty is earned not given just by stepping on US soil. They are free to go back to their country and reapply to enter the US legally.

So by your own operational definition we are not denying these persons their due process.

Anyone on US soil. Due process is the only process available to determine if someone doesn’t belong. If we deport people who do belong here, we are depriving them of liberty.

OK, what sort of due process do you want to give to people who are obviously here as illegals?

• Do we provide them attorneys
• Do we provide them food and shelter and medicine
• What time frame do we allocate per case

How do you intend to pay for all this? US tax $$?

Would it not make more sense to increase border security and to provide an expedited level of due process by empowering our border agents?

I know it is difficult for you to use logic. I do. But can you at least sort off see where I am coming from here?

Vegas odds state you won't answer my questions. LOL

The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as obviously. We can deny entry to people outside. Once they are here, they get due process.

When someone shoots at a police officer and he shoots back, he can't argue that obviously the bad guy was trying to kill him? Again, please use some common sense. He argues that he was defending himself.

In this case they stepped into our country. I questioned them, on video. I then sent them back.

Not sure what you don't understand here.

And you didn't answer my questions (as I knew you would not)

Who pays for this "due process"?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2018 10:35:00 AM (view original):
If you can’t afford to provide due process to all of the people you arrest, the answer isn’t skip due process for some of them. The answer is arrest less people until you can afford to provide due process to all.

It is fewer people and by your definition you want to allow criminals to run amok. OK.....

Who pays for this due process?

Posted by The Taint on 6/26/2018 10:36:00 AM (view original):
You can't possibly be this naive.

I was just thinking the same thing about you. Funny.

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/26/2018 10:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2018 10:35:00 AM (view original):
If you can’t afford to provide due process to all of the people you arrest, the answer isn’t skip due process for some of them. The answer is arrest less people until you can afford to provide due process to all.

It is fewer people and by your definition you want to allow criminals to run amok. OK.....

Who pays for this due process?

Then they run amok. As Franklin said, “it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.”

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/26/2018 10:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2018 10:35:00 AM (view original):
If you can’t afford to provide due process to all of the people you arrest, the answer isn’t skip due process for some of them. The answer is arrest less people until you can afford to provide due process to all.

It is fewer people and by your definition you want to allow criminals to run amok. OK.....

Who pays for this due process?

He only wants due process for those who turn themselves in, since he claims pursuing "alleged" criminals is NOT part of the process, so it really wouldn't cost much at all. Maybe we could save costs on the Judgement phase too, by only imprisoning those who voluntarily walk-in. As we agreed last week, nobody on this site comes even remotely close to being as off-the-charts stupid as b_l.

Yeah, go run your brilliant idea in front of your two constitutional lawyer buddies.

let me know when they stop laughing at you.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2018 10:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/26/2018 10:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2018 10:35:00 AM (view original):
If you can’t afford to provide due process to all of the people you arrest, the answer isn’t skip due process for some of them. The answer is arrest less people until you can afford to provide due process to all.

It is fewer people and by your definition you want to allow criminals to run amok. OK.....

Who pays for this due process?

Then they run amok. As Franklin said, “it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.”

In theory that is great but just not practical. Who pays for this?

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/26/2018 10:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2018 10:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/26/2018 10:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2018 10:35:00 AM (view original):
If you can’t afford to provide due process to all of the people you arrest, the answer isn’t skip due process for some of them. The answer is arrest less people until you can afford to provide due process to all.

It is fewer people and by your definition you want to allow criminals to run amok. OK.....

Who pays for this due process?

Then they run amok. As Franklin said, “it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.”

In theory that is great but just not practical. Who pays for this?

We pay. “It’s too expensive” is not a valid reason to deny rights.

Posted by The Taint on 6/26/2018 10:47:00 AM (view original):
Yeah, go run your brilliant idea in front of your two constitutional lawyer buddies.

let me know when they stop laughing at you.

They laugh at me and my ideas all the time. They also agree that I am practical just not realistic all the time. I agree with that.

My issue is that the system is broken and we don't want to try to fix it.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2018 11:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/26/2018 10:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2018 10:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/26/2018 10:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2018 10:35:00 AM (view original):
If you can’t afford to provide due process to all of the people you arrest, the answer isn’t skip due process for some of them. The answer is arrest less people until you can afford to provide due process to all.

It is fewer people and by your definition you want to allow criminals to run amok. OK.....

Who pays for this due process?

Then they run amok. As Franklin said, “it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.”

In theory that is great but just not practical. Who pays for this?

We pay. “It’s too expensive” is not a valid reason to deny rights.

Thank you.

Maybe the $$ can come from your 99% tax on income over $10mil?

Sure