Hard fact is that illegals do not enjoy the same Due Process as
citizens.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/constitution-supreme-court-due-process-trump-deportees-analysis/story?id=121485100
The government must provide notice and a hearing in many, but not all,
cases.
The text of the Constitution is clear and so is the Supreme Court: All non-citizens on U.S. soil must be afforded "due process of law."
"There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the
United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth
Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of
life, liberty, or property without due process of law," the late
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a unanimous 1976 opinion.
So, what does that mean in practice? Not necessarily a lot.
President Trump professes that he "does not know" the specifics but
insists that it cannot mean "a million or 2 million or 3 million
trials" for each person in the country unlawfully.
Legal experts say Trump is right that the Constitution does not
guarantee a "trial" for every migrant detained and ordered deported at
the border or inside the country. In fact, migrants in the country
illegally do not have extensive procedural protections from removal.
(If they did, it wouldn't have been possible for ICE to deport more
than 270,000 last year.)
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/1/2025 8:59 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Hard fact is that illegals do not enjoy the same Due Process as
citizens.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/constitution-supreme-court-due-process-trump-deportees-analysis/story?id=121485100
The government must provide notice and a hearing in many, but not all,
cases.
The text of the Constitution is clear and so is the Supreme Court: All
non-citizens on U.S. soil must be afforded "due process of law."
"There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the
United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth
Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of
life, liberty, or property without due process of law," the late
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a unanimous 1976 opinion.
So, what does that mean in practice? Not necessarily a lot.
President Trump professes that he "does not know" the specifics but
insists that it cannot mean "a million or 2 million or 3 million
trials" for each person in the country unlawfully.
Legal experts say Trump is right that the Constitution does not
guarantee a "trial" for every migrant detained and ordered deported at
the border or inside the country. In fact, migrants in the country
illegally do not have extensive procedural protections from removal.
(If they did, it wouldn't have been possible for ICE to deport more
than 270,000 last year.)
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Interesting charts here:
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deportations-deporter-chief-or-not
(Note date at the start of Mr Trump's 1st term)
Deportation totals 8 years each of
Mr Clinton 12,290,905
Mr Bush 10,328,850
Mr Obama 5,281,115
On 6/1/2025 9:59 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Straw man alert. IIRC, nobody here ever claimed illegal immigrants have
Hard fact is that illegals do not enjoy the same Due Process as
citizens.
the _same_ due process rights as citizens.
But they are still supposed to get _some_ due process rights. At least,
they should be actually determined to be here illegally.
As news stories
have shown, that's sometimes being violated.
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 11:46:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/1/2025 9:59 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Straw man alert. IIRC, nobody here ever claimed illegal immigrants have
Hard fact is that illegals do not enjoy the same Due Process as
citizens.
the _same_ due process rights as citizens.
But they are still supposed to get _some_ due process rights. At least,
they should be actually determined to be here illegally.
Being in the USA legally or illegally is very easy to detirmine. It
doesn't take a courtroom or a judge.
As news stories
have shown, that's sometimes being violated.
I've seen no news stories about someone being deported because they
were incorrectly identified as an illegal when they were, in fact in
the USA legally.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/1/2025 11:28 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 11:46:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/1/2025 9:59 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Straw man alert. IIRC, nobody here ever claimed illegal immigrants have
Hard fact is that illegals do not enjoy the same Due Process as
citizens.
the _same_ due process rights as citizens.
But they are still supposed to get _some_ due process rights. At least,
they should be actually determined to be here illegally.
Being in the USA legally or illegally is very easy to detirmine. It
doesn't take a courtroom or a judge.
As news stories
have shown, that's sometimes being violated.
I've seen no news stories about someone being deported because they
were incorrectly identified as an illegal when they were, in fact in
the USA legally.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I believe he's referring to ID/arrest errors. They have
happened. They are few. They been well publicized.
That's a normal function of administrative ineptitude in any
large group of incidents. Not good. Not bad. It just is.
Like the poor woman who was driving her auto, registered in
her name, with her current driving license and yet spent
five days in a county jail as the unfortunate situation was
that her actual legal name was identical to that of a woman
with outstanding contempt/nonappearance warrants. That's a
horrible thing, and blissfully rare, but administrative
remedies are established.
are few. They been well publicized.
but administrative remedies are established.
In article <101i16r$2ados$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I believe he's referring to ID/arrest errors. They have happened. They
are few. They been well publicized.
The ones you know of, anyway.
One of the reason that due process is so important for everyone is so
the government can't just point its finger at *you*, say "MS-13", and
put you on a plane to a foreign prison from which they have no power to >remove you.
Why would they do that? Maybe you're here illegally and have a tattoo.
Or maybe you just said something someone didn't like and "oops" you're
gone. "Our mistake, sorry. No, we can't bring him home. So sorry about
that."
but administrative remedies are established.
Unless you're in a Salvadorian prison, in which case they aren't.
Franklin said he'd rather see 100 criminals go free before one innocent >person was incarcerated. That's the level of care we should be taking.
IMHO.
In article <101i16r$2ados$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I believe he's referring to ID/arrest errors. They have happened. They
are few. They been well publicized.
The ones you know of, anyway.
One of the reason that due process is so important for everyone is so
the government can't just point its finger at *you*, say "MS-13", and
put you on a plane to a foreign prison from which they have no power to remove you.
Why would they do that? Maybe you're here illegally and have a tattoo.
Or maybe you just said something someone didn't like and "oops" you're
gone.
"Our mistake, sorry. No, we can't bring him home. So sorry about
that."
but administrative remedies are established.
Unless you're in a Salvadorian prison, in which case they aren't.
Franklin said he'd rather see 100 criminals go free before one innocent person was incarcerated. That's the level of care we should be taking.
IMHO.
On 6/2/2025 9:57 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <101i16r$2ados$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I believe he's referring to ID/arrest errors. They have happened. They
are few. They been well publicized.
The ones you know of, anyway.
There is some delusion that the trump administration is practicing >transparency.
One of the reason that due process is so important for everyone is so
the government can't just point its finger at *you*, say "MS-13", and
put you on a plane to a foreign prison from which they have no power to
remove you.
Why would they do that? Maybe you're here illegally and have a tattoo.
Or maybe you just said something someone didn't like and "oops" you're
gone.
Like publishing an article in a college newspaper criticizing the
schools position on the Gaza war.
"Our mistake, sorry. No, we can't bring him home. So sorry about
that."
To which certain people in this forum pour a cognac, raise a toast, and >chuckle about it.
but administrative remedies are established.
Unless you're in a Salvadorian prison, in which case they aren't.
Franklin said he'd rather see 100 criminals go free before one innocent
person was incarcerated. That's the level of care we should be taking.
+1 - the current right wing movement in this country has completely
reversed that philosophy.
IMHO.
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 01:57:37 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <101i16r$2ados$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I believe he's referring to ID/arrest errors. They have happened. They
are few. They been well publicized.
The ones you know of, anyway.
One of the reason that due process is so important for everyone is so
the government can't just point its finger at *you*, say "MS-13", and
put you on a plane to a foreign prison from which they have no power to
remove you.
Why would they do that? Maybe you're here illegally and have a tattoo.
Or maybe you just said something someone didn't like and "oops" you're
gone. "Our mistake, sorry. No, we can't bring him home. So sorry about
that."
but administrative remedies are established.
Unless you're in a Salvadorian prison, in which case they aren't.
Franklin said he'd rather see 100 criminals go free before one innocent
person was incarcerated. That's the level of care we should be taking.
IMHO.
I believe that is the current "level of care." I haven't seen anyone
sent to the Salvadorian prison who doesn't belong there.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/3/2025 3:31 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 01:57:37 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <101i16r$2ados$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I believe he's referring to ID/arrest errors. They have happened. They >>>> are few. They been well publicized.
The ones you know of, anyway.
One of the reason that due process is so important for everyone is so
the government can't just point its finger at *you*, say "MS-13", and
put you on a plane to a foreign prison from which they have no power to
remove you.
Why would they do that? Maybe you're here illegally and have a tattoo.
Or maybe you just said something someone didn't like and "oops" you're
gone. "Our mistake, sorry. No, we can't bring him home. So sorry about
that."
but administrative remedies are established.
Unless you're in a Salvadorian prison, in which case they aren't.
Franklin said he'd rather see 100 criminals go free before one innocent
person was incarcerated. That's the level of care we should be taking.
IMHO.
I believe that is the current "level of care." I haven't seen anyone
sent to the Salvadorian prison who doesn't belong there.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
There was a false statement inserted into a filing in re
Kilmar Abrego Garcia that he had been deported in error. The
Justice Department employee who added that was fired the
next morning and the filing emended, but not before many
reports and the clutching of pearls. That breathless
reportage, false though it may be, persists.
That is not a civil rights problem. It's a problem of
disinformation and propaganda. As Monday morning's NYT for
example, whose front page did not cover the immolation of
live US citizens, including a Holocaust survivor, in Boulder
by an illegal jihadi screaming 'free palestine.' Deemed not
interesting enough by editorial staff.
https://forward.com/news/724924/boulder-firebomb-attack-antisemitism/
They did give front page placement to the false report of 40
arabs shot dead in Gaza by IDF, which in fact did not
happen. That false report was all over the radio yesterday
as well (I do not own a television) despite multiple
immediate corrections by people who were there, including video.
https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/06/02/false-reporting-ghf-counters-widespread-media-claims-of-israeli-attack-on-palestinians-seeking-aid-in-gaza/
Sadly, just as Ms Palin never said anything remotely like,
"I can see Russia from my house", the skewing of perception
continues in this as in all things, with great success.
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 07:59:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/3/2025 3:31 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 01:57:37 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <101i16r$2ados$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I believe he's referring to ID/arrest errors. They have happened. They >>>>> are few. They been well publicized.
The ones you know of, anyway.
One of the reason that due process is so important for everyone is so
the government can't just point its finger at *you*, say "MS-13", and
put you on a plane to a foreign prison from which they have no power to >>>> remove you.
Why would they do that? Maybe you're here illegally and have a tattoo. >>>> Or maybe you just said something someone didn't like and "oops" you're >>>> gone. "Our mistake, sorry. No, we can't bring him home. So sorry about >>>> that."
but administrative remedies are established.
Unless you're in a Salvadorian prison, in which case they aren't.
Franklin said he'd rather see 100 criminals go free before one innocent >>>> person was incarcerated. That's the level of care we should be taking. >>>>
IMHO.
I believe that is the current "level of care." I haven't seen anyone
sent to the Salvadorian prison who doesn't belong there.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
There was a false statement inserted into a filing in re
Kilmar Abrego Garcia that he had been deported in error. The
Justice Department employee who added that was fired the
next morning and the filing emended, but not before many
reports and the clutching of pearls. That breathless
reportage, false though it may be, persists.
That is not a civil rights problem. It's a problem of
disinformation and propaganda. As Monday morning's NYT for
example, whose front page did not cover the immolation of
live US citizens, including a Holocaust survivor, in Boulder
by an illegal jihadi screaming 'free palestine.' Deemed not
interesting enough by editorial staff.
https://forward.com/news/724924/boulder-firebomb-attack-antisemitism/
They did give front page placement to the false report of 40
arabs shot dead in Gaza by IDF, which in fact did not
happen. That false report was all over the radio yesterday
as well (I do not own a television) despite multiple
immediate corrections by people who were there, including video.
https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/06/02/false-reporting-ghf-counters-widespread-media-claims-of-israeli-attack-on-palestinians-seeking-aid-in-gaza/
Sadly, just as Ms Palin never said anything remotely like,
"I can see Russia from my house", the skewing of perception
continues in this as in all things, with great success.
I'm beginning to wonder how safe it is for me to wander around in my
"I STAND WITH ISRAEL" SHIRT, like I did yesterday.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/3/2025 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
There was a false statement inserted into a filing in re
Kilmar Abrego Garcia that he had been deported in error.
The Justice Department employee who added that was fired
the next morning and the filing emended...
Got a citation or other evidence for that claim? And what
did the courts say about this issue? And where is Mr. Garcia
now?
As Monday morning's NYT for example, whose front page did
not cover the immolation of live US citizens, including a
Holocaust survivor, in Boulder by an illegal jihadi
screaming 'free palestine.' Deemed not interesting enough
by editorial staff.
I don't get a print edition of NYT; but your complaint seems
to be that eight people getting various degrees of burns did
not get enough attention, despite it being on every news
outlet. It looks to me like NYT has since done many articles
on the incident and its implications. Are you trying to say
NYT does sufficiently protest antisemitism?
And BTW, what happened was despicable. As you know, I'm
firmly against attempts to harm or kill groups of innocent
people. But "immolation of live US citizens" is more than a
little exaggerated. It usually means burning to death. I
gather only one person out of the eight was seriously burned.
There's no excuse for the attack, but you can slightly relax
your grip on your own pearls!
On 6/3/2025 8:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 07:59:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/3/2025 3:31 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 01:57:37 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> >>>> wrote:
In article <101i16r$2ados$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I believe he's referring to ID/arrest errors. They have happened. They >>>>>> are few. They been well publicized.
The ones you know of, anyway.
One of the reason that due process is so important for everyone is so >>>>> the government can't just point its finger at *you*, say "MS-13", and >>>>> put you on a plane to a foreign prison from which they have no power to >>>>> remove you.
Why would they do that? Maybe you're here illegally and have a tattoo. >>>>> Or maybe you just said something someone didn't like and "oops" you're >>>>> gone. "Our mistake, sorry. No, we can't bring him home. So sorry about >>>>> that."
but administrative remedies are established.
Unless you're in a Salvadorian prison, in which case they aren't.
Franklin said he'd rather see 100 criminals go free before one innocent >>>>> person was incarcerated. That's the level of care we should be taking. >>>>>
IMHO.
I believe that is the current "level of care." I haven't seen anyone
sent to the Salvadorian prison who doesn't belong there.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
There was a false statement inserted into a filing in re
Kilmar Abrego Garcia that he had been deported in error. The
Justice Department employee who added that was fired the
next morning and the filing emended, but not before many
reports and the clutching of pearls. That breathless
reportage, false though it may be, persists.
That is not a civil rights problem. It's a problem of
disinformation and propaganda. As Monday morning's NYT for
example, whose front page did not cover the immolation of
live US citizens, including a Holocaust survivor, in Boulder
by an illegal jihadi screaming 'free palestine.' Deemed not
interesting enough by editorial staff.
https://forward.com/news/724924/boulder-firebomb-attack-antisemitism/
They did give front page placement to the false report of 40
arabs shot dead in Gaza by IDF, which in fact did not
happen. That false report was all over the radio yesterday
as well (I do not own a television) despite multiple
immediate corrections by people who were there, including video.
https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/06/02/false-reporting-ghf-counters-widespread-media-claims-of-israeli-attack-on-palestinians-seeking-aid-in-gaza/
Sadly, just as Ms Palin never said anything remotely like,
"I can see Russia from my house", the skewing of perception
continues in this as in all things, with great success.
I'm beginning to wonder how safe it is for me to wander around in my
"I STAND WITH ISRAEL" SHIRT, like I did yesterday.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
25 years ago, at the second intifada, I put a 5x8 inch
Israeli mogen on my shop front door. The glass was promptly
smashed that evening and several times after, cracks
radiating from the flag each time.
And not only random pedestrians: >http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/NAZI.JPG
On 6/3/2025 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
There was a false statement inserted into a filing in re Kilmar Abrego
Garcia that he had been deported in error. The Justice Department
employee who added that was fired the next morning and the filing
emended...
Got a citation or other evidence for that claim? And what did the courts
say about this issue? And where is Mr. Garcia now?
As Monday morning's NYT for example, whose front page did
not cover the immolation of live US citizens, including a Holocaust
survivor, in Boulder by an illegal jihadi screaming 'free palestine.'
Deemed not interesting enough by editorial staff.
I don't get a print edition of NYT; but your complaint seems to be that
eight people getting various degrees of burns did not get enough
attention, despite it being on every news outlet. It looks to me like
NYT has since done many articles on the incident and its implications.
Are you trying to say NYT does sufficiently protest antisemitism?
And BTW, what happened was despicable. As you know, I'm firmly against >attempts to harm or kill groups of innocent people. But "immolation of
live US citizens" is more than a little exaggerated. It usually means
burning to death. I gather only one person out of the eight was
seriously burned.
There's no excuse for the attack, but you can slightly relax your grip
on your own pearls!
On 6/3/2025 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
There was a false statement inserted into a filing in re Kilmar Abrego
Garcia that he had been deported in error. The Justice Department
employee who added that was fired the next morning and the filing
emended...
Got a citation or other evidence for that claim? And what did the courts
say about this issue? And where is Mr. Garcia now?
As Monday morning's NYT for example, whose front page did not cover
the immolation of live US citizens, including a Holocaust survivor, in
Boulder by an illegal jihadi screaming 'free palestine.' Deemed not
interesting enough by editorial staff.
I don't get a print edition of NYT; but your complaint seems to be that
eight people getting various degrees of burns did not get enough
attention, despite it being on every news outlet. It looks to me like
NYT has since done many articles on the incident and its implications.
Are you trying to say NYT does sufficiently protest antisemitism?
And BTW, what happened was despicable. As you know, I'm firmly against attempts to harm or kill groups of innocent people. But "immolation of
live US citizens" is more than a little exaggerated. It usually means
burning to death. I gather only one person out of the eight was
seriously burned.
There's no excuse for the attack, but you can slightly relax your grip
on your own pearls!
On 6/3/2025 11:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/3/2025 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
There was a false statement inserted into a filing in re Kilmar Abrego
Garcia that he had been deported in error. The Justice Department
employee who added that was fired the next morning and the filing
emended...
Got a citation or other evidence for that claim? And what did the courts
say about this issue? And where is Mr. Garcia now?
Right, The government narrative kept changing, coming up with different >excuses, right down to trump retweeting a photo shopped (fake) image of
Mr. Garcia with gang tattoos. Once they were unable to convince anyone
with any brains that he had no criminal past, they brought out a
domestic abuse complaint from ten years ago - complete bullshit as well.
As Monday morning's NYT for example, whose front page did not cover
the immolation of live US citizens, including a Holocaust survivor, in
Boulder by an illegal jihadi screaming 'free palestine.' Deemed not
interesting enough by editorial staff.
I don't get a print edition of NYT; but your complaint seems to be that
eight people getting various degrees of burns did not get enough
attention, despite it being on every news outlet. It looks to me like
NYT has since done many articles on the incident and its implications.
Are you trying to say NYT does sufficiently protest antisemitism?
And BTW, what happened was despicable. As you know, I'm firmly against
attempts to harm or kill groups of innocent people. But "immolation of
live US citizens" is more than a little exaggerated. It usually means
burning to death. I gather only one person out of the eight was
seriously burned.
There's no excuse for the attack, but you can slightly relax your grip
on your own pearls!
On 6/3/2025 11:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/3/2025 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
There was a false statement inserted into a filing in re
Kilmar Abrego Garcia that he had been deported in error.
The Justice Department employee who added that was fired
the next morning and the filing emended...
Got a citation or other evidence for that claim? And what
did the courts say about this issue? And where is Mr.
Garcia now?
Right, The government narrative kept changing, coming up
with different excuses, right down to trump retweeting a
photo shopped (fake) image of Mr. Garcia with gang tattoos.
Once they were unable to convince anyone with any brains
that he had no criminal past, they brought out a domestic
abuse complaint from ten years ago - complete bullshit as well.
As Monday morning's NYT for example, whose front page did
not cover the immolation of live US citizens, including a
Holocaust survivor, in Boulder by an illegal jihadi
screaming 'free palestine.' Deemed not interesting enough
by editorial staff.
I don't get a print edition of NYT; but your complaint
seems to be that eight people getting various degrees of
burns did not get enough attention, despite it being on
every news outlet. It looks to me like NYT has since done
many articles on the incident and its implications. Are
you trying to say NYT does sufficiently protest antisemitism?
And BTW, what happened was despicable. As you know, I'm
firmly against attempts to harm or kill groups of innocent
people. But "immolation of live US citizens" is more than
a little exaggerated. It usually means burning to death. I
gather only one person out of the eight was seriously burned.
There's no excuse for the attack, but you can slightly
relax your grip on your own pearls!
I believe that is the current "level of care."
I haven't seen anyone sent to the Salvadorian prison who doesn't belong >there.
In article <pnct3k1grlt8flup51ass2pgtactgkfnrd@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I believe that is the current "level of care."
That level of care requires judicial oversight that we are not currently >maintaining, so it's not the current level.
I haven't seen anyone sent to the Salvadorian prison who doesn't belong >>there.
When it comes to the Constitution, what matters is what the courts have
seen, not what you or I have seen.
What's the rush? You have the guy in custody--he's not a threat. Give
him a hearing. Maybe during the hearing you'll find that it was illegal
for you to deport him to El Salvador *before* you do it, and you can
deport him, legally, to a different country.
There are thousand of illegals. It would take years and $$$$$ to
process them all through the courts... and besides, it's not
necessary.
In article <o1ru3kl764qpqjn2g921laptlm89n6u571@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
There are thousand of illegals. It would take years and $$$$$ to
process them all through the courts... and besides, it's not
necessary.
I sincerely hope for your sake you never have the finger pointed at you >through administrative error.
On 6/3/2025 5:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 22:10:14 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <o1ru3kl764qpqjn2g921laptlm89n6u571@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
There are thousand of illegals. It would take years and $$$$$ to
process them all through the courts... and besides, it's not
necessary.
I sincerely hope for your sake you never have the finger pointed at you
through administrative error.
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so
you needn't worry.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It's not that. It's the possibility of an error such as I
referenced recently:
https://atlantablackstar.com/2024/09/08/elderly-new-jersey-woman-jailed-for-two-weeks-in-wrongful-arrest-cant-sue-u-s-marshals-court-rules/
IMHO that woman is owed a lot and formal public apologies
all around. But so far nada. (p.s. note dates in that story)
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 22:10:14 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <o1ru3kl764qpqjn2g921laptlm89n6u571@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
There are thousand of illegals. It would take years and $$$$$ to
process them all through the courts... and besides, it's not
necessary.
I sincerely hope for your sake you never have the finger pointed at you
through administrative error.
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so
you needn't worry.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so
you needn't worry.
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:37:18 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/3/2025 5:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 22:10:14 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <o1ru3kl764qpqjn2g921laptlm89n6u571@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
There are thousand of illegals. It would take years and $$$$$ to
process them all through the courts... and besides, it's not
necessary.
I sincerely hope for your sake you never have the finger pointed at you >>>> through administrative error.
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so
you needn't worry.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It's not that. It's the possibility of an error such as I
referenced recently:
https://atlantablackstar.com/2024/09/08/elderly-new-jersey-woman-jailed-for-two-weeks-in-wrongful-arrest-cant-sue-u-s-marshals-court-rules/
IMHO that woman is owed a lot and formal public apologies
all around. But so far nada. (p.s. note dates in that story)
I hope she get's big bucks and the people behind the arrest loose
their jobs and their pensions. Mistakes have occurred in all areas of
law enforcement.... but still, we cannot process all the illegals
through the court systems. In the mean time, I'm not going to worry
about being misidentified and sent to prison any more than I worry
about getting hit with a meteorite
--
C'est bon
Soloman
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so
you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed any
crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the country >illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the
country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that you
get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to
waive this right.
On 6/3/2025 7:02 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:37:18 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/3/2025 5:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 22:10:14 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> >>>> wrote:
In article <o1ru3kl764qpqjn2g921laptlm89n6u571@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
There are thousand of illegals. It would take years and $$$$$ to
process them all through the courts... and besides, it's not
necessary.
I sincerely hope for your sake you never have the finger pointed at you >>>>> through administrative error.
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so
you needn't worry.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It's not that. It's the possibility of an error such as I
referenced recently:
https://atlantablackstar.com/2024/09/08/elderly-new-jersey-woman-jailed-for-two-weeks-in-wrongful-arrest-cant-sue-u-s-marshals-court-rules/
IMHO that woman is owed a lot and formal public apologies
all around. But so far nada. (p.s. note dates in that story)
I hope she get's big bucks and the people behind the arrest loose
their jobs and their pensions. Mistakes have occurred in all areas of
law enforcement.... but still, we cannot process all the illegals
through the court systems. In the mean time, I'm not going to worry
about being misidentified and sent to prison any more than I worry
about getting hit with a meteorite
--
C'est bon
Soloman
OK that's reasonable, but Mr Jorgensen has a point.
She's not an one-off. There are a couple dozen of those
every year. Every year.
Suing for false arrest and then for damages is a dicey
process depending on jurisdiction and the personalities
involved.
The Statutes are clear about illegal alien criminals. Then
again, the laws are very clear about US citizens' civil
rights too...
On 6/3/2025 12:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2025 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/3/2025 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
There was a false statement inserted into a filing in re Kilmar
Abrego Garcia that he had been deported in error. The Justice
Department employee who added that was fired the next morning and the
filing emended...
Got a citation or other evidence for that claim? And what did the
courts say about this issue? And where is Mr. Garcia now?
As Monday morning's NYT for example, whose front page did not cover
the immolation of live US citizens, including a Holocaust survivor,
in Boulder by an illegal jihadi screaming 'free palestine.' Deemed
not interesting enough by editorial staff.
I don't get a print edition of NYT; but your complaint seems to be
that eight people getting various degrees of burns did not get enough
attention, despite it being on every news outlet. It looks to me like
NYT has since done many articles on the incident and its implications.
Are you trying to say NYT does sufficiently protest antisemitism?
And BTW, what happened was despicable. As you know, I'm firmly against
attempts to harm or kill groups of innocent people. But "immolation of
live US citizens" is more than a little exaggerated. It usually means
burning to death. I gather only one person out of the eight was
seriously burned.
There's no excuse for the attack, but you can slightly relax your grip
on your own pearls!
Airlifted to regional burn center is more serious than any burn I've
ever suffered. HIPA once again interferes with the details but here's
the expert:
https://kdvr.com/news/local/burn-surgeon-speaks-on-boulder-terror-
attack-victims-recovery-while-few-still-remain-in-hospital/
Six of the 12 victims were not bandaged and discharged. They remain at
the burn center. These are serious injuries.
Serious injuries? Yes, and I wouldn't want them. Immolation? No, not by >definition. And your article, while related, is devoid of actual
information about the seriousness of the burns.
I'd be happy with the following edit of your statement: "... whose front
page did not cover the serious burn injuries of a few U.S. citizens ..."
On 6/3/2025 3:10 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/3/2025 11:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:At his previous 2019 hearing, after his deportation order, the removal
On 6/3/2025 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
There was a false statement inserted into a filing in re Kilmar
Abrego Garcia that he had been deported in error. The Justice
Department employee who added that was fired the next morning and
the filing emended...
Got a citation or other evidence for that claim? And what did the
courts say about this issue? And where is Mr. Garcia now?
Right, The government narrative kept changing, coming up with
different excuses, right down to trump retweeting a photo shopped
(fake) image of Mr. Garcia with gang tattoos. Once they were unable to
convince anyone with any brains that he had no criminal past, they
brought out a domestic abuse complaint from ten years ago - complete
bullshit as well.
As Monday morning's NYT for example, whose front page did not cover
the immolation of live US citizens, including a Holocaust survivor,
in Boulder by an illegal jihadi screaming 'free palestine.' Deemed
not interesting enough by editorial staff.
I don't get a print edition of NYT; but your complaint seems to be
that eight people getting various degrees of burns did not get enough
attention, despite it being on every news outlet. It looks to me like
NYT has since done many articles on the incident and its
implications. Are you trying to say NYT does sufficiently protest
antisemitism?
And BTW, what happened was despicable. As you know, I'm firmly
against attempts to harm or kill groups of innocent people. But
"immolation of live US citizens" is more than a little exaggerated.
It usually means burning to death. I gather only one person out of
the eight was seriously burned.
There's no excuse for the attack, but you can slightly relax your
grip on your own pearls!
was stayed as the judge found that his MS-13 gang membership put him at
risk in his old neighborhood controlled by a competing gang.
(details are messy as he had lived both in El Salvador and in Guatemala)
https://tennesseestar.com/news/immigration-judges-2019-order-found- kilmar-abrego-garcia-subject-to-removal-by-deportation-but-granted- withholding-of-removal-to-guatemala-though-referencing-el-salvador/ tpappert/2025/04/22/
The prior administration also denied assistance to Tennessee State
Patrol in 2022 when they stopped him in the car of a known trafficker
with a load of smuggled illegals while speeding with no valid license.
FBI directed TSP to not detain him.
https://tennesseestar.com/justice/tennessee-highway-patrol-confirms- biden-era-fbi-told-officers-to-release-kilmar-abrego-garcia-during-2022- traffic-stop-despite-speeding-and-license-violations-to/
tpappert/2025/04/17/
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so
you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed any
crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the country
illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the
country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that you
get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to
waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so
you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed any
crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the country >>> illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the
country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that you
get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to
waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a hearing to verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
On 6/4/2025 5:23 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so >>>>> you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed any
crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the country >>>> illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the
country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that you
get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to
waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a hearing to
verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
He should, but he doesn't. He believes - under the current
administration - that onus probandi is on the defendant. With regards to
this administration and their cult of followers, it's now "guilty until >proven innocent", with the caveat that they'll be shipped out of the
country before they have a chance to prove it.
Once a democrat is back in the oval office, he'll change his opinion and >accuse them of gestapo tactics.
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so
you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed any
crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the country >>> illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the
country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that you
get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to
waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a hearing to >verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
kilmar-abrego-garciaOn Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:27:52 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 11:52 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:23:34 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> >>>> wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so >>>>>> you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed any >>>>> crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the country >>>>> illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the
country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that you >>>>> get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to >>>>> waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a hearing to >>> verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
No
So you claim to be a US citizen, the government claim you're not.
Should you get a hearing or should the government deport you without a >hearing?
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:23:34 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so >>>>> you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed any
crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the country >>>> illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the
country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that you
get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to
waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a hearing to
verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
No
In article <pnct3k1grlt8flup51ass2pgtactgkfnrd@4ax.com>,
floriduh dumbass <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I haven't seen anyone sent to the Salvadorian prison who doesn't belong
there.
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 19:20:36 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/3/2025 7:02 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:37:18 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/3/2025 5:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 22:10:14 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> >>>>> wrote:
In article <o1ru3kl764qpqjn2g921laptlm89n6u571@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
There are thousand of illegals. It would take years and $$$$$ to >>>>>>> process them all through the courts... and besides, it's not
necessary.
I sincerely hope for your sake you never have the finger pointed at you >>>>>> through administrative error.
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so >>>>> you needn't worry.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It's not that. It's the possibility of an error such as I
referenced recently:
https://atlantablackstar.com/2024/09/08/elderly-new-jersey-woman-jailed-for-two-weeks-in-wrongful-arrest-cant-sue-u-s-marshals-court-rules/
IMHO that woman is owed a lot and formal public apologies
all around. But so far nada. (p.s. note dates in that story)
I hope she get's big bucks and the people behind the arrest loose
their jobs and their pensions. Mistakes have occurred in all areas of
law enforcement.... but still, we cannot process all the illegals
through the court systems. In the mean time, I'm not going to worry
about being misidentified and sent to prison any more than I worry
about getting hit with a meteorite
--
C'est bon
Soloman
OK that's reasonable, but Mr Jorgensen has a point.
She's not an one-off. There are a couple dozen of those
every year. Every year.
Suing for false arrest and then for damages is a dicey
process depending on jurisdiction and the personalities
involved.
The Statutes are clear about illegal alien criminals. Then
again, the laws are very clear about US citizens' civil
rights too...
Mr Jorgensen seems to want each illegal to get a hearing. That's not a workable solution.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/3/2025 12:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2025 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/3/2025 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
There was a false statement inserted into a filing in re
Kilmar Abrego Garcia that he had been deported in error.
The Justice Department employee who added that was fired
the next morning and the filing emended...
Got a citation or other evidence for that claim? And what
did the courts say about this issue? And where is Mr.
Garcia now?
As Monday morning's NYT for example, whose front page
did not cover the immolation of live US citizens,
including a Holocaust survivor, in Boulder by an illegal
jihadi screaming 'free palestine.' Deemed not
interesting enough by editorial staff.
I don't get a print edition of NYT; but your complaint
seems to be that eight people getting various degrees of
burns did not get enough attention, despite it being on
every news outlet. It looks to me like NYT has since done
many articles on the incident and its implications. Are
you trying to say NYT does sufficiently protest
antisemitism?
And BTW, what happened was despicable. As you know, I'm
firmly against attempts to harm or kill groups of
innocent people. But "immolation of live US citizens" is
more than a little exaggerated. It usually means burning
to death. I gather only one person out of the eight was
seriously burned.
There's no excuse for the attack, but you can slightly
relax your grip on your own pearls!
Airlifted to regional burn center is more serious than any
burn I've ever suffered. HIPA once again interferes with
the details but here's the expert:
https://kdvr.com/news/local/burn-surgeon-speaks-on-
boulder-terror- attack-victims-recovery-while-few-still-
remain-in-hospital/
Six of the 12 victims were not bandaged and discharged.
They remain at the burn center. These are serious injuries.
Serious injuries? Yes, and I wouldn't want them. Immolation?
No, not by definition. And your article, while related, is
devoid of actual information about the seriousness of the
burns.
I'd be happy with the following edit of your statement: "...
whose front page did not cover the serious burn injuries of
a few U.S. citizens ..."
On 6/3/2025 5:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2025 3:10 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:Uncorroborated allegations.."sources said"...."two
On 6/3/2025 11:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:At his previous 2019 hearing, after his deportation order,
On 6/3/2025 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
There was a false statement inserted into a filing in
re Kilmar Abrego Garcia that he had been deported in
error. The Justice Department employee who added that
was fired the next morning and the filing emended...
Got a citation or other evidence for that claim? And
what did the courts say about this issue? And where is
Mr. Garcia now?
Right, The government narrative kept changing, coming up
with different excuses, right down to trump retweeting a
photo shopped (fake) image of Mr. Garcia with gang
tattoos. Once they were unable to convince anyone with
any brains that he had no criminal past, they brought out
a domestic abuse complaint from ten years ago - complete
bullshit as well.
As Monday morning's NYT for example, whose front page
did not cover the immolation of live US citizens,
including a Holocaust survivor, in Boulder by an
illegal jihadi screaming 'free palestine.' Deemed not
interesting enough by editorial staff.
I don't get a print edition of NYT; but your complaint
seems to be that eight people getting various degrees of
burns did not get enough attention, despite it being on
every news outlet. It looks to me like NYT has since
done many articles on the incident and its implications.
Are you trying to say NYT does sufficiently protest
antisemitism?
And BTW, what happened was despicable. As you know, I'm
firmly against attempts to harm or kill groups of
innocent people. But "immolation of live US citizens" is
more than a little exaggerated. It usually means burning
to death. I gather only one person out of the eight was
seriously burned.
There's no excuse for the attack, but you can slightly
relax your grip on your own pearls!
the removal was stayed as the judge found that his MS-13
gang membership put him at risk in his old neighborhood
controlled by a competing gang.
(details are messy as he had lived both in El Salvador and
in Guatemala)
https://tennesseestar.com/news/immigration-judges-2019-
order-found- kilmar-abrego-garcia-subject-to-removal-by-
deportation-but-granted- withholding-of-removal-to-
guatemala-though-referencing-el-salvador/
tpappert/2025/04/22/
The prior administration also denied assistance to
Tennessee State Patrol in 2022 when they stopped him in
the car of a known trafficker with a load of smuggled
illegals while speeding with no valid license. FBI
directed TSP to not detain him.
https://tennesseestar.com/justice/tennessee-highway-
patrol-confirms- biden-era-fbi-told-officers-to-release-
kilmar-abrego-garcia-during-2022- traffic-stop-despite-
speeding-and-license-violations-to/ tpappert/2025/04/17/
(unnamed) judges determined he is likely to be a member of
the Central American gang, Mara Salvatrucha"....iow, more
trump ICE/DOJ lies to cover their assess.
Odd how two people can watch a video of an old lady rolling
in pain under flames and see different things. YMMV.
kilmar-abrego-garciaOn Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:27:52 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 11:52 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:23:34 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> >>>>> wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so >>>>>>> you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed any >>>>>> crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the country >>>>>> illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the >>>>>> country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that you >>>>>> get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to >>>>>> waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a hearing to >>>> verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
No
So you claim to be a US citizen, the government claim you're not.
Should you get a hearing or should the government deport you without a
hearing?
Good grief... I'm not going to respond to your hypothetical question
about something that's not going to happen.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
https://catholicvote.org/new-anti-catholic-fbi-memo-distributed-1000-biden-fbi-employees-before-whistleblower/
On 6/4/2025 5:23 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed
any crimes, so
you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have
committed any
crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say*
you're in the country
illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you
are in the
country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the
fact that you
get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to
be willing to
waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should
get a hearing to verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
He should, but he doesn't. He believes - under the current
administration - that onus probandi is on the defendant.
With regards to this administration and their cult of
followers, it's now "guilty until proven innocent", with the
caveat that they'll be shipped out of the country before
they have a chance to prove it.
Once a democrat is back in the oval office, he'll change his
opinion and accuse them of gestapo tactics.
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:23:34 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so >>>>> you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed any
crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the country >>>> illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the
country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that you
get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to
waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a hearing to
verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
No
--
C'est bon
Soloman
kilmar-abrego-garciaOn Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:59:07 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/4/2025 6:43 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
kilmar-abrego-garciaOn Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:27:52 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 11:52 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:23:34 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> >>>> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> >>>>>> wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so >>>>>>>> you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed any >>>>>>> crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the country
illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the >>>>>>> country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that you >>>>>>> get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to >>>>>>> waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a hearing to >>>>> verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
No
So you claim to be a US citizen, the government claim you're not.
Should you get a hearing or should the government deport you without a
hearing?
Good grief... I'm not going to respond to your hypothetical question
about something that's not going to happen.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
All sorts of things happen.
https://www.audacy.com/wbbm780/news/local/51st-murder-case-tied-to-former-cpd-detective-overturned
I can't see a policy answer to inherent errors in any large
set with high stakes for the (guilty or innocent)
individual. We do our best. And fail regularly.
On 6/4/2025 9:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://catholicvote.org/new-anti-catholic-fbi-memo-
distributed-1000- biden-fbi-employees-before-whistleblower/
That's a remarkably unspecific article. There were no
details for "gathering information about Catholic
traditionalist groups" etc. It seems odd that the FBI would
suddenly be paranoid about religious people who espouse
conservative family values.
Most important, there was no specific evidence about exactly
what the horrible memo said, nor any actual harm that was done.
And I'll note that CatholicVote.org is not actually
connected with the Catholic church. Looks like yet another
right wing political organization drumming up outrage.
On 6/4/2025 4:52 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:23:34 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> >>>> wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so >>>>>> you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed any >>>>> crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the country >>>>> illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the
country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that you >>>>> get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to >>>>> waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a hearing to >>> verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
No
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That's a deeper more serious question than it may at first
appear.
Check out the first paragraphs here for example:
https://nypost.com/2025/06/04/us-news/famed-lawyer-alan-dershowitz-publishes-his-magnum-opus-but-fears-people-wont-read-it-for-this-reason/
Theres no free lunch, and every time we act to prevent
great harms, we take away a little liberty. Theres no doubt
about that. Theres always going to be a trade-off. And the
key is to make the trade-off based on principles. And its
OK, as I say in the book, to give up a little inessential
liberty to gain a lot of security but not to give up basic
liberties to gain a small amount of security. We do too much
of the latter and not enough of the former. And so what Ive
tried to do is create a jurisprudence which weighs when its
proper and when its not proper to take preventive actions
and erring always on the side of liberty rather than
security but giving weight to security.
This is an inherent and perpetual conflict.
On 6/4/2025 11:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2025 9:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://catholicvote.org/new-anti-catholic-fbi-memo-
distributed-1000- biden-fbi-employees-before-whistleblower/
That's a remarkably unspecific article. There were no
details for "gathering information about Catholic
traditionalist groups" etc. It seems odd that the FBI would
suddenly be paranoid about religious people who espouse
conservative family values.
Most important, there was no specific evidence about exactly
what the horrible memo said, nor any actual harm that was done.
And I'll note that CatholicVote.org is not actually
connected with the Catholic church. Looks like yet another
right wing political organization drumming up outrage.
A bit more on that here:
https://www.wmal.com/2025/06/04/fbi-targeting-of-catholics-was-bigger-than-biden-officials-acknowledged/
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:29:40 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/4/2025 11:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2025 9:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://catholicvote.org/new-anti-catholic-fbi-memo-
distributed-1000- biden-fbi-employees-before-whistleblower/
That's a remarkably unspecific article. There were no
details for "gathering information about Catholic
traditionalist groups" etc. It seems odd that the FBI would
suddenly be paranoid about religious people who espouse
conservative family values.
Most important, there was no specific evidence about exactly
what the horrible memo said, nor any actual harm that was done.
And I'll note that CatholicVote.org is not actually
connected with the Catholic church. Looks like yet another
right wing political organization drumming up outrage.
A bit more on that here:
https://www.wmal.com/2025/06/04/fbi-targeting-of-catholics-was-bigger-than-biden-officials-acknowledged/
What's a "Radical Traditionalist Catholic?"
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/4/2025 11:46 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:29:40 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/4/2025 11:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2025 9:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://catholicvote.org/new-anti-catholic-fbi-memo-
distributed-1000- biden-fbi-employees-before-whistleblower/
That's a remarkably unspecific article. There were no
details for "gathering information about Catholic
traditionalist groups" etc. It seems odd that the FBI would
suddenly be paranoid about religious people who espouse
conservative family values.
Most important, there was no specific evidence about exactly
what the horrible memo said, nor any actual harm that was done.
And I'll note that CatholicVote.org is not actually
connected with the Catholic church. Looks like yet another
right wing political organization drumming up outrage.
A bit more on that here:
https://www.wmal.com/2025/06/04/fbi-targeting-of-catholics-was-bigger-than-biden-officials-acknowledged/
What's a "Radical Traditionalist Catholic?"
--
C'est bon
Soloman
My sister in law, who drives quite a distance to Latin Mass.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Good grief... I'm not going to respond to your hypothetical question
about something that's not going to happen.
On 6/4/2025 4:30 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/3/2025 5:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2025 3:10 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:Uncorroborated allegations.."sources said"...."two (unnamed) judges
On 6/3/2025 11:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:At his previous 2019 hearing, after his deportation order, the
On 6/3/2025 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
There was a false statement inserted into a filing in re Kilmar
Abrego Garcia that he had been deported in error. The Justice
Department employee who added that was fired the next morning and
the filing emended...
Got a citation or other evidence for that claim? And what did the
courts say about this issue? And where is Mr. Garcia now?
Right, The government narrative kept changing, coming up with
different excuses, right down to trump retweeting a photo shopped
(fake) image of Mr. Garcia with gang tattoos. Once they were unable
to convince anyone with any brains that he had no criminal past,
they brought out a domestic abuse complaint from ten years ago -
complete bullshit as well.
As Monday morning's NYT for example, whose front page did not
cover the immolation of live US citizens, including a Holocaust
survivor, in Boulder by an illegal jihadi screaming 'free
palestine.' Deemed not interesting enough by editorial staff.
I don't get a print edition of NYT; but your complaint seems to be
that eight people getting various degrees of burns did not get
enough attention, despite it being on every news outlet. It looks
to me like NYT has since done many articles on the incident and its
implications. Are you trying to say NYT does sufficiently protest
antisemitism?
And BTW, what happened was despicable. As you know, I'm firmly
against attempts to harm or kill groups of innocent people. But
"immolation of live US citizens" is more than a little exaggerated.
It usually means burning to death. I gather only one person out of
the eight was seriously burned.
There's no excuse for the attack, but you can slightly relax your
grip on your own pearls!
removal was stayed as the judge found that his MS-13 gang membership
put him at risk in his old neighborhood controlled by a competing gang.
(details are messy as he had lived both in El Salvador and in Guatemala) >>>
https://tennesseestar.com/news/immigration-judges-2019- order-found-
kilmar-abrego-garcia-subject-to-removal-by- deportation-but-granted-
withholding-of-removal-to- guatemala-though-referencing-el-salvador/
tpappert/2025/04/22/
The prior administration also denied assistance to Tennessee State
Patrol in 2022 when they stopped him in the car of a known trafficker
with a load of smuggled illegals while speeding with no valid
license. FBI directed TSP to not detain him.
https://tennesseestar.com/justice/tennessee-highway- patrol-confirms-
biden-era-fbi-told-officers-to-release- kilmar-abrego-garcia-
during-2022- traffic-stop-despite- speeding-and-license-violations-
to/ tpappert/2025/04/17/
determined he is likely to be a member of the Central American gang,
Mara Salvatrucha"....iow, more trump ICE/DOJ lies to cover their assess.
The judge who, in 2019, stayed deportation to Guatemala _due to his gang affiliation_ wrote his decision. It was not appealed.
In article <tsb04kl6rvdr08rr6i0gaqs5kchg93ako7@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Good grief... I'm not going to respond to your hypothetical question >>about something that's not going to happen.
These two things have already happened:
* U.S. citizens have been arrested by ICE under the pretense that they
were illegal.
* People have been deported before getting a proper hearing.
So the hypothetical isn't far fetched. We're looking at it.
On 6/4/2025 9:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 4:30 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/3/2025 5:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2025 3:10 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:Uncorroborated allegations.."sources said"...."two
On 6/3/2025 11:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:At his previous 2019 hearing, after his deportation
On 6/3/2025 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
There was a false statement inserted into a filing in
re Kilmar Abrego Garcia that he had been deported in
error. The Justice Department employee who added that
was fired the next morning and the filing emended...
Got a citation or other evidence for that claim? And
what did the courts say about this issue? And where is
Mr. Garcia now?
Right, The government narrative kept changing, coming
up with different excuses, right down to trump
retweeting a photo shopped (fake) image of Mr. Garcia
with gang tattoos. Once they were unable to convince
anyone with any brains that he had no criminal past,
they brought out a domestic abuse complaint from ten
years ago - complete bullshit as well.
As Monday morning's NYT for example, whose front page
did not cover the immolation of live US citizens,
including a Holocaust survivor, in Boulder by an
illegal jihadi screaming 'free palestine.' Deemed not
interesting enough by editorial staff.
I don't get a print edition of NYT; but your complaint
seems to be that eight people getting various degrees
of burns did not get enough attention, despite it
being on every news outlet. It looks to me like NYT
has since done many articles on the incident and its
implications. Are you trying to say NYT does
sufficiently protest antisemitism?
And BTW, what happened was despicable. As you know,
I'm firmly against attempts to harm or kill groups of
innocent people. But "immolation of live US citizens"
is more than a little exaggerated. It usually means
burning to death. I gather only one person out of the
eight was seriously burned.
There's no excuse for the attack, but you can slightly
relax your grip on your own pearls!
order, the removal was stayed as the judge found that
his MS-13 gang membership put him at risk in his old
neighborhood controlled by a competing gang.
(details are messy as he had lived both in El Salvador
and in Guatemala)
https://tennesseestar.com/news/immigration-judges-2019-
order-found- kilmar-abrego-garcia-subject-to-removal-by-
deportation-but-granted- withholding-of-removal-to-
guatemala-though-referencing-el-salvador/
tpappert/2025/04/22/
The prior administration also denied assistance to
Tennessee State Patrol in 2022 when they stopped him in
the car of a known trafficker with a load of smuggled
illegals while speeding with no valid license. FBI
directed TSP to not detain him.
https://tennesseestar.com/justice/tennessee-highway-
patrol-confirms- biden-era-fbi-told-officers-to-release-
kilmar-abrego-garcia- during-2022- traffic-stop-despite-
speeding-and-license-violations- to/ tpappert/2025/04/17/
(unnamed) judges determined he is likely to be a member
of the Central American gang, Mara Salvatrucha"....iow,
more trump ICE/DOJ lies to cover their assess.
The judge who, in 2019, stayed deportation to Guatemala
_due to his gang affiliation_ wrote his decision. It was
not appealed.
Got a link? I couldn't find anything except trump DOJ heresay.
On 6/4/2025 2:53 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/4/2025 9:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 4:30 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/3/2025 5:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2025 3:10 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:Uncorroborated allegations.."sources said"...."two (unnamed)
On 6/3/2025 11:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:At his previous 2019 hearing, after his deportation order, the
On 6/3/2025 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
There was a false statement inserted into a filing in re Kilmar >>>>>>>> Abrego Garcia that he had been deported in error. The Justice
Department employee who added that was fired the next morning
and the filing emended...
Got a citation or other evidence for that claim? And what did the >>>>>>> courts say about this issue? And where is Mr. Garcia now?
Right, The government narrative kept changing, coming up with
different excuses, right down to trump retweeting a photo shopped
(fake) image of Mr. Garcia with gang tattoos. Once they were
unable to convince anyone with any brains that he had no criminal
past, they brought out a domestic abuse complaint from ten years
ago - complete bullshit as well.
As Monday morning's NYT for example, whose front page did not
cover the immolation of live US citizens, including a Holocaust >>>>>>>> survivor, in Boulder by an illegal jihadi screaming 'free
palestine.' Deemed not interesting enough by editorial staff.
I don't get a print edition of NYT; but your complaint seems to
be that eight people getting various degrees of burns did not get >>>>>>> enough attention, despite it being on every news outlet. It looks >>>>>>> to me like NYT has since done many articles on the incident and
its implications. Are you trying to say NYT does sufficiently
protest antisemitism?
And BTW, what happened was despicable. As you know, I'm firmly
against attempts to harm or kill groups of innocent people. But
"immolation of live US citizens" is more than a little
exaggerated. It usually means burning to death. I gather only one >>>>>>> person out of the eight was seriously burned.
There's no excuse for the attack, but you can slightly relax your >>>>>>> grip on your own pearls!
removal was stayed as the judge found that his MS-13 gang
membership put him at risk in his old neighborhood controlled by a
competing gang.
(details are messy as he had lived both in El Salvador and in
Guatemala)
https://tennesseestar.com/news/immigration-judges-2019- order-
found- kilmar-abrego-garcia-subject-to-removal-by- deportation-but-
granted- withholding-of-removal-to- guatemala-though-referencing-
el-salvador/ tpappert/2025/04/22/
The prior administration also denied assistance to Tennessee State
Patrol in 2022 when they stopped him in the car of a known
trafficker with a load of smuggled illegals while speeding with no
valid license. FBI directed TSP to not detain him.
https://tennesseestar.com/justice/tennessee-highway- patrol-
confirms- biden-era-fbi-told-officers-to-release- kilmar-abrego-
garcia- during-2022- traffic-stop-despite- speeding-and-license-
violations- to/ tpappert/2025/04/17/
judges determined he is likely to be a member of the Central
American gang, Mara Salvatrucha"....iow, more trump ICE/DOJ lies to
cover their assess.
The judge who, in 2019, stayed deportation to Guatemala _due to his
gang affiliation_ wrote his decision. It was not appealed.
Got a link? I couldn't find anything except trump DOJ heresay.
Cited above, it's in the header of the first link, "granted withholding
of removal to guatemala though referencing el salvador"
On 6/4/2025 3:29 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 19:20:36 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/3/2025 7:02 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:37:18 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/3/2025 5:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 22:10:14 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <o1ru3kl764qpqjn2g921laptlm89n6u571@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
There are thousand of illegals. It would take years and $$$$$ to >>>>>>>> process them all through the courts... and besides, it's not
necessary.
I sincerely hope for your sake you never have the finger pointed >>>>>>> at you
through administrative error.
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so >>>>>> you needn't worry.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It's not that. It's the possibility of an error such as I
referenced recently:
https://atlantablackstar.com/2024/09/08/elderly-new-jersey-woman-
jailed-for-two-weeks-in-wrongful-arrest-cant-sue-u-s-marshals-
court-rules/
IMHO that woman is owed a lot and formal public apologies
all around. But so far nada. (p.s. note dates in that story)
I hope she get's big bucks and the people behind the arrest loose
their jobs and their pensions. Mistakes have occurred in all areas of >>>> law enforcement.... but still, we cannot process all the illegals
through the court systems. In the mean time, I'm not going to worry
about being misidentified and sent to prison any more than I worry
about getting hit with a meteorite
--
C'est bon
Soloman
OK that's reasonable, but Mr Jorgensen has a point.
She's not an one-off. There are a couple dozen of those
every year. Every year.
Suing for false arrest and then for damages is a dicey
process depending on jurisdiction and the personalities
involved.
The Statutes are clear about illegal alien criminals. Then
again, the laws are very clear about US citizens' civil
rights too...
Mr Jorgensen seems to want each illegal to get a hearing. That's not a
workable solution.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Especially since their entry lacked any individual certification or validation, just an intentional abuse of 'humanitarian parole' a few
million at a time, repeatedly.
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/humanitarian_parole
and were released as soon as they documented their citizenship
..and there will be more. Hearings are not necessary.
In article <ap914k9l12i2hfjij8sfujj64ufn7uqtuv@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
and were released as soon as they documented their citizenship
Because they got a hearing. Apparently the hearing is necessary.
..and there will be more. Hearings are not necessary.
So are they necessary for people accused of being non-citizens, or
aren't they?
On 6/4/2025 9:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 3:29 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 19:20:36 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/3/2025 7:02 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:37:18 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>
On 6/3/2025 5:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 22:10:14 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <o1ru3kl764qpqjn2g921laptlm89n6u571@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
There are thousand of illegals. It would take years and $$$$$ to >>>>>>>>> process them all through the courts... and besides, it's not >>>>>>>>> necessary.
I sincerely hope for your sake you never have the finger pointed >>>>>>>> at you
through administrative error.
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so >>>>>>> you needn't worry.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It's not that. It's the possibility of an error such as I
referenced recently:
https://atlantablackstar.com/2024/09/08/elderly-new-jersey-woman-
jailed-for-two-weeks-in-wrongful-arrest-cant-sue-u-s-marshals-
court-rules/
IMHO that woman is owed a lot and formal public apologies
all around. But so far nada. (p.s. note dates in that story)
I hope she get's big bucks and the people behind the arrest loose
their jobs and their pensions. Mistakes have occurred in all areas of >>>>> law enforcement.... but still, we cannot process all the illegals
through the court systems. In the mean time, I'm not going to worry
about being misidentified and sent to prison any more than I worry
about getting hit with a meteorite
--
C'est bon
Soloman
OK that's reasonable, but Mr Jorgensen has a point.
She's not an one-off. There are a couple dozen of those
every year. Every year.
Suing for false arrest and then for damages is a dicey
process depending on jurisdiction and the personalities
involved.
The Statutes are clear about illegal alien criminals. Then
again, the laws are very clear about US citizens' civil
rights too...
Mr Jorgensen seems to want each illegal to get a hearing. That's not a
workable solution.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Especially since their entry lacked any individual certification or
validation, just an intentional abuse of 'humanitarian parole' a few
million at a time, repeatedly.
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/humanitarian_parole
Well gee, maybe if they concentrated on actual criminals rather than:
- soccer moms who have lived under the radar for 20 years, paid taxes,
and were active in their church, >https://www.yahoo.com/news/small-town-rallies-around-soccer-143123445.html
- PhD students who did no more than publish an article critical of their >school >https://apnews.com/article/ozturk-tufts-mahdawi-columbia-students-detained-034d97a7e280c68a7d1fb6aa879ce87c
- honor role high school students whose father was wanted for a misdemeanor >https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/our-life-is-here-father-of-milford-high-school-student-detained-by-ice-breaks-silence/3731289/
"Marcelo is an 18-year-old high school junior who entered the United
States lawfully when he was just barely 7-years old," his attorney,
Robin Nice, said in a statement. "He is deeply rooted in his community >active in his church, a dedicated member of both his high school
marching band and church band, and surrounded by friends, teachers, and >mentors who care deeply about him."
they might have time to give them due process as guaranteed by the >constitution.
But, I guess in magatard world, soccer moms, PhD candidates, and high
school honor students are the worst of the worst, and deserve to be
deported without due process.
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:46:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://catholicvote.org/new-anti-catholic-fbi-memo-distributed-1000-biden-fbi-employees-before-whistleblower/
IMHO, ANY "radical" religious group should be investigated by
the FBI They are usually sociopaths, and as such, dangerous to the
community.
[]'s
On 6/4/2025 12:29 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 11:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2025 9:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://catholicvote.org/new-anti-catholic-fbi-memo-
distributed-1000- biden-fbi-employees-before-whistleblower/
That's a remarkably unspecific article. There were no details for
"gathering information about Catholic traditionalist groups" etc. It
seems odd that the FBI would suddenly be paranoid about religious
people who espouse conservative family values.
Most important, there was no specific evidence about exactly what the
horrible memo said, nor any actual harm that was done.
And I'll note that CatholicVote.org is not actually connected with
the Catholic church. Looks like yet another right wing political
organization drumming up outrage.
A bit more on that here:
https://www.wmal.com/2025/06/04/fbi-targeting-of-catholics-was-bigger-
than-biden-officials-acknowledged/
Sounds to me like a tempest in a teapot.
On 6/4/2025 4:37 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/4/2025 5:23 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> >>>> wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so >>>>>> you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed any >>>>> crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the
country
illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the
country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that you >>>>> get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to >>>>> waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a hearing
to verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
He should, but he doesn't. He believes - under the current
administration - that onus probandi is on the defendant. With regards
to this administration and their cult of followers, it's now "guilty
until proven innocent", with the caveat that they'll be shipped out of
the country before they have a chance to prove it.
Once a democrat is back in the oval office, he'll change his opinion
and accuse them of gestapo tactics.
Been there. Done that.
https://catholicvote.org/new-anti-catholic-fbi-memo-distributed-1000- biden-fbi-employees-before-whistleblower/
On 6/4/2025 5:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 2:53 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/4/2025 9:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 4:30 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/3/2025 5:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2025 3:10 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:Uncorroborated allegations.."sources said"...."two
On 6/3/2025 11:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:At his previous 2019 hearing, after his deportation
On 6/3/2025 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
There was a false statement inserted into a filing
in re Kilmar Abrego Garcia that he had been
deported in error. The Justice Department employee
who added that was fired the next morning and the
filing emended...
Got a citation or other evidence for that claim? And
what did the courts say about this issue? And where
is Mr. Garcia now?
Right, The government narrative kept changing, coming
up with different excuses, right down to trump
retweeting a photo shopped (fake) image of Mr. Garcia
with gang tattoos. Once they were unable to convince
anyone with any brains that he had no criminal past,
they brought out a domestic abuse complaint from ten
years ago - complete bullshit as well.
As Monday morning's NYT for example, whose front
page did not cover the immolation of live US
citizens, including a Holocaust survivor, in
Boulder by an illegal jihadi screaming 'free
palestine.' Deemed not interesting enough by
editorial staff.
I don't get a print edition of NYT; but your
complaint seems to be that eight people getting
various degrees of burns did not get enough
attention, despite it being on every news outlet. It
looks to me like NYT has since done many articles on
the incident and its implications. Are you trying to
say NYT does sufficiently protest antisemitism?
And BTW, what happened was despicable. As you know,
I'm firmly against attempts to harm or kill groups
of innocent people. But "immolation of live US
citizens" is more than a little exaggerated. It
usually means burning to death. I gather only one
person out of the eight was seriously burned.
There's no excuse for the attack, but you can
slightly relax your grip on your own pearls!
order, the removal was stayed as the judge found that
his MS-13 gang membership put him at risk in his old
neighborhood controlled by a competing gang.
(details are messy as he had lived both in El Salvador
and in Guatemala)
https://tennesseestar.com/news/immigration-
judges-2019- order- found- kilmar-abrego-garcia-
subject-to-removal-by- deportation-but- granted-
withholding-of-removal-to- guatemala-though-
referencing- el-salvador/ tpappert/2025/04/22/
The prior administration also denied assistance to
Tennessee State Patrol in 2022 when they stopped him
in the car of a known trafficker with a load of
smuggled illegals while speeding with no valid
license. FBI directed TSP to not detain him.
https://tennesseestar.com/justice/tennessee-highway-
patrol- confirms- biden-era-fbi-told-officers-to-
release- kilmar-abrego- garcia- during-2022- traffic-
stop-despite- speeding-and-license- violations- to/
tpappert/2025/04/17/
(unnamed) judges determined he is likely to be a member
of the Central American gang, Mara Salvatrucha"....iow,
more trump ICE/DOJ lies to cover their assess.
The judge who, in 2019, stayed deportation to Guatemala
_due to his gang affiliation_ wrote his decision. It was
not appealed.
Got a link? I couldn't find anything except trump DOJ
heresay.
Cited above, it's in the header of the first link,
"granted withholding of removal to guatemala though
referencing el salvador"
um...no.
The named judge in that article - Judge David M. Jones -
made absolutely no determination of any gang affiliation.
Judge Jones order is linked in the article so you can read
it yourself. (here for convenience https://drive.google.com/ file/d/1V_yaacfwjS6i02eeCaHoPh64tGvySkVO/)
Regarding any alleged gang affiliation, The link you
provided has no more information than "two [unnamed] judges
determined he is likely to be a member of the Central
American gang, Mara Salvatrucha".
It's heresay, and there has been no evidence produced by
anyone that Mr. Garcia had any gang affiliation. More trump
DOJ bullshit.
On 6/4/2025 9:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 4:37 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/4/2025 5:23 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I
committed any crimes, so
you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or
have committed any
crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say*
you're in the country
illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say
you are in the
country illegally. The only thing protecting you is
the fact that you
get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to
be willing to
waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should
get a hearing to verify whether they are indeed US
citizens?
He should, but he doesn't. He believes - under the
current administration - that onus probandi is on the
defendant. With regards to this administration and their
cult of followers, it's now "guilty until proven
innocent", with the caveat that they'll be shipped out of
the country before they have a chance to prove it.
Once a democrat is back in the oval office, he'll change
his opinion and accuse them of gestapo tactics.
Been there. Done that.
https://catholicvote.org/new-anti-catholic-fbi-memo-
distributed-1000- biden-fbi-employees-before-whistleblower/
Oh you mean this?
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU13/20250225/117924/ HHRG-119-JU13-20250225-SD012-U12.pdf
On 6/4/2025 9:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 3:29 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 19:20:36 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/3/2025 7:02 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:37:18 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/3/2025 5:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 22:10:14 -0000 (UTC), Beej
Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article
<o1ru3kl764qpqjn2g921laptlm89n6u571@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
There are thousand of illegals. It would take years
and $$$$$ to
process them all through the courts... and besides,
it's not
necessary.
I sincerely hope for your sake you never have the
finger pointed at you
through administrative error.
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I
committed any crimes, so
you needn't worry.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It's not that. It's the possibility of an error such as I
referenced recently:
https://atlantablackstar.com/2024/09/08/elderly-new-
jersey-woman- jailed-for-two-weeks-in-wrongful-arrest-
cant-sue-u-s-marshals- court-rules/
IMHO that woman is owed a lot and formal public apologies
all around. But so far nada. (p.s. note dates in that
story)
I hope she get's big bucks and the people behind the
arrest loose
their jobs and their pensions. Mistakes have occurred
in all areas of
law enforcement.... but still, we cannot process all
the illegals
through the court systems. In the mean time, I'm not
going to worry
about being misidentified and sent to prison any more
than I worry
about getting hit with a meteorite
--
C'est bon
Soloman
OK that's reasonable, but Mr Jorgensen has a point.
She's not an one-off. There are a couple dozen of those
every year. Every year.
Suing for false arrest and then for damages is a dicey
process depending on jurisdiction and the personalities
involved.
The Statutes are clear about illegal alien criminals. Then
again, the laws are very clear about US citizens' civil
rights too...
Mr Jorgensen seems to want each illegal to get a hearing.
That's not a
workable solution.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Especially since their entry lacked any individual
certification or validation, just an intentional abuse of
'humanitarian parole' a few million at a time, repeatedly.
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/humanitarian_parole
Well gee, maybe if they concentrated on actual criminals
rather than:
- soccer moms who have lived under the radar for 20 years,
paid taxes, and were active in their church, https://www.yahoo.com/news/small-town-rallies-around-
soccer-143123445.html
- PhD students who did no more than publish an article
critical of their school https://apnews.com/article/ozturk-tufts-mahdawi-columbia- students-detained-034d97a7e280c68a7d1fb6aa879ce87c
- honor role high school students whose father was wanted
for a misdemeanor
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/our-life-is-here- father-of-milford-high-school-student-detained-by-ice- breaks-silence/3731289/
"Marcelo is an 18-year-old high school junior who entered
the United States lawfully when he was just barely 7-years
old," his attorney, Robin Nice, said in a statement. "He is
deeply rooted in his community — active in his church, a
dedicated member of both his high school marching band and
church band, and surrounded by friends, teachers, and
mentors who care deeply about him."
they might have time to give them due process as guaranteed
by the constitution.
But, I guess in magatard world, soccer moms, PhD candidates,
and high school honor students are the worst of the worst,
and deserve to be deported without due process.
On 6/4/2025 6:12 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/4/2025 5:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 2:53 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/4/2025 9:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 4:30 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/3/2025 5:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2025 3:10 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:Uncorroborated allegations.."sources said"...."two (unnamed)
On 6/3/2025 11:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:At his previous 2019 hearing, after his deportation order, the
On 6/3/2025 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:Right, The government narrative kept changing, coming up with
There was a false statement inserted into a filing in re
Kilmar Abrego Garcia that he had been deported in error. The >>>>>>>>>> Justice Department employee who added that was fired the next >>>>>>>>>> morning and the filing emended...
Got a citation or other evidence for that claim? And what did >>>>>>>>> the courts say about this issue? And where is Mr. Garcia now? >>>>>>>>
different excuses, right down to trump retweeting a photo
shopped (fake) image of Mr. Garcia with gang tattoos. Once they >>>>>>>> were unable to convince anyone with any brains that he had no
criminal past, they brought out a domestic abuse complaint from >>>>>>>> ten years ago - complete bullshit as well.
As Monday morning's NYT for example, whose front page did not >>>>>>>>>> cover the immolation of live US citizens, including a
Holocaust survivor, in Boulder by an illegal jihadi screaming >>>>>>>>>> 'free palestine.' Deemed not interesting enough by editorial >>>>>>>>>> staff.
I don't get a print edition of NYT; but your complaint seems to >>>>>>>>> be that eight people getting various degrees of burns did not >>>>>>>>> get enough attention, despite it being on every news outlet. It >>>>>>>>> looks to me like NYT has since done many articles on the
incident and its implications. Are you trying to say NYT does >>>>>>>>> sufficiently protest antisemitism?
And BTW, what happened was despicable. As you know, I'm firmly >>>>>>>>> against attempts to harm or kill groups of innocent people. But >>>>>>>>> "immolation of live US citizens" is more than a little
exaggerated. It usually means burning to death. I gather only >>>>>>>>> one person out of the eight was seriously burned.
There's no excuse for the attack, but you can slightly relax >>>>>>>>> your grip on your own pearls!
removal was stayed as the judge found that his MS-13 gang
membership put him at risk in his old neighborhood controlled by >>>>>>> a competing gang.
(details are messy as he had lived both in El Salvador and in
Guatemala)
https://tennesseestar.com/news/immigration- judges-2019- order-
found- kilmar-abrego-garcia- subject-to-removal-by- deportation- >>>>>>> but- granted- withholding-of-removal-to- guatemala-though-
referencing- el-salvador/ tpappert/2025/04/22/
The prior administration also denied assistance to Tennessee
State Patrol in 2022 when they stopped him in the car of a known >>>>>>> trafficker with a load of smuggled illegals while speeding with
no valid license. FBI directed TSP to not detain him.
https://tennesseestar.com/justice/tennessee-highway- patrol-
confirms- biden-era-fbi-told-officers-to- release- kilmar-abrego- >>>>>>> garcia- during-2022- traffic- stop-despite- speeding-and-license- >>>>>>> violations- to/ tpappert/2025/04/17/
judges determined he is likely to be a member of the Central
American gang, Mara Salvatrucha"....iow, more trump ICE/DOJ lies
to cover their assess.
The judge who, in 2019, stayed deportation to Guatemala _due to his
gang affiliation_ wrote his decision. It was not appealed.
Got a link? I couldn't find anything except trump DOJ heresay.
Cited above, it's in the header of the first link, "granted
withholding of removal to guatemala though referencing el salvador"
um...no.
The named judge in that article - Judge David M. Jones - made
absolutely no determination of any gang affiliation. Judge Jones order
is linked in the article so you can read it yourself. (here for
convenience https://drive.google.com/ file/
d/1V_yaacfwjS6i02eeCaHoPh64tGvySkVO/)
Regarding any alleged gang affiliation, The link you provided has no
more information than "two [unnamed] judges determined he is likely to
be a member of the Central American gang, Mara Salvatrucha".
It's heresay, and there has been no evidence produced by anyone that
Mr. Garcia had any gang affiliation. More trump DOJ bullshit.
Fair enough, not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Here's a question. If you wanted to smuggle eight aliens from the
southern border to Maryland, would you make the arrangements with a
known MS-13 smuggler, who owned the car in question at the Tennessee
traffic stop, or your local Boy Scout troop?
On 6/4/2025 6:31 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/4/2025 9:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 4:37 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/4/2025 5:23 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any
crimes, so
you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed >>>>>>> any
crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the >>>>>>> country
illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the >>>>>>> country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that >>>>>>> you
get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to >>>>>>> waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a
hearing to verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
He should, but he doesn't. He believes - under the current
administration - that onus probandi is on the defendant. With
regards to this administration and their cult of followers, it's now
"guilty until proven innocent", with the caveat that they'll be
shipped out of the country before they have a chance to prove it.
Once a democrat is back in the oval office, he'll change his opinion
and accuse them of gestapo tactics.
Been there. Done that.
https://catholicvote.org/new-anti-catholic-fbi-memo-
distributed-1000- biden-fbi-employees-before-whistleblower/
Oh you mean this?
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU13/20250225/117924/ HHRG-119-
JU13-20250225-SD012-U12.pdf
Yes, that's right.
Which is why the prisons are not filled with Catholics who attend Latin
Mass. Despite wild allegations of widespread white racists (who do
exist, just like their inverse, Screwy Louis Farrakhan)
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/13/biden-howard-university-white- supremacy-terrorism-00096811
the anti Catholic FBI witch hunt turned up... nothing.
On 6/4/2025 7:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 6:12 PM, zen cycle wrote:Here's a question, Where do you see any information that
On 6/4/2025 5:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 2:53 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/4/2025 9:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 4:30 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/3/2025 5:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2025 3:10 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:Uncorroborated allegations.."sources said"...."two
On 6/3/2025 11:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:At his previous 2019 hearing, after his deportation
On 6/3/2025 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
There was a false statement inserted into a
filing in re Kilmar Abrego Garcia that he had
been deported in error. The Justice Department
employee who added that was fired the next
morning and the filing emended...
Got a citation or other evidence for that claim?
And what did the courts say about this issue? And
where is Mr. Garcia now?
Right, The government narrative kept changing,
coming up with different excuses, right down to
trump retweeting a photo shopped (fake) image of
Mr. Garcia with gang tattoos. Once they were unable
to convince anyone with any brains that he had no
criminal past, they brought out a domestic abuse
complaint from ten years ago - complete bullshit as
well.
As Monday morning's NYT for example, whose front
page did not cover the immolation of live US
citizens, including a Holocaust survivor, in
Boulder by an illegal jihadi screaming 'free
palestine.' Deemed not interesting enough by
editorial staff.
I don't get a print edition of NYT; but your
complaint seems to be that eight people getting
various degrees of burns did not get enough
attention, despite it being on every news outlet.
It looks to me like NYT has since done many
articles on the incident and its implications. Are
you trying to say NYT does sufficiently protest
antisemitism?
And BTW, what happened was despicable. As you
know, I'm firmly against attempts to harm or kill
groups of innocent people. But "immolation of live
US citizens" is more than a little exaggerated. It
usually means burning to death. I gather only one
person out of the eight was seriously burned.
There's no excuse for the attack, but you can
slightly relax your grip on your own pearls!
order, the removal was stayed as the judge found
that his MS-13 gang membership put him at risk in
his old neighborhood controlled by a competing gang.
(details are messy as he had lived both in El
Salvador and in Guatemala)
https://tennesseestar.com/news/immigration-
judges-2019- order- found- kilmar-abrego-garcia-
subject-to-removal-by- deportation- but- granted-
withholding-of-removal-to- guatemala-though-
referencing- el-salvador/ tpappert/2025/04/22/
The prior administration also denied assistance to
Tennessee State Patrol in 2022 when they stopped him
in the car of a known trafficker with a load of
smuggled illegals while speeding with no valid
license. FBI directed TSP to not detain him.
https://tennesseestar.com/justice/tennessee-highway-
patrol- confirms- biden-era-fbi-told-officers-to-
release- kilmar-abrego- garcia- during-2022-
traffic- stop-despite- speeding-and-license-
violations- to/ tpappert/2025/04/17/
(unnamed) judges determined he is likely to be a
member of the Central American gang, Mara
Salvatrucha"....iow, more trump ICE/DOJ lies to cover
their assess.
The judge who, in 2019, stayed deportation to
Guatemala _due to his gang affiliation_ wrote his
decision. It was not appealed.
Got a link? I couldn't find anything except trump DOJ
heresay.
Cited above, it's in the header of the first link,
"granted withholding of removal to guatemala though
referencing el salvador"
um...no.
The named judge in that article - Judge David M. Jones -
made absolutely no determination of any gang affiliation.
Judge Jones order is linked in the article so you can
read it yourself. (here for convenience https://
drive.google.com/ file/
d/1V_yaacfwjS6i02eeCaHoPh64tGvySkVO/)
Regarding any alleged gang affiliation, The link you
provided has no more information than "two [unnamed]
judges determined he is likely to be a member of the
Central American gang, Mara Salvatrucha".
It's heresay, and there has been no evidence produced by
anyone that Mr. Garcia had any gang affiliation. More
trump DOJ bullshit.
Fair enough, not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Here's a question. If you wanted to smuggle eight aliens
from the southern border to Maryland, would you make the
arrangements with a known MS-13 smuggler, who owned the
car in question at the Tennessee traffic stop, or your
local Boy Scout troop?
any of the seven people in the car (excluding garcia) were
illegal and that the car was owned by a known smuggler?
kilmar-abrego-garciaOn Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:27:52 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 11:52 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:23:34 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> >>>>> wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so >>>>>>> you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed any >>>>>> crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the country >>>>>> illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the >>>>>> country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that you >>>>>> get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to >>>>>> waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a hearing to >>>> verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
No
So you claim to be a US citizen, the government claim you're not.
Should you get a hearing or should the government deport you without a
hearing?
Good grief... I'm not going to respond to your hypothetical question
about something that's not going to happen.
On 6/4/2025 6:31 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/4/2025 9:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 4:37 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/4/2025 5:23 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any
crimes, so
you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed >>>>>>> any
crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the >>>>>>> country
illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the >>>>>>> country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that >>>>>>> you
get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to >>>>>>> waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a
hearing to verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
He should, but he doesn't. He believes - under the current
administration - that onus probandi is on the defendant. With
regards to this administration and their cult of followers, it's now
"guilty until proven innocent", with the caveat that they'll be
shipped out of the country before they have a chance to prove it.
Once a democrat is back in the oval office, he'll change his opinion
and accuse them of gestapo tactics.
Been there. Done that.
https://catholicvote.org/new-anti-catholic-fbi-memo-
distributed-1000- biden-fbi-employees-before-whistleblower/
Oh you mean this?
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU13/20250225/117924/ HHRG-119-
JU13-20250225-SD012-U12.pdf
Yes, that's right.
Which is why the prisons are not filled with Catholics who attend Latin
Mass. Despite wild allegations of widespread white racists (who do
exist, just like their inverse, Screwy Louis Farrakhan)
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/13/biden-howard-university-white- supremacy-terrorism-00096811
the anti Catholic FBI witch hunt turned up... nothing.
On 6/4/2025 7:43 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
kilmar-abrego-garciaOn Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:27:52 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 11:52 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:23:34 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> >>>> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> >>>>>> wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so >>>>>>>> you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed any >>>>>>> crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the country
illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the >>>>>>> country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that you >>>>>>> get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to >>>>>>> waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a hearing to >>>>> verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
No
So you claim to be a US citizen, the government claim you're not.
Should you get a hearing or should the government deport you without a
hearing?
Good grief... I'm not going to respond to your hypothetical question
about something that's not going to happen.
... if you're white enough!
On 6/4/2025 7:55 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 6:31 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/4/2025 9:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 4:37 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/4/2025 5:23 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any
crimes, so
you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have
committed any
crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the >>>>>>>> country
illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the >>>>>>>> country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact
that you
get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be
willing to
waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a
hearing to verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
He should, but he doesn't. He believes - under the current
administration - that onus probandi is on the defendant. With
regards to this administration and their cult of followers, it's
now "guilty until proven innocent", with the caveat that they'll be
shipped out of the country before they have a chance to prove it.
Once a democrat is back in the oval office, he'll change his
opinion and accuse them of gestapo tactics.
Been there. Done that.
https://catholicvote.org/new-anti-catholic-fbi-memo-
distributed-1000- biden-fbi-employees-before-whistleblower/
Oh you mean this?
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU13/20250225/117924/ HHRG-119-
JU13-20250225-SD012-U12.pdf
Yes, that's right.
Which is why the prisons are not filled with Catholics who attend
Latin Mass. Despite wild allegations of widespread white racists (who
do exist, just like their inverse, Screwy Louis Farrakhan)
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/13/biden-howard-university-
white- supremacy-terrorism-00096811
the anti Catholic FBI witch hunt turned up... nothing.
Again, a tempest in a teapot. Who the heck brought that up here? Why?
Once a democrat is back in the oval office, he'll [floriduh dumbass]change his opinion and accuse them of gestapo tactics.
On 6/4/2025 7:15 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/4/2025 7:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 6:12 PM, zen cycle wrote:Here's a question, Where do you see any information that any of the
On 6/4/2025 5:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 2:53 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/4/2025 9:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 4:30 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/3/2025 5:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2025 3:10 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:Uncorroborated allegations.."sources said"...."two (unnamed) >>>>>>>> judges determined he is likely to be a member of the Central
On 6/3/2025 11:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:At his previous 2019 hearing, after his deportation order, the >>>>>>>>> removal was stayed as the judge found that his MS-13 gang
On 6/3/2025 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:Right, The government narrative kept changing, coming up with >>>>>>>>>> different excuses, right down to trump retweeting a photo
There was a false statement inserted into a filing in re >>>>>>>>>>>> Kilmar Abrego Garcia that he had been deported in error. The >>>>>>>>>>>> Justice Department employee who added that was fired the >>>>>>>>>>>> next morning and the filing emended...
Got a citation or other evidence for that claim? And what did >>>>>>>>>>> the courts say about this issue? And where is Mr. Garcia now? >>>>>>>>>>
shopped (fake) image of Mr. Garcia with gang tattoos. Once >>>>>>>>>> they were unable to convince anyone with any brains that he >>>>>>>>>> had no criminal past, they brought out a domestic abuse
complaint from ten years ago - complete bullshit as well.
As Monday morning's NYT for example, whose front page did >>>>>>>>>>>> not cover the immolation of live US citizens, including a >>>>>>>>>>>> Holocaust survivor, in Boulder by an illegal jihadi
screaming 'free palestine.' Deemed not interesting enough by >>>>>>>>>>>> editorial staff.
I don't get a print edition of NYT; but your complaint seems >>>>>>>>>>> to be that eight people getting various degrees of burns did >>>>>>>>>>> not get enough attention, despite it being on every news >>>>>>>>>>> outlet. It looks to me like NYT has since done many articles >>>>>>>>>>> on the incident and its implications. Are you trying to say >>>>>>>>>>> NYT does sufficiently protest antisemitism?
And BTW, what happened was despicable. As you know, I'm
firmly against attempts to harm or kill groups of innocent >>>>>>>>>>> people. But "immolation of live US citizens" is more than a >>>>>>>>>>> little exaggerated. It usually means burning to death. I >>>>>>>>>>> gather only one person out of the eight was seriously burned. >>>>>>>>>>>
There's no excuse for the attack, but you can slightly relax >>>>>>>>>>> your grip on your own pearls!
membership put him at risk in his old neighborhood controlled >>>>>>>>> by a competing gang.
(details are messy as he had lived both in El Salvador and in >>>>>>>>> Guatemala)
https://tennesseestar.com/news/immigration- judges-2019- order- >>>>>>>>> found- kilmar-abrego-garcia- subject-to-removal-by-
deportation- but- granted- withholding-of-removal-to-
guatemala-though- referencing- el-salvador/ tpappert/2025/04/22/ >>>>>>>>>
The prior administration also denied assistance to Tennessee >>>>>>>>> State Patrol in 2022 when they stopped him in the car of a
known trafficker with a load of smuggled illegals while
speeding with no valid license. FBI directed TSP to not detain >>>>>>>>> him.
https://tennesseestar.com/justice/tennessee-highway- patrol- >>>>>>>>> confirms- biden-era-fbi-told-officers-to- release- kilmar-
abrego- garcia- during-2022- traffic- stop-despite- speeding- >>>>>>>>> and-license- violations- to/ tpappert/2025/04/17/
American gang, Mara Salvatrucha"....iow, more trump ICE/DOJ lies >>>>>>>> to cover their assess.
The judge who, in 2019, stayed deportation to Guatemala _due to
his gang affiliation_ wrote his decision. It was not appealed.
Got a link? I couldn't find anything except trump DOJ heresay.
Cited above, it's in the header of the first link, "granted
withholding of removal to guatemala though referencing el salvador"
um...no.
The named judge in that article - Judge David M. Jones - made
absolutely no determination of any gang affiliation. Judge Jones
order is linked in the article so you can read it yourself. (here
for convenience https:// drive.google.com/ file/
d/1V_yaacfwjS6i02eeCaHoPh64tGvySkVO/)
Regarding any alleged gang affiliation, The link you provided has no
more information than "two [unnamed] judges determined he is likely
to be a member of the Central American gang, Mara Salvatrucha".
It's heresay, and there has been no evidence produced by anyone that
Mr. Garcia had any gang affiliation. More trump DOJ bullshit.
Fair enough, not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Here's a question. If you wanted to smuggle eight aliens from the
southern border to Maryland, would you make the arrangements with a
known MS-13 smuggler, who owned the car in question at the Tennessee
traffic stop, or your local Boy Scout troop?
seven people in the car (excluding garcia) were illegal and that the
car was owned by a known smuggler?
Apparently you did not find the whole sorry tale as interesting as did I.
https://tennesseestar.com/justice/doj-reportedly-gave-limited-immunity- to-human-smuggler-who-owned-van-driven-by-kilmar-abrego-garcia-for- details-on-2022-trip/tpappert/2025/05/06/
The twist is that FBI directly and immediately advised TSP officers at
the scene to not interfere with Mr Abrego Garcia.
Good luck with that if you're ever stopped by State Patrol.
On 6/4/2025 7:43 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
kilmar-abrego-garciaOn Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:27:52 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 11:52 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:23:34 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> >>>> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any
crimes, so
you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed >>>>>>> any
crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the >>>>>>> country
illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the >>>>>>> country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that >>>>>>> you
get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to >>>>>>> waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a
hearing to
verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
No
So you claim to be a US citizen, the government claim you're not.
Should you get a hearing or should the government deport you without a
hearing?
Good grief... I'm not going to respond to your hypothetical question
about something that's not going to happen.
... if you're white enough!
On 6/5/2025 12:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2025 7:43 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
kilmar-abrego-garciaOn Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:27:52 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 11:52 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:23:34 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> >>>>> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any
crimes, so
you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed >>>>>>>> any
crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the >>>>>>>> country
illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the >>>>>>>> country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that >>>>>>>> you
get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to >>>>>>>> waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a
hearing to
verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
No
So you claim to be a US citizen, the government claim you're not.
Should you get a hearing or should the government deport you without a >>>> hearing?
Good grief... I'm not going to respond to your hypothetical question
about something that's not going to happen.
... if you're white enough!
Or not:
Fabian Schmidt, German citizen, electrical engineer living in the US
since 2008, and with a green card since 2015. Detained by ICE at Logan >Airport in Boston then held in ICE detention centers for two months. Why?
https://www.newsweek.com/green-card-fabian-schmidt-holder-detained-ice-immigratioon-2072698
While living in California:
"a 2016 drug-related offense in California that was eventually dismissed
and a DUI from the same year that led to fines and a probation sentence."
In other words, he was charged, and paid the penalties. But then:
"He alleged that authorities conducted a strip search, confiscated his >smartwatch, and refused to let him contact a lawyer, the German
consulate or his family."
"A few days after being detained, Schmidt said he was transported in
shackles to the Donald W. Wyatt Detention Facility in Rhode Island....
After nearly two months in detention, Schmidt received word that he
would be released."
Another stellar case of the trump administration rooting out the worst
of the worst.
On 6/5/2025 3:59 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 00:15:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 6/4/2025 7:43 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
kilmar-abrego-garciaOn Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:27:52 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 11:52 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:23:34 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> >>>>>> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> >>>>>>>> wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so
you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed any >>>>>>>>> crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the country
illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the >>>>>>>>> country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that you >>>>>>>>> get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to >>>>>>>>> waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a hearing to
verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
No
So you claim to be a US citizen, the government claim you're not.
Should you get a hearing or should the government deport you without a >>>>> hearing?
Good grief... I'm not going to respond to your hypothetical question >>>> about something that's not going to happen.
... if you're white enough!
That's from the guy who actually bragged about riding through a
neighborhood of people of other races.
Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to visit
a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!>
ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of
other races living there.
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
Everybody else here understood the sarcasm, as clearly indicated by the >"<gasp!>" and "<oh my!>".
But I suppose if a person is too timid to interact with others in normal >life, obvious conversational clues might be confusing.
:-) And how interesting that our timid tricyclist is saving my posts
for reference! Talk about obsessions!
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 00:15:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 6/4/2025 7:43 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
kilmar-abrego-garciaOn Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:27:52 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 11:52 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:23:34 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> >>>>> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> >>>>>>> wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so >>>>>>>>> you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed any >>>>>>>> crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the country
illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the >>>>>>>> country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that you >>>>>>>> get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to >>>>>>>> waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a hearing to >>>>>> verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
No
So you claim to be a US citizen, the government claim you're not.
Should you get a hearing or should the government deport you without a >>>> hearing?
Good grief... I'm not going to respond to your hypothetical question
about something that's not going to happen.
... if you're white enough!
That's from the guy who actually bragged about riding through a
neighborhood of people of other races.
Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to visit
a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!>
ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of
other races living there.
--Frank Krygowski https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
On 6/5/2025 3:59 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 00:15:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 6/4/2025 7:43 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
kilmar-abrego-garciaOn Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:27:52 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 11:52 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:23:34 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-
mantel.de>
wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any >>>>>>>>>> crimes, so
you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have
committed any
crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in >>>>>>>>> the country
illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the >>>>>>>>> country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact >>>>>>>>> that you
get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be
willing to
waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a
hearing to
verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
No
So you claim to be a US citizen, the government claim you're not.
Should you get a hearing or should the government deport you without a >>>>> hearing?
Good grief... I'm not going to respond to your hypothetical question >>>> about something that's not going to happen.
... if you're white enough!
That's from the guy who actually bragged about riding through a
neighborhood of people of other races.
Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to visit
a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!>
ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of
other races living there.
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/
vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
Everybody else here understood the sarcasm, as clearly indicated by the "<gasp!>" and "<oh my!>".
But I suppose if a person is too timid to interact with others in normal life, obvious conversational clues might be confusing.
:-) And how interesting that our timid tricyclist is saving my posts
for reference! Talk about obsessions!
No, they mnay have got a hearing when they showed that they were
citizens, but not before.
On 6/5/2025 9:44 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 3:59 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 00:15:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 6/4/2025 7:43 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
kilmar-abrego-garciaOn Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:27:52 +0200, Rolf Mantel >>>>>> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 11:52 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:23:34 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-
mantel.de>
wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any >>>>>>>>>>> crimes, so
you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have
committed any
crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in >>>>>>>>>> the country
illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the >>>>>>>>>> country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact >>>>>>>>>> that you
get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be
willing to
waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a
hearing to
verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
No
So you claim to be a US citizen, the government claim you're not.
Should you get a hearing or should the government deport you without a >>>>>> hearing?
Good grief... I'm not going to respond to your hypothetical question >>>>> about something that's not going to happen.
... if you're white enough!
That's from the guy who actually bragged about riding through a
neighborhood of people of other races.
Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to visit
a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!>
ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of
other races living there.
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/
vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
Everybody else here understood the sarcasm, as clearly indicated by the
"<gasp!>" and "<oh my!>".
But I suppose if a person is too timid to interact with others in normal
life, obvious conversational clues might be confusing.
:-) And how interesting that our timid tricyclist is saving my posts
for reference! Talk about obsessions!
I think it has more to do with him grasping at anything that he _thinks_ >elevates his esteem in the eyes of others....it isn't working.
In article <1il14k1qafnttu1oeqhfg0qpdfuc6c3o93@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
No, they mnay have got a hearing when they showed that they were
citizens, but not before.
And so you must always carry proof of citizenship 100% of the time, or
else you're deported without hearing. Don't leave home without it, kids.
In article <1il14k1qafnttu1oeqhfg0qpdfuc6c3o93@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
No, they mnay have got a hearing when they showed that they were
citizens, but not before.
And so you must always carry proof of citizenship 100% of the time, or
else you're deported without hearing. Don't leave home without it, kids.
On 6/5/2025 12:59 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <1il14k1qafnttu1oeqhfg0qpdfuc6c3o93@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
No, they mnay have got a hearing when they showed that they were
citizens, but not before.
And so you must always carry proof of citizenship 100% of the time, or
else you're deported without hearing. Don't leave home without it, kids.
I'm not advocating either way but merely being a US citizen
and walking around with no ID can get you arrested (depends
on the jurisdiction and circumstances).
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Failure-identify-police-officer.htm
https://legalclarity.org/do-you-have-to-identify-yourself-to-the-police/
There were (are?) places where no ID and "no visible means
of support" is defined as vagrancy = 3 days and a ride to
the county line. Happened to me, long ago.
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 13:14:40 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 12:59 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <1il14k1qafnttu1oeqhfg0qpdfuc6c3o93@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
No, they mnay have got a hearing when they showed that they were
citizens, but not before.
And so you must always carry proof of citizenship 100% of the time, or
else you're deported without hearing. Don't leave home without it, kids. >>>
I'm not advocating either way but merely being a US citizen
and walking around with no ID can get you arrested (depends
on the jurisdiction and circumstances).
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Failure-identify-police-officer.htm
https://legalclarity.org/do-you-have-to-identify-yourself-to-the-police/
There were (are?) places where no ID and "no visible means
of support" is defined as vagrancy = 3 days and a ride to
the county line. Happened to me, long ago.
Vagrancy is another thing.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/5/2025 12:59 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <1il14k1qafnttu1oeqhfg0qpdfuc6c3o93@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
No, they mnay have got a hearing when they showed that they were
citizens, but not before.
And so you must always carry proof of citizenship 100% of the time, or
else you're deported without hearing. Don't leave home without it, kids.
I'm not advocating either way but merely being a US citizen and walking around with no ID can get you arrested (depends on the jurisdiction and circumstances).
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Failure- identify-police-officer.htm
https://legalclarity.org/do-you-have-to-identify-yourself-to-the-police/
There were (are?) places where no ID and "no visible means of support"
is defined as vagrancy = 3 days and a ride to the county line. Happened
to me, long ago.
On 6/5/2025 2:14 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/5/2025 12:59 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <1il14k1qafnttu1oeqhfg0qpdfuc6c3o93@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
No, they mnay have got a hearing when they showed that they were
citizens, but not before.
And so you must always carry proof of citizenship 100% of the time, or
else you're deported without hearing. Don't leave home without it, kids. >>>
I'm not advocating either way but merely being a US citizen and walking
around with no ID can get you arrested (depends on the jurisdiction and
circumstances).
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Failure-
identify-police-officer.htm
https://legalclarity.org/do-you-have-to-identify-yourself-to-the-police/
There's a difference between refusing to identify yourself and not
producing identification. The former is generally what your links are >referring to. Failure to produce identification isn't an offense...yet
There were (are?) places where no ID and "no visible means of support"
is defined as vagrancy = 3 days and a ride to the county line. Happened
to me, long ago.
There aren't many enforced statutes anymore for failure to produce ID,
in large part due to the 1972 SCoTUS ruling in Papachristou v.
Jacksonville which invalidated the Jacksonville vagrancy law as >"unconstitutionally vague" (aka "Void for Vagueness").
The ruling was unanimous and forced states to amend their vagrancy and >loitering laws to the extent that vagrancy is no longer anything more
than an insult.
https://www.law.virginia.edu/scholarship/publication/risa-goluboff/640716
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papachristou_v._City_of_Jacksonville
On 6/5/2025 2:14 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/5/2025 12:59 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <1il14k1qafnttu1oeqhfg0qpdfuc6c3o93@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
No, they mnay have got a hearing when they showed that they were
citizens, but not before.
And so you must always carry proof of citizenship 100% of the time, or
else you're deported without hearing. Don't leave home without it, kids. >>>
I'm not advocating either way but merely being a US citizen and walking
around with no ID can get you arrested (depends on the jurisdiction and
circumstances).
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Failure-
identify-police-officer.htm
https://legalclarity.org/do-you-have-to-identify-yourself-to-the-police/
There's a difference between refusing to identify yourself and not
producing identification. The former is generally what your links are >referring to. Failure to produce identification isn't an offense...yet
There were (are?) places where no ID and "no visible means of support"
is defined as vagrancy = 3 days and a ride to the county line. Happened
to me, long ago.
There aren't many enforced statutes anymore for failure to produce ID,
in large part due to the 1972 SCoTUS ruling in Papachristou v.
Jacksonville which invalidated the Jacksonville vagrancy law as >"unconstitutionally vague" (aka "Void for Vagueness").
The ruling was unanimous and forced states to amend their vagrancy and >loitering laws to the extent that vagrancy is no longer anything more
than an insult.
https://www.law.virginia.edu/scholarship/publication/risa-goluboff/640716
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papachristou_v._City_of_Jacksonville
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 09:44:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 3:59 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 00:15:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 6/4/2025 7:43 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
kilmar-abrego-garciaOn Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:27:52 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 11:52 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:23:34 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> >>>>>>> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so
you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed any
crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the country
illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the >>>>>>>>>> country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that you
get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to >>>>>>>>>> waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a hearing to
verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
No
So you claim to be a US citizen, the government claim you're not.
Should you get a hearing or should the government deport you without a >>>>>> hearing?
Good grief... I'm not going to respond to your hypothetical question >>>>> about something that's not going to happen.
... if you're white enough!
That's from the guy who actually bragged about riding through a
neighborhood of people of other races.
Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to visit
a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!>
ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of
other races living there.
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
Everybody else here understood the sarcasm, as clearly indicated by the >>"<gasp!>" and "<oh my!>".
But I suppose if a person is too timid to interact with others in normal >>life, obvious conversational clues might be confusing.
:-) And how interesting that our timid tricyclist is saving my posts
for reference! Talk about obsessions!
What's sarcastic about riding where there are people of other races?
On Wed Jun 4 05:52:39 2025 Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:23:34 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so >> >>>> you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed any
crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the country >> >>> illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the
country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that you
get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to
waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a hearing to
verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
No
This can very easily meet the require4ments of the Constitution using a study group. You can even split it between Democrats and Republicans because NO Democrat wants his name tied to holding a violent criminal in the US. They only do this when they canremain anonymous.
On Wed Jun 4 12:46:09 2025 Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:29:40 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/4/2025 11:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2025 9:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://catholicvote.org/new-anti-catholic-fbi-memo-
distributed-1000- biden-fbi-employees-before-whistleblower/
That's a remarkably unspecific article. There were no
details for "gathering information about Catholic
traditionalist groups" etc. It seems odd that the FBI would
suddenly be paranoid about religious people who espouse
conservative family values.
Most important, there was no specific evidence about exactly
what the horrible memo said, nor any actual harm that was done.
And I'll note that CatholicVote.org is not actually
connected with the Catholic church. Looks like yet another
right wing political organization drumming up outrage.
A bit more on that here:
https://www.wmal.com/2025/06/04/fbi-targeting-of-catholics-was-bigger-than-biden-officials-acknowledged/
What's a "Radical Traditionalist Catholic?"
That is a person who believes that Protestantism is a false religion.
In article <101smqg$1mfi9$2@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I'm not advocating either way but merely being a US citizen and walking
around with no ID can get you arrested (depends on the jurisdiction and
circumstances).
Let's say a person is arrested without ID.
Are you claiming these two subsequent paths of action are identical?
1. Jailed, receives hearing.
2. Jailed, does not receive hearing, is deported.
On Tue Jun 3 21:31:05 2025 Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <pnct3k1grlt8flup51ass2pgtactgkfnrd@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I believe that is the current "level of care."
That level of care requires judicial oversight that we are not currently
maintaining, so it's not the current level.
I haven't seen anyone sent to the Salvadorian prison who doesn't belong
there.
When it comes to the Constitution, what matters is what the courts have
seen, not what you or I have seen.
What's the rush? You have the guy in custody--he's not a threat. Give
him a hearing. Maybe during the hearing you'll find that it was illegal
for you to deport him to El Salvador *before* you do it, and you can
deport him, legally, to a different country.
Are you saying you're willing to foot the bill for paying for enough prisons to house these people until the inrvitsble "tguilty" sends them on their way. Those sections of the Constitution were written when the Democrats weren't peying criminals tocome to the US to practice their trade. I have a next door neighbor who illegally has no insurance, damaged my car and then because their own was dented Gavin Newsom bought them a new Toyota SUV and a new |Mustang musclke car. And that was just last
On 6/4/2025 10:09 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:46:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://catholicvote.org/new-anti-catholic-fbi-memo-distributed-1000-biden-fbi-employees-before-whistleblower/
IMHO, ANY "radical" religious group should be investigated by
the FBI They are usually sociopaths, and as such, dangerous to the
community.
[]'s
Exactly - the memo had no "anti-catholic" bias whatsoever. It was
targeted at a specific individual who "expressed neo-Nazi rhetoric and >described himself as a "Catholic clerical fascist." The FBI said he
wrote in a letter to a family member that he needed to "build guns, >explosives, and other forms of weaponry" in order to "make total war
against the Satanic occultist government and the Zionist devil
worshiping bankers who control it."
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU13/20250225/117924/HHRG-119-JU13-20250225-SD012-U12.pdf
the memo gave guidance for looking into how he may have become
radicalized at his church.
Painting it as Biden attacking catholics at large is yet another example
of right wing sensationalist bullshit.
On Wed Jun 4 11:09:37 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:46:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://catholicvote.org/new-anti-catholic-fbi-memo-distributed-1000-biden-fbi-employees-before-whistleblower/
IMHO, ANY "radical" religious group should be investigated by
the FBI They are usually sociopaths, and as such, dangerous to the
community.
Let me tell you something about that wonderful country of Brazil.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/slavery-brazil
Not only is the antislavery laws poorly enforced, in the wilds of Brazil it is to this day
an active practice. And for very many years they would pay ex-slaves so little that
it amounted to slavery.
Shadow - in case you're unaware of it, religion is completely voluntary. If you don't like them that is tough shit.
Here in the USA we have a right to choose3 any r4eligion we want or none at all.
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 09:44:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 3:59 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 00:15:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 6/4/2025 7:43 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
kilmar-abrego-garciaOn Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:27:52 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 11:52 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:23:34 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> >>>>>>> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so
you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed any
crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the country
illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the >>>>>>>>>> country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that you
get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to >>>>>>>>>> waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a hearing to
verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
No
So you claim to be a US citizen, the government claim you're not.
Should you get a hearing or should the government deport you without a >>>>>> hearing?
Good grief... I'm not going to respond to your hypothetical question >>>>> about something that's not going to happen.
... if you're white enough!
That's from the guy who actually bragged about riding through a
neighborhood of people of other races.
Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to visit
a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!>
ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of
other races living there.
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
Everybody else here understood the sarcasm, as clearly indicated by the >>"<gasp!>" and "<oh my!>".
But I suppose if a person is too timid to interact with others in normal >>life, obvious conversational clues might be confusing.
:-) And how interesting that our timid tricyclist is saving my posts
for reference! Talk about obsessions!
What's sarcastic about riding where there are people of other races?
I save some of your posts so I can point out **your** obsessions.
*********************************************
Having a gun in the home is not a guarantee someone will get killed.
And
having a gun in the home is not a guarantee it will be effective at >"protection." But there's plenty of data indicating the first is more
likely than the second; IOW for most people, having a gun for
"protection" is probably a bad idea.
Read about it:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762
https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/
**************************************
_Krygowsi
On 6/5/2025 2:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 13:14:40 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 12:59 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <1il14k1qafnttu1oeqhfg0qpdfuc6c3o93@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
No, they mnay have got a hearing when they showed that they were
citizens, but not before.
And so you must always carry proof of citizenship 100% of the time, or >>>> else you're deported without hearing. Don't leave home without it, kids. >>>>
I'm not advocating either way but merely being a US citizen
and walking around with no ID can get you arrested (depends
on the jurisdiction and circumstances).
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Failure-identify-police-officer.htm
https://legalclarity.org/do-you-have-to-identify-yourself-to-the-police/ >>>
There were (are?) places where no ID and "no visible means
of support" is defined as vagrancy = 3 days and a ride to
the county line. Happened to me, long ago.
Vagrancy is another thing.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It's an unclear issue, especially that some States hand out
ID and even driving licenses to illegal aliens. US citizen
vagrants would imaginably be unable to prove identity while
standing next to a deportable illegal with valid ID.
Again I take no position on this or that but "no ID" is a
very fuzzy standard.
Look, I watched approximately 100 illegals vote for Obama at my local voting place. There was NO WAY you could have mistaken them as anything other than Mexicans. Most of them couldn't speak English and a large percentage were illiterate. But underCalifornia law there was nothing the poll workers could do. With a Real ID this could never happen.
On Wed Jun 4 19:16:45 2025 Beej Jorgensen wrote:clear that up
In article <tsb04kl6rvdr08rr6i0gaqs5kchg93ako7@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Good grief... I'm not going to respond to your hypothetical question
about something that's not going to happen.
These two things have already happened:
* U.S. citizens have been arrested by ICE under the pretense that they
were illegal.
* People have been deported before getting a proper hearing.
So the hypothetical isn't far fetched. We're looking at it.
Specifics please. As I said, you CANNOT argue with a birth certificate and they are ALL computerized now. So all, you need is a time and place of birth. An Illegal can say he is someone else. But school records and possible military records rapidly
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 10:15:19 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 09:44:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 3:59 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 00:15:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 6/4/2025 7:43 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
kilmar-abrego-garciaOn Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:27:52 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 11:52 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:23:34 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> >>>>>>>> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>, >>>>>>>>>>> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so
you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed any
crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the country
illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the >>>>>>>>>>> country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that you
get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to
waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a hearing to
verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
No
So you claim to be a US citizen, the government claim you're not. >>>>>>> Should you get a hearing or should the government deport you without a >>>>>>> hearing?
Good grief... I'm not going to respond to your hypothetical question >>>>>> about something that's not going to happen.
... if you're white enough!
That's from the guy who actually bragged about riding through a
neighborhood of people of other races.
Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to visit >>>> a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!>
ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of
other races living there.
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
Everybody else here understood the sarcasm, as clearly indicated by the >>>"<gasp!>" and "<oh my!>".
But I suppose if a person is too timid to interact with others in normal >>>life, obvious conversational clues might be confusing.
:-) And how interesting that our timid tricyclist is saving my posts
for reference! Talk about obsessions!
What's sarcastic about riding where there are people of other races?
I save some of your posts so I can point out **your** obsessions.
*********************************************
Having a gun in the home is not a guarantee someone will get killed.
And
having a gun in the home is not a guarantee it will be effective at >>"protection." But there's plenty of data indicating the first is more >>likely than the second; IOW for most people, having a gun for
"protection" is probably a bad idea.
Read about it:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762
https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/
**************************************
_Krygowsi
And in contrast my family and many others living in the same
circumstances lived with firearms in the house for generations, least
4 in my case :-)
On 6/5/2025 1:33 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 11:52:02 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I think it has more to do with him grasping at anything that he _thinks_ >>> elevates his esteem in the eyes of others....it isn't working.
Sure, dummy, that's why I piss people off... to elevate my esteem.
Hey, someone should save _that_ statement! It's evidence of a seriously >disfunctional personality.
FWIW, I do think his statement is honest, whether he knows it or not But
what a desperate way to try to feel better about oneself!
On 6/5/2025 8:22 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Around here the idiot governor has driven most good people out of the state and they have been replace by honest hard working illegals. No one is coming back to the worst state just because it has the best weather.
I spent a week there not long ago. You're right, Tom, Mountain View,
Palo Alto, San Jose, Cupertino, San Francisco were like deserts! Nobody
as far as the eye could see! :-)
I don't know what caused all the traffic. Robotaxis in disguise? But who >would need them?
On 6/5/2025 7:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank and Flunky persist in thinking that the Biden government was unquestionably good. Covid-19 taught them nothing at all.
I thought that Trump was president when Covid-19 hit.
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:59:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski"Throughout his time in office, Biden empowered officials to violate
<S.>
On 6/5/2025 7:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank and Flunky persist in thinking that the Biden government was unquestionably good. Covid-19 taught them nothing at all.
I thought that Trump was president when Covid-19 hit.
The Biden administration and their cohorts in state governments used
the disease as an excuse to take control of people's private lives and
take away their civil liberties.
https://reason.com/2024/12/10/civil-liberties-lost-under-covid/
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 10:15:19 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 09:44:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 3:59 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 00:15:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 6/4/2025 7:43 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
kilmar-abrego-garciaOn Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:27:52 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 11:52 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:23:34 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> >>>>>>>> wrote:
Am 04.06.2025 um 10:31 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 01:10:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <d3vu3k5sec04fbqhmm6sjdktd2t9t5v81r@4ax.com>, >>>>>>>>>>> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I'm neither in the USA illegally, nor have I committed any crimes, so
you needn't worry.
I'm not worried that you're in the US illegally or have committed any
crimes. I'm worried that the government will *say* you're in the country
illegally and then ship you off.
There is no law that says the government cannot say you are in the >>>>>>>>>>> country illegally. The only thing protecting you is the fact that you
get a hearing.
You clearly trust the government far more than I do to be willing to
waive this right.
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
Do you mean "people who claim to be US citizens" should get a hearing to
verify whether they are indeed US citizens?
No
So you claim to be a US citizen, the government claim you're not. >>>>>>> Should you get a hearing or should the government deport you without a >>>>>>> hearing?
Good grief... I'm not going to respond to your hypothetical question >>>>>> about something that's not going to happen.
... if you're white enough!
That's from the guy who actually bragged about riding through a
neighborhood of people of other races.
Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to visit >>>> a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!>
ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of
other races living there.
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
Everybody else here understood the sarcasm, as clearly indicated by the
"<gasp!>" and "<oh my!>".
But I suppose if a person is too timid to interact with others in normal >>> life, obvious conversational clues might be confusing.
:-) And how interesting that our timid tricyclist is saving my posts
for reference! Talk about obsessions!
What's sarcastic about riding where there are people of other races?
I save some of your posts so I can point out **your** obsessions.
*********************************************
Having a gun in the home is not a guarantee someone will get killed.
And
having a gun in the home is not a guarantee it will be effective at
"protection." But there's plenty of data indicating the first is more
likely than the second; IOW for most people, having a gun for
"protection" is probably a bad idea.
Read about it:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762
https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/
**************************************
_Krygowsi
And in contrast my family and many others living in the same
circumstances lived with firearms in the house for generations, least
4 in my case :-)
--
cheers,
John B.
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 05:24:50 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:59:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski"Throughout his time in office, Biden empowered officials to violate >Americans' liberties in the name of fighting COVID-19. There is little >evidence those policies worked."
<S.>
On 6/5/2025 7:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank and Flunky persist in thinking that the Biden government was unquestionably good. Covid-19 taught them nothing at all.
I thought that Trump was president when Covid-19 hit.
The Biden administration and their cohorts in state governments used
the disease as an excuse to take control of people's private lives and
take away their civil liberties.
https://reason.com/2024/12/10/civil-liberties-lost-under-covid/
Sorry, I can't agree with that last sentence as Thailand did apply
thoser very same policies, the resuit?
U.S. -
cases 1 million population 333,985
deaths per 1 million population 3842
Thailand -
Cases 1 million population 68,069
Deaths 1 million population 494
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 14:55:39 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 2:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 13:14:40 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 12:59 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <1il14k1qafnttu1oeqhfg0qpdfuc6c3o93@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
No, they mnay have got a hearing when they showed that they were
citizens, but not before.
And so you must always carry proof of citizenship 100% of the time, or >>>>> else you're deported without hearing. Don't leave home without it, kids. >>>>>
I'm not advocating either way but merely being a US citizen
and walking around with no ID can get you arrested (depends
on the jurisdiction and circumstances).
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Failure-identify-police-officer.htm
https://legalclarity.org/do-you-have-to-identify-yourself-to-the-police/ >>>>
There were (are?) places where no ID and "no visible means
of support" is defined as vagrancy = 3 days and a ride to
the county line. Happened to me, long ago.
Vagrancy is another thing.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It's an unclear issue, especially that some States hand out
ID and even driving licenses to illegal aliens. US citizen
vagrants would imaginably be unable to prove identity while
standing next to a deportable illegal with valid ID.
Again I take no position on this or that but "no ID" is a
very fuzzy standard.
For, probably, the majority, their birth certificate is all that is
need, as if yoy are born in the U.S. you are concidered a citizen.
--
cheers,
John B.
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 05:24:50 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:59:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski"Throughout his time in office, Biden empowered officials to violate Americans' liberties in the name of fighting COVID-19. There is little evidence those policies worked."
<S.>
On 6/5/2025 7:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank and Flunky persist in thinking that the Biden government was unquestionably good. Covid-19 taught them nothing at all.
I thought that Trump was president when Covid-19 hit.
The Biden administration and their cohorts in state governments used
the disease as an excuse to take control of people's private lives and
take away their civil liberties.
https://reason.com/2024/12/10/civil-liberties-lost-under-covid/
Sorry, I can't agree with that last sentence as Thailand did apply
thoser very same policies, the resuit?
U.S. -
cases 1 million population 333,985
deaths per 1 million population 3842
Thailand -
Cases 1 million population 68,069
Deaths 1 million population 494
--
cheers,
John B.
On 6/5/2025 8:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or
undocumented alien.
Does yours? Mine does not contain either term.
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:59:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 7:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank and Flunky persist in thinking that the Biden government was unquestionably good. Covid-19 taught them nothing at all.
I thought that Trump was president when Covid-19 hit.
The Biden administration and their cohorts in state governments used
the disease as an excuse to take control of people's private lives and
take away their civil liberties.
https://reason.com/2024/12/10/civil-liberties-lost-under-covid/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/6/2025 4:24 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:59:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 7:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank and Flunky persist in thinking that the Biden government was unquestionably good. Covid-19 taught them nothing at all.
I thought that Trump was president when Covid-19 hit.
The Biden administration and their cohorts in state governments used
the disease as an excuse to take control of people's private lives and
take away their civil liberties.
https://reason.com/2024/12/10/civil-liberties-lost-under-covid/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
The greater bulk of the assaults on liberty were by
Governors, Mayors, Secretaries of the States, 'public
health' factota and the like.
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 08:06:05 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 4:24 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:59:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 7:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank and Flunky persist in thinking that the Biden government was unquestionably good. Covid-19 taught them nothing at all.
I thought that Trump was president when Covid-19 hit.
The Biden administration and their cohorts in state governments used
the disease as an excuse to take control of people's private lives and
take away their civil liberties.
https://reason.com/2024/12/10/civil-liberties-lost-under-covid/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
The greater bulk of the assaults on liberty were by
Governors, Mayors, Secretaries of the States, 'public
health' factota and the like.
The White House and Democrat legislators supported them and
financially blackmailed states and businesses who refused to go along. Thankfully, Florida resisted the best we could.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 23:12:30 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Wed Jun 4 11:09:37 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:46:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://catholicvote.org/new-anti-catholic-fbi-memo-distributed-1000-biden-fbi-employees-before-whistleblower/
IMHO, ANY "radical" religious group should be investigated by
the FBI They are usually sociopaths, and as such, dangerous to the
community.
Let me tell you something about that wonderful country of Brazil.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/slavery-brazil
Not only is the antislavery laws poorly enforced, in the wilds of Brazil it is to this day
an active practice. And for very many years they would pay ex-slaves so little that
it amounted to slavery.
Yes, and it was much worse during the right wing dictatorship.
Shadow - in case you're unaware of it, religion is completely voluntary. If you don't like them that is tough shit.
Here in the USA we have a right to choose3 any r4eligion we want or none at all.
Here normal people choose "no religion". We let the weak of
mind choose whatever they want to. Most are opting for nazi-fascism
(also known as christian warriors). It's what social media (Meta, X
and Glugle) advise them to do.
[]'s
On 6/5/2025 7:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank and Flunky persist in thinking that the Biden government was
unquestionably good. Covid-19 taught them nothing at all.
I thought that Trump was president when Covid-19 hit.
On 6/5/2025 9:05 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 23:12:30 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Wed Jun 4 11:09:37 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:46:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://catholicvote.org/new-anti-catholic-fbi-memo-distributed-1000-biden-fbi-employees-before-whistleblower/
IMHO, ANY "radical" religious group should be investigated by
the FBI They are usually sociopaths, and as such, dangerous to the
community.
Let me tell you something about that wonderful country of Brazil.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/slavery-brazil
Not only is the antislavery laws poorly enforced, in the wilds of Brazil it is to this day
an active practice. And for very many years they would pay ex-slaves so little that
it amounted to slavery.
Yes, and it was much worse during the right wing dictatorship.
Shadow - in case you're unaware of it, religion is completely voluntary. If you don't like them that is tough shit.
Here in the USA we have a right to choose3 any r4eligion we want or none at all.
Here normal people choose "no religion". We let the weak of
mind choose whatever they want to. Most are opting for nazi-fascism
(also known as christian warriors). It's what social media (Meta, X
and Glugle) advise them to do.
[]'s
Tommy isn't wrong that we still do enjoy freedom of religion, but that's >being changed as we speak, with several states passing legislation to
force the posting of the ten commandments and forcing "bible history" to
be taught in public schools, with several not allowing 'opt out' for >non-christian families.
It's only a matter of time before the right wing "christian"
nationalists (aka fascists) start demanding legislation for christian
prayer to be mandatory as part of the school day.
Add xx to reply
On 6/6/2025 5:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 05:24:50 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:59:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski"Throughout his time in office, Biden empowered officials to violate
<S.>
On 6/5/2025 7:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank and Flunky persist in thinking that the Biden government was
unquestionably good. Covid-19 taught them nothing at all.
I thought that Trump was president when Covid-19 hit.
The Biden administration and their cohorts in state governments used
the disease as an excuse to take control of people's private lives and
take away their civil liberties.
https://reason.com/2024/12/10/civil-liberties-lost-under-covid/
Americans' liberties in the name of fighting COVID-19. There is little
evidence those policies worked."
Sorry, I can't agree with that last sentence as Thailand did apply
thoser very same policies, the resuit?
U.S. -
cases 1 million population 333,985
deaths per 1 million population 3842
Thailand -
Cases 1 million population 68,069
Deaths 1 million population 494
--
cheers,
John B.
So one might better change 'assaults on liberty' to 'capricious and ineffective assaults on liberty'.
On 6/5/2025 7:59 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I watched approximately 100 illegals vote for Obama at my local voting place. There was NO WAY you could have mistaken them as anything other than Mexicans. Most of them couldn't speak English and a large percentage were illiterate.
That's amazingly perceptive of you! I can't spot an illiterate person
just by looking at them.
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 23:46:51 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>clear that up
wrote:
On Wed Jun 4 19:16:45 2025 Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <tsb04kl6rvdr08rr6i0gaqs5kchg93ako7@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Good grief... I'm not going to respond to your hypothetical question >>>> about something that's not going to happen.
These two things have already happened:
* U.S. citizens have been arrested by ICE under the pretense that they
were illegal.
* People have been deported before getting a proper hearing.
So the hypothetical isn't far fetched. We're looking at it.
Specifics please. As I said, you CANNOT argue with a birth certificate and they are ALL computerized now. So all, you need is a time and place of birth. An Illegal can say he is someone else. But school records and possible military records rapidly
I was born in Germany. I have a birth certificate from a hospital in Munchen. The form and data were all German language. It had been
rejected or ignored every time I was asked for "a birth certificate".
The last time was in 2013(?) when I had to make an appearance at the
local Social Security office. The clerk dutifully copied it an a
photo copier but asked no questions and likely could not read German.
More recently, the California updated my Real ID when I renewed my
drivers license in Dec 2024. It was the same story with a twist. I
had brought a pile of relevant documents with me (naturalization
papers, old visas, land title, house deed, old mortgages, old credit
cards, etc). The clerk took one look at the pile and announced that
the number of documents was sufficient proof that I am a citizen and
had been a US resident for most of my life.
I don't think that dragging a pile of documents around solely to prove
that I was a citizen after a traffic stop is very practical.
I've never been issued a new English birth certificate since I became
a citizen.
proof of citizenship, but nothing else. Oh wait. I once used my ham
radio license to convince the border guards in Tijuana that I was a US citizen. At the time, one needed to be a US citizen to obtain a US
ham radio operators license.
When my father had been owner of a lingerie factory in Smog Angeles,
he had a chronic problem with his workers. Many of them were not
quite legally working in the USA. Everyone had a social security card
and number. Just one problem. A large number of them were using a
single social security number, but with different names and addresses.
There were some occasional odd questions, no long term problems. Incidentally, the California Dept of Employment was directly across
the street from my father's factor. Nobody walked over, even to say
hello.
On 6/5/2025 1:33 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 11:52:02 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I think it has more to do with him grasping at anything that he _thinks_ >>>> elevates his esteem in the eyes of others....it isn't working.
Sure, dummy, that's why I piss people off... to elevate my esteem.
Dumbass, you aren't pissing anyone off. Your wilfull ignornance and
attemtps at insults are mildly entertaining.
On 6/5/2025 9:05 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 23:12:30 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Wed Jun 4 11:09:37 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:46:52 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://catholicvote.org/new-anti-catholic-fbi-memo-
distributed-1000-biden-fbi-employees-before-whistleblower/
IMHO, ANY "radical" religious group should be
investigated by
the FBI They are usually sociopaths, and as such,
dangerous to the
community.
Let me tell you something about that wonderful country of
Brazil.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/slavery-brazil
Not only is the antislavery laws poorly enforced, in the
wilds of Brazil it is to this day
an active practice. And for very many years they would
pay ex-slaves so little that
it amounted to slavery.
Yes, and it was much worse during the right wing
dictatorship.
Shadow - in case you're unaware of it, religion is
completely voluntary. If you don't like them that is
tough shit.
Here in the USA we have a right to choose3 any r4eligion
we want or none at all.
Here normal people choose "no religion". We let the
weak of
mind choose whatever they want to. Most are opting for
nazi-fascism
(also known as christian warriors). It's what social media
(Meta, X
and Glugle) advise them to do.
[]'s
Tommy isn't wrong that we still do enjoy freedom of
religion, but that's being changed as we speak, with several
states passing legislation to force the posting of the ten
commandments and forcing "bible history" to be taught in
public schools, with several not allowing 'opt out' for non-
christian families.
It's only a matter of time before the right wing "christian"
nationalists (aka fascists) start demanding legislation for
christian prayer to be mandatory as part of the school day.
Add xx to reply
On 6/6/2025 9:07 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 5:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 05:24:50 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:59:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski"Throughout his time in office, Biden empowered officials
<S.>
On 6/5/2025 7:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank and Flunky persist in thinking that the Biden
government was unquestionably good. Covid-19 taught
them nothing at all.
I thought that Trump was president when Covid-19 hit.
The Biden administration and their cohorts in state
governments used
the disease as an excuse to take control of people's
private lives and
take away their civil liberties.
https://reason.com/2024/12/10/civil-liberties-lost-
under-covid/
to violate
Americans' liberties in the name of fighting COVID-19.
There is little
evidence those policies worked."
Sorry, I can't agree with that last sentence as Thailand
did apply
thoser very same policies, the resuit?
U.S. -
cases 1 million population 333,985
deaths per 1 million population 3842
Thailand -
Cases 1 million population 68,069
Deaths 1 million population 494
--
cheers,
John B.
So one might better change 'assaults on liberty' to
'capricious and ineffective assaults on liberty'.
It's too bad neother you or he dumbass seem to remember that
all those "heinous assaults on liberty" occured while trump
was president. Biden rescinded them once the pandemic abated.
but no, that wouldn't comport with the right trope "DEMOCRAT
BAD REPUBLICAN GOOD"
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:45:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 7:59 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I watched approximately 100 illegals vote for Obama at my local voting place. There was NO WAY you could have mistaken them as anything other than Mexicans. Most of them couldn't speak English and a large percentage were illiterate.
That's amazingly perceptive of you! I can't spot an illiterate person
just by looking at them.
You can sometimes tell by the t-shirt: <https://www.google.com/search?q=t-shirt%20spelling%20error&num=10&udm=2>
Not being able to read and write English does not make someone
illiterate. It's quite likely that they can read and write in their
native language (or dialect). However, in the USA, that would make
them functionally illiterate. <https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/functional-illiteracy>
My former office was next to a cleaning service which primarily hired
Spanish speaking workers. I was involved in a discussion when I
mentioned bi-lingual education in the schools. Some of the workers immediately spoke out (in English) that they did not want bi-lingual education for their children. Instead, they wanted only English
instruction. That's because knowing English will get them a much
better paying job in the US than Spanish.
Meanwhile, with about 400,000,000 firearms, we suffer about
41,000 firearm deaths all together (including suicide and
negligent discharge).
https://deadorkicking.com/death-statistics/us/2024/
compare other deaths in that link. All firearms deaths are
greater than car crashes but less than falls.
On 6/5/2025 1:33 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 11:52:02 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I think it has more to do with him grasping at anything that he _thinks_ >>> elevates his esteem in the eyes of others....it isn't working.
Sure, dummy, that's why I piss people off... to elevate my esteem.
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 07:55:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Meanwhile, with about 400,000,000 firearms, we suffer about
41,000 firearm deaths all together (including suicide and
negligent discharge).
https://deadorkicking.com/death-statistics/us/2024/
compare other deaths in that link. All firearms deaths are
greater than car crashes but less than falls.
Incredible. Firearms lead all causes of death, except for
natural causes and "poison/suicide/homicide". I find it strange that "homicides and suicides" don't mention if guns were used,
Falls can be caused by any number of natural causes(but
usually isquemic brain/heart problems). I doubt many people were
deliberately pushed, so that goes under natural causes.
Seems the US has a very serious gun problem. And a poison
problem. Is that why people ask you "What's your poison?".
PS The only way to decrease "natural causes" is by offering
free public medical care. And I don't think that's going to happen
with the current administration. Why the US has such terrible
statistics, in some cases worse than poor countries like Cuba.
[]'s
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 07:55:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Meanwhile, with about 400,000,000 firearms, we suffer about
41,000 firearm deaths all together (including suicide and
negligent discharge).
https://deadorkicking.com/death-statistics/us/2024/
compare other deaths in that link. All firearms deaths are
greater than car crashes but less than falls.
Incredible. Firearms lead all causes of death, except for
natural causes and "poison/suicide/homicide". I find it strange that >"homicides and suicides" don't mention if guns were used,
Falls can be caused by any number of natural causes(but
usually isquemic brain/heart problems). I doubt many people were
deliberately pushed, so that goes under natural causes.
Seems the US has a very serious gun problem. And a poison
problem. Is that why people ask you "What's your poison?".
PS The only way to decrease "natural causes" is by offering
free public medical care. And I don't think that's going to happen
with the current administration. Why the US has such terrible
statistics, in some cases worse than poor countries like Cuba.
[]'s
On 6/6/2025 9:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/5/2025 9:05 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 23:12:30 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Wed Jun 4 11:09:37 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:46:52 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://catholicvote.org/new-anti-catholic-fbi-memo-
distributed-1000-biden-fbi-employees-before-whistleblower/
IMHO, ANY "radical" religious group should be
investigated by
the FBI They are usually sociopaths, and as such,
dangerous to the
community.
Let me tell you something about that wonderful country of
Brazil.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/slavery-brazil
Not only is the antislavery laws poorly enforced, in the
wilds of Brazil it is to this day
an active practice. And for very many years they would
pay ex-slaves so little that
it amounted to slavery.
Yes, and it was much worse during the right wing
dictatorship.
Shadow - in case you're unaware of it, religion is
completely voluntary. If you don't like them that is
tough shit.
Here in the USA we have a right to choose3 any r4eligion
we want or none at all.
Here normal people choose "no religion". We let the
weak of
mind choose whatever they want to. Most are opting for
nazi-fascism
(also known as christian warriors). It's what social media
(Meta, X
and Glugle) advise them to do.
[]'s
Tommy isn't wrong that we still do enjoy freedom of
religion, but that's being changed as we speak, with several
states passing legislation to force the posting of the ten
commandments and forcing "bible history" to be taught in
public schools, with several not allowing 'opt out' for non-
christian families.
It's only a matter of time before the right wing "christian"
nationalists (aka fascists) start demanding legislation for
christian prayer to be mandatory as part of the school day.
Add xx to reply
I'd bet against that being enacted.
Oh, and I'd be first to object if it ever should.
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:45:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 7:59 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I watched approximately 100 illegals vote for Obama at my local voting place. There was NO WAY you could have mistaken them as anything other than Mexicans. Most of them couldn't speak English and a large percentage were illiterate.
That's amazingly perceptive of you! I can't spot an illiterate person
just by looking at them.
You can sometimes tell by the t-shirt: <https://www.google.com/search?q=t-shirt%20spelling%20error&num=10&udm=2>
Not being able to read and write English does not make someone
illiterate. It's quite likely that they can read and write in their
native language (or dialect). However, in the USA, that would make
them functionally illiterate. <https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/functional-illiteracy>
My former office was next to a cleaning service which primarily hired
Spanish speaking workers. I was involved in a discussion when I
mentioned bi-lingual education in the schools. Some of the workers immediately spoke out (in English) that they did not want bi-lingual education for their children. Instead, they wanted only English
instruction. That's because knowing English will get them a much
better paying job in the US than Spanish.
On 6/6/2025 8:19 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 08:06:05 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 4:24 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:59:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 7:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank and Flunky persist in thinking that the Biden government was unquestionably good. Covid-19 taught them nothing at all.
I thought that Trump was president when Covid-19 hit.
The Biden administration and their cohorts in state governments used
the disease as an excuse to take control of people's private lives and >>>> take away their civil liberties.
https://reason.com/2024/12/10/civil-liberties-lost-under-covid/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
The greater bulk of the assaults on liberty were by
Governors, Mayors, Secretaries of the States, 'public
health' factota and the like.
The White House and Democrat legislators supported them and
financially blackmailed states and businesses who refused to go along.
Thankfully, Florida resisted the best we could.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
And more importantly, promptly and effectively concentrated
services on the elderly (who are most vulnerable to death by
viral infection).
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/347019-ron-desantis-nursing-homes/
besides other strategies: >https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/08/13/1027370861/florida-gov-desantis-monoclonal-antibody-treatments-covid-19-spike
Compare: >https://apnews.com/article/new-york-andrew-cuomo-us-news-coronavirus-pandemic-nursing-homes-512cae0abb55a55f375b3192f2cdd6b5
On 6/5/2025 9:05 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 23:12:30 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Wed Jun 4 11:09:37 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:46:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://catholicvote.org/new-anti-catholic-fbi-memo-distributed-1000-biden-fbi-employees-before-whistleblower/
IMHO, ANY "radical" religious group should be investigated by
the FBI They are usually sociopaths, and as such, dangerous to the
community.
Let me tell you something about that wonderful country of Brazil.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/slavery-brazil
Not only is the antislavery laws poorly enforced, in the wilds of Brazil it is to this day
an active practice. And for very many years they would pay ex-slaves so little that
it amounted to slavery.
Yes, and it was much worse during the right wing dictatorship.
Shadow - in case you're unaware of it, religion is completely voluntary. If you don't like them that is tough shit.
Here in the USA we have a right to choose3 any r4eligion we want or none at all.
Here normal people choose "no religion". We let the weak of
mind choose whatever they want to. Most are opting for nazi-fascism
(also known as christian warriors). It's what social media (Meta, X
and Glugle) advise them to do.
[]'s
Tommy isn't wrong that we still do enjoy freedom of religion, but that's >being changed as we speak, with several states passing legislation to
force the posting of the ten commandments and forcing "bible history" to
be taught in public schools, with several not allowing 'opt out' for >non-christian families.
It's only a matter of time before the right wing "christian"
nationalists (aka fascists) start demanding legislation for christian
prayer to be mandatory as part of the school day.
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 08:44:23 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 8:19 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 08:06:05 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 4:24 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:59:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 7:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank and Flunky persist in thinking that the Biden government was unquestionably good. Covid-19 taught them nothing at all.
I thought that Trump was president when Covid-19 hit.
The Biden administration and their cohorts in state governments used >>>>> the disease as an excuse to take control of people's private lives and >>>>> take away their civil liberties.
https://reason.com/2024/12/10/civil-liberties-lost-under-covid/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
The greater bulk of the assaults on liberty were by
Governors, Mayors, Secretaries of the States, 'public
health' factota and the like.
The White House and Democrat legislators supported them and
financially blackmailed states and businesses who refused to go along.
Thankfully, Florida resisted the best we could.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
And more importantly, promptly and effectively concentrated
services on the elderly (who are most vulnerable to death by
viral infection).
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/347019-ron-desantis-nursing-homes/
besides other strategies: >>https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/08/13/1027370861/florida-gov-desantis-monoclonal-antibody-treatments-covid-19-spike
Compare: >>https://apnews.com/article/new-york-andrew-cuomo-us-news-coronavirus-pandemic-nursing-homes-512cae0abb55a55f375b3192f2cdd6b5
<https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/>
Florida had one of the worse deaths/million population among
all American states(I'm excluding the blible belt states, because
praying actually increases death rates among practically all
diseases).
They should have voted for someone more capable of leading the
state.
[]'s
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 12:11:02 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 07:55:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Meanwhile, with about 400,000,000 firearms, we suffer about
41,000 firearm deaths all together (including suicide and
negligent discharge).
https://deadorkicking.com/death-statistics/us/2024/
compare other deaths in that link. All firearms deaths are
greater than car crashes but less than falls.
Incredible. Firearms lead all causes of death, except for
natural causes and "poison/suicide/homicide". I find it strange that >>"homicides and suicides" don't mention if guns were used,
Falls can be caused by any number of natural causes(but
usually isquemic brain/heart problems). I doubt many people were >>deliberately pushed, so that goes under natural causes.
Seems the US has a very serious gun problem. And a poison
problem. Is that why people ask you "What's your poison?".
PS The only way to decrease "natural causes" is by offering
free public medical care. And I don't think that's going to happen
with the current administration. Why the US has such terrible
statistics, in some cases worse than poor countries like Cuba.
[]'s
No such thing as free -------
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 11:23:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 12:11:02 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 07:55:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Meanwhile, with about 400,000,000 firearms, we suffer about
41,000 firearm deaths all together (including suicide and
negligent discharge).
https://deadorkicking.com/death-statistics/us/2024/
compare other deaths in that link. All firearms deaths are
greater than car crashes but less than falls.
Incredible. Firearms lead all causes of death, except for
natural causes and "poison/suicide/homicide". I find it strange that >>>"homicides and suicides" don't mention if guns were used,
Falls can be caused by any number of natural causes(but
usually isquemic brain/heart problems). I doubt many people were >>>deliberately pushed, so that goes under natural causes.
Seems the US has a very serious gun problem. And a poison
problem. Is that why people ask you "What's your poison?".
PS The only way to decrease "natural causes" is by offering
free public medical care. And I don't think that's going to happen
with the current administration. Why the US has such terrible
statistics, in some cases worse than poor countries like Cuba.
[]'s
No such thing as free -------
There is "pay your taxes" as opposed to "hide everything in
the Caymans, fsck fellow citizens". Most of the EU and Canada chose
the first option. Their life expectancy puts the US to shame,
[]'s
On 6/6/2025 10:11 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 07:55:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Meanwhile, with about 400,000,000 firearms, we suffer about
41,000 firearm deaths all together (including suicide and
negligent discharge).
https://deadorkicking.com/death-statistics/us/2024/
compare other deaths in that link. All firearms deaths are
greater than car crashes but less than falls.
Incredible. Firearms lead all causes of death, except for
natural causes and "poison/suicide/homicide". I find it strange that
"homicides and suicides" don't mention if guns were used,
Falls can be caused by any number of natural causes(but
usually isquemic brain/heart problems). I doubt many people were
deliberately pushed, so that goes under natural causes.
Seems the US has a very serious gun problem. And a poison
problem. Is that why people ask you "What's your poison?".
PS The only way to decrease "natural causes" is by offering
free public medical care. And I don't think that's going to happen
with the current administration. Why the US has such terrible
statistics, in some cases worse than poor countries like Cuba.
[]'s
???
Perhaps you missed this listing on that page: >blob:null/c00a7b41-99a0-491a-a481-f2589d8ae2eb
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 11:23:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 12:11:02 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 07:55:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Meanwhile, with about 400,000,000 firearms, we suffer about
41,000 firearm deaths all together (including suicide and
negligent discharge).
https://deadorkicking.com/death-statistics/us/2024/
compare other deaths in that link. All firearms deaths are
greater than car crashes but less than falls.
Incredible. Firearms lead all causes of death, except for
natural causes and "poison/suicide/homicide". I find it strange that
"homicides and suicides" don't mention if guns were used,
Falls can be caused by any number of natural causes(but
usually isquemic brain/heart problems). I doubt many people were
deliberately pushed, so that goes under natural causes.
Seems the US has a very serious gun problem. And a poison
problem. Is that why people ask you "What's your poison?".
PS The only way to decrease "natural causes" is by offering
free public medical care. And I don't think that's going to happen
with the current administration. Why the US has such terrible
statistics, in some cases worse than poor countries like Cuba.
[]'s
No such thing as free -------
There is "pay your taxes" as opposed to "hide everything in
the Caymans, fsck fellow citizens". Most of the EU and Canada chose
the first option. Their life expectancy puts the US to shame,
[]'s
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 13:20:03 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 11:23:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 12:11:02 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 07:55:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Meanwhile, with about 400,000,000 firearms, we suffer about
41,000 firearm deaths all together (including suicide and
negligent discharge).
https://deadorkicking.com/death-statistics/us/2024/
compare other deaths in that link. All firearms deaths are
greater than car crashes but less than falls.
Incredible. Firearms lead all causes of death, except for
natural causes and "poison/suicide/homicide". I find it strange that >>>>"homicides and suicides" don't mention if guns were used,
Falls can be caused by any number of natural causes(but
usually isquemic brain/heart problems). I doubt many people were >>>>deliberately pushed, so that goes under natural causes.
Seems the US has a very serious gun problem. And a poison
problem. Is that why people ask you "What's your poison?".
PS The only way to decrease "natural causes" is by offering
free public medical care. And I don't think that's going to happen
with the current administration. Why the US has such terrible >>>>statistics, in some cases worse than poor countries like Cuba.
[]'s
No such thing as free -------
There is "pay your taxes" as opposed to "hide everything in
the Caymans, fsck fellow citizens". Most of the EU and Canada chose
the first option. Their life expectancy puts the US to shame,
[]'s
So far at least, they don't have the drug problems, the violent gangs,
or the problems with single parent housholds.
On 6/6/2025 10:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/5/2025 1:33 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 11:52:02 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I think it has more to do with him grasping at anything that he
_thinks_
elevates his esteem in the eyes of others....it isn't working.
Sure, dummy, that's why I piss people off... to elevate my esteem.
Dumbass, you aren't pissing anyone off. Your wilfull ignornance and
attemtps at insults are mildly entertaining.
I do get a chuckle out of most of them, while shaking my head!
I suppose I should try to be more charitable...
On 6/6/2025 8:57 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I think we all agree that a finding of fact is necessary and proper. (a
finding of fact is not the same as a trial)
That said, who habitually carries a certified copy of a birth
certificate? No one I know at least.
Agreed. For my recent trip to California I had no "Real ID" so I used my >passport. But I'll confess to feeling nervous carrying that thing even
around the airport. There's certain documentation one would not want to
lose or misplace.
On 6/6/2025 10:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 9:13 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
It's too bad neother you or he dumbass seem to remember that all those
"heinous assaults on liberty" occured while trump was president. Biden
rescinded them once the pandemic abated.
but no, that wouldn't comport with the right trope "DEMOCRAT BAD
REPUBLICAN GOOD"
I am not absolving him. Nor are his policies, in retrospect, defensible,
especially for the first half of 2020.
the current group complaining about Covid policies seems to forget the
fact that the virus was completely new, and scientists and medicos had
no way of knowing how bad the infestation would get.
They've erased from their memories the images of hospitals set up with
huge plastic triage tents, and the documentation of medical workers
working endless nonstop shifts trying to keep people alive. They ignore
the fact that many otherwise healthy people died or nearly died - like
one of my younger riding friends.
That said, there was much flailing and writhing of policy at all levels
in the early days of the bioweapon infestation.
The "bioweapon" claim is deliberately inflammatory and senseless. Much
like the claim from one of my friends, who said all the Covid fuss was
just an attempt to influence the election.
But I guess conspiracy fans will conspire. :-/
On 6/6/2025 11:01 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 9:35 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
... they wanted only English
instruction. That's because knowing English will get
them a much
better paying job in the US than Spanish.
Same conclusion to the same problem by Italians 100 years
ago.
A couple points here:
1) My grandparents were born in Poland, my parents born
here. They spoke Polish in the home, but my parents never
taught us the language. It was clear they wanted us to be
fully American. I now regret their choice. Any language is
difficult to learn later in life, and Polish is one of the
tougher European languages.
2) One dear friend of mine, for years, taught English As A
Second Language to immigrants. Amazingly, she had classes of
10 to 20 students from a mixture of countries; so the
majority not only had no English, they had no languages in
common with each other. Many were illiterate in all
languages, including their own. I can't possibly imagine how
a person could teach such a crew, but she had great success.
Apparently the objective was not perfect English. Instead it
was survival - here's how to use our money, our bus systems,
find a job, etc. - but it worked.
When she left that job, I was invited to a "going away"
party attended by many of her former students. It was an
amazing mixture of nationalities (and ethnic foods and
music). You could see they absolutely loved that lady.
On 6/6/2025 11:35 AM, Shadow wrote:
Florida had one of the worse deaths/million population among
all American states(I'm excluding the blible belt states, because
praying actually increases death rates among practically all
diseases).
They should have voted for someone more capable of leading the
state.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party-affiliation-linked-excess-covid-deaths
On 6/6/2025 10:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 9:13 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
It's too bad neother you or he dumbass seem to remember
that all those "heinous assaults on liberty" occured
while trump was president. Biden rescinded them once the
pandemic abated.
but no, that wouldn't comport with the right trope
"DEMOCRAT BAD REPUBLICAN GOOD"
I am not absolving him. Nor are his policies, in
retrospect, defensible, especially for the first half of
2020.
the current group complaining about Covid policies seems to
forget the fact that the virus was completely new, and
scientists and medicos had no way of knowing how bad the
infestation would get.
They've erased from their memories the images of hospitals
set up with huge plastic triage tents, and the documentation
of medical workers working endless nonstop shifts trying to
keep people alive. They ignore the fact that many otherwise
healthy people died or nearly died - like one of my younger
riding friends.
That said, there was much flailing and writhing of policy
at all levels in the early days of the bioweapon infestation.
The "bioweapon" claim is deliberately inflammatory and
senseless. Much like the claim from one of my friends, who
said all the Covid fuss was just an attempt to influence the
election.
But I guess conspiracy fans will conspire. :-/
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 13:55:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 8:57 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I think we all agree that a finding of fact is necessary and proper. (a
finding of fact is not the same as a trial)
That said, who habitually carries a certified copy of a birth
certificate? No one I know at least.
Agreed. For my recent trip to California I had no "Real ID" so I used my
passport. But I'll confess to feeling nervous carrying that thing even
around the airport. There's certain documentation one would not want to
lose or misplace.
Wow... You have no Real ID indication on your driver's licence? Do
you even know what it is?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/6/2025 2:29 PM, Shadow wrote:
That conflicts with the "NO NEW TAXES!" dogma of the right.
You need a good tax-funded police to solve the problem of
gangs. I heard that in the US the police get 4 months training. In
most of Europe it's more than 2 years before they are allowed to
intermingle with the public without a supervisor In Iceland 3 years
minimum?.
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 14:40:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 2:29 PM, Shadow wrote:
That conflicts with the "NO NEW TAXES!" dogma of the right.
You need a good tax-funded police to solve the problem of
gangs. I heard that in the US the police get 4 months training. In
most of Europe it's more than 2 years before they are allowed to
intermingle with the public without a supervisor In Iceland 3 years
minimum?.
High taxes is one of the reasons people are fleeing the big blue
states.
--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger
On 6/6/2025 2:30 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 13:52:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 10:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
Dumbass, you aren't pissing anyone off. Your wilfull ignornance and
attemtps at insults are mildly entertaining.
I do get a chuckle out of most of them, while shaking my head!
I suppose I should try to be more charitable...
Krygowski has a hbiit of running away with his tail between his legs
whenever I mention his make believe friends, his bragging and his
narcissism. On the other haand, I have no trouble responding to his
insults.
Hell, you have an overpowering compulsion to respond to almost anything
I say here, not to mention enough of a fixation to store my statements
for future reference. You're clearly obsessed.
And that's charitably stated!
On 6/6/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 13:55:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 8:57 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I think we all agree that a finding of fact is necessary and proper. (a >>>> finding of fact is not the same as a trial)
That said, who habitually carries a certified copy of a birth
certificate? No one I know at least.
Agreed. For my recent trip to California I had no "Real ID" so I used my >>> passport. But I'll confess to feeling nervous carrying that thing even
around the airport. There's certain documentation one would not want to
lose or misplace.
Wow... You have no Real ID indication on your driver's licence? Do
you even know what it is?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Like most USAians, Mr Krygowski and I know what it is and do
not have it. I don't know his reason, but for me, why ever
would I? meh.
On 6/6/2025 1:09 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:01 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 9:35 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
... they wanted only English
instruction. That's because knowing English will get
them a much
better paying job in the US than Spanish.
Same conclusion to the same problem by Italians 100 years
ago.
A couple points here:
1) My grandparents were born in Poland, my parents born
here. They spoke Polish in the home, but my parents never
taught us the language. It was clear they wanted us to be
fully American. I now regret their choice. Any language is
difficult to learn later in life, and Polish is one of the
tougher European languages.
2) One dear friend of mine, for years, taught English As A
Second Language to immigrants. Amazingly, she had classes of
10 to 20 students from a mixture of countries; so the
majority not only had no English, they had no languages in
common with each other. Many were illiterate in all
languages, including their own. I can't possibly imagine how
a person could teach such a crew, but she had great success.
Apparently the objective was not perfect English. Instead it
was survival - here's how to use our money, our bus systems,
find a job, etc. - but it worked.
When she left that job, I was invited to a "going away"
party attended by many of her former students. It was an
amazing mixture of nationalities (and ethnic foods and
music). You could see they absolutely loved that lady.
Your family's experience mirrors mine. I have the same
feeling about the lost opportunity.
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 23:59:17 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>California law there was nothing the poll workers could do. With a Real ID this could never happen.
wrote:
Look, I watched approximately 100 illegals vote for Obama at my local voting place. There was NO WAY you could have mistaken them as anything other than Mexicans. Most of them couldn't speak English and a large percentage were illiterate. But under
Yep, you did.
11/04/2021 ><https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/TUUbjBS18Xo/m/AlU5uxk-AQAJ> >"I was the first one to the polls in the morning. When I came out
there was a BUS there that had brought an entire load of illegal
aliens who all had a piece of paper with a name on it they were
supposed to vote under."
The problem was that your illegals had to go back to work on the same--
day. The organizers would need to rent a sufficient number of buses
that seat 100 people in the morning, and drive them all over your
city, picking them up at various times, dropping them off at work, and
repeat the process all day. They could rent a large number of busses,
but that would be rather expensive but is the only way the organizers
could deal with thousands of voting precincts. Or, did you think the >organizers only bribed illegals in your precinct?
Some details on the California real id drivers license: ><https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-licenses-identification-cards/real-id/what-is-real-id/>
On 6/4/2025 7:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 6:12 PM, zen cycle wrote:Here's a question, Where do you see any information that
On 6/4/2025 5:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 2:53 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/4/2025 9:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 4:30 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/3/2025 5:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2025 3:10 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:Uncorroborated allegations.."sources said"...."two
On 6/3/2025 11:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:At his previous 2019 hearing, after his deportation
On 6/3/2025 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
There was a false statement inserted into a
filing in re Kilmar Abrego Garcia that he had
been deported in error. The Justice Department
employee who added that was fired the next
morning and the filing emended...
Got a citation or other evidence for that claim?
And what did the courts say about this issue? And
where is Mr. Garcia now?
Right, The government narrative kept changing,
coming up with different excuses, right down to
trump retweeting a photo shopped (fake) image of
Mr. Garcia with gang tattoos. Once they were unable
to convince anyone with any brains that he had no
criminal past, they brought out a domestic abuse
complaint from ten years ago - complete bullshit as
well.
As Monday morning's NYT for example, whose front
page did not cover the immolation of live US
citizens, including a Holocaust survivor, in
Boulder by an illegal jihadi screaming 'free
palestine.' Deemed not interesting enough by
editorial staff.
I don't get a print edition of NYT; but your
complaint seems to be that eight people getting
various degrees of burns did not get enough
attention, despite it being on every news outlet.
It looks to me like NYT has since done many
articles on the incident and its implications. Are
you trying to say NYT does sufficiently protest
antisemitism?
And BTW, what happened was despicable. As you
know, I'm firmly against attempts to harm or kill
groups of innocent people. But "immolation of live
US citizens" is more than a little exaggerated. It
usually means burning to death. I gather only one
person out of the eight was seriously burned.
There's no excuse for the attack, but you can
slightly relax your grip on your own pearls!
order, the removal was stayed as the judge found
that his MS-13 gang membership put him at risk in
his old neighborhood controlled by a competing gang.
(details are messy as he had lived both in El
Salvador and in Guatemala)
https://tennesseestar.com/news/immigration-
judges-2019- order- found- kilmar-abrego-garcia-
subject-to-removal-by- deportation- but- granted-
withholding-of-removal-to- guatemala-though-
referencing- el-salvador/ tpappert/2025/04/22/
The prior administration also denied assistance to
Tennessee State Patrol in 2022 when they stopped him
in the car of a known trafficker with a load of
smuggled illegals while speeding with no valid
license. FBI directed TSP to not detain him.
https://tennesseestar.com/justice/tennessee-highway-
patrol- confirms- biden-era-fbi-told-officers-to-
release- kilmar-abrego- garcia- during-2022-
traffic- stop-despite- speeding-and-license-
violations- to/ tpappert/2025/04/17/
(unnamed) judges determined he is likely to be a
member of the Central American gang, Mara
Salvatrucha"....iow, more trump ICE/DOJ lies to cover
their assess.
The judge who, in 2019, stayed deportation to
Guatemala _due to his gang affiliation_ wrote his
decision. It was not appealed.
Got a link? I couldn't find anything except trump DOJ
heresay.
Cited above, it's in the header of the first link,
"granted withholding of removal to guatemala though
referencing el salvador"
um...no.
The named judge in that article - Judge David M. Jones -
made absolutely no determination of any gang affiliation.
Judge Jones order is linked in the article so you can
read it yourself. (here for convenience https://
drive.google.com/ file/
d/1V_yaacfwjS6i02eeCaHoPh64tGvySkVO/)
Regarding any alleged gang affiliation, The link you
provided has no more information than "two [unnamed]
judges determined he is likely to be a member of the
Central American gang, Mara Salvatrucha".
It's heresay, and there has been no evidence produced by
anyone that Mr. Garcia had any gang affiliation. More
trump DOJ bullshit.
Fair enough, not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Here's a question. If you wanted to smuggle eight aliens
from the southern border to Maryland, would you make the
arrangements with a known MS-13 smuggler, who owned the
car in question at the Tennessee traffic stop, or your
local Boy Scout troop?
any of the seven people in the car (excluding garcia) were
illegal and that the car was owned by a known smuggler?
On 6/4/2025 7:15 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/4/2025 7:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 6:12 PM, zen cycle wrote:Here's a question, Where do you see any information that
On 6/4/2025 5:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 2:53 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/4/2025 9:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2025 4:30 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/3/2025 5:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2025 3:10 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:Uncorroborated allegations.."sources said"...."two
On 6/3/2025 11:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:At his previous 2019 hearing, after his deportation
On 6/3/2025 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
There was a false statement inserted into a
filing in re Kilmar Abrego Garcia that he had
been deported in error. The Justice Department
employee who added that was fired the next
morning and the filing emended...
Got a citation or other evidence for that claim?
And what did the courts say about this issue? And
where is Mr. Garcia now?
Right, The government narrative kept changing,
coming up with different excuses, right down to
trump retweeting a photo shopped (fake) image of
Mr. Garcia with gang tattoos. Once they were unable
to convince anyone with any brains that he had no
criminal past, they brought out a domestic abuse
complaint from ten years ago - complete bullshit as
well.
As Monday morning's NYT for example, whose front
page did not cover the immolation of live US
citizens, including a Holocaust survivor, in
Boulder by an illegal jihadi screaming 'free
palestine.' Deemed not interesting enough by
editorial staff.
I don't get a print edition of NYT; but your
complaint seems to be that eight people getting
various degrees of burns did not get enough
attention, despite it being on every news outlet.
It looks to me like NYT has since done many
articles on the incident and its implications. Are
you trying to say NYT does sufficiently protest
antisemitism?
And BTW, what happened was despicable. As you
know, I'm firmly against attempts to harm or kill
groups of innocent people. But "immolation of live
US citizens" is more than a little exaggerated. It
usually means burning to death. I gather only one
person out of the eight was seriously burned.
There's no excuse for the attack, but you can
slightly relax your grip on your own pearls!
order, the removal was stayed as the judge found
that his MS-13 gang membership put him at risk in
his old neighborhood controlled by a competing gang.
(details are messy as he had lived both in El
Salvador and in Guatemala)
https://tennesseestar.com/news/immigration-
judges-2019- order- found- kilmar-abrego-garcia-
subject-to-removal-by- deportation- but- granted-
withholding-of-removal-to- guatemala-though-
referencing- el-salvador/ tpappert/2025/04/22/
The prior administration also denied assistance to
Tennessee State Patrol in 2022 when they stopped him
in the car of a known trafficker with a load of
smuggled illegals while speeding with no valid
license. FBI directed TSP to not detain him.
https://tennesseestar.com/justice/tennessee-highway-
patrol- confirms- biden-era-fbi-told-officers-to-
release- kilmar-abrego- garcia- during-2022-
traffic- stop-despite- speeding-and-license-
violations- to/ tpappert/2025/04/17/
(unnamed) judges determined he is likely to be a
member of the Central American gang, Mara
Salvatrucha"....iow, more trump ICE/DOJ lies to cover
their assess.
The judge who, in 2019, stayed deportation to
Guatemala _due to his gang affiliation_ wrote his
decision. It was not appealed.
Got a link? I couldn't find anything except trump DOJ
heresay.
Cited above, it's in the header of the first link,
"granted withholding of removal to guatemala though
referencing el salvador"
um...no.
The named judge in that article - Judge David M. Jones -
made absolutely no determination of any gang affiliation.
Judge Jones order is linked in the article so you can
read it yourself. (here for convenience https://
drive.google.com/ file/
d/1V_yaacfwjS6i02eeCaHoPh64tGvySkVO/)
Regarding any alleged gang affiliation, The link you
provided has no more information than "two [unnamed]
judges determined he is likely to be a member of the
Central American gang, Mara Salvatrucha".
It's heresay, and there has been no evidence produced by
anyone that Mr. Garcia had any gang affiliation. More
trump DOJ bullshit.
Fair enough, not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Here's a question. If you wanted to smuggle eight aliens
from the southern border to Maryland, would you make the
arrangements with a known MS-13 smuggler, who owned the
car in question at the Tennessee traffic stop, or your
local Boy Scout troop?
any of the seven people in the car (excluding garcia) were
illegal and that the car was owned by a known smuggler?
Update this afternoon regarding Mr Abrego Garcia.
3-1/2 minute video is on the 2d screen/page here:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kilmar-abrego-garcia-way-back-185850961.html
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:29:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:22 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Around here the idiot governor has driven most good people out of the state and they have been replace by honest hard working illegals. No one is coming back to the worst state just because it has the best weather.
I spent a week there not long ago. You're right, Tom, Mountain View,
Palo Alto, San Jose, Cupertino, San Francisco were like deserts! Nobody
as far as the eye could see! :-)
I don't know what caused all the traffic. Robotaxis in disguise? But who >>would need them?
With over 817,000 residents leaving in 2023, California continues to
have one of the highest outbound migration rates. High housing costs,
rising taxes, and concerns about affordability are pushing residents
to states like Texas and Arizona. When asked what state has the most
people leaving, California consistently ranks at the top due to its
high cost of living and economic challenges. >https://clancymoving.com/blog/2025/april/moving-statistics-and-trends-for-2025-what-to-expect-this-year/
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 04:27:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:29:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:22 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Around here the idiot governor has driven most good people out of the state and they have been replace by honest hard working illegals. No one is coming back to the worst state just because it has the best weather.
I spent a week there not long ago. You're right, Tom, Mountain View,
Palo Alto, San Jose, Cupertino, San Francisco were like deserts! Nobody >>>as far as the eye could see! :-)
I don't know what caused all the traffic. Robotaxis in disguise? But who >>>would need them?
With over 817,000 residents leaving in 2023, California continues to
have one of the highest outbound migration rates. High housing costs, >>rising taxes, and concerns about affordability are pushing residents
to states like Texas and Arizona. When asked what state has the most
people leaving, California consistently ranks at the top due to its
high cost of living and economic challenges. >>https://clancymoving.com/blog/2025/april/moving-statistics-and-trends-for-2025-what-to-expect-this-year/
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_exodus#Demographics>
Leaving Calif -690,127 in 2023
Entering Calif +422,075 in 2023
=================================
Net change -268,052
Source of data: ><https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/state-to-state-migration.html>
Mr Jorgensen seems to want each illegal to get a hearing. That's not a >workable solution.
They call it "real Id," and it's easy to get.
I do want all the law enforcement agencies to be very careful, and I
want their overseers to keep a close eye on them, but I want them to
do their jobs.
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 16:27:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 04:27:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:29:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:22 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Around here the idiot governor has driven most good people out of the state and they have been replace by honest hard working illegals. No one is coming back to the worst state just because it has the best weather.
I spent a week there not long ago. You're right, Tom, Mountain View, >>>>Palo Alto, San Jose, Cupertino, San Francisco were like deserts! Nobody >>>>as far as the eye could see! :-)
I don't know what caused all the traffic. Robotaxis in disguise? But who >>>>would need them?
With over 817,000 residents leaving in 2023, California continues to >>>have one of the highest outbound migration rates. High housing costs, >>>rising taxes, and concerns about affordability are pushing residents
to states like Texas and Arizona. When asked what state has the most >>>people leaving, California consistently ranks at the top due to its
high cost of living and economic challenges. >>>https://clancymoving.com/blog/2025/april/moving-statistics-and-trends-for-2025-what-to-expect-this-year/
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_exodus#Demographics>
Leaving Calif -690,127 in 2023
Entering Calif +422,075 in 2023
=================================
Net change -268,052
Source of data: >><https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/state-to-state-migration.html>
I'd like to see the in/out numbers of registered voters
In article <oks04ktn4c8tbvov8mfuojmsv54tq9fcnf@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I do want all the law enforcement agencies to be very careful, and I
want their overseers to keep a close eye on them, but I want them to
do their jobs.
I actually completely agree with this statement. It's just that the >"overseers" are the courts. No one else oversees law enforcement.
In article <L%p0Q.615078$vvyf.38649@fx18.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
As I said, you CANNOT argue with a birth certificate and they are ALL
computerized now. So all, you need is a time and place of birth. An
Illegal can say he is someone else. But school records and possible
military records rapidly clear that up
Something that I'm sure can be done at a hearing. Due process.
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 16:27:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 04:27:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:29:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:22 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Around here the idiot governor has driven most good people out of the state and they have been replace by honest hard working illegals. No one is coming back to the worst state just because it has the best weather.
I spent a week there not long ago. You're right, Tom, Mountain View,
Palo Alto, San Jose, Cupertino, San Francisco were like deserts! Nobody >>>> as far as the eye could see! :-)
I don't know what caused all the traffic. Robotaxis in disguise? But who >>>> would need them?
With over 817,000 residents leaving in 2023, California continues to
have one of the highest outbound migration rates. High housing costs,
rising taxes, and concerns about affordability are pushing residents
to states like Texas and Arizona. When asked what state has the most
people leaving, California consistently ranks at the top due to its
high cost of living and economic challenges.
https://clancymoving.com/blog/2025/april/moving-statistics-and-trends-for-2025-what-to-expect-this-year/
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_exodus#Demographics>
Leaving Calif -690,127 in 2023
Entering Calif +422,075 in 2023
=================================
Net change -268,052
Source of data:
<https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/state-to-state-migration.html>
I'd like to see the in/out numbers of registered voters
--
C'est bon
Soloman
In article <3h004kdpcjthllq8iplvuotaqhh0qunmgv@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Mr Jorgensen seems to want each illegal to get a hearing. That's not a
workable solution.
"Dear Founding Fathers,
"This whole 'due process' thing just isn't practical. So we're just
going to cut the judicial system out and let law enforcement decide who
gets deported."
In article <oks04ktn4c8tbvov8mfuojmsv54tq9fcnf@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I do want all the law enforcement agencies to be very careful, and I
want their overseers to keep a close eye on them, but I want them to
do their jobs.
I actually completely agree with this statement. It's just that the "overseers" are the courts. No one else oversees law enforcement.
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 01:37:32 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <oks04ktn4c8tbvov8mfuojmsv54tq9fcnf@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I do want all the law enforcement agencies to be very careful, and I
want their overseers to keep a close eye on them, but I want them to
do their jobs.
I actually completely agree with this statement. It's just that the
"overseers" are the courts. No one else oversees law enforcement.
Ummm... not exactly. There's the "The Office of the Immigration
Detention Ombudsman" which MIGHT provide some oversight: <https://www.dhs.gov/office-immigration-detention-ombudsman>
Yet another DHS ombudsman:
<https://www.dhs.gov/ombudsman-offices>
Operational and Support Components (i.e. enforcement): <https://www.dhs.gov/operational-and-support-components>
Here's the top layer of the DHS organizational chart: <https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/23_1109_mgmt_dhs-public-org-chart-508.pdf>
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 01:29:20 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <L%p0Q.615078$vvyf.38649@fx18.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
As I said, you CANNOT argue with a birth certificate and they are ALL
computerized now. So all, you need is a time and place of birth. An
Illegal can say he is someone else. But school records and possible
military records rapidly clear that up
Something that I'm sure can be done at a hearing. Due process.
This is a clue where all this is heading. Due process is a dream for
these people. All we're doing is cloning Guantanamo Bay (which has
become the US government's version of Siberia):
"20 Years and 4 Presidents Later and Gitmo Still Not Closed" <https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/01/11/20-years-and-4-presidents-later-and-gitmo-still-not-closed>
On 6/6/2025 6:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Update this afternoon regarding Mr Abrego Garcia.
3-1/2 minute video is on the 2d screen/page here:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kilmar-abrego-garcia-way-
back-185850961.html
This sounds a lot closer to what the Founding Fathers
intended, compared to "Deport him!" and "Oops, we goofed but
we can't fix it."
On 6/6/2025 2:55 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 1:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
The "bioweapon" claim is deliberately inflammatory and
senseless. Much like the claim from one of my friends,
who said all the Covid fuss was just an attempt to
influence the election.
But I guess conspiracy fans will conspire. :-/
Both can be true (bioweapon and timed for political
advantage). Clear proof (for or against either) will defy
historians.
And as we know, lack of proof has never deterred conspiracy
theorists!
In article <3h004kdpcjthllq8iplvuotaqhh0qunmgv@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Mr Jorgensen seems to want each illegal to get a hearing. That's not a >>workable solution.
"Dear Founding Fathers,
"This whole 'due process' thing just isn't practical. So we're just
going to cut the judicial system out and let law enforcement decide who
gets deported."
In article <3h004kdpcjthllq8iplvuotaqhh0qunmgv@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Mr Jorgensen seems to want each illegal to get a hearing. That's not a >>workable solution.
"Dear Founding Fathers,
"This whole 'due process' thing just isn't practical. So we're just
going to cut the judicial system out and let law enforcement decide who
gets deported."
In article <oks04ktn4c8tbvov8mfuojmsv54tq9fcnf@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I do want all the law enforcement agencies to be very careful, and I
want their overseers to keep a close eye on them, but I want them to
do their jobs.
I actually completely agree with this statement. It's just that the >"overseers" are the courts. No one else oversees law enforcement.
On 6/6/2025 6:52 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 16:27:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 04:27:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:29:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:22 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Around here the idiot governor has driven most good people out of the state and they have been replace by honest hard working illegals. No one is coming back to the worst state just because it has the best weather.
I spent a week there not long ago. You're right, Tom, Mountain View, >>>>> Palo Alto, San Jose, Cupertino, San Francisco were like deserts! Nobody >>>>> as far as the eye could see! :-)
I don't know what caused all the traffic. Robotaxis in disguise? But who >>>>> would need them?
With over 817,000 residents leaving in 2023, California continues to
have one of the highest outbound migration rates. High housing costs,
rising taxes, and concerns about affordability are pushing residents
to states like Texas and Arizona. When asked what state has the most
people leaving, California consistently ranks at the top due to its
high cost of living and economic challenges.
https://clancymoving.com/blog/2025/april/moving-statistics-and-trends-for-2025-what-to-expect-this-year/
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_exodus#Demographics>
Leaving Calif -690,127 in 2023
Entering Calif +422,075 in 2023
=================================
Net change -268,052
Source of data:
<https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/state-to-state-migration.html>
I'd like to see the in/out numbers of registered voters
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Registered voters never leave, even in death. Here's just
one county, which settled after three years of litigation
(eventually found not in compliance with National Voter Act):
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/la-county-and-state-to-purge-15-million-inactive-voters-from-rolls/6866/
Will they actually remove dead/moved names? Maybe, but maybe
not. The process is yet ongoing and there are 57 other
California counties.
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 19:52:16 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 16:27:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 04:27:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:29:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:22 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Around here the idiot governor has driven most good people out of the state and they have been replace by honest hard working illegals. No one is coming back to the worst state just because it has the best weather.
I spent a week there not long ago. You're right, Tom, Mountain View, >>>>>Palo Alto, San Jose, Cupertino, San Francisco were like deserts! Nobody >>>>>as far as the eye could see! :-)
I don't know what caused all the traffic. Robotaxis in disguise? But who >>>>>would need them?
With over 817,000 residents leaving in 2023, California continues to >>>>have one of the highest outbound migration rates. High housing costs, >>>>rising taxes, and concerns about affordability are pushing residents
to states like Texas and Arizona. When asked what state has the most >>>>people leaving, California consistently ranks at the top due to its >>>>high cost of living and economic challenges. >>>>https://clancymoving.com/blog/2025/april/moving-statistics-and-trends-for-2025-what-to-expect-this-year/
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_exodus#Demographics>
Leaving Calif -690,127 in 2023
Entering Calif +422,075 in 2023
=================================
Net change -268,052
Source of data: >>><https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/state-to-state-migration.html>
I'd like to see the in/out numbers of registered voters
Thanks for ignoring what I wrote. Your numbers from Clancy Relocation
and Logistics appear to be faulty and not very authoritative. I
suggest you find a better source that provides sources for its
numbers. You also ignored everyone entering California.
I couldn't find anything that counted California in-migration and >out-migration by voter registration or political party affiliation.
Perhaps I could provide an answer if you could rewrite your request
into something that I can feed to an AI. Using ChatGPT 3 and asking:
"What is the percent immigration, in and out of California by
political party in 2024?" ><https://chatgpt.com/share/68439ab9-02c0-800c-8ef4-8b182445d370>
I could try to squeeze some better and more specific info out of the
AI, but I would need a clue as to what you are looking for. I can
also ask other AI's and/or reword the request. I don't care about
what you're trying to prove. Just what information you need to prove
your point.
On 6/6/2025 2:57 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Like most USAians, Mr Krygowski and I know what it is and do not have
Wow... You have no Real ID indication on your driver's licence? Do
you even know what it is?
it. I don't know his reason, but for me, why ever would I? meh.
When I last renewed my license, they asked if I wanted Real ID. I learned:
1) I could travel without it by carrying my passport. And I'd need a
passport for international travel anyway.
2) I'd have to run home to fetch things like my passport, my birth >certificate, my social security card, something like a utility bill
addressed to me at home. And start over at the back of the line.
For what? So I don't have to carry my passport when I get on a plane?
A person who didn't provide similar documentation probably doesn't have
a Real ID, no matter what he thinks.
https://www.flhsmv.gov/driver-licenses-id-cards/what-to-bring/u-s-citizen/
But hey, ignorance is bliss.
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 13:52:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 10:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/5/2025 1:33 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 11:52:02 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
I think it has more to do with him grasping at anything that he
_thinks_
elevates his esteem in the eyes of others....it isn't working.
Sure, dummy, that's why I piss people off... to elevate my esteem.
Dumbass, you aren't pissing anyone off. Your wilfull ignornance and
attemtps at insults are mildly entertaining.
I do get a chuckle out of most of them, while shaking my head!
I suppose I should try to be more charitable...
Krygowski has a hbiit of running away with his tail between his legs
whenever I mention his make believe friends, his bragging and his
narcissism.
On 6/6/2025 9:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2025 2:55 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 1:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
The "bioweapon" claim is deliberately inflammatory and senseless.
Much like the claim from one of my friends, who said all the Covid
fuss was just an attempt to influence the election.
But I guess conspiracy fans will conspire. :-/
Both can be true (bioweapon and timed for political advantage).
Clear proof (for or against either) will defy historians.
And as we know, lack of proof has never deterred conspiracy theorists!
Yes, unknown does not equal true. Nor false.
There was great sympathy in some quarters for Alger Hiss for 40+ years
until his KGB file, reports and payroll records were released in the
Venona documents.
OTOH there will be no 'secrets' revealed in the perhaps once more
imminent JFK files release, after 60 years' grace period to destroy
anything of import.
On 6/6/2025 9:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2025 6:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Update this afternoon regarding Mr Abrego Garcia.
3-1/2 minute video is on the 2d screen/page here:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kilmar-abrego-garcia-way- back-185850961.html
This sounds a lot closer to what the Founding Fathers intended,
compared to "Deport him!" and "Oops, we goofed but we can't fix it."
All his deplorable criminal activities aside,
he has a prior deportation
order fer chrissake. What does it take to enforce a Statute??
On 6/6/2025 7:58 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <3h004kdpcjthllq8iplvuotaqhh0qunmgv@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Mr Jorgensen seems to want each illegal to get a hearing. That's not a
workable solution.
"Dear Founding Fathers,
"This whole 'due process' thing just isn't practical. So we're just
going to cut the judicial system out and let law enforcement decide who
gets deported."
As noted here previously, US citizens have full civil and process
rights. Legal resident aliens have some, but limited and green cards may
be revoked. Temporary visa (of all types) holders may be removed "at the discretion of the Secretary of State". Illegal aliens are subject to deportation when and where discovered.
In a practical sense, a finding of fact (who is this guy really?) is reasonable and prudent. That is not a trial.
On 6/6/2025 2:57 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Like most USAians, Mr Krygowski and I know what it is and do not have
Wow... You have no Real ID indication on your driver's licence? Do
you even know what it is?
it. I don't know his reason, but for me, why ever would I? meh.
When I last renewed my license, they asked if I wanted Real ID. I learned:
1) I could travel without it by carrying my passport. And I'd need a
passport for international travel anyway.
2) I'd have to run home to fetch things like my passport, my birth certificate, my social security card, something like a utility bill
addressed to me at home. And start over at the back of the line.
For what? So I don't have to carry my passport when I get on a plane?
A person who didn't provide similar documentation probably doesn't have
a Real ID, no matter what he thinks.
https://www.flhsmv.gov/driver-licenses-id-cards/what-to-bring/u-s-citizen/
But hey, ignorance is bliss.
On 6/7/2025 12:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 7:58 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <3h004kdpcjthllq8iplvuotaqhh0qunmgv@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Mr Jorgensen seems to want each illegal to get a hearing. That's not a >>>> workable solution.
"Dear Founding Fathers,
"This whole 'due process' thing just isn't practical. So we're just
going to cut the judicial system out and let law enforcement decide who
gets deported."
As noted here previously, US citizens have full civil and process
rights. Legal resident aliens have some, but limited and green cards may
be revoked. Temporary visa (of all types) holders may be removed "at the
discretion of the Secretary of State". Illegal aliens are subject to
deportation when and where discovered.
In a practical sense, a finding of fact (who is this guy really?) is
reasonable and prudent. That is not a trial.
That's not the point. According to floriduh dumbass if you're accused of >being an illegal immigrant you shouldn't get due process, whether you're >really illegal or not.
On 6/6/2025 2:30 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 13:52:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 10:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
Dumbass, you aren't pissing anyone off. Your wilfull ignornance and
attemtps at insults are mildly entertaining.
I do get a chuckle out of most of them, while shaking my head!
I suppose I should try to be more charitable...
Krygowski has a hbiit of running away with his tail between his legs
whenever I mention his make believe friends, his bragging and his
narcissism.
On the other haand, I have no trouble responding to his
insults.
Hell, you have an overpowering compulsion to respond to almost anything
I say here, not to mention enough of a fixation to store my statements
for future reference. You're clearly obsessed.
And that's charitably stated!
On 6/6/2025 8:24 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <pbq0Q.746378$qmJf.738823@fx16.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have a Real ID in my pocket right now. All traveler outside of the
national boundaries has to show proof of citizenship (a passport) at
all times.
Indeed, you should carry it inside the national boundaries at all times,
as well, since some people apparently think you can be deported without
a hearing if anyone suspects you of being in the country illegally.
Look, I watched approximately 100 illegals vote for Obama at my local
voting place.
I'm really curious how you knew for a fact they were illegal. But that's
not really what I'm on about here.
What I'm on about is that without a hearing, any crooked cop could point
a finger at you and have you deported to prison for life for being an
illegal immigrant. It's all about the due process.
Do you REALLY think that anything close to a majority voted for Biden?
I wasn't sure, but after Trump lost 60+ court cases trying to prove
illegal voting activity, I'm pretty confident that things were on the
up-and-up overall. 60+ court cases is a LOT of vetting. Hats off to
Trump for being so thorough. :)
That remains an open question as every one of those was dismissed or
decided on standing, latches or other process issues. There was no
evidence or testimony entered into a court record. We just don't know
(our own beliefs notwithstanding) and likely never will.
Questions remain such as
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-9647421250
and the famous 2d graph here https://leeblynelle.pages.dev/xquypzf-popular-vote-2024-election-totals- eomysyb/
which may have innocuous explanations. Or not.
On 6/6/2025 11:20 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 11:23:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 12:11:02 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 07:55:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Meanwhile, with about 400,000,000 firearms, we suffer about
41,000 firearm deaths all together (including suicide and
negligent discharge).
https://deadorkicking.com/death-statistics/us/2024/
compare other deaths in that link. All firearms deaths are
greater than car crashes but less than falls.
Incredible. Firearms lead all causes of death, except for
natural causes and "poison/suicide/homicide". I find it strange that
"homicides and suicides" don't mention if guns were used,
Falls can be caused by any number of natural causes(but
usually isquemic brain/heart problems). I doubt many people were
deliberately pushed, so that goes under natural causes.
Seems the US has a very serious gun problem. And a poison
problem. Is that why people ask you "What's your poison?".
PS The only way to decrease "natural causes" is by offering
free public medical care. And I don't think that's going to happen
with the current administration. Why the US has such terrible
statistics, in some cases worse than poor countries like Cuba.
[]'s
No such thing as free -------
There is "pay your taxes" as opposed to "hide everything in
the Caymans, fsck fellow citizens". Most of the EU and Canada chose
the first option. Their life expectancy puts the US to shame,
[]'s
The US breakdown is roughly similar to Brasil stats:
https://data.who.int/countries/076
https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/country-health-profile/Brazil
US has more obesity but fewer Chagas, etc
On 6/6/2025 8:48 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <A0p0Q.542754$mjgd.130933@fx09.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
Are you saying you're willing to foot the bill for paying for enough
prisons to house these people until the inrvitsble "tguilty" sends them
on their way.
Yes, I absolutely am. Because without due process, we no longer live in
a free country. I am willing to pay almost unlimited amounts of money to
keep us living in a free country.
Those sections of the Constitution were written when the Democrats
weren't peying criminals to come to the US to practice their trade.
There's a mechanism in the Constitution to remove the due process rules
if you want to do that. But I strenuously suggest you do not. A million
Americans have given their lives defending those parts of our founding
document, so it might be wise to think twice before you shrug them off.
Unlike US citizens, illegal aliens have committed a deportable crime by illegal entry, just by the fact of being present.
On 6/6/2025 9:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 01:37:32 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <oks04ktn4c8tbvov8mfuojmsv54tq9fcnf@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I do want all the law enforcement agencies to be very careful, and I
want their overseers to keep a close eye on them, but I want them to
do their jobs.
I actually completely agree with this statement. It's just that the
"overseers" are the courts. No one else oversees law enforcement.
Ummm... not exactly. There's the "The Office of the Immigration
Detention Ombudsman" which MIGHT provide some oversight:
<https://www.dhs.gov/office-immigration-detention-ombudsman>
Yet another DHS ombudsman:
<https://www.dhs.gov/ombudsman-offices>
Operational and Support Components (i.e. enforcement):
<https://www.dhs.gov/operational-and-support-components>
Here's the top layer of the DHS organizational chart:
<https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/23_1109_mgmt_dhs-
public-org-chart-508.pdf>
Perhaps a review of the Statues would help here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
https://law.justia.com/codes/us/title-8/chapter-12/subchapter-ii/part- iv/sec-1227/
I did
fly several times during that period and I soon realised that the crew
didn't make an issue about lowering the mask below my chin. I walked
around in three airports with the mask hanging around my neck
On 6/6/2025 11:35 AM, Shadow wrote:
Florida had one of the worse deaths/million population among
all American states(I'm excluding the blible belt states, because
praying actually increases death rates among practically all
diseases).
They should have voted for someone more capable of leading the
state.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party-affiliation-linked-excess-covid-deaths
On 6/5/2025 9:05 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 23:12:30 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Wed Jun 4 11:09:37 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:46:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://catholicvote.org/new-anti-catholic-fbi-memo-distributed-1000-biden-fbi-employees-before-whistleblower/
IMHO, ANY "radical" religious group should be investigated by
the FBI They are usually sociopaths, and as such, dangerous to the
community.
Let me tell you something about that wonderful country of Brazil.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/slavery-brazil
Not only is the antislavery laws poorly enforced, in the wilds of
Brazil it is to this day
an active practice. And for very many
years they would pay ex-slaves so little that
it amounted to slavery.
Yes, and it was much worse during the right wing dictatorship.
Shadow - in case you're unaware of it, religion is completely
voluntary. If you don't like them that is tough shit.
Here in the USA we have a right to choose3 any r4eligion we want or none at all.
Here normal people choose "no religion". We let the weak of
mind choose whatever they want to. Most are opting for nazi-fascism
(also known as christian warriors). It's what social media (Meta, X
and Glugle) advise them to do.
[]'s
Tommy isn't wrong that we still do enjoy freedom of religion, but that's being changed as we speak, with several states passing legislation to
force the posting of the ten commandments and forcing "bible history" to
be taught in public schools, with several not allowing 'opt out' for non-christian families.
It's only a matter of time before the right wing "christian"
nationalists (aka fascists) start demanding legislation for christian
prayer to be mandatory as part of the school day.
Add xx to reply
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 14:33:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:35 AM, Shadow wrote:
Florida had one of the worse deaths/million population among
all American states(I'm excluding the blible belt states, because
praying actually increases death rates among practically all
diseases).
They should have voted for someone more capable of leading the
state.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party-affiliation-linked-excess-covid-deaths
CIDRAP???
Krygowski apparently believes everything he runs into that--
supports his agenda.
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 00:58:52 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <3h004kdpcjthllq8iplvuotaqhh0qunmgv@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Mr Jorgensen seems to want each illegal to get a hearing. That's not a
workable solution.
"Dear Founding Fathers,
"This whole 'due process' thing just isn't practical. So we're just
going to cut the judicial system out and let law enforcement decide who
gets deported."
This all seems a bit confusing as since at least 60 years ago the U.S.
had a workable immigration system. You want visit the U.S. you go to
the U.S.Embassy, they determine what you want to do and they give you
the forms, you filled them out and they approved or disapprove them.
For example when my Thai wife wanted to visit her sister (G.I. wife)
she had to provide proof that she as sufficient funds to reside in the
U.S. for the period of the visit and to return to Thailand.
Only then would they issue a visa.
Without a visa a foreigner couldn't legally enter the U.S.
--
cheers,
John B.
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 12:37:37 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 13:20:03 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 11:23:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 12:11:02 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 07:55:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>
Meanwhile, with about 400,000,000 firearms, we suffer about
41,000 firearm deaths all together (including suicide and
negligent discharge).
https://deadorkicking.com/death-statistics/us/2024/
compare other deaths in that link. All firearms deaths are
greater than car crashes but less than falls.
Incredible. Firearms lead all causes of death, except for
natural causes and "poison/suicide/homicide". I find it strange that >>>>> "homicides and suicides" don't mention if guns were used,
Falls can be caused by any number of natural causes(but
usually isquemic brain/heart problems). I doubt many people were
deliberately pushed, so that goes under natural causes.
Seems the US has a very serious gun problem. And a poison
problem. Is that why people ask you "What's your poison?".
PS The only way to decrease "natural causes" is by offering
free public medical care. And I don't think that's going to happen
with the current administration. Why the US has such terrible
statistics, in some cases worse than poor countries like Cuba.
[]'s
No such thing as free -------
There is "pay your taxes" as opposed to "hide everything in
the Caymans, fsck fellow citizens". Most of the EU and Canada chose
the first option. Their life expectancy puts the US to shame,
[]'s
So far at least, they don't have the drug problems, the violent gangs,
or the problems with single parent housholds.
They probably do, but not to the extent the US does. Places
that have a really serious drug problem are so rare they tend to
become anecdotes. "Don't go to Amsterdam, too many heroin addicts
there!"
A state health system does not cover violent gangs and single parenthood(it might solve the latter to a very large extent if they
offer free abortions).
You need a good tax-funded police to solve the problem of
gangs. I heard that in the US the police get 4 months training. In
most of Europe it's more than 2 years before they are allowed to
intermingle with the public without a supervisor In Iceland 3 years
minimum?.
[]'s
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 19:05:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 19:52:16 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 16:27:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 04:27:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:29:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:22 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Around here the idiot governor has driven most good people out of the state and they have been replace by honest hard working illegals. No one is coming back to the worst state just because it has the best weather.
I spent a week there not long ago. You're right, Tom, Mountain View, >>>>>> Palo Alto, San Jose, Cupertino, San Francisco were like deserts! Nobody >>>>>> as far as the eye could see! :-)
I don't know what caused all the traffic. Robotaxis in disguise? But who >>>>>> would need them?
With over 817,000 residents leaving in 2023, California continues to >>>>> have one of the highest outbound migration rates. High housing costs, >>>>> rising taxes, and concerns about affordability are pushing residents >>>>> to states like Texas and Arizona. When asked what state has the most >>>>> people leaving, California consistently ranks at the top due to its
high cost of living and economic challenges.
https://clancymoving.com/blog/2025/april/moving-statistics-and-trends-for-2025-what-to-expect-this-year/
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_exodus#Demographics>
Leaving Calif -690,127 in 2023
Entering Calif +422,075 in 2023
=================================
Net change -268,052
Source of data:
<https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/state-to-state-migration.html>
I'd like to see the in/out numbers of registered voters
Thanks for ignoring what I wrote. Your numbers from Clancy Relocation
and Logistics appear to be faulty and not very authoritative. I
suggest you find a better source that provides sources for its
numbers. You also ignored everyone entering California.
I couldn't find anything that counted California in-migration and
out-migration by voter registration or political party affiliation.
Perhaps I could provide an answer if you could rewrite your request
into something that I can feed to an AI. Using ChatGPT 3 and asking:
"What is the percent immigration, in and out of California by
political party in 2024?"
<https://chatgpt.com/share/68439ab9-02c0-800c-8ef4-8b182445d370>
I could try to squeeze some better and more specific info out of the
AI, but I would need a clue as to what you are looking for. I can
also ask other AI's and/or reword the request. I don't care about
what you're trying to prove. Just what information you need to prove
your point.
I saw what you wrote, and I wondered how many of the in and out
numbers were registered voters rather than just people.
Because:
The fact that in recent years many non-citizens have been allowed
entry nto the country and many of them are in California.
As for the mover's numbers, I'm thinking most were families. At any
rate, California recently lost a congressional seat, so they are
bleeding registered voters.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/5/2025 8:13 PM, cyclintom wrote:
You were being completely serious when you posted that you had to get
ready to ride through west Youngstown.
Sure, as I've explained. Remember, I used to commute to work by bike.
Getting ready meant strapping my briefcase on the bike's rear rack,
clipping on an eyeglass mirror (optional but handy in traffic), putting
on an appropriate jacket, and using a safety pin to tighten my right
pants cuff so it stayed away from the chain.
Tom, you probably do more to prepare for your recreational rides. I'll
bet you change into a riding costume. I commuted in ordinary business
casual clothes.
On 6/7/2025 12:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 9:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2025 6:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Update this afternoon regarding Mr Abrego Garcia.
3-1/2 minute video is on the 2d screen/page here:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kilmar-abrego-garcia-way-
back-185850961.html
This sounds a lot closer to what the Founding Fathers
intended, compared to "Deport him!" and "Oops, we goofed
but we can't fix it."
All his deplorable criminal activities aside,
Ass-covering allegations by the DOJ.
he has a prior deportation order fer chrissake. What does
it take to enforce a Statute??
He did? seems to me the exact opposite is true.
On 6/7/2025 12:42 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 9:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2025 2:55 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 1:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
The "bioweapon" claim is deliberately inflammatory and
senseless. Much like the claim from one of my friends,
who said all the Covid fuss was just an attempt to
influence the election.
But I guess conspiracy fans will conspire. :-/
Both can be true (bioweapon and timed for political
advantage). Clear proof (for or against either) will
defy historians.
And as we know, lack of proof has never deterred
conspiracy theorists!
Yes, unknown does not equal true. Nor false.
There was great sympathy in some quarters for Alger Hiss
for 40+ years until his KGB file, reports and payroll
records were released in the Venona documents.
OTOH there will be no 'secrets' revealed in the perhaps
once more imminent JFK files release, after 60 years'
grace period to destroy anything of import.
https://archive.is/SDjq1
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:52:45 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 14:33:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:35 AM, Shadow wrote:
Florida had one of the worse deaths/million population among
all American states(I'm excluding the blible belt states, because
praying actually increases death rates among practically all
diseases).
They should have voted for someone more capable of leading the
state.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party-affiliation-linked-excess-covid-deaths
CIDRAP???
No, the source is JAMA. Cidrap is just relaying the
information.
JAMA is not political, if anything it tends to the right....
[]'s
Krygowski apparently believes everything he runs into that
supports his agenda.
On 6/7/2025 6:42 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/7/2025 12:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 9:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2025 6:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Update this afternoon regarding Mr Abrego Garcia.
3-1/2 minute video is on the 2d screen/page here:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kilmar-abrego-garcia-way-
back-185850961.html
This sounds a lot closer to what the Founding Fathers intended,
compared to "Deport him!" and "Oops, we goofed but we can't fix it."
All his deplorable criminal activities aside,
Ass-covering allegations by the DOJ.
he has a prior deportation order fer chrissake. What does it take to
enforce a Statute??
He did? seems to me the exact opposite is true.
The 2019 deportation order specified that he be removed but not deported
to El Salvador or Guatemala (he had lived in both his birthplace El
Salvador and also Guatemala).
The issue more correctly is to where and
not whether.
The present administration seems to have taken up that point as he is in
fact here again.
nonsense... All law enforcement have elected or appointed management
and most have units desgnated to police the policemen.
Actually, as I explained, anyone who is officially accused of being an >illegal has a due process right to provide evidence to the accusing
official that he is not an illegal.
In article <k1t74klekg812nqpk059mtrfptk3hb4f5g@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
nonsense... All law enforcement have elected or appointed management
and most have units desgnated to police the policemen.
I'm curious why you think we have courts, then.
On 6/7/2025 9:25 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/7/2025 6:42 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/7/2025 12:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 9:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2025 6:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Update this afternoon regarding Mr Abrego Garcia.
3-1/2 minute video is on the 2d screen/page here:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kilmar-abrego-garcia-way-
back-185850961.html
This sounds a lot closer to what the Founding Fathers
intended, compared to "Deport him!" and "Oops, we
goofed but we can't fix it."
All his deplorable criminal activities aside,
Ass-covering allegations by the DOJ.
he has a prior deportation order fer chrissake. What
does it take to enforce a Statute??
He did? seems to me the exact opposite is true.
The 2019 deportation order specified that he be removed
but not deported to El Salvador or Guatemala (he had lived
in both his birthplace El Salvador and also Guatemala).
That is completely untrue. Here's the order.
https://drive.google.com/file/
d/1V_yaacfwjS6i02eeCaHoPh64tGvySkVO/edit
There is nothing in the order which orders removal. What
you're quoting is an editorial interpretaion from the media.
The issue more correctly is to where and not whether.
The present administration seems to have taken up that
point as he is in fact here again.
Funny how they couldn't get him back, then did, then made up
more charges
In article <1020f63$2pd7f$4@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
In our Constitution, the Article III courts may only decide "cases and
controversies" by applying the laws as written. They have no policy,
legislative or oversight authority.
My point is that if you are wrongly arrested, the courts can free you.
That "oversight" is what I'm referring to.
In article <83874klm3vg2tsg750kghqtbriha7on1p6@4ax.com>,
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
<https://www.dhs.gov/office-immigration-detention-ombudsman>
<https://www.dhs.gov/ombudsman-offices>
<https://www.dhs.gov/operational-and-support-components>
<https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/23_1109_mgmt_dhs-public-org-chart-508.pdf>
All this smells awfully "Executive Branch" to me, though.
In article <2ta84k5178gqcnqegg78j6ouvlpn2f50gn@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Actually, as I explained, anyone who is officially accused of being an
illegal has a due process right to provide evidence to the accusing
official that he is not an illegal.
When you play it this way, you're putting 100% of your faith and trust
in the honesty of the official who is accusing you. That's not the way a
free country works.
There are mostly good LEOs out there. But there are some bad apples. You don't give those bad apples that kind of power because they will simply
lie and abuse it.
Like I said, probably different levels of trust in the government, here.
On Sat Jun 7 15:26:54 2025 Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <2ta84k5178gqcnqegg78j6ouvlpn2f50gn@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Actually, as I explained, anyone who is officially accused of being an
illegal has a due process right to provide evidence to the accusing
official that he is not an illegal.
When you play it this way, you're putting 100% of your faith and trust
in the honesty of the official who is accusing you. That's not the way a
free country works.
There are mostly good LEOs out there. But there are some bad apples. You
don't give those bad apples that kind of power because they will simply
lie and abuse it.
Like I said, probably different levels of trust in the government, here.
Do you think that Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan are any way a free country acts?
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:48:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I did
fly several times during that period and I soon realised that the crew >>didn't make an issue about lowering the mask below my chin. I walked
around in three airports with the mask hanging around my neck
I suppose we'll never know how many people you killed... not
that you would lose a minute's sleep if it had been dozens.
[]'s
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:52:45 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 14:33:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:35 AM, Shadow wrote:
Florida had one of the worse deaths/million population among
all American states(I'm excluding the blible belt states, because
praying actually increases death rates among practically all
diseases).
They should have voted for someone more capable of leading the
state.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party-affiliation-linked-excess-covid-deaths
CIDRAP???
No, the source is JAMA. Cidrap is just relaying the
information.
JAMA is not political, if anything it tends to the right....
[]'s
Krygowski apparently believes everything he runs into that
supports his agenda.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:13 PM, cyclintom wrote:
You were being completely serious when you posted that you had to get
ready to ride through west Youngstown.
Sure, as I've explained. Remember, I used to commute to work by bike.
Getting ready meant strapping my briefcase on the bike's rear rack,
clipping on an eyeglass mirror (optional but handy in traffic), putting
on an appropriate jacket, and using a safety pin to tighten my right
pants cuff so it stayed away from the chain.
Tom, you probably do more to prepare for your recreational rides. I'll
bet you change into a riding costume. I commuted in ordinary business
casual clothes.
Depends on the distance I found for 3 ish miles then as long as ones >trousers wheres flappy just jump on and go.
Since my commute is now 10/12 miles route dependant do need a riding >costume normal trousers get eaten away, Lycra shorts make sense and more >comfortable than cotton pants, which will get grim.
I have discovered that MTB trousers and technical t shirts can reduce the >amount of clothes I need to bring ie only need underwear and maybe a t
shirt.
Roger Merriman
On 6/7/2025 7:51 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:52:45 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 14:33:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:35 AM, Shadow wrote:
Florida had one of the worse deaths/million population among
all American states(I'm excluding the blible belt states, because
praying actually increases death rates among practically all
diseases).
They should have voted for someone more capable of leading the
state.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party-affiliation-linked-excess-covid-deaths
CIDRAP???
No, the source is JAMA. Cidrap is just relaying the
information.
JAMA is not political, if anything it tends to the right....
[]'s
Krygowski apparently believes everything he runs into that
supports his agenda.
"JAMA is not political, if anything it tends to the right."
That's hilarious!
For at least 50 years AMA has been proudly hard left,
reflecting its members' positions (which they ought to
reflect). Which is exactly why neither my MD brother nor
85% of US licensed MDs belong to AMA.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3153537/
In article <k1t74klekg812nqpk059mtrfptk3hb4f5g@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
nonsense... All law enforcement have elected or appointed management
and most have units desgnated to police the policemen.
I'm curious why you think we have courts, then.
In article <2ta84k5178gqcnqegg78j6ouvlpn2f50gn@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Actually, as I explained, anyone who is officially accused of being an >>illegal has a due process right to provide evidence to the accusing >>official that he is not an illegal.
When you play it this way, you're putting 100% of your faith and trust
in the honesty of the official who is accusing you. That's not the way a
free country works.
There are mostly good LEOs out there. But there are some bad apples. You >don't give those bad apples that kind of power because they will simply
lie and abuse it.
Like I said, probably different levels of trust in the government, here.
On 7 Jun 2025 13:26:50 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:13 PM, cyclintom wrote:
You were being completely serious when you posted that you had to get
ready to ride through west Youngstown.
Sure, as I've explained. Remember, I used to commute to work by bike.
Getting ready meant strapping my briefcase on the bike's rear rack,
clipping on an eyeglass mirror (optional but handy in traffic), putting
on an appropriate jacket, and using a safety pin to tighten my right
pants cuff so it stayed away from the chain.
Tom, you probably do more to prepare for your recreational rides. I'll
bet you change into a riding costume. I commuted in ordinary business
casual clothes.
Depends on the distance I found for 3 ish miles then as long as ones
trousers wheres flappy just jump on and go.
Since my commute is now 10/12 miles route dependant do need a riding
costume normal trousers get eaten away, Lycra shorts make sense and more >> comfortable than cotton pants, which will get grim.
I have discovered that MTB trousers and technical t shirts can reduce the
amount of clothes I need to bring ie only need underwear and maybe a t
shirt.
Roger Merriman
Flappy pants and shorts collect bugs on a recumbent. MY bike clothes
are lycra, but the overpriced trendy kind you buy in a bike shop.
They're all black with a minumum of brand labels.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 7 Jun 2025 13:26:50 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:13 PM, cyclintom wrote:
You were being completely serious when you posted that you had to get >>>>> ready to ride through west Youngstown.
Sure, as I've explained. Remember, I used to commute to work by bike.
Getting ready meant strapping my briefcase on the bike's rear rack,
clipping on an eyeglass mirror (optional but handy in traffic), putting >>>> on an appropriate jacket, and using a safety pin to tighten my right
pants cuff so it stayed away from the chain.
Tom, you probably do more to prepare for your recreational rides. I'll >>>> bet you change into a riding costume. I commuted in ordinary business
casual clothes.
Depends on the distance I found for 3 ish miles then as long as one?s
trousers where?s flappy just jump on and go.
Since my commute is now 10/12 miles route dependant do need a ?riding
costume? normal trousers get eaten away, Lycra shorts make sense and more >>> comfortable than cotton pants, which will get grim.
I have discovered that MTB trousers and ?technical? t shirts can reduce the >>> amount of clothes I need to bring ie only need underwear and maybe a t
shirt.
Roger Merriman
Flappy pants and shorts collect bugs on a recumbent. MY bike clothes
are lycra, but the overpriced trendy kind you buy in a bike shop.
They're all black with a minumum of brand labels.
On the commute its only the Lycra shorts aka underwear as I use MTB
trousers which work as well work trousers. Plus a top which is an older
Lycra t shirt be though I do have one more generic sports one.
Though commuting is much gentler on kit than Gravel let alone MTBing, but >even so cheap Amazon etc tops, dont last long and tend to fit poorly, and >non cycling shorts disintegrate rather rapidly.
You may not wear cycling kit but in my experience other recumbent riders do >seem to, which makes sense as your still in a slightly bent position so a
top that fits that posture ie doesnt leave a arse crack showing and >shorts/trousers than dont rub and so on.
Roger Merriman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Fri Jun 6 03:25:49 2025 John B. wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 05:24:50 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:59:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski"Throughout his time in office, Biden empowered officials to violate
<S.>
On 6/5/2025 7:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank and Flunky persist in thinking that the Biden government was unquestionably good. Covid-19 taught them nothing at all.
I thought that Trump was president when Covid-19 hit.
The Biden administration and their cohorts in state governments used
the disease as an excuse to take control of people's private lives and
take away their civil liberties.
https://reason.com/2024/12/10/civil-liberties-lost-under-covid/
Americans' liberties in the name of fighting COVID-19. There is little
evidence those policies worked."
Sorry, I can't agree with that last sentence as Thailand did apply
thoser very same policies, the resuit?
U.S. -
cases 1 million population 333,985
deaths per 1 million population 3842
Thailand -
Cases 1 million population 68,069
Deaths 1 million population 494
John! Thais did NOT take those vaccines since they would have had to payt for them theirselves. What is difficult for this to understand?
On 6/7/2025 12:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 7:58 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <3h004kdpcjthllq8iplvuotaqhh0qunmgv@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Mr Jorgensen seems to want each illegal to get a hearing. That's not a >>>> workable solution.
"Dear Founding Fathers,
"This whole 'due process' thing just isn't practical. So we're just
going to cut the judicial system out and let law enforcement decide who
gets deported."
As noted here previously, US citizens have full civil and process
rights. Legal resident aliens have some, but limited and green cards may
be revoked. Temporary visa (of all types) holders may be removed "at the
discretion of the Secretary of State". Illegal aliens are subject to
deportation when and where discovered.
In a practical sense, a finding of fact (who is this guy really?) is
reasonable and prudent. That is not a trial.
That's not the point. According to floriduh dumbass if you're accused of >being an illegal immigrant you shouldn't get due process, whether you're >really illegal or not.
On 6/7/2025 4:32 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 22:38:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
A person who didn't provide similar documentation probably doesn't have
a Real ID, no matter what he thinks.
https://www.flhsmv.gov/driver-licenses-id-cards/what-to-bring/u-s-citizen/ >>>
But hey, ignorance is bliss.
Florida has been issuing REAL ID status on driver's licenses since
2010. Neither my wife or myself recall ever taking our birth cert....
OK, we'll believe your dim recollection more than we'll believe the
official State of Florida information.
Sure we will.
On 6/7/2025 9:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/7/2025 7:51 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:52:45 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 14:33:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:35 AM, Shadow wrote:
Florida had one of the worse deaths/million population among
all American states(I'm excluding the blible belt states, because
praying actually increases death rates among practically all
diseases).
They should have voted for someone more capable of leading the >>>>>> state.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party-affiliation-
linked-excess-covid-deaths
CIDRAP???
No, the source is JAMA. Cidrap is just relaying the
information.
JAMA is not political, if anything it tends to the right....
[]'s
Krygowski apparently believes everything he runs into that
supports his agenda.
"JAMA is not political, if anything it tends to the right."
That's hilarious!
For at least 50 years AMA has been proudly hard left, reflecting its
members' positions (which they ought to reflect). Which is exactly why
neither my MD brother nor 85% of US licensed MDs belong to AMA.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3153537/
One statement from that article seems to say otherwise: "The AMAs
backing of US President Barack Obamas health care legislation did not
sit well with many physicians and may have cost it some members."
IOW those members were not hard left.
FWIW: One of my music friends was a professor at a medical school, and >neuroscience researcher, until he retired. In one long conversation, he >bemoaned the fact that his students' characteristics had changed greatly
over his career. He said that at the start, the typical student actually
was motivated by wanting to help people (as was the physician among my >siblings). But he complained that more recently, students were far less >altruistically motivated, and far less intellectually or professionally >curious. Instead of wanting to learn all they could to best help
patients, they wanted to learn what would be "on the test," and what
would allow them to work towards the highest paying specialty fields.
Yes, it's an anecdote, and second hand. But for many decades, physicians
did no drive super-expensive cars or live in mega-mansions, as so many
do today. Doctors pulling in many hundreds of thousands of dollars per
year probably see no reason to belong to the AMA at all. And they'd hate
to have any government agency lowering the costs of health care.
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 23:04:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/7/2025 9:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/7/2025 7:51 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:52:45 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 14:33:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:35 AM, Shadow wrote:
Florida had one of the worse deaths/million population among >>>>>>> all American states(I'm excluding the blible belt states, because >>>>>>> praying actually increases death rates among practically all
diseases).
They should have voted for someone more capable of leading the >>>>>>> state.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party-affiliation-
linked-excess-covid-deaths
CIDRAP???
No, the source is JAMA. Cidrap is just relaying the
information.
JAMA is not political, if anything it tends to the right....
[]'s
Krygowski apparently believes everything he runs into that
supports his agenda.
"JAMA is not political, if anything it tends to the right."
That's hilarious!
For at least 50 years AMA has been proudly hard left, reflecting its
members' positions (which they ought to reflect). Which is exactly why
neither my MD brother nor 85% of US licensed MDs belong to AMA.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3153537/
One statement from that article seems to say otherwise: "The AMAs
backing of US President Barack Obamas health care legislation did not
sit well with many physicians and may have cost it some members."
IOW those members were not hard left.
FWIW: One of my music friends was a professor at a medical school, and >>neuroscience researcher, until he retired. In one long conversation, he >>bemoaned the fact that his students' characteristics had changed greatly >>over his career. He said that at the start, the typical student actually >>was motivated by wanting to help people (as was the physician among my >>siblings). But he complained that more recently, students were far less >>altruistically motivated, and far less intellectually or professionally >>curious. Instead of wanting to learn all they could to best help
patients, they wanted to learn what would be "on the test," and what
would allow them to work towards the highest paying specialty fields.
Yes, it's an anecdote, and second hand. But for many decades, physicians >>did no drive super-expensive cars or live in mega-mansions, as so many
do today. Doctors pulling in many hundreds of thousands of dollars per
year probably see no reason to belong to the AMA at all. And they'd hate
to have any government agency lowering the costs of health care.
Likely, another of Krygowski's imaginary conversations with people,
who me a , agree with his opinions.
On 6/7/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sat Jun 7 01:42:07 2025 Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <A6p0Q.372615$K3w3.210965@fx05.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
why would El Salvador have a warrany out in his name.
No idea. Maybe that's a good item to bring before a US court.
Is it your belief they have unlimited prison space?
It's relatively unlimited. Trump asked Bukele to build five more and
we're paying him for all the prisoners he takes.
Why do you continue to exercise your imagination? Can you not tell when
you're being made a fool of by the Slime Stream Media?
A note to Tom and some others:
Silly and inflammatory language like "slime stream media" does nothing
to convince others of your arguments - well, except for people of low intellect who already share your views. So while you may feel a frisson
of imagined cleverness, you're not advancing your cause.
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 04:26:21 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 23:04:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/7/2025 9:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/7/2025 7:51 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:52:45 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 14:33:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:35 AM, Shadow wrote:
Florida had one of the worse deaths/million population among >>>>>>>> all American states(I'm excluding the blible belt states, because >>>>>>>> praying actually increases death rates among practically all
diseases).
They should have voted for someone more capable of leading the >>>>>>>> state.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party-affiliation- >>>>>>> linked-excess-covid-deaths
CIDRAP???
No, the source is JAMA. Cidrap is just relaying the
information.
JAMA is not political, if anything it tends to the right....
[]'s
Krygowski apparently believes everything he runs into that
supports his agenda.
"JAMA is not political, if anything it tends to the right."
That's hilarious!
For at least 50 years AMA has been proudly hard left, reflecting its
members' positions (which they ought to reflect). Which is exactly why >>>> neither my MD brother nor 85% of US licensed MDs belong to AMA.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3153537/
One statement from that article seems to say otherwise: "The AMAs >>>backing of US President Barack Obamas health care legislation did not >>>sit well with many physicians and may have cost it some members."
IOW those members were not hard left.
FWIW: One of my music friends was a professor at a medical school, and >>>neuroscience researcher, until he retired. In one long conversation, he >>>bemoaned the fact that his students' characteristics had changed greatly >>>over his career. He said that at the start, the typical student actually >>>was motivated by wanting to help people (as was the physician among my >>>siblings). But he complained that more recently, students were far less >>>altruistically motivated, and far less intellectually or professionally >>>curious. Instead of wanting to learn all they could to best help >>>patients, they wanted to learn what would be "on the test," and what >>>would allow them to work towards the highest paying specialty fields.
Yes, it's an anecdote, and second hand. But for many decades, physicians >>>did no drive super-expensive cars or live in mega-mansions, as so many
do today. Doctors pulling in many hundreds of thousands of dollars per >>>year probably see no reason to belong to the AMA at all. And they'd hate >>>to have any government agency lowering the costs of health care.
Likely, another of Krygowski's imaginary conversations with people,
who me a , agree with his opinions.
Back in my younger days a Buick was termed a "doctor's car" not
because a doctor couldn't afford a Cadillac but because if he drove
the more expensive car his bills would be thought too high. Better, by
far to keep the billing rate, drive the Buick, and buy a new one each
year :-)
On 6/7/2025 6:50 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/7/2025 12:42 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 9:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2025 2:55 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 1:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
The "bioweapon" claim is deliberately inflammatory and senseless.
Much like the claim from one of my friends, who said all the Covid >>>>>> fuss was just an attempt to influence the election.
But I guess conspiracy fans will conspire. :-/
Both can be true (bioweapon and timed for political advantage).
Clear proof (for or against either) will defy historians.
And as we know, lack of proof has never deterred conspiracy theorists! >>>>
Yes, unknown does not equal true. Nor false.
There was great sympathy in some quarters for Alger Hiss for 40+
years until his KGB file, reports and payroll records were released
in the Venona documents.
OTOH there will be no 'secrets' revealed in the perhaps once more
imminent JFK files release, after 60 years' grace period to destroy
anything of import.
https://archive.is/SDjq1
We'll see. I don't know and you don't either.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/04/trump-banned-jeffrey-epstein-from-mar-a- lago-for-hitting-on-girl.html
OTOH despite many promises the materials are still not public. We can
hope I suppose.
On 6/7/2025 8:48 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/7/2025 9:25 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/7/2025 6:42 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/7/2025 12:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 9:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2025 6:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Update this afternoon regarding Mr Abrego Garcia.
3-1/2 minute video is on the 2d screen/page here:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kilmar-abrego-garcia-way-
back-185850961.html
This sounds a lot closer to what the Founding Fathers intended,
compared to "Deport him!" and "Oops, we goofed but we can't fix it." >>>>>>
All his deplorable criminal activities aside,
Ass-covering allegations by the DOJ.
he has a prior deportation order fer chrissake. What does it take
to enforce a Statute??
He did? seems to me the exact opposite is true.
The 2019 deportation order specified that he be removed but not
deported to El Salvador or Guatemala (he had lived in both his
birthplace El Salvador and also Guatemala).
That is completely untrue. Here's the order.
https://drive.google.com/file/ d/1V_yaacfwjS6i02eeCaHoPh64tGvySkVO/edit
There is nothing in the order which orders removal. What you're
quoting is an editorial interpretaion from the media.
The issue more correctly is to where and not whether.
The present administration seems to have taken up that point as he is
in fact here again.
Funny how they couldn't get him back, then did, then made up more charges
Thank you. Sincerely. I looked for that without success.
End of section III A
"Respondent's application for asylum is time-barred and must be denied.
We turn next to withholding of removal under the Act."
But then in Section B
"The Court finds that the Respondent's proposed social group, "Immediate Family Members of the Abrego Family," essentially his nuclear family, is cognizable."
essentially finding that Mr Abrego Garcia's asylum claim, denied above,
is reinstated by the Court.
Final decision is:
I. the Respondent's application for asylum pursuant to INA§ 208 is DENIED; II. the Respondent's application for withholding of removal pursuant to
INA §241(b)(3) is GRANTED; and
III. the Respondent's application for withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture is DENIED;
Which does explain so much confusion in the reportage. Makes no sense to
me either but I am not the decider.
On 6/7/2025 7:23 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:25:45 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:45 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/5/2025 6:42 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Wed Jun 4 13:27:52 2025 Rolf Mantel wrote:
So you claim to be a US citizen, the government claim you're not.
Should you get a hearing or should the government deport you
without a
hearing?
hat is not an argument Rolf. You cannot argue with either an honest
birth certificate or now a Real ID. Birth Certificates are certified >>>>> at the time and place of your birth.
I have no doubt that 'Real ID' will be counterfeited equally as well as >>>> current ID. Post haste.
For a while I consulted for a company that produced commercial
holograms. While I was there, they got a request - thinly disguised - to >>> forge whatever hologram is built into California drivers' licenses. They >>> refused, of course.
I suspect someone will soon find a way to counterfeit Real ID.
Frank, your suspicions of what MAY happen are not reality. California
DMV may very well issue driver's licences to illegals as Real_ID and
that is pretty sure. Probably 1/4th of the workers at the DMV are
already illegals.
:-) Wow! You must be really good at telling who's illegal and who's not
- even better than their employers!
Do you ask everyone you see for their documentation? ;-)
On 6/7/2025 10:06 AM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <1020f63$2pd7f$4@dont-email.me>, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
In our Constitution, the Article III courts may only decide "cases and
controversies" by applying the laws as written. They have no policy,
legislative or oversight authority.
My point is that if you are wrongly arrested, the courts can free you.
That "oversight" is what I'm referring to.
Yes, they can order your release when your case is presented to them, by
you or your agent, requesting such. No case = no authority.
On 6/7/2025 3:03 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 19:05:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 19:52:16 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 16:27:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 04:27:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:29:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:22 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Around here the idiot governor has driven most good people out >>>>>>>> of the state and they have been replace by honest hard working >>>>>>>> illegals. No one is coming back to the worst state just because >>>>>>>> it has the best weather.
I spent a week there not long ago. You're right, Tom, Mountain View, >>>>>>> Palo Alto, San Jose, Cupertino, San Francisco were like deserts! >>>>>>> Nobody
as far as the eye could see! :-)
I don't know what caused all the traffic. Robotaxis in disguise? >>>>>>> But who
would need them?
With over 817,000 residents leaving in 2023, California continues to >>>>>> have one of the highest outbound migration rates. High housing costs, >>>>>> rising taxes, and concerns about affordability are pushing residents >>>>>> to states like Texas and Arizona. When asked what state has the most >>>>>> people leaving, California consistently ranks at the top due to its >>>>>> high cost of living and economic challenges.
https://clancymoving.com/blog/2025/april/moving-statistics-and-
trends-for-2025-what-to-expect-this-year/
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_exodus#Demographics>
Leaving Calif -690,127 in 2023
Entering Calif +422,075 in 2023
=================================
Net change -268,052
Source of data:
<https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/geographic-
mobility/state-to-state-migration.html>
I'd like to see the in/out numbers of registered voters
Thanks for ignoring what I wrote. Your numbers from Clancy Relocation
and Logistics appear to be faulty and not very authoritative. I
suggest you find a better source that provides sources for its
numbers. You also ignored everyone entering California.
I couldn't find anything that counted California in-migration and
out-migration by voter registration or political party affiliation.
Perhaps I could provide an answer if you could rewrite your request
into something that I can feed to an AI. Using ChatGPT 3 and asking:
"What is the percent immigration, in and out of California by
political party in 2024?"
<https://chatgpt.com/share/68439ab9-02c0-800c-8ef4-8b182445d370>
I could try to squeeze some better and more specific info out of the
AI, but I would need a clue as to what you are looking for. I can
also ask other AI's and/or reword the request. I don't care about
what you're trying to prove. Just what information you need to prove
your point.
I saw what you wrote, and I wondered how many of the in and out
numbers were registered voters rather than just people.
Because:
The fact that in recent years many non-citizens have been allowed
entry nto the country and many of them are in California.
As for the mover's numbers, I'm thinking most were families. At any
rate, California recently lost a congressional seat, so they are
bleeding registered voters.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Small point-
Our Constitution says Congressional apportionment is counted by
'persons', not 'citizens' nor 'registered voters'. That's taken to mean
'all and sundry':
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/3215856/not- voting-migrants-give-democrats-14-electoral-votes/
On 6/7/2025 3:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:59:37 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 7:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank and Flunky persist in thinking that the Biden government was
unquestionably good. Covid-19 taught them nothing at all.
I thought that Trump was president when Covid-19 hit.
More "thoughts" from Krygowski. No, Covid-19 had only hit northern
Italy
and Fauci had threatened the entire US with instant death from
it. The deaths from covid-19 in norther Itally turned out to be
persons of an average age of 85 and with two or more comorbities. In
practice Fauci's advice to Trump was to give emergency was a criminal
act since there were already repurposed drugs such as Ivermectine that
nuetralized the worst effects from extreme cases. In practice, 50% of
the population was already immune to Covid-19 and the others had
extremely light effects from the illness itself. The illegally
developed mRNA "vaccines", which were really illegal GMO's approved by
Fauci were thecause of virtually all of the deaths supposedly from
Covid-19. Covid-19 first appeared in 2019 in China and they injected
people with spike proteins killing perhaps as much as half of their
population. It is said that all of the major cities in China are now
strangely empty. Mass transportation is empty.
Chyinese culture has
children supporting their elders and this bodes very ill if they
killed off half of their population with spike protein injections.
In the US the Covid-19 "vaccines" were withheld until late 2020 nwhen
Biden was in office.
Tell me Krygowski, when the complete history of this disease if full
documented why is it that you don't know anything about it and why was
Fauci given full pardons for any past or present crimes?
I suppose that is because of your credential.
Wow. What an immense pile of horseshit!
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 07:46:18 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2025 12:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 7:58 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <3h004kdpcjthllq8iplvuotaqhh0qunmgv@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Mr Jorgensen seems to want each illegal to get a hearing. That's not a >>>>> workable solution.
"Dear Founding Fathers,
"This whole 'due process' thing just isn't practical. So we're just
going to cut the judicial system out and let law enforcement decide who >>>> gets deported."
As noted here previously, US citizens have full civil and process
rights. Legal resident aliens have some, but limited and green cards may >>> be revoked. Temporary visa (of all types) holders may be removed "at the >>> discretion of the Secretary of State". Illegal aliens are subject to
deportation when and where discovered.
In a practical sense, a finding of fact (who is this guy really?) is
reasonable and prudent. That is not a trial.
That's not the point. According to floriduh dumbass if you're accused of
being an illegal immigrant you shouldn't get due process, whether you're
really illegal or not.
Well (:-) if you are caught robbing the candy store you will enjoy the
'due process:' :-)
--
cheers,
John B.
On 6/7/2025 12:26 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 8:24 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <pbq0Q.746378$qmJf.738823@fx16.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have a Real ID in my pocket right now. All traveler
outside of the
national boundaries has to show proof of citizenship (a
passport) at
all times.
Indeed, you should carry it inside the national
boundaries at all times,
as well, since some people apparently think you can be
deported without
a hearing if anyone suspects you of being in the country
illegally.
Look, I watched approximately 100 illegals vote for
Obama at my local
voting place.
I'm really curious how you knew for a fact they were
illegal. But that's
not really what I'm on about here.
What I'm on about is that without a hearing, any crooked
cop could point
a finger at you and have you deported to prison for life
for being an
illegal immigrant. It's all about the due process.
Do you REALLY think that anything close to a majority
voted for Biden?
I wasn't sure, but after Trump lost 60+ court cases
trying to prove
illegal voting activity, I'm pretty confident that things
were on the
up-and-up overall. 60+ court cases is a LOT of vetting.
Hats off to
Trump for being so thorough. :)
That remains an open question as every one of those was
dismissed or decided on standing, latches or other process
issues. There was no evidence or testimony entered into a
court record. We just don't know (our own beliefs
notwithstanding) and likely never will.
I'm unable to believe that _IF_ there were so many
consequential election irregularities, the highly motivated
Republican losers could not have properly done their legal
homework and proven their case in court.
As it was, they lost again and again, for whatever reasons.
My guess is they didn't try really hard because they knew
their legal protests were a sham.
On 6/7/2025 9:26 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Sure, as I've explained. Remember, I used to commute to
work by bike.
Getting ready meant strapping my briefcase on the bike's
rear rack,
clipping on an eyeglass mirror (optional but handy in
traffic), putting
on an appropriate jacket, and using a safety pin to
tighten my right
pants cuff so it stayed away from the chain.
Tom, you probably do more to prepare for your
recreational rides. I'll
bet you change into a riding costume. I commuted in
ordinary business
casual clothes.
Depends on the distance I found for 3 ish miles then as
long as one’s
trousers where’s flappy just jump on and go.
My commute was about 15 miles round trip. The only time I
bothered with a change of clothing was when teaching evening
classes in summer, which meant riding in during the heat of
the day.
After retirement, I took classes myself for quite a few
years. I then extended my ride home, through the big
metropark system. As I recall, that was about 20 miles per
day, but still in normal street clothes.
Different choices for different folks.
On 6/7/2025 8:29 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sat Jun 7 08:27:51 2025 zen cycle wrote:
On 6/6/2025 9:50 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <FPo0Q.542385$mjgd.26268@fx09.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
Were it relly the case that we deported a member of
MS-13 mistakenly
under mistaken identity [...] why did he have a warrany
out for him in
his home country? And how did he manage to stay alive
here since MS-13
kill fakers?
I don't know. Let's get it to court and get an answer,
what do you say?
That's already been determined. He had a hearing which
did _not_
determine him to be a member of any gang, and there
wasn't a warrant out
for him in Guatemala.
You're new here, you have to realize tommy just makes
stuff up on the
fly most of the time, other times he just repeats what
he's read
somewhere as long as it comports with his world view.
He is new here because he spends all his money on drugs
and mommy and daddy are paying for the internet He goesn't
have a job which is why he pays no taxes so he dolesn't
give a shit how much money illegals cost the taxpayers.
:-) In other words, Beej, welcome to Tommy-world! You see
what we've been dealing with for years.
And amazingly, he still has a couple allies here!
On 6/7/2025 8:45 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 14:33:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:35 AM, Shadow wrote:
Florida had one of the worse deaths/million
population among
all American states(I'm excluding the blible belt
states, because
praying actually increases death rates among practically
all
diseases).
They should have voted for someone more capable of
leading the
state.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party-
affiliation-linked-excess-covid-deaths
Same in Brazil. More pronounced, maybe. Of every 8
patients
that went on to die that responded the census, 7 said they
were
Bolsonaro supporters(mostly non vaccinated and went to
"covid parties"
to get "natural immunity").
Remember, Bolsonaro actually recommended NOT
vaccinating on
national TV. Said vaccines turned people into "communists"..
Oh, here we were told by some that the vaccine would make a
person magnetic; and that they were injecting microchips
into our blood stream to control us. To some, that sounded
all "sciency"!
On 6/7/2025 9:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/7/2025 7:51 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:52:45 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 14:33:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:35 AM, Shadow wrote:
Florida had one of the worse deaths/million
population among
all American states(I'm excluding the blible belt
states, because
praying actually increases death rates among
practically all
diseases).
They should have voted for someone more capable of
leading the
state.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party-
affiliation- linked-excess-covid-deaths
CIDRAP???
No, the source is JAMA. Cidrap is just relaying the
information.
JAMA is not political, if anything it tends to the
right....
[]'s
Krygowski apparently believes everything he runs into that
supports his agenda.
"JAMA is not political, if anything it tends to the right."
That's hilarious!
For at least 50 years AMA has been proudly hard left,
reflecting its members' positions (which they ought to
reflect). Which is exactly why neither my MD brother nor
85% of US licensed MDs belong to AMA.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3153537/
One statement from that article seems to say otherwise: "The
AMA’s backing of US President Barack Obama’s health care
legislation did not sit well with many physicians and may
have cost it some members."
IOW those members were not hard left.
FWIW: One of my music friends was a professor at a medical
school, and neuroscience researcher, until he retired. In
one long conversation, he bemoaned the fact that his
students' characteristics had changed greatly over his
career. He said that at the start, the typical student
actually was motivated by wanting to help people (as was the
physician among my siblings). But he complained that more
recently, students were far less altruistically motivated,
and far less intellectually or professionally curious.
Instead of wanting to learn all they could to best help
patients, they wanted to learn what would be "on the test,"
and what would allow them to work towards the highest paying
specialty fields.
Yes, it's an anecdote, and second hand. But for many
decades, physicians did no drive super-expensive cars or
live in mega-mansions, as so many do today. Doctors pulling
in many hundreds of thousands of dollars per year probably
see no reason to belong to the AMA at all. And they'd hate
to have any government agency lowering the costs of health
care.
On 6/7/2025 9:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/7/2025 8:29 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sat Jun 7 08:27:51 2025 zen cycle wrote:
On 6/6/2025 9:50 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <FPo0Q.542385$mjgd.26268@fx09.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
Were it relly the case that we deported a member of
MS-13 mistakenly
under mistaken identity [...] why did he have a warrany
out for him in
his home country? And how did he manage to stay alive
here since MS-13
kill fakers?
I don't know. Let's get it to court and get an answer,
what do you say?
That's already been determined. He had a hearing which
did _not_
determine him to be a member of any gang, and there
wasn't a warrant out
for him in Guatemala.
You're new here, you have to realize tommy just makes
stuff up on the
fly most of the time, other times he just repeats what
he's read
somewhere as long as it comports with his world view.
He is new here because he spends all his money on drugs
and mommy and daddy are paying for the internet He goesn't
have a job which is why he pays no taxes so he dolesn't
give a shit how much money illegals cost the taxpayers.
:-) In other words, Beej, welcome to Tommy-world! You see
what we've been dealing with for years.
And amazingly, he still has a couple allies here!
Ally??
I'm as critical of Mr Kunich's misstatements as anyone but
there are times he's been correct and I said so.
On 6/7/2025 12:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/7/2025 8:48 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/7/2025 9:25 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/7/2025 6:42 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/7/2025 12:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 9:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2025 6:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Update this afternoon regarding Mr Abrego Garcia.
3-1/2 minute video is on the 2d screen/page here:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kilmar-abrego-garcia-way-
back-185850961.html
This sounds a lot closer to what the Founding Fathers intended,
compared to "Deport him!" and "Oops, we goofed but we can't fix it." >>>>>>>
All his deplorable criminal activities aside,
Ass-covering allegations by the DOJ.
he has a prior deportation order fer chrissake. What does it take
to enforce a Statute??
He did? seems to me the exact opposite is true.
The 2019 deportation order specified that he be removed but not
deported to El Salvador or Guatemala (he had lived in both his
birthplace El Salvador and also Guatemala).
That is completely untrue. Here's the order.
https://drive.google.com/file/ d/1V_yaacfwjS6i02eeCaHoPh64tGvySkVO/edit
There is nothing in the order which orders removal. What you're
quoting is an editorial interpretaion from the media.
The issue more correctly is to where and not whether.
The present administration seems to have taken up that point as he is
in fact here again.
Funny how they couldn't get him back, then did, then made up more charges >>>
Thank you. Sincerely. I looked for that without success.
End of section III A
"Respondent's application for asylum is time-barred and must be denied.
We turn next to withholding of removal under the Act."
But then in Section B
"The Court finds that the Respondent's proposed social group, "Immediate
Family Members of the Abrego Family," essentially his nuclear family, is
cognizable."
essentially finding that Mr Abrego Garcia's asylum claim, denied above,
is reinstated by the Court.
Final decision is:
I. the Respondent's application for asylum pursuant to INA 208 is DENIED; >> II. the Respondent's application for withholding of removal pursuant to
INA 241(b)(3) is GRANTED; and
III. the Respondent's application for withholding of removal under the
Convention Against Torture is DENIED;
Which does explain so much confusion in the reportage. Makes no sense to
me either but I am not the decider.
You're Welcome, and let me also express appreciation that you took the
time to review the information available rather than simply buy the media
The media is not the decider either, but so much is (and has been)
decided by the media over the decades. That might explain the claim
'Judge Jones didn't say he couldn't be deported, just that he could he >deported to el salvador or Guatemala'. That's written here:
"B. Withholding of Removal Pursuant to INA 241(b)(3)
Withholding of removal, in contrast to asylum, confers only the right
not to be deported to a particular country rather than the right to
remain in the U.S."
What to order did _not_ say was that he could still be deported.
What the order did _not_ say was that he was a gang member (in fact,
from the information contained in the order it seems more reasonable to >interpret that Judge Jones did _not_ consider evidence that:
"Exhibit 4 is a Prince George's County Police Department Gang Field
Interview Sheet. It was admitted for the limited purpose of showing that
the Respondent was labeled a gang member by law enforcement."
was credible enough to enter into the case. If he was a gang member,
there were enough precedents listed in that order that being a
'renouncing gang membership' or being in a rival gang was _not_ grounds
for approving any stay in deportation.
So Mr. Garcia was deported to el salvador, despite a court order from
several years earlier explicitly stating he couldn't be deported to el >salvador.
The DOJ and ICE knowingly violated a court order. Who's the real
criminal here?
There is also no evidence from anyone, anywhere, that "two judges found
him likely to be a gang member" (if true, such findings would be readily >available as was Judge Jones order).
There is also scant evidence that he was engaged in human trafficking.
Based on the governments behaviour to this point, I ain't buyin' it.
On 6/7/2025 10:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/7/2025 3:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:59:37 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 7:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank and Flunky persist in thinking that the Biden
government was unquestionably good. Covid-19 taught
them nothing at all.
I thought that Trump was president when Covid-19 hit.
More "thoughts" from Krygowski. No, Covid-19 had only hit
northern Italy
Where _dose_ he come up with this bullshit?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109295/provinces-with- most-coronavirus-cases-in-italy/
Naples has the 3rd highest case count in the country.
and Fauci had threatened the entire US with instant death
from
it. The deaths from covid-19 in norther Itally turned out
to be persons of an average age of 85 and with two or
more comorbities. In practice Fauci's advice to Trump was
to give emergency was a criminal act since there were
already repurposed drugs such as Ivermectine that
nuetralized the worst effects from extreme cases. In
practice, 50% of the population was already immune to
Covid-19 and the others had extremely light effects from
the illness itself. The illegally developed mRNA
"vaccines", which were really illegal GMO's approved by
Fauci were thecause of virtually all of the deaths
supposedly from Covid-19. Covid-19 first appeared in 2019
in China and they injected people with spike proteins
killing perhaps as much as half of their population. It
is said that all of the major cities in China are now
strangely empty. Mass transportation is empty.
lol....50% of chinas population died? Funny, I'd think we
would have heard about 500 million people dying in the space
of a couple of years from someone besides tommy by now.
Chyinese culture has
children supporting their elders and this bodes very ill
if they killed off half of their population with spike
protein injections.
In the US the Covid-19 "vaccines" were withheld until
late 2020 nwhen Biden was in office.
lol....when exactly did Biden get sworn in? I can guarantee
it wasn't late 2020.
Tell me Krygowski, when the complete history of this
disease if full documented why is it that you don't know
anything about it and why was Fauci given full pardons
for any past or present crimes?
I suppose that is because of your credential.
Wow. What an immense pile of horseshit!
Why would we expect anything else?
On 6/7/2025 12:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/7/2025 8:48 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/7/2025 9:25 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/7/2025 6:42 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/7/2025 12:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 9:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2025 6:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Update this afternoon regarding Mr Abrego Garcia.
3-1/2 minute video is on the 2d screen/page here:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kilmar-abrego-garcia-way-
back-185850961.html
This sounds a lot closer to what the Founding Fathers
intended, compared to "Deport him!" and "Oops, we
goofed but we can't fix it."
All his deplorable criminal activities aside,
Ass-covering allegations by the DOJ.
he has a prior deportation order fer chrissake. What
does it take to enforce a Statute??
He did? seems to me the exact opposite is true.
The 2019 deportation order specified that he be removed
but not deported to El Salvador or Guatemala (he had
lived in both his birthplace El Salvador and also
Guatemala).
That is completely untrue. Here's the order.
https://drive.google.com/file/
d/1V_yaacfwjS6i02eeCaHoPh64tGvySkVO/edit
There is nothing in the order which orders removal. What
you're quoting is an editorial interpretaion from the media.
The issue more correctly is to where and not whether.
The present administration seems to have taken up that
point as he is in fact here again.
Funny how they couldn't get him back, then did, then made
up more charges
Thank you. Sincerely. I looked for that without success.
End of section III A
"Respondent's application for asylum is time-barred and
must be denied. We turn next to withholding of removal
under the Act."
But then in Section B
"The Court finds that the Respondent's proposed social
group, "Immediate Family Members of the Abrego Family,"
essentially his nuclear family, is cognizable."
essentially finding that Mr Abrego Garcia's asylum claim,
denied above, is reinstated by the Court.
Final decision is:
I. the Respondent's application for asylum pursuant to
INA§ 208 is DENIED;
II. the Respondent's application for withholding of
removal pursuant to INA §241(b)(3) is GRANTED; and
III. the Respondent's application for withholding of
removal under the Convention Against Torture is DENIED;
Which does explain so much confusion in the reportage.
Makes no sense to me either but I am not the decider.
You're Welcome, and let me also express appreciation that
you took the time to review the information available rather
than simply buy the media
The media is not the decider either, but so much is (and has
been) decided by the media over the decades. That might
explain the claim 'Judge Jones didn't say he couldn't be
deported, just that he could he deported to el salvador or
Guatemala'. That's written here:
"B. Withholding of Removal Pursuant to INA§ 241(b)(3)
Withholding of removal, in contrast to asylum, confers only
the right not to be deported to a particular country rather
than the right to remain in the U.S."
What to order did _not_ say was that he could still be
deported.
What the order did _not_ say was that he was a gang member
(in fact, from the information contained in the order it
seems more reasonable to interpret that Judge Jones did
_not_ consider evidence that:
"Exhibit 4 is a Prince George's County Police Department
Gang Field Interview Sheet. It was admitted for the limited
purpose of showing that the Respondent was labeled a gang
member by law enforcement."
was credible enough to enter into the case. If he was a gang
member, there were enough precedents listed in that order
that being a 'renouncing gang membership' or being in a
rival gang was _not_ grounds for approving any stay in
deportation.
So Mr. Garcia was deported to el salvador, despite a court
order from several years earlier explicitly stating he
couldn't be deported to el salvador.
The DOJ and ICE knowingly violated a court order. Who's the
real criminal here?
There is also no evidence from anyone, anywhere, that "two
judges found him likely to be a gang member" (if true, such
findings would be readily available as was Judge Jones order).
There is also scant evidence that he was engaged in human
trafficking. Based on the governments behaviour to this
point, I ain't buyin' it.
On 6/7/2025 9:14 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/7/2025 3:03 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 19:05:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 19:52:16 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 16:27:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 04:27:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:29:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:22 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Around here the idiot governor has driven most good
people out of the state and they have been replace
by honest hard working illegals. No one is coming
back to the worst state just because it has the
best weather.
I spent a week there not long ago. You're right,
Tom, Mountain View,
Palo Alto, San Jose, Cupertino, San Francisco were
like deserts! Nobody
as far as the eye could see! :-)
I don't know what caused all the traffic. Robotaxis
in disguise? But who
would need them?
With over 817,000 residents leaving in 2023,
California continues to
have one of the highest outbound migration rates.
High housing costs,
rising taxes, and concerns about affordability are
pushing residents
to states like Texas and Arizona. When asked what
state has the most
people leaving, California consistently ranks at the
top due to its
high cost of living and economic challenges.
https://clancymoving.com/blog/2025/april/moving-
statistics-and- trends-for-2025-what-to-expect-this-
year/
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
California_exodus#Demographics>
Leaving Calif -690,127 in 2023
Entering Calif +422,075 in 2023
=================================
Net change -268,052
Source of data:
<https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/
geographic- mobility/state-to-state-migration.html>
I'd like to see the in/out numbers of registered voters
Thanks for ignoring what I wrote. Your numbers from
Clancy Relocation
and Logistics appear to be faulty and not very
authoritative. I
suggest you find a better source that provides sources
for its
numbers. You also ignored everyone entering California.
I couldn't find anything that counted California in-
migration and
out-migration by voter registration or political party
affiliation.
Perhaps I could provide an answer if you could rewrite
your request
into something that I can feed to an AI. Using ChatGPT
3 and asking:
"What is the percent immigration, in and out of
California by
political party in 2024?"
<https://chatgpt.com/
share/68439ab9-02c0-800c-8ef4-8b182445d370>
I could try to squeeze some better and more specific
info out of the
AI, but I would need a clue as to what you are looking
for. I can
also ask other AI's and/or reword the request. I don't
care about
what you're trying to prove. Just what information you
need to prove
your point.
I saw what you wrote, and I wondered how many of the in
and out
numbers were registered voters rather than just people.
Because:
The fact that in recent years many non-citizens have been
allowed
entry nto the country and many of them are in California.
As for the mover's numbers, I'm thinking most were
families. At any
rate, California recently lost a congressional seat, so
they are
bleeding registered voters.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Small point-
Our Constitution says Congressional apportionment is
counted by 'persons', not 'citizens' nor 'registered
voters'. That's taken to mean 'all and sundry':
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-
secrets/3215856/not- voting-migrants-give-democrats-14-
electoral-votes/
You can thank slave owners for making sure non-voting
residents were countable for representation purposes.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/three-fifths-compromise
On 6/8/2025 4:27 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:03:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/7/2025 4:32 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 22:38:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
A person who didn't provide similar documentation probably doesn't have >>>>> a Real ID, no matter what he thinks.
https://www.flhsmv.gov/driver-licenses-id-cards/what-to-bring/u-s-citizen/
But hey, ignorance is bliss.
Florida has been issuing REAL ID status on driver's licenses since
2010. Neither my wife or myself recall ever taking our birth cert....
OK, we'll believe your dim recollection more than we'll believe the
official State of Florida information.
Sure we will.
Who is the rest of the "we" you're speaking for? Your imaginary
friends?
The people here who have long ago decided our timid Floridian is both
deluded and obsessed with me.
Maybe he's got a Costco card instead? ;-) Today's news says
https://www.yahoo.com/news/tsa-just-banned-costco-cards-033225289.html
and includes this: "How do I get a REAL ID?" TSA's site reads, "Visit
your states drivers licensing agency website to find out exactly what >documentation is required to obtain a REAL ID. At a minimum, you must
provide documentation showing: 1) Full Legal Name; 2) Date of Birth; 3) >Social Security Number; 4) Two Proofs of Address of Principal Residence;
and 5) Lawful Status."
I guess Costco is a less stringent way to get a gold star. Mr. Tricycle >qualifies! ;-)
On 6/8/2025 10:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
... rectified 83 years later- a blink in human history.
Depending what you mean, "human history" could be since humans evolved, >~250000 years, or "since humans have been writing history" ~3000 years.
By that standard, almost any horrible injustice is "a blink in human
history" even while comprising a lifetime for, perhaps, millions of people.
TLDR? We need a better standard than that.
On 6/8/2025 10:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
... rectified 83 years later- a blink in human history.
Depending what you mean, "human history" could be since
humans evolved, ~250000 years, or "since humans have been
writing history" ~3000 years.
By that standard, almost any horrible injustice is "a blink
in human history" even while comprising a lifetime for,
perhaps, millions of people.
TLDR? We need a better standard than that.
On 6/8/2025 9:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/7/2025 9:08 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Andrew, how many of those cases were lost? Wasn't it more
On 6/7/2025 12:26 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 8:24 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <pbq0Q.746378$qmJf.738823@fx16.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have a Real ID in my pocket right now. All traveler
outside of the
national boundaries has to show proof of citizenship
(a passport) at
all times.
Indeed, you should carry it inside the national
boundaries at all times,
as well, since some people apparently think you can be
deported without
a hearing if anyone suspects you of being in the
country illegally.
Look, I watched approximately 100 illegals vote for
Obama at my local
voting place.
I'm really curious how you knew for a fact they were
illegal. But that's
not really what I'm on about here.
What I'm on about is that without a hearing, any
crooked cop could point
a finger at you and have you deported to prison for
life for being an
illegal immigrant. It's all about the due process.
Do you REALLY think that anything close to a majority
voted for Biden?
I wasn't sure, but after Trump lost 60+ court cases
trying to prove
illegal voting activity, I'm pretty confident that
things were on the
up-and-up overall. 60+ court cases is a LOT of vetting.
Hats off to
Trump for being so thorough. :)
That remains an open question as every one of those was
dismissed or decided on standing, latches or other
process issues. There was no evidence or testimony
entered into a court record. We just don't know (our
own beliefs notwithstanding) and likely never will.
I'm unable to believe that _IF_ there were so many
consequential election irregularities, the highly
motivated Republican losers could not have properly done
their legal homework and proven their case in court.
As it was, they lost again and again, for whatever
reasons. My guess is they didn't try really hard because
they knew their legal protests were a sham.
Constitutionally this is the responsibility of the State
legislatures who are generally weak of spirit, as recent
Congresses.
than 50?
It's irrational fantasy to pretend there were massive
problems that radically changed election results, yet NO
court cases were able to prove that. It's beyond belief that
_all_ Republican-hired lawyers were that incompetent.
Update this afternoon regarding Mr Abrego Garcia.
3-1/2 minute video is on the 2d screen/page here:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kilmar-abrego-garcia-way-back-185850961.html
In article <A6p0Q.372615$K3w3.210965@fx05.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
why would El Salvador have a warrany out in his name.
No idea. Maybe that's a good item to bring before a US court.
Is it your belief they have unlimited prison space?
It's relatively unlimited. Trump asked Bukele to build five more and
we're paying him for all the prisoners he takes.
On 6/7/2025 7:51 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:52:45 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 14:33:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:35 AM, Shadow wrote:
Florida had one of the worse deaths/million population among
all American states(I'm excluding the blible belt states, because
praying actually increases death rates among practically all
diseases).
They should have voted for someone more capable of leading the
state.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party-affiliation-linked-excess-covid-deaths
CIDRAP???
No, the source is JAMA. Cidrap is just relaying the
information.
JAMA is not political, if anything it tends to the right....
[]'s
Krygowski apparently believes everything he runs into that
supports his agenda.
"JAMA is not political, if anything it tends to the right."
That's hilarious!
For at least 50 years AMA has been proudly hard left,
reflecting its members' positions (which they ought to
reflect). Which is exactly why neither my MD brother nor
85% of US licensed MDs belong to AMA.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3153537/
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 08:38:34 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/7/2025 7:51 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:52:45 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 14:33:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:35 AM, Shadow wrote:
Florida had one of the worse deaths/million population among
all American states(I'm excluding the blible belt states, because
praying actually increases death rates among practically all
diseases).
They should have voted for someone more capable of leading the
state.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party-affiliation-linked-excess-covid-deaths
CIDRAP???
No, the source is JAMA. Cidrap is just relaying the
information.
JAMA is not political, if anything it tends to the right....
[]'s
Krygowski apparently believes everything he runs into that
supports his agenda.
"JAMA is not political, if anything it tends to the right."
That's hilarious!
For at least 50 years AMA has been proudly hard left,
reflecting its members' positions (which they ought to
reflect). Which is exactly why neither my MD brother nor
85% of US licensed MDs belong to AMA.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3153537/
AMA tends to the right.
Seems most American doctors decided that's not radical enough
for them, so they went extreme right.
What ethical doctor does not defend public medicine?
The
health statistics alone show it's the most effective form of medicine.
[]'s
Do you think that Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan are any way a free country acts?
On Sat Jun 7 07:46:18 2025 zen cycle wrote:
That's not the point. According to floriduh dumbass if you're accused of
being an illegal immigrant you shouldn't get due process, whether you're
really illegal or not.
Would you find ig impossible to prove yourself a US citizen?
Were you born without a birth certificate?
You have never held a passport and you cannot get a Real ID?
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 01:42:07 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <A6p0Q.372615$K3w3.210965@fx05.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
why would El Salvador have a warrany out in his name.
No idea. Maybe that's a good item to bring before a US court.
Is it your belief they have unlimited prison space?
It's relatively unlimited. Trump asked Bukele to build five more and
we're paying him for all the prisoners he takes.
Bukele has turned prisons into business. It's a lose-lose for
tax payers. They foot the bill (Trump probably gets his 20%. as does
Bukele) and Americans have to pay more for commodities produced by foreigners.
[]'s
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 09:48:55 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:48:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I did
fly several times during that period and I soon realised that the crew >>>didn't make an issue about lowering the mask below my chin. I walked >>>around in three airports with the mask hanging around my neck
I suppose we'll never know how many people you killed... not
that you would lose a minute's sleep if it had been dozens.
[]'s
Don't be silly... How would I have killed anyone?
On Wed Jun 4 19:08:36 2025 Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <g1104kpnld069op5s12ddfjpaas7360a82@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
So if the government says you're not a US citizen (even if you are), you
don't get a hearing. This is a planet-sized loophole, you see?
Where do you get the idea that you don't get a hearing?
On 6/8/2025 12:10 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/8/2025 9:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/8/2025 9:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/7/2025 9:08 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Andrew, how many of those cases were lost? Wasn't it more
On 6/7/2025 12:26 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 8:24 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <pbq0Q.746378$qmJf.738823@fx16.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have a Real ID in my pocket right now. All
traveler outside of the
national boundaries has to show proof of citizenship
(a passport) at
all times.
Indeed, you should carry it inside the national
boundaries at all times,
as well, since some people apparently think you can
be deported without
a hearing if anyone suspects you of being in the
country illegally.
Look, I watched approximately 100 illegals vote for
Obama at my local
voting place.
I'm really curious how you knew for a fact they were
illegal. But that's
not really what I'm on about here.
What I'm on about is that without a hearing, any
crooked cop could point
a finger at you and have you deported to prison for
life for being an
illegal immigrant. It's all about the due process.
Do you REALLY think that anything close to a
majority voted for Biden?
I wasn't sure, but after Trump lost 60+ court cases
trying to prove
illegal voting activity, I'm pretty confident that
things were on the
up-and-up overall. 60+ court cases is a LOT of
vetting. Hats off to
Trump for being so thorough. :)
That remains an open question as every one of those
was dismissed or decided on standing, latches or other
process issues. There was no evidence or testimony
entered into a court record. We just don't know (our
own beliefs notwithstanding) and likely never will.
I'm unable to believe that _IF_ there were so many
consequential election irregularities, the highly
motivated Republican losers could not have properly
done their legal homework and proven their case in court.
As it was, they lost again and again, for whatever
reasons. My guess is they didn't try really hard
because they knew their legal protests were a sham.
Constitutionally this is the responsibility of the State
legislatures who are generally weak of spirit, as recent
Congresses.
than 50?
It's irrational fantasy to pretend there were massive
problems that radically changed election results, yet NO
court cases were able to prove that. It's beyond belief
that _all_ Republican-hired lawyers were that incompetent.
Lost? Not the same as filing not accepted or case
dismissed ...
Would you prefer "not won"? Same [lack of] effect, same
evaluation.
On Thu Jun 5 23:25:45 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:45 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/5/2025 6:42 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Wed Jun 4 13:27:52 2025 Rolf Mantel
On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 08:59:15 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/7/2025 9:48 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/7/2025 8:45 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 14:33:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:35 AM, Shadow wrote:
Florida had one of the worse deaths/million
population among
all American states(I'm excluding the blible belt
states, because
praying actually increases death rates among practically
all
diseases).
They should have voted for someone more capable of
leading the
state.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party-
affiliation-linked-excess-covid-deaths
Same in Brazil. More pronounced, maybe. Of every 8
patients
that went on to die that responded the census, 7 said they
were
Bolsonaro supporters(mostly non vaccinated and went to
"covid parties"
to get "natural immunity").
Remember, Bolsonaro actually recommended NOT
vaccinating on
national TV. Said vaccines turned people into "communists"..
Oh, here we were told by some that the vaccine would make a
person magnetic; and that they were injecting microchips
into our blood stream to control us. To some, that sounded
all "sciency"!
We were also told to expect 2,200,000 US deaths. pffffft.
Well over 3.000.000 deaths in Brazil due to "idiopathic
respiratory failure". It's what killed my mother. Even with a positive
COVID test, it wasn't COVID.
Doctors in private clinics/health plans were ordered not to
mention COVID on the death certificates.
I have to take medicine because I caught it. My blood pressure
has never gone back to normal. I caught it before vaccines were
available. So three million died quickly. Others are still dying...
[]'s
On 6/7/2025 9:48 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/7/2025 8:45 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 14:33:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:35 AM, Shadow wrote:
Florida had one of the worse deaths/million
population among
all American states(I'm excluding the blible belt
states, because
praying actually increases death rates among practically
all
diseases).
They should have voted for someone more capable of
leading the
state.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party-
affiliation-linked-excess-covid-deaths
Same in Brazil. More pronounced, maybe. Of every 8
patients
that went on to die that responded the census, 7 said they
were
Bolsonaro supporters(mostly non vaccinated and went to
"covid parties"
to get "natural immunity").
Remember, Bolsonaro actually recommended NOT
vaccinating on
national TV. Said vaccines turned people into "communists"..
Oh, here we were told by some that the vaccine would make a
person magnetic; and that they were injecting microchips
into our blood stream to control us. To some, that sounded
all "sciency"!
We were also told to expect 2,200,000 US deaths. pffffft.
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/brazil
On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 19:56:14 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/brazil
"Estimated cumulative excess deaths per 100,000 population during
COVID-19, Jun 17, 2024 for USA and Brazil" <https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/covid?time=latest&mapSelect=USA~BRA&Metric=Excess%20mortality%20(estimates)&Interval=Cumulative&Relative%20to%20population=true&country=USA~BRA~JPN~DEU>
Identical rates for excess deaths per 100,000 for USA and Brazil
sounds like someone has been tweaking the data from Brazil to make the
number more believable.
Also, notice that the confirmed cumulative (total) deaths per 100,000 population for Brazil is a constant 307 (flat line) from Mar 1, 2022
to May 11, 2025. This means that either Brazil has successfully
controlled the spread of Covid-19 (unlikely), or that Brazil simply
stopped reporting new cases (more likely).
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 16:32:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 09:48:55 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:48:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I did
fly several times during that period and I soon realised that the crew >>>>didn't make an issue about lowering the mask below my chin. I walked >>>>around in three airports with the mask hanging around my neck
I suppose we'll never know how many people you killed... not
that you would lose a minute's sleep if it had been dozens.
[]'s
Don't be silly... How would I have killed anyone?
To deliberately infect someone with a disease is manslaughter
here in Brazil, if the victim dies.
Probably not so in the US, or most repuglicans would be in
jail.
[]'s
On 6/8/2025 8:12 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/8/2025 5:53 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 01:42:07 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <A6p0Q.372615$K3w3.210965@fx05.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
why would El Salvador have a warrany out in his name.
No idea. Maybe that's a good item to bring before a US court.
Is it your belief they have unlimited prison space?
It's relatively unlimited. Trump asked Bukele to build five more and
we're paying him for all the prisoners he takes.
Bukele has turned prisons into business. It's a lose-lose for
tax payers. They foot the bill (Trump probably gets his 20%. as does
Bukele) and Americans have to pay more for commodities produced by
foreigners.
[]'s
You may dislike him and as with any national leader there are many valid
criticisms.
That said, he promised to stop the gangs and he did. That's something.
And Mussolini made the trains run on time. Yet almost nobody wants
another Mussolini. Not even you, I'll bet.
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 18:02:32 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sat Jun 7 07:46:18 2025 zen cycle wrote:
That's not the point. According to floriduh dumbass if you're accused of >>> being an illegal immigrant you shouldn't get due process, whether you're >>> really illegal or not.
Would you find ig impossible to prove yourself a US citizen?
Were you born without a birth certificate?
You have never held a passport and you cannot get a Real ID?
On 6/7/2025 9:48 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/7/2025 8:45 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 14:33:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:35 AM, Shadow wrote:
Florida had one of the worse deaths/million population among >>>>> all American states(I'm excluding the blible belt states, because
praying actually increases death rates among practically all
diseases).
They should have voted for someone more capable of leading the >>>>> state.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party- affiliation-
linked-excess-covid-deaths
Same in Brazil. More pronounced, maybe. Of every 8 patients
that went on to die that responded the census, 7 said they were
Bolsonaro supporters(mostly non vaccinated and went to "covid parties"
to get "natural immunity").
Remember, Bolsonaro actually recommended NOT vaccinating on
national TV. Said vaccines turned people into "communists"..
Oh, here we were told by some that the vaccine would make a person
magnetic; and that they were injecting microchips into our blood
stream to control us. To some, that sounded all "sciency"!
We were also told to expect 2,200,000 US deaths. pffffft.
On 6/8/2025 8:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/8/2025 6:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/8/2025 12:10 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/8/2025 9:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/8/2025 9:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/7/2025 9:08 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/7/2025 12:26 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 8:24 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <pbq0Q.746378$qmJf.738823@fx16.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have a Real ID in my pocket right now. All traveler outside >>>>>>>>>> of the
national boundaries has to show proof of citizenship (a
passport) at
all times.
Indeed, you should carry it inside the national boundaries at >>>>>>>>> all times,
as well, since some people apparently think you can be deported >>>>>>>>> without
a hearing if anyone suspects you of being in the country
illegally.
Look, I watched approximately 100 illegals vote for Obama at >>>>>>>>>> my local
voting place.
I'm really curious how you knew for a fact they were illegal. >>>>>>>>> But that's
not really what I'm on about here.
What I'm on about is that without a hearing, any crooked cop >>>>>>>>> could point
a finger at you and have you deported to prison for life for >>>>>>>>> being an
illegal immigrant. It's all about the due process.
Do you REALLY think that anything close to a majority voted >>>>>>>>>> for Biden?
I wasn't sure, but after Trump lost 60+ court cases trying to >>>>>>>>> prove
illegal voting activity, I'm pretty confident that things were >>>>>>>>> on the
up-and-up overall. 60+ court cases is a LOT of vetting. Hats >>>>>>>>> off to
Trump for being so thorough. :)
That remains an open question as every one of those was
dismissed or decided on standing, latches or other process
issues. There was no evidence or testimony entered into a court >>>>>>>> record. We just don't know (our own beliefs notwithstanding) >>>>>>>> and likely never will.
I'm unable to believe that _IF_ there were so many consequential >>>>>>> election irregularities, the highly motivated Republican losers
could not have properly done their legal homework and proven
their case in court.
As it was, they lost again and again, for whatever reasons. My
guess is they didn't try really hard because they knew their
legal protests were a sham.
Constitutionally this is the responsibility of the State
legislatures who are generally weak of spirit, as recent Congresses. >>>>> Andrew, how many of those cases were lost? Wasn't it more than 50?
It's irrational fantasy to pretend there were massive problems that
radically changed election results, yet NO court cases were able to
prove that. It's beyond belief that _all_ Republican-hired lawyers
were that incompetent.
Lost? Not the same as filing not accepted or case dismissed ...
Would you prefer "not won"? Same [lack of] effect, same evaluation.
There is a difference in this context in that the arguments remain
unaddressed in the court record.
Again: Competent teams of lawyers would have anticipated technicalities
like legal standing, jurisdiction or whatever else might have hampered
their legal claims that the election was invalid. Their strategies and procedures should have been built to deal with those things. And once a
case was rejected, they could probably have taken legal steps to correct
that rejection.
They did not do that in any of those well over 50 cases. ISTM that could
not be because of mere incompetence. It could only be because they knew
they had no chance of actually winning.
The entire effort was something between grasping at straws and a
deliberate sham to delude and mollify their faithful.
On 6/8/2025 8:06 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 18:02:32 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sat Jun 7 07:46:18 2025 zen cycle wrote:
That's not the point. According to floriduh dumbass if you're accused of >>>> being an illegal immigrant you shouldn't get due process, whether you're >>>> really illegal or not.
Would you find ig impossible to prove yourself a US citizen?
No, That's not the point. According to floriduh dumbass if you're
accused of being an illegal immigrant you shouldn't get due process,
whether you're really illegal or not.
Were you born without a birth certificate?
No, That's not the point. According to floriduh dumbass if you're
accused of being an illegal immigrant you shouldn't get due process,
whether you're really illegal or not.
You have never held a passport and you cannot get a Real ID?
I have both, That's not the point. According to floriduh dumbass if
you're accused of being an illegal immigrant you shouldn't get due
process, whether you're really illegal or not.
On 6/8/2025 9:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/7/2025 9:48 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/7/2025 8:45 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 14:33:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:35 AM, Shadow wrote:
Florida had one of the worse deaths/million population among
all American states(I'm excluding the blible belt states, because
praying actually increases death rates among practically all
diseases).
They should have voted for someone more capable of leading the >>>>>> state.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party- affiliation-
linked-excess-covid-deaths
Same in Brazil. More pronounced, maybe. Of every 8 patients
that went on to die that responded the census, 7 said they were
Bolsonaro supporters(mostly non vaccinated and went to "covid parties" >>>> to get "natural immunity").
Remember, Bolsonaro actually recommended NOT vaccinating on
national TV. Said vaccines turned people into "communists"..
Oh, here we were told by some that the vaccine would make a person
magnetic; and that they were injecting microchips into our blood
stream to control us. To some, that sounded all "sciency"!
We were also told to expect 2,200,000 US deaths. pffffft.
Before vaccines, work-from-home, and PPE measures were instituted,
Obviously, it all worked.
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 23:23:47 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 21:14:54 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 16:32:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 09:48:55 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:48:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I did
fly several times during that period and I soon realised that the crew >>>>>didn't make an issue about lowering the mask below my chin. I walked >>>>>around in three airports with the mask hanging around my neck
I suppose we'll never know how many people you killed... not
that you would lose a minute's sleep if it had been dozens.
[]'s
Don't be silly... How would I have killed anyone?
To deliberately infect someone with a disease is manslaughter
here in Brazil, if the victim dies.
I had no disease so I couldn't have infected anyone, deliberately, or >otherwise.
FWIW, there were others on the plane and in the terminal with masks
lowered or taken off.
On the other hand, I saw morons wearing masks
out on their bikes, with nobody else within two hundred feet. I saw
other fools, all alone in their vehicles wearing masks. Now we're told
that the cloth masks were worthless, as was the need to stay six feet
apart. Some people think their nanny-governments are honest and
wonderful. I don't. I think Fauci ought to be in prison
Probably not so in the US, or most repuglicans would be in
jail.
[]'s
I see you've joined the "make up a nasty pseudo-name for your
opponents" club. Don't you think that's kind of juvenile? I do.
On 6/8/2025 7:31 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 08:59:15 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/7/2025 9:48 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/7/2025 8:45 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 14:33:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:35 AM, Shadow wrote:
Florida had one of the worse deaths/million
population among
all American states(I'm excluding the blible belt
states, because
praying actually increases death rates among practically
all
diseases).
They should have voted for someone more capable of
leading the
state.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party-
affiliation-linked-excess-covid-deaths
Same in Brazil. More pronounced, maybe. Of every 8
patients
that went on to die that responded the census, 7 said they
were
Bolsonaro supporters(mostly non vaccinated and went to
"covid parties"
to get "natural immunity").
Remember, Bolsonaro actually recommended NOT
vaccinating on
national TV. Said vaccines turned people into "communists"..
Oh, here we were told by some that the vaccine would make a
person magnetic; and that they were injecting microchips
into our blood stream to control us. To some, that sounded
all "sciency"!
We were also told to expect 2,200,000 US deaths. pffffft.
Well over 3.000.000 deaths in Brazil due to "idiopathic
respiratory failure". It's what killed my mother. Even with a positive
COVID test, it wasn't COVID.
Doctors in private clinics/health plans were ordered not to
mention COVID on the death certificates.
I have to take medicine because I caught it. My blood pressure
has never gone back to normal. I caught it before vaccines were
available. So three million died quickly. Others are still dying...
[]'s
My condolences for your mother's passing.
The various Wuhan virus fatalities don't seem like 3 million:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10212149/
Looks like roughly one million deaths 2020~2025 in all:
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/brazil
https://platform.who.int/mortality/countries/country-details/MDB/brazil--
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 04:05:40 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 21:14:54 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 16:32:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 09:48:55 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:48:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I did
fly several times during that period and I soon realised that the crew >>>>>>didn't make an issue about lowering the mask below my chin. I walked >>>>>>around in three airports with the mask hanging around my neck
I suppose we'll never know how many people you killed... not
that you would lose a minute's sleep if it had been dozens.
[]'s
Don't be silly... How would I have killed anyone?
To deliberately infect someone with a disease is manslaughter
here in Brazil, if the victim dies.
I had no disease so I couldn't have infected anyone, deliberately, or >>otherwise.
How do you know? Did you do monthly tests? Note most people
were carriers, did not get pneumonia. Only 2% died.
Do a blood test today and see if you were a carrier or not.
FWIW, there were others on the plane and in the terminal with masks
lowered or taken off.
And there are people that shoot up schools. I fail to see how
that justifies manslaughter. "They killed people so I can too".
On the other hand, I saw morons wearing masks
out on their bikes, with nobody else within two hundred feet. I saw
other fools, all alone in their vehicles wearing masks. Now we're told
that the cloth masks were worthless, as was the need to stay six feet >>apart. Some people think their nanny-governments are honest and
wonderful. I don't. I think Fauci ought to be in prison
Cloth masks were excellent, if combined with social
distancing. New Zealand and Australia are proof of that. The disease
only spread when social media belittled the government.
Probably not so in the US, or most repuglicans would be in
jail.
[]'s
I see you've joined the "make up a nasty pseudo-name for your
opponents" club. Don't you think that's kind of juvenile? I do.
What they do is "Ugly". It's an accurate description.
[]'s
On 6/8/2025 5:53 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 01:42:07 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us>
wrote:
In article <A6p0Q.372615$K3w3.210965@fx05.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
why would El Salvador have a warrany out in his name.
No idea. Maybe that's a good item to bring before a US court.
Is it your belief they have unlimited prison space?
It's relatively unlimited. Trump asked Bukele to build five more and
we're paying him for all the prisoners he takes.
Bukele has turned prisons into business. It's a lose-lose for
tax payers. They foot the bill (Trump probably gets his 20%. as does
Bukele) and Americans have to pay more for commodities produced by
foreigners.
[]'s
You may dislike him and as with any national leader there
are many valid criticisms.
That said, he promised to stop the gangs and he did. That's
something.
https://elsalvadorinfo.net/homicide-rate-in-el-salvador/
On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 19:56:14 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/brazil
"Estimated cumulative excess deaths per 100,000 population during
COVID-19, Jun 17, 2024 for USA and Brazil" <https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/covid?time=latest&mapSelect=USA~BRA&Metric=Excess%20mortality%20(estimates)&Interval=Cumulative&Relative%20to%20population=true&country=USA~BRA~JPN~DEU>
Identical rates for excess deaths per 100,000 for USA and Brazil
sounds like someone has been tweaking the data from Brazil to make the
number more believable.
Also, notice that the confirmed cumulative (total) deaths per 100,000 population for Brazil is a constant 307 (flat line) from Mar 1, 2022
to May 11, 2025. This means that either Brazil has successfully
controlled the spread of Covid-19 (unlikely), or that Brazil simply
stopped reporting new cases (more likely).
On 6/8/2025 9:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/7/2025 9:48 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/7/2025 8:45 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 14:33:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:35 AM, Shadow wrote:
Florida had one of the worse deaths/million population among >>>>>> all American states(I'm excluding the blible belt states, because
praying actually increases death rates among practically all
diseases).
They should have voted for someone more capable of leading the >>>>>> state.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party- affiliation-
linked-excess-covid-deaths
Same in Brazil. More pronounced, maybe. Of every 8 patients
that went on to die that responded the census, 7 said they were
Bolsonaro supporters(mostly non vaccinated and went to "covid parties" >>>> to get "natural immunity").
Remember, Bolsonaro actually recommended NOT vaccinating on
national TV. Said vaccines turned people into "communists"..
Oh, here we were told by some that the vaccine would make a person
magnetic; and that they were injecting microchips into our blood
stream to control us. To some, that sounded all "sciency"!
We were also told to expect 2,200,000 US deaths. pffffft.
Before vaccines, work-from-home, and PPE measures were instituted,
Obviously, it all worked.
On 6/7/2025 9:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/7/2025 8:29 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sat Jun 7 08:27:51 2025 zen cycle wrote:
On 6/6/2025 9:50 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <FPo0Q.542385$mjgd.26268@fx09.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
Were it relly the case that we deported a member of MS-13 mistakenly >>>>>> under mistaken identity [...] why did he have a warrany out for
him in
his home country? And how did he manage to stay alive here since
MS-13
kill fakers?
I don't know. Let's get it to court and get an answer, what do you
say?
That's already been determined. He had a hearing which did _not_
determine him to be a member of any gang, and there wasn't a warrant
out
for him in Guatemala.
You're new here, you have to realize tommy just makes stuff up on the
fly most of the time, other times he just repeats what he's read
somewhere as long as it comports with his world view.
He is new here because he spends all his money on drugs and mommy and
daddy are paying for the internet He goesn't have a job which is why
he pays no taxes so he dolesn't give a shit how much money illegals
cost the taxpayers.
:-) In other words, Beej, welcome to Tommy-world! You see what we've
been dealing with for years.
And amazingly, he still has a couple allies here!
Ally??
I'm as critical of Mr Kunich's misstatements as anyone but there are
times he's been correct and I said so.
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 17:57:19 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
<re - the right to a trial when accused of a crime>
Do you think that Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan are any way a free country acts?
I think you're setting the limits for Trump rather low.
But I agree with you, the US has not been a "free country" for
decades .... the "patriot act" was probably one of the most
un-patriotic documents ever signed.
Citizen surveillance. Gag orders by secret courts. Torture of
people suspected of opposing the government. I doubt Vietman, Iraq or Afghanistan spend as much spying on their own citizens as the US.
[]'s
On 6/7/2025 9:26 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Sure, as I've explained. Remember, I used to commute to work byDepends on the distance I found for 3 ish miles then as long as
bike.
Getting ready meant strapping my briefcase on the bike's rear rack,
clipping on an eyeglass mirror (optional but handy in traffic), putting
on an appropriate jacket, and using a safety pin to tighten my right
pants cuff so it stayed away from the chain.
Tom, you probably do more to prepare for your recreational rides. I'll
bet you change into a riding costume. I commuted in ordinary business
casual clothes.
one’s
trousers where’s flappy just jump on and go.
My commute was about 15 miles round trip. The only time I bothered
with a change of clothing was when teaching evening classes in summer,
which meant riding in during the heat of the day.
After retirement, I took classes myself for quite a few years. I then extended my ride home, through the big metropark system. As I recall,
that was about 20 miles per day, but still in normal street clothes.
Different choices for different folks.
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 04:05:40 -0400, floriduh dumbass
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 21:14:54 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 16:32:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 09:48:55 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:48:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I did
fly several times during that period and I soon realised that the crew >>>>>> didn't make an issue about lowering the mask below my chin. I walked >>>>>> around in three airports with the mask hanging around my neck
I suppose we'll never know how many people you killed... not
that you would lose a minute's sleep if it had been dozens.
[]'s
Don't be silly... How would I have killed anyone?
To deliberately infect someone with a disease is manslaughter
here in Brazil, if the victim dies.
I had no disease so I couldn't have infected anyone, deliberately, or
otherwise.
How do you know? Did you do monthly tests? Note most people
were carriers, did not get pneumonia. Only 2% died.
Do a blood test today and see if you were a carrier or not.
FWIW, there were others on the plane and in the terminal with masks
lowered or taken off.
And there are people that shoot up schools. I fail to see how
that justifies manslaughter. "They killed people so I can too".
On the other hand, I saw morons wearing masks
out on their bikes, with nobody else within two hundred feet. I saw
other fools, all alone in their vehicles wearing masks. Now we're told
that the cloth masks were worthless, as was the need to stay six feet
apart. Some people think their nanny-governments are honest and
wonderful. I don't. I think Fauci ought to be in prison
Cloth masks were excellent, if combined with social
distancing. New Zealand and Australia are proof of that. The disease
only spread when social media belittled the government.
Probably not so in the US, or most repuglicans would be in
jail.
[]'s
I see you've joined the "make up a nasty pseudo-name for your
opponents" club. Don't you think that's kind of juvenile? I do.
What they do is "Ugly". It's an accurate description.
[]'s
On 6/9/2025 6:00 AM, zen cycle wrote:
That trump lost the 2024
election due to any type of voting irregularity is one of the biggest
lies ever perpetuated upon the american public.
Absolutely. It's a blatant attack on the most critical part of our
democracy.
But MAGA has now transformed it into a dogma. If you refuse to believe
it, they claim you are not fit for public office. They may soon claim
you are not fit to vote, or you are subject to deportation.
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 04:05:40 -0400, floriduh dumbass
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 21:14:54 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 16:32:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 09:48:55 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:48:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I did
fly several times during that period and I soon realised that the crew >>>>>>> didn't make an issue about lowering the mask below my chin. I walked >>>>>>> around in three airports with the mask hanging around my neck
I suppose we'll never know how many people you killed... not
that you would lose a minute's sleep if it had been dozens.
[]'s
Don't be silly... How would I have killed anyone?
To deliberately infect someone with a disease is manslaughter
here in Brazil, if the victim dies.
I had no disease so I couldn't have infected anyone, deliberately, or
otherwise.
How do you know? Did you do monthly tests? Note most people
were carriers, did not get pneumonia. Only 2% died.
Do a blood test today and see if you were a carrier or not.
FWIW, there were others on the plane and in the terminal with masks
lowered or taken off.
And there are people that shoot up schools. I fail to see how
that justifies manslaughter. "They killed people so I can too".
On the other hand, I saw morons wearing masks
out on their bikes, with nobody else within two hundred feet. I saw
other fools, all alone in their vehicles wearing masks. Now we're told
that the cloth masks were worthless, as was the need to stay six feet
apart. Some people think their nanny-governments are honest and
wonderful. I don't. I think Fauci ought to be in prison
Cloth masks were excellent, if combined with social
distancing. New Zealand and Australia are proof of that. The disease
only spread when social media belittled the government.
Probably not so in the US, or most repuglicans would be in
jail.
[]'s
I see you've joined the "make up a nasty pseudo-name for your
opponents" club. Don't you think that's kind of juvenile? I do.
Apparently not juvenile enough to prevent someone from being president.
On 6/8/2025 8:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 19:56:14 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/brazil
"Estimated cumulative excess deaths per 100,000 population during
COVID-19, Jun 17, 2024 for USA and Brazil"
<https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/covid?time=latest&mapSelect=USA~BRA&Metric=Excess%20mortality%20(estimates)&Interval=Cumulative&Relative%20to%20population=true&country=USA~BRA~JPN~DEU>
Identical rates for excess deaths per 100,000 for USA and Brazil
sounds like someone has been tweaking the data from Brazil to make the
number more believable.
Also, notice that the confirmed cumulative (total) deaths per 100,000
population for Brazil is a constant 307 (flat line) from Mar 1, 2022
to May 11, 2025. This means that either Brazil has successfully
controlled the spread of Covid-19 (unlikely), or that Brazil simply
stopped reporting new cases (more likely).
More poking about shows various totals but not over one
million. I may have missed something more definitive.
Maybe 500K >https://www.statista.com/topics/6168/coronavirus-covid-19-in-brazil/#topicOverview
Maybe 700K >https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-maps-and-cases/
Maybe 711K
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/brazil/
I don't know but 3 million seems high for a 213 million
population.
On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 21:40:04 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/8/2025 8:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 19:56:14 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/brazil
"Estimated cumulative excess deaths per 100,000 population during
COVID-19, Jun 17, 2024 for USA and Brazil"
<https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/covid?time=latest&mapSelect=USA~BRA&Metric=Excess%20mortality%20(estimates)&Interval=Cumulative&Relative%20to%20population=true&country=USA~BRA~JPN~DEU>
Identical rates for excess deaths per 100,000 for USA and Brazil
sounds like someone has been tweaking the data from Brazil to make the
number more believable.
Also, notice that the confirmed cumulative (total) deaths per 100,000
population for Brazil is a constant 307 (flat line) from Mar 1, 2022
to May 11, 2025. This means that either Brazil has successfully
controlled the spread of Covid-19 (unlikely), or that Brazil simply
stopped reporting new cases (more likely).
More poking about shows various totals but not over one
million. I may have missed something more definitive.
Maybe 500K
https://www.statista.com/topics/6168/coronavirus-covid-19-in-brazil/#topicOverview
Maybe 700K
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-maps-and-cases/
Maybe 711K
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/brazil/
I don't know but 3 million seems high for a 213 million
population.
The problem with predicting fatalities is that every country had their
own method of counting fatalities. The WHO tried to define something resembling standards, which mostly worked in countries where the
government was sufficiently stable that it was unlikely to be
overthrown by a failure to protect its citizens. I added to the
confusion by providing a graph that showed Excess Mortality numbers,
which are themselves little better than a guess. Most of the early
trend estimates came from the very rapid rise of new cases in the
early days of Covid-19. Extrapolating from such data after the
initial panic resulted in wide variations in projected new cases.
Looking at the world graph for cases and deaths, trying to estimate
anything before May 2020 was futile because of the rapid rise. Between
May 2020 and Feb 2022, it might be possible to speculate a trend.
After Feb 2022, it was all over, basically flat line, and fairly
useless for projections.
"Cumulative confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths, United
States" <https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-deaths-and-cases-covid-19?country=~USA>
and Brazil" <https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-deaths-and-cases-covid-19?country=~BRA>
Another problem was that the data collection and interpretation was
often performed by those who had a vested interest in the conclusions.
We had some of that in Santa Cruz County. Initially, every hospital
and public health organization created their own Covid-19 dashboards.
In multiple stages, various governmental organization literally
grabbed control of the data and produced their own dashboards. It was amazing how the same data could produce dramatically different
projections.
Since the slope of the curve was initially very steep, the computer
models produced results that suggested that everyone would soon be
dead or dying. Later projections were not so pessimistic, but since
they tended to continue using 2020 data (because that was all that was available for a year or two), the projections continued to predict
that we're all doomed. That's probably where the 3 million cases came
from.
Meanwhile, the politicians did their best to interfere and add
additional layers of confusion. I'm too lazy to provide some examples
but let's say that all sides did their best to "adjust" the numbers to
make themselves look comparatively better than their critics (and fund
their supporting organizations). Meanwhile, every student, scientist,
and politician was producing "survey" research articles in the belief
that averaging the widely varying data sources would somehow produce
sane projections on the assumption that all the errors would somehow
cancel each other out. Meanwhile, the only journals worth reading are
those that itemize retractions:
<https://retractionwatch.com> <https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/>
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 09:03:38 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 04:05:40 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 21:14:54 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 16:32:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 09:48:55 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:48:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>>>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I did
fly several times during that period and I soon realised that the crew >>>>>>>didn't make an issue about lowering the mask below my chin. I walked >>>>>>>around in three airports with the mask hanging around my neck
I suppose we'll never know how many people you killed... not
that you would lose a minute's sleep if it had been dozens.
[]'s
Don't be silly... How would I have killed anyone?
To deliberately infect someone with a disease is manslaughter
here in Brazil, if the victim dies.
I had no disease so I couldn't have infected anyone, deliberately, or >>>otherwise.
How do you know? Did you do monthly tests? Note most people
were carriers, did not get pneumonia. Only 2% died.
Do a blood test today and see if you were a carrier or not.
FWIW, there were others on the plane and in the terminal with masks >>>lowered or taken off.
And there are people that shoot up schools. I fail to see how
that justifies manslaughter. "They killed people so I can too".
<EYEROLL>
On the other hand, I saw morons wearing masks
out on their bikes, with nobody else within two hundred feet. I saw
other fools, all alone in their vehicles wearing masks. Now we're told >>>that the cloth masks were worthless, as was the need to stay six feet >>>apart. Some people think their nanny-governments are honest and >>>wonderful. I don't. I think Fauci ought to be in prison
Cloth masks were excellent, if combined with social
distancing. New Zealand and Australia are proof of that. The disease
only spread when social media belittled the government.
Utter nonsense... The Cochrane Report concluded that there is no
evidence that the masks did any good.
"Seven studies took place in the community, and two studies in
healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask, wearing a mask may
make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like
illness (9 studies; 3507 people); and probably makes no difference in
how many people have flu confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies;
3005 people)." >https://www.cochrane.org/news/featured-review-physical-interventions-interrupt-or-reduce-spread-respiratory-viruses
Probably not so in the US, or most repuglicans would be in
jail.
[]'s
I see you've joined the "make up a nasty pseudo-name for your
opponents" club. Don't you think that's kind of juvenile? I do.
What they do is "Ugly". It's an accurate description.
[]'s
Youre momma wears combat boots.
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 08:41:13 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 09:03:38 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 04:05:40 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 21:14:54 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 16:32:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 09:48:55 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:48:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>>>>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I did
fly several times during that period and I soon realised that the crew >>>>>>>>didn't make an issue about lowering the mask below my chin. I walked >>>>>>>>around in three airports with the mask hanging around my neck
I suppose we'll never know how many people you killed... not >>>>>>>that you would lose a minute's sleep if it had been dozens.
[]'s
Don't be silly... How would I have killed anyone?
To deliberately infect someone with a disease is manslaughter
here in Brazil, if the victim dies.
I had no disease so I couldn't have infected anyone, deliberately, or >>>>otherwise.
How do you know? Did you do monthly tests? Note most people
were carriers, did not get pneumonia. Only 2% died.
Do a blood test today and see if you were a carrier or not.
FWIW, there were others on the plane and in the terminal with masks >>>>lowered or taken off.
And there are people that shoot up schools. I fail to see how
that justifies manslaughter. "They killed people so I can too".
<EYEROLL>
On the other hand, I saw morons wearing masks
out on their bikes, with nobody else within two hundred feet. I saw >>>>other fools, all alone in their vehicles wearing masks. Now we're told >>>>that the cloth masks were worthless, as was the need to stay six feet >>>>apart. Some people think their nanny-governments are honest and >>>>wonderful. I don't. I think Fauci ought to be in prison
Cloth masks were excellent, if combined with social
distancing. New Zealand and Australia are proof of that. The disease
only spread when social media belittled the government.
Utter nonsense... The Cochrane Report concluded that there is no
evidence that the masks did any good.
<https://www.factcheck.org/2023/03/scicheck-what-the-cochrane-review-says-about-masks-for-covid-19-and-what-it-doesnt/>
And he quotes another #FAKE_NEWS.
The study was compromised. They had no idea if the subjects
used masks or not in the study.
"Seven studies took place in the community, and two studies in
healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask, wearing a mask may
make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like
illness (9 studies; 3507 people); and probably makes no difference in
how many people have flu confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies;
3005 people)." >>https://www.cochrane.org/news/featured-review-physical-interventions-interrupt-or-reduce-spread-respiratory-viruses
Probably not so in the US, or most repuglicans would be in
jail.
[]'s
I see you've joined the "make up a nasty pseudo-name for your >>>>opponents" club. Don't you think that's kind of juvenile? I do.
What they do is "Ugly". It's an accurate description.
[]'s
Youre momma wears combat boots.
Only military-dictatorship lovers do that. My mother always
stated that the military should never be deployed INSIDE a country.
That's what the police are for.
[]'s
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 19:05:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 19:52:16 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 16:27:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 04:27:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:29:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:22 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Around here the idiot governor has driven most good people out of the state and they have been replace by honest hard working illegals. No one is coming back to the worst state just because it has the best weather.
I spent a week there not long ago. You're right, Tom, Mountain View, >>>>>>Palo Alto, San Jose, Cupertino, San Francisco were like deserts! Nobody >>>>>>as far as the eye could see! :-)
I don't know what caused all the traffic. Robotaxis in disguise? But who >>>>>>would need them?
With over 817,000 residents leaving in 2023, California continues to >>>>>have one of the highest outbound migration rates. High housing costs, >>>>>rising taxes, and concerns about affordability are pushing residents >>>>>to states like Texas and Arizona. When asked what state has the most >>>>>people leaving, California consistently ranks at the top due to its >>>>>high cost of living and economic challenges. >>>>>https://clancymoving.com/blog/2025/april/moving-statistics-and-trends-for-2025-what-to-expect-this-year/
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_exodus#Demographics>
Leaving Calif -690,127 in 2023
Entering Calif +422,075 in 2023
=================================
Net change -268,052
Source of data: >>>><https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/state-to-state-migration.html>
I'd like to see the in/out numbers of registered voters
Thanks for ignoring what I wrote. Your numbers from Clancy Relocation
and Logistics appear to be faulty and not very authoritative. I
suggest you find a better source that provides sources for its
numbers. You also ignored everyone entering California.
I couldn't find anything that counted California in-migration and >>out-migration by voter registration or political party affiliation.
Perhaps I could provide an answer if you could rewrite your request
into something that I can feed to an AI. Using ChatGPT 3 and asking:
"What is the percent immigration, in and out of California by
political party in 2024?" >><https://chatgpt.com/share/68439ab9-02c0-800c-8ef4-8b182445d370>
I could try to squeeze some better and more specific info out of the
AI, but I would need a clue as to what you are looking for. I can
also ask other AI's and/or reword the request. I don't care about
what you're trying to prove. Just what information you need to prove
your point.
I saw what you wrote, and I wondered how many of the in and out
numbers were registered voters rather than just people.
Because:
The fact that in recent years many non-citizens have been allowed
entry nto the country and many of them are in California.
As for the mover's numbers, I'm thinking most were families. At any
rate, California recently lost a congressional seat, so they are
bleeding registered voters.
The Birth Records of the US are now completely computerized
and the details cannot be forged;
It is extremely unlikely that anyone is going to even try to forge citizenship records because even government officials don't know the codes.
How do you accuse someone of being an illegal alien if the governments OWN system says that they are not?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 08:41:13 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 09:03:38 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 04:05:40 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 21:14:54 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 16:32:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 09:48:55 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:48:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I did
fly several times during that period and I soon realised that the crew >>>>>>>> didn't make an issue about lowering the mask below my chin. I walked >>>>>>>> around in three airports with the mask hanging around my neck
I suppose we'll never know how many people you killed... not >>>>>>> that you would lose a minute's sleep if it had been dozens.
[]'s
Don't be silly... How would I have killed anyone?
To deliberately infect someone with a disease is manslaughter
here in Brazil, if the victim dies.
I had no disease so I couldn't have infected anyone, deliberately, or
otherwise.
How do you know? Did you do monthly tests? Note most people
were carriers, did not get pneumonia. Only 2% died.
Do a blood test today and see if you were a carrier or not.
FWIW, there were others on the plane and in the terminal with masks
lowered or taken off.
And there are people that shoot up schools. I fail to see how
that justifies manslaughter. "They killed people so I can too".
<EYEROLL>
On the other hand, I saw morons wearing masks
out on their bikes, with nobody else within two hundred feet. I saw
other fools, all alone in their vehicles wearing masks. Now we're told >>>> that the cloth masks were worthless, as was the need to stay six feet
apart. Some people think their nanny-governments are honest and
wonderful. I don't. I think Fauci ought to be in prison
Cloth masks were excellent, if combined with social
distancing. New Zealand and Australia are proof of that. The disease
only spread when social media belittled the government.
Utter nonsense... The Cochrane Report concluded that there is no
evidence that the masks did any good.
<https://www.factcheck.org/2023/03/scicheck-what-the-cochrane-review-says-about-masks-for-covid-19-and-what-it-doesnt/>
And he quotes another #FAKE_NEWS.
The study was compromised. They had no idea if the subjects
used masks or not in the study.
"Seven studies took place in the community, and two studies in
healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask, wearing a mask may
make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like
illness (9 studies; 3507 people); and probably makes no difference in
how many people have flu confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies;
3005 people)."
https://www.cochrane.org/news/featured-review-physical-interventions-interrupt-or-reduce-spread-respiratory-viruses
Probably not so in the US, or most repuglicans would be in
jail.
[]'s
I see you've joined the "make up a nasty pseudo-name for your
opponents" club. Don't you think that's kind of juvenile? I do.
What they do is "Ugly". It's an accurate description.
[]'s
Youre momma wears combat boots.
Only military-dictatorship lovers do that. My mother always
stated that the military should never be deployed INSIDE a country.
That's what the police are for.
[]'s
Garcia is NOT a citizen and was brought back to answer crimnal charges of interstate transport of illegal aliens over a LONG period. There is no protection from those sorts of charges.
On Mon Jun 9 11:34:40 2025 Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/8/2025 7:59 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 17:57:19 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
<re - the right to a trial when accused of a crime>
Do you think that Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan are any way a free country acts?
I think you're setting the limits for Trump rather low.
It's the only way to make trump look good.
Then why was President Trump's approval ratings at 76+%? Feels really bad being such a loser doesn't it?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 18:10:07 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Garcia is NOT a citizen and was brought back to answer crimnal charges of interstate transport of illegal aliens over a LONG period. There is no protection from those sorts of charges.
He worked in construction and drove his colleagues to work.
There is no mention if they were legal or not. If they were illegal,
it's strange the company that employed them was not fined.
He was fined once for driving with an expired license.
I really don't think driving with an expired license is more
serious than being a gang member(and possibly a drug
trafficker/murderer). That's reason they said he was sent to jail
without due process.
Yet they said they brought him back to try him for "more
serious crimes"(the expired driver's license).
LOL
Even you must be thinking that's strange.
Or maybe not.
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 18:14:21 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Mon Jun 9 11:34:40 2025 Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/8/2025 7:59 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 17:57:19 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
<re - the right to a trial when accused of a crime>
Do you think that Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan are any way a free country acts?
I think you're setting the limits for Trump rather low.
It's the only way to make trump look good.
Then why was President Trump's approval ratings at 76+%? Feels really bad being such a loser doesn't it?
Trump has the lowest approval ratings of any President since
World War 2. far worse at 6 months than either Biden or Obama.
Where do you get your "facts" from?
I'm curious. 76% ? It's 41% and falling fast.
[]'s
On 6/9/2025 12:45 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sat Jun 7 15:06:15 2025 Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <1020f63$2pd7f$4@dont-email.me>, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
In our Constitution, the Article III courts may only decide "cases and >>>> controversies" by applying the laws as written. They have no policy,
legislative or oversight authority.
My point is that if you are wrongly arrested, the courts can free you.
That "oversight" is what I'm referring to.
I have asked you your age and what you do for a living and you have
not answered. I can therefore only assume that you are young and not
employed. And unemployable people usually are drug addicts. It doesn't
bother you in the least if you're a drag on society and you're not
paying taxes and so wish not to follow the Constitution in the most
economical way, hut rather wish to take us on the most expensive route
possible.
It appears to me the direction you're traveling is towards
homelessness and fentanyl addiction ending in overdose and death.
While the world would be better off without Flunky, Liebermann and
Krygowski, it needs all of the lawful and honest young people that it
can get and the Democrats have twisted the narative that having money
is bad and it should be taxed away from you. That is communism pure
and simple. So what are your actual beliefs?
Either Mr Jorgensen's argument is valid or it isn't. In this case it is
(IMHO of course).
Given his argument, you may agree or you may disagree as you wish. If
you disagree, you ought to provide a counter argument or disparate
facts. You did neither.
No matter who Mr Jorgensen may be, no matter what he does or does not
do, it's immaterial. You either agree or disagree with what he wrote and that's that.
Instead you assumed he is young. For no obvious reason.
You assumed young people are unemployed.
You assumed unemployed are drug addicts.
You even posited that drug addicts are a drag on society. Some indeed
are. Some are not.
You accused Mr Jorgensen of not paying taxes. That's the same sort of
vicious lie Mr Reid used to unfairly smear Mr Romney in an historically deplorable incident, even for the general low character of US Senators.
In short, nothing of value was added and instead of pondering Mr
Jorgensen's character, your post made us all question yours.
On 6/9/2025 12:52 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 08:41:13 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 09:03:38 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 04:05:40 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 21:14:54 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 16:32:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 09:48:55 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:48:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I didI suppose we'll never know how many people you killed... not >>>>>>>> that you would lose a minute's sleep if it had been dozens.
fly several times during that period and I soon realised that the crew
didn't make an issue about lowering the mask below my chin. I walked >>>>>>>>> around in three airports with the mask hanging around my neck >>>>>>>>
[]'s
Don't be silly... How would I have killed anyone?
To deliberately infect someone with a disease is manslaughter
here in Brazil, if the victim dies.
I had no disease so I couldn't have infected anyone, deliberately, or >>>>> otherwise.
How do you know? Did you do monthly tests? Note most people
were carriers, did not get pneumonia. Only 2% died.
Do a blood test today and see if you were a carrier or not.
FWIW, there were others on the plane and in the terminal with masks
lowered or taken off.
And there are people that shoot up schools. I fail to see how
that justifies manslaughter. "They killed people so I can too".
<EYEROLL>
On the other hand, I saw morons wearing masks
out on their bikes, with nobody else within two hundred feet. I saw
other fools, all alone in their vehicles wearing masks. Now we're told >>>>> that the cloth masks were worthless, as was the need to stay six feet >>>>> apart. Some people think their nanny-governments are honest and
wonderful. I don't. I think Fauci ought to be in prison
Cloth masks were excellent, if combined with social
distancing. New Zealand and Australia are proof of that. The disease
only spread when social media belittled the government.
Utter nonsense... The Cochrane Report concluded that there is no
evidence that the masks did any good.
<https://www.factcheck.org/2023/03/scicheck-what-the-cochrane-review-says-about-masks-for-covid-19-and-what-it-doesnt/>
And he quotes another #FAKE_NEWS.
The study was compromised. They had no idea if the subjects
used masks or not in the study.
"Seven studies took place in the community, and two studies in
healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask, wearing a mask may
make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like
illness (9 studies; 3507 people); and probably makes no difference in
how many people have flu confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies;
3005 people)."
https://www.cochrane.org/news/featured-review-physical-interventions-interrupt-or-reduce-spread-respiratory-viruses
Probably not so in the US, or most repuglicans would be in
jail.
[]'s
I see you've joined the "make up a nasty pseudo-name for your
opponents" club. Don't you think that's kind of juvenile? I do.
What they do is "Ugly". It's an accurate description.
[]'s
Youre momma wears combat boots.
Only military-dictatorship lovers do that. My mother always
stated that the military should never be deployed INSIDE a country.
That's what the police are for.
[]'s
I do not know Brasil law.
Here, that's generally true, except for mob violence and/or
protection of Federal facilities.
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 13:27:23 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/9/2025 12:52 PM, Shadow wrote:
Only military-dictatorship lovers do that. My mother always
stated that the military should never be deployed INSIDE a country.
That's what the police are for.
[]'s
I do not know Brasil law.
Here, that's generally true, except for mob violence and/or
protection of Federal facilities.
Or, as in the current case, protection of Federal ICE agents who were
doing their job.
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 14:54:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 13:27:23 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/9/2025 12:52 PM, Shadow wrote:
Only military-dictatorship lovers do that. My mother always
stated that the military should never be deployed INSIDE a country.
That's what the police are for.
[]'s
I do not know Brasil law.
Here, that's generally true, except for mob violence and/or
protection of Federal facilities.
Or, as in the current case, protection of Federal ICE agents who were
doing their job.
Actually, who were following Trump's orders. Even if their
victims were not allowed any form of legal defense.. Trump also
ignored court orders. That would have got Obama or Biden impeached in
a blink.
OK, how many ICE agents died due to the mass mobs? It must
have been A LOT, for Trump to state that he will deploy U.S. Marines
into the city and "have troops everywhere" if the protests do not
disperse.
As far as I know, protests are a Constitutional right and a
part of democracy. Trump even pardoned the White House criminals
"because they were only protesting**".
Am I wrong?
[]'s
** PS they were actually quite violent, and they invaded the White
House. Guns were fired and people died. But "little people", so Trump
ignored that.
On Mon Jun 9 11:34:40 2025 Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/8/2025 7:59 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 17:57:19 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
<re - the right to a trial when accused of a crime>
Do you think that Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan are any way a free country acts?
I think you're setting the limits for Trump rather low.
It's the only way to make trump look good.
Then why was President Trump's approval ratings at 76+%? Feels really bad being such a loser doesn't it?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 18:14:21 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Mon Jun 9 11:34:40 2025 Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/8/2025 7:59 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 17:57:19 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
<re - the right to a trial when accused of a crime>
Do you think that Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan are any way a free country acts?
I think you're setting the limits for Trump rather low.
It's the only way to make trump look good.
Then why was President Trump's approval ratings at 76+%? Feels really bad being such a loser doesn't it?
Please show the sources of your amazing facts. Otherwise, one might
suspect that you're inventing them for the occasion.
"Donald Trump presidential approval rating in the United States from
2017 to 2021, and 2025" <https://www.statista.com/statistics/666113/approval-rate-of-donald-trump-for-the-presidential-job/>
His highest approval rating was 49% during the early pandemic year
(Jan 2020 to May 2020).
Gallup Poll): <https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx>
Trump's 2nd term approval rating was 47% -> 43% and is creeping
downward.
On 6/9/2025 4:17 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 18:14:21 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Mon Jun 9 11:34:40 2025 Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/8/2025 7:59 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 17:57:19 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
<re - the right to a trial when accused of a crime>
Do you think that Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan are any way a free country acts?
I think you're setting the limits for Trump rather low.
It's the only way to make trump look good.
Then why was President Trump's approval ratings at 76+%? Feels really bad being such a loser doesn't it?
Please show the sources of your amazing facts. Otherwise, one might
suspect that you're inventing them for the occasion.
"Donald Trump presidential approval rating in the United States from
2017 to 2021, and 2025"
<https://www.statista.com/statistics/666113/approval-rate-of-donald-trump-for-the-presidential-job/>
His highest approval rating was 49% during the early pandemic year
(Jan 2020 to May 2020).
Gallup Poll):
<https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx>
Trump's 2nd term approval rating was 47% -> 43% and is creeping
downward.
Aside from a couple of small blips in december and january where his >favorability was a whopping +1.8%, trump has never had a net positive >approval rating. Right now it's -5.8% and trending lower.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump
And just so ya know, RCP is a right leaning website.
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are qualified to
vote ...
That's already true, and proven many dozens of times. False votes are
few, and favor republicans at least as often as democrats.
IOW, we see yet another right winger's horrible outrage over a
minuscule, insignificant problem.
On Sat Jun 7 15:03:07 2025 Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k1t74klekg812nqpk059mtrfptk3hb4f5g@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
nonsense... All law enforcement have elected or appointed management
and most have units desgnated to police the policemen.
I'm curious why you think we have courts, then.
I'm curious to know why you think that citizens can be declared as criminals without court trial findings? Police management and Internal Affairs are limited to turning evidence over to the District Attorney's who then have the choice of prosecuting ornot. Anything below the the level of procecution can be handled as part of disiplinary actions,
A prosecution is presented to a Judge and Jury and the Judge is limited only to ruling on the legality of the proceedings.cause of AIDS and designed and programmed the machine capable of automatically performing the chemistry that gave Dr. Kary Mulis a Nobel prize in chemistry. These machines were used to find HIV as the cause of AIDS and then to clear the world's blood
Why is it that you do not know this?
Apparently you have learned nothing in school. While making a living as an electrinics engineer I again and again observed a very sharp drop in the intelligence of degreed engineers and I am entirely self taught. I was part of the team looking for the
I spent the rest of my life designing or programming medical instruments such as the fist practical heart/lung machine, respiratory gas analyzers and laboratory instruments such as gas and liguid chromatographs so I know spectometry and know that thereis NO man-made climate change from CO2.
I also programmed poison gas detectors for the Army ans communications adaptors for NASA to be used on the Space Station.
So I know a great deal about my specialty and have via social necessity been a member of many juries.
Why do you not understand even the most basic things about living in a Democratic Republic?
Strangely, none of that is on your online resume: ><https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/details/experience/>
NASA and the Army, do not appear on your resume.
Looking at your resume, you did some firmware programming and embedded
system programming. It reads like a summary of all the lies and
claims you refused or failed to prove.
Your claim to have "been a member of many juries" hasn't previously
appeared in rec.bicycles.tech. How many juries, which courts, what
type of case and when? I had one involuntary manslaughter trial, one >directed verdict from the bench and one dismissal for cause.
On 6/9/2025 1:54 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Jun 9 00:16:24 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
Tell us exactly what President Trump has done that you
don't like and offer us an alternative.
I've posted on that topic recently in response to one of
your posts. You should have read it, but your "memory" is
probably failing you, so here it is again:
He could stop executive actions that are quite obviously
illegal, as determined my many judges, including those he
himself appointed. He could appoint competent cabinet
members instead of incompetent, subservient lackeys. He
could stop avalanches of tweets that sound like bitchy
teenage girls' insults. He could stop using the office of
the presidency to line his pockets and those of his family
members. He could stop the war in Ukraine in one day, as he
promised - even though that would mean giving up his
domination by Putin. He could stop the crazy on-and-off
vacillation with tariffs. He could stop cozying up to
communists and stop attacking our long time allies.
There have been many more discussions of that point in other
places. Here's one dealing with his previous term of office:
"Donald Trump: He promised to cut the deficit. He added $8T
to it. He promised to build a wall. He only did 458 miles
out of 2,000. Most of it was repair or replacement, not new.
He promised to make Mexico pay. They didn't. He promised to
unveil a new healthcare plan. It didn't exist. He promised a
middle-class tax cut. He cut taxes for the rich. The middle
class is paying for it. He said he wouldn't play golf as
President. He made 250 visits(way more than Obama) to his
own golf clubs. It cost taxpayers $150 million. He said he'd
increase economic growth by 4%. He didn't. President Biden
did. He promised an infrastructure plan. He had none.
President Biden signed a massive one. He promised to hire
"the best people." He fired 3/4 of them and then said they
were the worst ever. He promised to bring down the price of
prescription drugs. He didn't: President Biden did. He
promised a Hillary lock-up. It didn't happen. Promised we'd
win the trade war with China. We didn't, It cost about a
quarter million jobs and hurt Americans not help them. He
promised his corporate tax cuts would help and benefit
Workers and corporations would use that money to invest in
American workers. They didn't, they used that money to buy
back stocks. He promised to bring back and revive the coal
industry. Never happened - more coal jobs were lost during
his presidency. He promised to drain the swamp. He didn't:
He WAS the swamp. Jan 6th…never forget!!"
I'll add that now he obviously IS the swamp.
On 6/9/2025 2:53 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/9/2025 2:36 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 18:10:07 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Garcia is NOT a citizen and was brought back to answer
crimnal charges of interstate transport of illegal
aliens over a LONG period. There is no protection from
those sorts of charges.
He worked in construction and drove his colleagues to
work.
There is no mention if they were legal or not. If they
were illegal,
it's strange the company that employed them was not fined.
He was fined once for driving with an expired license.
I really don't think driving with an expired license
is more
serious than being a gang member(and possibly a drug
trafficker/murderer). That's reason they said he was sent
to jail
without due process.
Yet they said they brought him back to try him for
"more
serious crimes"(the expired driver's license).
LOL
Even you must be thinking that's strange.
Or maybe not.
He doesn't, because he believes everything the right wing
media tells him to believe.
Tom has gone far beyond that. He's believing what the weird
voices in his head are telling him to believe.
As one minor example, I don't think any media, no matter how
far right, have ever claimed Trump had a 76% approval
rating. If that claim was actually made, I'd love to see the
source, just for fun.
And BTW, the others on this forum who lean rightward in
their politics really should be trying to discourage Tom's
posting. He's making your position look really, really bad.
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are qualified to
vote ...
On 6/9/2025 4:08 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/9/2025 2:53 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:I usually do not but this morning I gave it my best.
On 6/9/2025 2:36 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 18:10:07 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Garcia is NOT a citizen and was brought back to answer
crimnal charges of interstate transport of illegal
aliens over a LONG period. There is no protection from
those sorts of charges.
He worked in construction and drove his colleagues to
work.
There is no mention if they were legal or not. If they
were illegal,
it's strange the company that employed them was not fined.
He was fined once for driving with an expired license.
I really don't think driving with an expired license
is more
serious than being a gang member(and possibly a drug
trafficker/murderer). That's reason they said he was sent
to jail
without due process.
Yet they said they brought him back to try him for
"more
serious crimes"(the expired driver's license).
LOL
Even you must be thinking that's strange.
Or maybe not.
He doesn't, because he believes everything the right wing
media tells him to believe.
Tom has gone far beyond that. He's believing what the weird
voices in his head are telling him to believe.
As one minor example, I don't think any media, no matter how
far right, have ever claimed Trump had a 76% approval
rating. If that claim was actually made, I'd love to see the
source, just for fun.
And BTW, the others on this forum who lean rightward in
their politics really should be trying to discourage Tom's
posting. He's making your position look really, really bad.
To no avail.
p.s. Mr Kunich often begins with a true minuscule factoid
before launching off into outer space, crystals and
hallucinati9ns, all mixed.
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 19:08:52 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sat Jun 7 15:03:07 2025 Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k1t74klekg812nqpk059mtrfptk3hb4f5g@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
nonsense... All law enforcement have elected or appointed management
and most have units desgnated to police the policemen.
I'm curious why you think we have courts, then.
or not. Anything below the the level of procecution can be handled as part of disiplinary actions,
I'm curious to know why you think that citizens can be declared as criminals without court trial findings? Police management and Internal Affairs are limited to turning evidence over to the District Attorney's who then have the choice of prosecuting
A prosecution is presented to a Judge and Jury and the Judge is limited only to ruling on the legality of the proceedings.
Why is it that you do not know this?
Apparently you have learned nothing in school. While making a living as an electrinics engineer I again and again observed a very sharp drop in the intelligence of degreed engineers and I am entirely self taught.
I was part of the team looking for the cause of AIDS and designed and programmed the machine capable of automatically performing the chemistry that gave Dr. Kary Mulis a Nobel prize in chemistry. These machines were used to find HIV as the cause ofAIDS and then to clear the world's blood banking systems of the blood donated by infected individuals which stopped the AIDS epidemic.
I spent the rest of my life designing or programming medical instruments such as the fist practical heart/lung machine,
respiratory gas analyzers and laboratory instruments such as gas and liguid chromatographs so I know spectometry and know that there is NO man-made climate change from CO2.
I also programmed poison gas detectors for the Army ans communications adaptors for NASA to be used on the Space Station.
So I know a great deal about my specialty and have via social necessity been a member of many juries.
Why do you not understand even the most basic things about living in a Democratic Republic?
On 6/9/2025 3:47 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Jun 9 13:25:33 2025 AMuzi wrote:
In short, nothing of value was added and instead of
pondering Mr Jorgensen's character, your post made us all
question yours.
He is perfectly capable of defending his own position if any of the
things I say are untrue. Why do you think that it is your
responsibility to defend him?
I won't speak for Andrew, but there are quite a few people here who repeatedly point out your lies, hallucinations and general nonsense,
probably for several reasons.
One may be in hopes that the negative feedback will deter new readers
from taking anything you say seriously.
Another may be to demonstrate that many here do not approve of such assholeship, and thus discourage others from imitating you.
Yet another is the hope (probably vain) that you will learn from your mistakes and improve your behavior.
One more, even more far fetched, is that someone in your family may read
over your shoulder, see what a fool you consistently make of yourself,
and take away your ability to post.
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that there was >widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that large numbers of >unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the demonization and >assaults on the character of people who honestly worked their polling
places with integrity and certified election results to a result that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal cases of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the result of
administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are so small as to >constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise.
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're doing it wrong.
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that there was >widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that large numbers of >unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the demonization and >assaults on the character of people who honestly worked their polling
places with integrity and certified election results to a result that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal cases of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the result of
administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are so small as to >constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise.
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're doing it wrong.
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to
efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are
qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that
there was widespread fraud. They're against the the lies
that large numbers of unqualified individuals cast votes.
They're against the demonization and assaults on the
character of people who honestly worked their polling places
with integrity and certified election results to a result
that the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal
cases of fraud. The vast majority of ineligible votes cast
are the result of administrative errors and mistakes. The
remainder are so small as to constitute an insignificant
blip in the statistical noise.
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're
doing it wrong.
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that large numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the demonization and
assaults on the character of people who honestly worked their polling
places with integrity and certified election results to a result that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal cases of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the result of
administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are so small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise.
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're doing it wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that there was a limit on
the amount of money that an organization or individual could give to
support a political party running in an election
Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the party.
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the largest contributor - millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules?
--
cheers,
John B.
On 6/10/2025 4:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are qualified to >>>>> vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that large numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the demonization and >>> assaults on the character of people who honestly worked their polling
places with integrity and certified election results to a result that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal cases of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the result of
administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are so small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise.
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're doing it wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that there was a limit on
the amount of money that an organization or individual could give to
support a political party running in an election
Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the party.
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the largest contributor -
millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules?
--
cheers,
John B.
A complex question.
Direct contributions to a candidate or political party are
public and have a cap.
That said, the recordkeeping seems sketchy.
https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=andrew+muzi
[look up anyone's record there. It's entertaining]
Alternately position advertising not endorsed by a candidate
is exempt as are PACs which are a form of protected free
association and expression of opinion under our beloved 1st
Amendment.
IMHO, all efforts to 'get the money out of politics' over
the decades have resulted in more money for politics.
On 6/10/2025 9:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 4:09 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are qualified to >>>>> vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that large numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the demonization
and assaults on the character of people who honestly worked their
polling places with integrity and certified election results to a
result that the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal cases of
fraud. The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the result of
administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are so small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise.
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're doing it wrong.
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/la-county-and-state-to-purge-15-
million-inactive-voters-from-rolls/6866/
Inactive voters are registered voters who have not voted in a certain
number of previous elections. Obviously, they had no effect on the election.
https://apnews.com/article/ohio-voters-citizenship-
referrals-42799a379bdda8bca7201d6c42f99c65
Per that link, there were 138 "non-ohio citizens" out of 8 million votes >cast.
https://www.illinoisreview.com/illinoisreview/2017/09/chicago-more-
votes-than-registered-voters.html
This was a right wing media ruse, where cook county votes being tallied
in Chicago - because that's where cook county votes are tallied -
outnumbered the the total number of registered voters in Chicago.
welll.....duuuuuhhhhhh.
The evidence is not there to support any accusation that a close
To "not significant numbers" I say our elections are routinely decided
on small fractions of 1%.
election was decided by illegal votes.
On 6/10/2025 4:09 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that large numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the demonization
and assaults on the character of people who honestly worked their
polling places with integrity and certified election results to a
result that the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal cases of
fraud. The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the result of
administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are so small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise.
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're doing it wrong.
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/la-county-and-state-to-purge-15- million-inactive-voters-from-rolls/6866/
https://apnews.com/article/ohio-voters-citizenship- referrals-42799a379bdda8bca7201d6c42f99c65
https://www.illinoisreview.com/illinoisreview/2017/09/chicago-more- votes-than-registered-voters.html
To "not significant numbers" I say our elections are routinely decidedThe evidence is not there to support any accusation that a close
on small fractions of 1%.
On 6/10/2025 4:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are qualified to >>>>> vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that large numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the demonization and >>> assaults on the character of people who honestly worked their polling
places with integrity and certified election results to a result that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal cases of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the result of
administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are so small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise.
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're doing it wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that there was a limit on
the amount of money that an organization or individual could give to
support a political party running in an election
Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the party.
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the largest contributor -
millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules?
--
cheers,
John B.
A complex question.
Direct contributions to a candidate or political party are
public and have a cap.
That said, the recordkeeping seems sketchy.
https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=andrew+muzi
[look up anyone's record there. It's entertaining]
On 6/10/2025 4:09 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to
efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are
qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that
there was widespread fraud. They're against the the lies
that large numbers of unqualified individuals cast votes.
They're against the demonization and assaults on the
character of people who honestly worked their polling places
with integrity and certified election results to a result
that the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal
cases of fraud. The vast majority of ineligible votes cast
are the result of administrative errors and mistakes. The
remainder are so small as to constitute an insignificant
blip in the statistical noise.
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're
doing it wrong.
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/la-county-and-state-to-purge-15-million-inactive-voters-from-rolls/6866/
https://apnews.com/article/ohio-voters-citizenship-referrals-42799a379bdda8bca7201d6c42f99c65
https://www.illinoisreview.com/illinoisreview/2017/09/chicago-more-votes-than-registered-voters.html
To "not significant numbers" I say our elections are
routinely decided on small fractions of 1%.
On 6/10/2025 10:55 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 9:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:And the right wing strategies to correct this alleged problem almost >invariably hinge on making it more difficult for poor, or minority, or >legitimate immigrant people to vote.
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/la-county-and-state-to-purge-15-
million-inactive-voters-from-rolls/6866/
Inactive voters are registered voters who have not voted in a certain
number of previous elections. Obviously, they had no effect on the
election.
https://apnews.com/article/ohio-voters-citizenship-
referrals-42799a379bdda8bca7201d6c42f99c65
Per that link, there were 138 "non-ohio citizens" out of 8 million votes
cast.
https://www.illinoisreview.com/illinoisreview/2017/09/chicago-more-
votes-than-registered-voters.html
This was a right wing media ruse, where cook county votes being tallied
in Chicago - because that's where cook county votes are tallied -
outnumbered the the total number of registered voters in Chicago.
welll.....duuuuuhhhhhh.
The evidence is not there to support any accusation that a close
To "not significant numbers" I say our elections are routinely decided
on small fractions of 1%.
election was decided by illegal votes.
Andrew has said something like he'd rather see a guilty person go free
rather than have an innocent person executed, or words to that effect.
That is, we should presume innocence unless guilt is proven.
To extend that logic to voting, we shouldn't use the _myth_ of
significant voter fraud to deprive innocent people of their right to vote.
I don't believe this controversy is a big issue in other developed
countries. It's another way the right wing manufactures imaginary
problems in America.
On 6/9/2025 11:53 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 6/7/2025 9:26 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:Remarkable that you never got rained on during your trip to work.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Sure, as I've explained. Remember, I used to commute to work byDepends on the distance I found for 3 ish miles then as long as
bike.
Getting ready meant strapping my briefcase on the bike's rear rack,
clipping on an eyeglass mirror (optional but handy in traffic), putting >>>>> on an appropriate jacket, and using a safety pin to tighten my right >>>>> pants cuff so it stayed away from the chain.
Tom, you probably do more to prepare for your recreational rides. I'll >>>>> bet you change into a riding costume. I commuted in ordinary business >>>>> casual clothes.
one’s
trousers where’s flappy just jump on and go.
My commute was about 15 miles round trip. The only time I bothered
with a change of clothing was when teaching evening classes in summer,
which meant riding in during the heat of the day.
After retirement, I took classes myself for quite a few years. I then
extended my ride home, through the big metropark system. As I recall,
that was about 20 miles per day, but still in normal street clothes.
Different choices for different folks.
One
of the reasons I take a change of clothes is that I don't fancy sitting
about the office all day in damp, muddy clothing.
I did get rained on occasionally, but it was uncommon. I always had
(and still have) a rain cape in that bike's saddlebag, as well as full fenders. If the threat of rain was significant (over 30%) I usually
drove in instead. For a while I was more dedicated, saying if it
wasn't raining when I left, I'd ride in.
I preferred the rain cape to, say, rain jacket and pants. My main
gripe with it was this: My normal riding position is gripping the
hoods. As I did that, a puddle would form between my arms, right over
my handlebar bag. Sometimes it would empty and splash me.
On 6/10/2025 10:55 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 9:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:And the right wing strategies to correct this alleged
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/la-county-and-state-
to-purge-15- million-inactive-voters-from-rolls/6866/
Inactive voters are registered voters who have not voted
in a certain number of previous elections. Obviously, they
had no effect on the election.
https://apnews.com/article/ohio-voters-citizenship-
referrals-42799a379bdda8bca7201d6c42f99c65
Per that link, there were 138 "non-ohio citizens" out of 8
million votes cast.
https://www.illinoisreview.com/illinoisreview/2017/09/
chicago-more- votes-than-registered-voters.html
This was a right wing media ruse, where cook county votes
being tallied in Chicago - because that's where cook
county votes are tallied - outnumbered the the total
number of registered voters in Chicago.
welll.....duuuuuhhhhhh.
The evidence is not there to support any accusation that a
To "not significant numbers" I say our elections are
routinely decided on small fractions of 1%.
close election was decided by illegal votes.
problem almost invariably hinge on making it more difficult
for poor, or minority, or legitimate immigrant people to vote.
Andrew has said something like he'd rather see a guilty
person go free rather than have an innocent person executed,
or words to that effect. That is, we should presume
innocence unless guilt is proven.
To extend that logic to voting, we shouldn't use the _myth_
of significant voter fraud to deprive innocent people of
their right to vote.
I don't believe this controversy is a big issue in other
developed countries. It's another way the right wing
manufactures imaginary problems in America.
On 6/10/2025 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to
efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are
qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope
that there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that large
numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the
demonization and
assaults on the character of people who honestly worked
their polling
places with integrity and certified election results to a
result that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal
cases of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the result of
administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are so
small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise.
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're
doing it wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that there
was a limit on
the amount of money that an organization or individual
could give to
support a political party running in an election
Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the party.
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the largest
contributor -
millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules?
Effectively, they changed the rules. The Supreme Court
decided money is speech. See https://publicintegrity.org/ politics/the-citizens-united-decision-and-why-it-matters/? gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=10586056683
On 6/10/2025 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are qualified to >>>>>> vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that large numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the demonization
and
assaults on the character of people who honestly worked their polling
places with integrity and certified election results to a result that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal cases of fraud. >>>> The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the result of
administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are so small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise.
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're doing it
wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that there was a limit on
the amount of money that an organization or individual could give to
support a political party running in an election
Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the party.
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the largest contributor -
millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules?
Effectively, they changed the rules. The Supreme Court decided money
is speech. See https://publicintegrity.org/ politics/the-citizens-
united-decision-and-why-it-matters/?
gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=10586056683
Under which unions and the like are treated exactly the same as other
groups of associated individuals.
On 6/10/2025 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to
efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who
are qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope
that there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that
large numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the
demonization and
assaults on the character of people who honestly worked
their polling
places with integrity and certified election results to
a result that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal
cases of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the
result of
administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are
so small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise.
When you want to enact legislation based on lies,
you're doing it wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that there
was a limit on
the amount of money that an organization or individual
could give to
support a political party running in an election
Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the party.
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the largest
contributor -
millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules?
Effectively, they changed the rules. The Supreme Court
decided money is speech. See https://publicintegrity.org/
politics/the-citizens- united-decision-and-why-it-
matters/? gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=10586056683
Under which unions and the like are treated exactly the
same as other groups of associated individuals.
um...no.
Citizens united allowed corporations to contribute
essentially in the same manner that labor unions do. CU
didn't affect individual contributions (afair). REcall the
famous Romney line after the decision (paraphrased for
political expedience) 'corporations are people too'. That
isn't really what he said but it's more accurate than 'I can
see russia from my house'.
On 6/10/2025 12:41 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to efforts to >>>>>>>> ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are
qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that there was >>>>>> widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that large numbers of >>>>>> unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the
demonization and
assaults on the character of people who honestly worked their polling >>>>>> places with integrity and certified election results to a result that >>>>>> the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal cases of
fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the result of
administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are so small as to >>>>>> constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise.
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're doing it
wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that there was a limit on >>>>> the amount of money that an organization or individual could give to >>>>> support a political party running in an election
Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the party.
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the largest contributor - >>>>> millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules?
Effectively, they changed the rules. The Supreme Court decided money
is speech. See https://publicintegrity.org/ politics/the-citizens-
united-decision-and-why-it- matters/?
gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=10586056683
Under which unions and the like are treated exactly the same as other
groups of associated individuals.
um...no.
Citizens united allowed corporations to contribute essentially in the
same manner that labor unions do. CU didn't affect individual
contributions (afair). REcall the famous Romney line after the
decision (paraphrased for political expedience) 'corporations are
people too'. That isn't really what he said but it's more accurate
than 'I can see russia from my house'.
In context Mr Romney was correct. Fictitious persons share many obligations, rights and liabilities with humans; They pay taxes, can be
sued civilly and criminally, they can contract, own and dispose of
property, etc. There are differences; fictitious persons cannot vote.
The Court's reasoning is that extending individual rights to
associations (groups of individuals) is logical and appropriate in the
area of political speech.
The synopsis here is well crafted, the actual opinion is also clear
(albeit lengthy) below it. Both address your concerns explicitly,
notably by Mr Kennedy.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/
On 6/10/2025 11:33 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 10:55 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 9:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:And the right wing strategies to correct this alleged problem almost
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/la-county-and-state- to-purge-15-
million-inactive-voters-from-rolls/6866/
Inactive voters are registered voters who have not voted in a certain
number of previous elections. Obviously, they had no effect on the
election.
https://apnews.com/article/ohio-voters-citizenship-
referrals-42799a379bdda8bca7201d6c42f99c65
Per that link, there were 138 "non-ohio citizens" out of 8 million
votes cast.
https://www.illinoisreview.com/illinoisreview/2017/09/ chicago-more-
votes-than-registered-voters.html
This was a right wing media ruse, where cook county votes being
tallied in Chicago - because that's where cook county votes are
tallied - outnumbered the the total number of registered voters in
Chicago.
welll.....duuuuuhhhhhh.
The evidence is not there to support any accusation that a close
To "not significant numbers" I say our elections are routinely
decided on small fractions of 1%.
election was decided by illegal votes.
invariably hinge on making it more difficult for poor, or minority, or
legitimate immigrant people to vote.
Andrew has said something like he'd rather see a guilty person go free
rather than have an innocent person executed, or words to that effect.
That is, we should presume innocence unless guilt is proven.
To extend that logic to voting, we shouldn't use the _myth_ of
significant voter fraud to deprive innocent people of their right to
vote.
I don't believe this controversy is a big issue in other developed
countries. It's another way the right wing manufactures imaginary
problems in America.
Not my original idea.
It's rooted in English Common Law and neatly phrased by Benjamin
Franklin.
I quoted him while noting the belief is widely, and justly,
held in USA.
On 6/10/2025 12:58 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 11:33 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 10:55 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 9:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:And the right wing strategies to correct this alleged problem almost
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/la-county-and-state- to-purge-15- >>>>> million-inactive-voters-from-rolls/6866/
Inactive voters are registered voters who have not voted in a certain
number of previous elections. Obviously, they had no effect on the
election.
https://apnews.com/article/ohio-voters-citizenship-
referrals-42799a379bdda8bca7201d6c42f99c65
Per that link, there were 138 "non-ohio citizens" out of 8 million
votes cast.
https://www.illinoisreview.com/illinoisreview/2017/09/ chicago-more- >>>>> votes-than-registered-voters.html
This was a right wing media ruse, where cook county votes being
tallied in Chicago - because that's where cook county votes are
tallied - outnumbered the the total number of registered voters in
Chicago.
welll.....duuuuuhhhhhh.
The evidence is not there to support any accusation that a close
To "not significant numbers" I say our elections are routinely
decided on small fractions of 1%.
election was decided by illegal votes.
invariably hinge on making it more difficult for poor, or minority, or
legitimate immigrant people to vote.
Andrew has said something like he'd rather see a guilty person go free
rather than have an innocent person executed, or words to that effect.
That is, we should presume innocence unless guilt is proven.
To extend that logic to voting, we shouldn't use the _myth_ of
significant voter fraud to deprive innocent people of their right to
vote.
I don't believe this controversy is a big issue in other developed
countries. It's another way the right wing manufactures imaginary
problems in America.
Not my original idea.
It's rooted in English Common Law and neatly phrased by Benjamin
Franklin.
The phrase 'better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent
punished' is a grade-school civics class lesson (at least, it was 6th
grade for me).
I had to google to refresh my 52-year-old recollection. He wrote it in a >letter Benjamin Vaughan in 1786 - a negotiator for the Brits at the
Treaty of Paris (no, my 6th grade civics didn't get that far into it)
Franklin was paraphrasing Sir William Blackstone in his "Commentaries
on the Laws of England" (1771): "all presumptive evidence of felony
should be admitted cautiously: for the law holds, that it is better that
ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer."
I quoted him while noting the belief is widely, and justly,
held in USA.
Yeah....about that...
"I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am
with a few that in fact were innocent."..."I have no problem as long as
we achieve our objective. ... I'd do it again in a minute."
- Dick Cheney
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2014/12/cheney-alright-with-torture-of-innocent-people.html
Simlarly, in in Cambodia, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge expressed the same >sentiment: "better arrest an innocent person than leave a guilty one free."
- Pol Pot's Little Red Book
The current administration doesn't seem too concerned that innocent
legal residents are being snatched and detained purely for political >purposes.
Add xx to reply
On 6/10/2025 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 12:41 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed
to efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who
are qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope
that there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that
large numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against
the demonization and
assaults on the character of people who honestly
worked their polling
places with integrity and certified election results
to a result that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with
minimal cases of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the
result of
administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are
so small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical
noise.
When you want to enact legislation based on lies,
you're doing it wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that
there was a limit on
the amount of money that an organization or individual
could give to
support a political party running in an election
Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the party.
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the
largest contributor -
millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules?
Effectively, they changed the rules. The Supreme Court
decided money is speech. See https://
publicintegrity.org/ politics/the-citizens- united-
decision-and-why-it- matters/?
gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=10586056683
Under which unions and the like are treated exactly the
same as other groups of associated individuals.
um...no.
Citizens united allowed corporations to contribute
essentially in the same manner that labor unions do. CU
didn't affect individual contributions (afair). REcall
the famous Romney line after the decision (paraphrased
for political expedience) 'corporations are people too'.
That isn't really what he said but it's more accurate
than 'I can see russia from my house'.
In context Mr Romney was correct. Fictitious persons
share many obligations, rights and liabilities with
humans; They pay taxes, can be sued civilly and
criminally, they can contract, own and dispose of
property, etc. There are differences; fictitious persons
cannot vote.
"Fictitious persons" AKA corporations cannot be physically
punished nor executed. They cannot be drafted and sent to
war. They cannot (practically) be deported, although many
"self deport" to operate from locations that will allow them
to evade taxes and make even more money. They have no
loyalty to the nation they were "born" in, they often have
no concern for their community nor for the _real_ persons
who live there.
They exert excessive influence over American politics and
over the world at large, to the detriment of countless
_real_ persons. It's ludicrous that they are given the
"rights" that they enjoy.
But then, they've been able to buy very important judges.
Weirdly, they seem to now enjoy approval even from some
"individualistic" MAGA maniacs.
On 6/10/2025 7:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:I have formed, sold, dissolved, bought, reorganized several
On 6/10/2025 12:41 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed
to efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who
are qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope
that there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that
large numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against
the demonization and
assaults on the character of people who honestly
worked their polling
places with integrity and certified election results
to a result that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with
minimal cases of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the
result of
administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are
so small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical
noise.
When you want to enact legislation based on lies,
you're doing it wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that
there was a limit on
the amount of money that an organization or individual
could give to
support a political party running in an election
Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the party.
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the
largest contributor -
millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules?
Effectively, they changed the rules. The Supreme Court
decided money is speech. See https://
publicintegrity.org/ politics/the-citizens- united-
decision-and-why-it- matters/?
gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=10586056683
Under which unions and the like are treated exactly the
same as other groups of associated individuals.
um...no.
Citizens united allowed corporations to contribute
essentially in the same manner that labor unions do. CU
didn't affect individual contributions (afair). REcall
the famous Romney line after the decision (paraphrased
for political expedience) 'corporations are people too'.
That isn't really what he said but it's more accurate
than 'I can see russia from my house'.
In context Mr Romney was correct. Fictitious persons
share many obligations, rights and liabilities with
humans; They pay taxes, can be sued civilly and
criminally, they can contract, own and dispose of
property, etc. There are differences; fictitious persons
cannot vote.
"Fictitious persons" AKA corporations cannot be physically
punished nor executed. They cannot be drafted and sent to
war. They cannot (practically) be deported, although many
"self deport" to operate from locations that will allow them
to evade taxes and make even more money. They have no
loyalty to the nation they were "born" in, they often have
no concern for their community nor for the _real_ persons
who live there.
They exert excessive influence over American politics and
over the world at large, to the detriment of countless
_real_ persons. It's ludicrous that they are given the
"rights" that they enjoy.
But then, they've been able to buy very important judges.
Weirdly, they seem to now enjoy approval even from some
"individualistic" MAGA maniacs.
corporations. I suspect that you do not have a good grasp of
this area; of corporate law or regulation or governance.
On 6/10/2025 12:58 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 11:33 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 10:55 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 9:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:And the right wing strategies to correct this alleged problem almost
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/la-county-and-state- to-purge-15- >>>>> million-inactive-voters-from-rolls/6866/
Inactive voters are registered voters who have not voted in a certain
number of previous elections. Obviously, they had no effect on the
election.
https://apnews.com/article/ohio-voters-citizenship-
referrals-42799a379bdda8bca7201d6c42f99c65
Per that link, there were 138 "non-ohio citizens" out of 8 million
votes cast.
https://www.illinoisreview.com/illinoisreview/2017/09/ chicago-more- >>>>> votes-than-registered-voters.html
This was a right wing media ruse, where cook county votes being
tallied in Chicago - because that's where cook county votes are
tallied - outnumbered the the total number of registered voters in
Chicago.
welll.....duuuuuhhhhhh.
The evidence is not there to support any accusation that a close
To "not significant numbers" I say our elections are routinely
decided on small fractions of 1%.
election was decided by illegal votes.
invariably hinge on making it more difficult for poor, or minority, or
legitimate immigrant people to vote.
Andrew has said something like he'd rather see a guilty person go free
rather than have an innocent person executed, or words to that effect.
That is, we should presume innocence unless guilt is proven.
To extend that logic to voting, we shouldn't use the _myth_ of
significant voter fraud to deprive innocent people of their right to
vote.
I don't believe this controversy is a big issue in other developed
countries. It's another way the right wing manufactures imaginary
problems in America.
Not my original idea.
It's rooted in English Common Law and neatly phrased by Benjamin
Franklin. I quoted him while noting the belief is widely, and justly,
held in USA.
I knew it wasn't originally your idea, but it is one you've stated
several times.
I think its parallel should apply to voting, especially in the total
absence of evidence that fraudulent votes have ever swung a national or
state election in the last 50 years.
On 6/10/2025 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 12:41 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to efforts to >>>>>>>>> ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are
qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that there was >>>>>>> widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that large numbers of >>>>>>> unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the
demonization and
assaults on the character of people who honestly worked their polling >>>>>>> places with integrity and certified election results to a result that >>>>>>> the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal cases of >>>>>>> fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the result of
administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are so small as to >>>>>>> constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise.
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're doing it >>>>>>> wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that there was a limit on >>>>>> the amount of money that an organization or individual could give to >>>>>> support a political party running in an election
Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the party.
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the largest contributor - >>>>>> millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules?
Effectively, they changed the rules. The Supreme Court decided money >>>>> is speech. See https://publicintegrity.org/ politics/the-citizens-
united-decision-and-why-it- matters/?
gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=10586056683
Under which unions and the like are treated exactly the same as other
groups of associated individuals.
um...no.
Citizens united allowed corporations to contribute essentially in the
same manner that labor unions do. CU didn't affect individual
contributions (afair). REcall the famous Romney line after the
decision (paraphrased for political expedience) 'corporations are
people too'. That isn't really what he said but it's more accurate
than 'I can see russia from my house'.
In context Mr Romney was correct. Fictitious persons share many
obligations, rights and liabilities with humans; They pay taxes, can be
sued civilly and criminally, they can contract, own and dispose of
property, etc. There are differences; fictitious persons cannot vote.
"Fictitious persons" AKA corporations cannot be physically punished nor >executed. They cannot be drafted and sent to war. They cannot
(practically) be deported, although many "self deport" to operate from >locations that will allow them to evade taxes and make even more money.
They have no loyalty to the nation they were "born" in, they often have
no concern for their community nor for the _real_ persons who live there.
They exert excessive influence over American politics and over the world
at large, to the detriment of countless _real_ persons. It's ludicrous
that they are given the "rights" that they enjoy.
But then, they've been able to buy very important judges.
Weirdly, they seem to now enjoy approval even from some
"individualistic" MAGA maniacs.
On 6/10/2025 7:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:I have formed, sold, dissolved, bought, reorganized several
On 6/10/2025 12:41 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to efforts to >>>>>>>>>> ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are
qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that there >>>>>>>> was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that large
numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the
demonization and
assaults on the character of people who honestly worked their
polling
places with integrity and certified election results to a result >>>>>>>> that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal cases of >>>>>>>> fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the result of
administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are so small >>>>>>>> as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise.
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're doing >>>>>>>> it wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that there was a
limit on
the amount of money that an organization or individual could give to >>>>>>> support a political party running in an election
Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the party.
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the largest
contributor -
millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules?
Effectively, they changed the rules. The Supreme Court decided
money is speech. See https:// publicintegrity.org/ politics/the-
citizens- united- decision-and-why-it- matters/?
gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=10586056683
Under which unions and the like are treated exactly the same as
other groups of associated individuals.
um...no.
Citizens united allowed corporations to contribute essentially in
the same manner that labor unions do. CU didn't affect individual
contributions (afair). REcall the famous Romney line after the
decision (paraphrased for political expedience) 'corporations are
people too'. That isn't really what he said but it's more accurate
than 'I can see russia from my house'.
In context Mr Romney was correct. Fictitious persons share many
obligations, rights and liabilities with humans; They pay taxes, can
be sued civilly and criminally, they can contract, own and dispose of
property, etc. There are differences; fictitious persons cannot vote.
"Fictitious persons" AKA corporations cannot be physically punished
nor executed. They cannot be drafted and sent to war. They cannot
(practically) be deported, although many "self deport" to operate from
locations that will allow them to evade taxes and make even more
money. They have no loyalty to the nation they were "born" in, they
often have no concern for their community nor for the _real_ persons
who live there.
They exert excessive influence over American politics and over the
world at large, to the detriment of countless _real_ persons. It's
ludicrous that they are given the "rights" that they enjoy.
But then, they've been able to buy very important judges.
Weirdly, they seem to now enjoy approval even from some
"individualistic" MAGA maniacs.
corporations. I suspect that you do not have a good grasp of this area;
of corporate law or regulation or governance.
corporationsOn Tue, 10 Jun 2025 21:54:31 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/10/2025 7:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:I have formed, sold, dissolved, bought, reorganized several
On 6/10/2025 12:41 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed
to efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who
are qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope
that there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that
large numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against
the demonization and
assaults on the character of people who honestly
worked their polling
places with integrity and certified election results
to a result that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with
minimal cases of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the
result of
administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are
so small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical
noise.
When you want to enact legislation based on lies,
you're doing it wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that
there was a limit on
the amount of money that an organization or individual
could give to
support a political party running in an election
Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the party.
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the
largest contributor -
millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules?
Effectively, they changed the rules. The Supreme Court
decided money is speech. See https://
publicintegrity.org/ politics/the-citizens- united-
decision-and-why-it- matters/?
gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=10586056683
Under which unions and the like are treated exactly the
same as other groups of associated individuals.
um...no.
Citizens united allowed corporations to contribute
essentially in the same manner that labor unions do. CU
didn't affect individual contributions (afair). REcall
the famous Romney line after the decision (paraphrased
for political expedience) 'corporations are people too'.
That isn't really what he said but it's more accurate
than 'I can see russia from my house'.
In context Mr Romney was correct. Fictitious persons
share many obligations, rights and liabilities with
humans; They pay taxes, can be sued civilly and
criminally, they can contract, own and dispose of
property, etc. There are differences; fictitious persons
cannot vote.
"Fictitious persons" AKA corporations cannot be physically
punished nor executed. They cannot be drafted and sent to
war. They cannot (practically) be deported, although many
"self deport" to operate from locations that will allow them
to evade taxes and make even more money. They have no
loyalty to the nation they were "born" in, they often have
no concern for their community nor for the _real_ persons
who live there.
They exert excessive influence over American politics and
over the world at large, to the detriment of countless
_real_ persons. It's ludicrous that they are given the
"rights" that they enjoy.
But then, they've been able to buy very important judges.
Weirdly, they seem to now enjoy approval even from some
"individualistic" MAGA maniacs.
corporations. I suspect that you do not have a good grasp of
this area; of corporate law or regulation or governance.
On 6/10/2025 10:54 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 7:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:I have formed, sold, dissolved, bought, reorganized
On 6/10/2025 12:41 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so
opposed to efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people
who are qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false
trope that there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that
large numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against
the demonization and
assaults on the character of people who honestly
worked their polling
places with integrity and certified election
results to a result that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with
minimal cases of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the
result of
administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder
are so small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical
noise.
When you want to enact legislation based on lies,
you're doing it wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that
there was a limit on
the amount of money that an organization or
individual could give to
support a political party running in an election
Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the
party.
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the
largest contributor -
millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules?
Effectively, they changed the rules. The Supreme
Court decided money is speech. See https://
publicintegrity.org/ politics/the- citizens- united-
decision-and-why-it- matters/?
gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=10586056683
Under which unions and the like are treated exactly
the same as other groups of associated individuals.
um...no.
Citizens united allowed corporations to contribute
essentially in the same manner that labor unions do. CU
didn't affect individual contributions (afair). REcall
the famous Romney line after the decision (paraphrased
for political expedience) 'corporations are people
too'. That isn't really what he said but it's more
accurate than 'I can see russia from my house'.
In context Mr Romney was correct. Fictitious persons
share many obligations, rights and liabilities with
humans; They pay taxes, can be sued civilly and
criminally, they can contract, own and dispose of
property, etc. There are differences; fictitious persons
cannot vote.
"Fictitious persons" AKA corporations cannot be
physically punished nor executed. They cannot be drafted
and sent to war. They cannot (practically) be deported,
although many "self deport" to operate from locations
that will allow them to evade taxes and make even more
money. They have no loyalty to the nation they were
"born" in, they often have no concern for their community
nor for the _real_ persons who live there.
They exert excessive influence over American politics and
over the world at large, to the detriment of countless
_real_ persons. It's ludicrous that they are given the
"rights" that they enjoy.
But then, they've been able to buy very important judges.
Weirdly, they seem to now enjoy approval even from some
"individualistic" MAGA maniacs.
several corporations. I suspect that you do not have a
good grasp of this area; of corporate law or regulation or
governance.
How many of those 'corporations' had to register for the draft?
In article <8jG1Q.965767$vvyf.10880@fx18.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm curious to know why you think that citizens can be declared as
criminals without court trial findings?
I would have thought this was obvious, but:
1. A law enforcement agency accuses a citizen of being a non-citizen.
2. That law enforcement agency immediately puts the accused on a plane
to a foreign prison because non-citizens don't have the right to due
process.
But maybe never in the history of the United States has a citizen ever
been accused of being a non-citizen, who can know.
The "accused" have a due process right to assert and offer evidense of
their legal status.
On 6/11/2025 9:19 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/11/2025 4:27 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 10:54 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 7:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:I have formed, sold, dissolved, bought, reorganized
On 6/10/2025 12:41 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so
opposed to efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people
who are qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false
trope that there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies
that large numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're
against the demonization and
assaults on the character of people who honestly
worked their polling
places with integrity and certified election
results to a result that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with
minimal cases of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are
the result of
administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder
are so small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the
statistical noise.
When you want to enact legislation based on lies,
you're doing it wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that
there was a limit on
the amount of money that an organization or
individual could give to
support a political party running in an election
Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the
party.
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the
largest contributor -
millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules?
Effectively, they changed the rules. The Supreme
Court decided money is speech. See https://
publicintegrity.org/ politics/the- citizens-
united- decision-and-why-it- matters/?
gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=10586056683
Under which unions and the like are treated exactly
the same as other groups of associated individuals.
um...no.
Citizens united allowed corporations to contribute
essentially in the same manner that labor unions do.
CU didn't affect individual contributions (afair).
REcall the famous Romney line after the decision
(paraphrased for political expedience) 'corporations
are people too'. That isn't really what he said but
it's more accurate than 'I can see russia from my
house'.
In context Mr Romney was correct. Fictitious persons
share many obligations, rights and liabilities with
humans; They pay taxes, can be sued civilly and
criminally, they can contract, own and dispose of
property, etc. There are differences; fictitious
persons cannot vote.
"Fictitious persons" AKA corporations cannot be
physically punished nor executed. They cannot be
drafted and sent to war. They cannot (practically) be
deported, although many "self deport" to operate from
locations that will allow them to evade taxes and make
even more money. They have no loyalty to the nation
they were "born" in, they often have no concern for
their community nor for the _real_ persons who live there.
They exert excessive influence over American politics
and over the world at large, to the detriment of
countless _real_ persons. It's ludicrous that they are
given the "rights" that they enjoy.
But then, they've been able to buy very important judges.
Weirdly, they seem to now enjoy approval even from some
"individualistic" MAGA maniacs.
several corporations. I suspect that you do not have a
good grasp of this area; of corporate law or regulation
or governance.
How many of those 'corporations' had to register for the
draft?
Yes there are differences.
Corporations, are fictitious persons (such as NEA/ACT,
SEIU, AMA, the Boy Scouts and Chase Bank, law firms and
real estate LLCs, etc) are not citizens and such cannot be
executed, cannot vote etc. But the officers and/or
directors can be jailed, the entity can be fined (and to
some extent the officers as well).
But back to the above, all those entities enjoy freedom of
assembly and speech in the collected form of their
constituent individuals. Oh, and they are taxed, above and
beyond the individual liability of the members, officers
and directors.
Congratulations on having formed corporations.
Congratulations on those entities having paid taxes.
But the idea that corporations are practically equivalent to
humans is more nonsensical than the idea that a muscular 230
pound fullback becomes a girl when he puts on a dress. Both
ideas are ludicrous.
And the dress makes no real difference to anyone, yet
generates outrage and hand wringing, especially from the
right. While the "personal speech" in the form of millions
of campaign dollars enables the purchase of lawmakers and
judges, reduces the power of thoughtful individual voters
and produces other severe distortions in our democracy. Why
no outrage from the right?
Answer: Voters on the right have been suckered into thinking
this is somehow good for them.
In article <tpfj4kpqav08fnjk4peefa4rn5b40rvq0c@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
The "accused" have a due process right to assert and offer evidense of >>their legal status.
I'm glad we agree on this point. The only thing we disagree with is to
whom they get to offer this evidence.
If they show that proper and correct evidence to an accuser and are let
free, great.
But I think it's vital (and the way things have historically been) in
America that people accused of anything, including being non-citizens,
have a right to be heard by a judge before being deported or imprisoned
by an accuser.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, you only think that's the case for
citizens.
To which I say there's nothing stopping a malicious accuser from
"losing" the evidence of citizenship and passing judgment, which is why
we have and need a separate legal body to pass judgment.
Is that the story so far?
On 6/11/2025 9:19 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/11/2025 4:27 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 10:54 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 7:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:I have formed, sold, dissolved, bought, reorganized several
On 6/10/2025 12:41 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to >>>>>>>>>>>>> efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are >>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that >>>>>>>>>>> there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that large >>>>>>>>>>> numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the
demonization and
assaults on the character of people who honestly worked their >>>>>>>>>>> polling
places with integrity and certified election results to a >>>>>>>>>>> result that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal cases >>>>>>>>>>> of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the result of >>>>>>>>>>> administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are so small >>>>>>>>>>> as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise. >>>>>>>>>>>
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're doing >>>>>>>>>>> it wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that there was a >>>>>>>>>> limit on
the amount of money that an organization or individual could >>>>>>>>>> give to
support a political party running in an election
Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the party.
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the largest
contributor -
millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules?
Effectively, they changed the rules. The Supreme Court decided >>>>>>>>> money is speech. See https:// publicintegrity.org/ politics/the- >>>>>>>>> citizens- united- decision-and-why-it- matters/?
gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=10586056683
Under which unions and the like are treated exactly the same as >>>>>>>> other groups of associated individuals.
um...no.
Citizens united allowed corporations to contribute essentially in >>>>>>> the same manner that labor unions do. CU didn't affect individual >>>>>>> contributions (afair). REcall the famous Romney line after the
decision (paraphrased for political expedience) 'corporations are >>>>>>> people too'. That isn't really what he said but it's more accurate >>>>>>> than 'I can see russia from my house'.
In context Mr Romney was correct. Fictitious persons share many
obligations, rights and liabilities with humans; They pay taxes,
can be sued civilly and criminally, they can contract, own and
dispose of property, etc. There are differences; fictitious persons >>>>>> cannot vote.
"Fictitious persons" AKA corporations cannot be physically punished
nor executed. They cannot be drafted and sent to war. They cannot
(practically) be deported, although many "self deport" to operate
from locations that will allow them to evade taxes and make even
more money. They have no loyalty to the nation they were "born" in,
they often have no concern for their community nor for the _real_
persons who live there.
They exert excessive influence over American politics and over the
world at large, to the detriment of countless _real_ persons. It's
ludicrous that they are given the "rights" that they enjoy.
But then, they've been able to buy very important judges.
Weirdly, they seem to now enjoy approval even from some
"individualistic" MAGA maniacs.
corporations. I suspect that you do not have a good grasp of this
area; of corporate law or regulation or governance.
How many of those 'corporations' had to register for the draft?
Yes there are differences.
Corporations, are fictitious persons (such as NEA/ACT, SEIU, AMA, the
Boy Scouts and Chase Bank, law firms and real estate LLCs, etc) are not
citizens and such cannot be executed, cannot vote etc. But the officers
and/or directors can be jailed, the entity can be fined (and to some
extent the officers as well).
But back to the above, all those entities enjoy freedom of assembly and
speech in the collected form of their constituent individuals. Oh, and
they are taxed, above and beyond the individual liability of the
members, officers and directors.
Congratulations on having formed corporations. Congratulations on those >entities having paid taxes.
But the idea that corporations are practically equivalent to humans is
more nonsensical than the idea that a muscular 230 pound fullback
becomes a girl when he puts on a dress. Both ideas are ludicrous.
And the dress makes no real difference to anyone, yet generates outrage
and hand wringing, especially from the right. While the "personal
speech" in the form of millions of campaign dollars enables the
purchase of lawmakers and judges, reduces the power of thoughtful
individual voters and produces other severe distortions in our
democracy. Why no outrage from the right?
Answer: Voters on the right have been suckered into thinking this is
somehow good for them.
On 6/11/2025 5:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/11/2025 3:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 9:19 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/11/2025 4:27 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 10:54 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 7:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:I have formed, sold, dissolved, bought, reorganized
On 6/10/2025 12:41 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so
opposed to efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from
people who are qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false
trope that there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies
that large numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're
against the demonization and
assaults on the character of people who
honestly worked their polling
places with integrity and certified election
results to a result that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with
minimal cases of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are
the result of
administrative errors and mistakes. The
remainder are so small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the
statistical noise.
When you want to enact legislation based on
lies, you're doing it wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe
that there was a limit on
the amount of money that an organization or
individual could give to
support a political party running in an election
Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate
the party.
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the
largest contributor -
millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules?
Effectively, they changed the rules. The Supreme
Court decided money is speech. See https://
publicintegrity.org/ politics/ the- citizens-
united- decision-and-why-it- matters/?
gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=10586056683
Under which unions and the like are treated
exactly the same as other groups of associated
individuals.
um...no.
Citizens united allowed corporations to contribute
essentially in the same manner that labor unions
do. CU didn't affect individual contributions
(afair). REcall the famous Romney line after the
decision (paraphrased for political expedience)
'corporations are people too'. That isn't really
what he said but it's more accurate than 'I can see
russia from my house'.
In context Mr Romney was correct. Fictitious
persons share many obligations, rights and
liabilities with humans; They pay taxes, can be sued
civilly and criminally, they can contract, own and
dispose of property, etc. There are differences;
fictitious persons cannot vote.
"Fictitious persons" AKA corporations cannot be
physically punished nor executed. They cannot be
drafted and sent to war. They cannot (practically) be
deported, although many "self deport" to operate from
locations that will allow them to evade taxes and
make even more money. They have no loyalty to the
nation they were "born" in, they often have no
concern for their community nor for the _real_
persons who live there.
They exert excessive influence over American politics
and over the world at large, to the detriment of
countless _real_ persons. It's ludicrous that they
are given the "rights" that they enjoy.
But then, they've been able to buy very important
judges.
Weirdly, they seem to now enjoy approval even from
some "individualistic" MAGA maniacs.
several corporations. I suspect that you do not have a
good grasp of this area; of corporate law or
regulation or governance.
How many of those 'corporations' had to register for
the draft?
Yes there are differences.
Corporations, are fictitious persons (such as NEA/ACT,
SEIU, AMA, the Boy Scouts and Chase Bank, law firms and
real estate LLCs, etc) are not citizens and such cannot
be executed, cannot vote etc. But the officers and/or
directors can be jailed, the entity can be fined (and to
some extent the officers as well).
But back to the above, all those entities enjoy freedom
of assembly and speech in the collected form of their
constituent individuals. Oh, and they are taxed, above
and beyond the individual liability of the members,
officers and directors.
Congratulations on having formed corporations.
Congratulations on those entities having paid taxes.
But the idea that corporations are practically equivalent
to humans is more nonsensical than the idea that a
muscular 230 pound fullback becomes a girl when he puts
on a dress. Both ideas are ludicrous.
And the dress makes no real difference to anyone, yet
generates outrage and hand wringing, especially from the
right. While the "personal speech" in the form of
millions of campaign dollars enables the purchase of
lawmakers and judges, reduces the power of thoughtful
individual voters and produces other severe distortions
in our democracy. Why no outrage from the right?
Answer: Voters on the right have been suckered into
thinking this is somehow good for them.
You have an opinion, which is fine.
SCOTUS however ruled that associations of individuals can
express opinion under 1st Amendment protected speech and
assembly rights in unison, besides individually. How is
this wrong?
It's wrong in treating massive monetary contributions as
"speech." Factually, a corporation is _not_ a person.
Factually, money is _not_ speech. How is this not obvious?
And the specific effect has been to allow multibillion
dollar corporations to exert tremendous control over
candidates and election outcomes. That's not what the
founding fathers had in mind, AFAICT.
Whether your local Elks club, SEIU or Chase Bank,
expressing opinion makes the nation better IMHO.
By writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper? Sure. By
donating 15 million dollars to a PAC? No. And I doubt that
any local Elks club has ever done that.
I'm involved in two local clubs. Neither one has a treasury
bigger than $2000. Neither could afford to donate even $1000
to influence elections or legislation.
It occurs to me, if you're totally enamored of the weird
idea that a corporation is equivalent to a person, then
let's limit the amount of election donations to, say, 10% of
the annual income of the average American _real_ person.
Yes, even though the Musks and the Microsofts have incomes
of countless millions or billions.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 18:11:24 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
To which I say there's nothing stopping a malicious accuser from
"losing" the evidence of citizenship and passing judgment, which is why
we have and need a separate legal body to pass judgment.
It would take an official to do that.
On 6/11/2025 9:19 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/11/2025 4:27 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 10:54 PM, AMuzi wrote:Yes there are differences.
On 6/10/2025 7:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:I have formed, sold, dissolved, bought, reorganized several
On 6/10/2025 12:41 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to >>>>>>>>>>>>> efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are >>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that >>>>>>>>>>> there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that large >>>>>>>>>>> numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the
demonization and
assaults on the character of people who honestly worked
their polling
places with integrity and certified election results to a >>>>>>>>>>> result that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal
cases of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the result of >>>>>>>>>>> administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are so >>>>>>>>>>> small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise. >>>>>>>>>>>
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're >>>>>>>>>>> doing it wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that there was >>>>>>>>>> a limit on
the amount of money that an organization or individual could >>>>>>>>>> give to
support a political party running in an election
Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the party.
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the largest
contributor -
millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules?
Effectively, they changed the rules. The Supreme Court
decided money is speech. See https:// publicintegrity.org/
politics/the- citizens- united- decision-and-why-it-
matters/? gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=10586056683
Under which unions and the like are treated exactly the same
as other groups of associated individuals.
um...no.
Citizens united allowed corporations to contribute essentially
in the same manner that labor unions do. CU didn't affect
individual contributions (afair). REcall the famous Romney line
after the decision (paraphrased for political expedience)
'corporations are people too'. That isn't really what he said
but it's more accurate than 'I can see russia from my house'.
In context Mr Romney was correct. Fictitious persons share many
obligations, rights and liabilities with humans; They pay taxes,
can be sued civilly and criminally, they can contract, own and
dispose of property, etc. There are differences; fictitious
persons cannot vote.
"Fictitious persons" AKA corporations cannot be physically
punished nor executed. They cannot be drafted and sent to
war. They cannot (practically) be deported, although many "self
deport" to operate from locations that will allow them to evade
taxes and make even more money. They have no loyalty to the
nation they were "born" in, they often have no concern for their
community nor for the _real_ persons who live there.
They exert excessive influence over American politics and over
the world at large, to the detriment of countless _real_
persons. It's ludicrous that they are given the "rights" that
they enjoy.
But then, they've been able to buy very important judges.
Weirdly, they seem to now enjoy approval even from some
"individualistic" MAGA maniacs.
corporations. I suspect that you do not have a good grasp of this
area; of corporate law or regulation or governance.
How many of those 'corporations' had to register for the draft?
Corporations, are fictitious persons (such as NEA/ACT, SEIU, AMA,
the Boy Scouts and Chase Bank, law firms and real estate LLCs, etc)
are not citizens and such cannot be executed, cannot vote etc. But
the officers and/or directors can be jailed, the entity can be fined
(and to some extent the officers as well).
But back to the above, all those entities enjoy freedom of assembly
and speech in the collected form of their constituent
individuals. Oh, and they are taxed, above and beyond the individual
liability of the members, officers and directors.
Congratulations on having formed corporations. Congratulations on
those entities having paid taxes.
But the idea that corporations are practically equivalent to humans is
more nonsensical than the idea that a muscular 230 pound fullback
becomes a girl when he puts on a dress. Both ideas are ludicrous.
And the dress makes no real difference to anyone, yet generates
outrage and hand wringing, especially from the right. While the
"personal speech" in the form of millions of campaign dollars enables
the purchase of lawmakers and judges, reduces the power of thoughtful individual voters and produces other severe distortions in our
democracy. Why no outrage from the right?
Answer: Voters on the right have been suckered into thinking this is
somehow good for them.
In article <8jG1Q.965767$vvyf.10880@fx18.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm curious to know why you think that citizens can be declared as
criminals without court trial findings?
I would have thought this was obvious, but:
1. A law enforcement agency accuses a citizen of being a non-citizen.
2. That law enforcement agency immediately puts the accused on a plane
to a foreign prison because non-citizens don't have the right to due
process.
But maybe never in the history of the United States has a citizen ever
been accused of being a non-citizen, who can know.
In article <020k4k58dar5bc9l7pu2lvfb3tj9j7o9kg@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 18:11:24 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
To which I say there's nothing stopping a malicious accuser from
"losing" the evidence of citizenship and passing judgment, which is why >>>we have and need a separate legal body to pass judgment.
It would take an official to do that.
Correct. I'm saying an official could do that. Do you agree?
On 6/11/2025 5:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/11/2025 3:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 9:19 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/11/2025 4:27 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 10:54 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 7:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:I have formed, sold, dissolved, bought, reorganized several
On 6/10/2025 12:41 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that >>>>>>>>>>>>> there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that large >>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the >>>>>>>>>>>>> demonization and
assaults on the character of people who honestly worked >>>>>>>>>>>>> their polling
places with integrity and certified election results to a >>>>>>>>>>>>> result that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal >>>>>>>>>>>>> cases of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the result of >>>>>>>>>>>>> administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are so >>>>>>>>>>>>> small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're >>>>>>>>>>>>> doing it wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that there was a >>>>>>>>>>>> limit on
the amount of money that an organization or individual could >>>>>>>>>>>> give to
support a political party running in an election
Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the party. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the largest >>>>>>>>>>>> contributor -
millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules?
Effectively, they changed the rules. The Supreme Court decided >>>>>>>>>>> money is speech. See https:// publicintegrity.org/ politics/ >>>>>>>>>>> the- citizens- united- decision-and-why-it- matters/?
gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=10586056683
Under which unions and the like are treated exactly the same as >>>>>>>>>> other groups of associated individuals.
um...no.
Citizens united allowed corporations to contribute essentially >>>>>>>>> in the same manner that labor unions do. CU didn't affect
individual contributions (afair). REcall the famous Romney line >>>>>>>>> after the decision (paraphrased for political expedience)
'corporations are people too'. That isn't really what he said >>>>>>>>> but it's more accurate than 'I can see russia from my house'. >>>>>>>>>
In context Mr Romney was correct. Fictitious persons share many >>>>>>>> obligations, rights and liabilities with humans; They pay taxes, >>>>>>>> can be sued civilly and criminally, they can contract, own and >>>>>>>> dispose of property, etc. There are differences; fictitious
persons cannot vote.
"Fictitious persons" AKA corporations cannot be physically
punished nor executed. They cannot be drafted and sent to war.
They cannot (practically) be deported, although many "self deport" >>>>>>> to operate from locations that will allow them to evade taxes and >>>>>>> make even more money. They have no loyalty to the nation they were >>>>>>> "born" in, they often have no concern for their community nor for >>>>>>> the _real_ persons who live there.
They exert excessive influence over American politics and over the >>>>>>> world at large, to the detriment of countless _real_ persons.
It's ludicrous that they are given the "rights" that they enjoy. >>>>>>>
But then, they've been able to buy very important judges.
Weirdly, they seem to now enjoy approval even from some
"individualistic" MAGA maniacs.
corporations. I suspect that you do not have a good grasp of this
area; of corporate law or regulation or governance.
How many of those 'corporations' had to register for the draft?
Yes there are differences.
Corporations, are fictitious persons (such as NEA/ACT, SEIU, AMA, the
Boy Scouts and Chase Bank, law firms and real estate LLCs, etc) are
not citizens and such cannot be executed, cannot vote etc. But the
officers and/or directors can be jailed, the entity can be fined (and
to some extent the officers as well).
But back to the above, all those entities enjoy freedom of assembly
and speech in the collected form of their constituent individuals.
Oh, and they are taxed, above and beyond the individual liability of
the members, officers and directors.
Congratulations on having formed corporations. Congratulations on
those entities having paid taxes.
But the idea that corporations are practically equivalent to humans is
more nonsensical than the idea that a muscular 230 pound fullback
becomes a girl when he puts on a dress. Both ideas are ludicrous.
And the dress makes no real difference to anyone, yet generates
outrage and hand wringing, especially from the right. While the
"personal speech" in the form of millions of campaign dollars enables
the purchase of lawmakers and judges, reduces the power of thoughtful
individual voters and produces other severe distortions in our
democracy. Why no outrage from the right?
Answer: Voters on the right have been suckered into thinking this is
somehow good for them.
You have an opinion, which is fine.
SCOTUS however ruled that associations of individuals can express
opinion under 1st Amendment protected speech and assembly rights in
unison, besides individually. How is this wrong?
It's wrong in treating massive monetary contributions as "speech."
Factually, a corporation is _not_ a person. Factually, money is _not_
speech. How is this not obvious?
And the specific effect has been to allow multibillion dollar
corporations to exert tremendous control over candidates and election >outcomes. That's not what the founding fathers had in mind, AFAICT.
Whether your local
Elks club, SEIU or Chase Bank, expressing opinion makes the nation
better IMHO.
By writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper? Sure. By donating 15 >million dollars to a PAC? No. And I doubt that any local Elks club has
ever done that.
I'm involved in two local clubs. Neither one has a treasury bigger than >$2000. Neither could afford to donate even $1000 to influence elections
or legislation.
It occurs to me, if you're totally enamored of the weird idea that a >corporation is equivalent to a person, then let's limit the amount of >election donations to, say, 10% of the annual income of the average
American _real_ person. Yes, even though the Musks and the Microsofts
have incomes of countless millions or billions.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 19:26:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/11/2025 5:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/11/2025 3:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 9:19 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/11/2025 4:27 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 10:54 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 7:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:I have formed, sold, dissolved, bought, reorganized several
On 6/10/2025 12:41 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that large >>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonization and
assaults on the character of people who honestly worked >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their polling
places with integrity and certified election results to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> result that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the result of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are so >>>>>>>>>>>>>> small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing it wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that there was a >>>>>>>>>>>>> limit on
the amount of money that an organization or individual could >>>>>>>>>>>>> give to
support a political party running in an election
Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the party. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the largest >>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor -
millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules?
Effectively, they changed the rules. The Supreme Court decided >>>>>>>>>>>> money is speech. See https:// publicintegrity.org/ politics/ >>>>>>>>>>>> the- citizens- united- decision-and-why-it- matters/?
gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=10586056683
Under which unions and the like are treated exactly the same as >>>>>>>>>>> other groups of associated individuals.
um...no.
Citizens united allowed corporations to contribute essentially >>>>>>>>>> in the same manner that labor unions do. CU didn't affect
individual contributions (afair). REcall the famous Romney line >>>>>>>>>> after the decision (paraphrased for political expedience)
'corporations are people too'. That isn't really what he said >>>>>>>>>> but it's more accurate than 'I can see russia from my house'. >>>>>>>>>>
In context Mr Romney was correct. Fictitious persons share many >>>>>>>>> obligations, rights and liabilities with humans; They pay taxes, >>>>>>>>> can be sued civilly and criminally, they can contract, own and >>>>>>>>> dispose of property, etc. There are differences; fictitious
persons cannot vote.
"Fictitious persons" AKA corporations cannot be physically
punished nor executed. They cannot be drafted and sent to war. >>>>>>>> They cannot (practically) be deported, although many "self deport" >>>>>>>> to operate from locations that will allow them to evade taxes and >>>>>>>> make even more money. They have no loyalty to the nation they were >>>>>>>> "born" in, they often have no concern for their community nor for >>>>>>>> the _real_ persons who live there.
They exert excessive influence over American politics and over the >>>>>>>> world at large, to the detriment of countless _real_ persons.
It's ludicrous that they are given the "rights" that they enjoy. >>>>>>>>
But then, they've been able to buy very important judges.
Weirdly, they seem to now enjoy approval even from some
"individualistic" MAGA maniacs.
corporations. I suspect that you do not have a good grasp of this >>>>>>> area; of corporate law or regulation or governance.
How many of those 'corporations' had to register for the draft?
Yes there are differences.
Corporations, are fictitious persons (such as NEA/ACT, SEIU, AMA, the >>>>> Boy Scouts and Chase Bank, law firms and real estate LLCs, etc) are
not citizens and such cannot be executed, cannot vote etc. But the
officers and/or directors can be jailed, the entity can be fined (and >>>>> to some extent the officers as well).
But back to the above, all those entities enjoy freedom of assembly
and speech in the collected form of their constituent individuals.
Oh, and they are taxed, above and beyond the individual liability of >>>>> the members, officers and directors.
Congratulations on having formed corporations. Congratulations on
those entities having paid taxes.
But the idea that corporations are practically equivalent to humans is >>>> more nonsensical than the idea that a muscular 230 pound fullback
becomes a girl when he puts on a dress. Both ideas are ludicrous.
And the dress makes no real difference to anyone, yet generates
outrage and hand wringing, especially from the right. While the
"personal speech" in the form of millions of campaign dollars enables >>>> the purchase of lawmakers and judges, reduces the power of thoughtful
individual voters and produces other severe distortions in our
democracy. Why no outrage from the right?
Answer: Voters on the right have been suckered into thinking this is
somehow good for them.
You have an opinion, which is fine.
SCOTUS however ruled that associations of individuals can express
opinion under 1st Amendment protected speech and assembly rights in
unison, besides individually. How is this wrong?
It's wrong in treating massive monetary contributions as "speech."
Factually, a corporation is _not_ a person. Factually, money is _not_
speech. How is this not obvious?
And the specific effect has been to allow multibillion dollar
corporations to exert tremendous control over candidates and election
outcomes. That's not what the founding fathers had in mind, AFAICT.
Whether your local
Elks club, SEIU or Chase Bank, expressing opinion makes the nation
better IMHO.
By writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper? Sure. By donating 15
million dollars to a PAC? No. And I doubt that any local Elks club has
ever done that.
I'm involved in two local clubs. Neither one has a treasury bigger than
$2000. Neither could afford to donate even $1000 to influence elections
or legislation.
It occurs to me, if you're totally enamored of the weird idea that a
corporation is equivalent to a person, then let's limit the amount of
election donations to, say, 10% of the annual income of the average
American _real_ person. Yes, even though the Musks and the Microsofts
have incomes of countless millions or billions.
Why don't you write to a Democrat Comgressperson about that. See if
you can find one who wants to limit political spending by George
Soros.
Am 12.06.2025 um 10:47 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 19:26:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/11/2025 5:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/11/2025 3:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 9:19 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/11/2025 4:27 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 10:54 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 7:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:I have formed, sold, dissolved, bought, reorganized several
On 6/10/2025 12:41 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that large >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonization and
assaults on the character of people who honestly worked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their polling
places with integrity and certified election results to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the result of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing it wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that there was a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> limit on
the amount of money that an organization or individual could >>>>>>>>>>>>>> give to
support a political party running in an election
Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the party. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the largest >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor -
millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules?
Effectively, they changed the rules. The Supreme Court decided >>>>>>>>>>>>> money is speech. See https:// publicintegrity.org/ politics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> the- citizens- united- decision-and-why-it- matters/? >>>>>>>>>>>>> gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=10586056683
Under which unions and the like are treated exactly the same as >>>>>>>>>>>> other groups of associated individuals.
um...no.
Citizens united allowed corporations to contribute essentially >>>>>>>>>>> in the same manner that labor unions do. CU didn't affect >>>>>>>>>>> individual contributions (afair). REcall the famous Romney line >>>>>>>>>>> after the decision (paraphrased for political expedience) >>>>>>>>>>> 'corporations are people too'. That isn't really what he said >>>>>>>>>>> but it's more accurate than 'I can see russia from my house'. >>>>>>>>>>>
In context Mr Romney was correct. Fictitious persons share many >>>>>>>>>> obligations, rights and liabilities with humans; They pay taxes, >>>>>>>>>> can be sued civilly and criminally, they can contract, own and >>>>>>>>>> dispose of property, etc. There are differences; fictitious >>>>>>>>>> persons cannot vote.
"Fictitious persons" AKA corporations cannot be physically
punished nor executed. They cannot be drafted and sent to war. >>>>>>>>> They cannot (practically) be deported, although many "self deport" >>>>>>>>> to operate from locations that will allow them to evade taxes and >>>>>>>>> make even more money. They have no loyalty to the nation they were >>>>>>>>> "born" in, they often have no concern for their community nor for >>>>>>>>> the _real_ persons who live there.
They exert excessive influence over American politics and over the >>>>>>>>> world at large, to the detriment of countless _real_ persons. >>>>>>>>> It's ludicrous that they are given the "rights" that they enjoy. >>>>>>>>>
But then, they've been able to buy very important judges.
Weirdly, they seem to now enjoy approval even from some
"individualistic" MAGA maniacs.
corporations. I suspect that you do not have a good grasp of this >>>>>>>> area; of corporate law or regulation or governance.
How many of those 'corporations' had to register for the draft?
Yes there are differences.
Corporations, are fictitious persons (such as NEA/ACT, SEIU, AMA, the >>>>>> Boy Scouts and Chase Bank, law firms and real estate LLCs, etc) are >>>>>> not citizens and such cannot be executed, cannot vote etc. But the >>>>>> officers and/or directors can be jailed, the entity can be fined (and >>>>>> to some extent the officers as well).
But back to the above, all those entities enjoy freedom of assembly >>>>>> and speech in the collected form of their constituent individuals. >>>>>> Oh, and they are taxed, above and beyond the individual liability of >>>>>> the members, officers and directors.
Congratulations on having formed corporations. Congratulations on
those entities having paid taxes.
But the idea that corporations are practically equivalent to humans is >>>>> more nonsensical than the idea that a muscular 230 pound fullback
becomes a girl when he puts on a dress. Both ideas are ludicrous.
And the dress makes no real difference to anyone, yet generates
outrage and hand wringing, especially from the right. While the
"personal speech" in the form of millions of campaign dollars enables >>>>> the purchase of lawmakers and judges, reduces the power of thoughtful >>>>> individual voters and produces other severe distortions in our
democracy. Why no outrage from the right?
Answer: Voters on the right have been suckered into thinking this is >>>>> somehow good for them.
You have an opinion, which is fine.
SCOTUS however ruled that associations of individuals can express
opinion under 1st Amendment protected speech and assembly rights in
unison, besides individually. How is this wrong?
It's wrong in treating massive monetary contributions as "speech."
Factually, a corporation is _not_ a person. Factually, money is _not_
speech. How is this not obvious?
And the specific effect has been to allow multibillion dollar
corporations to exert tremendous control over candidates and election
outcomes. That's not what the founding fathers had in mind, AFAICT.
Whether your local
Elks club, SEIU or Chase Bank, expressing opinion makes the nation
better IMHO.
By writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper? Sure. By donating 15
million dollars to a PAC? No. And I doubt that any local Elks club has
ever done that.
I'm involved in two local clubs. Neither one has a treasury bigger than
$2000. Neither could afford to donate even $1000 to influence elections
or legislation.
It occurs to me, if you're totally enamored of the weird idea that a
corporation is equivalent to a person, then let's limit the amount of
election donations to, say, 10% of the annual income of the average
American _real_ person. Yes, even though the Musks and the Microsofts
have incomes of countless millions or billions.
Why don't you write to a Democrat Comgressperson about that. See if
you can find one who wants to limit political spending by George
Soros.
If it limits political spending by Elon Musk and the Koch Brothers at
the same time, this should be easy.
Hint: Mr Soros' campaign contributions were orders of magnitude smaller
than those by the people above.
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 15:03:23 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 12.06.2025 um 10:47 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 19:26:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/11/2025 5:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/11/2025 3:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 9:19 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/11/2025 4:27 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 10:54 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 7:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:I have formed, sold, dissolved, bought, reorganized several
On 6/10/2025 12:41 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that large >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonization and
assaults on the character of people who honestly worked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their polling
places with integrity and certified election results to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the result of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing it wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that there was a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limit on
the amount of money that an organization or individual could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give to
support a political party running in an election >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the party. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the largest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor -
millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules?
Effectively, they changed the rules. The Supreme Court decided >>>>>>>>>>>>>> money is speech. See https:// publicintegrity.org/ politics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the- citizens- united- decision-and-why-it- matters/? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=10586056683
Under which unions and the like are treated exactly the same as >>>>>>>>>>>>> other groups of associated individuals.
um...no.
Citizens united allowed corporations to contribute essentially >>>>>>>>>>>> in the same manner that labor unions do. CU didn't affect >>>>>>>>>>>> individual contributions (afair). REcall the famous Romney line >>>>>>>>>>>> after the decision (paraphrased for political expedience) >>>>>>>>>>>> 'corporations are people too'. That isn't really what he said >>>>>>>>>>>> but it's more accurate than 'I can see russia from my house'. >>>>>>>>>>>>
In context Mr Romney was correct. Fictitious persons share many >>>>>>>>>>> obligations, rights and liabilities with humans; They pay taxes, >>>>>>>>>>> can be sued civilly and criminally, they can contract, own and >>>>>>>>>>> dispose of property, etc. There are differences; fictitious >>>>>>>>>>> persons cannot vote.
"Fictitious persons" AKA corporations cannot be physically >>>>>>>>>> punished nor executed. They cannot be drafted and sent to war. >>>>>>>>>> They cannot (practically) be deported, although many "self deport" >>>>>>>>>> to operate from locations that will allow them to evade taxes and >>>>>>>>>> make even more money. They have no loyalty to the nation they were >>>>>>>>>> "born" in, they often have no concern for their community nor for >>>>>>>>>> the _real_ persons who live there.
They exert excessive influence over American politics and over the >>>>>>>>>> world at large, to the detriment of countless _real_ persons. >>>>>>>>>> It's ludicrous that they are given the "rights" that they enjoy. >>>>>>>>>>
But then, they've been able to buy very important judges.
Weirdly, they seem to now enjoy approval even from some
"individualistic" MAGA maniacs.
corporations. I suspect that you do not have a good grasp of this >>>>>>>>> area; of corporate law or regulation or governance.
How many of those 'corporations' had to register for the draft? >>>>>>>
Yes there are differences.
Corporations, are fictitious persons (such as NEA/ACT, SEIU, AMA, the >>>>>>> Boy Scouts and Chase Bank, law firms and real estate LLCs, etc) are >>>>>>> not citizens and such cannot be executed, cannot vote etc. But the >>>>>>> officers and/or directors can be jailed, the entity can be fined (and >>>>>>> to some extent the officers as well).
But back to the above, all those entities enjoy freedom of assembly >>>>>>> and speech in the collected form of their constituent individuals. >>>>>>> Oh, and they are taxed, above and beyond the individual liability of >>>>>>> the members, officers and directors.
Congratulations on having formed corporations. Congratulations on
those entities having paid taxes.
But the idea that corporations are practically equivalent to humans is >>>>>> more nonsensical than the idea that a muscular 230 pound fullback
becomes a girl when he puts on a dress. Both ideas are ludicrous.
And the dress makes no real difference to anyone, yet generates
outrage and hand wringing, especially from the right. While the
"personal speech" in the form of millions of campaign dollars enables >>>>>> the purchase of lawmakers and judges, reduces the power of thoughtful >>>>>> individual voters and produces other severe distortions in our
democracy. Why no outrage from the right?
Answer: Voters on the right have been suckered into thinking this is >>>>>> somehow good for them.
You have an opinion, which is fine.
SCOTUS however ruled that associations of individuals can express
opinion under 1st Amendment protected speech and assembly rights in
unison, besides individually. How is this wrong?
It's wrong in treating massive monetary contributions as "speech."
Factually, a corporation is _not_ a person. Factually, money is _not_
speech. How is this not obvious?
And the specific effect has been to allow multibillion dollar
corporations to exert tremendous control over candidates and election
outcomes. That's not what the founding fathers had in mind, AFAICT.
Whether your local
Elks club, SEIU or Chase Bank, expressing opinion makes the nation
better IMHO.
By writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper? Sure. By donating 15 >>>> million dollars to a PAC? No. And I doubt that any local Elks club has >>>> ever done that.
I'm involved in two local clubs. Neither one has a treasury bigger than >>>> $2000. Neither could afford to donate even $1000 to influence elections >>>> or legislation.
It occurs to me, if you're totally enamored of the weird idea that a
corporation is equivalent to a person, then let's limit the amount of
election donations to, say, 10% of the annual income of the average
American _real_ person. Yes, even though the Musks and the Microsofts
have incomes of countless millions or billions.
Why don't you write to a Democrat Comgressperson about that. See if
you can find one who wants to limit political spending by George
Soros.
If it limits political spending by Elon Musk and the Koch Brothers at
the same time, this should be easy.
Hint: Mr Soros' campaign contributions were orders of magnitude smaller
than those by the people above.
Soros appears to have bought and paid for a lot of judges.
Am 12.06.2025 um 15:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 15:03:23 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 12.06.2025 um 10:47 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 19:26:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/11/2025 5:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/11/2025 3:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 9:19 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/11/2025 4:27 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 10:54 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 7:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:I have formed, sold, dissolved, bought, reorganized several >>>>>>>>>> corporations. I suspect that you do not have a good grasp of this >>>>>>>>>> area; of corporate law or regulation or governance.
On 6/10/2025 12:41 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycleEffectively, they changed the rules. The Supreme Court decided >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> money is speech. See https:// publicintegrity.org/ politics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the- citizens- united- decision-and-why-it- matters/? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=10586056683
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that large >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonization and
assaults on the character of people who honestly worked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their polling
places with integrity and certified election results to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the result of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing it wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that there was a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limit on
the amount of money that an organization or individual could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give to
support a political party running in an election >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the party. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the largest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor -
millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Under which unions and the like are treated exactly the same as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other groups of associated individuals.
um...no.
Citizens united allowed corporations to contribute essentially >>>>>>>>>>>>> in the same manner that labor unions do. CU didn't affect >>>>>>>>>>>>> individual contributions (afair). REcall the famous Romney line >>>>>>>>>>>>> after the decision (paraphrased for political expedience) >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'corporations are people too'. That isn't really what he said >>>>>>>>>>>>> but it's more accurate than 'I can see russia from my house'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
In context Mr Romney was correct. Fictitious persons share many >>>>>>>>>>>> obligations, rights and liabilities with humans; They pay taxes, >>>>>>>>>>>> can be sued civilly and criminally, they can contract, own and >>>>>>>>>>>> dispose of property, etc. There are differences; fictitious >>>>>>>>>>>> persons cannot vote.
"Fictitious persons" AKA corporations cannot be physically >>>>>>>>>>> punished nor executed. They cannot be drafted and sent to war. >>>>>>>>>>> They cannot (practically) be deported, although many "self deport" >>>>>>>>>>> to operate from locations that will allow them to evade taxes and >>>>>>>>>>> make even more money. They have no loyalty to the nation they were >>>>>>>>>>> "born" in, they often have no concern for their community nor for >>>>>>>>>>> the _real_ persons who live there.
They exert excessive influence over American politics and over the >>>>>>>>>>> world at large, to the detriment of countless _real_ persons. >>>>>>>>>>> It's ludicrous that they are given the "rights" that they enjoy. >>>>>>>>>>>
But then, they've been able to buy very important judges. >>>>>>>>>>>
Weirdly, they seem to now enjoy approval even from some
"individualistic" MAGA maniacs.
How many of those 'corporations' had to register for the draft? >>>>>>>>
Yes there are differences.
Corporations, are fictitious persons (such as NEA/ACT, SEIU, AMA, the >>>>>>>> Boy Scouts and Chase Bank, law firms and real estate LLCs, etc) are >>>>>>>> not citizens and such cannot be executed, cannot vote etc. But the >>>>>>>> officers and/or directors can be jailed, the entity can be fined (and >>>>>>>> to some extent the officers as well).
But back to the above, all those entities enjoy freedom of assembly >>>>>>>> and speech in the collected form of their constituent individuals. >>>>>>>> Oh, and they are taxed, above and beyond the individual liability of >>>>>>>> the members, officers and directors.
Congratulations on having formed corporations. Congratulations on >>>>>>> those entities having paid taxes.
But the idea that corporations are practically equivalent to humans is >>>>>>> more nonsensical than the idea that a muscular 230 pound fullback >>>>>>> becomes a girl when he puts on a dress. Both ideas are ludicrous. >>>>>>>
And the dress makes no real difference to anyone, yet generates
outrage and hand wringing, especially from the right. While the
"personal speech" in the form of millions of campaign dollars enables >>>>>>> the purchase of lawmakers and judges, reduces the power of thoughtful >>>>>>> individual voters and produces other severe distortions in our
democracy. Why no outrage from the right?
Answer: Voters on the right have been suckered into thinking this is >>>>>>> somehow good for them.
You have an opinion, which is fine.
SCOTUS however ruled that associations of individuals can express
opinion under 1st Amendment protected speech and assembly rights in >>>>>> unison, besides individually. How is this wrong?
It's wrong in treating massive monetary contributions as "speech."
Factually, a corporation is _not_ a person. Factually, money is _not_ >>>>> speech. How is this not obvious?
And the specific effect has been to allow multibillion dollar
corporations to exert tremendous control over candidates and election >>>>> outcomes. That's not what the founding fathers had in mind, AFAICT.
Whether your local
Elks club, SEIU or Chase Bank, expressing opinion makes the nation >>>>>> better IMHO.
By writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper? Sure. By donating 15 >>>>> million dollars to a PAC? No. And I doubt that any local Elks club has >>>>> ever done that.
I'm involved in two local clubs. Neither one has a treasury bigger than >>>>> $2000. Neither could afford to donate even $1000 to influence elections >>>>> or legislation.
It occurs to me, if you're totally enamored of the weird idea that a >>>>> corporation is equivalent to a person, then let's limit the amount of >>>>> election donations to, say, 10% of the annual income of the average
American _real_ person. Yes, even though the Musks and the Microsofts >>>>> have incomes of countless millions or billions.
Why don't you write to a Democrat Comgressperson about that. See if
you can find one who wants to limit political spending by George
Soros.
If it limits political spending by Elon Musk and the Koch Brothers at
the same time, this should be easy.
Hint: Mr Soros' campaign contributions were orders of magnitude smaller
than those by the people above.
Soros appears to have bought and paid for a lot of judges.
Some people insinuate that Soros with his persumed endless supply of
money might have done certain things.
Elon Musk is known to have a lot more money than Soros ever had. Elon
Musk is known to have put more money into US politics than Soros ever
had. Elon Musk is known to have tried to buy the election of a judge.
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 16:31:24 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 12.06.2025 um 15:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 15:03:23 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 12.06.2025 um 10:47 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 19:26:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/11/2025 5:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/11/2025 3:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 9:19 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/11/2025 4:27 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 10:54 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 7:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:I have formed, sold, dissolved, bought, reorganized several >>>>>>>>>>> corporations. I suspect that you do not have a good grasp of this >>>>>>>>>>> area; of corporate law or regulation or governance.
On 6/10/2025 12:41 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:Effectively, they changed the rules. The Supreme Court decided >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> money is speech. See https:// publicintegrity.org/ politics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the- citizens- united- decision-and-why-it- matters/? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=10586056683
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that large >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonization and
assaults on the character of people who honestly worked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their polling
places with integrity and certified election results to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the result of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing it wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that there was a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limit on
the amount of money that an organization or individual could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give to
support a political party running in an election >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the party. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the largest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor -
millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Under which unions and the like are treated exactly the same as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other groups of associated individuals.
um...no.
Citizens united allowed corporations to contribute essentially >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the same manner that labor unions do. CU didn't affect >>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual contributions (afair). REcall the famous Romney line >>>>>>>>>>>>>> after the decision (paraphrased for political expedience) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'corporations are people too'. That isn't really what he said >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it's more accurate than 'I can see russia from my house'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In context Mr Romney was correct. Fictitious persons share many >>>>>>>>>>>>> obligations, rights and liabilities with humans; They pay taxes, >>>>>>>>>>>>> can be sued civilly and criminally, they can contract, own and >>>>>>>>>>>>> dispose of property, etc. There are differences; fictitious >>>>>>>>>>>>> persons cannot vote.
"Fictitious persons" AKA corporations cannot be physically >>>>>>>>>>>> punished nor executed. They cannot be drafted and sent to war. >>>>>>>>>>>> They cannot (practically) be deported, although many "self deport" >>>>>>>>>>>> to operate from locations that will allow them to evade taxes and >>>>>>>>>>>> make even more money. They have no loyalty to the nation they were >>>>>>>>>>>> "born" in, they often have no concern for their community nor for >>>>>>>>>>>> the _real_ persons who live there.
They exert excessive influence over American politics and over the >>>>>>>>>>>> world at large, to the detriment of countless _real_ persons. >>>>>>>>>>>> It's ludicrous that they are given the "rights" that they enjoy. >>>>>>>>>>>>
But then, they've been able to buy very important judges. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Weirdly, they seem to now enjoy approval even from some >>>>>>>>>>>> "individualistic" MAGA maniacs.
How many of those 'corporations' had to register for the draft? >>>>>>>>>
Yes there are differences.
Corporations, are fictitious persons (such as NEA/ACT, SEIU, AMA, the >>>>>>>>> Boy Scouts and Chase Bank, law firms and real estate LLCs, etc) are >>>>>>>>> not citizens and such cannot be executed, cannot vote etc. But the >>>>>>>>> officers and/or directors can be jailed, the entity can be fined (and >>>>>>>>> to some extent the officers as well).
But back to the above, all those entities enjoy freedom of assembly >>>>>>>>> and speech in the collected form of their constituent individuals. >>>>>>>>> Oh, and they are taxed, above and beyond the individual liability of >>>>>>>>> the members, officers and directors.
Congratulations on having formed corporations. Congratulations on >>>>>>>> those entities having paid taxes.
But the idea that corporations are practically equivalent to humans is >>>>>>>> more nonsensical than the idea that a muscular 230 pound fullback >>>>>>>> becomes a girl when he puts on a dress. Both ideas are ludicrous. >>>>>>>>
And the dress makes no real difference to anyone, yet generates >>>>>>>> outrage and hand wringing, especially from the right. While the >>>>>>>> "personal speech" in the form of millions of campaign dollars enables >>>>>>>> the purchase of lawmakers and judges, reduces the power of thoughtful >>>>>>>> individual voters and produces other severe distortions in our >>>>>>>> democracy. Why no outrage from the right?
Answer: Voters on the right have been suckered into thinking this is >>>>>>>> somehow good for them.
You have an opinion, which is fine.
SCOTUS however ruled that associations of individuals can express >>>>>>> opinion under 1st Amendment protected speech and assembly rights in >>>>>>> unison, besides individually. How is this wrong?
It's wrong in treating massive monetary contributions as "speech." >>>>>> Factually, a corporation is _not_ a person. Factually, money is _not_ >>>>>> speech. How is this not obvious?
And the specific effect has been to allow multibillion dollar
corporations to exert tremendous control over candidates and election >>>>>> outcomes. That's not what the founding fathers had in mind, AFAICT. >>>>>>
Whether your local
Elks club, SEIU or Chase Bank, expressing opinion makes the nation >>>>>>> better IMHO.
By writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper? Sure. By donating 15 >>>>>> million dollars to a PAC? No. And I doubt that any local Elks club has >>>>>> ever done that.
I'm involved in two local clubs. Neither one has a treasury bigger than >>>>>> $2000. Neither could afford to donate even $1000 to influence elections >>>>>> or legislation.
It occurs to me, if you're totally enamored of the weird idea that a >>>>>> corporation is equivalent to a person, then let's limit the amount of >>>>>> election donations to, say, 10% of the annual income of the average >>>>>> American _real_ person. Yes, even though the Musks and the Microsofts >>>>>> have incomes of countless millions or billions.
Why don't you write to a Democrat Comgressperson about that. See if
you can find one who wants to limit political spending by George
Soros.
If it limits political spending by Elon Musk and the Koch Brothers at
the same time, this should be easy.
Hint: Mr Soros' campaign contributions were orders of magnitude smaller >>>> than those by the people above.
Soros appears to have bought and paid for a lot of judges.
Some people insinuate that Soros with his persumed endless supply of
money might have done certain things.
Elon Musk is known to have a lot more money than Soros ever had. Elon
Musk is known to have put more money into US politics than Soros ever
had. Elon Musk is known to have tried to buy the election of a judge.
I believe Musk has more money than anybody. As for him trying to buy a
judge, I've seen no evidence of it.
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 10:41:29 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 16:31:24 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 12.06.2025 um 15:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 15:03:23 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 12.06.2025 um 10:47 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 19:26:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/11/2025 5:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/11/2025 3:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 9:19 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/11/2025 4:27 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 10:54 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 7:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:I have formed, sold, dissolved, bought, reorganized several >>>>>>>>>>>> corporations. I suspect that you do not have a good grasp of this >>>>>>>>>>>> area; of corporate law or regulation or governance.
On 6/10/2025 12:41 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2025 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:Effectively, they changed the rules. The Supreme Court decided
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that large >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonization and
assaults on the character of people who honestly worked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their polling
places with integrity and certified election results to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the result of
administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing it wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that there was a
limit on
the amount of money that an organization or individual could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give to
support a political party running in an election >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the party. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the largest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor -
millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
money is speech. See https:// publicintegrity.org/ politics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the- citizens- united- decision-and-why-it- matters/? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=10586056683
Under which unions and the like are treated exactly the same as
other groups of associated individuals.
um...no.
Citizens united allowed corporations to contribute essentially >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the same manner that labor unions do. CU didn't affect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual contributions (afair). REcall the famous Romney line >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after the decision (paraphrased for political expedience) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'corporations are people too'. That isn't really what he said >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it's more accurate than 'I can see russia from my house'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In context Mr Romney was correct. Fictitious persons share many
obligations, rights and liabilities with humans; They pay taxes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be sued civilly and criminally, they can contract, own and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dispose of property, etc. There are differences; fictitious >>>>>>>>>>>>>> persons cannot vote.
"Fictitious persons" AKA corporations cannot be physically >>>>>>>>>>>>> punished nor executed. They cannot be drafted and sent to war. >>>>>>>>>>>>> They cannot (practically) be deported, although many "self deport"
to operate from locations that will allow them to evade taxes and >>>>>>>>>>>>> make even more money. They have no loyalty to the nation they were
"born" in, they often have no concern for their community nor for >>>>>>>>>>>>> the _real_ persons who live there.
They exert excessive influence over American politics and over the
world at large, to the detriment of countless _real_ persons. >>>>>>>>>>>>> It's ludicrous that they are given the "rights" that they enjoy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
But then, they've been able to buy very important judges. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Weirdly, they seem to now enjoy approval even from some >>>>>>>>>>>>> "individualistic" MAGA maniacs.
How many of those 'corporations' had to register for the draft? >>>>>>>>>>
Yes there are differences.
Corporations, are fictitious persons (such as NEA/ACT, SEIU, AMA, the
Boy Scouts and Chase Bank, law firms and real estate LLCs, etc) are >>>>>>>>>> not citizens and such cannot be executed, cannot vote etc. But the >>>>>>>>>> officers and/or directors can be jailed, the entity can be fined (and
to some extent the officers as well).
But back to the above, all those entities enjoy freedom of assembly >>>>>>>>>> and speech in the collected form of their constituent individuals. >>>>>>>>>> Oh, and they are taxed, above and beyond the individual liability of >>>>>>>>>> the members, officers and directors.
Congratulations on having formed corporations. Congratulations on >>>>>>>>> those entities having paid taxes.
But the idea that corporations are practically equivalent to humans is
more nonsensical than the idea that a muscular 230 pound fullback >>>>>>>>> becomes a girl when he puts on a dress. Both ideas are ludicrous. >>>>>>>>>
And the dress makes no real difference to anyone, yet generates >>>>>>>>> outrage and hand wringing, especially from the right. While the >>>>>>>>> "personal speech" in the form of millions of campaign dollars enables
the purchase of lawmakers and judges, reduces the power of thoughtful >>>>>>>>> individual voters and produces other severe distortions in our >>>>>>>>> democracy. Why no outrage from the right?
Answer: Voters on the right have been suckered into thinking this is >>>>>>>>> somehow good for them.
You have an opinion, which is fine.
SCOTUS however ruled that associations of individuals can express >>>>>>>> opinion under 1st Amendment protected speech and assembly rights in >>>>>>>> unison, besides individually. How is this wrong?
It's wrong in treating massive monetary contributions as "speech." >>>>>>> Factually, a corporation is _not_ a person. Factually, money is _not_ >>>>>>> speech. How is this not obvious?
And the specific effect has been to allow multibillion dollar
corporations to exert tremendous control over candidates and election >>>>>>> outcomes. That's not what the founding fathers had in mind, AFAICT. >>>>>>>
Whether your local
Elks club, SEIU or Chase Bank, expressing opinion makes the nation >>>>>>>> better IMHO.
By writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper? Sure. By donating 15 >>>>>>> million dollars to a PAC? No. And I doubt that any local Elks club has >>>>>>> ever done that.
I'm involved in two local clubs. Neither one has a treasury bigger than >>>>>>> $2000. Neither could afford to donate even $1000 to influence elections >>>>>>> or legislation.
It occurs to me, if you're totally enamored of the weird idea that a >>>>>>> corporation is equivalent to a person, then let's limit the amount of >>>>>>> election donations to, say, 10% of the annual income of the average >>>>>>> American _real_ person. Yes, even though the Musks and the Microsofts >>>>>>> have incomes of countless millions or billions.
Why don't you write to a Democrat Comgressperson about that. See if >>>>>> you can find one who wants to limit political spending by George
Soros.
If it limits political spending by Elon Musk and the Koch Brothers at >>>>> the same time, this should be easy.
Hint: Mr Soros' campaign contributions were orders of magnitude smaller >>>>> than those by the people above.
Soros appears to have bought and paid for a lot of judges.
Some people insinuate that Soros with his persumed endless supply of
money might have done certain things.
Elon Musk is known to have a lot more money than Soros ever had. Elon
Musk is known to have put more money into US politics than Soros ever
had. Elon Musk is known to have tried to buy the election of a judge.
I believe Musk has more money than anybody. As for him trying to buy a
judge, I've seen no evidence of it.
Are judges elected? The only ones I've had the misfortune to have any
contact with were appointed.
--
cheers,
John B.
Am 12.06.2025 um 15:53 floriduh dumbass:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 15:03:23 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
If it limits political spending by Elon Musk and the Koch Brothers at
the same time, this should be easy.
Hint: Mr Soros' campaign contributions were orders of magnitude smaller
than those by the people above.
Soros appears to have bought and paid for a lot of judges.
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 10:41:29 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 16:31:24 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 12.06.2025 um 15:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 15:03:23 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 12.06.2025 um 10:47 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 19:26:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/11/2025 5:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/11/2025 3:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 9:19 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/11/2025 4:27 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 10:54 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 7:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/10/2025 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:I have formed, sold, dissolved, bought, reorganized several >>>>>>>>>>>> corporations. I suspect that you do not have a good grasp of this >>>>>>>>>>>> area; of corporate law or regulation or governance.
On 6/10/2025 12:41 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/10/2025 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/10/2025 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2025 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:Effectively, they changed the rules. The Supreme Court decided
On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified to
vote ...
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that large >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonization and
assaults on the character of people who honestly worked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their polling
places with integrity and certified election results to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result that
the magatards didn't like.
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the result of
administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing it wrong.
Re elections, etc.
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that there was a
limit on
the amount of money that an organization or individual could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give to
support a political party running in an election >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the party. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the largest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributor -
millions of dollars.
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
money is speech. See https:// publicintegrity.org/ politics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the- citizens- united- decision-and-why-it- matters/? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=10586056683
Under which unions and the like are treated exactly the same as
other groups of associated individuals.
um...no.
Citizens united allowed corporations to contribute essentially >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the same manner that labor unions do. CU didn't affect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual contributions (afair). REcall the famous Romney line >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after the decision (paraphrased for political expedience) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'corporations are people too'. That isn't really what he said >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it's more accurate than 'I can see russia from my house'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In context Mr Romney was correct. Fictitious persons share many >>>>>>>>>>>>>> obligations, rights and liabilities with humans; They pay taxes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be sued civilly and criminally, they can contract, own and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dispose of property, etc. There are differences; fictitious >>>>>>>>>>>>>> persons cannot vote.
"Fictitious persons" AKA corporations cannot be physically >>>>>>>>>>>>> punished nor executed. They cannot be drafted and sent to war. >>>>>>>>>>>>> They cannot (practically) be deported, although many "self deport"
to operate from locations that will allow them to evade taxes and >>>>>>>>>>>>> make even more money. They have no loyalty to the nation they were
"born" in, they often have no concern for their community nor for >>>>>>>>>>>>> the _real_ persons who live there.
They exert excessive influence over American politics and over the
world at large, to the detriment of countless _real_ persons. >>>>>>>>>>>>> It's ludicrous that they are given the "rights" that they enjoy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
But then, they've been able to buy very important judges. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Weirdly, they seem to now enjoy approval even from some >>>>>>>>>>>>> "individualistic" MAGA maniacs.
How many of those 'corporations' had to register for the draft? >>>>>>>>>>
Yes there are differences.
Corporations, are fictitious persons (such as NEA/ACT, SEIU, AMA, the
Boy Scouts and Chase Bank, law firms and real estate LLCs, etc) are >>>>>>>>>> not citizens and such cannot be executed, cannot vote etc. But the >>>>>>>>>> officers and/or directors can be jailed, the entity can be fined (and
to some extent the officers as well).
But back to the above, all those entities enjoy freedom of assembly >>>>>>>>>> and speech in the collected form of their constituent individuals. >>>>>>>>>> Oh, and they are taxed, above and beyond the individual liability of >>>>>>>>>> the members, officers and directors.
Congratulations on having formed corporations. Congratulations on >>>>>>>>> those entities having paid taxes.
But the idea that corporations are practically equivalent to humans is
more nonsensical than the idea that a muscular 230 pound fullback >>>>>>>>> becomes a girl when he puts on a dress. Both ideas are ludicrous. >>>>>>>>>
And the dress makes no real difference to anyone, yet generates >>>>>>>>> outrage and hand wringing, especially from the right. While the >>>>>>>>> "personal speech" in the form of millions of campaign dollars enables
the purchase of lawmakers and judges, reduces the power of thoughtful >>>>>>>>> individual voters and produces other severe distortions in our >>>>>>>>> democracy. Why no outrage from the right?
Answer: Voters on the right have been suckered into thinking this is >>>>>>>>> somehow good for them.
You have an opinion, which is fine.
SCOTUS however ruled that associations of individuals can express >>>>>>>> opinion under 1st Amendment protected speech and assembly rights in >>>>>>>> unison, besides individually. How is this wrong?
It's wrong in treating massive monetary contributions as "speech." >>>>>>> Factually, a corporation is _not_ a person. Factually, money is _not_ >>>>>>> speech. How is this not obvious?
And the specific effect has been to allow multibillion dollar
corporations to exert tremendous control over candidates and election >>>>>>> outcomes. That's not what the founding fathers had in mind, AFAICT. >>>>>>>
Whether your local
Elks club, SEIU or Chase Bank, expressing opinion makes the nation >>>>>>>> better IMHO.
By writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper? Sure. By donating 15 >>>>>>> million dollars to a PAC? No. And I doubt that any local Elks club has >>>>>>> ever done that.
I'm involved in two local clubs. Neither one has a treasury bigger than >>>>>>> $2000. Neither could afford to donate even $1000 to influence elections >>>>>>> or legislation.
It occurs to me, if you're totally enamored of the weird idea that a >>>>>>> corporation is equivalent to a person, then let's limit the amount of >>>>>>> election donations to, say, 10% of the annual income of the average >>>>>>> American _real_ person. Yes, even though the Musks and the Microsofts >>>>>>> have incomes of countless millions or billions.
Why don't you write to a Democrat Comgressperson about that. See if >>>>>> you can find one who wants to limit political spending by George
Soros.
If it limits political spending by Elon Musk and the Koch Brothers at >>>>> the same time, this should be easy.
Hint: Mr Soros' campaign contributions were orders of magnitude smaller >>>>> than those by the people above.
Soros appears to have bought and paid for a lot of judges.
Some people insinuate that Soros with his persumed endless supply of >>>money might have done certain things.
Elon Musk is known to have a lot more money than Soros ever had. Elon >>>Musk is known to have put more money into US politics than Soros ever >>>had. Elon Musk is known to have tried to buy the election of a judge.
I believe Musk has more money than anybody. As for him trying to buy a >>judge, I've seen no evidence of it.
Are judges elected? The only ones I've had the misfortune to have any
contact with were appointed.
It occurs to me, if you're totally enamored of the weird idea that a >corporation is equivalent to a person, then let's limit the amount of >election donations to, say, 10% of the annual income of the average
American _real_ person. Yes, even though the Musks and the Microsofts
have incomes of countless millions or billions.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
But the idea that corporations are practically equivalent to humans is
more nonsensical than the idea that a muscular 230 pound fullback
becomes a girl when he puts on a dress. Both ideas are ludicrous.
And the dress makes no real difference to anyone, yet generates
outrage and hand wringing, especially from the right. While the
"personal speech" in the form of millions of campaign dollars enables
the purchase of lawmakers and judges, reduces the power of thoughtful
individual voters and produces other severe distortions in our
democracy. Why no outrage from the right?
Answer: Voters on the right have been suckered into thinking this is
somehow good for them.
Suppose you and a thousand fellow thinkers want your voice heard on some >issue. You're not George Soros, you can't buy great swaths of
advertising on your own. However one thousand and one of you can pool
your resources and be much more likely to be heard than one voice paying
its own way in the wilderness.
What do you call the legal foundation of such an organization? Or do you >think that no legal foundation is necessary?
Trump's tariffs are very short term as other countries are lining up to eliminate their tariffs so that they can get back into the game.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 19:26:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
It occurs to me, if you're totally enamored of the weird idea that a
corporation is equivalent to a person, then let's limit the amount of
election donations to, say, 10% of the annual income of the average
American _real_ person. Yes, even though the Musks and the Microsofts
have incomes of countless millions or billions.
Absolutely true.
The idea that CEOs and directors of corporations "represent"
the other employees of the corporation is absolutely absurd.
In a big corporation, what do 95% of the employees want?
Free public health care
Good free public education
Toll-free public roads and cheap public transport.
Good salaries.
Cheap, and if necessary, public funded homing.
Fair taxes, and that taxes should be spent on public infrastructure,
and not handed out to billionaires as if they were doggy treats.
Employees pay most of the tax in ANY country, regardless of what
corrupt think(AKA septic) tanks say.
What do CEOs and directors want? Exactly the opposite. Low salaries.
Cheap, uneducated employees who accept the salary "in case" they or
someone in their families get sick. Subsidized transport for their
goods. Let their employees walk. And to pay minimum tax with maximum handouts.
Anyone that thinks that a board of directors or a CEO has the
"right" to spend its profits financing right wing politicians because
they are the boss and fsck the employees opinions probably admires
North Korea, Saudi Arabia and admired China before it became the
biggest democracy in the World.
[]'s
That last sentence was obviously TIC. LOL.
On Mon Jun 9 15:27:19 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 18:06:51 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote
The Birth Records of the US are now completely computerized
IOW, a public servant types/scans the data in...
and the details cannot be forged;
100 dollars will do it.
It is extremely unlikely that anyone is going to even try to forge citizenship records because even government officials don't know the codes.
Then how do they access/update it? If someone can access it,
someone can forge it.
You claim you were a programmer?
How do you accuse someone of being an illegal alien if the governments OWN system says that they are not?
The system is only accessed IF the guy that arrests you thinks
it's worth the bother.
He usually doesn't. You say you can prove you are " legal", he
says "nah, I don't think so, it's a Friday and your passport looks
forged, you're going to be deported".
And that's that. No due process.
Will you stopp with silly ass comments? The birth records are recorded at the time of birth. You CANNOT make post entries. If there is ANY question you simply refer to the written record. The dates and places are clear. There are digital records with abackup of photographs of the entries, Naturalization records are even more trustworthy.
NO ONE can say "no you're not a citizen" if the record says otherwise. This isn't Brazil.
On Mon Jun 9 14:46:12 2025 Zen Cycle wrote:
The same place he got 'china killed off half its population with the
covid vaccine'
https://i.imgflip.com/207e6q.jpg
I am curious why you feel the need to lie about everything? I never said that China used the covid vaccine bvecause they didn't.
Instead they injected spike proteins directly into the bloodstream which was highly dose dependent.
hose that got too much simply died. Also China had violent lockdowns where people were actually welded into the flats unable to leave even to buy food.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=chinese+cities+appear+empty
India has semi good relations with China and their reporters are saying that ghost towns are3 everywhere.
China says that this is just due to overbuilding in a boom.
But car traffic is also much less than before covid.
On 6/12/2025 12:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Jun 9 15:36:33 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 18:10:07 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Garcia is NOT a citizen and was brought back to answer crimnal
charges of interstate transport of illegal aliens over a LONG
period. There is no protection from those sorts of charges.
He worked in construction and drove his colleagues to work.
There is no mention if they were legal or not. If they were illegal,
it's strange the company that employed them was not fined.
He was fined once for driving with an expired license.
I really don't think driving with an expired license is more
serious than being a gang member(and possibly a drug
trafficker/murderer). That's reason they said he was sent to jail
without due process.
Yet they said they brought him back to try him for "more
serious crimes"(the expired driver's license).
Expired driver's license? Exactly why you left wind extremist claims?
He was brought back to stand trial for interstate transportation of
illegal aliens and every state line crossed between Texas and Tennesee
he could be charged with the same crime though he hasn't been and will
simply cop a plea and get 15 months
"For count one, conspiracy to transport aliens, the maximum penalty is
a fine, imprisonment for not more than 10 years or both.
For count two, unlawful transportation of undocumented aliens, the
maximum term of imprisonment is five years, unless the offense was
committed for "commercial advantage or private financial gain," in
which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. The
indictment alleges Abrego Garcia transported undocumented people for
private financial gain, meaning he would be subject to a maximum of 10
years in prison if he is convicted as he is charged"
What's the Statute of Limitations on that?
How available and reliable
are witnesses three years later?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/polls.html
https://elections2024.thehill.com/national/harris-favorability-rating/
And despite your polls showing otherwise you lost bigtime.
In article <i55l4k14ce65ts08bn9hm61houl6qpve2e@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
So yes, a bunch of mean nasty "officials" could railroad somebody.
Since this is possible, what recourse, if any, should the citizen
accused of being here illegally have?
On Mon Jun 9 15:36:33 2025 Shadow wrote:though he hasn't been and will simply cop a plea and get 15 months
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 18:10:07 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Garcia is NOT a citizen and was brought back to answer crimnal charges of interstate transport of illegal aliens over a LONG period. There is no protection from those sorts of charges.
He worked in construction and drove his colleagues to work.
There is no mention if they were legal or not. If they were illegal,
it's strange the company that employed them was not fined.
He was fined once for driving with an expired license.
I really don't think driving with an expired license is more
serious than being a gang member(and possibly a drug
trafficker/murderer). That's reason they said he was sent to jail
without due process.
Yet they said they brought him back to try him for "more
serious crimes"(the expired driver's license).
Expired driver's license? Exactly why you left wind extremist claims? He was brought back to stand trial for interstate transportation of illegal aliens and every state line crossed between Texas and Tennesee he could be charged with the same crime
"For count one, conspiracy to transport aliens, the maximum penalty is a fine, imprisonment for not more than 10 years or both.years. The indictment alleges Abrego Garcia transported undocumented people for private financial gain, meaning he would be subject to a maximum of 10 years in prison if he is convicted as he is charged"
For count two, unlawful transportation of undocumented aliens, the maximum term of imprisonment is five years, unless the offense was committed for "commercial advantage or private financial gain," in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 17:23:08 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/polls.html
Your link says Fox "News" said Clinton would win by a
landslide. Do you even read the articles you post links to?
But that was almost half a year before the elections, so
within a reasonable margin of error. Look at the date.
https://elections2024.thehill.com/national/harris-favorability-rating/
And despite your polls showing otherwise you lost bigtime.
That article just says various polls predicted Trump would
win. They thought the American voter did not learn first time round.
And got it right.
READ the articles.
So yes, a bunch of mean nasty "officials" could railroad somebody.
On 6/12/2025 2:21 PM, AMuzi wrote:
The Directors represent shareholders interests.
Right. But they should not have their current level of power
to bend government for their shareholders interests.
Yet oh-so-independent-minded right wingers are fine with
this distortion of democratic ideals.
On 6/11/2025 8:35 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether you actually think that's a
Suppose you and a thousand fellow thinkers want your voice
heard on some
issue. You're not George Soros, you can't buy great
swaths of
advertising on your own. However one thousand and one of
you can pool
your resources and be much more likely to be heard than
one voice paying
its own way in the wilderness.
solution, or whether it's some weird tongue-in-cheek proposal.
How would any common citizen mount a campaign to gather
contributions from 1000 citizens? If attempted, it would
probably take weeeks of door to door work. What amount do
you suppose the average citizen would donate for an
advertising spot regarding any issue? Maybe $20 if they felt
passionately about it?
So hyper-optimistically, within two weeks such a campaign
might be able to spend $20,000 on an ad. That might buy one
30 second TV ad. Meanwhile, a large corporation with
opposing views could buy contrary ads running daily for a
month, paid for by their Pocket Change account.
In article <i55l4k14ce65ts08bn9hm61houl6qpve2e@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
So yes, a bunch of mean nasty "officials" could railroad somebody.
Since this is possible, what recourse, if any, should the citizen
accused of being here illegally have?
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 19:22:21 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <i55l4k14ce65ts08bn9hm61houl6qpve2e@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
So yes, a bunch of mean nasty "officials" could railroad somebody.
Since this is possible, what recourse, if any, should the citizen
accused of being here illegally have?
He can hope that his friends and family raise hell. That's worked for
wrongly arrested and convicted indviduals who have already been before
a judge and jury.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/12/2025 2:21 PM, AMuzi wrote:
The Directors represent shareholders interests.
Right. But they should not have their current level of power to bend >government for their shareholders interests.
Yet oh-so-independent-minded right wingers are fine with this distortion--
of democratic ideals.
On 6/12/2025 4:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 2:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 8:35 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether you actually think that's a
Suppose you and a thousand fellow thinkers want your
voice heard on some
issue. You're not George Soros, you can't buy great
swaths of
advertising on your own. However one thousand and one
of you can pool
your resources and be much more likely to be heard than
one voice paying
its own way in the wilderness.
solution, or whether it's some weird tongue-in-cheek
proposal.
How would any common citizen mount a campaign to gather
contributions from 1000 citizens? If attempted, it would
probably take weeeks of door to door work. What amount do
you suppose the average citizen would donate for an
advertising spot regarding any issue? Maybe $20 if they
felt passionately about it?
So hyper-optimistically, within two weeks such a campaign
might be able to spend $20,000 on an ad. That might buy
one 30 second TV ad. Meanwhile, a large corporation with
opposing views could buy contrary ads running daily for a
month, paid for by their Pocket Change account.
Yes, that's true but many and varied interest groups from
homeowners' associations to local PETA chapters to
farmers' coops do indeed mobilize support and advertise in
local elections regularly. For national elections, you're
right that the scale is different but the principle
remains the same.
Local elections generally do not attract attention from
billionaire individuals or corporations. They don't care
whether it's Mary or Sue who get elected to the library
board. So at that scale, the money spent is usually buying
slightly fancier pencils, engraved with the candidate's
name, to give away door to door. (My good friend and
councilman splurged by giving away actual pens.)
At a national scale, it's very different. No group of
private citizens can outspend Microsoft, Monsanto, Tesla and
the like. The billionaire entities can buy all the influence
they like. That's fundamentally wrong.
On 6/12/2025 6:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 2:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 8:35 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether you actually think that's
Suppose you and a thousand fellow thinkers want your
voice heard on some
issue. You're not George Soros, you can't buy great
swaths of
advertising on your own. However one thousand and one
of you can pool
your resources and be much more likely to be heard
than one voice paying
its own way in the wilderness.
a solution, or whether it's some weird tongue-in-cheek
proposal.
How would any common citizen mount a campaign to gather
contributions from 1000 citizens? If attempted, it
would probably take weeeks of door to door work. What
amount do you suppose the average citizen would donate
for an advertising spot regarding any issue? Maybe $20
if they felt passionately about it?
So hyper-optimistically, within two weeks such a
campaign might be able to spend $20,000 on an ad. That
might buy one 30 second TV ad. Meanwhile, a large
corporation with opposing views could buy contrary ads
running daily for a month, paid for by their Pocket
Change account.
Yes, that's true but many and varied interest groups
from homeowners' associations to local PETA chapters to
farmers' coops do indeed mobilize support and advertise
in local elections regularly. For national elections,
you're right that the scale is different but the
principle remains the same.
Local elections generally do not attract attention from
billionaire individuals or corporations. They don't care
whether it's Mary or Sue who get elected to the library
board. So at that scale, the money spent is usually
buying slightly fancier pencils, engraved with the
candidate's name, to give away door to door. (My good
friend and councilman splurged by giving away actual pens.)
At a national scale, it's very different. No group of
private citizens can outspend Microsoft, Monsanto, Tesla
and the like. The billionaire entities can buy all the
influence they like. That's fundamentally wrong.
A Certain Person's funding swept a bunch of local DA races
a few years ago and fundamentaly changed law enforcement
in our larger cities.
It sounds like you wish that hadn't happened. Maybe we're in
agreement?
On 6/12/2025 7:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 6:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 2:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 8:35 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether you actually think that's
Suppose you and a thousand fellow thinkers want your
voice heard on some
issue. You're not George Soros, you can't buy great
swaths of
advertising on your own. However one thousand and one
of you can pool
your resources and be much more likely to be heard
than one voice paying
its own way in the wilderness.
a solution, or whether it's some weird tongue-in-cheek
proposal.
How would any common citizen mount a campaign to gather
contributions from 1000 citizens? If attempted, it
would probably take weeeks of door to door work. What
amount do you suppose the average citizen would donate
for an advertising spot regarding any issue? Maybe $20
if they felt passionately about it?
So hyper-optimistically, within two weeks such a
campaign might be able to spend $20,000 on an ad. That
might buy one 30 second TV ad. Meanwhile, a large
corporation with opposing views could buy contrary ads
running daily for a month, paid for by their Pocket
Change account.
Yes, that's true but many and varied interest groups
from homeowners' associations to local PETA chapters to
farmers' coops do indeed mobilize support and advertise
in local elections regularly. For national elections,
you're right that the scale is different but the
principle remains the same.
Local elections generally do not attract attention from
billionaire individuals or corporations. They don't care
whether it's Mary or Sue who get elected to the library
board. So at that scale, the money spent is usually
buying slightly fancier pencils, engraved with the
candidate's name, to give away door to door. (My good
friend and councilman splurged by giving away actual pens.)
At a national scale, it's very different. No group of
private citizens can outspend Microsoft, Monsanto, Tesla
and the like. The billionaire entities can buy all the
influence they like. That's fundamentally wrong.
A Certain Person's funding swept a bunch of local DA races
a few years ago and fundamentaly changed law enforcement
in our larger cities.
It sounds like you wish that hadn't happened. Maybe we're in
agreement?
We may well be on that.
I mean, Larry Krasner, Kim Foxx and Chesa Boudin? Really??
On 6/12/2025 6:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 2:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 8:35 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether you actually think that's a solution,
Suppose you and a thousand fellow thinkers want your voice heard on >>>>>> some
issue. You're not George Soros, you can't buy great swaths of
advertising on your own. However one thousand and one of you can pool >>>>>> your resources and be much more likely to be heard than one voice
paying
its own way in the wilderness.
or whether it's some weird tongue-in-cheek proposal.
How would any common citizen mount a campaign to gather
contributions from 1000 citizens? If attempted, it would probably
take weeeks of door to door work. What amount do you suppose the
average citizen would donate for an advertising spot regarding any
issue? Maybe $20 if they felt passionately about it?
So hyper-optimistically, within two weeks such a campaign might be
able to spend $20,000 on an ad. That might buy one 30 second TV ad.
Meanwhile, a large corporation with opposing views could buy
contrary ads running daily for a month, paid for by their Pocket
Change account.
Yes, that's true but many and varied interest groups from homeowners'
associations to local PETA chapters to farmers' coops do indeed
mobilize support and advertise in local elections regularly. For
national elections, you're right that the scale is different but the
principle remains the same.
Local elections generally do not attract attention from billionaire
individuals or corporations. They don't care whether it's Mary or Sue
who get elected to the library board. So at that scale, the money
spent is usually buying slightly fancier pencils, engraved with the
candidate's name, to give away door to door. (My good friend and
councilman splurged by giving away actual pens.)
At a national scale, it's very different. No group of private citizens
can outspend Microsoft, Monsanto, Tesla and the like. The billionaire
entities can buy all the influence they like. That's fundamentally wrong. >>>
A Certain Person's funding swept a bunch of local DA races a few years
ago and fundamentaly changed law enforcement in our larger cities.
It sounds like you wish that hadn't happened. Maybe we're in agreement?
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 16:14:53 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Trump's tariffs are very short term as other countries are lining up to eliminate their tariffs so that they can get back into the game.
Nobody is diminishing tariffs. Brazil raised them. China
raised them. One or two American doormat countries are pretending to
lower them ....
Tariffs are just there for market manipulation. Insider
trading. And the AMERICAN. working class pays them. Mexicans don't pay
for your walls or for your tariffs. No matter what Trump says. He lies fluently. You would have to be VERY stupid to believe him.
China couldn't give a sht. The US is only 14% of its market.
And the US can't compete in other countries with China. China won the
trade war.
[]'s
On 6/12/2025 4:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 2:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 8:35 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether you actually think that's a
Suppose you and a thousand fellow thinkers want your
voice heard on some
issue. You're not George Soros, you can't buy great
swaths of
advertising on your own. However one thousand and one
of you can pool
your resources and be much more likely to be heard than
one voice paying
its own way in the wilderness.
solution, or whether it's some weird tongue-in-cheek
proposal.
How would any common citizen mount a campaign to gather
contributions from 1000 citizens? If attempted, it would
probably take weeeks of door to door work. What amount do
you suppose the average citizen would donate for an
advertising spot regarding any issue? Maybe $20 if they
felt passionately about it?
So hyper-optimistically, within two weeks such a campaign
might be able to spend $20,000 on an ad. That might buy
one 30 second TV ad. Meanwhile, a large corporation with
opposing views could buy contrary ads running daily for a
month, paid for by their Pocket Change account.
Yes, that's true but many and varied interest groups from
homeowners' associations to local PETA chapters to
farmers' coops do indeed mobilize support and advertise in
local elections regularly. For national elections, you're
right that the scale is different but the principle
remains the same.
Local elections generally do not attract attention from
billionaire individuals or corporations. They don't care
whether it's Mary or Sue who get elected to the library
board. So at that scale, the money spent is usually buying
slightly fancier pencils, engraved with the candidate's
name, to give away door to door. (My good friend and
councilman splurged by giving away actual pens.)
At a national scale, it's very different. No group of
private citizens can outspend Microsoft, Monsanto, Tesla and
the like. The billionaire entities can buy all the influence
they like. That's fundamentally wrong.
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 20:16:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/12/2025 7:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 6:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 2:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 8:35 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether you actually think that's
Suppose you and a thousand fellow thinkers want your
voice heard on some
issue. You're not George Soros, you can't buy great
swaths of
advertising on your own. However one thousand and one
of you can pool
your resources and be much more likely to be heard
than one voice paying
its own way in the wilderness.
a solution, or whether it's some weird tongue-in-cheek
proposal.
How would any common citizen mount a campaign to gather
contributions from 1000 citizens? If attempted, it
would probably take weeeks of door to door work. What
amount do you suppose the average citizen would donate
for an advertising spot regarding any issue? Maybe $20
if they felt passionately about it?
So hyper-optimistically, within two weeks such a
campaign might be able to spend $20,000 on an ad. That
might buy one 30 second TV ad. Meanwhile, a large
corporation with opposing views could buy contrary ads
running daily for a month, paid for by their Pocket
Change account.
Yes, that's true but many and varied interest groups
from homeowners' associations to local PETA chapters to
farmers' coops do indeed mobilize support and advertise
in local elections regularly. For national elections,
you're right that the scale is different but the
principle remains the same.
Local elections generally do not attract attention from
billionaire individuals or corporations. They don't care
whether it's Mary or Sue who get elected to the library
board. So at that scale, the money spent is usually
buying slightly fancier pencils, engraved with the
candidate's name, to give away door to door. (My good
friend and councilman splurged by giving away actual pens.)
At a national scale, it's very different. No group of
private citizens can outspend Microsoft, Monsanto, Tesla
and the like. The billionaire entities can buy all the
influence they like. That's fundamentally wrong.
A Certain Person's funding swept a bunch of local DA races
a few years ago and fundamentaly changed law enforcement
in our larger cities.
It sounds like you wish that hadn't happened. Maybe we're in
agreement?
We may well be on that.
I mean, Larry Krasner, Kim Foxx and Chesa Boudin? Really??
George Gascon, Alvin Bragg, Andrew Warren, Buta Biberaj..
https://www.policedefense.org/sorosmap/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 20:16:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/12/2025 7:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 6:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 2:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 8:35 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether you actually think that's
Suppose you and a thousand fellow thinkers want your
voice heard on some
issue. You're not George Soros, you can't buy great
swaths of
advertising on your own. However one thousand and one
of you can pool
your resources and be much more likely to be heard
than one voice paying
its own way in the wilderness.
a solution, or whether it's some weird tongue-in-cheek
proposal.
How would any common citizen mount a campaign to gather
contributions from 1000 citizens? If attempted, it
would probably take weeeks of door to door work. What
amount do you suppose the average citizen would donate
for an advertising spot regarding any issue? Maybe $20
if they felt passionately about it?
So hyper-optimistically, within two weeks such a
campaign might be able to spend $20,000 on an ad. That
might buy one 30 second TV ad. Meanwhile, a large
corporation with opposing views could buy contrary ads
running daily for a month, paid for by their Pocket
Change account.
Yes, that's true but many and varied interest groups
from homeowners' associations to local PETA chapters to
farmers' coops do indeed mobilize support and advertise
in local elections regularly. For national elections,
you're right that the scale is different but the
principle remains the same.
Local elections generally do not attract attention from
billionaire individuals or corporations. They don't care
whether it's Mary or Sue who get elected to the library
board. So at that scale, the money spent is usually
buying slightly fancier pencils, engraved with the
candidate's name, to give away door to door. (My good
friend and councilman splurged by giving away actual pens.)
At a national scale, it's very different. No group of
private citizens can outspend Microsoft, Monsanto, Tesla
and the like. The billionaire entities can buy all the
influence they like. That's fundamentally wrong.
A Certain Person's funding swept a bunch of local DA races
a few years ago and fundamentaly changed law enforcement
in our larger cities.
It sounds like you wish that hadn't happened. Maybe we're in
agreement?
We may well be on that.
I mean, Larry Krasner, Kim Foxx and Chesa Boudin? Really??
George Gascon, Alvin Bragg, Andrew Warren, Buta Biberaj..
https://www.policedefense.org/sorosmap/
On 6/13/2025 3:08 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 20:16:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/12/2025 7:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 6:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 2:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 8:35 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether you actually think that's
Suppose you and a thousand fellow thinkers want your
voice heard on some
issue. You're not George Soros, you can't buy great
swaths of
advertising on your own. However one thousand and one
of you can pool
your resources and be much more likely to be heard
than one voice paying
its own way in the wilderness.
a solution, or whether it's some weird tongue-in-cheek
proposal.
How would any common citizen mount a campaign to gather
contributions from 1000 citizens? If attempted, it
would probably take weeeks of door to door work. What
amount do you suppose the average citizen would donate
for an advertising spot regarding any issue? Maybe $20
if they felt passionately about it?
So hyper-optimistically, within two weeks such a
campaign might be able to spend $20,000 on an ad. That
might buy one 30 second TV ad. Meanwhile, a large
corporation with opposing views could buy contrary ads
running daily for a month, paid for by their Pocket
Change account.
Yes, that's true but many and varied interest groups
from homeowners' associations to local PETA chapters to
farmers' coops do indeed mobilize support and advertise
in local elections regularly. For national elections,
you're right that the scale is different but the
principle remains the same.
Local elections generally do not attract attention from
billionaire individuals or corporations. They don't care
whether it's Mary or Sue who get elected to the library
board. So at that scale, the money spent is usually
buying slightly fancier pencils, engraved with the
candidate's name, to give away door to door. (My good
friend and councilman splurged by giving away actual pens.)
At a national scale, it's very different. No group of
private citizens can outspend Microsoft, Monsanto, Tesla
and the like. The billionaire entities can buy all the
influence they like. That's fundamentally wrong.
A Certain Person's funding swept a bunch of local DA races
a few years ago and fundamentaly changed law enforcement
in our larger cities.
It sounds like you wish that hadn't happened. Maybe we're in
agreement?
We may well be on that.
I mean, Larry Krasner, Kim Foxx and Chesa Boudin? Really??
George Gascon, Alvin Bragg, Andrew Warren, Buta Biberaj..
https://www.policedefense.org/sorosmap/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Besides which, Mr Zuckerberg installed his own staff in
Brown County WI (Green Bay) to manage election results,
since the famously corrupt Milwaukee County had posted
literally unbelievable results in 2016 (and before, and
since) to give the Wisconsin results the crucial 'bump'.
https://thefga.org/research/the-wisconsin-zuckerbucks-problem/
https://www.westernjournal.com/wisconsin-election-official-says-zuckerberg-funded-group-seized-control-2020-election/
Am 13.06.2025 um 10:08 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 20:16:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/12/2025 7:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 6:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 2:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 8:35 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether you actually think that's
Suppose you and a thousand fellow thinkers want your
voice heard on some
issue. You're not George Soros, you can't buy great
swaths of
advertising on your own. However one thousand and one
of you can pool
your resources and be much more likely to be heard
than one voice paying
its own way in the wilderness.
a solution, or whether it's some weird tongue-in-cheek
proposal.
How would any common citizen mount a campaign to gather
contributions from 1000 citizens? If attempted, it
would probably take weeeks of door to door work. What
amount do you suppose the average citizen would donate
for an advertising spot regarding any issue? Maybe $20
if they felt passionately about it?
So hyper-optimistically, within two weeks such a
campaign might be able to spend $20,000 on an ad. That
might buy one 30 second TV ad. Meanwhile, a large
corporation with opposing views could buy contrary ads
running daily for a month, paid for by their Pocket
Change account.
Yes, that's true but many and varied interest groups
from homeowners' associations to local PETA chapters to
farmers' coops do indeed mobilize support and advertise
in local elections regularly. For national elections,
you're right that the scale is different but the
principle remains the same.
Local elections generally do not attract attention from
billionaire individuals or corporations. They don't care
whether it's Mary or Sue who get elected to the library
board. So at that scale, the money spent is usually
buying slightly fancier pencils, engraved with the
candidate's name, to give away door to door. (My good
friend and councilman splurged by giving away actual pens.)
At a national scale, it's very different. No group of
private citizens can outspend Microsoft, Monsanto, Tesla
and the like. The billionaire entities can buy all the
influence they like. That's fundamentally wrong.
A Certain Person's funding swept a bunch of local DA races
a few years ago and fundamentaly changed law enforcement
in our larger cities.
It sounds like you wish that hadn't happened. Maybe we're in
agreement?
We may well be on that.
I mean, Larry Krasner, Kim Foxx and Chesa Boudin? Really??
George Gascon, Alvin Bragg, Andrew Warren, Buta Biberaj..
https://www.policedefense.org/sorosmap/
50 million? Blimey, that's nothing compared to Elon's spending.
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 08:08:34 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 3:08 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 20:16:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/12/2025 7:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 6:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 2:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 8:35 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether you actually think that's
Suppose you and a thousand fellow thinkers want your
voice heard on some
issue. You're not George Soros, you can't buy great
swaths of
advertising on your own. However one thousand and one
of you can pool
your resources and be much more likely to be heard
than one voice paying
its own way in the wilderness.
a solution, or whether it's some weird tongue-in-cheek
proposal.
How would any common citizen mount a campaign to gather
contributions from 1000 citizens? If attempted, it
would probably take weeeks of door to door work. What
amount do you suppose the average citizen would donate
for an advertising spot regarding any issue? Maybe $20
if they felt passionately about it?
So hyper-optimistically, within two weeks such a
campaign might be able to spend $20,000 on an ad. That
might buy one 30 second TV ad. Meanwhile, a large
corporation with opposing views could buy contrary ads
running daily for a month, paid for by their Pocket
Change account.
Yes, that's true but many and varied interest groups
from homeowners' associations to local PETA chapters to
farmers' coops do indeed mobilize support and advertise
in local elections regularly. For national elections,
you're right that the scale is different but the
principle remains the same.
Local elections generally do not attract attention from
billionaire individuals or corporations. They don't care
whether it's Mary or Sue who get elected to the library
board. So at that scale, the money spent is usually
buying slightly fancier pencils, engraved with the
candidate's name, to give away door to door. (My good
friend and councilman splurged by giving away actual pens.)
At a national scale, it's very different. No group of
private citizens can outspend Microsoft, Monsanto, Tesla
and the like. The billionaire entities can buy all the
influence they like. That's fundamentally wrong.
A Certain Person's funding swept a bunch of local DA races
a few years ago and fundamentaly changed law enforcement
in our larger cities.
It sounds like you wish that hadn't happened. Maybe we're in
agreement?
We may well be on that.
I mean, Larry Krasner, Kim Foxx and Chesa Boudin? Really??
George Gascon, Alvin Bragg, Andrew Warren, Buta Biberaj..
https://www.policedefense.org/sorosmap/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Besides which, Mr Zuckerberg installed his own staff in
Brown County WI (Green Bay) to manage election results,
since the famously corrupt Milwaukee County had posted
literally unbelievable results in 2016 (and before, and
since) to give the Wisconsin results the crucial 'bump'.
https://thefga.org/research/the-wisconsin-zuckerbucks-problem/
https://www.westernjournal.com/wisconsin-election-official-says-zuckerberg-funded-group-seized-control-2020-election/
Hopes for a "government of the people, by the people, for the people," continues to fade.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Am 13.06.2025 um 10:08 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 20:16:01 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/12/2025 7:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 6:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 2:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 8:35 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether you actually think that's
Suppose you and a thousand fellow thinkers want your
voice heard on some
issue. You're not George Soros, you can't buy great
swaths of
advertising on your own. However one thousand and one
of you can pool
your resources and be much more likely to be heard
than one voice paying
its own way in the wilderness.
a solution, or whether it's some weird tongue-in-cheek
proposal.
How would any common citizen mount a campaign to gather
contributions from 1000 citizens? If attempted, it
would probably take weeeks of door to door work. What
amount do you suppose the average citizen would donate
for an advertising spot regarding any issue? Maybe $20
if they felt passionately about it?
So hyper-optimistically, within two weeks such a
campaign might be able to spend $20,000 on an ad. That
might buy one 30 second TV ad. Meanwhile, a large
corporation with opposing views could buy contrary ads
running daily for a month, paid for by their Pocket
Change account.
Yes, that's true but many and varied interest groups
from homeowners' associations to local PETA chapters to
farmers' coops do indeed mobilize support and advertise
in local elections regularly. For national elections,
you're right that the scale is different but the
principle remains the same.
Local elections generally do not attract attention from
billionaire individuals or corporations. They don't care
whether it's Mary or Sue who get elected to the library
board. So at that scale, the money spent is usually
buying slightly fancier pencils, engraved with the
candidate's name, to give away door to door. (My good
friend and councilman splurged by giving away actual
pens.)
At a national scale, it's very different. No group of
private citizens can outspend Microsoft, Monsanto, Tesla
and the like. The billionaire entities can buy all the
influence they like. That's fundamentally wrong.
A Certain Person's funding swept a bunch of local DA races
a few years ago and fundamentaly changed law enforcement
in our larger cities.
It sounds like you wish that hadn't happened. Maybe
we're in
agreement?
We may well be on that.
I mean, Larry Krasner, Kim Foxx and Chesa Boudin? Really??
George Gascon, Alvin Bragg, Andrew Warren, Buta Biberaj..
https://www.policedefense.org/sorosmap/
50 million? Blimey, that's nothing compared to Elon's
spending.
On 6/13/2025 8:46 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 13.06.2025 um 10:08 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 20:16:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/12/2025 7:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 6:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 2:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 8:35 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether you actually think that's
Suppose you and a thousand fellow thinkers want your
voice heard on some
issue. You're not George Soros, you can't buy great
swaths of
advertising on your own. However one thousand and one
of you can pool
your resources and be much more likely to be heard
than one voice paying
its own way in the wilderness.
a solution, or whether it's some weird tongue-in-cheek
proposal.
How would any common citizen mount a campaign to gather
contributions from 1000 citizens? If attempted, it
would probably take weeeks of door to door work. What
amount do you suppose the average citizen would donate
for an advertising spot regarding any issue? Maybe $20
if they felt passionately about it?
So hyper-optimistically, within two weeks such a
campaign might be able to spend $20,000 on an ad. That
might buy one 30 second TV ad. Meanwhile, a large
corporation with opposing views could buy contrary ads
running daily for a month, paid for by their Pocket
Change account.
Yes, that's true but many and varied interest groups
from homeowners' associations to local PETA chapters to
farmers' coops do indeed mobilize support and advertise
in local elections regularly. For national elections,
you're right that the scale is different but the
principle remains the same.
Local elections generally do not attract attention from
billionaire individuals or corporations. They don't care
whether it's Mary or Sue who get elected to the library
board. So at that scale, the money spent is usually
buying slightly fancier pencils, engraved with the
candidate's name, to give away door to door. (My good
friend and councilman splurged by giving away actual pens.)
At a national scale, it's very different. No group of
private citizens can outspend Microsoft, Monsanto, Tesla
and the like. The billionaire entities can buy all the
influence they like. That's fundamentally wrong.
A Certain Person's funding swept a bunch of local DA races
a few years ago and fundamentaly changed law enforcement
in our larger cities.
It sounds like you wish that hadn't happened. Maybe we're in
agreement?
We may well be on that.
I mean, Larry Krasner, Kim Foxx and Chesa Boudin? Really??
George Gascon, Alvin Bragg, Andrew Warren, Buta Biberaj..
https://www.policedefense.org/sorosmap/
50 million? Blimey, that's nothing compared to Elon's spending.
But exceedingly effective.
Smart guy, much though I dislike his positions.
And how did he make his money? By breaking the Bank of England. No
small feat.
On 6/13/2025 8:45 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 08:08:34 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 3:08 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 20:16:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>
On 6/12/2025 7:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 6:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 2:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 8:35 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether you actually think that's
Suppose you and a thousand fellow thinkers want your
voice heard on some
issue. You're not George Soros, you can't buy great
swaths of
advertising on your own. However one thousand and one
of you can pool
your resources and be much more likely to be heard
than one voice paying
its own way in the wilderness.
a solution, or whether it's some weird tongue-in-cheek
proposal.
How would any common citizen mount a campaign to gather
contributions from 1000 citizens? If attempted, it
would probably take weeeks of door to door work. What
amount do you suppose the average citizen would donate
for an advertising spot regarding any issue? Maybe $20
if they felt passionately about it?
So hyper-optimistically, within two weeks such a
campaign might be able to spend $20,000 on an ad. That
might buy one 30 second TV ad. Meanwhile, a large
corporation with opposing views could buy contrary ads
running daily for a month, paid for by their Pocket
Change account.
Yes, that's true but many and varied interest groups
from homeowners' associations to local PETA chapters to
farmers' coops do indeed mobilize support and advertise
in local elections regularly. For national elections,
you're right that the scale is different but the
principle remains the same.
Local elections generally do not attract attention from
billionaire individuals or corporations. They don't care
whether it's Mary or Sue who get elected to the library
board. So at that scale, the money spent is usually
buying slightly fancier pencils, engraved with the
candidate's name, to give away door to door. (My good
friend and councilman splurged by giving away actual pens.)
At a national scale, it's very different. No group of
private citizens can outspend Microsoft, Monsanto, Tesla
and the like. The billionaire entities can buy all the
influence they like. That's fundamentally wrong.
A Certain Person's funding swept a bunch of local DA races
a few years ago and fundamentaly changed law enforcement
in our larger cities.
It sounds like you wish that hadn't happened. Maybe we're in
agreement?
We may well be on that.
I mean, Larry Krasner, Kim Foxx and Chesa Boudin? Really??
George Gascon, Alvin Bragg, Andrew Warren, Buta Biberaj..
https://www.policedefense.org/sorosmap/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Besides which, Mr Zuckerberg installed his own staff in
Brown County WI (Green Bay) to manage election results,
since the famously corrupt Milwaukee County had posted
literally unbelievable results in 2016 (and before, and
since) to give the Wisconsin results the crucial 'bump'.
https://thefga.org/research/the-wisconsin-zuckerbucks-problem/
https://www.westernjournal.com/wisconsin-election-official-says-
zuckerberg-funded-group-seized-control-2020-election/
Hopes for a "government of the people, by the people, for the people,"
continues to fade.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
As Winston Churchill did not actually assess it:
https://tinyurl.com/y2n86esy
On 6/13/2025 10:03 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:46 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 13.06.2025 um 10:08 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 20:16:01 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/12/2025 7:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 6:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 2:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 8:35 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether you actually think
Suppose you and a thousand fellow thinkers want your
voice heard on some
issue. You're not George Soros, you can't buy great
swaths of
advertising on your own. However one thousand
and one
of you can pool
your resources and be much more likely to be heard
than one voice paying
its own way in the wilderness.
that's
a solution, or whether it's some weird tongue-in-
cheek
proposal.
How would any common citizen mount a campaign to
gather
contributions from 1000 citizens? If attempted, it
would probably take weeeks of door to door work. What
amount do you suppose the average citizen would
donate
for an advertising spot regarding any issue? Maybe
$20
if they felt passionately about it?
So hyper-optimistically, within two weeks such a
campaign might be able to spend $20,000 on an ad.
That
might buy one 30 second TV ad. Meanwhile, a large
corporation with opposing views could buy contrary
ads
running daily for a month, paid for by their Pocket
Change account.
Yes, that's true but many and varied interest groups
from homeowners' associations to local PETA
chapters to
farmers' coops do indeed mobilize support and
advertise
in local elections regularly. For national elections,
you're right that the scale is different but the
principle remains the same.
Local elections generally do not attract attention from
billionaire individuals or corporations. They don't
care
whether it's Mary or Sue who get elected to the library
board. So at that scale, the money spent is usually
buying slightly fancier pencils, engraved with the
candidate's name, to give away door to door. (My good
friend and councilman splurged by giving away actual
pens.)
At a national scale, it's very different. No group of
private citizens can outspend Microsoft, Monsanto,
Tesla
and the like. The billionaire entities can buy all the
influence they like. That's fundamentally wrong.
A Certain Person's funding swept a bunch of local DA
races
a few years ago and fundamentaly changed law enforcement
in our larger cities.
It sounds like you wish that hadn't happened. Maybe
we're in
agreement?
We may well be on that.
I mean, Larry Krasner, Kim Foxx and Chesa Boudin?
Really??
George Gascon, Alvin Bragg, Andrew Warren, Buta Biberaj..
https://www.policedefense.org/sorosmap/
50 million? Blimey, that's nothing compared to Elon's
spending.
But exceedingly effective.
Smart guy, much though I dislike his positions.
And how did he make his money? By breaking the Bank of
England. No small feat.
Soros was wealthy before that - he made _more_ money from
the hedge fund, but that wasn't 'how he made his money'. He
had enough money to leverage a $1B position against the pound.
Besides that, if he was dumping money into conservative
causes the magatards would be singing his praises for
financial genius in manipulating monetary markets, much like
they shower trump with praises for manipulating bankruptcy
law 6 times.
On 6/13/2025 10:02 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:45 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 08:08:34 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 3:08 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 20:16:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>
On 6/12/2025 7:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 6:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 2:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 8:35 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether you actually think that's
Suppose you and a thousand fellow thinkers want your
voice heard on some
issue. You're not George Soros, you can't buy great
swaths of
advertising on your own. However one thousand and one >>>>>>>>>>>> of you can pool
your resources and be much more likely to be heard
than one voice paying
its own way in the wilderness.
a solution, or whether it's some weird tongue-in-cheek
proposal.
How would any common citizen mount a campaign to gather
contributions from 1000 citizens? If attempted, it
would probably take weeeks of door to door work. What
amount do you suppose the average citizen would donate
for an advertising spot regarding any issue? Maybe $20
if they felt passionately about it?
So hyper-optimistically, within two weeks such a
campaign might be able to spend $20,000 on an ad. That
might buy one 30 second TV ad. Meanwhile, a large
corporation with opposing views could buy contrary ads
running daily for a month, paid for by their Pocket
Change account.
Yes, that's true but many and varied interest groups
from homeowners' associations to local PETA chapters to
farmers' coops do indeed mobilize support and advertise
in local elections regularly. For national elections,
you're right that the scale is different but the
principle remains the same.
Local elections generally do not attract attention from
billionaire individuals or corporations. They don't care
whether it's Mary or Sue who get elected to the library
board. So at that scale, the money spent is usually
buying slightly fancier pencils, engraved with the
candidate's name, to give away door to door. (My good
friend and councilman splurged by giving away actual pens.)
At a national scale, it's very different. No group of
private citizens can outspend Microsoft, Monsanto, Tesla
and the like. The billionaire entities can buy all the
influence they like. That's fundamentally wrong.
A Certain Person's funding swept a bunch of local DA races
a few years ago and fundamentaly changed law enforcement
in our larger cities.
It sounds like you wish that hadn't happened. Maybe we're in
agreement?
We may well be on that.
I mean, Larry Krasner, Kim Foxx and Chesa Boudin? Really??
George Gascon, Alvin Bragg, Andrew Warren, Buta Biberaj..
https://www.policedefense.org/sorosmap/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Besides which, Mr Zuckerberg installed his own staff in
Brown County WI (Green Bay) to manage election results,
since the famously corrupt Milwaukee County had posted
literally unbelievable results in 2016 (and before, and
since) to give the Wisconsin results the crucial 'bump'.
https://thefga.org/research/the-wisconsin-zuckerbucks-problem/
https://www.westernjournal.com/wisconsin-election-official-says-
zuckerberg-funded-group-seized-control-2020-election/
Hopes for a "government of the people, by the people, for the people,"
continues to fade.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
As Winston Churchill did not actually assess it:
https://tinyurl.com/y2n86esy
And despite all the pearl clutching about democratic money influence (as
if there wasn't any republican money doing the same thing for their side >https://www.axios.com/2025/06/05/musk-trump-feud-2024-election-contributions), >no one has been able to do anything more than come up with incredible >allegations of election fraud.
On 6/13/2025 10:03 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:46 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 13.06.2025 um 10:08 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 20:16:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>
On 6/12/2025 7:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 6:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 2:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 8:35 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether you actually think that's
Suppose you and a thousand fellow thinkers want your
voice heard on some
issue. You're not George Soros, you can't buy great
swaths of
advertising on your own. However one thousand and one
of you can pool
your resources and be much more likely to be heard
than one voice paying
its own way in the wilderness.
a solution, or whether it's some weird tongue-in-cheek
proposal.
How would any common citizen mount a campaign to gather
contributions from 1000 citizens? If attempted, it
would probably take weeeks of door to door work. What
amount do you suppose the average citizen would donate
for an advertising spot regarding any issue? Maybe $20
if they felt passionately about it?
So hyper-optimistically, within two weeks such a
campaign might be able to spend $20,000 on an ad. That
might buy one 30 second TV ad. Meanwhile, a large
corporation with opposing views could buy contrary ads
running daily for a month, paid for by their Pocket
Change account.
Yes, that's true but many and varied interest groups
from homeowners' associations to local PETA chapters to
farmers' coops do indeed mobilize support and advertise
in local elections regularly. For national elections,
you're right that the scale is different but the
principle remains the same.
Local elections generally do not attract attention from
billionaire individuals or corporations. They don't care
whether it's Mary or Sue who get elected to the library
board. So at that scale, the money spent is usually
buying slightly fancier pencils, engraved with the
candidate's name, to give away door to door. (My good
friend and councilman splurged by giving away actual pens.)
At a national scale, it's very different. No group of
private citizens can outspend Microsoft, Monsanto, Tesla
and the like. The billionaire entities can buy all the
influence they like. That's fundamentally wrong.
A Certain Person's funding swept a bunch of local DA races
a few years ago and fundamentaly changed law enforcement
in our larger cities.
It sounds like you wish that hadn't happened. Maybe we're in
agreement?
We may well be on that.
I mean, Larry Krasner, Kim Foxx and Chesa Boudin? Really??
George Gascon, Alvin Bragg, Andrew Warren, Buta Biberaj..
https://www.policedefense.org/sorosmap/
50 million? Blimey, that's nothing compared to Elon's spending.
But exceedingly effective.
Smart guy, much though I dislike his positions.
And how did he make his money? By breaking the Bank of England. No
small feat.
Soros was wealthy before that - he made _more_ money from the hedge
fund, but that wasn't 'how he made his money'. He had enough money to >leverage a $1B position against the pound.
Besides that, if he was dumping money into conservative causes the
magatards would be singing his praises for financial genius in
manipulating monetary markets, much like they shower trump with praises
for manipulating bankruptcy law 6 times.
Besides which, Mr Zuckerberg installed his own staff in
Brown County WI (Green Bay) to manage election results,
since the famously corrupt Milwaukee County had posted
literally unbelievable results in 2016 (and before, and
since) to give the Wisconsin results the crucial 'bump'.
https://thefga.org/research/the-wisconsin-zuckerbucks-problem/
https://www.westernjournal.com/wisconsin-election-official-says-zuckerberg-funded-group-seized-control-2020-election/
I mean, Larry Krasner, Kim Foxx and Chesa Boudin? Really??
George Gascon, Alvin Bragg, Andrew Warren, Buta Biberaj..
https://www.policedefense.org/sorosmap/
50 million? Blimey, that's nothing compared to Elon's spending.
On 6/13/2025 10:02 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:45 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 08:08:34 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 3:08 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 20:16:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>
On 6/12/2025 7:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 6:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2025 2:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2025 8:35 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I'm trying to decide whether you actually think that's
Suppose you and a thousand fellow thinkers want your
voice heard on some
issue. You're not George Soros, you can't buy great
swaths of
advertising on your own. However one thousand and one >>>>>>>>>>>> of you can pool
your resources and be much more likely to be heard
than one voice paying
its own way in the wilderness.
a solution, or whether it's some weird tongue-in-cheek
proposal.
How would any common citizen mount a campaign to gather
contributions from 1000 citizens? If attempted, it
would probably take weeeks of door to door work. What
amount do you suppose the average citizen would donate
for an advertising spot regarding any issue? Maybe $20
if they felt passionately about it?
So hyper-optimistically, within two weeks such a
campaign might be able to spend $20,000 on an ad. That
might buy one 30 second TV ad. Meanwhile, a large
corporation with opposing views could buy contrary ads
running daily for a month, paid for by their Pocket
Change account.
Yes, that's true but many and varied interest groups
from homeowners' associations to local PETA chapters to
farmers' coops do indeed mobilize support and advertise
in local elections regularly. For national elections,
you're right that the scale is different but the
principle remains the same.
Local elections generally do not attract attention from
billionaire individuals or corporations. They don't care
whether it's Mary or Sue who get elected to the library
board. So at that scale, the money spent is usually
buying slightly fancier pencils, engraved with the
candidate's name, to give away door to door. (My good
friend and councilman splurged by giving away actual pens.)
At a national scale, it's very different. No group of
private citizens can outspend Microsoft, Monsanto, Tesla
and the like. The billionaire entities can buy all the
influence they like. That's fundamentally wrong.
A Certain Person's funding swept a bunch of local DA races
a few years ago and fundamentaly changed law enforcement
in our larger cities.
It sounds like you wish that hadn't happened. Maybe we're in
agreement?
We may well be on that.
I mean, Larry Krasner, Kim Foxx and Chesa Boudin? Really??
George Gascon, Alvin Bragg, Andrew Warren, Buta Biberaj..
https://www.policedefense.org/sorosmap/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Besides which, Mr Zuckerberg installed his own staff in
Brown County WI (Green Bay) to manage election results,
since the famously corrupt Milwaukee County had posted
literally unbelievable results in 2016 (and before, and
since) to give the Wisconsin results the crucial 'bump'.
https://thefga.org/research/the-wisconsin-zuckerbucks-problem/
https://www.westernjournal.com/wisconsin-election-official-says-
zuckerberg-funded-group-seized-control-2020-election/
Hopes for a "government of the people, by the people, for the people,"
continues to fade.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
As Winston Churchill did not actually assess it:
https://tinyurl.com/y2n86esy
And despite all the pearl clutching about democratic money influence (as
if there wasn't any republican money doing the same thing for their side >https://www.axios.com/2025/06/05/musk-trump-feud-2024-election-contributions), >no one has been able to do anything more than come up with incredible >allegations of election fraud.
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 15:46:32 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
The usual far-right characters wrote:
I mean, Larry Krasner, Kim Foxx and Chesa Boudin? Really??
George Gascon, Alvin Bragg, Andrew Warren, Buta Biberaj..
https://www.policedefense.org/sorosmap/
50 million? Blimey, that's nothing compared to Elon's spending.
Worse, all those "traitors" want big-time criminals behind
bars. They say there are enough poor people in jail for being
homeless, unemployed or "loitering".
They imply policemen that murder civilians should be held
accountable.
Crazy, huh?
Not Musk! He wants a Presidential pardon for every single
billionaire that evaded paying tax. Plus more hand-outs.
[]'s
On 6/13/2025 1:20 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 15:46:32 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
The usual far-right characters wrote:
I mean, Larry Krasner, Kim Foxx and Chesa Boudin? Really??
George Gascon, Alvin Bragg, Andrew Warren, Buta Biberaj..
https://www.policedefense.org/sorosmap/
50 million? Blimey, that's nothing compared to Elon's spending.
Worse, all those "traitors" want big-time criminals behind
bars. They say there are enough poor people in jail for being
homeless, unemployed or "loitering".
They imply policemen that murder civilians should be held
accountable.
Crazy, huh?
Not Musk! He wants a Presidential pardon for every single
billionaire that evaded paying tax. Plus more hand-outs.
[]'s
This is Trumps pardon list since January 20. Plenty of fellow grifters
and fraudsters.
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clemency-grants-president-donald-j-trump-2025-present
He can hope that his friends and family raise hell.
On 6/13/2025 3:08 PM, Shadow wrote:
I wonder what the right wingers think of the Trump
pardons....
I wonder as well. But then again, they elected a felon.
On 6/13/2025 3:08 PM, Shadow wrote:
I wonder what the right wingers think of the Trump pardons....
I wonder as well. But then again, they elected a felon.
On 6/13/2025 8:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 3:08 PM, Shadow wrote:
I wonder what the right wingers think of the Trump
pardons....
I wonder as well. But then again, they elected a felon.
After Marc Rich I pretty much ignored Presidential pardons.
The occasional act of mercy is inspiring. They're rare.
https://www.npr.org/2025/02/25/nx-s1-5307330/trump-pardon-czar-who-is-alice-marie-johnson
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:44:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 3:08 PM, Shadow wrote:
I wonder what the right wingers think of the Trump pardons....
I wonder as well. But then again, they elected a felon.
Over an alcoholic and a wuss.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/14/2025 9:12 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/14/2025 3:45 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:44:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 3:08 PM, Shadow wrote:
I wonder what the right wingers think of the Trump pardons....
I wonder as well. But then again, they elected a felon.
Over an alcoholic and a wuss.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Indeed as I've noted here on RBT for the last six Presidential
elections, the decision is not to find a re[placement for Mother
Theresa. It's to choose between two specific persons.
Or, 'the cleanest dirty shirt in the pile'.
As usual, I pay attention to inconsistencies in attitudes evidenced here
and elsewhere. In this case, complaints about crimes committed by felons
who have been released after serving their sentences; or crimes by
arrestees who have been released on bail; or crimes by perps released on >probation. The theme often seems to be "Law and order! Lock them all up
and throw away the key."
In fact, in many states felons are not allowed to vote. In some they
can't hold local or state offices. But the "Law and Order!" crew is OK
with a felon as president.
Why? I suppose because "He was wrongly convicted." Just like almost
every other perp spending time in prison - just ask them.
On 6/14/2025 12:02 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 11:09:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/14/2025 9:12 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/14/2025 3:45 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:44:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 3:08 PM, Shadow wrote:
I wonder as well. But then again, they elected a felon.
I wonder what the right wingers think of the Trump pardons.... >>>>>>
Over an alcoholic and a wuss.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Indeed as I've noted here on RBT for the last six Presidential
elections, the decision is not to find a re[placement for Mother
Theresa. It's to choose between two specific persons.
Or, 'the cleanest dirty shirt in the pile'.
As usual, I pay attention to inconsistencies in attitudes evidenced here >>> and elsewhere. In this case, complaints about crimes committed by felons >>> who have been released after serving their sentences; or crimes by
arrestees who have been released on bail; or crimes by perps released on >>> probation. The theme often seems to be "Law and order! Lock them all up
and throw away the key."
In fact, in many states felons are not allowed to vote. In some they
can't hold local or state offices. But the "Law and Order!" crew is OK
with a felon as president.
Why? I suppose because "He was wrongly convicted." Just like almost
every other perp spending time in prison - just ask them.
In my opinion, Trump's "conviction" was a sham.
Of _course_ you believe that. He could afford the best lawyers in the
world. He still lost. But since you worship him and his MAGA machinery,
you reject the rule of law.
On 6/13/2025 8:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 3:08 PM, Shadow wrote:
I wonder what the right wingers think of the Trump
pardons....
I wonder as well. But then again, they elected a felon.
After Marc Rich I pretty much ignored Presidential pardons.
The occasional act of mercy is inspiring. They're rare.
https://www.npr.org/2025/02/25/nx-s1-5307330/trump-pardon-czar-who-is-alice-marie-johnson
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:44:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 3:08 PM, Shadow wrote:
I wonder what the right wingers think of the Trump pardons....
I wonder as well. But then again, they elected a felon.
Over an alcoholic and a wuss.
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 20:54:54 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 3:08 PM, Shadow wrote:
I wonder what the right wingers think of the Trump
pardons....
I wonder as well. But then again, they elected a felon.
After Marc Rich I pretty much ignored Presidential pardons.
AI found no connections to a " Marc Rich" when I specified
"sex crimes, murder or drug trafficking".
I asked for an example of someone with a similar profile, and
it said "Elon Musk".
What did you see that the AI didn't?
The occasional act of mercy is inspiring. They're rare.
https://www.npr.org/2025/02/25/nx-s1-5307330/trump-pardon-czar-who-is-alice-marie-johnson
//Trump praised Johnson, who had her sentence commuted and was later
pardoned during his first term, as "an inspiration to people."//
He praised her? She was convicted of wholesale heavy drugs
trafficking.
Probably praised her because she made money out of it.
He didn't pardon ANYONE convicted of being in possession of
small amounts of drugs for personal use. Some of them were convicted
to 20 years too.
[]'s
In article <mtam4k5354e5a2d93pgg9h1qcchlo3aikf@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
He can hope that his friends and family raise hell.
I'm not going to deny that he can do that, but as a wrongly accused
citizen, the Constitution does spell out a particular potential
remedy...
Most political opinions are subjective. That you reject Trump's
conviction as a sham is your subjective opinion.
The SCOTUS says the non-citizen is entitled to very limited due
process which does not include a hearing.
There is NO Federal statute of limitations on human trafficking and I believe that was introduced by Bill
Clinton.
You must be really bad at being able to tell illegals from citizens.
On Mon Jun 9 08:39:07 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 21:19:57 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 23:23:47 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
And once again "cyclintom" inserts illegal code in his message.
Eternal-September removed the content.
He said
"California DMV may very well issue driver's licences to illegals as
Real_ID and that is pretty sure. Probably 1/4th of the workers at the
DMV are already illegals."
To which I replied:
" LOL !!!
I love it. Keep it up!
When was the last time that you applied for a license at the California DMV? Half of the people at the DMV's are hispanics
and half of them don't speak English!
DMV doesn't hire translators, they simply hire illegal employees.
"LOL" because you know not what you speak of.
I described my experience with the Democrats beinging in 50 or so illegals to vote
In article <amar4kdn8j91or0igmg2lclmm4qpmn4l64@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Most political opinions are subjective. That you reject Trump's
conviction as a sham is your subjective opinion.
Unlike your subjective opinion, however, his is backed up by a judge and >jury. And notably it was a jury that was vetted by Trump's defense team.
In article <ejjr4kl3522n27ahahj9lh01mp5r9rlbem@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
The SCOTUS says the non-citizen is entitled to very limited due
process which does not include a hearing.
This entire subthread is about an accused citizen, though, not an
accused non-citizen.
An accused citizen has no problem getting a hearing.
I described my experience with the Democrats beinging in 50 or so illegals to vote for Obama in his second election
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or undocumented alien.
In article <0isr4k1bjml9iqtih4jake56f751tik7aj@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
An accused citizen has no problem getting a hearing.
And a citizen accused of being a non-citizen has no problem getting a >hearing?
On 6/14/2025 4:50 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jun 8 11:11:34 2025 Catrike Ryder wrote:
I doubt anyone else on RBT hates me as much as you and Junior, but if
they do, se la vie. I've got big shoulders.
Not liking phonies is not "being obsessed". You don't have "big shoulders", you are a physical and psychological shrimp.
:-)
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 00:07:13 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or undocumented alien.
It's far from being clear. The various licenses do not say "citizen"
or "undocumented alien" anywhere on the license. ><https://www.newswire.com/news/crpa-information-bulletin-real-ids-non-real-ids-and-ab-60-type-20682882>
<https://cdn.nwe.io/files/x/ba/b1/a45664fae2509abc008b88d612a5.png>
"AB 60 Drivers Licenses" ><https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-licenses-identification-cards/assembly-bill-ab-60-driver-licenses/>
"AB 60 drivers licenses are for individuals who are unable to provide
proof of legal presence in the United States, but who meet California
DMV requirements and are able to provide proof of identity and
California residency." ><https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ab%2060%22%20driver%27s%20license&udm=2>
Of the 3 types, there's the citizens drivers license without Real ID,
which has nothing in the upper right corner. With Real ID, the
license just adds a bear with a star shaped hole in its side. If they
are not a citizen, as is the purpose of AB 60 licenses, it will say
"Federal Limits Apply". Otherwise, the cards are all very much the
same. Unless one knows what to look for, the well hidden clues are
difficult to find.
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 19:39:54 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
There is NO Federal statute of limitations on human trafficking and I believe that was introduced by Bill
Clinton.
Wrong. However, I will admit that I had a difficult time finding the information.
"Federal Human Trafficking Civil Litigation" <https://htlegalcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Federal-Human-Trafficking-Civil-Litigation-1.pdf>
"18 U.S.C. § 1595(a). The statute of limitations is 10 years, or 10
years after the victim turned 18, if the offense occurred when the
victim was a minor. See 18 U.S.C. § 1595(c)."
There are also state laws which cover human trafficking:
CA Civ Code § 52.5 (2024) <https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-civ/division-1/part-2/section-52-5/>
"(c) An action brought pursuant to this section shall be commenced
within seven years of the date on which the trafficking victim was
freed from the trafficking situation or, if the victim was a minor
when the act of human trafficking against the victim occurred, within
10 years after the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority."
On 6/14/2025 4:17 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 19:39:54 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
There is NO Federal statute of limitations on human trafficking and I believe that was introduced by Bill
Clinton.
Wrong. However, I will admit that I had a difficult time finding the
information.
"Federal Human Trafficking Civil Litigation"
<https://htlegalcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Federal-Human-Trafficking-Civil-Litigation-1.pdf>
"18 U.S.C. 1595(a). The statute of limitations is 10 years, or 10
years after the victim turned 18, if the offense occurred when the
victim was a minor. See 18 U.S.C. 1595(c)."
There are also state laws which cover human trafficking:
CA Civ Code 52.5 (2024)
<https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-civ/division-1/part-2/section-52-5/>
"(c) An action brought pursuant to this section shall be commenced
within seven years of the date on which the trafficking victim was
freed from the trafficking situation or, if the victim was a minor
when the act of human trafficking against the victim occurred, within
10 years after the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority."
actually there is, but limited to child sex trafficking
https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/s-3103-the-eliminating-limits-to-justice-for-child-sex-abuse-victims-act-of-2022-eliminates-the-statute-of-limitations-for-filing-certain-federal-human-trafficking-and-sex-offenses/
Introduced in 2022 by Richard Durbin and signed by Joe Biden
In article <ejjr4kl3522n27ahahj9lh01mp5r9rlbem@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
The SCOTUS says the non-citizen is entitled to very limited due
process which does not include a hearing.
This entire subthread is about an accused citizen, though, not an
accused non-citizen.
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 21:15:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 00:07:13 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or undocumented alien. >>It's far from being clear. The various licenses do not say "citizen"
or "undocumented alien" anywhere on the license.
<https://www.newswire.com/news/crpa-information-bulletin-real-ids-non-real-ids-and-ab-60-type-20682882>
<https://cdn.nwe.io/files/x/ba/b1/a45664fae2509abc008b88d612a5.png>
"AB 60 Driver’s Licenses"
<https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-licenses-identification-cards/assembly-bill-ab-60-driver-licenses/>
"AB 60 driver’s licenses are for individuals who are unable to provide
proof of legal presence in the United States, but who meet California
DMV requirements and are able to provide proof of identity and
California residency."
<https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ab%2060%22%20driver%27s%20license&udm=2> >>
Of the 3 types, there's the citizens drivers license without Real ID,
which has nothing in the upper right corner. With Real ID, the
license just adds a bear with a star shaped hole in its side. If they
are not a citizen, as is the purpose of AB 60 licenses, it will say
"Federal Limits Apply". Otherwise, the cards are all very much the
same. Unless one knows what to look for, the well hidden clues are
difficult to find.
I suspect that most LEOs can easily spot it, along with the lack of
the Real ID symbol. I don't know if California has a hologram like the Florida Real ID does.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/15/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 21:15:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 00:07:13 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or undocumented alien.
It's far from being clear. The various licenses do not say "citizen"
or "undocumented alien" anywhere on the license.
<https://www.newswire.com/news/crpa-information-bulletin-real-ids-non-real-ids-and-ab-60-type-20682882>
<https://cdn.nwe.io/files/x/ba/b1/a45664fae2509abc008b88d612a5.png>
"AB 60 Drivers Licenses"
<https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-licenses-identification-cards/assembly-bill-ab-60-driver-licenses/>
"AB 60 drivers licenses are for individuals who are unable to provide
proof of legal presence in the United States, but who meet California
DMV requirements and are able to provide proof of identity and
California residency."
<https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ab%2060%22%20driver%27s%20license&udm=2>
Of the 3 types, there's the citizens drivers license without Real ID,
which has nothing in the upper right corner. With Real ID, the
license just adds a bear with a star shaped hole in its side. If they
are not a citizen, as is the purpose of AB 60 licenses, it will say
"Federal Limits Apply". Otherwise, the cards are all very much the
same. Unless one knows what to look for, the well hidden clues are
difficult to find.
I suspect that most LEOs can easily spot it, along with the lack of
the Real ID symbol. I don't know if California has a hologram like the
Florida Real ID does.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
As they say in spycraft, you build a wall, they bring a
ladder. Build a moat, they bring a boat...
https://www.cardsavants.com/hologram-making-for-fake-ids.html
On 6/14/2025 2:53 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <ejjr4kl3522n27ahahj9lh01mp5r9rlbem@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
The SCOTUS says the non-citizen is entitled to very limited due
process which does not include a hearing.
This entire subthread is about an accused citizen, though, not an
accused non-citizen.
I may have missed that. Is there a current example of that?
As with any attempt to positively identify anyone, there are
real and serious limits:
https://www.azfamily.com/video/2025/06/11/phoenix-woman-wrongly-arrested-identity-mix-up-sues-us-marshals/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-woman-lawsuit-police-department-mistaken-identity-jail/
and dozens more of those. The difficulty increases greatly
with a person who does not want to be positively identified,
and it's already hard enough for citizens with their own
real and valid ID!
On 6/15/2025 10:35 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/14/2025 3:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:41:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or
undocumented alien.
Does yours? Mine does not contain either term.
Isnlt that surprising.
Can undocumented immigrants get a California drivers
license?
They need the license to collect various relief benefits,
both of which are illegal under Federal law...
Maybe that's true for (some?) Federal relief.
I'd imagine that money that comes from states would be up to
the states, and I'd imagine that fact would meet with your
approval, based on past discussions.
On 6/14/2025 3:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:41:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or undocumented alien.
Does yours? Mine does not contain either term.
Isnlt that surprising.
Can undocumented immigrants get a California drivers license?
They need the license to collect various relief benefits,
both of which are illegal under Federal law:
https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2023/01/drivers-licenses-undocumented-immigrants/
On 6/15/2025 10:35 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/14/2025 3:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:41:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or undocumented >>>>> alien.
Does yours? Mine does not contain either term.
Isnlt that surprising.
Can undocumented immigrants get a California drivers license?
They need the license to collect various relief benefits, both of which
are illegal under Federal law...
Maybe that's true for (some?) Federal relief.
I'd imagine that money that comes from states would be up to the states,
and I'd imagine that fact would meet with your approval, based on past >discussions.
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 21:15:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 00:07:13 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or undocumented alien. >>It's far from being clear. The various licenses do not say "citizen"
or "undocumented alien" anywhere on the license. >><https://www.newswire.com/news/crpa-information-bulletin-real-ids-non-real-ids-and-ab-60-type-20682882>
<https://cdn.nwe.io/files/x/ba/b1/a45664fae2509abc008b88d612a5.png>
"AB 60 Drivers Licenses" >><https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-licenses-identification-cards/assembly-bill-ab-60-driver-licenses/>
"AB 60 drivers licenses are for individuals who are unable to provide >>proof of legal presence in the United States, but who meet California
DMV requirements and are able to provide proof of identity and
California residency." >><https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ab%2060%22%20driver%27s%20license&udm=2> >>
Of the 3 types, there's the citizens drivers license without Real ID,
which has nothing in the upper right corner. With Real ID, the
license just adds a bear with a star shaped hole in its side. If they
are not a citizen, as is the purpose of AB 60 licenses, it will say >>"Federal Limits Apply". Otherwise, the cards are all very much the
same. Unless one knows what to look for, the well hidden clues are >>difficult to find.
I suspect that most LEOs can easily spot it, along with the lack of
the Real ID symbol. I don't know if California has a hologram like the >Florida Real ID does.
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 06:10:11 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 21:15:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 00:07:13 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or undocumented alien. >>>It's far from being clear. The various licenses do not say "citizen"
or "undocumented alien" anywhere on the license. >>><https://www.newswire.com/news/crpa-information-bulletin-real-ids-non-real-ids-and-ab-60-type-20682882>
<https://cdn.nwe.io/files/x/ba/b1/a45664fae2509abc008b88d612a5.png>
"AB 60 Drivers Licenses" >>><https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-licenses-identification-cards/assembly-bill-ab-60-driver-licenses/>
"AB 60 drivers licenses are for individuals who are unable to provide >>>proof of legal presence in the United States, but who meet California
DMV requirements and are able to provide proof of identity and
California residency." >>><https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ab%2060%22%20driver%27s%20license&udm=2> >>>
Of the 3 types, there's the citizens drivers license without Real ID, >>>which has nothing in the upper right corner. With Real ID, the
license just adds a bear with a star shaped hole in its side. If they >>>are not a citizen, as is the purpose of AB 60 licenses, it will say >>>"Federal Limits Apply". Otherwise, the cards are all very much the
same. Unless one knows what to look for, the well hidden clues are >>>difficult to find.
I suspect that most LEOs can easily spot it, along with the lack of
the Real ID symbol. I don't know if California has a hologram like the >>Florida Real ID does.
Long ago (1967?) I visited Tijuana to do some shopping. Traffic was a
mess, so I left my car at a motel in San Ysidro and walked into
Tijuana. On my way back, I was stopped by the US border guards. Among
other questions, they wanted me to prove that I lived in the US and
that I was a citizen. That was a bit tricky, but I eventually
convinced them that I really was a US citizen by showing them my US
ham radio licence, which required US citizenship and US residence.
I then asked what made them suspicious. Two problems:
1. Americans don't go anywhere on foot and always drive a car across
the border. Oops.
2. I had recently bought some new boots called "engineer boots". ><https://www.google.com/search?q=engineer%20boots&udm=2>
I didn't realize that they fashionable in the gay community. Oops
again. That also explained why I was propositioned twice while
walking around in the US. I didn't wear them after that and
eventually sold them at a yard sale.
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 09:35:23 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/14/2025 3:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:41:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or undocumented alien.
Does yours? Mine does not contain either term.
Isnlt that surprising.
Can undocumented immigrants get a California drivers license?
They need the license to collect various relief benefits,
both of which are illegal under Federal law:
https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2023/01/drivers-licenses-undocumented-immigrants/
Perhaps if the U.S.stopped giving goodies to none citizens there would
be fewer of them :-)
--
cheers,
John B.
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 06:10:11 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 21:15:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 00:07:13 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or undocumented alien.
It's far from being clear. The various licenses do not say "citizen"
or "undocumented alien" anywhere on the license.
<https://www.newswire.com/news/crpa-information-bulletin-real-ids-non-real-ids-and-ab-60-type-20682882>
<https://cdn.nwe.io/files/x/ba/b1/a45664fae2509abc008b88d612a5.png>
"AB 60 Driver’s Licenses"
<https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-licenses-identification-cards/assembly-bill-ab-60-driver-licenses/>
"AB 60 driver’s licenses are for individuals who are unable to provide >>> proof of legal presence in the United States, but who meet California
DMV requirements and are able to provide proof of identity and
California residency."
<https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ab%2060%22%20driver%27s%20license&udm=2>
Of the 3 types, there's the citizens drivers license without Real ID,
which has nothing in the upper right corner. With Real ID, the
license just adds a bear with a star shaped hole in its side. If they
are not a citizen, as is the purpose of AB 60 licenses, it will say
"Federal Limits Apply". Otherwise, the cards are all very much the
same. Unless one knows what to look for, the well hidden clues are
difficult to find.
I suspect that most LEOs can easily spot it, along with the lack of
the Real ID symbol. I don't know if California has a hologram like the
Florida Real ID does.
Long ago (1967?) I visited Tijuana to do some shopping. Traffic was a
mess, so I left my car at a motel in San Ysidro and walked into
Tijuana. On my way back, I was stopped by the US border guards. Among
other questions, they wanted me to prove that I lived in the US and
that I was a citizen. That was a bit tricky, but I eventually
convinced them that I really was a US citizen by showing them my US
ham radio licence, which required US citizenship and US residence.
I then asked what made them suspicious. Two problems:
1. Americans don't go anywhere on foot and always drive a car across
the border. Oops.
2. I had recently bought some new boots called "engineer boots". <https://www.google.com/search?q=engineer%20boots&udm=2>
I didn't realize that they fashionable in the gay community. Oops
again. That also explained why I was propositioned twice while
walking around in the US. I didn't wear them after that and
eventually sold them at a yard sale.
On 6/14/2025 3:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:41:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or undocumented alien.
Does yours? Mine does not contain either term.
Isnlt that surprising.
Can undocumented immigrants get a California drivers license?
They need the license to collect various relief benefits,
both of which are illegal under Federal law:
https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2023/01/drivers-licenses-undocumented-immigrants/
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 09:35:23 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/14/2025 3:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:41:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or undocumented alien.
Does yours? Mine does not contain either term.
Isnlt that surprising.
Can undocumented immigrants get a California drivers license?
They need the license to collect various relief benefits,
both of which are illegal under Federal law:
https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2023/01/drivers-licenses-undocumented-immigrants/
//
Since the law took effect in 2015, more than a million undocumented immigrants, out of an estimated 2 million, have received licenses, and
more than 700,000 have renewed them.
Besides California, 18 other states have followed suit.
//
Someone seems to think it's a good idea...
[]'s
Which is true, this from 9 June: >https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2025/06/legislature-with-gop-and-4-dfl-votes-ends-minnesotacare-for-undocumented-adults/
On 6/15/2025 1:41 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 09:35:23 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/14/2025 3:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:41:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or undocumented alien.
Does yours? Mine does not contain either term.
Isnlt that surprising.
Can undocumented immigrants get a California drivers license?
They need the license to collect various relief benefits,
both of which are illegal under Federal law:
https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2023/01/drivers-licenses-undocumented-immigrants/
//
Since the law took effect in 2015, more than a million undocumented
immigrants, out of an estimated 2 million, have received licenses, and
more than 700,000 have renewed them.
Besides California, 18 other states have followed suit.
//
Someone seems to think it's a good idea...
[]'s
Here's an interesting aspect of yesterday's assassinations
in Minnesota:
"A possible angle to the tragedy that was discussed widely
on social media but largely ignored by legacy outlets was
that Hortman bucked her party and joined House Republicans
to strip subsidized MinnesotaCare health coverage from some
17,000 adult illegal aliens in the Gopher State.
Some Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party lawmakers said the move
to strip the coverage from illegal aliens would leave them
out to die, according to the Minnesota Star Tribunes June
9 edition.
What I worry about is that people will lose their health
insurance, Hortman said after the vote. I know people will
be hurt by that vote. For a moment, Hortman choked up with
emotion before the television cameras before continuing. We
worked very hard to try to get a budget deal that wouldnt
include that provision.
Minnesota Republicans had threatened to shut down state
government if the measure failed to pass. They estimated
removing illegal alien adults from MinnesotaCare would save
tens of millions of dollars per year. The change will take
effect at the end of 2025."
Which is true, this from 9 June: >https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2025/06/legislature-with-gop-and-4-dfl-votes-ends-minnesotacare-for-undocumented-adults/
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 15:03:54 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/15/2025 1:41 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 09:35:23 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/14/2025 3:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:41:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or undocumented alien.
Does yours? Mine does not contain either term.
Isnlt that surprising.
Can undocumented immigrants get a California drivers license?
They need the license to collect various relief benefits,
both of which are illegal under Federal law:
https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2023/01/drivers-licenses-undocumented-immigrants/
//
Since the law took effect in 2015, more than a million undocumented
immigrants, out of an estimated 2 million, have received licenses, and
more than 700,000 have renewed them.
Besides California, 18 other states have followed suit.
//
Someone seems to think it's a good idea...
[]'s
Here's an interesting aspect of yesterday's assassinations
in Minnesota:
"A possible angle to the tragedy that was discussed widely
on social media but largely ignored by legacy outlets was
that Hortman bucked her party and joined House Republicans
to strip subsidized MinnesotaCare health coverage from some
17,000 adult illegal aliens in the Gopher State.
Some Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party lawmakers said the move
to strip the coverage from illegal aliens would leave them
out to die, according to the Minnesota Star Tribunes June
9 edition.
What I worry about is that people will lose their health
insurance, Hortman said after the vote. I know people will
be hurt by that vote. For a moment, Hortman choked up with
emotion before the television cameras before continuing. We
worked very hard to try to get a budget deal that wouldnt
include that provision.
Minnesota Republicans had threatened to shut down state
government if the measure failed to pass. They estimated
removing illegal alien adults from MinnesotaCare would save
tens of millions of dollars per year. The change will take
effect at the end of 2025."
Which is true, this from 9 June: >>https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2025/06/legislature-with-gop-and-4-dfl-votes-ends-minnesotacare-for-undocumented-adults/
Oh no, she favored citizens rights over illegals. How dare she?
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 16:18:35 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 15:03:54 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/15/2025 1:41 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 09:35:23 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>
On 6/14/2025 3:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:41:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or undocumented alien.
Does yours? Mine does not contain either term.
Isnlt that surprising.
Can undocumented immigrants get a California drivers license?
They need the license to collect various relief benefits,
both of which are illegal under Federal law:
https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2023/01/drivers-licenses-undocumented-immigrants/
//
Since the law took effect in 2015, more than a million undocumented
immigrants, out of an estimated 2 million, have received licenses, and >>>> more than 700,000 have renewed them.
Besides California, 18 other states have followed suit.
//
Someone seems to think it's a good idea...
[]'s
Here's an interesting aspect of yesterday's assassinations
in Minnesota:
"A possible angle to the tragedy that was discussed widely
on social media but largely ignored by legacy outlets was
that Hortman bucked her party and joined House Republicans
to strip subsidized MinnesotaCare health coverage from some
17,000 adult illegal aliens in the Gopher State.
Some Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party lawmakers said the move
to strip the coverage from illegal aliens would leave them
out to die, according to the Minnesota Star Tribunes June
9 edition.
What I worry about is that people will lose their health
insurance, Hortman said after the vote. I know people will
be hurt by that vote. For a moment, Hortman choked up with
emotion before the television cameras before continuing. We
worked very hard to try to get a budget deal that wouldnt
include that provision.
Minnesota Republicans had threatened to shut down state
government if the measure failed to pass. They estimated
removing illegal alien adults from MinnesotaCare would save
tens of millions of dollars per year. The change will take
effect at the end of 2025."
Which is true, this from 9 June: >>>https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2025/06/legislature-with-gop-and-4-dfl-votes-ends-minnesotacare-for-undocumented-adults/
Oh no, she favored citizens rights over illegals. How dare she?
And she was killed by a "Pro life" fanatical repuglican....
yes, it sounds crazy, someone killing someone else because he believes
life is sacred ..... But, as I said, repuglican. don't expect logic.
He had a list of other politicians that had voted in favor of
women's rights over their bodies.
[]'s
All he has to do is provide evidence that he's a citizen.
In article <iovs4kpmqqkusd4jub92vmt5fm0bl3e5as@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
All he has to do is provide evidence that he's a citizen.
The arresting agency swears that the citizen is not a citizen and has
not provided identification. So... no hearing then?
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 22:04:26 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
The arresting agency swears that the citizen is not a citizen and has
not provided identification. So... no hearing then?
Like I said, the arrest was most likley not initiated by the arresting >officer and if it was, the arresting officer must still report the
arrest. There are several paths a citizen can take to document his >citizenship.
In article <ejiu4kpd7n6bedqt1cni2qbcitl4j07usi@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 22:04:26 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
The arresting agency swears that the citizen is not a citizen and has
not provided identification. So... no hearing then?
Like I said, the arrest was most likley not initiated by the arresting >>officer and if it was, the arresting officer must still report the
arrest. There are several paths a citizen can take to document his >>citizenship.
The citizen provided that documentation to the agency initiating the
arrest, and they swear, for whatever reason, that the citizen did not.
So no hearing then?
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:52 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 16:18:35 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 15:03:54 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/15/2025 1:41 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 09:35:23 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>
On 6/14/2025 3:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:41:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or undocumented alien.
Does yours? Mine does not contain either term.
Isnlt that surprising.
Can undocumented immigrants get a California drivers license?
They need the license to collect various relief benefits,
both of which are illegal under Federal law:
https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2023/01/drivers-licenses-undocumented-immigrants/
//
Since the law took effect in 2015, more than a million undocumented
immigrants, out of an estimated 2 million, have received licenses, and >>>>> more than 700,000 have renewed them.
Besides California, 18 other states have followed suit.
//
Someone seems to think it's a good idea...
[]'s
Here's an interesting aspect of yesterday's assassinations
in Minnesota:
"A possible angle to the tragedy that was discussed widely
on social media but largely ignored by legacy outlets was
that Hortman bucked her party and joined House Republicans
to strip subsidized MinnesotaCare health coverage from some
17,000 adult illegal aliens in the Gopher State.
Some Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party lawmakers said the move
to strip the coverage from illegal aliens would leave them
out to die, according to the Minnesota Star Tribunes June
9 edition.
What I worry about is that people will lose their health
insurance, Hortman said after the vote. I know people will
be hurt by that vote. For a moment, Hortman choked up with
emotion before the television cameras before continuing. We
worked very hard to try to get a budget deal that wouldnt
include that provision.
Minnesota Republicans had threatened to shut down state
government if the measure failed to pass. They estimated
removing illegal alien adults from MinnesotaCare would save
tens of millions of dollars per year. The change will take
effect at the end of 2025."
Which is true, this from 9 June: >>>>https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2025/06/legislature-with-gop-and-4-dfl-votes-ends-minnesotacare-for-undocumented-adults/
Oh no, she favored citizens rights over illegals. How dare she?
And she was killed by a "Pro life" fanatical repuglican....
Or maybe by a leftist who hated her for favoring citizens rights over >illegals.
--yes, it sounds crazy, someone killing someone else because he believes
life is sacred ..... But, as I said, repuglican. don't expect logic.
He had a list of other politicians that had voted in favor of
women's rights over their bodies.
[]'s
In article <lblu4k5bcth7o20b5sdsheftj9argiv87o@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Let me know when that happens, and we'll see how it's handled.
How would we know if that's ever happened or not?
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 17:41:28 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:52 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 16:18:35 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 15:03:54 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/15/2025 1:41 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 09:35:23 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>
On 6/14/2025 3:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:41:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or undocumented alien.
Does yours? Mine does not contain either term.
Isnlt that surprising.
Can undocumented immigrants get a California drivers license?
They need the license to collect various relief benefits,
both of which are illegal under Federal law:
https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2023/01/drivers-licenses-undocumented-immigrants/
//
Since the law took effect in 2015, more than a million undocumented >>>>>> immigrants, out of an estimated 2 million, have received licenses, and >>>>>> more than 700,000 have renewed them.
Besides California, 18 other states have followed suit.
//
Someone seems to think it's a good idea...
[]'s
Here's an interesting aspect of yesterday's assassinations
in Minnesota:
"A possible angle to the tragedy that was discussed widely
on social media but largely ignored by legacy outlets was
that Hortman bucked her party and joined House Republicans
to strip subsidized MinnesotaCare health coverage from some
17,000 adult illegal aliens in the Gopher State.
Some Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party lawmakers said the move
to strip the coverage from illegal aliens would leave them
out to die, according to the Minnesota Star Tribunes June
9 edition.
What I worry about is that people will lose their health
insurance, Hortman said after the vote. I know people will
be hurt by that vote. For a moment, Hortman choked up with
emotion before the television cameras before continuing. We
worked very hard to try to get a budget deal that wouldnt
include that provision.
Minnesota Republicans had threatened to shut down state
government if the measure failed to pass. They estimated
removing illegal alien adults from MinnesotaCare would save
tens of millions of dollars per year. The change will take
effect at the end of 2025."
Which is true, this from 9 June: >>>>>https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2025/06/legislature-with-gop-and-4-dfl-votes-ends-minnesotacare-for-undocumented-adults/
Oh no, she favored citizens rights over illegals. How dare she?
And she was killed by a "Pro life" fanatical repuglican....
Or maybe by a leftist who hated her for favoring citizens rights over >>illegals.
No, he had a "to do" list. He was a far-right
ex-military/police nutjob. Strange your press didn't say anything
about it.
[]'s
yes, it sounds crazy, someone killing someone else because he believes >>>life is sacred ..... But, as I said, repuglican. don't expect logic.
He had a list of other politicians that had voted in favor of >>>women's rights over their bodies.
[]'s
Let me know when that happens, and we'll see how it's handled.
In article <lblu4k5bcth7o20b5sdsheftj9argiv87o@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Let me know when that happens, and we'll see how it's handled.
How would we know if that's ever happened or not?
On Fri Jun 6 13:52:28 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 1:09 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:01 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 9:35 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
... they wanted only English
instruction.
I don't have the slightest desire to know Croation, Austrian or Jewish. Most of the world speaks English now, not because like Romans we demanded it but because they all want to sell us things and we only speak English.
On 6/6/2025 11:01 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 9:35 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
... they wanted only English
instruction. That's because knowing English will get them a much
better paying job in the US than Spanish.
Same conclusion to the same problem by Italians 100 years ago.
A couple points here:
1) My grandparents were born in Poland, my parents born here. They spoke >Polish in the home, but my parents never taught us the language. It was
clear they wanted us to be fully American. I now regret their choice.
Any language is difficult to learn later in life, and Polish is one of
the tougher European languages.
Canada just forced a revote and proved that the Liberals there also counterfeited an election in the so-calleds honest country of Canada.
J?zyk polski jest bardzo trudny. (And I had to look up part of that.)
I watched approximately 100 illegals vote for Obama at my local voting place
On 6/15/2025 7:56 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 20:52:23 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 17:41:28 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Or maybe by a leftist who hated her for favoring citizens rights over
illegals.
No, he had a "to do" list. He was a far-right
ex-military/police nutjob. Strange your press didn't say anything
about it.
[]'s
yes, it sounds crazy, someone killing someone else because he believes >>>>> life is sacred ..... But, as I said, repuglican. don't expect logic. >>>>> He had a list of other politicians that had voted in favor of
women's rights over their bodies.
[]'s
I don't have a press, silly boy.
Yep. Ignorance is bliss for some folks. But their ignorance never stops
their politically motivated speculation.
On 6/15/2025 12:21 PM, John B. wrote:
Perhaps if the U.S.stopped giving goodies to none citizens there would
be fewer of them :-)
I doubt the "goodies" have much to do with it. If you lived in a place
with a broken economy, where you could find no decent job, and where
gangs were threatening you and your family, you'd probably try to get
into into a safer and more prosperous country by any means possible. If
it were easy to do it legally (even to get a job picking fruit, with no
other benefits) you'd prefer that. But if it were not practical to do it >legally, as it is for millions, you'd sneak in.
It's probably a benefits vs. detriments calculation. If your kids have a
much better chance for a decent life in the U.S., you'd head for the
U.S. And you'd probably consider that a sound moral choice.
On 6/15/2025 7:08 PM, cyclintom wrote:name of the person who they were supposed to vote as and the name Obama that they were supposed to vote for and they could not even match the name Obama with the one on the election form?
On Thu Jun 5 23:45:46 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 7:59 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I watched approximately 100 illegals vote for Obama at my local voting place. There was NO WAY you could have mistaken them as anything other than Mexicans. Most of them couldn't speak English and a large percentage were illiterate.
That's amazingly perceptive of you! I can't spot an illiterate person
just by looking at them.
Can you talk to the poll workers who had to go into the booth with them and vote for them because they couldn't read the directions even when the translators explained it to them? Why would you think that they had a piece of paper that contained the
Frankly, Tom, I think you're lying about the whole thing.
I would like to know why you believe that you're SO smart and everyone else is so dumb.
After competing against others in academic and professional matters, I'm >quite confident I'm reasonably smart.
But I don't think everyone else is
"so dumb."
However, I haven't seen any evidence of great intelligence in your posts >here.
On 6/14/2025 8:05 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <0isr4k1bjml9iqtih4jake56f751tik7aj@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
An accused citizen has no problem getting a hearing.
And a citizen accused of being a non-citizen has no problem getting a
hearing?
For some, incidents like this are perfectly fine.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/15/us/hispanic-americans-raids-citizenship.html?unlocked_article_code=1.PU8.w3oc.3XHChvYk4bBk&smid=url-share
After all, they eventually let this guy go, and it's his own fault for >looking too Mexican. And hey, no agent ID is needed, no search warrant,
no such complications.
How do you tell an illegal alien just by looks? Maybe a more important >question is how do you tell an illegal ICE agent? How do we know the
next guy with ICE on his shirt is not a freelance kidnapper?
On Fri Jun 6 13:52:28 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 1:09 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:01 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 9:35 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
... they wanted only English
instruction. That's because knowing English will get
them a much
better paying job in the US than Spanish.
Same conclusion to the same problem by Italians 100 years
ago.
A couple points here:
1) My grandparents were born in Poland, my parents born
here. They spoke Polish in the home, but my parents never
taught us the language. It was clear they wanted us to be
fully American. I now regret their choice. Any language is
difficult to learn later in life, and Polish is one of the
tougher European languages.
2) One dear friend of mine, for years, taught English As A
Second Language to immigrants. Amazingly, she had classes of
10 to 20 students from a mixture of countries; so the
majority not only had no English, they had no languages in
common with each other. Many were illiterate in all
languages, including their own. I can't possibly imagine how
a person could teach such a crew, but she had great success.
Apparently the objective was not perfect English. Instead it
was survival - here's how to use our money, our bus systems,
find a job, etc. - but it worked.
When she left that job, I was invited to a "going away"
party attended by many of her former students. It was an
amazing mixture of nationalities (and ethnic foods and
music). You could see they absolutely loved that lady.
Your family's experience mirrors mine. I have the same
feeling about the lost opportunity.
I don't have the slightest desire to know Croation, Austrian or Jewish.
Most of the world speaks English now, not because like Romans we demanded
it but because they all want to sell us things and we only speak English.
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 17:41:28 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:52 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 16:18:35 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 15:03:54 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>
On 6/15/2025 1:41 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 09:35:23 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>
On 6/14/2025 3:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:41:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or undocumented alien.
Does yours? Mine does not contain either term.
Isnlt that surprising.
Can undocumented immigrants get a California drivers license?
They need the license to collect various relief benefits,
both of which are illegal under Federal law:
https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2023/01/drivers-licenses-undocumented-immigrants/
//
Since the law took effect in 2015, more than a million undocumented >>>>>> immigrants, out of an estimated 2 million, have received licenses, and >>>>>> more than 700,000 have renewed them.
Besides California, 18 other states have followed suit.
//
Someone seems to think it's a good idea...
[]'s
Here's an interesting aspect of yesterday's assassinations
in Minnesota:
"A possible angle to the tragedy that was discussed widely
on social media but largely ignored by legacy outlets was
that Hortman bucked her party and joined House Republicans
to strip subsidized MinnesotaCare health coverage from some
17,000 adult illegal aliens in the Gopher State.
Some Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party lawmakers said the move
to strip the coverage from illegal aliens would leave them
“out to die,” according to the Minnesota Star Tribune’s June
9 edition.
“What I worry about is that people will lose their health
insurance,” Hortman said after the vote. “I know people will
be hurt by that vote.” For a moment, Hortman choked up with
emotion before the television cameras before continuing. “We
worked very hard to try to get a budget deal that wouldn’t
include that provision.”
Minnesota Republicans had threatened to shut down state
government if the measure failed to pass. They estimated
removing illegal alien adults from MinnesotaCare would save
tens of millions of dollars per year. The change will take
effect at the end of 2025."
Which is true, this from 9 June:
https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2025/06/legislature-with-gop-and-4-dfl-votes-ends-minnesotacare-for-undocumented-adults/
Oh no, she favored citizens rights over illegals. How dare she?
And she was killed by a "Pro life" fanatical repuglican....
Or maybe by a leftist who hated her for favoring citizens rights over
illegals.
No, he had a "to do" list. He was a far-right
ex-military/police nutjob. Strange your press didn't say anything
about it.
[]'s
yes, it sounds crazy, someone killing someone else because he believes
life is sacred ..... But, as I said, repuglican. don't expect logic.
He had a list of other politicians that had voted in favor of
women's rights over their bodies.
[]'s
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri Jun 6 13:52:28 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 1:09 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:01 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 9:35 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
... they wanted only English
instruction. That's because knowing English will get
them a much
better paying job in the US than Spanish.
Same conclusion to the same problem by Italians 100 years
ago.
A couple points here:
1) My grandparents were born in Poland, my parents born
here. They spoke Polish in the home, but my parents never
taught us the language. It was clear they wanted us to be
fully American. I now regret their choice. Any language is
difficult to learn later in life, and Polish is one of the
tougher European languages.
2) One dear friend of mine, for years, taught English As A
Second Language to immigrants. Amazingly, she had classes of
10 to 20 students from a mixture of countries; so the
majority not only had no English, they had no languages in
common with each other. Many were illiterate in all
languages, including their own. I can't possibly imagine how
a person could teach such a crew, but she had great success.
Apparently the objective was not perfect English. Instead it
was survival - here's how to use our money, our bus systems,
find a job, etc. - but it worked.
When she left that job, I was invited to a "going away"
party attended by many of her former students. It was an
amazing mixture of nationalities (and ethnic foods and
music). You could see they absolutely loved that lady.
Your family's experience mirrors mine. I have the same
feeling about the lost opportunity.
I don't have the slightest desire to know Croation, Austrian or Jewish.
Most of the world speaks English now, not because like Romans we demanded
it but because they all want to sell us things and we only speak English.
Lots of English spoken yes, but lots of Spanish and Chinese, definitely
more Chinese by population.
In terms of what languages do they speak and by area i suspect that will >depend on where in the world youre travelling.
Let alone once away from tourist destinations, English in Paris for example >fine, out in near my Aunt and Uncle long way from most British tourists, >youll struggle if you only speak English.
Roger Merriman
On 6/15/2025 7:58 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Fri Jun 6 22:45:53 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:Hey, it was worse than that here! I personally saw a flying saucer
On 6/6/2025 9:24 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
Trump lost 60+ court cases trying to prove
illegal voting activity, I'm pretty confident that things were on the
up-and-up overall. 60+ court cases is a LOT of vetting. Hats off to
Trump for being so thorough. :)
But as I just posted, lack of proof has never deterred a conspiracy
theorist.
Nor has proof _against_ their theory.
And as I just pointed out, you are willing to believe that a large
segment of English as a second language students are illiterate but
not poll workers where a bunch of non-citizens were driven in by bus
from the central valley and more than hslf couldn't even sign their
own names or that of the person they were supposed to vote as even
though they had a piece of paper with the name written on it.
download many white folks wearing red caps just outside the polls during
the last presidential election. The caps had four strange white symbols
on them, symbols I'd never seen before but were obviously outer space
script for "MAGA." They went directly over to each of the voting
machines, plugged in some black electronic device, then walked back out
to the flying saucer. The poll workers never noticed! I'm positive these outer space aliens screwed up the voting machine count and allowed a convicted felon to be elected - because who would ever vote for a
convicted felon to be president?
:-) See, my imagination can be even better than yours!
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 00:16:31 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Canada just forced a revote and proved that the Liberals there also counterfeited an election in the so-calleds honest country of Canada.
It was a recount, not a "revote".
"Conservatives secure 2 more seats after tight federal election
recounts" <https://globalnews.ca/news/11194570/canada-2025-federal-election-recounts/> The conservatives gained 2 seats. One recount was in Marystown, Newfoundland. 41,670 ballots were recounted. 1,000 ballots were
deemed questionable. After 2 weeks, 819 ballots were rejected.
There was also a recount in Windsor-Tecumseh-Lake Shore, Ontario,
which confirmed the original vote by 4 votes. I don't have any detail
on the recounting.
More detail:
"Judge rejected ballots marked in rectangular box containing
candidates’ name in N.L. recount: report" <https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/how-a-judge-handled-an-unprecedented-1041-disputed-ballots-in-a-tight-nl-recount/>
"... "maybe as many as half" of the disputed ballots in the Terra
Nova-The Peninsulas riding were marked in the rectangular box
containing the candidates’ name."
"Handrigan rejected the so-called "rectangle ballots," and a table accompanying his report indicates he ultimately dismissed more than
675 ballots."
There doesn't seem to be any allegations of fraud or Liberal
counterfeiting. Tom, where did you get your information?
On 6/15/2025 7:52 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 17:41:28 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:52 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 16:18:35 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 15:03:54 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>
On 6/15/2025 1:41 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 09:35:23 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 6/14/2025 3:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:41:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:They need the license to collect various relief benefits,
On 6/5/2025 8:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or undocumented alien.
Does yours? Mine does not contain either term.
Isnlt that surprising.
Can undocumented immigrants get a California drivers license? >>>>>>>>
both of which are illegal under Federal law:
https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2023/01/drivers-licenses-undocumented-immigrants/
//
Since the law took effect in 2015, more than a million undocumented >>>>>>> immigrants, out of an estimated 2 million, have received licenses, and >>>>>>> more than 700,000 have renewed them.
Besides California, 18 other states have followed suit.
//
Someone seems to think it's a good idea...
[]'s
Here's an interesting aspect of yesterday's assassinations
in Minnesota:
"A possible angle to the tragedy that was discussed widely
on social media but largely ignored by legacy outlets was
that Hortman bucked her party and joined House Republicans
to strip subsidized MinnesotaCare health coverage from some
17,000 adult illegal aliens in the Gopher State.
Some Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party lawmakers said the move
to strip the coverage from illegal aliens would leave them
out to die, according to the Minnesota Star Tribunes June
9 edition.
What I worry about is that people will lose their health
insurance, Hortman said after the vote. I know people will
be hurt by that vote. For a moment, Hortman choked up with
emotion before the television cameras before continuing. We
worked very hard to try to get a budget deal that wouldnt
include that provision.
Minnesota Republicans had threatened to shut down state
government if the measure failed to pass. They estimated
removing illegal alien adults from MinnesotaCare would save
tens of millions of dollars per year. The change will take
effect at the end of 2025."
Which is true, this from 9 June:
https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2025/06/legislature-with-gop-and-4-dfl-votes-ends-minnesotacare-for-undocumented-adults/
Oh no, she favored citizens rights over illegals. How dare she?
And she was killed by a "Pro life" fanatical repuglican....
Or maybe by a leftist who hated her for favoring citizens rights over
illegals.
No, he had a "to do" list. He was a far-right
ex-military/police nutjob. Strange your press didn't say anything
about it.
[]'s
The press here did in fact publish the assassins political leanings and
hit list. However, since the dumbass heard somewhere in his echo chamber
that it was a false flag committed by a "leftist", he would rather
believe that since it fits his perverted political world-view.
yes, it sounds crazy, someone killing someone else because he believes >>>> life is sacred ..... But, as I said, repuglican. don't expect logic.
He had a list of other politicians that had voted in favor of
women's rights over their bodies.
[]'s
Can you suggest what is wrong with a person who KNOWS that education is not mandatory in Mexico
You again prove that you have no understanding of politics.
Fully a third of the "republicans" in Congress during Trump's first term were RINO's, including Mike Pense, this time they all know that it they do not toe the line their careers in politics are over.
You aren't a liberal, you're a leftist and no better than your leader Adolf.
On 6/15/2025 8:24 PM, cyclintom wrote:LONG did it take to end slavery? Do you think that dozens of court cases were not submitted before a war ensued? The Constitution was clear "All Men Are Created Equal" And it took killing most of the men in the south to force that upon them.
Frank, you just took mRNA vaccines for which NO ONE could ask any questions. And yet you do not believe that the same thing doesn't happen in the legal system? If a case is thrown out of lower courts it is generally not taken up by higher courts. HOW
Tom seems even more agitated and nonsensical than usual. I wonder what's >going on there.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 00:16:31 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Canada just forced a revote and proved that the Liberals there also counterfeited an election in the so-calleds honest country of Canada.
It was a recount, not a "revote".
"Conservatives secure 2 more seats after tight federal election--
recounts" ><https://globalnews.ca/news/11194570/canada-2025-federal-election-recounts/> >The conservatives gained 2 seats. One recount was in Marystown, >Newfoundland. 41,670 ballots were recounted. 1,000 ballots were
deemed questionable. After 2 weeks, 819 ballots were rejected.
There was also a recount in Windsor-Tecumseh-Lake Shore, Ontario,
which confirmed the original vote by 4 votes. I don't have any detail
on the recounting.
More detail:
"Judge rejected ballots marked in rectangular box containing
candidates name in N.L. recount: report" ><https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/how-a-judge-handled-an-unprecedented-1041-disputed-ballots-in-a-tight-nl-recount/>
"... "maybe as many as half" of the disputed ballots in the Terra
Nova-The Peninsulas riding were marked in the rectangular box
containing the candidates name."
"Handrigan rejected the so-called "rectangle ballots," and a table >accompanying his report indicates he ultimately dismissed more than
675 ballots."
There doesn't seem to be any allegations of fraud or Liberal
counterfeiting. Tom, where did you get your information?
On 6/15/2025 12:21 PM, John B. wrote:
Perhaps if the U.S.stopped giving goodies to none citizens
there would
be fewer of them :-)
I doubt the "goodies" have much to do with it. If you lived
in a place with a broken economy, where you could find no
decent job, and where gangs were threatening you and your
family, you'd probably try to get into into a safer and more
prosperous country by any means possible. If it were easy to
do it legally (even to get a job picking fruit, with no
other benefits) you'd prefer that. But if it were not
practical to do it legally, as it is for millions, you'd
sneak in.
It's probably a benefits vs. detriments calculation. If your
kids have a much better chance for a decent life in the
U.S., you'd head for the U.S. And you'd probably consider
that a sound moral choice.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 06:01:39 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/15/2025 7:52 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 17:41:28 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:52 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 16:18:35 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 15:03:54 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>
On 6/15/2025 1:41 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 09:35:23 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 6/14/2025 3:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:41:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:They need the license to collect various relief benefits,
On 6/5/2025 8:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or undocumented alien.
Does yours? Mine does not contain either term.
Isnlt that surprising.
Can undocumented immigrants get a California drivers license? >>>>>>>>>
both of which are illegal under Federal law:
https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2023/01/drivers-licenses-undocumented-immigrants/
//
Since the law took effect in 2015, more than a million undocumented >>>>>>>> immigrants, out of an estimated 2 million, have received licenses, and >>>>>>>> more than 700,000 have renewed them.
Besides California, 18 other states have followed suit.
//
Someone seems to think it's a good idea...
[]'s
Here's an interesting aspect of yesterday's assassinations
in Minnesota:
"A possible angle to the tragedy that was discussed widely
on social media but largely ignored by legacy outlets was
that Hortman bucked her party and joined House Republicans
to strip subsidized MinnesotaCare health coverage from some
17,000 adult illegal aliens in the Gopher State.
Some Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party lawmakers said the move
to strip the coverage from illegal aliens would leave them
out to die, according to the Minnesota Star Tribunes June
9 edition.
What I worry about is that people will lose their health
insurance, Hortman said after the vote. I know people will
be hurt by that vote. For a moment, Hortman choked up with
emotion before the television cameras before continuing. We
worked very hard to try to get a budget deal that wouldnt
include that provision.
Minnesota Republicans had threatened to shut down state
government if the measure failed to pass. They estimated
removing illegal alien adults from MinnesotaCare would save
tens of millions of dollars per year. The change will take
effect at the end of 2025."
Which is true, this from 9 June:
https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2025/06/legislature-with-gop-and-4-dfl-votes-ends-minnesotacare-for-undocumented-adults/
Oh no, she favored citizens rights over illegals. How dare she?
And she was killed by a "Pro life" fanatical repuglican....
Or maybe by a leftist who hated her for favoring citizens rights over
illegals.
No, he had a "to do" list. He was a far-right
ex-military/police nutjob. Strange your press didn't say anything
about it.
[]'s
The press here did in fact publish the assassins political leanings and
hit list. However, since the dumbass heard somewhere in his echo chamber >>that it was a false flag committed by a "leftist", he would rather
believe that since it fits his perverted political world-view.
yes, it sounds crazy, someone killing someone else because he believes >>>>> life is sacred ..... But, as I said, repuglican. don't expect logic. >>>>> He had a list of other politicians that had voted in favor of
women's rights over their bodies.
[]'s
Most of the rest of the world awaits with me to see/hear the complete
story of the jackass who shot those people, and speculation is not
uncommon. Some people prefer to find conclusions based on incomplete >information.
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 22:16:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Yep. Ignorance is bliss for some folks. But their ignorance never stops >>their politically motivated speculation.
That's from the guy who speculated that having a gun in your home made
it more likely to be shot.
On 6/15/2025 7:52 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 17:41:28 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:52 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br>
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 16:18:35 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 15:03:54 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/15/2025 1:41 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 09:35:23 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/14/2025 3:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:41:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say
citizen or undocumented alien.
Does yours? Mine does not contain either term.
Isnlt that surprising.
Can undocumented immigrants get a California
drivers license?
They need the license to collect various relief
benefits,
both of which are illegal under Federal law:
https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2023/01/
drivers-licenses-undocumented-immigrants/
//
Since the law took effect in 2015, more than a
million undocumented
immigrants, out of an estimated 2 million, have
received licenses, and
more than 700,000 have renewed them.
Besides California, 18 other states have followed suit.
//
Someone seems to think it's a good idea...
[]'s
Here's an interesting aspect of yesterday's
assassinations
in Minnesota:
"A possible angle to the tragedy that was discussed
widely
on social media but largely ignored by legacy outlets was
that Hortman bucked her party and joined House
Republicans
to strip subsidized MinnesotaCare health coverage from
some
17,000 adult illegal aliens in the Gopher State.
Some Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party lawmakers said the
move
to strip the coverage from illegal aliens would leave
them
“out to die,” according to the Minnesota Star
Tribune’s June
9 edition.
“What I worry about is that people will lose their health
insurance,” Hortman said after the vote. “I know
people will
be hurt by that vote.” For a moment, Hortman choked up
with
emotion before the television cameras before
continuing. “We
worked very hard to try to get a budget deal that
wouldn’t
include that provision.”
Minnesota Republicans had threatened to shut down state
government if the measure failed to pass. They estimated
removing illegal alien adults from MinnesotaCare would
save
tens of millions of dollars per year. The change will
take
effect at the end of 2025."
Which is true, this from 9 June:
https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2025/06/
legislature-with-gop-and-4-dfl-votes-ends-
minnesotacare-for-undocumented-adults/
Oh no, she favored citizens rights over illegals. How
dare she?
And she was killed by a "Pro life" fanatical
repuglican....
Or maybe by a leftist who hated her for favoring citizens
rights over
illegals.
No, he had a "to do" list. He was a far-right
ex-military/police nutjob. Strange your press didn't say
anything
about it.
[]'s
The press here did in fact publish the assassins political
leanings and hit list. However, since the dumbass heard
somewhere in his echo chamber that it was a false flag
committed by a "leftist", he would rather believe that since
it fits his perverted political world-view.
yes, it sounds crazy, someone killing someone else
because he believes
life is sacred ..... But, as I said, repuglican. don't
expect logic.
He had a list of other politicians that had voted in
favor of
women's rights over their bodies.
[]'s
On 6/15/2025 9:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's probably a benefits vs. detriments calculation. If your
kids have a much better chance for a decent life in the
U.S., you'd head for the U.S. And you'd probably consider
that a sound moral choice.
Is there any limit in your theory, or are all 8 billion
humans invited to county rent, EBT and Medicaid? Just
wondering.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 00:16:31 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
You again prove that you have no understanding of politics.
OK
Fully a third of the "republicans" in Congress during Trump's first term were RINO's, including Mike Pense, this time they all know that it they do not toe the line their careers in politics are over.
Any member of congress/the senate is there to represent his state, and ultimately his country, NOT whoever happens to be president. They
control the power of the president, not vice-versa. They have the
power to remove the president, if he gets too far out of line
Only in a dictatorship does a president control the executive, the
judiciary and the legislative.
You aren't a liberal, you're a leftist and no better than your leader Adolf.
Adolf Hitler was a right wing fascist. Before he started killing
gypsies, he killed socialists. He had an unhealthy hatred for anyone
unlike himself. Something like your obvious hatred of Latinos.
Are you sure you can read?
[]'s
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 23:48:16 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <lblu4k5bcth7o20b5sdsheftj9argiv87o@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Let me know when that happens, and we'll see how it's handled.
How would we know if that's ever happened or not?
Well, one way would be for the documented citizen to, as soon as he is
thrown out, go to an entry point with his evidence of citizenship and
return.
On 6/16/2025 7:14 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 00:16:31 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
You again prove that you have no understanding of politics.
OK
Fully a third of the "republicans" in Congress during Trump's first term were RINO's, including Mike Pense, this time they all know that it they do not toe the line their careers in politics are over.
Any member of congress/the senate is there to represent his state, and
ultimately his country, NOT whoever happens to be president. They
control the power of the president, not vice-versa. They have the
power to remove the president, if he gets too far out of line
Only in a dictatorship does a president control the executive, the
judiciary and the legislative.
You aren't a liberal, you're a leftist and no better than your leader Adolf.
Adolf Hitler was a right wing fascist. Before he started killing
gypsies, he killed socialists. He had an unhealthy hatred for anyone
unlike himself. Something like your obvious hatred of Latinos.
Are you sure you can read?
[]'s
That's arguable.
His party was The National Socialists Party and, just like
Lenin, his first victims were the other socialist groups.
On 6/15/2025 7:08 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:45:46 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 7:59 PM, cyclintom wrote:
I watched approximately 100 illegals vote for Obama at my local
voting place. There was NO WAY you could have mistaken them as
anything other than Mexicans. Most of them couldn't speak English
and a large percentage were illiterate.
That's amazingly perceptive of you! I can't spot an illiterate person
just by looking at them.
Can you talk to the poll workers who had to go into the booth with
them and vote for them because they couldn't read the directions even
when the translators explained it to them? Why would you think that
they had a piece of paper that contained the name of the person who
they were supposed to vote as and the name Obama that they were
supposed to vote for and they could not even match the name Obama with
the one on the election form?
Frankly, Tom, I think you're lying about the whole thing.
I would like to know why you believe that you're SO smart and everyone
else is so dumb.
After competing against others in academic and professional matters, I'm quite confident I'm reasonably smart. But I don't think everyone else is
"so dumb."
However, I haven't seen any evidence of great intelligence in your posts here.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 04:06:33 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 22:16:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski >><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:...............
Yep. Ignorance is bliss for some folks. But their ignorance never stops >>>their politically motivated speculation.
That's from the guy who speculated that having a gun in your home made
it more likely to be shot.
I almost killed my son. He was around 6 or 7 and climbed up on
a stool to reach some biscuits in the kitchen, around 3 am. I pulled
my gun from under the mattress and aimed, then thought (rather groggy
from a 24 hour shift) "he's too thin".
So I crept up until I was close enough to recognize him. Still
gives me goosebumps when I remember.
Still have that gun. It's Brazil, you need a gun in third
world countries**, where ignorance prevails. I'm a crack shot, or
was..... haven't fired the revolver in 30 years. If I had fired, my
son would be dead.
[]'s
PS ** I certainly wouldn't need a gun in England or France.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 10:00:18 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 04:06:33 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 22:16:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:...............
Yep. Ignorance is bliss for some folks. But their ignorance never stops >>>>their politically motivated speculation.
That's from the guy who speculated that having a gun in your home made
it more likely to be shot.
I almost killed my son. He was around 6 or 7 and climbed up on
a stool to reach some biscuits in the kitchen, around 3 am. I pulled
my gun from under the mattress and aimed, then thought (rather groggy
from a 24 hour shift) "he's too thin".
So I crept up until I was close enough to recognize him. Still
gives me goosebumps when I remember.
Still have that gun. It's Brazil, you need a gun in third
world countries**, where ignorance prevails. I'm a crack shot, or
was..... haven't fired the revolver in 30 years. If I had fired, my
son would be dead.
[]'s
PS ** I certainly wouldn't need a gun in England or France.
Gun owners should know how to handle a gun before owning one.
Shooting
someone who was simply going through your kitchen cupboards would
likely get you put into prison in the USA... and rightly so.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 10:23:22 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 10:00:18 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 04:06:33 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 22:16:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:...............
Yep. Ignorance is bliss for some folks. But their ignorance never stops >>>>>their politically motivated speculation.
That's from the guy who speculated that having a gun in your home made >>>>it more likely to be shot.
I almost killed my son. He was around 6 or 7 and climbed up on
a stool to reach some biscuits in the kitchen, around 3 am. I pulled
my gun from under the mattress and aimed, then thought (rather groggy >>>from a 24 hour shift) "he's too thin".
So I crept up until I was close enough to recognize him. Still
gives me goosebumps when I remember.
Still have that gun. It's Brazil, you need a gun in third
world countries**, where ignorance prevails. I'm a crack shot, or >>>was..... haven't fired the revolver in 30 years. If I had fired, my
son would be dead.
[]'s
PS ** I certainly wouldn't need a gun in England or France.
Gun owners should know how to handle a gun before owning one.
Of course.
Shooting
someone who was simply going through your kitchen cupboards would
likely get you put into prison in the USA... and rightly so.
I thought Americans had the right to shoot anyone who entered
their homes uninvited. Even read stories of people that invited their
enemies over and shot them "in self defense". And then denied inviting
them. These people forget that phones record everything.
In Brazil I'd get manslaughter, jail charges dropped because
of the tragedy. I'd probably have to divorce and leave town too.
Brazilians hate child-killers, even if it's unintentional.
If it WAS a thief looking for drugs, I'd spend a couple of
days in jail, max.
[]'s
On 16 Jun 2025 09:47:10 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri Jun 6 13:52:28 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 1:09 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:01 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 9:35 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
... they wanted only English
instruction. That's because knowing English will get
them a much
better paying job in the US than Spanish.
Same conclusion to the same problem by Italians 100 years
ago.
A couple points here:
1) My grandparents were born in Poland, my parents born
here. They spoke Polish in the home, but my parents never
taught us the language. It was clear they wanted us to be
fully American. I now regret their choice. Any language is
difficult to learn later in life, and Polish is one of the
tougher European languages.
2) One dear friend of mine, for years, taught English As A
Second Language to immigrants. Amazingly, she had classes of
10 to 20 students from a mixture of countries; so the
majority not only had no English, they had no languages in
common with each other. Many were illiterate in all
languages, including their own. I can't possibly imagine how
a person could teach such a crew, but she had great success.
Apparently the objective was not perfect English. Instead it
was survival - here's how to use our money, our bus systems,
find a job, etc. - but it worked.
When she left that job, I was invited to a "going away"
party attended by many of her former students. It was an
amazing mixture of nationalities (and ethnic foods and
music). You could see they absolutely loved that lady.
Your family's experience mirrors mine. I have the same
feeling about the lost opportunity.
I don't have the slightest desire to know Croation, Austrian or Jewish.
Most of the world speaks English now, not because like Romans we demanded >>> it but because they all want to sell us things and we only speak English. >>>
Lots of English spoken yes, but lots of Spanish and Chinese, definitely
more Chinese by population.
In terms of what languages do they speak and by area i suspect that will
depend on where in the world youre travelling.
Let alone once away from tourist destinations, English in Paris for example >> fine, out in near my Aunt and Uncle long way from most British tourists,
youll struggle if you only speak English.
Roger Merriman
In my experience, it's remarkably easy to pick up enough key words and gestures to get around where you don't speak the language.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/16/2025 5:01 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/15/2025 7:52 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 17:41:28 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:52 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 16:18:35 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 15:03:54 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
wrote:
On 6/15/2025 1:41 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 09:35:23 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/14/2025 3:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:41:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:They need the license to collect various relief benefits,
On 6/5/2025 8:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or >>>>>>>>>>>> undocumented alien.
Does yours? Mine does not contain either term.
Isnlt that surprising.
Can undocumented immigrants get a California drivers license? >>>>>>>>>
both of which are illegal under Federal law:
https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2023/01/ drivers-
licenses-undocumented-immigrants/
//
Since the law took effect in 2015, more than a million undocumented >>>>>>>> immigrants, out of an estimated 2 million, have received
licenses, and
more than 700,000 have renewed them.
Besides California, 18 other states have followed suit.
//
Someone seems to think it's a good idea...
[]'s
Here's an interesting aspect of yesterday's assassinations
in Minnesota:
"A possible angle to the tragedy that was discussed widely
on social media but largely ignored by legacy outlets was
that Hortman bucked her party and joined House Republicans
to strip subsidized MinnesotaCare health coverage from some
17,000 adult illegal aliens in the Gopher State.
Some Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party lawmakers said the move
to strip the coverage from illegal aliens would leave them
“out to die,” according to the Minnesota Star Tribune’s June >>>>>>> 9 edition.
“What I worry about is that people will lose their health
insurance,” Hortman said after the vote. “I know people will >>>>>>> be hurt by that vote.” For a moment, Hortman choked up with
emotion before the television cameras before continuing. “We
worked very hard to try to get a budget deal that wouldn’t
include that provision.”
Minnesota Republicans had threatened to shut down state
government if the measure failed to pass. They estimated
removing illegal alien adults from MinnesotaCare would save
tens of millions of dollars per year. The change will take
effect at the end of 2025."
Which is true, this from 9 June:
https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2025/06/ legislature-
with-gop-and-4-dfl-votes-ends- minnesotacare-for-undocumented-
adults/
Oh no, she favored citizens rights over illegals. How dare she?
And she was killed by a "Pro life" fanatical repuglican....
Or maybe by a leftist who hated her for favoring citizens rights over
illegals.
No, he had a "to do" list. He was a far-right
ex-military/police nutjob. Strange your press didn't say anything
about it.
[]'s
The press here did in fact publish the assassins political leanings
and hit list. However, since the dumbass heard somewhere in his echo
chamber that it was a false flag committed by a "leftist", he would
rather believe that since it fits his perverted political world-view.
yes, it sounds crazy, someone killing someone else because he believes >>>>> life is sacred ..... But, as I said, repuglican. don't expect logic. >>>>> He had a list of other politicians that had voted in favor of >>>>> women's rights over their bodies.
[]'s
There's no clear logic in this travesty so far.
Yes he shot dead a woman who crossed lines to vote for the controversial State budget but he also put 8 rounds into a man who voted against it.
His hit list was MN & WI Democrats, but he had anti-Trump flyers in his vehicle. I don't know and you don't either.
I'll wait to know more.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 16 Jun 2025 09:47:10 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri Jun 6 13:52:28 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 1:09 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:01 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/6/2025 9:35 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
... they wanted only English
instruction. That's because knowing English will get
them a much
better paying job in the US than Spanish.
Same conclusion to the same problem by Italians 100 years
ago.
A couple points here:
1) My grandparents were born in Poland, my parents born
here. They spoke Polish in the home, but my parents never
taught us the language. It was clear they wanted us to be
fully American. I now regret their choice. Any language is
difficult to learn later in life, and Polish is one of the
tougher European languages.
2) One dear friend of mine, for years, taught English As A
Second Language to immigrants. Amazingly, she had classes of
10 to 20 students from a mixture of countries; so the
majority not only had no English, they had no languages in
common with each other. Many were illiterate in all
languages, including their own. I can't possibly imagine how
a person could teach such a crew, but she had great success.
Apparently the objective was not perfect English. Instead it
was survival - here's how to use our money, our bus systems,
find a job, etc. - but it worked.
When she left that job, I was invited to a "going away"
party attended by many of her former students. It was an
amazing mixture of nationalities (and ethnic foods and
music). You could see they absolutely loved that lady.
Your family's experience mirrors mine. I have the same
feeling about the lost opportunity.
I don't have the slightest desire to know Croation, Austrian or Jewish. >>>> Most of the world speaks English now, not because like Romans we demanded >>>> it but because they all want to sell us things and we only speak English. >>>>
Lots of English spoken yes, but lots of Spanish and Chinese, definitely
more Chinese by population.
In terms of what languages do they speak and by area i suspect that will >>> depend on where in the world you?re travelling.
Let alone once away from tourist destinations, English in Paris for example >>> fine, out in near my Aunt and Uncle long way from most British tourists, >>> you?ll struggle if you only speak English.
Roger Merriman
In my experience, it's remarkably easy to pick up enough key words and
gestures to get around where you don't speak the language.
Absolutely! even without a common language can get by for routine stuff, ie >ordering food/drink and so on.
More Toms suggestion that folks will speak English even few hundred miles >away that in rural and non touristy bits of France thats just not true.
Roger Merrriman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/16/2025 9:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/16/2025 5:01 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/15/2025 7:52 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 17:41:28 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:52 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 16:18:35 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 15:03:54 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
wrote:
On 6/15/2025 1:41 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 09:35:23 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/14/2025 3:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:41:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:They need the license to collect various relief benefits,
On 6/5/2025 8:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or >>>>>>>>>>>>> undocumented alien.
Does yours? Mine does not contain either term.
Isnlt that surprising.
Can undocumented immigrants get a California drivers license? >>>>>>>>>>
both of which are illegal under Federal law:
https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2023/01/ drivers- >>>>>>>>>> licenses-undocumented-immigrants/
//
Since the law took effect in 2015, more than a million undocumented >>>>>>>>> immigrants, out of an estimated 2 million, have received
licenses, and
more than 700,000 have renewed them.
Besides California, 18 other states have followed suit.
//
Someone seems to think it's a good idea...
[]'s
Here's an interesting aspect of yesterday's assassinations
in Minnesota:
"A possible angle to the tragedy that was discussed widely
on social media but largely ignored by legacy outlets was
that Hortman bucked her party and joined House Republicans
to strip subsidized MinnesotaCare health coverage from some
17,000 adult illegal aliens in the Gopher State.
Some Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party lawmakers said the move
to strip the coverage from illegal aliens would leave them
out to die, according to the Minnesota Star Tribunes June
9 edition.
What I worry about is that people will lose their health
insurance, Hortman said after the vote. I know people will
be hurt by that vote. For a moment, Hortman choked up with
emotion before the television cameras before continuing. We
worked very hard to try to get a budget deal that wouldnt
include that provision.
Minnesota Republicans had threatened to shut down state
government if the measure failed to pass. They estimated
removing illegal alien adults from MinnesotaCare would save
tens of millions of dollars per year. The change will take
effect at the end of 2025."
Which is true, this from 9 June:
https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2025/06/ legislature- >>>>>>>> with-gop-and-4-dfl-votes-ends- minnesotacare-for-undocumented- >>>>>>>> adults/
Oh no, she favored citizens rights over illegals. How dare she?
And she was killed by a "Pro life" fanatical repuglican....
Or maybe by a leftist who hated her for favoring citizens rights over >>>>> illegals.
No, he had a "to do" list. He was a far-right
ex-military/police nutjob. Strange your press didn't say anything
about it.
[]'s
The press here did in fact publish the assassins political leanings
and hit list. However, since the dumbass heard somewhere in his echo
chamber that it was a false flag committed by a "leftist", he would
rather believe that since it fits his perverted political world-view.
yes, it sounds crazy, someone killing someone else because he believes >>>>>> life is sacred ..... But, as I said, repuglican. don't expect logic. >>>>>> He had a list of other politicians that had voted in favor of
women's rights over their bodies.
[]'s
There's no clear logic in this travesty so far.
Yes he shot dead a woman who crossed lines to vote for the controversial
State budget but he also put 8 rounds into a man who voted against it.
His hit list was MN & WI Democrats, but he had anti-Trump flyers in his
vehicle. I don't know and you don't either.
Reports were that the flyers were for a "No Kings" rally. Given his
published social media activity, it isn't likely he would have attended
to rally in support.
My wife and I attended the rally in my city on Saturday, the local press >estimated ~1000 people attended, including a a dozen or so magatards.
I'm willing to bet you might have found a flyer for the rally in one of
their cars too.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 11:50:21 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 10:23:22 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 10:00:18 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 04:06:33 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 22:16:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski...............
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Yep. Ignorance is bliss for some folks. But their ignorance never stops >>>>>> their politically motivated speculation.
That's from the guy who speculated that having a gun in your home made >>>>> it more likely to be shot.
I almost killed my son. He was around 6 or 7 and climbed up on
a stool to reach some biscuits in the kitchen, around 3 am. I pulled
my gun from under the mattress and aimed, then thought (rather groggy
from a 24 hour shift) "he's too thin".
So I crept up until I was close enough to recognize him. Still
gives me goosebumps when I remember.
Still have that gun. It's Brazil, you need a gun in third
world countries**, where ignorance prevails. I'm a crack shot, or
was..... haven't fired the revolver in 30 years. If I had fired, my
son would be dead.
[]'s
PS ** I certainly wouldn't need a gun in England or France.
Gun owners should know how to handle a gun before owning one.
Of course.
Shooting
someone who was simply going through your kitchen cupboards would
likely get you put into prison in the USA... and rightly so.
I thought Americans had the right to shoot anyone who entered
their homes uninvited. Even read stories of people that invited their
enemies over and shot them "in self defense". And then denied inviting
them. These people forget that phones record everything.
In Brazil I'd get manslaughter, jail charges dropped because
of the tragedy. I'd probably have to divorce and leave town too.
Brazilians hate child-killers, even if it's unintentional.
If it WAS a thief looking for drugs, I'd spend a couple of
days in jail, max.
[]'s
Breaking into your home would be seen as a definate threat. Already
being there and going through your cupbords would likely not be viewed
as a threat, even if it was a real burgler.
Simply said, you can't shoot someone for stealing...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/16/2025 9:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/16/2025 5:01 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/15/2025 7:52 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 17:41:28 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:52 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br>
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 16:18:35 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 15:03:54 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/15/2025 1:41 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 09:35:23 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/14/2025 3:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:41:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say
citizen or undocumented alien.
Does yours? Mine does not contain either term.
Isnlt that surprising.
Can undocumented immigrants get a California
drivers license?
They need the license to collect various relief
benefits,
both of which are illegal under Federal law:
https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2023/01/
drivers- licenses-undocumented-immigrants/
//
Since the law took effect in 2015, more than a
million undocumented
immigrants, out of an estimated 2 million, have
received licenses, and
more than 700,000 have renewed them.
Besides California, 18 other states have followed
suit.
//
Someone seems to think it's a good idea...
[]'s
Here's an interesting aspect of yesterday's
assassinations
in Minnesota:
"A possible angle to the tragedy that was discussed
widely
on social media but largely ignored by legacy
outlets was
that Hortman bucked her party and joined House
Republicans
to strip subsidized MinnesotaCare health coverage
from some
17,000 adult illegal aliens in the Gopher State.
Some Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party lawmakers said
the move
to strip the coverage from illegal aliens would
leave them
“out to die,” according to the Minnesota Star
Tribune’s June
9 edition.
“What I worry about is that people will lose their
health
insurance,” Hortman said after the vote. “I know
people will
be hurt by that vote.” For a moment, Hortman choked
up with
emotion before the television cameras before
continuing. “We
worked very hard to try to get a budget deal that
wouldn’t
include that provision.”
Minnesota Republicans had threatened to shut down state
government if the measure failed to pass. They
estimated
removing illegal alien adults from MinnesotaCare
would save
tens of millions of dollars per year. The change
will take
effect at the end of 2025."
Which is true, this from 9 June:
https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2025/06/
legislature- with-gop-and-4-dfl-votes-ends-
minnesotacare-for-undocumented- adults/
Oh no, she favored citizens rights over illegals. How
dare she?
And she was killed by a "Pro life" fanatical
repuglican....
Or maybe by a leftist who hated her for favoring
citizens rights over
illegals.
No, he had a "to do" list. He was a far-right
ex-military/police nutjob. Strange your press didn't say
anything
about it.
[]'s
The press here did in fact publish the assassins
political leanings and hit list. However, since the
dumbass heard somewhere in his echo chamber that it was a
false flag committed by a "leftist", he would rather
believe that since it fits his perverted political world-
view.
yes, it sounds crazy, someone killing someone else
because he believes
life is sacred ..... But, as I said, repuglican. don't
expect logic.
He had a list of other politicians that had voted
in favor of
women's rights over their bodies.
[]'s
There's no clear logic in this travesty so far.
Yes he shot dead a woman who crossed lines to vote for the
controversial State budget but he also put 8 rounds into a
man who voted against it. His hit list was MN & WI
Democrats, but he had anti-Trump flyers in his vehicle. I
don't know and you don't either.
Reports were that the flyers were for a "No Kings" rally.
Given his published social media activity, it isn't likely
he would have attended to rally in support.
My wife and I attended the rally in my city on Saturday, the
local press estimated ~1000 people attended, including a a
dozen or so magatards. I'm willing to bet you might have
found a flyer for the rally in one of their cars too.
I'll wait to know more.
Absolutely! even without a common language can get by for routine stuff, ie >ordering food/drink and so on.
More Toms suggestion that folks will speak English even few hundred miles >away that in rural and non touristy bits of France thats just not true.
On 6/16/2025 10:04 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/16/2025 9:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/16/2025 5:01 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/15/2025 7:52 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 17:41:28 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:52 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 16:18:35 -0400, Catrike RyderOr maybe by a leftist who hated her for favoring citizens rights over >>>>>> illegals.
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 15:03:54 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:And she was killed by a "Pro life" fanatical repuglican.... >>>>>>
On 6/15/2025 1:41 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 09:35:23 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/14/2025 3:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:41:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:They need the license to collect various relief benefits, >>>>>>>>>>> both of which are illegal under Federal law:
On 6/5/2025 8:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> undocumented alien.
Does yours? Mine does not contain either term.
Isnlt that surprising.
Can undocumented immigrants get a California drivers license? >>>>>>>>>>>
https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2023/01/ drivers- >>>>>>>>>>> licenses-undocumented-immigrants/
//
Since the law took effect in 2015, more than a million
undocumented
immigrants, out of an estimated 2 million, have received
licenses, and
more than 700,000 have renewed them.
Besides California, 18 other states have followed suit.
//
Someone seems to think it's a good idea...
[]'s
Here's an interesting aspect of yesterday's assassinations
in Minnesota:
"A possible angle to the tragedy that was discussed widely
on social media but largely ignored by legacy outlets was
that Hortman bucked her party and joined House Republicans
to strip subsidized MinnesotaCare health coverage from some
17,000 adult illegal aliens in the Gopher State.
Some Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party lawmakers said the move
to strip the coverage from illegal aliens would leave them
“out to die,” according to the Minnesota Star Tribune’s June >>>>>>>>> 9 edition.
“What I worry about is that people will lose their health
insurance,” Hortman said after the vote. “I know people will >>>>>>>>> be hurt by that vote.” For a moment, Hortman choked up with >>>>>>>>> emotion before the television cameras before continuing. “We >>>>>>>>> worked very hard to try to get a budget deal that wouldn’t >>>>>>>>> include that provision.”
Minnesota Republicans had threatened to shut down state
government if the measure failed to pass. They estimated
removing illegal alien adults from MinnesotaCare would save
tens of millions of dollars per year. The change will take
effect at the end of 2025."
Which is true, this from 9 June:
https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2025/06/ legislature- >>>>>>>>> with-gop-and-4-dfl-votes-ends- minnesotacare-for-undocumented- >>>>>>>>> adults/
Oh no, she favored citizens rights over illegals. How dare she? >>>>>>>
No, he had a "to do" list. He was a far-right
ex-military/police nutjob. Strange your press didn't say anything
about it.
[]'s
The press here did in fact publish the assassins political leanings
and hit list. However, since the dumbass heard somewhere in his echo
chamber that it was a false flag committed by a "leftist", he would
rather believe that since it fits his perverted political world- view. >>>>
yes, it sounds crazy, someone killing someone else because he
believes
life is sacred ..... But, as I said, repuglican. don't expect logic. >>>>>>> He had a list of other politicians that had voted in favor of >>>>>>> women's rights over their bodies.
[]'s
There's no clear logic in this travesty so far.
Yes he shot dead a woman who crossed lines to vote for the
controversial State budget but he also put 8 rounds into a man who
voted against it. His hit list was MN & WI Democrats, but he had
anti-Trump flyers in his vehicle. I don't know and you don't either.
Reports were that the flyers were for a "No Kings" rally. Given his
published social media activity, it isn't likely he would have
attended to rally in support.
My wife and I attended the rally in my city on Saturday, the local
press estimated ~1000 people attended, including a a dozen or so
magatards. I'm willing to bet you might have found a flyer for the
rally in one of their cars too.
I'll wait to know more.
That's true. We are a diverse, if not riven, nation: https://x.com/RickyDoggin/status/1934313717329731893? t=7WthzOkxp_VqZNMPK-TvzA
On 6/16/2025 8:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/15/2025 9:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/15/2025 12:21 PM, John B. wrote:
Perhaps if the U.S.stopped giving goodies to none
citizens there would
be fewer of them :-)
I doubt the "goodies" have much to do with it. If you
lived in a place with a broken economy, where you could
find no decent job, and where gangs were threatening you
and your family, you'd probably try to get into into a
safer and more prosperous country by any means possible.
If it were easy to do it legally (even to get a job
picking fruit, with no other benefits) you'd prefer that.
But if it were not practical to do it legally, as it is
for millions, you'd sneak in.
It's probably a benefits vs. detriments calculation. If
your kids have a much better chance for a decent life in
the U.S., you'd head for the U.S. And you'd probably
consider that a sound moral choice.
Is there any limit in your theory, or are all 8 billion
humans invited to county rent, EBT and Medicaid? Just
wondering.
Above, I wasn't inviting anybody. I'm simply discussing what
I've read and heard about motivations. They're after safety
and opportunity, not freebies.
Imagine: You're in a part of Mexico ravaged by drug cartels.
They've intimidated local law enforcement, using money
earned by shipping drugs to the U.S., with which they've
imported "Made in the USA" firearms. There's no local
industry because no companies want to assume the risks.
You're having a hard time feeding, let alone protecting,
your kids.
If all American aid (schools, medicine, driver's license,
church charity, etc.) suddenly went away, would you say "Oh
heck, I'll just stay here and hope they never rape my
daughter"? Or would you say "We're going where it's safer"?
Your ancestors and mine came here, probably fleeing far less
dangerous conditions, probably expecting zero government
help. What makes you think these people are so different?
You can use your imagination... they same one you use to come up
these imaginary situations.
Well, one way would be for the documented citizen to, as soon as he is
thrown out, go to an entry point with his evidence of citizenship and
return.
In article <btpu4kl8lii5r50amv3toeomivb1ig560f@4ax.com>,
John B. <jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
Well, one way would be for the documented citizen to, as soon as he is
thrown out, go to an entry point with his evidence of citizenship and
return.
So a crooked member or members of an enforcement agency take a citizen
they don't like, confiscate and lose his proof of citizenship in order
to deport him, deport him... and then hand him back his proof of
citizenship on the way out? And then he uses that to get back in?
On 16 Jun 2025 15:00:20 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Absolutely! even without a common language can get by for routine stuff, ie >> ordering food/drink and so on.
I spent 3 months in France as an adolescent in the 60's. I got
by fine with "un litre s'il vouz plait".
Note: Worked for the Velosolex AND the "vin ordinaire".
Two birds and all that....
More Toms suggestion that folks will speak English even few hundred miles >> away that in rural and non touristy bits of France thats just not true.
Our local English teacher pronounces "one" as "onny".
LOL
[]'s
In article <i7nu4khapvvfavo59nqvv2mk6irqppvh6j@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You can use your imagination... they same one you use to come up
these imaginary situations.
That is what the Founding Fathers did when the came up with the
Constitution and Bill of Rights, after all. They thought, "What could go >wrong with this system and how could it be abused?" And then they built
in as many safeguards against that as they could--safeguards that a
million Americans died defending and that I am not willing to surrender.
You should be advised that the bad guys have imaginations, too.
On 6/16/2025 1:16 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/16/2025 10:52 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Above, I wasn't inviting anybody. I'm simply discussing what I've read
and heard about motivations. They're after safety and opportunity, not
freebies.
Imagine: You're in a part of Mexico ravaged by drug cartels. They've
intimidated local law enforcement, using money earned by shipping
drugs to the U.S., with which they've imported "Made in the USA"
firearms. There's no local industry because no companies want to
assume the risks. You're having a hard time feeding, let alone
protecting, your kids.
If all American aid (schools, medicine, driver's license, church
charity, etc.) suddenly went away, would you say "Oh heck, I'll just
stay here and hope they never rape my daughter"? Or would you say
"We're going where it's safer"?
Your ancestors and mine came here, probably fleeing far less dangerous
conditions, probably expecting zero government help. What makes you
think these people are so different?
Very different.
As noted here quite often, USAians generally, and I especially*, embrace
immigrants, who are a different group from illegal alien criminals.
Are you pretending this didn't happen? ><https://www.npr.org/2024/09/15/nx-s1-5113140/vance-false-claims-haitian-migrants-pets>
Cato Institute thinks it happened, and didn't seem to like it: ><https://www.cato.org/blog/texas-crime-data-haitian-pet-eating-claims>
Then there are incidents like these: ><https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/migrants-in-u-s-legally-and-with-no-criminal-history-caught-up-in-trump-crackdown>
*grandson of four legal immigrants who passed their entire lives as
legal resident aliens, father in law to an immigrant engineer, sponsor/
signatory for refugees, employer of a few resident aliens and sponsor of
several newly sworn citizens. None of those people were here on the
public's dime.
That's nice, but legal resident aliens are currently very, very nervous.
I have foreign-born friends, PhD naturalized citizens, who are afraid to >leave the country because they think they may not be allowed back in. I
don't think that's realistic, but it demonstrates the current climate.
I had a dark-skinned Indian (i.e. south Asian) colleague who returned
from a vacation in the southern U.S. in a furious rage because of his >treatment. I guess you might excuse that - they probably thought he was >black, not from India.
Foreign students are losing visas. ><https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/19/us/visa-revoked-students-trump-ice>
Perhaps most Americans embrace immigrants, but there are many who don't, >including many working for ICE.
And about legality: I think there's been a lot more illegality over the
years than is commonly accepted. Go back to the early days of the
nation, when treaty after treaty was signed with various native American >nations, promising that their land would remain their own. Yet land
hungry settlers violated those treaties over and over, moving past
agreed-on boundaries.
There's no shame felt by those families. They're white enough.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 23:10:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/16/2025 1:16 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/16/2025 10:52 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Above, I wasn't inviting anybody. I'm simply discussing what I've read >>>> and heard about motivations. They're after safety and opportunity, not >>>> freebies.
Imagine: You're in a part of Mexico ravaged by drug cartels. They've
intimidated local law enforcement, using money earned by shipping
drugs to the U.S., with which they've imported "Made in the USA"
firearms. There's no local industry because no companies want to
assume the risks. You're having a hard time feeding, let alone
protecting, your kids.
If all American aid (schools, medicine, driver's license, church
charity, etc.) suddenly went away, would you say "Oh heck, I'll just
stay here and hope they never rape my daughter"? Or would you say
"We're going where it's safer"?
Your ancestors and mine came here, probably fleeing far less dangerous >>>> conditions, probably expecting zero government help. What makes you
think these people are so different?
Very different.
As noted here quite often, USAians generally, and I especially*, embrace >>> immigrants, who are a different group from illegal alien criminals.
Are you pretending this didn't happen?
<https://www.npr.org/2024/09/15/nx-s1-5113140/vance-false-claims-haitian-migrants-pets>
Cato Institute thinks it happened, and didn't seem to like it:
<https://www.cato.org/blog/texas-crime-data-haitian-pet-eating-claims>
Then there are incidents like these:
<https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/migrants-in-u-s-legally-and-with-no-criminal-history-caught-up-in-trump-crackdown>
*grandson of four legal immigrants who passed their entire lives as
legal resident aliens, father in law to an immigrant engineer, sponsor/
signatory for refugees, employer of a few resident aliens and sponsor of >>> several newly sworn citizens. None of those people were here on the
public's dime.
That's nice, but legal resident aliens are currently very, very nervous.
I have foreign-born friends, PhD naturalized citizens, who are afraid to
leave the country because they think they may not be allowed back in. I
don't think that's realistic, but it demonstrates the current climate.
I had a dark-skinned Indian (i.e. south Asian) colleague who returned
from a vacation in the southern U.S. in a furious rage because of his
treatment. I guess you might excuse that - they probably thought he was
black, not from India.
Foreign students are losing visas.
<https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/19/us/visa-revoked-students-trump-ice>
Perhaps most Americans embrace immigrants, but there are many who don't,
including many working for ICE.
And about legality: I think there's been a lot more illegality over the
years than is commonly accepted. Go back to the early days of the
nation, when treaty after treaty was signed with various native American
nations, promising that their land would remain their own. Yet land
hungry settlers violated those treaties over and over, moving past
agreed-on boundaries.
There were some instances of that, but not nearly as many as you
imply.
There was territorial disputes between tribes dating back to well
before the Mayflower. The "Westward Ho" bunch just fit into that
scenario with better weapons and with land use intentions different
from the hunter/gatherer Natives.
There's no shame felt by those families. They're white enough.
There were black people in that bunch, and Hispanics, too. But wait,
how would you know how other people feel about it?
On the other hand, Krygowski, you ignorant fool, there've been wars
fought and people killed over territory and religion by most peoples
of the world. Do you imagine the families of those people, *which
includes you,* feel any shame?
Do you feel shame about that?
--
"man is the cruellest animal."
Friedrich Nietzsche:
On 6/17/2025 9:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Regarding indigenous Indians, the Cherokee, who were probably the most
advanced culture here (notably in language and agriculture) ended up in
the Carolinas after having been displaced from the New York region by
more brutal Iriquois groups.
And then, yes, displaced again to Oklahoma by Mr Jackson.
And yes, they took their Indian and black slaves to Oklahoma.
Yes, I've understood that for a long time. In the past here, I've
mentioned other incidents regarding slavery practiced by Indians as well
as most other nations. I've also mentioned that people have been moving
into other people's territory forever.
So these are not new problems. And I hope nobody here is advocating
slavery because it's traditional.
But it's still unlikely that one's personal ancestors all behaved
perfectly. And one of the developments of the 20th century was gradual >realization that super-harsh revenge-based strategies seldom work as >intended. There are better ways of solving most problems.
In the 21st century, many seem to be denying that.
Illegals don't qualify for a hearing before being deported.
In article <v3215k9qs47nibkpstfiaftm1qsrgtrs0b@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Illegals don't qualify for a hearing before being deported.
The mere accusation of being illegal is enough for deportation.
Enough going in circles. We can just agree to disagree on whether or not
it's a good idea to give up this protection.
You let everyone know when that happens.
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically--sometimes for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants without hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd say "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens from time
to time.
In article <v3215k9qs47nibkpstfiaftm1qsrgtrs0b@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Illegals don't qualify for a hearing before being deported.
The mere accusation of being illegal is enough for deportation.
Enough going in circles. We can just agree to disagree on whether or not
it's a good idea to give up this protection.
On 6/17/2025 12:03 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <v3215k9qs47nibkpstfiaftm1qsrgtrs0b@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Illegals don't qualify for a hearing before being deported.
The mere accusation of being illegal is enough for deportation.
Enough going in circles. We can just agree to disagree on whether or not
it's a good idea to give up this protection.
I am not making light of your criticism, which is correct.
And no different from innocent men executed after thorough
and exhaustive deliberative process. Any suggestions? I
don't know.
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically--sometimes for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants without hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd say "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens from time
to time.
In article <v3215k9qs47nibkpstfiaftm1qsrgtrs0b@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Illegals don't qualify for a hearing before being deported.
The mere accusation of being illegal is enough for deportation.
Enough going in circles. We can just agree to disagree on whether or not
it's a good idea to give up this protection.
It seems that the suggested solution is to have a hearing for every
potential depotation. I can't agree with that.
I don't need to give it up and the illegals don't have it to begin
with.
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 17:18:55 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically--sometimes for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
Cite?
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
Assumes "facts" not in evidense.
In article <ms935kt12om4mc23m0mffra8b2dv8aml73@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
It seems that the suggested solution is to have a hearing for every
potential depotation. I can't agree with that.
That is absolutely my suggestion, that every person in the United States accused of a crime be given due process.
If you're going to say "except some people with a particular
characteristic that doesn't need to be proven before a judge", then
you've just opened up an asteroid-sized loophole in the due process requirements for American citizens like you.
In article <j1935khq65ifigti06ih986l1mie1o7knf@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I don't need to give it up and the illegals don't have it to begin
with.
You are giving it up, though; you just don't see how. *shrug*
In article <102s9gu$2gk6u$2@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
What solution would you suggest?
A hearing for everyone accused of being a non-citizen. Because if you're
a citizen, that's the only way you'll get to prove your innocence.
The counter-argument, generally presented on this thread, is if you're accused of being a non-citizen, you don't get a hearing because
non-citizens don't get hearings. This argument directly contradicts the fundamentally American policy of "innocent until proven guilty".
The system is imperfect, you're right. As I myself have posted, citizens
with hearings have been held in prison on charges of being illegal immigrants.
So having a hearing for all accused is really the *least* we can do.
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically--sometimes for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants without hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd say "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality of
government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly-deporting-its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/22/504031635/you-say- you-re-an-american-but-what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known without
doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case law of citizenship having been revoked and the person deported, most famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically--sometimes for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants without hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd say "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality of
government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly-deporting-its-
own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/22/504031635/you-say-
you-re-an-american-but-what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known without
doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case law of citizenship
having been revoked and the person deported, most famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than the
abstraction of just "being here illegally".
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically--sometimes for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants without hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd say "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality of
government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly-deporting-its-
own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/22/504031635/you-say-
you-re-an-american-but-what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known without
doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case law of citizenship
having been revoked and the person deported, most famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
As a first step, I'd suggest not saying "Meh, it's happened before so
don't worry."
And I'd suggest precisely following the law, and the rulings of courts
on the law. As opposed to "Oops, we goofed, too bad."
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:22:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically--sometimes for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants without hearing >>>> who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign prisons. >>>>
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd say "0%". >>>> You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens from time >>>> to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality of
government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly-deporting-its-
own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/22/504031635/you-say-
you-re-an-american-but-what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known without
doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case law of citizenship
having been revoked and the person deported, most famously Emma Goldman: >>>
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
As a first step, I'd suggest not saying "Meh, it's happened before so
don't worry."
And I'd suggest precisely following the law, and the rulings of courts
on the law. As opposed to "Oops, we goofed, too bad."
There's no law that says an illegal gets a hearing before being
deported. They come here intending to break the law, so they get
shipped out without fanfare.
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do
not possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically--
sometimes for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants
without hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to
foreign prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport
U.S. citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd
give me if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect
you'd say "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it
happens from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the
quality of government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly-
deporting-its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2016/12/22/504031635/you-say- you-re-an-american-but-
what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well
known without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples
in case law of citizenship having been revoked and the
person deported, most famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than
the abstraction of just "being here illegally".
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:The first time I went to Japan there was an oriental looking guy on
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do
not possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically--
sometimes for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants
without hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to
foreign prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport
U.S. citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd
give me if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect
you'd say "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it
happens from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the
quality of government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly-
deporting-its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2016/12/22/504031635/you-say- you-re-an-american-but-
what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well
known without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples
in case law of citizenship having been revoked and the
person deported, most famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than
the abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes
refer to 'illegal aliens'.
.
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 21:32:47 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:The first time I went to Japan there was an oriental looking guy on
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do
not possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically--
sometimes for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants
without hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to
foreign prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport
U.S. citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd
give me if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect
you'd say "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it
happens from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the
quality of government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly-
deporting-its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2016/12/22/504031635/you-say- you-re-an-american-but-
what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well
known without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples
in case law of citizenship having been revoked and the
person deported, most famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than
the abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes
refer to 'illegal aliens'.
.
the plain (USAF and full of troops bound for Japan and Korea) who
claimed that he was drafted illegally. He was the son of a Japanese
couple who were living in the U..S. as managers of a large Japanese
owned hotel and he was born in the U.S. and while he even held a
Japanese passport but because he was born in the U.S. he was deemed by
the Draft Board to be a U.S. citizen.
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:28:53 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:22:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski >><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not possess >>>>> that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically--sometimes for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants without hearing >>>>> who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign prisons. >>>>>
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. citizens. >>>>> He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me if we >>>>> ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd say "0%". >>>>> You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens from time >>>>> to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality of
government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly-deporting-its- >>>> own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/22/504031635/you-say-
you-re-an-american-but-what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known without >>>> doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case law of citizenship >>>> having been revoked and the person deported, most famously Emma Goldman: >>>>
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
As a first step, I'd suggest not saying "Meh, it's happened before so >>>don't worry."
And I'd suggest precisely following the law, and the rulings of courts
on the law. As opposed to "Oops, we goofed, too bad."
There's no law that says an illegal gets a hearing before being
deported. They come here intending to break the law, so they get
shipped out without fanfare.
Err... they came here which is breaking the law..
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we
do not possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically--
sometimes for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants
without hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to
foreign prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport
U.S. citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd
give me if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect
you'd say "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it
happens from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the
quality of government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly-
deporting- its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2016/12/22/504031635/you- say- you-re-an-american-
but- what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is
well known without doubt to be a US citizen. There are
examples in case law of citizenship having been revoked
and the person deported, most famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than
the abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes
refer to 'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime" based
purely on the abstract notion that a persons place of origin
makes them a criminal. They may as well have defined it as
based on the color of their skin, or religious upbringing.
IOW - the idea that some one is a "criminal" simply for the
reason that they haven't filed the proper paperwork to have
permission to be in the US is absolute bullshit.
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically-- sometimes for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants without hearing >>>> who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign prisons. >>>>
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd say "0%". >>>> You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens from time >>>> to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality of
government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly- deporting-
its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/12/22/504031635/you-
say- you-re-an-american-but- what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known
without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case law of
citizenship having been revoked and the person deported, most
famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than the
abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes refer to
'illegal aliens'.
.
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we
do not possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically--
sometimes for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants
without hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to
foreign prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport
U.S. citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd
give me if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect
you'd say "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it
happens from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the
quality of government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly-
deporting- its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2016/12/22/504031635/you- say- you-re-an-american-
but- what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is
well known without doubt to be a US citizen. There are
examples in case law of citizenship having been revoked
and the person deported, most famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than
the abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes
refer to 'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime" based
purely on the abstract notion that a persons place of origin
makes them a criminal. They may as well have defined it as
based on the color of their skin, or religious upbringing.
IOW - the idea that some one is a "criminal" simply for the
reason that they haven't filed the proper paperwork to have
permission to be in the US is absolute bullshit.
On 6/18/2025 9:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not possess >>>>>> that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically-- sometimes for >>>>>> years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants without
hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign
prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. citizens. >>>>>> He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me if we >>>>>> ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd say
"0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens from >>>>>> time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality of
government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly- deporting-
its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/12/22/504031635/you-
say- you-re-an-american- but- what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-
deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known
without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case law of
citizenship having been revoked and the person deported, most
famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than the
abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes refer to
'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime" based purely on
the abstract notion that a persons place of origin makes them a
criminal. They may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin, or religious upbringing. IOW - the idea that some one is a
"criminal" simply for the reason that they haven't filed the proper
paperwork to have permission to be in the US is absolute bullshit.
Cite the racist sections here please. I could not find them:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/2202I hold a minority opinion - bfd.
Full text:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/2202/text
House vote was mixed. passed at 71%:
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/1996432
Senate vote 97 to 3: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1042/ vote_104_2_00108.htm
On 6/18/2025 9:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not possess >>>>>> that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically-- sometimes for >>>>>> years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants without
hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign
prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. citizens. >>>>>> He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me if we >>>>>> ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd say
"0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens from >>>>>> time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality of
government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly- deporting-
its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/12/22/504031635/you-
say- you-re-an-american- but- what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-
deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known
without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case law of
citizenship having been revoked and the person deported, most
famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than the
abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes refer to
'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime" based purely on
the abstract notion that a persons place of origin makes them a
criminal. They may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin, or religious upbringing. IOW - the idea that some one is a
"criminal" simply for the reason that they haven't filed the proper
paperwork to have permission to be in the US is absolute bullshit.
Fanciful projections. Read the actual statutes and check the dates on
their legislative history.
When Mr Clinton made his strenuous policy to deport illegals in 1994,
the northeast where you are was filled with Irish illegals*, especially
bar & restaurant help.
* "melanin challenged"
On 6/18/2025 11:10 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 9:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we
do not possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically--
sometimes for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal
immigrants without hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to
foreign prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally
deport U.S. citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth
you'd give me if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I
suspect you'd say "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it
happens from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the
quality of government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-
mistakenly- deporting- its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2016/12/22/504031635/you- say- you-re-an-american-
but- what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be- deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is
well known without doubt to be a US citizen. There are
examples in case law of citizenship having been
revoked and the person deported, most famously Emma
Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather
than the abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes
refer to 'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime"
based purely on the abstract notion that a persons place
of origin makes them a criminal. They may as well have
defined it as based on the color of their skin, or
religious upbringing. IOW - the idea that some one is a
"criminal" simply for the reason that they haven't filed
the proper paperwork to have permission to be in the US
is absolute bullshit.
Cite the racist sections here please. I could not find them:
I wrote "may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin or religious upbringing" - which makes about as
much sense as criminalizing someone because of where they
were born.
I hold a minority opinion - bfd.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/2202
Full text:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-
bill/2202/text
House vote was mixed. passed at 71%:
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/1996432
Senate vote 97 to 3:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/
vote1042/ vote_104_2_00108.htm
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not possess >>>>> that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically-- sometimes for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants without hearing >>>>> who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign prisons. >>>>>
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. citizens. >>>>> He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me if we >>>>> ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd say "0%". >>>>> You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens from time >>>>> to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality of
government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly- deporting-
its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/12/22/504031635/you-
say- you-re-an-american-but- what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-deported >>>>
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known
without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case law of
citizenship having been revoked and the person deported, most
famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than the
abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes refer to
'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime" based purely on
the abstract notion that a persons place of origin makes them a
criminal. They may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin, or religious upbringing. IOW - the idea that some one is a >"criminal" simply for the reason that they haven't filed the proper
paperwork to have permission to be in the US is absolute bullshit.
On 6/18/2025 10:36 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:10 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 9:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not
possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically-- sometimes for >>>>>>>> years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants without >>>>>>>> hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign >>>>>>>> prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S.
citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me >>>>>>>> if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd say >>>>>>>> "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens
from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality of >>>>>>> government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps- mistakenly-
deporting- its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/12/22/504031635/
you- say- you-re-an-american- but- what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-
or-be- deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known
without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case law >>>>>>> of citizenship having been revoked and the person deported, most >>>>>>> famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than the
abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes refer to
'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime" based purely
on the abstract notion that a persons place of origin makes them a
criminal. They may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin, or religious upbringing. IOW - the idea that some one is
a "criminal" simply for the reason that they haven't filed the
proper paperwork to have permission to be in the US is absolute
bullshit.
Cite the racist sections here please. I could not find them:
I wrote "may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin or religious upbringing" - which makes about as much
sense as criminalizing someone because of where they were born.
I hold a minority opinion - bfd.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/2202
Full text:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house- bill/2202/text
House vote was mixed. passed at 71%:
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/1996432
Senate vote 97 to 3:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/ vote1042/
vote_104_2_00108.htm
I see you did not bother to read the most current statute and probably
have no prior familiarity.
Nothing about national origin (not since the 1924 Act, AFAIK).
The
consensus-written Acts specify process for lawful immigration and define illegal entry as illegal and subject to deportation.
We're damned near all immigrants or descendants thereof. We generally,
as a people, embrace new citizens, and a lot of them too.
Where we differ is with the various criminals, enemy agents, scam
artists, layabouts and other people of questionable character who choose
not to legally immigrate but rather to violate our laws and borders.
On 6/18/2025 12:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:36 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:10 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 9:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not >>>>>>>>> possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically-- sometimes for >>>>>>>>> years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants without >>>>>>>>> hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign >>>>>>>>> prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S.
citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me >>>>>>>>> if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd say >>>>>>>>> "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens >>>>>>>>> from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality of >>>>>>>> government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps- mistakenly-
deporting- its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/12/22/504031635/ >>>>>>>> you- say- you-re-an-american- but- what-if-you-had-to-prove-it- >>>>>>>> or-be- deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known >>>>>>>> without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case law >>>>>>>> of citizenship having been revoked and the person deported, most >>>>>>>> famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than the
abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes refer to
'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime" based purely
on the abstract notion that a persons place of origin makes them a
criminal. They may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin, or religious upbringing. IOW - the idea that some one is >>>>> a "criminal" simply for the reason that they haven't filed the
proper paperwork to have permission to be in the US is absolute
bullshit.
Cite the racist sections here please. I could not find them:
I wrote "may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin or religious upbringing" - which makes about as much
sense as criminalizing someone because of where they were born.
I hold a minority opinion - bfd.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/2202
Full text:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house- bill/2202/text
House vote was mixed. passed at 71%:
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/1996432
Senate vote 97 to 3:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/ vote1042/
vote_104_2_00108.htm
I see you did not bother to read the most current statute and probably
have no prior familiarity.
I know what the law says. I don't agree with it, and the current >administration is now categorizing someone with no criminal record in
the same class as a bonafide violent gang member - yeah, the migrant
farm workers who has never had any issues with law enforcement and
"worked for them for 20 years; they're not citizens, but they've turned
out to be ... great, and we're going to have to do something about
that." are just as bad to the nation as some asshole running guns,
drugs, and prostitutes.
Nothing about national origin (not since the 1924 Act, AFAIK).
Wrong - They aren't from here. IOW - 'if you aren't born here, you
shouldn't be here'. National Origin = 'not from the US'.
The
consensus-written Acts specify process for lawful immigration and define
illegal entry as illegal and subject to deportation.
Based on national origin - i.e. not from here.
We're damned near all immigrants or descendants thereof. We generally,
as a people, embrace new citizens, and a lot of them too.
No, we don't. There was once the consensus of which you write. There is
no more.
Where we differ is with the various criminals, enemy agents, scam
artists, layabouts and other people of questionable character who choose
not to legally immigrate but rather to violate our laws and borders.
And now the simple act of _coming_ here is deemed criminal.
And don't give me any bullshit about it not being racist. Stepehn Miller
is a white nationalist, responsible for the bulk of trumps immigration >policy.
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/stephen-millers-affinity-white-nationalism-revealed-leaked-emails/
You claim to be unaware of "The Great Replacement Theory". I call bull
shit, but if you are it's willful ignorance.
On 6/18/2025 12:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:36 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:10 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 9:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article
<k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because
we do not possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens
domestically-- sometimes for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal
immigrants without hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes
to foreign prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally
deport U.S. citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth
you'd give me if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I
suspect you'd say "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if
it happens from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor
the quality of government employees have changed in
decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-
mistakenly- deporting- its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2016/12/22/504031635/ you- say- you-re-an-
american- but- what-if-you-had-to-prove-it- or-be-
deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is
well known without doubt to be a US citizen. There
are examples in case law of citizenship having been
revoked and the person deported, most famously Emma
Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather
than the abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the
Statutes refer to 'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime"
based purely on the abstract notion that a persons
place of origin makes them a criminal. They may as well
have defined it as based on the color of their skin, or
religious upbringing. IOW - the idea that some one is a
"criminal" simply for the reason that they haven't
filed the proper paperwork to have permission to be in
the US is absolute bullshit.
Cite the racist sections here please. I could not find
them:
I wrote "may as well have defined it as based on the
color of
their skin or religious upbringing" - which makes about
as much sense as criminalizing someone because of where
they were born.
I hold a minority opinion - bfd.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-
bill/2202
Full text:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-
bill/2202/text
House vote was mixed. passed at 71%:
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/1996432
Senate vote 97 to 3:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/
vote1042/ vote_104_2_00108.htm
I see you did not bother to read the most current statute
and probably have no prior familiarity.
I know what the law says. I don't agree with it, and the
current administration is now categorizing someone with no
criminal record in the same class as a bonafide violent gang
member - yeah, the migrant farm workers who has never had
any issues with law enforcement and "worked for them for 20
years; they're not citizens, but they've turned out to
be ... great, and we're going to have to do something about
that." are just as bad to the nation as some asshole running
guns, drugs, and prostitutes.
Nothing about national origin (not since the 1924 Act,
AFAIK).
Wrong - They aren't from here. IOW - 'if you aren't born
here, you shouldn't be here'. National Origin = 'not from
the US'.
The consensus-written Acts specify process for lawful
immigration and define illegal entry as illegal and
subject to deportation.
Based on national origin - i.e. not from here.
We're damned near all immigrants or descendants thereof.
We generally, as a people, embrace new citizens, and a lot
of them too.
No, we don't. There was once the consensus of which you
write. There is no more.
Where we differ is with the various criminals, enemy
agents, scam artists, layabouts and other people of
questionable character who choose not to legally immigrate
but rather to violate our laws and borders.
And now the simple act of _coming_ here is deemed criminal.
And don't give me any bullshit about it not being racist.
Stepehn Miller is a white nationalist, responsible for the
bulk of trumps immigration policy.
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/stephen- millers-affinity-white-nationalism-revealed-leaked-emails/
You claim to be unaware of "The Great Replacement Theory". I
call bull shit, but if you are it's willful ignorance.
On 6/18/2025 11:44 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/18/2025 12:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:36 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:10 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 9:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not >>>>>>>>>> possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically-- sometimes >>>>>>>>>> for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants
without hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign >>>>>>>>>> prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. >>>>>>>>>> citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me >>>>>>>>>> if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd >>>>>>>>>> say "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens >>>>>>>>>> from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality >>>>>>>>> of government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps- mistakenly-
deporting- its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/12/22/504031635/ >>>>>>>>> you- say- you-re-an- american- but- what-if-you-had-to-prove- >>>>>>>>> it- or-be- deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known >>>>>>>>> without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case >>>>>>>>> law of citizenship having been revoked and the person deported, >>>>>>>>> most famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than the
abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes refer to >>>>>>> 'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime" based purely >>>>>> on the abstract notion that a persons place of origin makes them a >>>>>> criminal. They may as well have defined it as based on the color
of their skin, or religious upbringing. IOW - the idea that some
one is a "criminal" simply for the reason that they haven't filed
the proper paperwork to have permission to be in the US is
absolute bullshit.
Cite the racist sections here please. I could not find them:
I wrote "may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin or religious upbringing" - which makes about as much
sense as criminalizing someone because of where they were born.
I hold a minority opinion - bfd.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house- bill/2202
Full text:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house- bill/2202/text
House vote was mixed. passed at 71%:
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/1996432
Senate vote 97 to 3:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/ vote1042/
vote_104_2_00108.htm
I see you did not bother to read the most current statute and
probably have no prior familiarity.
I know what the law says. I don't agree with it, and the current
administration is now categorizing someone with no criminal record in
the same class as a bonafide violent gang member - yeah, the migrant
farm workers who has never had any issues with law enforcement and
"worked for them for 20 years; they're not citizens, but they've
turned out to be ... great, and we're going to have to do something
about that." are just as bad to the nation as some asshole running
guns, drugs, and prostitutes.
Nothing about national origin (not since the 1924 Act, AFAIK).
Wrong - They aren't from here. IOW - 'if you aren't born here, you
shouldn't be here'. National Origin = 'not from the US'.
The consensus-written Acts specify process for lawful immigration and
define illegal entry as illegal and subject to deportation.
Based on national origin - i.e. not from here.
We're damned near all immigrants or descendants thereof. We
generally, as a people, embrace new citizens, and a lot of them too.
No, we don't. There was once the consensus of which you write. There
is no more.
Where we differ is with the various criminals, enemy agents, scam
artists, layabouts and other people of questionable character who
choose not to legally immigrate but rather to violate our laws and
borders.
And now the simple act of _coming_ here is deemed criminal.
And don't give me any bullshit about it not being racist. Stepehn
Miller is a white nationalist, responsible for the bulk of trumps
immigration policy.
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/stephen- millers-
affinity-white-nationalism-revealed-leaked-emails/
You claim to be unaware of "The Great Replacement Theory". I call bull
shit, but if you are it's willful ignorance.
You seem to have a full and complete life, such that you need to invent putative problems. Good for you.
On 6/18/2025 2:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:44 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/18/2025 12:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:36 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:10 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 9:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>, >>>>>>>>>>> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not >>>>>>>>>>> possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically-- sometimes >>>>>>>>>>> for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants
without hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign >>>>>>>>>>> prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. >>>>>>>>>>> citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me >>>>>>>>>>> if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd >>>>>>>>>>> say "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens >>>>>>>>>>> from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality >>>>>>>>>> of government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps- mistakenly-
deporting- its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/12/22/504031635/ >>>>>>>>>> you- say- you-re-an- american- but- what-if-you-had-to-prove- >>>>>>>>>> it- or-be- deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known >>>>>>>>>> without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case >>>>>>>>>> law of citizenship having been revoked and the person deported, >>>>>>>>>> most famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than the >>>>>>>>> abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes refer to >>>>>>>> 'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime" based purely >>>>>>> on the abstract notion that a persons place of origin makes them a >>>>>>> criminal. They may as well have defined it as based on the color >>>>>>> of their skin, or religious upbringing. IOW - the idea that some >>>>>>> one is a "criminal" simply for the reason that they haven't filed >>>>>>> the proper paperwork to have permission to be in the US is
absolute bullshit.
Cite the racist sections here please. I could not find them:
I wrote "may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin or religious upbringing" - which makes about as much
sense as criminalizing someone because of where they were born.
I hold a minority opinion - bfd.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house- bill/2202
Full text:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house- bill/2202/text >>>>>>
House vote was mixed. passed at 71%:
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/1996432
Senate vote 97 to 3:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/ vote1042/
vote_104_2_00108.htm
I see you did not bother to read the most current statute and
probably have no prior familiarity.
I know what the law says. I don't agree with it, and the current
administration is now categorizing someone with no criminal record in
the same class as a bonafide violent gang member - yeah, the migrant
farm workers who has never had any issues with law enforcement and
"worked for them for 20 years; they're not citizens, but they've
turned out to be ... great, and we're going to have to do something
about that." are just as bad to the nation as some asshole running
guns, drugs, and prostitutes.
Nothing about national origin (not since the 1924 Act, AFAIK).
Wrong - They aren't from here. IOW - 'if you aren't born here, you
shouldn't be here'. National Origin = 'not from the US'.
The consensus-written Acts specify process for lawful immigration and
define illegal entry as illegal and subject to deportation.
Based on national origin - i.e. not from here.
We're damned near all immigrants or descendants thereof. We
generally, as a people, embrace new citizens, and a lot of them too.
No, we don't. There was once the consensus of which you write. There
is no more.
Where we differ is with the various criminals, enemy agents, scam
artists, layabouts and other people of questionable character who
choose not to legally immigrate but rather to violate our laws and
borders.
And now the simple act of _coming_ here is deemed criminal.
And don't give me any bullshit about it not being racist. Stepehn
Miller is a white nationalist, responsible for the bulk of trumps
immigration policy.
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/stephen- millers-
affinity-white-nationalism-revealed-leaked-emails/
You claim to be unaware of "The Great Replacement Theory". I call bull
shit, but if you are it's willful ignorance.
You seem to have a full and complete life, such that you need to invent
putative problems. Good for you.
Right back atcha
(i.e. illegal immigration is no where near the problem that justifies
the time, energy, money, and divisive, hateful, and political rhetoric
(lies) being pushed by the magatard administration).
On 6/18/2025 3:39 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Jun 3 16:10:15 2025 Zen Cycle wrote:Hmm. Donald Trump: ""I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and
On 6/3/2025 11:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/3/2025 8:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
There was a false statement inserted into a filing in re Kilmar Abrego >>>>> Garcia that he had been deported in error. The Justice Department
employee who added that was fired the next morning and the filing
emended...
Got a citation or other evidence for that claim? And what did the
courts
say about this issue? And where is Mr. Garcia now?
Right, The government narrative kept changing, coming up with different
excuses, right down to trump retweeting a photo shopped (fake) image of
Mr. Garcia with gang tattoos. Once they were unable to convince anyone
with any brains that he had no criminal past, they brought out a
domestic abuse complaint from ten years ago - complete bullshit as well. >>>
As Monday morning's NYT for example, whose front page did not cover
the immolation of live US citizens, including a Holocaust survivor, in >>>>> Boulder by an illegal jihadi screaming 'free palestine.' Deemed not
interesting enough by editorial staff.
I don't get a print edition of NYT; but your complaint seems to be that >>>> eight people getting various degrees of burns did not get enough
attention, despite it being on every news outlet. It looks to me like
NYT has since done many articles on the incident and its implications. >>>> Are you trying to say NYT does sufficiently protest antisemitism?
And BTW, what happened was despicable. As you know, I'm firmly against >>>> attempts to harm or kill groups of innocent people. But "immolation of >>>> live US citizens" is more than a little exaggerated. It usually means
burning to death. I gather only one person out of the eight was
seriously burned.
There's no excuse for the attack, but you can slightly relax your grip >>>> on your own pearls!
Oh poor little baby has to deny reality.
https://nypost.com/2025/04/30/us-news/kilmar-abrego-garcia-bragged-he-
could-kill-his-wife-and-get-away-with-it-court-docs/
shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's, like,
incredible."
You've bragged that you could destroy me, or Zen, or anyone you cared to
with one punch.
None of that means much.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:49:28 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/18/2025 2:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:44 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/18/2025 12:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:36 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:10 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 9:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>, >>>>>>>>>>>> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not >>>>>>>>>>>> possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically-- sometimes >>>>>>>>>>>> for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants >>>>>>>>>>>> without hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign >>>>>>>>>>>> prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. >>>>>>>>>>>> citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me >>>>>>>>>>>> if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd >>>>>>>>>>>> say "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens >>>>>>>>>>>> from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality >>>>>>>>>>> of government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps- mistakenly- >>>>>>>>>>> deporting- its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/12/22/504031635/ >>>>>>>>>>> you- say- you-re-an- american- but- what-if-you-had-to-prove- >>>>>>>>>>> it- or-be- deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known >>>>>>>>>>> without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case >>>>>>>>>>> law of citizenship having been revoked and the person deported, >>>>>>>>>>> most famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than the >>>>>>>>>> abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes refer to >>>>>>>>> 'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime" based purely >>>>>>>> on the abstract notion that a persons place of origin makes them a >>>>>>>> criminal. They may as well have defined it as based on the color >>>>>>>> of their skin, or religious upbringing. IOW - the idea that some >>>>>>>> one is a "criminal" simply for the reason that they haven't filed >>>>>>>> the proper paperwork to have permission to be in the US is
absolute bullshit.
Cite the racist sections here please. I could not find them:
I wrote "may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin or religious upbringing" - which makes about as much >>>>>> sense as criminalizing someone because of where they were born.
I hold a minority opinion - bfd.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house- bill/2202
Full text:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house- bill/2202/text >>>>>>>
House vote was mixed. passed at 71%:
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/1996432
Senate vote 97 to 3:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/ vote1042/ >>>>>>> vote_104_2_00108.htm
I see you did not bother to read the most current statute and
probably have no prior familiarity.
I know what the law says. I don't agree with it, and the current
administration is now categorizing someone with no criminal record in
the same class as a bonafide violent gang member - yeah, the migrant
farm workers who has never had any issues with law enforcement and
"worked for them for 20 years; they're not citizens, but they've
turned out to be ... great, and we're going to have to do something
about that." are just as bad to the nation as some asshole running
guns, drugs, and prostitutes.
Nothing about national origin (not since the 1924 Act, AFAIK).
Wrong - They aren't from here. IOW - 'if you aren't born here, you
shouldn't be here'. National Origin = 'not from the US'.
The consensus-written Acts specify process for lawful immigration and >>>>> define illegal entry as illegal and subject to deportation.
Based on national origin - i.e. not from here.
We're damned near all immigrants or descendants thereof. We
generally, as a people, embrace new citizens, and a lot of them too.
No, we don't. There was once the consensus of which you write. There
is no more.
Where we differ is with the various criminals, enemy agents, scam
artists, layabouts and other people of questionable character who
choose not to legally immigrate but rather to violate our laws and
borders.
And now the simple act of _coming_ here is deemed criminal.
And don't give me any bullshit about it not being racist. Stepehn
Miller is a white nationalist, responsible for the bulk of trumps
immigration policy.
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/stephen- millers-
affinity-white-nationalism-revealed-leaked-emails/
You claim to be unaware of "The Great Replacement Theory". I call bull >>>> shit, but if you are it's willful ignorance.
You seem to have a full and complete life, such that you need to invent
putative problems. Good for you.
Right back atcha
(i.e. illegal immigration is no where near the problem that justifies
the time, energy, money, and divisive, hateful, and political rhetoric
(lies) being pushed by the magatard administration).
Apparently, Junior is getting his news from people who spend a lot of
time, energy, money, and divisive, hateful, and political rhetoric
pushing their propaganda. It doesn't seem to be taking.....
The majority of people support Trump's policies regarding deportation.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/deportation-immigration-opinion-poll/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not possess >>>>> that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically-- sometimes for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants without hearing >>>>> who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign prisons. >>>>>
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. citizens. >>>>> He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me if we >>>>> ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd say "0%". >>>>> You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens from time >>>>> to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality of
government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly- deporting-
its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/12/22/504031635/you-
say- you-re-an-american-but- what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-deported >>>>
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known
without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case law of
citizenship having been revoked and the person deported, most
famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than the
abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes refer to
'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime" based purely on
the abstract notion that a persons place of origin makes them a
criminal. They may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin, or religious upbringing. IOW - the idea that some one is a >"criminal" simply for the reason that they haven't filed the proper
paperwork to have permission to be in the US is absolute bullshit.
On 6/18/2025 5:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 2:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:And as has been repeatedly shown, the crime rate for U.S. citizens is >actually worse.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:49:28 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/18/2025 2:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:44 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/18/2025 12:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:36 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:10 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 9:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically-- sometimes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants >>>>>>>>>>>>>> without hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign >>>>>>>>>>>>>> prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd >>>>>>>>>>>>>> say "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality >>>>>>>>>>>>> of government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps- mistakenly- >>>>>>>>>>>>> deporting- its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/12/22/504031635/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> you- say- you-re-an- american- but- what-if-you-had-to-prove- >>>>>>>>>>>>> it- or-be- deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known >>>>>>>>>>>>> without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case >>>>>>>>>>>>> law of citizenship having been revoked and the person deported, >>>>>>>>>>>>> most famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than the >>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes refer to >>>>>>>>>>> 'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime" based purely >>>>>>>>>> on the abstract notion that a persons place of origin makes them a >>>>>>>>>> criminal. They may as well have defined it as based on the color >>>>>>>>>> of their skin, or religious upbringing. IOW - the idea that some >>>>>>>>>> one is a "criminal" simply for the reason that they haven't filed >>>>>>>>>> the proper paperwork to have permission to be in the US is >>>>>>>>>> absolute bullshit.
Cite the racist sections here please. I could not find them:
I wrote "may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin or religious upbringing" - which makes about as much >>>>>>>> sense as criminalizing someone because of where they were born. >>>>>>>>
I hold a minority opinion - bfd.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house- bill/2202 >>>>>>>>>
Full text:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house- bill/2202/text >>>>>>>>>
House vote was mixed. passed at 71%:
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/1996432
Senate vote 97 to 3:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/ vote1042/ >>>>>>>>> vote_104_2_00108.htm
I see you did not bother to read the most current statute and
probably have no prior familiarity.
I know what the law says. I don't agree with it, and the current
administration is now categorizing someone with no criminal record in >>>>>> the same class as a bonafide violent gang member - yeah, the migrant >>>>>> farm workers who has never had any issues with law enforcement and >>>>>> "worked for them for 20 years; they're not citizens, but they've
turned out to be ... great, and we're going to have to do something >>>>>> about that." are just as bad to the nation as some asshole running >>>>>> guns, drugs, and prostitutes.
Nothing about national origin (not since the 1924 Act, AFAIK).
Wrong - They aren't from here. IOW - 'if you aren't born here, you >>>>>> shouldn't be here'. National Origin = 'not from the US'.
The consensus-written Acts specify process for lawful immigration and >>>>>>> define illegal entry as illegal and subject to deportation.
Based on national origin - i.e. not from here.
No, we don't. There was once the consensus of which you write. There >>>>>> is no more.
We're damned near all immigrants or descendants thereof. We
generally, as a people, embrace new citizens, and a lot of them too. >>>>>>
Where we differ is with the various criminals, enemy agents, scam >>>>>>> artists, layabouts and other people of questionable character who >>>>>>> choose not to legally immigrate but rather to violate our laws and >>>>>>> borders.
And now the simple act of _coming_ here is deemed criminal.
And don't give me any bullshit about it not being racist. Stepehn
Miller is a white nationalist, responsible for the bulk of trumps
immigration policy.
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/stephen- millers-
affinity-white-nationalism-revealed-leaked-emails/
You claim to be unaware of "The Great Replacement Theory". I call bull >>>>>> shit, but if you are it's willful ignorance.
You seem to have a full and complete life, such that you need to invent >>>>> putative problems. Good for you.
Right back atcha
(i.e. illegal immigration is no where near the problem that justifies
the time, energy, money, and divisive, hateful, and political rhetoric >>>> (lies) being pushed by the magatard administration).
Apparently, Junior is getting his news from people who spend a lot of
time, energy, money, and divisive, hateful, and political rhetoric
pushing their propaganda. It doesn't seem to be taking.....
The majority of people support Trump's policies regarding deportation.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/deportation-immigration-opinion-poll/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
With good reason:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/3201446/texas-dps-over-443000-
criminal-noncitizens-booked-in-texas-jails/
Maybe that's why ICE sometimes doesn't seem to care if someone's a
citizen or not? Or otherwise here legally? No matter what they've done
for our country?
<https://www.yahoo.com/news/afghan-ally-detained-ice-immigration-225300436.html>
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 10:42:59 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not possess >>>>>> that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically-- sometimes for >>>>>> years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants without hearing >>>>>> who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. citizens. >>>>>> He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me if we >>>>>> ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd say "0%". >>>>>> You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens from time >>>>>> to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality of
government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly- deporting-
its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/12/22/504031635/you-
say- you-re-an-american-but- what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-deported >>>>>
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known
without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case law of
citizenship having been revoked and the person deported, most
famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than the
abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes refer to
'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime" based purely on
the abstract notion that a persons place of origin makes them a
criminal. They may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin, or religious upbringing. IOW - the idea that some one is a
"criminal" simply for the reason that they haven't filed the proper
paperwork to have permission to be in the US is absolute bullshit.
You might read "1911. 8 U.S.C. 1325 -- Unlawful Entry, Failure To
Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial Enterprise Fraud".
"Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses relating to (1) improper
entry into the United States by an alien,..."
Since 114 years already
--
cheers,
John B.
On 6/18/2025 10:17 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 10:42:59 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>Wow, both you and the floriduh dumbass failing to read what was actually written....
wrote:
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not possess >>>>>>> that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically-- sometimes for >>>>>>> years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants without
hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign >>>>>>> prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S.
citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me if we >>>>>>> ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd say >>>>>>> "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens
from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality of
government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly- deporting- >>>>>> its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/12/22/504031635/you- >>>>>> say- you-re-an-american-but- what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-
deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known
without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case law of >>>>>> citizenship having been revoked and the person deported, most
famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than the
abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes refer to
'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime" based purely on
the abstract notion that a persons place of origin makes them a
criminal. They may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin, or religious upbringing. IOW - the idea that some one is a
"criminal" simply for the reason that they haven't filed the proper
paperwork to have permission to be in the US is absolute bullshit.
You might read "1911. 8 U.S.C. 1325 -- Unlawful Entry, Failure To
Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial
Enterprise Fraud".
"Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses relating to (1) improper
entry into the United States by an alien,..."
Since 114 years already
--
cheers,
John B.
I didn't claim it wasn't law, dumbass, I claimed that not filing the paperwork before before coming into the US makes them a criminal is an abstraction and not a real "crime". It's just as much of a crime as miscegenation or sexual preference - both of which have been outlawed.
On 6/18/2025 2:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:49:28 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/18/2025 2:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:44 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/18/2025 12:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:36 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:10 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 9:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not >>>>>>>>>>>>> possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically-- sometimes >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants >>>>>>>>>>>>> without hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign >>>>>>>>>>>>> prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. >>>>>>>>>>>>> citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me >>>>>>>>>>>>> if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd >>>>>>>>>>>>> say "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens >>>>>>>>>>>>> from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality >>>>>>>>>>>> of government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps- mistakenly- >>>>>>>>>>>> deporting- its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/12/22/504031635/ >>>>>>>>>>>> you- say- you-re-an- american- but- what-if-you-had-to-prove- >>>>>>>>>>>> it- or-be- deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known >>>>>>>>>>>> without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case >>>>>>>>>>>> law of citizenship having been revoked and the person deported, >>>>>>>>>>>> most famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html >>>>>>>>>>>>
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than the >>>>>>>>>>> abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes refer to >>>>>>>>>> 'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime" based purely >>>>>>>>> on the abstract notion that a persons place of origin makes them a >>>>>>>>> criminal. They may as well have defined it as based on the color >>>>>>>>> of their skin, or religious upbringing. IOW - the idea that some >>>>>>>>> one is a "criminal" simply for the reason that they haven't filed >>>>>>>>> the proper paperwork to have permission to be in the US is
absolute bullshit.
Cite the racist sections here please. I could not find them:
I wrote "may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin or religious upbringing" - which makes about as much >>>>>>> sense as criminalizing someone because of where they were born.
I hold a minority opinion - bfd.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house- bill/2202
Full text:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house- bill/2202/text >>>>>>>>
House vote was mixed. passed at 71%:
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/1996432
Senate vote 97 to 3:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/ vote1042/ >>>>>>>> vote_104_2_00108.htm
I see you did not bother to read the most current statute and
probably have no prior familiarity.
I know what the law says. I don't agree with it, and the current
administration is now categorizing someone with no criminal record in >>>>> the same class as a bonafide violent gang member - yeah, the migrant >>>>> farm workers who has never had any issues with law enforcement and
"worked for them for 20 years; they're not citizens, but they've
turned out to be ... great, and we're going to have to do something
about that." are just as bad to the nation as some asshole running
guns, drugs, and prostitutes.
Nothing about national origin (not since the 1924 Act, AFAIK).
Wrong - They aren't from here. IOW - 'if you aren't born here, you
shouldn't be here'. National Origin = 'not from the US'.
The consensus-written Acts specify process for lawful immigration and >>>>>> define illegal entry as illegal and subject to deportation.
Based on national origin - i.e. not from here.
No, we don't. There was once the consensus of which you write. There >>>>> is no more.
We're damned near all immigrants or descendants thereof. We
generally, as a people, embrace new citizens, and a lot of them too. >>>>>
Where we differ is with the various criminals, enemy agents, scam
artists, layabouts and other people of questionable character who
choose not to legally immigrate but rather to violate our laws and >>>>>> borders.
And now the simple act of _coming_ here is deemed criminal.
And don't give me any bullshit about it not being racist. Stepehn
Miller is a white nationalist, responsible for the bulk of trumps
immigration policy.
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/stephen- millers-
affinity-white-nationalism-revealed-leaked-emails/
You claim to be unaware of "The Great Replacement Theory". I call bull >>>>> shit, but if you are it's willful ignorance.
You seem to have a full and complete life, such that you need to invent >>>> putative problems. Good for you.
Right back atcha
(i.e. illegal immigration is no where near the problem that justifies
the time, energy, money, and divisive, hateful, and political rhetoric
(lies) being pushed by the magatard administration).
Apparently, Junior is getting his news from people who spend a lot of
time, energy, money, and divisive, hateful, and political rhetoric
pushing their propaganda. It doesn't seem to be taking.....
The majority of people support Trump's policies regarding deportation.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/deportation-immigration-opinion-poll/
"Another Krygowski strawman.
I doubt many people are "triggered by the very thought of immigrants
in America" since most of us are descendant of immigrants."
--
C'est bon
Soloman
With good reason:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/3201446/texas-dps-over-443000- criminal-noncitizens-booked-in-texas-jails/
On 6/18/2025 10:17 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 10:42:59 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>Wow, both you and the floriduh dumbass failing to read what was actually >written....
wrote:
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not possess >>>>>>> that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically-- sometimes for >>>>>>> years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants without hearing >>>>>>> who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign prisons. >>>>>>>
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. citizens. >>>>>>> He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me if we >>>>>>> ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd say "0%". >>>>>>> You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens from time >>>>>>> to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality of
government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly- deporting- >>>>>> its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/12/22/504031635/you- >>>>>> say- you-re-an-american-but- what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-deported >>>>>>
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known
without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case law of >>>>>> citizenship having been revoked and the person deported, most
famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than the
abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes refer to
'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime" based purely on
the abstract notion that a persons place of origin makes them a
criminal. They may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin, or religious upbringing. IOW - the idea that some one is a
"criminal" simply for the reason that they haven't filed the proper
paperwork to have permission to be in the US is absolute bullshit.
You might read "1911. 8 U.S.C. 1325 -- Unlawful Entry, Failure To
Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial
Enterprise Fraud".
"Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses relating to (1) improper
entry into the United States by an alien,..."
Since 114 years already
--
cheers,
John B.
I didn't claim it wasn't law, dumbass, I claimed that not filing the >paperwork before before coming into the US makes them a criminal is an >abstraction and not a real "crime". It's just as much of a crime as >miscegenation or sexual preference - both of which have been outlawed.
On 6/18/2025 5:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:Junior seems to have a problem figuring out who wrote what.
On 6/18/2025 2:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:49:28 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/18/2025 2:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:44 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/18/2025 12:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:36 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:10 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 9:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically-- sometimes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants >>>>>>>>>>>>>> without hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign >>>>>>>>>>>>>> prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd >>>>>>>>>>>>>> say "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality >>>>>>>>>>>>> of government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps- mistakenly- >>>>>>>>>>>>> deporting- its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/12/22/504031635/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> you- say- you-re-an- american- but- what-if-you-had-to-prove- >>>>>>>>>>>>> it- or-be- deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known >>>>>>>>>>>>> without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case >>>>>>>>>>>>> law of citizenship having been revoked and the person deported, >>>>>>>>>>>>> most famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than the >>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes refer to >>>>>>>>>>> 'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime" based purely >>>>>>>>>> on the abstract notion that a persons place of origin makes them a >>>>>>>>>> criminal. They may as well have defined it as based on the color >>>>>>>>>> of their skin, or religious upbringing. IOW - the idea that some >>>>>>>>>> one is a "criminal" simply for the reason that they haven't filed >>>>>>>>>> the proper paperwork to have permission to be in the US is >>>>>>>>>> absolute bullshit.
Cite the racist sections here please. I could not find them:
I wrote "may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin or religious upbringing" - which makes about as much >>>>>>>> sense as criminalizing someone because of where they were born. >>>>>>>>
I hold a minority opinion - bfd.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house- bill/2202 >>>>>>>>>
Full text:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house- bill/2202/text >>>>>>>>>
House vote was mixed. passed at 71%:
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/1996432
Senate vote 97 to 3:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/ vote1042/ >>>>>>>>> vote_104_2_00108.htm
I see you did not bother to read the most current statute and
probably have no prior familiarity.
I know what the law says. I don't agree with it, and the current
administration is now categorizing someone with no criminal record in >>>>>> the same class as a bonafide violent gang member - yeah, the migrant >>>>>> farm workers who has never had any issues with law enforcement and >>>>>> "worked for them for 20 years; they're not citizens, but they've
turned out to be ... great, and we're going to have to do something >>>>>> about that." are just as bad to the nation as some asshole running >>>>>> guns, drugs, and prostitutes.
Nothing about national origin (not since the 1924 Act, AFAIK).
Wrong - They aren't from here. IOW - 'if you aren't born here, you >>>>>> shouldn't be here'. National Origin = 'not from the US'.
The consensus-written Acts specify process for lawful immigration and >>>>>>> define illegal entry as illegal and subject to deportation.
Based on national origin - i.e. not from here.
No, we don't. There was once the consensus of which you write. There >>>>>> is no more.
We're damned near all immigrants or descendants thereof. We
generally, as a people, embrace new citizens, and a lot of them too. >>>>>>
Where we differ is with the various criminals, enemy agents, scam >>>>>>> artists, layabouts and other people of questionable character who >>>>>>> choose not to legally immigrate but rather to violate our laws and >>>>>>> borders.
And now the simple act of _coming_ here is deemed criminal.
And don't give me any bullshit about it not being racist. Stepehn
Miller is a white nationalist, responsible for the bulk of trumps
immigration policy.
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/stephen- millers-
affinity-white-nationalism-revealed-leaked-emails/
You claim to be unaware of "The Great Replacement Theory". I call bull >>>>>> shit, but if you are it's willful ignorance.
You seem to have a full and complete life, such that you need to invent >>>>> putative problems. Good for you.
Right back atcha
(i.e. illegal immigration is no where near the problem that justifies
the time, energy, money, and divisive, hateful, and political rhetoric >>>> (lies) being pushed by the magatard administration).
Apparently, Junior is getting his news from people who spend a lot of
time, energy, money, and divisive, hateful, and political rhetoric
pushing their propaganda. It doesn't seem to be taking.....
The majority of people support Trump's policies regarding deportation.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/deportation-immigration-opinion-poll/
wow...you really are that fucking stupid. Exactly where do you see that
I wrote people _aren't_ supporting trump? I wrote exactly the opposite,
you brainless magatard.
*
Andrew: We generally, as a people, embrace new citizens, and a lot of
them too.
Me: No, we don't. There was once the consensus of which you write. There
is no more.
*
Andrew then posted several links regarding passage of anti-immigration >legislation, to which I replied:
"I hold a minority opinion - bfd."
In fact, in the "Cycling and social policy" thread, both you and Andrew >directly claim the opposite of what you poll link suggests:
https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=126892&group=rec.bicycles.tech#126892
You went so far to claim what your poll lists is a "kyrgowski
strawman"
"Another Krygowski strawman.
I doubt many people are "triggered by the very thought of immigrants
in America" since most of us are descendant of immigrants."
to which Andrew replied: >https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=126910&group=rec.bicycles.tech#126910
"+1
We USAians are heartily welcoming of immigrants generally,
and moreso over time."
which of course, is contradicted by polling, as I noted in my response
to him
https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=126917&group=rec.bicycles.tech#126917
"lol...what load of horseshit...
From July 2024
https://news.gallup.com/poll/647123/sharply-americans-curb-immigration.aspx >"Significantly more U.S. adults than a year ago, 55% versus 41%, would
like to see immigration to the U.S. decreased. This is the first time
since 2005 that a majority of Americans have wanted there to be less >immigration, and todays figure is the largest percentage holding that
view since a 58% reading in 2001. "
"
So you call both my and Franks comments false, then proceed to post a
poll which suggest exactly what we are both stating.
Tell ya what, dumbass, how about if you _think_ you're going to engage >someone based upon what they wrote, you actually _read_ what they wrote >rather than pull a kunich and invent what you _wish_ they wrote.
floriduh dumbass making the dumbshine state proud again.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
With good reason:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/3201446/texas-dps-over-443000-
criminal-noncitizens-booked-in-texas-jails/
On 6/18/2025 10:17 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 10:42:59 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>Wow, both you and the floriduh dumbass failing to read what was actually >written....
wrote:
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not possess >>>>>>> that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically-- sometimes for >>>>>>> years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants without hearing >>>>>>> who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign prisons. >>>>>>>
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. citizens. >>>>>>> He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me if we >>>>>>> ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd say "0%". >>>>>>> You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens from time >>>>>>> to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality of
government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly- deporting- >>>>>> its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/12/22/504031635/you- >>>>>> say- you-re-an-american-but- what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-deported >>>>>>
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known
without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case law of >>>>>> citizenship having been revoked and the person deported, most
famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than the
abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes refer to
'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime" based purely on
the abstract notion that a persons place of origin makes them a
criminal. They may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin, or religious upbringing. IOW - the idea that some one is a
"criminal" simply for the reason that they haven't filed the proper
paperwork to have permission to be in the US is absolute bullshit.
You might read "1911. 8 U.S.C. 1325 -- Unlawful Entry, Failure To
Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial
Enterprise Fraud".
"Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses relating to (1) improper
entry into the United States by an alien,..."
Since 114 years already
--
cheers,
John B.
I didn't claim it wasn't law, dumbass, I claimed that not filing the >paperwork before before coming into the US makes them a criminal is an >abstraction and not a real "crime". It's just as much of a crime as >miscegenation or sexual preference - both of which have been outlawed.
On 6/18/2025 10:17 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 10:42:59 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>Wow, both you and the floriduh dumbass failing to read what was actually >written....
wrote:
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not possess >>>>>>> that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically-- sometimes for >>>>>>> years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants without hearing >>>>>>> who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign prisons. >>>>>>>
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. citizens. >>>>>>> He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me if we >>>>>>> ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd say "0%". >>>>>>> You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens from time >>>>>>> to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality of
government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly- deporting- >>>>>> its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/12/22/504031635/you- >>>>>> say- you-re-an-american-but- what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-deported >>>>>>
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known
without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case law of >>>>>> citizenship having been revoked and the person deported, most
famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than the
abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes refer to
'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime" based purely on
the abstract notion that a persons place of origin makes them a
criminal. They may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin, or religious upbringing. IOW - the idea that some one is a
"criminal" simply for the reason that they haven't filed the proper
paperwork to have permission to be in the US is absolute bullshit.
You might read "1911. 8 U.S.C. 1325 -- Unlawful Entry, Failure To
Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial
Enterprise Fraud".
"Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses relating to (1) improper
entry into the United States by an alien,..."
Since 114 years already
--
cheers,
John B.
I didn't claim it wasn't law, dumbass, I claimed that not filing the >paperwork before before coming into the US makes them a criminal is an >abstraction and not a real "crime". It's just as much of a crime as >miscegenation or sexual preference - both of which have been outlawed.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 05:56:38 -0400, zen cycleSure, if you want to consider national boundaries analogous to a private
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:17 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 10:42:59 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>Wow, both you and the floriduh dumbass failing to read what was actually
wrote:
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not possess >>>>>>>> that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically-- sometimes for >>>>>>>> years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants without hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. citizens. >>>>>>>> He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me if we >>>>>>>> ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd say "0%". >>>>>>>> You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality of >>>>>>> government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly- deporting- >>>>>>> its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/12/22/504031635/you- >>>>>>> say- you-re-an-american-but- what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-deported >>>>>>>
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known
without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case law of >>>>>>> citizenship having been revoked and the person deported, most
famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than the
abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes refer to
'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime" based purely on
the abstract notion that a persons place of origin makes them a
criminal. They may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin, or religious upbringing. IOW - the idea that some one is a >>>> "criminal" simply for the reason that they haven't filed the proper
paperwork to have permission to be in the US is absolute bullshit.
You might read "1911. 8 U.S.C. 1325 -- Unlawful Entry, Failure To
Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial
Enterprise Fraud".
"Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses relating to (1) improper
entry into the United States by an alien,..."
Since 114 years already
--
cheers,
John B.
written....
I didn't claim it wasn't law, dumbass, I claimed that not filing the
paperwork before before coming into the US makes them a criminal is an
abstraction and not a real "crime". It's just as much of a crime as
miscegenation or sexual preference - both of which have been outlawed.
Come now. It's not filling out the form it is entering the country.
Sort of like entering your house uninvited. It's not reaching for the
door handle, it is putting your foot on the floor inside the house.
On 6/18/2025 5:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 2:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:And as has been repeatedly shown, the crime rate for U.S. citizens is actually worse.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:49:28 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/18/2025 2:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:44 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/18/2025 12:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:36 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:10 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 9:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically-- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes
for
years--on charges of being illegal immigrants. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants >>>>>>>>>>>>>> without hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> foreign
prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd >>>>>>>>>>>>>> give me
if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd >>>>>>>>>>>>>> say "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality >>>>>>>>>>>>> of government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps- mistakenly- >>>>>>>>>>>>> deporting- its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/12/22/504031635/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> you- say- you-re-an- american- but- what-if-you-had-to-prove- >>>>>>>>>>>>> it- or-be- deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well >>>>>>>>>>>>> known
without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case >>>>>>>>>>>>> law of citizenship having been revoked and the person >>>>>>>>>>>>> deported,
most famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than the >>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes >>>>>>>>>>> refer to
'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime" based >>>>>>>>>> purely
on the abstract notion that a persons place of origin makes >>>>>>>>>> them a
criminal. They may as well have defined it as based on the color >>>>>>>>>> of their skin, or religious upbringing. IOW - the idea that some >>>>>>>>>> one is a "criminal" simply for the reason that they haven't filed >>>>>>>>>> the proper paperwork to have permission to be in the US is >>>>>>>>>> absolute bullshit.
Cite the racist sections here please. I could not find them:
I wrote "may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin or religious upbringing" - which makes about as much >>>>>>>> sense as criminalizing someone because of where they were born. >>>>>>>>
I hold a minority opinion - bfd.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house- bill/2202 >>>>>>>>>
Full text:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house- bill/2202/text >>>>>>>>>
House vote was mixed. passed at 71%:
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/1996432
Senate vote 97 to 3:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/ vote1042/ >>>>>>>>> vote_104_2_00108.htm
I see you did not bother to read the most current statute and
probably have no prior familiarity.
I know what the law says. I don't agree with it, and the current
administration is now categorizing someone with no criminal record in >>>>>> the same class as a bonafide violent gang member - yeah, the migrant >>>>>> farm workers who has never had any issues with law enforcement and >>>>>> "worked for them for 20 years; they're not citizens, but they've
turned out to be ... great, and we're going to have to do something >>>>>> about that." are just as bad to the nation as some asshole running >>>>>> guns, drugs, and prostitutes.
Nothing about national origin (not since the 1924 Act, AFAIK).
Wrong - They aren't from here. IOW - 'if you aren't born here, you >>>>>> shouldn't be here'. National Origin = 'not from the US'.
The consensus-written Acts specify process for lawful immigration >>>>>>> and
define illegal entry as illegal and subject to deportation.
Based on national origin - i.e. not from here.
No, we don't. There was once the consensus of which you write. There >>>>>> is no more.
We're damned near all immigrants or descendants thereof. We
generally, as a people, embrace new citizens, and a lot of them too. >>>>>>
Where we differ is with the various criminals, enemy agents, scam >>>>>>> artists, layabouts and other people of questionable character who >>>>>>> choose not to legally immigrate but rather to violate our laws and >>>>>>> borders.
And now the simple act of _coming_ here is deemed criminal.
And don't give me any bullshit about it not being racist. Stepehn
Miller is a white nationalist, responsible for the bulk of trumps
immigration policy.
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/stephen- millers-
affinity-white-nationalism-revealed-leaked-emails/
You claim to be unaware of "The Great Replacement Theory". I call
bull
shit, but if you are it's willful ignorance.
You seem to have a full and complete life, such that you need to
invent
putative problems. Good for you.
Right back atcha
(i.e. illegal immigration is no where near the problem that justifies
the time, energy, money, and divisive, hateful, and political rhetoric >>>> (lies) being pushed by the magatard administration).
Apparently, Junior is getting his news from people who spend a lot of
time, energy, money, and divisive, hateful, and political rhetoric
pushing their propaganda. It doesn't seem to be taking.....
The majority of people support Trump's policies regarding deportation.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/deportation-immigration-opinion-poll/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
With good reason:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/3201446/texas-dps-over-443000-
criminal-noncitizens-booked-in-texas-jails/
Maybe that's why ICE sometimes doesn't seem to care if someone's a
citizen or not? Or otherwise here legally? No matter what they've done
for our country?
<https://www.yahoo.com/news/afghan-ally-detained-ice- immigration-225300436.html>
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 05:56:38 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:17 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 10:42:59 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>Wow, both you and the floriduh dumbass failing to read what was actually
wrote:
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not possess >>>>>>>> that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically-- sometimes for >>>>>>>> years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants without hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. citizens. >>>>>>>> He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me if we >>>>>>>> ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd say "0%". >>>>>>>> You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality of >>>>>>> government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly- deporting- >>>>>>> its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/12/22/504031635/you- >>>>>>> say- you-re-an-american-but- what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-deported >>>>>>>
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known
without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case law of >>>>>>> citizenship having been revoked and the person deported, most
famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than the
abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes refer to
'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime" based purely on
the abstract notion that a persons place of origin makes them a
criminal. They may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin, or religious upbringing. IOW - the idea that some one is a >>>> "criminal" simply for the reason that they haven't filed the proper
paperwork to have permission to be in the US is absolute bullshit.
You might read "1911. 8 U.S.C. 1325 -- Unlawful Entry, Failure To
Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial
Enterprise Fraud".
"Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses relating to (1) improper
entry into the United States by an alien,..."
Since 114 years already
--
cheers,
John B.
written....
I didn't claim it wasn't law, dumbass, I claimed that not filing the
paperwork before before coming into the US makes them a criminal is an
abstraction and not a real "crime". It's just as much of a crime as
miscegenation or sexual preference - both of which have been outlawed.
Note the wording here, "have been outlawed". Has the 1911 law been
outlawed?
--
cheers,
John B.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 05:56:38 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:17 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 10:42:59 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>Wow, both you and the floriduh dumbass failing to read what was actually
wrote:
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not possess >>>>>>>> that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically-- sometimes for >>>>>>>> years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants without hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. citizens. >>>>>>>> He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me if we >>>>>>>> ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd say "0%". >>>>>>>> You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality of >>>>>>> government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly- deporting- >>>>>>> its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/12/22/504031635/you- >>>>>>> say- you-re-an-american-but- what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-deported >>>>>>>
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known
without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case law of >>>>>>> citizenship having been revoked and the person deported, most
famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than the
abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes refer to
'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime" based purely on
the abstract notion that a persons place of origin makes them a
criminal. They may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin, or religious upbringing. IOW - the idea that some one is a >>>> "criminal" simply for the reason that they haven't filed the proper
paperwork to have permission to be in the US is absolute bullshit.
You might read "1911. 8 U.S.C. 1325 -- Unlawful Entry, Failure To
Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial
Enterprise Fraud".
"Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses relating to (1) improper
entry into the United States by an alien,..."
Since 114 years already
--
cheers,
John B.
written....
I didn't claim it wasn't law, dumbass, I claimed that not filing the
paperwork before before coming into the US makes them a criminal is an
abstraction and not a real "crime". It's just as much of a crime as
miscegenation or sexual preference - both of which have been outlawed.
Come now. It's not filling out the form it is entering the country.
Sort of like entering your house uninvited. It's not reaching for the
door handle, it is putting your foot on the floor inside the house.
--
cheers,
John B.
On 6/18/2025 5:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 2:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:And as has been repeatedly shown, the crime rate for U.S.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:49:28 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/18/2025 2:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:44 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/18/2025 12:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:36 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:10 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 9:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article
<k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not
because we do not
possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens
domestically-- sometimes
for
years--on charges of being illegal
immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal
immigrants
without hearing
who were living in the United States,
sometimes to foreign
prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we
accidentally deport U.S.
citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net
worth you'd give me
if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I
suspect you'd
say "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't
care if it happens
from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes
nor the quality
of government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-
mistakenly-
deporting- its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2016/12/22/504031635/
you- say- you-re-an- american- but- what-if-
you-had-to-prove-
it- or-be- deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen
who is well known
without doubt to be a US citizen. There are
examples in case
law of citizenship having been revoked and the
person deported,
most famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/
goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes,
rather than the
abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the
Statutes refer to
'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a
"crime" based purely
on the abstract notion that a persons place of
origin makes them a
criminal. They may as well have defined it as
based on the color
of their skin, or religious upbringing. IOW - the
idea that some
one is a "criminal" simply for the reason that
they haven't filed
the proper paperwork to have permission to be in
the US is
absolute bullshit.
Cite the racist sections here please. I could not
find them:
I wrote "may as well have defined it as based on the
color of
their skin or religious upbringing" - which makes
about as much
sense as criminalizing someone because of where they
were born.
I hold a minority opinion - bfd.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-
bill/2202
Full text:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-
bill/2202/text
House vote was mixed. passed at 71%:
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/1996432
Senate vote 97 to 3:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/
roll_call_votes/ vote1042/
vote_104_2_00108.htm
I see you did not bother to read the most current
statute and
probably have no prior familiarity.
I know what the law says. I don't agree with it, and
the current
administration is now categorizing someone with no
criminal record in
the same class as a bonafide violent gang member -
yeah, the migrant
farm workers who has never had any issues with law
enforcement and
"worked for them for 20 years; they're not citizens,
but they've
turned out to be ... great, and we're going to have to
do something
about that." are just as bad to the nation as some
asshole running
guns, drugs, and prostitutes.
Nothing about national origin (not since the 1924
Act, AFAIK).
Wrong - They aren't from here. IOW - 'if you aren't
born here, you
shouldn't be here'. National Origin = 'not from the US'.
The consensus-written Acts specify process for lawful
immigration and
define illegal entry as illegal and subject to
deportation.
Based on national origin - i.e. not from here.
We're damned near all immigrants or descendants
thereof. We
generally, as a people, embrace new citizens, and a
lot of them too.
No, we don't. There was once the consensus of which
you write. There
is no more.
Where we differ is with the various criminals, enemy
agents, scam
artists, layabouts and other people of questionable
character who
choose not to legally immigrate but rather to violate
our laws and
borders.
And now the simple act of _coming_ here is deemed
criminal.
And don't give me any bullshit about it not being
racist. Stepehn
Miller is a white nationalist, responsible for the
bulk of trumps
immigration policy.
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/stephen-
millers-
affinity-white-nationalism-revealed-leaked-emails/
You claim to be unaware of "The Great Replacement
Theory". I call bull
shit, but if you are it's willful ignorance.
You seem to have a full and complete life, such that
you need to invent
putative problems. Good for you.
Right back atcha
(i.e. illegal immigration is no where near the problem
that justifies
the time, energy, money, and divisive, hateful, and
political rhetoric
(lies) being pushed by the magatard administration).
Apparently, Junior is getting his news from people who
spend a lot of
time, energy, money, and divisive, hateful, and political
rhetoric
pushing their propaganda. It doesn't seem to be taking.....
The majority of people support Trump's policies regarding
deportation.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/deportation-immigration-
opinion-poll/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
With good reason:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/3201446/texas-dps-
over-443000- criminal-noncitizens-booked-in-texas-jails/
citizens is actually worse.
Maybe that's why ICE sometimes doesn't seem to care if
someone's a citizen or not? Or otherwise here legally? No
matter what they've done for our country?
<https://www.yahoo.com/news/afghan-ally-detained-ice- immigration-225300436.html>
On 6/18/2025 5:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 2:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:49:28 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/18/2025 2:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:44 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/18/2025 12:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:36 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:10 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 9:42 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article
<k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not
because we do not
possess
that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens
domestically-- sometimes
for
years--on charges of being illegal
immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal
immigrants
without hearing
who were living in the United States,
sometimes to foreign
prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we
accidentally deport U.S.
citizens.
He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net
worth you'd give me
if we
ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I
suspect you'd
say "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't
care if it happens
from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes
nor the quality
of government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-
mistakenly-
deporting- its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2016/12/22/504031635/
you- say- you-re-an- american- but- what-if-
you-had-to-prove-
it- or-be- deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen
who is well known
without doubt to be a US citizen. There are
examples in case
law of citizenship having been revoked and the
person deported,
most famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/
goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes,
rather than the
abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the
Statutes refer to
'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a
"crime" based purely
on the abstract notion that a persons place of
origin makes them a
criminal. They may as well have defined it as
based on the color
of their skin, or religious upbringing. IOW - the
idea that some
one is a "criminal" simply for the reason that
they haven't filed
the proper paperwork to have permission to be in
the US is
absolute bullshit.
Cite the racist sections here please. I could not
find them:
I wrote "may as well have defined it as based on the
color of
their skin or religious upbringing" - which makes
about as much
sense as criminalizing someone because of where they
were born.
I hold a minority opinion - bfd.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-
bill/2202
Full text:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-
bill/2202/text
House vote was mixed. passed at 71%:
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/1996432
Senate vote 97 to 3:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/
roll_call_votes/ vote1042/
vote_104_2_00108.htm
I see you did not bother to read the most current
statute and
probably have no prior familiarity.
I know what the law says. I don't agree with it, and
the current
administration is now categorizing someone with no
criminal record in
the same class as a bonafide violent gang member -
yeah, the migrant
farm workers who has never had any issues with law
enforcement and
"worked for them for 20 years; they're not citizens,
but they've
turned out to be ... great, and we're going to have to
do something
about that." are just as bad to the nation as some
asshole running
guns, drugs, and prostitutes.
Nothing about national origin (not since the 1924
Act, AFAIK).
Wrong - They aren't from here. IOW - 'if you aren't
born here, you
shouldn't be here'. National Origin = 'not from the US'.
The consensus-written Acts specify process for lawful
immigration and
define illegal entry as illegal and subject to
deportation.
Based on national origin - i.e. not from here.
We're damned near all immigrants or descendants
thereof. We
generally, as a people, embrace new citizens, and a
lot of them too.
No, we don't. There was once the consensus of which
you write. There
is no more.
Where we differ is with the various criminals, enemy
agents, scam
artists, layabouts and other people of questionable
character who
choose not to legally immigrate but rather to violate
our laws and
borders.
And now the simple act of _coming_ here is deemed
criminal.
And don't give me any bullshit about it not being
racist. Stepehn
Miller is a white nationalist, responsible for the
bulk of trumps
immigration policy.
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/stephen-
millers-
affinity-white-nationalism-revealed-leaked-emails/
You claim to be unaware of "The Great Replacement
Theory". I call bull
shit, but if you are it's willful ignorance.
You seem to have a full and complete life, such that
you need to invent
putative problems. Good for you.
Right back atcha
(i.e. illegal immigration is no where near the problem
that justifies
the time, energy, money, and divisive, hateful, and
political rhetoric
(lies) being pushed by the magatard administration).
Apparently, Junior is getting his news from people who
spend a lot of
time, energy, money, and divisive, hateful, and political
rhetoric
pushing their propaganda. It doesn't seem to be taking.....
The majority of people support Trump's policies regarding
deportation.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/deportation-immigration-
opinion-poll/
wow...you really are that fucking stupid. Exactly where do
you see that I wrote people _aren't_ supporting trump? I
wrote exactly the opposite, you brainless magatard.
*
Andrew: We generally, as a people, embrace new citizens, and
a lot of them too.
Me: No, we don't. There was once the consensus of which you
write. There
is no more.
*
Andrew then posted several links regarding passage of anti-
immigration legislation, to which I replied:
"I hold a minority opinion - bfd."
In fact, in the "Cycling and social policy" thread, both you
and Andrew directly claim the opposite of what you poll link
suggests:
https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php? id=126892&group=rec.bicycles.tech#126892
You went so far to claim what your poll lists is a "kyrgowski
strawman"
"Another Krygowski strawman.
I doubt many people are "triggered by the very thought ofimmigrants
in America" since most of us are descendant of immigrants."
to which Andrew replied:
https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php? id=126910&group=rec.bicycles.tech#126910
"+1
We USAians are heartily welcoming of immigrants generally,
and moreso over time."
which of course, is contradicted by polling, as I noted in
my response to him
https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php? id=126917&group=rec.bicycles.tech#126917
"lol...what load of horseshit...
From July 2024
https://news.gallup.com/poll/647123/sharply-americans-curb-
immigration.aspx
"Significantly more U.S. adults than a year ago, 55% versus
41%, would
like to see immigration to the U.S. decreased. This is the
first time
since 2005 that a majority of Americans have wanted there to
be less
immigration, and today’s figure is the largest percentage
holding that
view since a 58% reading in 2001. "
"
So you call both my and Franks comments false, then proceed
to post a poll which suggest exactly what we are both stating.
Tell ya what, dumbass, how about if you _think_ you're going
to engage someone based upon what they wrote, you actually
_read_ what they wrote rather than pull a kunich and invent
what you _wish_ they wrote.
floriduh dumbass making the dumbshine state proud again.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
With good reason:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/3201446/texas-dps-
over-443000- criminal-noncitizens-booked-in-texas-jails/
On 6/19/2025 7:42 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 05:56:38 -0400, zen cycleSure, if you want to consider national boundaries analogous to a private >home. By that logic, Birthright Citizenship is invalid, since one should
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:17 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 10:42:59 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote:Wow, both you and the floriduh dumbass failing to read what was actually >>> written....
On 6/17/2025 10:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:25 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <k7215khubmc85llam5en7shbafeuan0gmt@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
You let everyone know when that happens.
I can't tell you if it has happened or not because we do not possess >>>>>>>>> that information.
* We have wrongly imprisoned citizens domestically-- sometimes for >>>>>>>>> years--on charges of being illegal immigrants.
* We have deported plenty of accused illegal immigrants without hearing
who were living in the United States, sometimes to foreign prisons.
* The President doesn't care if we accidentally deport U.S. citizens. >>>>>>>>> He's willing to break a few eggs.
If I asked you what percentage of your net worth you'd give me if we >>>>>>>>> ever had or do deport a citizen by accident, I suspect you'd say "0%".
You'd be wise to. And maybe you just don't care if it happens from time
to time.
You are correct and it is indeed a real problem.
And not a new problem, as neither the Statutes nor the quality of >>>>>>>> government employees have changed in decades.
Please note dates here:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly- deporting- >>>>>>>> its- own-citizens/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/12/22/504031635/you- >>>>>>>> say- you-re-an-american-but- what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-deported
And there are no certainties for a US citizen who is well known >>>>>>>> without doubt to be a US citizen. There are examples in case law of >>>>>>>> citizenship having been revoked and the person deported, most
famously Emma Goldman:
https://www.oocities.org/womenstravelsites/goldman.html
What solution would you suggest?
How about deporting people for actual crimes, rather than the
abstraction of just "being here illegally".
Uh, illegal entry is a crime and the reason the Statutes refer to
'illegal aliens'.
.
It's an abstraction, not a real crime. It's a "crime" based purely on >>>>> the abstract notion that a persons place of origin makes them a
criminal. They may as well have defined it as based on the color of
their skin, or religious upbringing. IOW - the idea that some one is a >>>>> "criminal" simply for the reason that they haven't filed the proper
paperwork to have permission to be in the US is absolute bullshit.
You might read "1911. 8 U.S.C. 1325 -- Unlawful Entry, Failure To
Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial
Enterprise Fraud".
"Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses relating to (1) improper
entry into the United States by an alien,..."
Since 114 years already
--
cheers,
John B.
I didn't claim it wasn't law, dumbass, I claimed that not filing the
paperwork before before coming into the US makes them a criminal is an
abstraction and not a real "crime". It's just as much of a crime as
miscegenation or sexual preference - both of which have been outlawed.
Come now. It's not filling out the form it is entering the country.
Sort of like entering your house uninvited. It's not reaching for the
door handle, it is putting your foot on the floor inside the house.
ask permission before having a baby in the US.
But I'm led to believe that's exactly what the magatards want as well.
- child must be born of lawfully married same-race, same religion >heterosexual couples.
On Sun Jun 8 19:46:41 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 17:22:43 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Update this afternoon regarding Mr Abrego Garcia.
3-1/2 minute video is on the 2d screen/page here:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kilmar-abrego-garcia-way-back-185850961.html
LOL. No doubt they also "forgot" to charge him for bringing in
heroin from Afghanistan.....
It would have been better for the republicans if they had just
admitted their (unforgivable and stupid) mistake and kept quiet... the
topic would have eventually died out.
Isn't it comical that you and your friends claimed that he was somehow a legal alien and the 32 point prosecution will put him in prison in the USA for the remainder of his life?work, to murder people that wouldn't cooperate.
So he was a known MS-13 gang member transporting other MS-13 gang members around the US as well as weapons ( anything to say about that Frank?) so that they can use their gangland tactics to commit protection schemes around the US and if that didn't
The majority of people support Trump's policies regarding deportation.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/deportation-immigration-opinion-poll/
And as has been repeatedly shown, the crime rate for U.S. citizens is >actually worse.
Maybe that's why ICE sometimes doesn't seem to care if someone's a
citizen or not? Or otherwise here legally? No matter what they've done
for our country?
<https://www.yahoo.com/news/afghan-ally-detained-ice-immigration-225300436.html>
On 6/19/2025 6:32 PM, Shadow wrote:
One thing that worries me. Why are the ICE police wearing
masks? Our death squads used masks. They were rogue policemen that
killed civilians for a price.
I've never seen a regular, honest policeman use a mask
ANYWHERE in the World. What are Trump's ICE agents hiding?
Because they're afraid. Purportedly, because they're afraid of personal >attacks when off duty, but that's unlikely to be true. Ordinary police
would be at more risk of that, and they never wear masks.
With ordinary cops, one can ask for ID, record badge numbers, etc. This
is part of the mechanism for preventing any thug from impersonating a
cop. Although if the impersonator suddenly starts shooting, it's too
late. ><https://lawandcrime.com/crime/exploited-the-trust-of-our-uniforms-shooter-impersonating-police-officer-allegedly-assassinates-lawmaker-and-her-husband-shoots-another-legislator-and-his-wife/>
Here's an article examining the claims that masks are necessary: ><https://newrepublic.com/post/197013/ice-fact-check-reason-agents-wear-masks-assaults>
On 6/19/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2025 6:32 PM, Shadow wrote:
One thing that worries me. Why are the ICE police
wearing
masks? Our death squads used masks. They were rogue
policemen that
killed civilians for a price.
I've never seen a regular, honest policeman use a mask
ANYWHERE in the World. What are Trump's ICE agents hiding?
Because they're afraid. Purportedly, because they're
afraid of personal attacks when off duty, but that's
unlikely to be true. Ordinary police would be at more risk
of that, and they never wear masks.
With ordinary cops, one can ask for ID, record badge
numbers, etc. This is part of the mechanism for preventing
any thug from impersonating a cop. Although if the
impersonator suddenly starts shooting, it's too late.
<https://lawandcrime.com/crime/exploited-the-trust-of-our-
uniforms-shooter-impersonating-police-officer-allegedly-
assassinates- lawmaker-and-her-husband-shoots-another-
legislator-and-his-wife/>
Here's an article examining the claims that masks are
necessary:
<https://newrepublic.com/post/197013/ice-fact-check-
reason-agents-wear- masks-assaults>
More on that: How does someone know an "ICE Officer" is
really an ICE officer?
<https://www.yahoo.com/news/la-supervisor-warns-ice- impersonators-194740278.html>
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 22:03:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 6:32 PM, Shadow wrote:
One thing that worries me. Why are the ICE police wearing
masks? Our death squads used masks. They were rogue policemen that
killed civilians for a price.
I've never seen a regular, honest policeman use a mask
ANYWHERE in the World. What are Trump's ICE agents hiding?
Because they're afraid. Purportedly, because they're afraid of personal >>attacks when off duty, but that's unlikely to be true. Ordinary police >>would be at more risk of that, and they never wear masks.
With ordinary cops, one can ask for ID, record badge numbers, etc. This
is part of the mechanism for preventing any thug from impersonating a
cop. Although if the impersonator suddenly starts shooting, it's too
late. >><https://lawandcrime.com/crime/exploited-the-trust-of-our-uniforms-shooter-impersonating-police-officer-allegedly-assassinates-lawmaker-and-her-husband-shoots-another-legislator-and-his-wife/>
Here's an article examining the claims that masks are necessary: >><https://newrepublic.com/post/197013/ice-fact-check-reason-agents-wear-masks-assaults>
One wonders why cops wearing masks bothers the Democrats so much.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 22:03:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 6:32 PM, Shadow wrote:
One thing that worries me. Why are the ICE police wearing
masks? Our death squads used masks. They were rogue policemen that
killed civilians for a price.
I've never seen a regular, honest policeman use a mask
ANYWHERE in the World. What are Trump's ICE agents hiding?
Because they're afraid. Purportedly, because they're afraid of personal
attacks when off duty, but that's unlikely to be true. Ordinary police
would be at more risk of that, and they never wear masks.
With ordinary cops, one can ask for ID, record badge numbers, etc. This
is part of the mechanism for preventing any thug from impersonating a
cop. Although if the impersonator suddenly starts shooting, it's too
late.
<https://lawandcrime.com/crime/exploited-the-trust-of-our-uniforms-shooter-impersonating-police-officer-allegedly-assassinates-lawmaker-and-her-husband-shoots-another-legislator-and-his-wife/>
Here's an article examining the claims that masks are necessary:
<https://newrepublic.com/post/197013/ice-fact-check-reason-agents-wear-masks-assaults>
One wonders why cops wearing masks bothers the Democrats so much.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/19/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2025 6:32 PM, Shadow wrote:
One thing that worries me. Why are the ICE police wearing
masks? Our death squads used masks. They were rogue policemen that
killed civilians for a price.
I've never seen a regular, honest policeman use a mask
ANYWHERE in the World. What are Trump's ICE agents hiding?
Because they're afraid. Purportedly, because they're afraid of personal
attacks when off duty, but that's unlikely to be true. Ordinary police
would be at more risk of that, and they never wear masks.
With ordinary cops, one can ask for ID, record badge numbers, etc. This
is part of the mechanism for preventing any thug from impersonating a
cop. Although if the impersonator suddenly starts shooting, it's too
late. <https://lawandcrime.com/crime/exploited-the-trust-of-our-
uniforms-shooter-impersonating-police-officer-allegedly-assassinates-
lawmaker-and-her-husband-shoots-another-legislator-and-his-wife/>
Here's an article examining the claims that masks are necessary:
<https://newrepublic.com/post/197013/ice-fact-check-reason-agents-wear-
masks-assaults>
More on that: How does someone know an "ICE Officer" is really an ICE >officer?
<https://www.yahoo.com/news/la-supervisor-warns-ice-impersonators-194740278.html>
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 04:45:44 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 22:03:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski >><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 6:32 PM, Shadow wrote:
One thing that worries me. Why are the ICE police wearing
masks? Our death squads used masks. They were rogue policemen that
killed civilians for a price.
I've never seen a regular, honest policeman use a mask
ANYWHERE in the World. What are Trump's ICE agents hiding?
Because they're afraid. Purportedly, because they're afraid of personal >>>attacks when off duty, but that's unlikely to be true. Ordinary police >>>would be at more risk of that, and they never wear masks.
With ordinary cops, one can ask for ID, record badge numbers, etc. This >>>is part of the mechanism for preventing any thug from impersonating a >>>cop. Although if the impersonator suddenly starts shooting, it's too >>>late. >>><https://lawandcrime.com/crime/exploited-the-trust-of-our-uniforms-shooter-impersonating-police-officer-allegedly-assassinates-lawmaker-and-her-husband-shoots-another-legislator-and-his-wife/>
Here's an article examining the claims that masks are necessary: >>><https://newrepublic.com/post/197013/ice-fact-check-reason-agents-wear-masks-assaults>
One wonders why cops wearing masks bothers the Democrats so much.
As long as they have their names, badge numbers and patents
stamped on the front of their uniforms, it shouldn't bother them at
all.
The problem is these guys work plain clothed. And refuse to
identify themselves.
[]'s
On 6/20/2025 3:45 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 22:03:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 6:32 PM, Shadow wrote:
One thing that worries me. Why are the ICE police wearing
masks? Our death squads used masks. They were rogue policemen that
killed civilians for a price.
I've never seen a regular, honest policeman use a mask
ANYWHERE in the World. What are Trump's ICE agents hiding?
Because they're afraid. Purportedly, because they're afraid of personal
attacks when off duty, but that's unlikely to be true. Ordinary police
would be at more risk of that, and they never wear masks.
With ordinary cops, one can ask for ID, record badge numbers, etc. This
is part of the mechanism for preventing any thug from impersonating a
cop. Although if the impersonator suddenly starts shooting, it's too
late.
<https://lawandcrime.com/crime/exploited-the-trust-of-our-uniforms-shooter-impersonating-police-officer-allegedly-assassinates-lawmaker-and-her-husband-shoots-another-legislator-and-his-wife/>
Here's an article examining the claims that masks are necessary:
<https://newrepublic.com/post/197013/ice-fact-check-reason-agents-wear-masks-assaults>
One wonders why cops wearing masks bothers the Democrats so much.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It bothers me as well.
I don't think it's a crisis, but I'd rather live where LEO
are not doxxed and their families harassed. Regrettable
solution to an unfortunate situation. I understand it but I
don't like it.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 22:34:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2025 6:32 PM, Shadow wrote:
One thing that worries me. Why are the ICE police wearing
masks? Our death squads used masks. They were rogue policemen that
killed civilians for a price.
I've never seen a regular, honest policeman use a mask
ANYWHERE in the World. What are Trump's ICE agents hiding?
Because they're afraid. Purportedly, because they're afraid of personal
attacks when off duty, but that's unlikely to be true. Ordinary police
would be at more risk of that, and they never wear masks.
With ordinary cops, one can ask for ID, record badge numbers, etc. This
is part of the mechanism for preventing any thug from impersonating a
cop. Although if the impersonator suddenly starts shooting, it's too
late. <https://lawandcrime.com/crime/exploited-the-trust-of-our-
uniforms-shooter-impersonating-police-officer-allegedly-assassinates-
lawmaker-and-her-husband-shoots-another-legislator-and-his-wife/>
Here's an article examining the claims that masks are necessary:
<https://newrepublic.com/post/197013/ice-fact-check-reason-agents-wear-
masks-assaults>
More on that: How does someone know an "ICE Officer" is really an ICE
officer?
<https://www.yahoo.com/news/la-supervisor-warns-ice-impersonators-194740278.html>
//
A North Carolina man has been charged with multiple sex crimes for
allegedly breaking into a Raleigh-area motel on Sunday while posing as
a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent (ICE) and
threatening a woman inside with deportation if she didn’t engage in
sexual acts with him.
During the alleged break-in, Carl Thomas Bennett, Jr., 37, used a
phony business card with a badge and "threatened to deport the victim
if she did not have sex with him," according to arrest documents.
Bennett has been hit with nine charges, according to court records,
including breaking and entering, posession of cocaine, kidnapping,
rape, and impersonating law enforcement.
//
Yes, we had that in Brazil. If a group wearing "esquadrao da
morte" clothes and masks kidnapped you or even asked you for money,
you would be a fool to refuse to go with them or pay up. After all
they could be real police officers, with a license to kill anyone they
wanted to. And the masks assured their immunity.
America is going to be fun until the orange thing passes.
Land of the free. LOL.
[]'s
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 09:21:39 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 04:45:44 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 22:03:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 6:32 PM, Shadow wrote:
One thing that worries me. Why are the ICE police wearing
masks? Our death squads used masks. They were rogue policemen that
killed civilians for a price.
I've never seen a regular, honest policeman use a mask
ANYWHERE in the World. What are Trump's ICE agents hiding?
Because they're afraid. Purportedly, because they're afraid of personal >>>>attacks when off duty, but that's unlikely to be true. Ordinary police >>>>would be at more risk of that, and they never wear masks.
With ordinary cops, one can ask for ID, record badge numbers, etc. This >>>>is part of the mechanism for preventing any thug from impersonating a >>>>cop. Although if the impersonator suddenly starts shooting, it's too >>>>late. >>>><https://lawandcrime.com/crime/exploited-the-trust-of-our-uniforms-shooter-impersonating-police-officer-allegedly-assassinates-lawmaker-and-her-husband-shoots-another-legislator-and-his-wife/>
Here's an article examining the claims that masks are necessary: >>>><https://newrepublic.com/post/197013/ice-fact-check-reason-agents-wear-masks-assaults>
One wonders why cops wearing masks bothers the Democrats so much.
As long as they have their names, badge numbers and patents
stamped on the front of their uniforms, it shouldn't bother them at
all.
The problem is these guys work plain clothed. And refuse to
identify themselves.
[]'s
Why is that a problem?
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 11:30:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 09:21:39 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 04:45:44 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 22:03:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 6:32 PM, Shadow wrote:
One thing that worries me. Why are the ICE police wearing
masks? Our death squads used masks. They were rogue policemen that >>>>>> killed civilians for a price.
I've never seen a regular, honest policeman use a mask
ANYWHERE in the World. What are Trump's ICE agents hiding?
Because they're afraid. Purportedly, because they're afraid of personal >>>>>attacks when off duty, but that's unlikely to be true. Ordinary police >>>>>would be at more risk of that, and they never wear masks.
With ordinary cops, one can ask for ID, record badge numbers, etc. This >>>>>is part of the mechanism for preventing any thug from impersonating a >>>>>cop. Although if the impersonator suddenly starts shooting, it's too >>>>>late. >>>>><https://lawandcrime.com/crime/exploited-the-trust-of-our-uniforms-shooter-impersonating-police-officer-allegedly-assassinates-lawmaker-and-her-husband-shoots-another-legislator-and-his-wife/>
Here's an article examining the claims that masks are necessary: >>>>><https://newrepublic.com/post/197013/ice-fact-check-reason-agents-wear-masks-assaults>
One wonders why cops wearing masks bothers the Democrats so much.
As long as they have their names, badge numbers and patents
stamped on the front of their uniforms, it shouldn't bother them at
all.
The problem is these guys work plain clothed. And refuse to
identify themselves.
[]'s
Why is that a problem?
No problem at all if you don't mind living in a police state.
[]'s
On 6/20/2025 7:18 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 22:34:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2025 6:32 PM, Shadow wrote:
One thing that worries me. Why are the ICE police wearing
masks? Our death squads used masks. They were rogue policemen that
killed civilians for a price.
I've never seen a regular, honest policeman use a mask
ANYWHERE in the World. What are Trump's ICE agents hiding?
Because they're afraid. Purportedly, because they're afraid of personal >>>> attacks when off duty, but that's unlikely to be true. Ordinary police >>>> would be at more risk of that, and they never wear masks.
With ordinary cops, one can ask for ID, record badge numbers, etc. This >>>> is part of the mechanism for preventing any thug from impersonating a
cop. Although if the impersonator suddenly starts shooting, it's too
late. <https://lawandcrime.com/crime/exploited-the-trust-of-our-
uniforms-shooter-impersonating-police-officer-allegedly-assassinates-
lawmaker-and-her-husband-shoots-another-legislator-and-his-wife/>
Here's an article examining the claims that masks are necessary:
<https://newrepublic.com/post/197013/ice-fact-check-reason-agents-wear- >>>> masks-assaults>
More on that: How does someone know an "ICE Officer" is really an ICE
officer?
<https://www.yahoo.com/news/la-supervisor-warns-ice-impersonators-194740278.html>
//
A North Carolina man has been charged with multiple sex crimes for
allegedly breaking into a Raleigh-area motel on Sunday while posing as
a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent (ICE) and
threatening a woman inside with deportation if she didnt engage in
sexual acts with him.
During the alleged break-in, Carl Thomas Bennett, Jr., 37, used a
phony business card with a badge and "threatened to deport the victim
if she did not have sex with him," according to arrest documents.
Bennett has been hit with nine charges, according to court records,
including breaking and entering, posession of cocaine, kidnapping,
rape, and impersonating law enforcement.
//
Yes, we had that in Brazil. If a group wearing "esquadrao da
morte" clothes and masks kidnapped you or even asked you for money,
you would be a fool to refuse to go with them or pay up. After all
they could be real police officers, with a license to kill anyone they
wanted to. And the masks assured their immunity.
America is going to be fun until the orange thing passes.
Land of the free. LOL.
[]'s
Police impersonators pop up regularly and they have all my
life. Not many, but not zero either. (didn't start on 20
January 2025).
https://www.nydailynews.com/2021/02/13/serial-chicago-police-impersonator-who-first-fooled-cops-at-age-14-busted-again/
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 11:30:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 09:21:39 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 04:45:44 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 22:03:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 6:32 PM, Shadow wrote:
One thing that worries me. Why are the ICE police wearing
masks? Our death squads used masks. They were rogue policemen that >>>>>> killed civilians for a price.
I've never seen a regular, honest policeman use a mask
ANYWHERE in the World. What are Trump's ICE agents hiding?
Because they're afraid. Purportedly, because they're afraid of personal >>>>> attacks when off duty, but that's unlikely to be true. Ordinary police >>>>> would be at more risk of that, and they never wear masks.
With ordinary cops, one can ask for ID, record badge numbers, etc. This >>>>> is part of the mechanism for preventing any thug from impersonating a >>>>> cop. Although if the impersonator suddenly starts shooting, it's too >>>>> late.
<https://lawandcrime.com/crime/exploited-the-trust-of-our-uniforms-shooter-impersonating-police-officer-allegedly-assassinates-lawmaker-and-her-husband-shoots-another-legislator-and-his-wife/>
Here's an article examining the claims that masks are necessary:
<https://newrepublic.com/post/197013/ice-fact-check-reason-agents-wear-masks-assaults>
One wonders why cops wearing masks bothers the Democrats so much.
As long as they have their names, badge numbers and patents
stamped on the front of their uniforms, it shouldn't bother them at
all.
The problem is these guys work plain clothed. And refuse to
identify themselves.
[]'s
Why is that a problem?
No problem at all if you don't mind living in a police state.
[]'s
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:56:09 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
As long as they have their names, badge numbers and patents
stamped on the front of their uniforms, it shouldn't bother them at >>>>all.
The problem is these guys work plain clothed. And refuse to >>>>identify themselves.
[]'s
Why is that a problem?
No problem at all if you don't mind living in a police state.
[]'s
Can you explain how a LEO not wanting to be doxed equates to being in
a police state?
On 6/20/2025 9:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I don't think it's a crisis, but I'd rather live where LEO are not
doxxed and their families harassed. Regrettable solution to an
unfortunate situation. I understand it but I don't like it.
Ordinary cops have their names and badge numbers visible. For example:
" 1916.01 - Display of badge numbers and identification
Division of police officers shall display their names and badge numbers
on their uniforms while on duty. If officers are wearing alternative
uniforms or riot gear, or are on duty at a protest or riot, their names
and badge numbers shall be affixed to their uniform or helmets and be
clearly visible to the public. "
AFAIK there is no great personal security problem arising from that
practice.
Why should ICE agents not be held to the same standard? Do you have
links to attacks on the homes of ICE agents? Does that happen to them
more than to ordinary police?
How does anyone know whether the people dragging a family member into an unmarked vehicle are really ICE agents and not kidnappers?
The entire operation smacks heavily of Nazi tactics.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:10:39 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:56:09 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
As long as they have their names, badge numbers and patents
stamped on the front of their uniforms, it shouldn't bother them at
all.
The problem is these guys work plain clothed. And refuse to
identify themselves.
[]'s
Why is that a problem?
No problem at all if you don't mind living in a police state.
[]'s
Can you explain how a LEO not wanting to be doxed equates to being in
a police state?
Because in a democracy if he can't live with what he is, he
resigns. He doesn't have the right to become anonymous.
A policeman is a civil servant, and as such should always be identifiable.
[]'s
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:10:39 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:56:09 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
As long as they have their names, badge numbers and patents
stamped on the front of their uniforms, it shouldn't bother them at
all.
The problem is these guys work plain clothed. And refuse to
identify themselves.
[]'s
Why is that a problem?
No problem at all if you don't mind living in a police state.
[]'s
Can you explain how a LEO not wanting to be doxed equates to being in
a police state?
Because in a democracy if he can't live with what he is, he
resigns. He doesn't have the right to become anonymous.
A policeman is a civil servant, and as such should always be identifiable.
[]'s
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:10:39 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:56:09 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
As long as they have their names, badge numbers and patents >>>>>stamped on the front of their uniforms, it shouldn't bother them at >>>>>all.
The problem is these guys work plain clothed. And refuse to >>>>>identify themselves.
[]'s
Why is that a problem?
No problem at all if you don't mind living in a police state.
[]'s
Can you explain how a LEO not wanting to be doxed equates to being in
a police state?
Because in a democracy if he can't live with what he is, he
resigns. He doesn't have the right to become anonymous.
A policeman is a civil servant, and as such should always be
identifiable.
[]'s
On 6/20/2025 9:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I don't think it's a crisis, but I'd rather live where LEO are not
doxxed and their families harassed. Regrettable solution to an
unfortunate situation. I understand it but I don't like it.
Ordinary cops have their names and badge numbers visible. For example:
" 1916.01 - Display of badge numbers and identification
Division of police officers shall display their names and badge numbers
on their uniforms while on duty. If officers are wearing alternative
uniforms or riot gear, or are on duty at a protest or riot, their names
and badge numbers shall be affixed to their uniform or helmets and be
clearly visible to the public. "
AFAIK there is no great personal security problem arising from that
practice.
Why should ICE agents not be held to the same standard? Do you have
links to attacks on the homes of ICE agents? Does that happen to them
more than to ordinary police?
How does anyone know whether the people dragging a family member into an >unmarked vehicle are really ICE agents and not kidnappers?
The entire operation smacks heavily of Nazi tactics.
On 6/20/2025 9:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I don't think it's a crisis, but I'd rather live where LEO
are not doxxed and their families harassed. Regrettable
solution to an unfortunate situation. I understand it but
I don't like it.
Ordinary cops have their names and badge numbers visible.
For example:
" 1916.01 - Display of badge numbers and identification
Division of police officers shall display their names and
badge numbers on their uniforms while on duty. If officers
are wearing alternative uniforms or riot gear, or are on
duty at a protest or riot, their names and badge numbers
shall be affixed to their uniform or helmets and be clearly
visible to the public. "
AFAIK there is no great personal security problem arising
from that practice.
Why should ICE agents not be held to the same standard? Do
you have links to attacks on the homes of ICE agents? Does
that happen to them more than to ordinary police?
How does anyone know whether the people dragging a family
member into an unmarked vehicle are really ICE agents and
not kidnappers?
The entire operation smacks heavily of Nazi tactics.
On 6/20/2025 4:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2025 9:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I don't think it's a crisis, but I'd rather live where
LEO are not doxxed and their families harassed.
Regrettable solution to an unfortunate situation. I
understand it but I don't like it.
Ordinary cops have their names and badge numbers visible.
For example:
" 1916.01 - Display of badge numbers and identification
Division of police officers shall display their names and
badge numbers on their uniforms while on duty. If officers
are wearing alternative uniforms or riot gear, or are on
duty at a protest or riot, their names and badge numbers
shall be affixed to their uniform or helmets and be
clearly visible to the public. "
AFAIK there is no great personal security problem arising
from that practice.
Why should ICE agents not be held to the same standard? Do
you have links to attacks on the homes of ICE agents? Does
that happen to them more than to ordinary police?
How does anyone know whether the people dragging a family
member into an unmarked vehicle are really ICE agents and
not kidnappers?
The entire operation smacks heavily of Nazi tactics.
+1
It's a paramilitary intimidation tactic, nothing more.
It's stunning to me that conservatives - especially those
with a libertarian bent - are compliant with a police force
having absolutely no accountability whatsoever.
On 6/20/2025 3:54 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:10:39 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:56:09 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
As long as they have their names, badge numbers and patents
stamped on the front of their uniforms, it shouldn't bother them at >>>>>> all.
The problem is these guys work plain clothed. And refuse to
identify themselves.
[]'s
Why is that a problem?
No problem at all if you don't mind living in a police state.
[]'s
Can you explain how a LEO not wanting to be doxed equates to being in
a police state?
Because in a democracy if he can't live with what he is, he
resigns. He doesn't have the right to become anonymous.
A policeman is a civil servant, and as such should always be
identifiable.
[]'s
the dumbass seems to have no problem with a completely unrestrained
police force.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 16:47:13 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/20/2025 3:54 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:10:39 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:56:09 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
As long as they have their names, badge numbers and patents >>>>>>> stamped on the front of their uniforms, it shouldn't bother them at >>>>>>> all.
The problem is these guys work plain clothed. And refuse to >>>>>>> identify themselves.
[]'s
Why is that a problem?
No problem at all if you don't mind living in a police state.
[]'s
Can you explain how a LEO not wanting to be doxed equates to being in
a police state?
Because in a democracy if he can't live with what he is, he
resigns. He doesn't have the right to become anonymous.
A policeman is a civil servant, and as such should always be
identifiable.
[]'s
the dumbass seems to have no problem with a completely unrestrained >>police force.
I can picture it. Someone goes up to him and says "you're
armed, hand me your gun"
So he asks, who are you?
I'm ICE, I don't have to show any identity. Now hand it over
or I'll arrest you.
!00% he hands his gun over.
THAT is a police state.
[]''s
On 6/20/2025 2:54 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:10:39 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:56:09 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
As long as they have their names, badge numbers and patents
stamped on the front of their uniforms, it shouldn't bother them at >>>>>> all.
The problem is these guys work plain clothed. And refuse to
identify themselves.
[]'s
Why is that a problem?
No problem at all if you don't mind living in a police state.
[]'s
Can you explain how a LEO not wanting to be doxed equates to being in
a police state?
Because in a democracy if he can't live with what he is, he
resigns. He doesn't have the right to become anonymous.
A policeman is a civil servant, and as such should always be
identifiable.
[]'s
I can't read Portugues: >https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/21432
overview:
https://lawyers-brazil.com/brazil-penal-code/
"Murder is punishable under the Penal Code and it is divided
as stated above, into intentional and unintentional crime.
The penalty varies from six to twenty years when the crime
was intentional and from one to three years when it was
unintentional. "
etc, etc.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 16:36:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 9:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I don't think it's a crisis, but I'd rather live where LEO are not
doxxed and their families harassed. Regrettable solution to an
unfortunate situation. I understand it but I don't like it.
Ordinary cops have their names and badge numbers visible. For example:
" 1916.01 - Display of badge numbers and identification
Division of police officers shall display their names and badge numbers
on their uniforms while on duty. If officers are wearing alternative >>uniforms or riot gear, or are on duty at a protest or riot, their names
and badge numbers shall be affixed to their uniform or helmets and be >>clearly visible to the public. "
AFAIK there is no great personal security problem arising from that >>practice.
Why should ICE agents not be held to the same standard? Do you have
links to attacks on the homes of ICE agents? Does that happen to them
more than to ordinary police?
How does anyone know whether the people dragging a family member into an >>unmarked vehicle are really ICE agents and not kidnappers?
The entire operation smacks heavily of Nazi tactics.
The Nazi thing hasn't worked too well for you guys...
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:47:27 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 2:54 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:10:39 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:56:09 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
As long as they have their names, badge numbers and patents >>>>>>> stamped on the front of their uniforms, it shouldn't bother them at >>>>>>> all.
The problem is these guys work plain clothed. And refuse to >>>>>>> identify themselves.
[]'s
Why is that a problem?
No problem at all if you don't mind living in a police state.
[]'s
Can you explain how a LEO not wanting to be doxed equates to being in
a police state?
Because in a democracy if he can't live with what he is, he
resigns. He doesn't have the right to become anonymous.
A policeman is a civil servant, and as such should always be
identifiable.
[]'s
I can't read Portugues:
https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/21432
overview:
https://lawyers-brazil.com/brazil-penal-code/
"Murder is punishable under the Penal Code and it is divided
as stated above, into intentional and unintentional crime.
The penalty varies from six to twenty years when the crime
was intentional and from one to three years when it was
unintentional. "
etc, etc.
So? Homicidio Doloso means it was premeditated. Homicidio
Culposo is more or less manslaughter. Usually accidental but could
even happen during a fight, but is NOT premeditated.
Neither are felonies. So neither could be registered in Tom's
UN.
[]'s
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 16:53:20 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 16:36:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski >><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 9:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I don't think it's a crisis, but I'd rather live where LEO are not
doxxed and their families harassed. Regrettable solution to an
unfortunate situation. I understand it but I don't like it.
Ordinary cops have their names and badge numbers visible. For example:
" 1916.01 - Display of badge numbers and identification
Division of police officers shall display their names and badge numbers >>>on their uniforms while on duty. If officers are wearing alternative >>>uniforms or riot gear, or are on duty at a protest or riot, their names >>>and badge numbers shall be affixed to their uniform or helmets and be >>>clearly visible to the public. "
AFAIK there is no great personal security problem arising from that >>>practice.
Why should ICE agents not be held to the same standard? Do you have
links to attacks on the homes of ICE agents? Does that happen to them >>>more than to ordinary police?
How does anyone know whether the people dragging a family member into an >>>unmarked vehicle are really ICE agents and not kidnappers?
The entire operation smacks heavily of Nazi tactics.
The Nazi thing hasn't worked too well for you guys...
It doesn't work too well for any honest citizen.
But it has its supporters.
[]'s
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 09:21:39 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
The problem is these guys work plain clothed. And refuse to
identify themselves.
Why is that a problem?
In article <lkva5kh8qvkk41q0jgqntr4qu9glg1ddkc@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 09:21:39 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
The problem is these guys work plain clothed. And refuse to
identify themselves.
Why is that a problem?
It's a problem if they don't identify their organization. I don't
believe the law requires them to do more than that, but I haven't looked
into it. I know the law requires them to _at least_ say they're ICE if
they are.
As for why it is a problem to have plain-clothes law enforcement refuse
to identify their organization, that's tantamount to asking why a secret >police force is bad for a free state. Which I should hope we all agree
on.
On 6/20/2025 4:25 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:47:27 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 2:54 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:10:39 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:56:09 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
As long as they have their names, badge numbers and patents >>>>>>>> stamped on the front of their uniforms, it shouldn't bother them at >>>>>>>> all.
The problem is these guys work plain clothed. And refuse to >>>>>>>> identify themselves.
[]'s
Why is that a problem?
No problem at all if you don't mind living in a police state.
[]'s
Can you explain how a LEO not wanting to be doxed equates to being in >>>>> a police state?
Because in a democracy if he can't live with what he is, he
resigns. He doesn't have the right to become anonymous.
A policeman is a civil servant, and as such should always be
identifiable.
[]'s
I can't read Portugues:
https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/21432
overview:
https://lawyers-brazil.com/brazil-penal-code/
"Murder is punishable under the Penal Code and it is divided
as stated above, into intentional and unintentional crime.
The penalty varies from six to twenty years when the crime
was intentional and from one to three years when it was
unintentional. "
etc, etc.
So? Homicidio Doloso means it was premeditated. Homicidio
Culposo is more or less manslaughter. Usually accidental but could
even happen during a fight, but is NOT premeditated.
Neither are felonies. So neither could be registered in Tom's
UN.
[]'s
I have mentioned before I am not conversant with Brasilian law.
In USA a felony is a crime the sentence for which is more
than one year in prison. Misdemeanor crimes include
sentences up to one year in a county or municipal jail.
(that's the general definition. I assume there are grey
areas between them but I don't know)
https://legaldictionary.net/felony/
I'll trust you on Brasil legal terms. What is a felony if
you have a similar word at all?
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 18:28:21 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 16:53:20 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 16:36:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 9:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I don't think it's a crisis, but I'd rather live where LEO are not
doxxed and their families harassed. Regrettable solution to an
unfortunate situation. I understand it but I don't like it.
Ordinary cops have their names and badge numbers visible. For example:
" 1916.01 - Display of badge numbers and identification
Division of police officers shall display their names and badge numbers >>>>on their uniforms while on duty. If officers are wearing alternative >>>>uniforms or riot gear, or are on duty at a protest or riot, their names >>>>and badge numbers shall be affixed to their uniform or helmets and be >>>>clearly visible to the public. "
AFAIK there is no great personal security problem arising from that >>>>practice.
Why should ICE agents not be held to the same standard? Do you have >>>>links to attacks on the homes of ICE agents? Does that happen to them >>>>more than to ordinary police?
How does anyone know whether the people dragging a family member into an >>>>unmarked vehicle are really ICE agents and not kidnappers?
The entire operation smacks heavily of Nazi tactics.
The Nazi thing hasn't worked too well for you guys...
It doesn't work too well for any honest citizen.
But it has its supporters.
[]'s
Calling me a Nazi would make me laugh. I have laughed at people who've
called me a White Supremacist, a Racist, an other nonsense slurs.
Referring to someone with slurs like that is so juvenile. It's one of
the reasons Trump became President.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 17:39:05 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 18:28:21 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 16:53:20 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 16:36:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 9:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I don't think it's a crisis, but I'd rather live where LEO are not >>>>>> doxxed and their families harassed. Regrettable solution to an
unfortunate situation. I understand it but I don't like it.
Ordinary cops have their names and badge numbers visible. For example: >>>>>
" 1916.01 - Display of badge numbers and identification
Division of police officers shall display their names and badge numbers >>>>>on their uniforms while on duty. If officers are wearing alternative >>>>>uniforms or riot gear, or are on duty at a protest or riot, their names >>>>>and badge numbers shall be affixed to their uniform or helmets and be >>>>>clearly visible to the public. "
AFAIK there is no great personal security problem arising from that >>>>>practice.
Why should ICE agents not be held to the same standard? Do you have >>>>>links to attacks on the homes of ICE agents? Does that happen to them >>>>>more than to ordinary police?
How does anyone know whether the people dragging a family member into an >>>>>unmarked vehicle are really ICE agents and not kidnappers?
The entire operation smacks heavily of Nazi tactics.
The Nazi thing hasn't worked too well for you guys...
It doesn't work too well for any honest citizen.
But it has its supporters.
[]'s
Calling me a Nazi would make me laugh. I have laughed at people who've >>called me a White Supremacist, a Racist, an other nonsense slurs.
Referring to someone with slurs like that is so juvenile. It's one of
the reasons Trump became President.
If you support a fascist police state what do you think that
makes you? A good Samaritan?
People have never called me a white supremacist or a racist.
Ever wondered why they call you that? Is it how you act or things you
say? There must be a reason. It has nothing to do with "slurs".
PS Trump became president because he lied a lot and people
were stupid enough to believe his lies AGAIN. "This time he's telling
the truth". LOL.
TACO anyone?
[]'s
On 6/20/2025 5:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/20/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/20/2025 4:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2025 9:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I don't think it's a crisis, but I'd rather live where LEO are not
doxxed and their families harassed. Regrettable solution to an
unfortunate situation. I understand it but I don't like it.
Ordinary cops have their names and badge numbers visible. For example: >>>>
" 1916.01 - Display of badge numbers and identification
Division of police officers shall display their names and badge
numbers on their uniforms while on duty. If officers are wearing
alternative uniforms or riot gear, or are on duty at a protest or
riot, their names and badge numbers shall be affixed to their uniform
or helmets and be clearly visible to the public. "
AFAIK there is no great personal security problem arising from that
practice.
Why should ICE agents not be held to the same standard? Do you have
links to attacks on the homes of ICE agents? Does that happen to them
more than to ordinary police?
How does anyone know whether the people dragging a family member into
an unmarked vehicle are really ICE agents and not kidnappers?
The entire operation smacks heavily of Nazi tactics.
+1
It's a paramilitary intimidation tactic, nothing more.
It's stunning to me that conservatives - especially those with a
libertarian bent - are compliant with a police force having absolutely
no accountability whatsoever.
Said no one. Ever.
Well, I'm still waiting to hear the first right wing or libertarian
objection to these practices.
On 6/20/2025 5:39 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 18:28:21 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 16:53:20 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 16:36:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 9:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I don't think it's a crisis, but I'd rather live where LEO are not >>>>>> doxxed and their families harassed. Regrettable solution to an
unfortunate situation. I understand it but I don't like it.
Ordinary cops have their names and badge numbers visible. For example: >>>>>
" 1916.01 - Display of badge numbers and identification
Division of police officers shall display their names and badge numbers >>>>> on their uniforms while on duty. If officers are wearing alternative >>>>> uniforms or riot gear, or are on duty at a protest or riot, their names >>>>> and badge numbers shall be affixed to their uniform or helmets and be >>>>> clearly visible to the public. "
AFAIK there is no great personal security problem arising from that
practice.
Why should ICE agents not be held to the same standard? Do you have
links to attacks on the homes of ICE agents? Does that happen to them >>>>> more than to ordinary police?
How does anyone know whether the people dragging a family member into an >>>>> unmarked vehicle are really ICE agents and not kidnappers?
The entire operation smacks heavily of Nazi tactics.
The Nazi thing hasn't worked too well for you guys...
It doesn't work too well for any honest citizen.
But it has its supporters.
[]'s
Calling me a Nazi would make me laugh. I have laughed at people who've
called me a White Supremacist, a Racist, an other nonsense slurs.
Referring to someone with slurs like that is so juvenile. It's one of
the reasons Trump became President.
HA! Another laugh-out-loud moment provided by our tricyclist!
Nonsense slurs are so juvenile that the elected a guy who slings them
all the time.
<https://www.popsugar.com/news/list-trump-nicknames-insults-44477176>
<https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/garbage-row-15-times-donald-trump-used-dehumanising-language/articleshow/114816892.cms>
So much for dignity of the office!
On 6/20/2025 5:12 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/20/2025 3:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2025 9:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I don't think it's a crisis, but I'd rather live where LEO are not
doxxed and their families harassed. Regrettable solution to an
unfortunate situation. I understand it but I don't like it.
Ordinary cops have their names and badge numbers visible. For example:
" 1916.01 - Display of badge numbers and identification
Division of police officers shall display their names and badge
numbers on their uniforms while on duty. If officers are wearing
alternative uniforms or riot gear, or are on duty at a protest or
riot, their names and badge numbers shall be affixed to their uniform
or helmets and be clearly visible to the public. "
AFAIK there is no great personal security problem arising from that
practice.
Why should ICE agents not be held to the same standard? Do you have
links to attacks on the homes of ICE agents? Does that happen to them
more than to ordinary police?
How does anyone know whether the people dragging a family member into
an unmarked vehicle are really ICE agents and not kidnappers?
The entire operation smacks heavily of Nazi tactics.
It's a particularly fraught environment:
https://www.newsweek.com/anti-ice-protests-immigration-portland-2088048
It often is for normal cops, too. That doesn't excuse this behavior.
On 6/20/2025 5:50 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <lkva5kh8qvkk41q0jgqntr4qu9glg1ddkc@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 09:21:39 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
The problem is these guys work plain clothed. And refuse to
identify themselves.
Why is that a problem?
It's a problem if they don't identify their organization. I don't
believe the law requires them to do more than that, but I haven't looked
into it. I know the law requires them to _at least_ say they're ICE if
they are.
As for why it is a problem to have plain-clothes law enforcement refuse
to identify their organization, that's tantamount to asking why a secret
police force is bad for a free state. Which I should hope we all agree
on.
If Trump and the right wing take the next step in that direction, I'm
sure we won't all agree on your point. The MAGA crowd will find some way
to say it's necessary for national security.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 19:17:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 5:12 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/20/2025 3:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2025 9:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I don't think it's a crisis, but I'd rather live where LEO are not
doxxed and their families harassed. Regrettable solution to an
unfortunate situation. I understand it but I don't like it.
Ordinary cops have their names and badge numbers visible. For example: >>>>
" 1916.01 - Display of badge numbers and identification
Division of police officers shall display their names and badge
numbers on their uniforms while on duty. If officers are wearing
alternative uniforms or riot gear, or are on duty at a protest or
riot, their names and badge numbers shall be affixed to their uniform
or helmets and be clearly visible to the public. "
AFAIK there is no great personal security problem arising from that
practice.
Why should ICE agents not be held to the same standard? Do you have
links to attacks on the homes of ICE agents? Does that happen to them
more than to ordinary police?
How does anyone know whether the people dragging a family member into
an unmarked vehicle are really ICE agents and not kidnappers?
The entire operation smacks heavily of Nazi tactics.
It's a particularly fraught environment:
https://www.newsweek.com/anti-ice-protests-immigration-portland-2088048
It often is for normal cops, too. That doesn't excuse this behavior.
The taking down of those thugs doesn't need any excuse.
A mask on their face does not hide that they're ICE.
On 6/20/2025 5:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/20/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/20/2025 4:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2025 9:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I don't think it's a crisis, but I'd rather live where
LEO are not doxxed and their families harassed.
Regrettable solution to an unfortunate situation. I
understand it but I don't like it.
Ordinary cops have their names and badge numbers
visible. For example:
" 1916.01 - Display of badge numbers and identification
Division of police officers shall display their names
and badge numbers on their uniforms while on duty. If
officers are wearing alternative uniforms or riot gear,
or are on duty at a protest or riot, their names and
badge numbers shall be affixed to their uniform or
helmets and be clearly visible to the public. "
AFAIK there is no great personal security problem
arising from that practice.
Why should ICE agents not be held to the same standard?
Do you have links to attacks on the homes of ICE agents?
Does that happen to them more than to ordinary police?
How does anyone know whether the people dragging a
family member into an unmarked vehicle are really ICE
agents and not kidnappers?
The entire operation smacks heavily of Nazi tactics.
+1
It's a paramilitary intimidation tactic, nothing more.
It's stunning to me that conservatives - especially
those with a libertarian bent - are compliant with a
police force having absolutely no accountability whatsoever.
Said no one. Ever.
Well, I'm still waiting to hear the first right wing or
libertarian objection to these practices.
On 6/20/2025 5:12 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/20/2025 3:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2025 9:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I don't think it's a crisis, but I'd rather live where
LEO are not doxxed and their families harassed.
Regrettable solution to an unfortunate situation. I
understand it but I don't like it.
Ordinary cops have their names and badge numbers visible.
For example:
" 1916.01 - Display of badge numbers and identification
Division of police officers shall display their names and
badge numbers on their uniforms while on duty. If
officers are wearing alternative uniforms or riot gear,
or are on duty at a protest or riot, their names and
badge numbers shall be affixed to their uniform or
helmets and be clearly visible to the public. "
AFAIK there is no great personal security problem arising
from that practice.
Why should ICE agents not be held to the same standard?
Do you have links to attacks on the homes of ICE agents?
Does that happen to them more than to ordinary police?
How does anyone know whether the people dragging a family
member into an unmarked vehicle are really ICE agents and
not kidnappers?
The entire operation smacks heavily of Nazi tactics.
It's a particularly fraught environment:
https://www.newsweek.com/anti-ice-protests-immigration-
portland-2088048
It often is for normal cops, too. That doesn't excuse this
behavior.
On 6/20/2025 6:08 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2025 5:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/20/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/20/2025 4:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2025 9:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I don't think it's a crisis, but I'd rather live where
LEO are not doxxed and their families harassed.
Regrettable solution to an unfortunate situation. I
understand it but I don't like it.
Ordinary cops have their names and badge numbers
visible. For example:
" 1916.01 - Display of badge numbers and identification
Division of police officers shall display their names
and badge numbers on their uniforms while on duty. If
officers are wearing alternative uniforms or riot gear,
or are on duty at a protest or riot, their names and
badge numbers shall be affixed to their uniform or
helmets and be clearly visible to the public. "
AFAIK there is no great personal security problem
arising from that practice.
Why should ICE agents not be held to the same standard?
Do you have links to attacks on the homes of ICE agents?
Does that happen to them more than to ordinary police?
How does anyone know whether the people dragging a
family member into an unmarked vehicle are really ICE
agents and not kidnappers?
The entire operation smacks heavily of Nazi tactics.
+1
It's a paramilitary intimidation tactic, nothing more.
It's stunning to me that conservatives - especially
those with a libertarian bent - are compliant with a
police force having absolutely no accountability whatsoever.
Said no one. Ever.
Well, I'm still waiting to hear the first right wing or
libertarian objection to these practices.
I did, here.
I understand the logic of masked ICE personnel but I still
don't like it.
On 6/20/2025 6:17 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2025 5:12 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/20/2025 3:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2025 9:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I don't think it's a crisis, but I'd rather live where
LEO are not doxxed and their families harassed.
Regrettable solution to an unfortunate situation. I
understand it but I don't like it.
Ordinary cops have their names and badge numbers visible.
For example:
" 1916.01 - Display of badge numbers and identification
Division of police officers shall display their names and
badge numbers on their uniforms while on duty. If
officers are wearing alternative uniforms or riot gear,
or are on duty at a protest or riot, their names and
badge numbers shall be affixed to their uniform or
helmets and be clearly visible to the public. "
AFAIK there is no great personal security problem arising
from that practice.
Why should ICE agents not be held to the same standard?
Do you have links to attacks on the homes of ICE agents?
Does that happen to them more than to ordinary police?
How does anyone know whether the people dragging a family
member into an unmarked vehicle are really ICE agents and
not kidnappers?
The entire operation smacks heavily of Nazi tactics.
It's a particularly fraught environment:
https://www.newsweek.com/anti-ice-protests-immigration-
portland-2088048
It often is for normal cops, too. That doesn't excuse this
behavior.
When I wrote 'fraught environment' I didn't mean only one
group of actors. Take this pathetic incident today, which
would be humorous if it were not a deadly threat:
https://www.theblaze.com/news/nyc-mayor-bomb-threat-voicemail
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 19:43:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
A mask on their face does not hide that they're ICE.
True. An average of 4 months training. 10.000 hired by Trump,
so there was practically no triage. They are supposed to respond to
the Senate, but don't have a leader since 2017 ...
You chose the word well. "Thugs". Ignorant, unsupervised,
armed thugs. Who now prefer to remain anonymous.
What could go wrong?
[]'s
On 6/21/2025 12:29 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 19:30:24 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 6:08 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Well, I'm still waiting to hear the first right wing or
libertarian objection to these practices.
I did, here.
I understand the logic of masked ICE personnel but I still
don't like it.
The whole thing is foolish. Just do as Thailand does... No freebies
with out proof of citizenship :-)
You're oversimplifying. People sneak into the U.S. for much greater
reasons than "freebies." Removing "freebies" won't stop them from trying.
Let's skip for now the instances of people fleeing violence in their
home countries. (If your choice was fleeing or having your family
killed, you'd flee.) Let's focus just on economics. You're in some poor >village with no work, barely subsisting, with several kids. You know if
you stay there, your kids will grow up and be just as poor as you.
And you know that if you can make it to the U.S., you will be much
better off financially. Your kids will have a chance at a decent life.
Why? Because you know there are companies that will hire you, giving
just a wink and a nod to your illegal status. The anticipated benefits
would lead you to "invest" in services of a coyote who may (or may not)
sneak you over the border. You'd judge that the return on your
investment would be large, "freebies" or no.
Could we stop companies from hiring illegal immigrants? Maybe so, but it >would cause chaos in several industries - because those are the people >harvesting our food, tending our greenhouses, doing roofing and
construction, cleaning our resorts and hotel rooms, etc. And there is no
long line of Americans just wishing to get jobs in those fields.
I'd guess any effort at restricting employment of illegal immigrants in
such industries would result in immediate lobbying efforts and
"generous" cash donations from company owners to politicians, asking
them to somehow get enforcement to look the other way.
On Sat Jun 14 13:17:45 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 19:39:54 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
There is NO Federal statute of limitations on human trafficking and I believe that was introduced by Bill
Clinton.
Wrong. However, I will admit that I had a difficult time finding the
information.
"Federal Human Trafficking Civil Litigation"
<https://htlegalcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Federal-Human-Trafficking-Civil-Litigation-1.pdf>
"18 U.S.C. ? 1595(a). The statute of limitations is 10 years, or 10
years after the victim turned 18, if the offense occurred when the
victim was a minor. See 18 U.S.C. ? 1595(c)."
There are also state laws which cover human trafficking:
CA Civ Code ? 52.5 (2024)
<https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-civ/division-1/part-2/section-52-5/>
"(c) An action brought pursuant to this section shall be commenced
within seven years of the date on which the trafficking victim was
freed from the trafficking situation or, if the victim was a minor
when the act of human trafficking against the victim occurred, within
10 years after the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority."
Wouldn't it be nice if you knew what that meant.
On Thu Jun 5 22:05:05 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 23:12:30 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Wed Jun 4 11:09:37 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:46:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://catholicvote.org/new-anti-catholic-fbi-memo-distributed-1000-biden-fbi-employees-before-whistleblower/
IMHO, ANY "radical" religious group should be investigated by
the FBI They are usually sociopaths, and as such, dangerous to the
community.
Let me tell you something about that wonderful country of Brazil.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/slavery-brazil
Not only is the antislavery laws poorly enforced, in the wilds of Brazil it is to this day
an active practice. And for very many years they would pay ex-slaves so little that
it amounted to slavery.
Yes, and it was much worse during the right wing dictatorship.
Shadow - in case you're unaware of it, religion is completely voluntary. If you don't like them that is tough shit.
Here in the USA we have a right to choose3 any r4eligion we want or none at all.
Here normal people choose "no religion". We let the weak of
mind choose whatever they want to. Most are opting for nazi-fascism
(also known as christian warriors). It's what social media (Meta, X
and Glugle) advise them to do.
You DO have a reference for that silly stat4ment? The NAZI's were not "right wing" - they were socialists.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 19:30:24 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I did, here.
I understand the logic of masked ICE personnel but I still
don't like it.
The whole thing is foolish. Just do as Thailand does... No freebies
with out proof of citizenship :-)
On 6/20/2025 6:17 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2025 5:12 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/20/2025 3:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2025 9:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I don't think it's a crisis, but I'd rather live where
LEO are not doxxed and their families harassed.
Regrettable solution to an unfortunate situation. I
understand it but I don't like it.
Ordinary cops have their names and badge numbers visible.
For example:
" 1916.01 - Display of badge numbers and identification
Division of police officers shall display their names and
badge numbers on their uniforms while on duty. If
officers are wearing alternative uniforms or riot gear,
or are on duty at a protest or riot, their names and
badge numbers shall be affixed to their uniform or
helmets and be clearly visible to the public. "
AFAIK there is no great personal security problem arising
from that practice.
Why should ICE agents not be held to the same standard?
Do you have links to attacks on the homes of ICE agents?
Does that happen to them more than to ordinary police?
How does anyone know whether the people dragging a family
member into an unmarked vehicle are really ICE agents and
not kidnappers?
The entire operation smacks heavily of Nazi tactics.
It's a particularly fraught environment:
https://www.newsweek.com/anti-ice-protests-immigration-
portland-2088048
It often is for normal cops, too. That doesn't excuse this
behavior.
When I wrote 'fraught environment' I didn't mean only one
group of actors. Take this pathetic incident today, which
would be humorous if it were not a deadly threat:
https://www.theblaze.com/news/nyc-mayor-bomb-threat-voicemail
On 6/20/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/20/2025 4:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2025 9:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I don't think it's a crisis, but I'd rather live where LEO are not
doxxed and their families harassed. Regrettable solution to an
unfortunate situation. I understand it but I don't like it.
Ordinary cops have their names and badge numbers visible. For example:
" 1916.01 - Display of badge numbers and identification
Division of police officers shall display their names and badge
numbers on their uniforms while on duty. If officers are wearing
alternative uniforms or riot gear, or are on duty at a protest or
riot, their names and badge numbers shall be affixed to their uniform
or helmets and be clearly visible to the public. "
AFAIK there is no great personal security problem arising from that
practice.
Why should ICE agents not be held to the same standard? Do you have
links to attacks on the homes of ICE agents? Does that happen to them
more than to ordinary police?
How does anyone know whether the people dragging a family member into
an unmarked vehicle are really ICE agents and not kidnappers?
The entire operation smacks heavily of Nazi tactics.
+1
It's a paramilitary intimidation tactic, nothing more.
It's stunning to me that conservatives - especially those with a
libertarian bent - are compliant with a police force having absolutely
no accountability whatsoever.
Said no one. Ever.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 17:39:05 -0400, floriduh dumbass
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 18:28:21 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 16:53:20 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 16:36:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 9:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I don't think it's a crisis, but I'd rather live where LEO are not >>>>>> doxxed and their families harassed. Regrettable solution to an
unfortunate situation. I understand it but I don't like it.
Ordinary cops have their names and badge numbers visible. For example: >>>>>
" 1916.01 - Display of badge numbers and identification
Division of police officers shall display their names and badge numbers >>>>> on their uniforms while on duty. If officers are wearing alternative >>>>> uniforms or riot gear, or are on duty at a protest or riot, their names >>>>> and badge numbers shall be affixed to their uniform or helmets and be >>>>> clearly visible to the public. "
AFAIK there is no great personal security problem arising from that
practice.
Why should ICE agents not be held to the same standard? Do you have
links to attacks on the homes of ICE agents? Does that happen to them >>>>> more than to ordinary police?
How does anyone know whether the people dragging a family member into an >>>>> unmarked vehicle are really ICE agents and not kidnappers?
The entire operation smacks heavily of Nazi tactics.
The Nazi thing hasn't worked too well for you guys...
It doesn't work too well for any honest citizen.
But it has its supporters.
[]'s
Calling me a Nazi would make me laugh. I have laughed at people who've
called me a White Supremacist, a Racist, an other nonsense slurs.
Referring to someone with slurs like that is so juvenile. It's one of
the reasons Trump became President.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 17:39:05 -0400, floriduh dumbass
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 18:28:21 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 16:53:20 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 16:36:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 9:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I don't think it's a crisis, but I'd rather live where LEO are not >>>>>>> doxxed and their families harassed. Regrettable solution to an
unfortunate situation. I understand it but I don't like it.
Ordinary cops have their names and badge numbers visible. For example: >>>>>>
" 1916.01 - Display of badge numbers and identification
Division of police officers shall display their names and badge numbers >>>>>> on their uniforms while on duty. If officers are wearing alternative >>>>>> uniforms or riot gear, or are on duty at a protest or riot, their names >>>>>> and badge numbers shall be affixed to their uniform or helmets and be >>>>>> clearly visible to the public. "
AFAIK there is no great personal security problem arising from that >>>>>> practice.
Why should ICE agents not be held to the same standard? Do you have >>>>>> links to attacks on the homes of ICE agents? Does that happen to them >>>>>> more than to ordinary police?
How does anyone know whether the people dragging a family member into an >>>>>> unmarked vehicle are really ICE agents and not kidnappers?
The entire operation smacks heavily of Nazi tactics.
The Nazi thing hasn't worked too well for you guys...
It doesn't work too well for any honest citizen.
But it has its supporters.
[]'s
Calling me a Nazi would make me laugh. I have laughed at people who've
called me a White Supremacist, a Racist, an other nonsense slurs.
Referring to someone with slurs like that is so juvenile. It's one of
the reasons Trump became President.
I'll suggest you've been called a racist and a white supremacist with
good reason. It's also one of the reasons you're glad trump is the
president.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 20:01:13 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 6:17 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2025 5:12 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/20/2025 3:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2025 9:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I don't think it's a crisis, but I'd rather live where
LEO are not doxxed and their families harassed.
Regrettable solution to an unfortunate situation. I
understand it but I don't like it.
Ordinary cops have their names and badge numbers visible.
For example:
" 1916.01 - Display of badge numbers and identification
Division of police officers shall display their names and
badge numbers on their uniforms while on duty. If
officers are wearing alternative uniforms or riot gear,
or are on duty at a protest or riot, their names and
badge numbers shall be affixed to their uniform or
helmets and be clearly visible to the public. "
AFAIK there is no great personal security problem arising
from that practice.
Why should ICE agents not be held to the same standard?
Do you have links to attacks on the homes of ICE agents?
Does that happen to them more than to ordinary police?
How does anyone know whether the people dragging a family
member into an unmarked vehicle are really ICE agents and
not kidnappers?
The entire operation smacks heavily of Nazi tactics.
It's a particularly fraught environment:
https://www.newsweek.com/anti-ice-protests-immigration-
portland-2088048
It often is for normal cops, too. That doesn't excuse this
behavior.
True. Even more for regular cops as they tend to live in the
places they work. These ICE thugs fly in from other states.
When I wrote 'fraught environment' I didn't mean only one
group of actors. Take this pathetic incident today, which
would be humorous if it were not a deadly threat:
https://www.theblaze.com/news/nyc-mayor-bomb-threat-voicemail
//
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors and sign up
//
The Blaze is an extreme right publication infamous for it's
#FAKE_NEWS, and is one of the proponents of a police state.
"Bypass the censors"? What censors?
[]'s
PS The MAGAtards threatened to kill his cat? I find that
revolting.
On 6/21/2025 6:06 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jun 8 21:18:39 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 23:13:33 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Wed Jun 4 19:08:36 2025 Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <g1104kpnld069op5s12ddfjpaas7360a82@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
US citizens should indeed get a hearing.
So if the government says you're not a US citizen (even if you are), you >>>>> don't get a hearing. This is a planet-sized loophole, you see?
Where do you get the idea that you don't get a hearing?
According to Trump, you don't get a hearing. Deportation is
automatic. No checking documents, no courts, no right of defense.
NOW do you understand ?
If you have proof that you are a citizen, you do not NEED to go to court, it is against the law to deport you from your native country.
NOW do you understand?
Trump is NOT picking up people off of the street and deporting them. People charged as illegals and verified by USCIS are turned over to ICE and deported. What does Brazil do with the Argentinians flooding the country?
Brasil has had net emiragtion for years.
On 6/22/2025 4:55 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 20:01:13 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 6:17 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2025 5:12 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/20/2025 3:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2025 9:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I don't think it's a crisis, but I'd rather live where
LEO are not doxxed and their families harassed.
Regrettable solution to an unfortunate situation. I
understand it but I don't like it.
Ordinary cops have their names and badge numbers visible.
For example:
" 1916.01 - Display of badge numbers and identification
Division of police officers shall display their names and
badge numbers on their uniforms while on duty. If
officers are wearing alternative uniforms or riot gear,
or are on duty at a protest or riot, their names and
badge numbers shall be affixed to their uniform or
helmets and be clearly visible to the public. "
AFAIK there is no great personal security problem arising
from that practice.
Why should ICE agents not be held to the same standard?
Do you have links to attacks on the homes of ICE agents?
Does that happen to them more than to ordinary police?
How does anyone know whether the people dragging a family
member into an unmarked vehicle are really ICE agents and
not kidnappers?
The entire operation smacks heavily of Nazi tactics.
It's a particularly fraught environment:
https://www.newsweek.com/anti-ice-protests-immigration-
portland-2088048
It often is for normal cops, too. That doesn't excuse this
behavior.
True. Even more for regular cops as they tend to live in the
places they work. These ICE thugs fly in from other states.
When I wrote 'fraught environment' I didn't mean only one
group of actors. Take this pathetic incident today, which
would be humorous if it were not a deadly threat:
https://www.theblaze.com/news/nyc-mayor-bomb-threat-voicemail
//
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors and sign up
//
The Blaze is an extreme right publication infamous for it's
#FAKE_NEWS, and is one of the proponents of a police state.
"Bypass the censors"? What censors?
[]'s
PS The MAGAtards threatened to kill his cat? I find that
revolting.
The incident was reported elsewhere shorty thereafter.
https://abc7ny.com/post/nyc-mayoral-candidate-zohran-mamdani-releases-statement-car-bomb-death-threat/16793784/
My point was that making threats to blow up a New Yorker's
auto, when he, like most New Yorkers, doesn't own one, is
just plain crazy, beyond the insanity of making a felony
threat to a politician leading his current primary race.
And not only. Crazy is trending.
https://local12.com/news/nation-world/rising-political-violence-memphis-mayor-paul-young-and-ohio-lawmaker-rep-max-miller-targeted-in-alarming-incidents-taser-attempted-kidnapping-stalking-antisemitic-violence-palestinian-flag-threats
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 09:09:35 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>Brasil has had net emiragtion for years.
True, but from 2003-2015 more people came back to Brasil than
left it.
As Frank pointed out, people go where it's best for their
futures(and their children's futures). Still haven't figured out why
they choose the US, though.
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 12:54:58 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 09:09:35 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>Brasil has had net emiragtion for years.
True, but from 2003-2015 more people came back to Brasil than
left it.
The data I found doesn't agree with that. Mostly, I find the net
migration in and out of Brazil shows mostly a population loss:
World Bank using UN data: ><https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.NETM?locations=BR>
Statista
<https://www.statista.com/statistics/1392875/migration-rate-brazil/>
Macro Trends ><https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/bra/brazil/net-migration>
--As Frank pointed out, people go where it's best for their
futures(and their children's futures). Still haven't figured out why
they choose the US, though.
Same as every other immigrant. The POTENTIAL for improving one's life
is possible. Whether the US is capable of delivering is questionable.
I suspect it doesn't matter how much the US delivers as long as the US
is an improvement over the old country.
On 6/22/2025 11:54 AM, Shadow wrote:
I suspect a large part is because our version of culture - if you can
As Frank pointed out, people go where it's best for their
futures(and their children's futures). Still haven't figured out why
they choose the US, though.
dignify it with that term - is broadcast so prevalently. People see our >movies and TV shows that glamorize the country, and those function as >advertisements for living in the U.S.
Yesterday I asked a Peruvian friend what brought her to the U.S. She
said it was a family vacation to Disney World when she was young; she
thought the entire country was like Orlando. The photos of her home town
in Peru looked pretty bleak.
FWIW, I'd never want to live in Orlando.
Put up or shut up. NO government schools are forced to post the ten >commandments.
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 16:16:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/22/2025 11:54 AM, Shadow wrote:
I suspect a large part is because our version of culture - if you can >>dignify it with that term - is broadcast so prevalently. People see our >>movies and TV shows that glamorize the country, and those function as >>advertisements for living in the U.S.
As Frank pointed out, people go where it's best for their
futures(and their children's futures). Still haven't figured out why
they choose the US, though.
Yesterday I asked a Peruvian friend what brought her to the U.S. She
said it was a family vacation to Disney World when she was young; she >>thought the entire country was like Orlando. The photos of her home town
in Peru looked pretty bleak.
FWIW, I'd never want to live in Orlando.
Another of Krygowski's imaginary friends?
In article <moH5Q.1287571$mjgd.653657@fx09.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
Put up or shut up. NO government schools are forced to post the ten >>commandments.
Not that Fox News is the bastion of unbiased correctness, but I believe
these facts are basically undisputed.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/louisiana-governor-defends-displaying-10-commandments-schools-us-founded-judeo-christian-values
In article <moH5Q.1287571$mjgd.653657@fx09.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
Put up or shut up. NO government schools are forced to post the ten
commandments.
Not that Fox News is the bastion of unbiased correctness, but I believe
these facts are basically undisputed.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/louisiana-governor-defends-displaying-10-commandments-schools-us-founded-judeo-christian-values
I wrote to Trump and Dr. Scott Atlas and Trump replaced his medical advisor from Fauci to Atlas who was a member of the Hoover Institute at Stanford. EVERYTHING that Fauci had advised Trump was wrong. And Trump was not an MD and needed to trust hisadvisors.
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 18:20:02 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 16:16:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski >><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/22/2025 11:54 AM, Shadow wrote:
I suspect a large part is because our version of culture - if you can >>>dignify it with that term - is broadcast so prevalently. People see our >>>movies and TV shows that glamorize the country, and those function as >>>advertisements for living in the U.S.
As Frank pointed out, people go where it's best for their
futures(and their children's futures). Still haven't figured out why
they choose the US, though.
Yesterday I asked a Peruvian friend what brought her to the U.S. She
said it was a family vacation to Disney World when she was young; she >>>thought the entire country was like Orlando. The photos of her home town >>>in Peru looked pretty bleak.
FWIW, I'd never want to live in Orlando.
Another of Krygowski's imaginary friends?
I believe he has or had a lot of real friends. He has a
friendly, genuine attitude, is better informed than most Americans and
seems to care about others. What is the term? Empathy.
Had maybe. Most of my friends died from COVID or old age. My
school reunion and my Med-School reunion were both cancelled this
year. Not enough left.
Maybe he lost his. It's very hard to make real friends when
you are old.
There's always Usenet, though it's riddled with psychos...
still better than social media.
[]'s
[]'s
On 6/22/2025 7:43 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 18:20:02 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 16:16:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/22/2025 11:54 AM, Shadow wrote:
I suspect a large part is because our version of culture - if you can
As Frank pointed out, people go where it's best for their
futures(and their children's futures). Still haven't figured out why >>>>> they choose the US, though.
dignify it with that term - is broadcast so prevalently. People see our >>>> movies and TV shows that glamorize the country, and those function as
advertisements for living in the U.S.
Yesterday I asked a Peruvian friend what brought her to the U.S. She
said it was a family vacation to Disney World when she was young; she
thought the entire country was like Orlando. The photos of her home town >>>> in Peru looked pretty bleak.
FWIW, I'd never want to live in Orlando.
Another of Krygowski's imaginary friends?
I believe he has or had a lot of real friends. He has a
friendly, genuine attitude, is better informed than most Americans and
seems to care about others. What is the term? Empathy.
I have no need to invent friends. Three guests came over for dessert on
the back patio today, to converse and gaze at my wife's gardens.
Yesterday's dinner was with different friends.
person does not suffer from crippling shyness or incurable
obnoxiousness. Our timid tricycle rider would not understand.
Had maybe. Most of my friends died from COVID or old age.
I've not (yet?) lost any friends to COVID but I've lost several due to
other causes in the past year or two, and one of my very best friends is
now in a bad way.
This seems to be a sad feature of getting older.
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 20:43:59 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 18:20:02 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 16:16:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/22/2025 11:54 AM, Shadow wrote:
I suspect a large part is because our version of culture - if you can >>>>dignify it with that term - is broadcast so prevalently. People see our >>>>movies and TV shows that glamorize the country, and those function as >>>>advertisements for living in the U.S.
As Frank pointed out, people go where it's best for their
futures(and their children's futures). Still haven't figured out why >>>>> they choose the US, though.
Yesterday I asked a Peruvian friend what brought her to the U.S. She >>>>said it was a family vacation to Disney World when she was young; she >>>>thought the entire country was like Orlando. The photos of her home town >>>>in Peru looked pretty bleak.
FWIW, I'd never want to live in Orlando.
Another of Krygowski's imaginary friends?
I believe he has or had a lot of real friends. He has a
friendly, genuine attitude, is better informed than most Americans and >>seems to care about others. What is the term? Empathy.
Had maybe. Most of my friends died from COVID or old age. My
school reunion and my Med-School reunion were both cancelled this
year. Not enough left.
Maybe he lost his. It's very hard to make real friends when
you are old.
There's always Usenet, though it's riddled with psychos...
still better than social media.
Usenet *is* social media..
[]'s
[]'s
Liberals do stand up for each other. They even supported a liberal
politician who babbled incoherent nonsense and couldn't find his way
off the stage.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 04:14:03 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 20:43:59 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 18:20:02 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 16:16:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/22/2025 11:54 AM, Shadow wrote:
I suspect a large part is because our version of culture - if you can >>>>>dignify it with that term - is broadcast so prevalently. People see our >>>>>movies and TV shows that glamorize the country, and those function as >>>>>advertisements for living in the U.S.
As Frank pointed out, people go where it's best for their
futures(and their children's futures). Still haven't figured out why >>>>>> they choose the US, though.
Yesterday I asked a Peruvian friend what brought her to the U.S. She >>>>>said it was a family vacation to Disney World when she was young; she >>>>>thought the entire country was like Orlando. The photos of her home town >>>>>in Peru looked pretty bleak.
FWIW, I'd never want to live in Orlando.
Another of Krygowski's imaginary friends?
I believe he has or had a lot of real friends. He has a
friendly, genuine attitude, is better informed than most Americans and >>>seems to care about others. What is the term? Empathy.
Had maybe. Most of my friends died from COVID or old age. My
school reunion and my Med-School reunion were both cancelled this
year. Not enough left.
Maybe he lost his. It's very hard to make real friends when
you are old.
There's always Usenet, though it's riddled with psychos...
still better than social media.
Usenet *is* social media..
[]'s
[]'s
Liberals do stand up for each other. They even supported a liberal >>politician who babbled incoherent nonsense and couldn't find his way
off the stage.
And don't forget all the free bees the U.E. hands out to their
inhabitants ;-)
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 02:56:26 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 04:14:03 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 20:43:59 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 18:20:02 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 16:16:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/22/2025 11:54 AM, Shadow wrote:
I suspect a large part is because our version of culture - if you can >>>>>> dignify it with that term - is broadcast so prevalently. People see our >>>>>> movies and TV shows that glamorize the country, and those function as >>>>>> advertisements for living in the U.S.
As Frank pointed out, people go where it's best for their >>>>>>> futures(and their children's futures). Still haven't figured out why >>>>>>> they choose the US, though.
Yesterday I asked a Peruvian friend what brought her to the U.S. She >>>>>> said it was a family vacation to Disney World when she was young; she >>>>>> thought the entire country was like Orlando. The photos of her home town >>>>>> in Peru looked pretty bleak.
FWIW, I'd never want to live in Orlando.
Another of Krygowski's imaginary friends?
I believe he has or had a lot of real friends. He has a
friendly, genuine attitude, is better informed than most Americans and >>>> seems to care about others. What is the term? Empathy.
Had maybe. Most of my friends died from COVID or old age. My
school reunion and my Med-School reunion were both cancelled this
year. Not enough left.
Maybe he lost his. It's very hard to make real friends when
you are old.
There's always Usenet, though it's riddled with psychos...
still better than social media.
Usenet *is* social media..
[]'s
[]'s
Liberals do stand up for each other. They even supported a liberal
politician who babbled incoherent nonsense and couldn't find his way
off the stage.
And don't forget all the free bees the U.E. hands out to their
inhabitants ;-)
Spelling checker failed again.. "U.E." is actually spelled, "U.S." :-)
--
cheers,
John B.
In the post war years the bay area was very good to the Portuguese.
On 6/22/2025 7:57 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sat Jun 14 23:53:25 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/14/2025 3:35 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Sinovac was a resposiboly made and tested REAL vaccine that developed properly and was not available during the Covid-19 pandemic ...
I'm still wondering why you're not complaining about the president who
bragged about his "Operation Warp Speed" that led to the fast
development of the Covid vaccine.
Why are you giving that guy a pass?
Can't you read? AT THE TIME his medical advisor was Anthony Fauci who with all of his great intelligence, had paid for the development of a bioweapon and he was very worried that he would be crusified.
But your hero Trump still commanded the vaccine development and bragged
about it. Don't excuse that!
I told you before that I had experience with Fauci ...
Bullshit. You may have _told_ us that, but nobody has believed it. We're >aware of your rich fantasy life.
I wrote to Trump and Dr. Scott Atlas and Trump replaced his medical advisor from Fauci ...
I don't doubt you wrote to Trump. I very much doubt it would have had
any effect. Think of the volume of communication they must get from
every self-proclaimed "expert."
I told you several times that I had not known Fauci to make ONE single correct decision.
You knew nothing about Fauci except that your right wing masters didn't
like him. Anything else is more of your fantasy life.
Imagine Trump and Yellen and Fauci and other nationally prominent people >getting communication from you. Why would they pay any attention to a
random bike rider with no education living in a California hellhole,
instead of to all the other nuts that write to them every day?
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 12:54:58 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 09:09:35 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>Brasil has had net emiragtion for years.
True, but from 2003-2015 more people came back to Brasil than
left it.
The data I found doesn't agree with that. Mostly, I find the net
migration in and out of Brazil shows mostly a population loss:
World Bank using UN data: ><https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.NETM?locations=BR>
Statista
<https://www.statista.com/statistics/1392875/migration-rate-brazil/>
Macro Trends ><https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/bra/brazil/net-migration>
--As Frank pointed out, people go where it's best for their
futures(and their children's futures). Still haven't figured out why
they choose the US, though.
Same as every other immigrant. The POTENTIAL for improving one's life
is possible. Whether the US is capable of delivering is questionable.
I suspect it doesn't matter how much the US delivers as long as the US
is an improvement over the old country.
On 6/22/2025 6:17 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <moH5Q.1287571$mjgd.653657@fx09.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
Put up or shut up. NO government schools are forced to post the ten
commandments.
Not that Fox News is the bastion of unbiased correctness, but I believe
these facts are basically undisputed.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/louisiana-governor-defends-
displaying-10-commandments-schools-us-founded-judeo-christian-values
Yes you are correct and it's a subject of current litigation.
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 10:59:43 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 12:54:58 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 09:09:35 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>Brasil has had net emiragtion for years.
True, but from 2003-2015 more people came back to Brasil than
left it.
The data I found doesn't agree with that. Mostly, I find the net
migration in and out of Brazil shows mostly a population loss:
World Bank using UN data: >><https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.NETM?locations=BR>
Statista >><https://www.statista.com/statistics/1392875/migration-rate-brazil/>
Macro Trends >><https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/bra/brazil/net-migration>
Looked at "your" data. Found it strange that
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_net_migration_rate>
Shows Brazil as having a practically insignificant value (-0.2
%), and that was in 2022, during Bolsonaro's "diaspora".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Net_Migration_Rate,_Population_Reference_Bureau,_Current.svg>
Brazil is white ... close to zero.
Venezuela is receiving hundreds of thousands, which is
probably because they have one of the highest HDIs in South America.
Much more than the US under his highness Biden.
People are coming back to Brazil. Unemployment is down,
salaries are up, our HDI is better under Lula. The only people leaving
Brazil for the US are criminals. And ICE apparently welcomes them.
Also I found Statista very biased. Whenever the stats don't--
support the "market" (AKA right wing rhetoric) the data is either >nonexistent or terribly out of date. Check Argentina and poverty
(specially rural) , unemployment or salaries.
[]'s
As Frank pointed out, people go where it's best for their >>>futures(and their children's futures). Still haven't figured out why
they choose the US, though.
Same as every other immigrant. The POTENTIAL for improving one's life
is possible. Whether the US is capable of delivering is questionable.
I suspect it doesn't matter how much the US delivers as long as the US
is an improvement over the old country.
Flunky, I don't expect Shadow to understand all of the nuances of English. But I do expect you to understand that 80% of the polls had Clinton winning by a large margin. Why didn't she?
On Sun Jun 22 20:43:59 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 18:20:02 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 16:16:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/22/2025 11:54 AM, Shadow wrote:
I suspect a large part is because our version of culture - if you can
As Frank pointed out, people go where it's best for their
futures(and their children's futures). Still haven't figured out why
they choose the US, though.
dignify it with that term - is broadcast so prevalently. People see our
movies and TV shows that glamorize the country, and those function as
advertisements for living in the U.S.
Yesterday I asked a Peruvian friend what brought her to the U.S. She
said it was a family vacation to Disney World when she was young; she
thought the entire country was like Orlando. The photos of her home town >> >>in Peru looked pretty bleak.
FWIW, I'd never want to live in Orlando.
Another of Krygowski's imaginary friends?
I believe he has or had a lot of real friends. He has a
friendly, genuine attitude, is better informed than most Americans and
seems to care about others. What is the term? Empathy.
Had maybe. Most of my friends died from COVID or old age. My
school reunion and my Med-School reunion were both cancelled this
year. Not enough left.
Maybe he lost his. It's very hard to make real friends when
you are old.
There's always Usenet, though it's riddled with psychos...
still better than social media.
('m s8ure that he has friends, but don't you find it curious that they all were just disgussing these matters? No, like everything else from Frank, he invents conversations that magically believe his left wing nutty professor positions.
On Thu Jun 12 15:43:10 2025 Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 3:34 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 17:23:08 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/polls.html
Your link says Fox "News" said Clinton would win by a
landslide. Do you even read the articles you post links to?
But that was almost half a year before the elections, so
within a reasonable margin of error. Look at the date.
https://elections2024.thehill.com/national/harris-favorability-rating/
And despite your polls showing otherwise you lost bigtime.
Funny how tommy still deludes himself that a 1.5% margin is a "big" win
That article just says various polls predicted Trump would
win. They thought the American voter did not learn first time round.
And got it right.
READ the articles.
He never has before, why should he start now?
Flunky, I don't expect Shadow to understand all of the nuances of English. But I do expect you to understand that 80% of the polls had Clinton winning by a large margin. Why didn't she?
Because the Slime Stream Media is completely unreliable and invent stories that support their political leanings rather than reality.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 15:52:39 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sun Jun 22 20:43:59 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 18:20:02 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 16:16:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/22/2025 11:54 AM, Shadow wrote:
I suspect a large part is because our version of culture - if you can >>>>> dignify it with that term - is broadcast so prevalently. People see our >>>>> movies and TV shows that glamorize the country, and those function as >>>>> advertisements for living in the U.S.
As Frank pointed out, people go where it's best for their
futures(and their children's futures). Still haven't figured out why >>>>>> they choose the US, though.
Yesterday I asked a Peruvian friend what brought her to the U.S. She >>>>> said it was a family vacation to Disney World when she was young; she >>>>> thought the entire country was like Orlando. The photos of her home town >>>>> in Peru looked pretty bleak.
FWIW, I'd never want to live in Orlando.
Another of Krygowski's imaginary friends?
I believe he has or had a lot of real friends. He has a
friendly, genuine attitude, is better informed than most Americans and
seems to care about others. What is the term? Empathy.
Had maybe. Most of my friends died from COVID or old age. My
school reunion and my Med-School reunion were both cancelled this
year. Not enough left.
Maybe he lost his. It's very hard to make real friends when
you are old.
There's always Usenet, though it's riddled with psychos...
still better than social media.
('m s8ure that he has friends, but don't you find it curious that they all were just disgussing these matters? No, like everything else from Frank, he invents conversations that magically believe his left wing nutty professor positions.
Most EU countries and Canada are much further to the left than
even your democratic party (which in itself is not left wing, it's center-right).
Don't you find it strange that citizens of those countries
have a MUCH higher standard of living than most Americans? They are
happier, they are healthier, live longer, they worry less about
security and on average, they have a much better education.
Has it ever occurred to you that you might be the "nutty" one?
[]'s
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 11:19:53 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 10:59:43 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 12:54:58 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 09:09:35 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>Brasil has had net emiragtion for years.
True, but from 2003-2015 more people came back to Brasil than
left it.
The data I found doesn't agree with that. Mostly, I find the net >>>migration in and out of Brazil shows mostly a population loss:
World Bank using UN data: >>><https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.NETM?locations=BR>
Statista >>><https://www.statista.com/statistics/1392875/migration-rate-brazil/>
Macro Trends >>><https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/bra/brazil/net-migration>
Looked at "your" data. Found it strange that
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_net_migration_rate>
The Wikipedia editors note that:
"This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may
be found on the talk page. Please help to ensure that disputed
statements are reliably sourced. (December 2024)"
The talk page lists several possible sources of error, but does not
indicate which one might be attributed to the numbers for Brazil.
Brazil is not mentioned: ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_sovereign_states_by_net_migration_rate#Disputed>
Shows Brazil as having a practically insignificant value (-0.2
%), and that was in 2022, during Bolsonaro's "diaspora".
I ran into a similar problem many years ago when I was searching for
tourism statistics on the then newly introduce CDROM's. At the time
(late 1980's), Tunisia or Algeria (I forgot which) had the larges
number of tourists in according to the data. That seemed rather
unlikely, so I dug deeper. It seems that Tunisia or Algeria was the
favored destination for refugees from the neighboring countries. The >governments considered this to be an embarrassment and reclassified
the refugees as "tourists".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Net_Migration_Rate,_Population_Reference_Bureau,_Current.svg>
Brazil is white ... close to zero.
Venezuela is receiving hundreds of thousands, which is
probably because they have one of the highest HDIs in South America.
Much more than the US under his highness Biden.
People are coming back to Brazil. Unemployment is down,
salaries are up, our HDI is better under Lula. The only people leaving >>Brazil for the US are criminals. And ICE apparently welcomes them.
Do you have a link to an online source that substantiates that claim?
The World Bank numbers came from the UN, which I assume is somewhat >authoritative.--
Also I found Statista very biased. Whenever the stats don't
support the "market" (AKA right wing rhetoric) the data is either >>nonexistent or terribly out of date. Check Argentina and poverty
(specially rural) , unemployment or salaries.
[]'s
As Frank pointed out, people go where it's best for their >>>>futures(and their children's futures). Still haven't figured out why >>>>they choose the US, though.
Same as every other immigrant. The POTENTIAL for improving one's life
is possible. Whether the US is capable of delivering is questionable.
I suspect it doesn't matter how much the US delivers as long as the US
is an improvement over the old country.
Liberals do stand up for each other. They even supported a liberal
politician who babbled incoherent nonsense and couldn't find his way
off the stage.
In article <303i5kt1q17542l0ndl75g7ote5gf1o9fq@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Liberals do stand up for each other. They even supported a liberal >>politician who babbled incoherent nonsense and couldn't find his way
off the stage.
Didn't they kick him out?
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 19:58:42 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <303i5kt1q17542l0ndl75g7ote5gf1o9fq@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Liberals do stand up for each other. They even supported a liberal >>>politician who babbled incoherent nonsense and couldn't find his way
off the stage.
Didn't they kick him out?
The Democrat hierarchy forced him out after the party nominated him
for a second term. Some leftist voters still think I should have
stayed in and that he could have won. Most everyone agrees nowdays
that they screwed up by offering the two women against Trump. One was
an alcoholic, they other one was pretending to be a man.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 17:46:12 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 19:58:42 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <303i5kt1q17542l0ndl75g7ote5gf1o9fq@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Liberals do stand up for each other. They even supported a liberal
politician who babbled incoherent nonsense and couldn't find his way
off the stage.
Didn't they kick him out?
The Democrat hierarchy forced him out after the party nominated him
for a second term. Some leftist voters still think I should have
stayed in and that he could have won. Most everyone agrees nowdays
that they screwed up by offering the two women against Trump. One was
an alcoholic, they other one was pretending to be a man.
Her excellency Kamala doesn't drink
<https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/lead-stories/>
<https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2024/09/fact-check-video-does-not-show-kamala-harris-drunk-its-altered-video.html>
So I presume she's the one you mistake for a man. I find her
quite attractive.
Who's the drunk? Trump's wife? Sure she's an immigrant and
possibly a whore (I think they call them "models" or "professional companions" now) but even magatards are becoming more open-minded
about that. I don't think Democrats planned that....
What is it with right wingers and whores? All of Bolsonaro's
wives were whores, hired by congress to entertain the men while they
were away from home. Weird, huh?
[]'s
On 6/23/2025 7:19 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 17:46:12 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 19:58:42 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <303i5kt1q17542l0ndl75g7ote5gf1o9fq@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Liberals do stand up for each other. They even supported a liberal
politician who babbled incoherent nonsense and couldn't find his way >>>>> off the stage.
Didn't they kick him out?
The Democrat hierarchy forced him out after the party nominated him
for a second term. Some leftist voters still think I should have
stayed in and that he could have won. Most everyone agrees nowdays
that they screwed up by offering the two women against Trump. One was
an alcoholic, they other one was pretending to be a man.
Her excellency Kamala doesn't drink
<https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/lead-stories/>
<https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2024/09/fact-check-video-does-not-show-kamala-harris-drunk-its-altered-video.html>
So I presume she's the one you mistake for a man. I find her
quite attractive.
Who's the drunk? Trump's wife? Sure she's an immigrant and
possibly a whore (I think they call them "models" or "professional
companions" now) but even magatards are becoming more open-minded
about that. I don't think Democrats planned that....
Right, they went from 'moral majority' and 'family values' yadyada
bullshit to endorsing a guy who publicly cheated on all 3 of his wives
(the current iteration a gold-digger who even brought her whole family
over under the chain migration rules, which they themselves have since >banned). Even _IF_ trump isn't guilty of campaign finance fraud, he
still paid a pornstar to have sex with him while his wife was carrying
his child.
None of that's my business. I don't care how he and his wives managed
their marriages. I don't care that newt gingrich served his wife with
divorce papers while she was in the hospital undergoing cancer treatment >while he was trying to prosecute clinton for getting a blow job. I don't
care about the numerous dalliances of Clinton or Kennedy.
The issue is the abject hypocrisy of the right wing claiming to be >championing for "family values" while being just as slutty and debauched
(if not more so) than any democrat they try to claim is unfit for office.
What is it with right wingers and whores? All of Bolsonaro's
wives were whores, hired by congress to entertain the men while they
were away from home. Weird, huh?
but are the men any less whores than the women?
[]'s
The issue is the abject hypocrisy of the right wing claiming to be >championing for "family values" while being just as slutty and debauched
(if not more so) than any democrat they try to claim is unfit for office.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 09:41:03 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
The issue is the abject hypocrisy of the right wing claiming to be >>championing for "family values" while being just as slutty and debauched >>(if not more so) than any democrat they try to claim is unfit for office.
Agreed. In my never humble opinion, it's impossible to find
candidates who are squeaky clean, honest, and can win an election.
Such requirements are mutually exclusive. Most cannot pass a simple >background check. Those who survive their term look burned out.
Little wonder they engage in extracurricular activities to relieve the >stress. If you dig deep enough, ALL the candidates and office holders
have done things that are best kept hidden. It's also impossible to
get elected to a high office without stepping on the bodies of the
losers.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 09:07:29 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 09:41:03 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
The issue is the abject hypocrisy of the right wing claiming to beAgreed. In my never humble opinion, it's impossible to find
championing for "family values" while being just as slutty and debauched >>> (if not more so) than any democrat they try to claim is unfit for office. >>
candidates who are squeaky clean, honest, and can win an election.
Such requirements are mutually exclusive. Most cannot pass a simple
background check. Those who survive their term look burned out.
Little wonder they engage in extracurricular activities to relieve the
stress. If you dig deep enough, ALL the candidates and office holders
have done things that are best kept hidden. It's also impossible to
get elected to a high office without stepping on the bodies of the
losers.
UNless a politician is actually breaking the law, I couldn't care less
about their private lives.... and no, Trump was not breaking the law.
The ridiculous notion that he should have recorded the hush money as a campaign expense is beyond the pale.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/24/2025 11:51 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 09:07:29 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 09:41:03 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
The issue is the abject hypocrisy of the right wing claiming to be
championing for "family values" while being just as slutty and
debauched
(if not more so) than any democrat they try to claim is unfit for
office.
Agreed. In my never humble opinion, it's impossible to find
candidates who are squeaky clean, honest, and can win an election.
Such requirements are mutually exclusive. Most cannot pass a simple
background check. Those who survive their term look burned out.
Little wonder they engage in extracurricular activities to relieve the
stress. If you dig deep enough, ALL the candidates and office holders
have done things that are best kept hidden. It's also impossible to
get elected to a high office without stepping on the bodies of the
losers.
UNless a politician is actually breaking the law, I couldn't care less
about their private lives.... and no, Trump was not breaking the law.
The ridiculous notion that he should have recorded the hush money as a
campaign expense is beyond the pale.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
NDAs are common, amazingly voluminous, routine and of long standing.
Nothing illegal about it.
And the payments to Mr Cohen, the attorney who drafted the NDA, were
marked as legal expense for internal bookkeeping. No crime there either.
So starting with a perfectly legal document and a series of payments, Ms James charged 34 counts (one for each check).
Appeals are yet in progress. Stay tuned.
Some leftist voters still think I should have stayed in and that he
could have won.
On 6/24/2025 1:55 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/24/2025 11:51 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 09:07:29 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 09:41:03 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote:
The issue is the abject hypocrisy of the right wing claiming to be
championing for "family values" while being just as slutty and
debauched
(if not more so) than any democrat they try to claim is unfit for
office.
Agreed. In my never humble opinion, it's impossible to find
candidates who are squeaky clean, honest, and can win an election.
Such requirements are mutually exclusive. Most cannot pass a simple
background check. Those who survive their term look burned out.
Little wonder they engage in extracurricular activities to relieve the >>>> stress. If you dig deep enough, ALL the candidates and office holders >>>> have done things that are best kept hidden. It's also impossible to
get elected to a high office without stepping on the bodies of the
losers.
UNless a politician is actually breaking the law, I couldn't care less
about their private lives.... and no, Trump was not breaking the law.
The ridiculous notion that he should have recorded the hush money as a
campaign expense is beyond the pale.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
NDAs are common, amazingly voluminous, routine and of long standing.
Nothing illegal about it.
And the payments to Mr Cohen, the attorney who drafted the NDA, were
marked as legal expense for internal bookkeeping. No crime there either.
So starting with a perfectly legal document and a series of payments, Ms
James charged 34 counts (one for each check).
Appeals are yet in progress. Stay tuned.
criminal or not is not the issue.
"The issue is the abject hypocrisy of the right wing claiming to be >championing for "family values" while being just as slutty and debauched
(if not more so) than any democrat they try to claim is unfit for office. "
On 6/24/2025 2:18 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <roij5kprtkrnmfgqfhb62hh577vcfk1in6@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Some leftist voters still think I should have stayed in
and that he
could have won.
I'll go with "some", over the earlier implication of "all".
Zero of the Democrats I spoke with wanted Biden to run in
the first
place. And certainly after his horrific debate showing,
they were like,
"Get that guy TF out of there yesterday."
I'm sure there were some, though, who thought that Biden
was best.
As Andrew says from time to time, it's a big country. We
have at least one of everything.
On 6/24/2025 1:55 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/24/2025 11:51 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 09:07:29 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 09:41:03 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
The issue is the abject hypocrisy of the right wing
claiming to be
championing for "family values" while being just as
slutty and debauched
(if not more so) than any democrat they try to claim is
unfit for office.
Agreed. In my never humble opinion, it's impossible to
find
candidates who are squeaky clean, honest, and can win an
election.
Such requirements are mutually exclusive. Most cannot
pass a simple
background check. Those who survive their term look
burned out.
Little wonder they engage in extracurricular activities
to relieve the
stress. If you dig deep enough, ALL the candidates and
office holders
have done things that are best kept hidden. It's also
impossible to
get elected to a high office without stepping on the
bodies of the
losers.
UNless a politician is actually breaking the law, I
couldn't care less
about their private lives.... and no, Trump was not
breaking the law.
The ridiculous notion that he should have recorded the
hush money as a
campaign expense is beyond the pale.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
NDAs are common, amazingly voluminous, routine and of long
standing. Nothing illegal about it.
And the payments to Mr Cohen, the attorney who drafted the
NDA, were marked as legal expense for internal
bookkeeping. No crime there either.
So starting with a perfectly legal document and a series
of payments, Ms James charged 34 counts (one for each check).
Appeals are yet in progress. Stay tuned.
criminal or not is not the issue.
"The issue is the abject hypocrisy of the right wing
claiming to be
championing for "family values" while being just as slutty
and debauched
(if not more so) than any democrat they try to claim is
unfit for office. "
On 6/24/2025 2:51 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/24/2025 1:55 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/24/2025 11:51 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 09:07:29 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 09:41:03 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
The issue is the abject hypocrisy of the right wing claiming to be >>>>>> championing for "family values" while being just as slutty and
debauched
(if not more so) than any democrat they try to claim is unfit for
office.
Agreed. In my never humble opinion, it's impossible to find
candidates who are squeaky clean, honest, and can win an election.
Such requirements are mutually exclusive. Most cannot pass a simple >>>>> background check. Those who survive their term look burned out.
Little wonder they engage in extracurricular activities to relieve the >>>>> stress. If you dig deep enough, ALL the candidates and office holders >>>>> have done things that are best kept hidden. It's also impossible to >>>>> get elected to a high office without stepping on the bodies of the
losers.
UNless a politician is actually breaking the law, I couldn't care less >>>> about their private lives.... and no, Trump was not breaking the law.
The ridiculous notion that he should have recorded the hush money as a >>>> campaign expense is beyond the pale.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
NDAs are common, amazingly voluminous, routine and of long standing.
Nothing illegal about it.
And the payments to Mr Cohen, the attorney who drafted the NDA, were
marked as legal expense for internal bookkeeping. No crime there either. >>>
So starting with a perfectly legal document and a series of payments,
Ms James charged 34 counts (one for each check).
Appeals are yet in progress. Stay tuned.
criminal or not is not the issue.
"The issue is the abject hypocrisy of the right wing claiming to be
championing for "family values" while being just as slutty and debauched
(if not more so) than any democrat they try to claim is unfit for office. "
That's a valid point. If a party trolls for votes by demanding purity
from the public, its candidates should represent its purported
standards. Electing, let alone worshiping, a blatant counterexample is >hypocritical.
You claim to be an MD, retired and say that after ALL of the research
showing that it was only a fatal disease to people of an average age
of 85 with three or more fatal illnesses?
On Sat Jun 7 17:07:42 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 19:41:46 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Fri Jun 6 03:25:49 2025 John B. wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 05:24:50 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:59:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski"Throughout his time in office, Biden empowered officials to violate
<S.>
On 6/5/2025 7:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank and Flunky persist in thinking that the Biden government was unquestionably good. Covid-19 taught them nothing at all.
I thought that Trump was president when Covid-19 hit.
The Biden administration and their cohorts in state governments used
the disease as an excuse to take control of people's private lives and >> >> >take away their civil liberties.
https://reason.com/2024/12/10/civil-liberties-lost-under-covid/
Americans' liberties in the name of fighting COVID-19. There is little
evidence those policies worked."
Sorry, I can't agree with that last sentence as Thailand did apply
thoser very same policies, the resuit?
U.S. -
cases 1 million population 333,985
deaths per 1 million population 3842
Thailand -
Cases 1 million population 68,069
Deaths 1 million population 494
John! Thais did NOT take those vaccines since they would have had to payt for them theirselves. What is difficult for this to understand?
Wrong, as usual.
"Vaccinations in Thailand" (Updated 27-5-2025)
<https://www.expatica.com/th/health/healthcare/thailand-vaccinations-2172908/#covid-19>
"Thailand?s government and Department of Disease Control dealt with
COVID-19 very well, offering Thai nationals and expat foreigners free
vaccinations during the pandemic."
"While free for Thai nationals, expat residents have to arrange them
privately. Fortunately, though, private healthcare in Thailand is
relatively affordable compared with equivalent services and facilities
in the Global North."
"For over 20 years, the EPI achieved vaccine coverage of more than 80%
of the population."
There you have it directly from the world's expert on Thailand. The KING owned the company making the vaccine. Is it any surprise that the public paid for the vaccine? There is nothing in this world that Liebermann won't lie about to suit his ends.
On 6/30/2025 1:44 PM, cyclintom wrote:
while I COULD break bones of you, Liebermann and Flunky, I wouldn't. INobody believes that, Tom. You're an old man with self-described balance
would just like you to know just how powerless you are.
and vision problems. I see no reason to believe you are particularly
strong or have acceptable reflexes.
I suspect that if you did get into a fight, all a person would have to
do would be dodge your swing once or twice. You'd soon lose your balance
and fall to the ground. And I think you know that, so you'd avoid acting
out your silly threats.
Consider therapy, Tom. It may help.
On Mon Jun 9 14:30:36 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/8/2025 9:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/7/2025 9:48 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/7/2025 8:45 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 14:33:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:35 AM, Shadow wrote:
Florida had one of the worse deaths/million population among
all American states(I'm excluding the blible belt states, because >>>>>>>> praying actually increases death rates among practically all
diseases).
They should have voted for someone more capable of leading the >>>>>>>> state.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party- affiliation- >>>>>>> linked-excess-covid-deaths
Same in Brazil. More pronounced, maybe. Of every 8 patients
that went on to die that responded the census, 7 said they were
Bolsonaro supporters(mostly non vaccinated and went to "covid parties" >>>>>> to get "natural immunity").
Remember, Bolsonaro actually recommended NOT vaccinating on
national TV. Said vaccines turned people into "communists"..
Oh, here we were told by some that the vaccine would make a person
magnetic; and that they were injecting microchips into our blood
stream to control us. To some, that sounded all "sciency"!
We were also told to expect 2,200,000 US deaths. pffffft.
Before vaccines, work-from-home, and PPE measures were instituted,
Obviously, it all worked.
For some yes, note I work in social care, once it?s in the building it?s
remarkably hard to contain and if folks have need of medical attention
particularly regularly outpatient services sooner or later it will arrive
and that first winter was grim to put it mildly!
When theyt were pumping people full of mRNA and then claiming that there
was no more deaths from Covid-19 while excess deaths were 20% above
average surely you must have been asking questions?
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/30/2025 1:44 PM, cyclintom wrote:Indeed! The idea that a 80+ would be a threat or threatening, is as ever
while I COULD break bones of you, Liebermann and Flunky, I wouldn't. INobody believes that, Tom. You're an old man with self-described balance
would just like you to know just how powerless you are.
and vision problems. I see no reason to believe you are particularly
strong or have acceptable reflexes.
I suspect that if you did get into a fight, all a person would have to
do would be dodge your swing once or twice. You'd soon lose your balance
and fall to the ground. And I think you know that, so you'd avoid acting
out your silly threats.
Consider therapy, Tom. It may help.
not believable let alone balance problems.
Roger Merriman
On 7/1/2025 4:05 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/30/2025 1:44 PM, cyclintom wrote:Indeed! The idea that a 80+ would be a threat or threatening, is as ever
while I COULD break bones of you, Liebermann and Flunky, I wouldn't. I >>>> would just like you to know just how powerless you are.Nobody believes that, Tom. You're an old man with self-described balance >>> and vision problems. I see no reason to believe you are particularly
strong or have acceptable reflexes.
I suspect that if you did get into a fight, all a person would have to
do would be dodge your swing once or twice. You'd soon lose your balance >>> and fall to the ground. And I think you know that, so you'd avoid acting >>> out your silly threats.
Consider therapy, Tom. It may help.
not believable let alone balance problems.
Roger Merriman
This would be tommy
https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-politician-appears-pee-pants-190444233.html
On Thu Jun 5 19:41:07 2025 Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 23:28:34 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Wed Jun 4 12:46:09 2025 Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:29:40 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/4/2025 11:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2025 9:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://catholicvote.org/new-anti-catholic-fbi-memo-
distributed-1000- biden-fbi-employees-before-whistleblower/
That's a remarkably unspecific article. There were no
details for "gathering information about Catholic
traditionalist groups" etc. It seems odd that the FBI would
suddenly be paranoid about religious people who espouse
conservative family values.
Most important, there was no specific evidence about exactly
what the horrible memo said, nor any actual harm that was done.
And I'll note that CatholicVote.org is not actually
connected with the Catholic church. Looks like yet another
right wing political organization drumming up outrage.
A bit more on that here:
https://www.wmal.com/2025/06/04/fbi-targeting-of-catholics-was-bigger-than-biden-officials-acknowledged/
What's a "Radical Traditionalist Catholic?"
That is a person who believes that Protestantism is a false religion.
I don't care much for any any organised religion. I think they're all
a bunch of group thinkers, but as long as they allow me to watch from
a distance, I can live with them.... and I do.
Most of the world is Catholic and you would never know it. So it isn't as
if they are proselitizing you.
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 19:41:07 2025 Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 23:28:34 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Wed Jun 4 12:46:09 2025 Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:29:40 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>
On 6/4/2025 11:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2025 9:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://catholicvote.org/new-anti-catholic-fbi-memo-
distributed-1000- biden-fbi-employees-before-whistleblower/
That's a remarkably unspecific article. There were no
details for "gathering information about Catholic
traditionalist groups" etc. It seems odd that the FBI would
suddenly be paranoid about religious people who espouse
conservative family values.
Most important, there was no specific evidence about exactly
what the horrible memo said, nor any actual harm that was done.
And I'll note that CatholicVote.org is not actually
connected with the Catholic church. Looks like yet another
right wing political organization drumming up outrage.
A bit more on that here:
https://www.wmal.com/2025/06/04/fbi-targeting-of-catholics-was-bigger-than-biden-officials-acknowledged/
What's a "Radical Traditionalist Catholic?"
That is a person who believes that Protestantism is a false religion.
I don't care much for any any organised religion. I think they're all
a bunch of group thinkers, but as long as they allow me to watch from
a distance, I can live with them.... and I do.
Most of the world is Catholic and you would never know it. So it isn't as
if they are proselitizing you.
Most of the world is religious yes, and it’s probably still just Christianity but Catholic’s are only about half of that number so they are quite a way off, as it’s very roughly 50/50 Protestant/Catholic.
Depending on where in the world you are will depend on the numbers and
which way they are headed, UK for example has just tipped into more people have no religion than do.
US is much more religious.
Roger Merriman
On Sun Jun 15 19:32:13 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 00:16:31 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Canada just forced a revote and proved that the Liberals there also counterfeited an election in the so-calleds honest country of Canada.
It was a recount, not a "revote".
"Conservatives secure 2 more seats after tight federal election
recounts"
<https://globalnews.ca/news/11194570/canada-2025-federal-election-recounts/> >> The conservatives gained 2 seats. One recount was in Marystown,
Newfoundland. 41,670 ballots were recounted. 1,000 ballots were
deemed questionable. After 2 weeks, 819 ballots were rejected.
There was also a recount in Windsor-Tecumseh-Lake Shore, Ontario,
which confirmed the original vote by 4 votes. I don't have any detail
on the recounting.
More detail:
"Judge rejected ballots marked in rectangular box containing
candidates? name in N.L. recount: report"
<https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/how-a-judge-handled-an-unprecedented-1041-disputed-ballots-in-a-tight-nl-recount/>
"... "maybe as many as half" of the disputed ballots in the Terra
Nova-The Peninsulas riding were marked in the rectangular box
containing the candidates? name."
"Handrigan rejected the so-called "rectangle ballots," and a table
accompanying his report indicates he ultimately dismissed more than
675 ballots."
There doesn't seem to be any allegations of fraud or Liberal
counterfeiting. Tom, where did you get your information?
In other words, the liberal practice of election fraud has spread to Canada.
Canada just forced a revote and proved that the Liberals there also counterfeited an election in the so-calleds honest country of Canada.
On Mon Jun 16 09:04:15 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 23:58:39 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Can you suggest what is wrong with a person who KNOWS that education is not mandatory in Mexico
Illiteracy in Mexico is very similar to the US... around 5%.
I'd say a person that KNOWS education is not mandatory in
Mexico is very ignorant, maybe illiterate. That's what's wrong with
him/her.
[]'s
PS 12 years of schooling is mandatory in Mexico,13 years in
Brazil vs only 10 years in the US. You don't need to be literate to
salute the flag, die as a soldier defending the rich's interests
abroad or to memorize (usually incorrectly) quotes from the blible.
Mandatory education in the US is from kindergarten to the 12th grade which is 134 years of mandatory education. You certainly have a very active imagination.
On Sun Jun 8 20:40:49 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 08:38:34 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/7/2025 7:51 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:52:45 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 14:33:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2025 11:35 AM, Shadow wrote:
Florida had one of the worse deaths/million population among >> >>>>> all American states(I'm excluding the blible belt states, because
praying actually increases death rates among practically all
diseases).
They should have voted for someone more capable of leading the >> >>>>> state.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party-affiliation-linked-excess-covid-deaths
CIDRAP???
No, the source is JAMA. Cidrap is just relaying the
information.
JAMA is not political, if anything it tends to the right....
[]'s
Krygowski apparently believes everything he runs into that
supports his agenda.
"JAMA is not political, if anything it tends to the right."
That's hilarious!
For at least 50 years AMA has been proudly hard left,
reflecting its members' positions (which they ought to
reflect). Which is exactly why neither my MD brother nor
85% of US licensed MDs belong to AMA.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3153537/
AMA tends to the right.
Seems most American doctors decided that's not radical enough
for them, so they went extreme right.
What ethical doctor does not defend public medicine? The
health statistics alone show it's the most effective form of medicine.
Shadow continues to spread wild lies.The AMA supports things like abotion rights
,transgender medical support (including gender changing surgery at public expense
and gun control.
These subjects are ALL hard left.
On 6/30/2025 2:01 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jun 8 21:14:54 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 16:32:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 09:48:55 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:48:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I did
fly several times during that period and I soon realised that the crew >>>>>> didn't make an issue about lowering the mask below my chin. I walked >>>>>> around in three airports with the mask hanging around my neck
I suppose we'll never know how many people you killed... not
that you would lose a minute's sleep if it had been dozens.
[]'s
Don't be silly... How would I have killed anyone?
To deliberately infect someone with a disease is manslaughter
here in Brazil, if the victim dies.
Probably not so in the US, or most repuglicans would be in
jail.
OK, proof positive that you aren't an MD and never were.
You have an unhealthy fixation with other people's
qualifications. What's the point? Can't you just take a
man's word for things which affect you not at all?
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 07:59:45 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/30/2025 2:01 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jun 8 21:14:54 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 16:32:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 09:48:55 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:48:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I did
fly several times during that period and I soon realised that the crew >>>>>>> didn't make an issue about lowering the mask below my chin. I walked >>>>>>> around in three airports with the mask hanging around my neck
I suppose we'll never know how many people you killed... not
that you would lose a minute's sleep if it had been dozens.
[]'s
Don't be silly... How would I have killed anyone?
To deliberately infect someone with a disease is manslaughter
here in Brazil, if the victim dies.
Probably not so in the US, or most repuglicans would be in
jail.
OK, proof positive that you aren't an MD and never were.
You have an unhealthy fixation with other people's
qualifications. What's the point? Can't you just take a
man's word for things which affect you not at all?
Largely due to the U.S. altitude that "I don't want to wear a mask".
In Thailand I was stopped on the street, by another pedestrian, and
told to put the mask (around my neck) to cover my mouth and nose.
And, as I've pointed out death due to the disease was vastly lower
here then in the U.S.
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 00:56:18 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 07:59:45 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/30/2025 2:01 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jun 8 21:14:54 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 16:32:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 09:48:55 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:48:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I did
fly several times during that period and I soon realised that the crew >>>>>>>> didn't make an issue about lowering the mask below my chin. I walked >>>>>>>> around in three airports with the mask hanging around my neck
I suppose we'll never know how many people you killed... not >>>>>>> that you would lose a minute's sleep if it had been dozens.
[]'s
Don't be silly... How would I have killed anyone?
To deliberately infect someone with a disease is manslaughter
here in Brazil, if the victim dies.
Probably not so in the US, or most repuglicans would be in
jail.
OK, proof positive that you aren't an MD and never were.
You have an unhealthy fixation with other people's
qualifications. What's the point? Can't you just take a
man's word for things which affect you not at all?
Largely due to the U.S. altitude that "I don't want to wear a mask".
In Thailand I was stopped on the street, by another pedestrian, and
told to put the mask (around my neck) to cover my mouth and nose.
And, as I've pointed out death due to the disease was vastly lower
here then in the U.S.
On my last bike ride I saw a pair of overweight, middle aged electric
bike riders wearing face masks way out in the open air. I suspect
that if their "leaders" told them that they should wear a hazmat suit,
they'd do that, too.
Some people are eager to be led.
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 05:07:28 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 00:56:18 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 07:59:45 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/30/2025 2:01 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jun 8 21:14:54 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 16:32:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 09:48:55 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:48:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I didI suppose we'll never know how many people you killed... not >>>>>>>> that you would lose a minute's sleep if it had been dozens.
fly several times during that period and I soon realised that the crew
didn't make an issue about lowering the mask below my chin. I walked >>>>>>>>> around in three airports with the mask hanging around my neck >>>>>>>>
[]'s
Don't be silly... How would I have killed anyone?
To deliberately infect someone with a disease is manslaughter
here in Brazil, if the victim dies.
Probably not so in the US, or most repuglicans would be in
jail.
OK, proof positive that you aren't an MD and never were.
You have an unhealthy fixation with other people's
qualifications. What's the point? Can't you just take a
man's word for things which affect you not at all?
Largely due to the U.S. altitude that "I don't want to wear a mask".
In Thailand I was stopped on the street, by another pedestrian, and
told to put the mask (around my neck) to cover my mouth and nose.
And, as I've pointed out death due to the disease was vastly lower
here then in the U.S.
On my last bike ride I saw a pair of overweight, middle aged electric
bike riders wearing face masks way out in the open air. I suspect
that if their "leaders" told them that they should wear a hazmat suit, >>they'd do that, too.
Some people are eager to be led.
Or ,possibly, overcome with the idea that one is free to do just what
one wants to do and screw the other guy (:-?)
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 05:07:28 -0400, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 00:56:18 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 07:59:45 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/30/2025 2:01 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jun 8 21:14:54 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 16:32:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 09:48:55 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:48:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I didI suppose we'll never know how many people you killed... not >>>>>>>> that you would lose a minute's sleep if it had been dozens.
fly several times during that period and I soon realised that the crew
didn't make an issue about lowering the mask below my chin. I walked >>>>>>>>> around in three airports with the mask hanging around my neck >>>>>>>>
[]'s
Don't be silly... How would I have killed anyone?
To deliberately infect someone with a disease is manslaughter
here in Brazil, if the victim dies.
Probably not so in the US, or most repuglicans would be in
jail.
OK, proof positive that you aren't an MD and never were.
You have an unhealthy fixation with other people's
qualifications. What's the point? Can't you just take a
man's word for things which affect you not at all?
Largely due to the U.S. altitude that "I don't want to wear a mask".
In Thailand I was stopped on the street, by another pedestrian, and
told to put the mask (around my neck) to cover my mouth and nose.
And, as I've pointed out death due to the disease was vastly lower
here then in the U.S.
On my last bike ride I saw a pair of overweight, middle aged electric
bike riders wearing face masks way out in the open air.
I suspect
that if their "leaders" told them that they should wear a hazmat suit,
they'd do that, too.
Some people are eager to be led.
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 05:07:28 -0400, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 00:56:18 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 07:59:45 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/30/2025 2:01 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jun 8 21:14:54 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 16:32:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 09:48:55 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:48:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I didI suppose we'll never know how many people you killed... not >>>>>>>>> that you would lose a minute's sleep if it had been dozens.
fly several times during that period and I soon realised that the crew
didn't make an issue about lowering the mask below my chin. I walked >>>>>>>>>> around in three airports with the mask hanging around my neck >>>>>>>>>
[]'s
Don't be silly... How would I have killed anyone?
To deliberately infect someone with a disease is manslaughter >>>>>>> here in Brazil, if the victim dies.
Probably not so in the US, or most repuglicans would be in >>>>>>> jail.
OK, proof positive that you aren't an MD and never were.
You have an unhealthy fixation with other people's
qualifications. What's the point? Can't you just take a
man's word for things which affect you not at all?
Largely due to the U.S. altitude that "I don't want to wear a mask". >>>> In Thailand I was stopped on the street, by another pedestrian, and
told to put the mask (around my neck) to cover my mouth and nose.
And, as I've pointed out death due to the disease was vastly lower
here then in the U.S.
On my last bike ride I saw a pair of overweight, middle aged electric
bike riders wearing face masks way out in the open air.
But it's ok for masked agents of the government to abduct people off the >streets and send them to detention camps under the mere suspicion of
being undocumented.
Of course we can't be sure that they're bonafide agents of the
government either. According to the fascists currently in control of our >"justice" department, these paramilitary 'agents' aren't required to
show ID or warrants and are immune from any oversight.
I suspect
that if their "leaders" told them that they should wear a hazmat suit,
they'd do that, too.
The dumbass has made it abundantly clear he's perfectly fine with these >gestapo tactics because his "leaders" have told him that sending soccer
moms who have lived in the country for 20 years, have worked, paid
taxes, and never had any legal issues are a existential threat to
national security.
Some people are eager to be led.
As you've aptly personally demonstrated.
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 05:07:28 -0400, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 00:56:18 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 07:59:45 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/30/2025 2:01 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jun 8 21:14:54 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 16:32:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 09:48:55 -0300, Shadow
<Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:48:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I did
fly several times during that period and I soon
realised that the crew
didn't make an issue about lowering the mask below
my chin. I walked
around in three airports with the mask hanging
around my neck
I suppose we'll never know how many people you
killed... not
that you would lose a minute's sleep if it had been
dozens.
[]'s
Don't be silly... How would I have killed anyone?
To deliberately infect someone with a disease is
manslaughter
here in Brazil, if the victim dies.
Probably not so in the US, or most repuglicans
would be in
jail.
OK, proof positive that you aren't an MD and never were.
You have an unhealthy fixation with other people's
qualifications. What's the point? Can't you just take a
man's word for things which affect you not at all?
Largely due to the U.S. altitude that "I don't want to
wear a mask".
In Thailand I was stopped on the street, by another
pedestrian, and
told to put the mask (around my neck) to cover my mouth
and nose.
And, as I've pointed out death due to the disease was
vastly lower
here then in the U.S.
On my last bike ride I saw a pair of overweight, middle
aged electric
bike riders wearing face masks way out in the open air.
But it's ok for masked agents of the government to abduct
people off the streets and send them to detention camps
under the mere suspicion of being undocumented.
Of course we can't be sure that they're bonafide agents of
the government either. According to the fascists currently
in control of our "justice" department, these paramilitary
'agents' aren't required to show ID or warrants and are
immune from any oversight.
I suspect
that if their "leaders" told them that they should wear a
hazmat suit,
they'd do that, too.
The dumbass has made it abundantly clear he's perfectly fine
with these gestapo tactics because his "leaders" have told
him that sending soccer moms who have lived in the country
for 20 years, have worked, paid taxes, and never had any
legal issues are a existential threat to national security.
Some people are eager to be led.
As you've aptly personally demonstrated.
On 7/2/2025 12:20 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jun 15 23:38:26 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/15/2025 8:24 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank, you just took mRNA vaccines for which NO ONE could ask any
questions. And yet you do not believe that the same thing doesn't
happen in the legal system? If a case is thrown out of lower courts
it is generally not taken up by higher courts. HOW LONG did it take
to end slavery? Do you think that dozens of court cases were not
submitted before a war ensued? The Constitution was clear "All Men
Are Created Equal" And it took killing most of the men in the south
to force that upon them.
Tom seems even more agitated and nonsensical than usual. I wonder what's >>> going on there.
You CANNOT stop yourself from making stupid comments when you could
simply look them up to be proven wrong. How does it feel like to be
incompetent?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_court_cases_in_the_United_States_involving_slavery
What is that 23 cases in which the Constitutional claim that "All men
are created equal" was ignored? But since you;re a racist bastard you
knew better than to look it up.
Again, Tom seems even more agitated and nonsensical than usual.
Note, for example, that his three paragraphs just above have nothing to
do with his paragraph further up, above my brief post. It seems like
he's swinging around randomly, trying to hit imaginary opponents. It's getting really weird.
It has several hgolograms proving it to be a real license and in the upper left hand corner IF you are a citizen it has a golden bear and white star.
On Wed Jun 11 05:27:44 2025 zen cycle wrote:
How many of those 'corporations' had to register for the draft?
Yet more extensive ignorance from the Flunky who shows just why Igave him that name - EVERY individual of those corporations of draft
remember that there are about a million Jews in NYC
On 7/2/2025 4:44 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jun 15 00:07:25 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/14/2025 4:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:41:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or undocumented alien.
Does yours? Mine does not contain either term.
Isnlt that surprising.
None of the images I've found of ordinary (non-Real ID) California
driver's licenses say either "citizen" or "undocumented alien."
But I could be wrong. Why not scan yours and post a photo showing where
any of those words appear on yours?
(It would be fun if Tom's license did say "undocumented alien.")
My license has the require Bear and Star proving it to be a real ID.
Fine. That wasn't what you claimed above.
"A driver's lisence [sic] is suppose to clearly say citizen or
undocumented alien."
You seem to be confused, and not keeping track of discussions.
On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 21:51:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/2/2025 4:44 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jun 15 00:07:25 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/14/2025 4:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:41:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or undocumented alien.
Does yours? Mine does not contain either term.
Isnlt that surprising.
None of the images I've found of ordinary (non-Real ID) California
driver's licenses say either "citizen" or "undocumented alien."
But I could be wrong. Why not scan yours and post a photo showing where >>>> any of those words appear on yours?
(It would be fun if Tom's license did say "undocumented alien.")
My license has the require Bear and Star proving it to be a real ID.
Fine. That wasn't what you claimed above.
"A driver's lisence [sic] is suppose to clearly say citizen or
undocumented alien."
You seem to be confused, and not keeping track of discussions.
The California drivers licenses does NOT clearly say "citizen" or >"undocumented alien". Instead, it uses a mix of icons (golden bear
with star) or "federal limits apply" for those without real-id.
California sample drivers licenses: ><https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-licenses-identification-cards/real-id/what-is-real-id/>
Other states drivers licenses are different: ><https://www.keesingtechnologies.com/document-verification/real-id/>
On 7/2/2025 3:01 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sat Jun 14 18:07:45 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 19:55:06 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
You must be really bad at being able to tell illegals from citizens.
And yet the last 3 you accused of being "unlawful little green
men" turned out to be American, bred and born....
I pointed it out to you...
References please. I know exactly who the legals and illegals are
around me. I also new and my beliefs were seconded by the poll workers
who were forced to accept illegal alien votes. Both the Democrat and
Republican poll workers complained about that since they had to
actually enter the voting booth with these illegals who were
illiterate and could not read the directions of how to vote! Is there
some reason that you cannot stop yourself from lying?
Maybe you do. Maybe you don't.
Whitey Bulger's neighbors had no idea for decades.
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 18:29:10 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>As usual wiht tommy, any semblance of rational thought is conspicuously
wrote:
On Wed Jun 11 05:27:44 2025 zen cycle wrote:gave him that name - EVERY individual of those corporations of draft
How many of those 'corporations' had to register for the draft?
Yet more extensive ignorance from the Flunky who shows just why I
age were registered to draft. Tell us how you operate a corporation
without people who operate the corporation. Exercising that JD from
Harvard again? Tell us again how you know how to program.
"corporation", Individual:?
--
rOn Wed, 02 Jul 2025 19:25:42 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 21:51:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/2/2025 4:44 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jun 15 00:07:25 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/14/2025 4:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:41:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or undocumented alien.
Does yours? Mine does not contain either term.
Isnlt that surprising.
None of the images I've found of ordinary (non-Real ID) California
driver's licenses say either "citizen" or "undocumented alien."
But I could be wrong. Why not scan yours and post a photo showing where >>>>> any of those words appear on yours?
(It would be fun if Tom's license did say "undocumented alien.")
My license has the require Bear and Star proving it to be a real ID.
Fine. That wasn't what you claimed above.
"A driver's lisence [sic] is suppose to clearly say citizen or >>>undocumented alien."
You seem to be confused, and not keeping track of discussions.
The California drivers licenses does NOT clearly say "citizen" or >>"undocumented alien". Instead, it uses a mix of icons (golden bear
with star) or "federal limits apply" for those without real-id.
California sample drivers licenses: >><https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-licenses-identification-cards/real-id/what-is-real-id/>
Other states drivers licenses are different: >><https://www.keesingtechnologies.com/document-verification/real-id/>
but how does California determine who is a citizen?
Growing up in a small New England town no one carried any evidence in
their pocket to 'prove they were a citizen'. When I enlisted in the
Air Force I had to go to the Town Records to get a copy of my birth >certificate only to discover that my "name" was "Baby Boy" as
apparently when I was born my parents couldn't agree about what my
name would be and the doctor simply wrote baby boy on the form and
filed it.
Luckily it was a small town and every one knew every one and the
records guy just filled out a new form and filled it.
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 22:13:13 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
rOn Wed, 02 Jul 2025 19:25:42 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 21:51:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/2/2025 4:44 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jun 15 00:07:25 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/14/2025 4:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 5 23:41:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
A driver's lisence is suppose to clearly say citizen or undocumented alien.
Does yours? Mine does not contain either term.
Isnlt that surprising.
None of the images I've found of ordinary (non-Real ID) California >>>>>> driver's licenses say either "citizen" or "undocumented alien."
But I could be wrong. Why not scan yours and post a photo showing where >>>>>> any of those words appear on yours?
(It would be fun if Tom's license did say "undocumented alien.")
My license has the require Bear and Star proving it to be a real ID.
Fine. That wasn't what you claimed above.
"A driver's lisence [sic] is suppose to clearly say citizen or
undocumented alien."
You seem to be confused, and not keeping track of discussions.
The California drivers licenses does NOT clearly say "citizen" or
"undocumented alien". Instead, it uses a mix of icons (golden bear
with star) or "federal limits apply" for those without real-id.
California sample drivers licenses:
<https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-licenses-identification-cards/real-id/what-is-real-id/>
Other states drivers licenses are different:
<https://www.keesingtechnologies.com/document-verification/real-id/>
but how does California determine who is a citizen?
I had to drag a pile of paperwork to the local DMV office and
demonstrate to the bored clerk that I was for real. Mostly, they
wanted my birth certificate (from Germany) and my US Certificate of Citizenship documents:
<https://photos.app.goo.gl/9C51EzQYwWsVhNYv7>
They also wanted my drivers licenses, a utility bill and several
different ID's. <https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-licenses-identification-cards/real-id/real-id-checklist/>
I brought everything I could find, which was quite a pile.
Fortunately, I had already done all this a few years ago when I
applied for Social Security benefits.
The big surprise was that I was expected to engage in an online video
chat with an "inspector" from the Real ID people. That was fairly
easy except for their buggy software. I don't know if they're still
doing that. Probably not.
Overall, the process was very sloppy. The DMV clerk just glossed over
my pile of documents and made copies of the most important one. My
birth certificate and passports were definitely NOT compliant in
accordance to the DMV instructions. They passed me anyway. Total
time (except for the online video chat) was about 10 minutes.
Growing up in a small New England town no one carried any evidence in
their pocket to 'prove they were a citizen'. When I enlisted in the
Air Force I had to go to the Town Records to get a copy of my birth
certificate only to discover that my "name" was "Baby Boy" as
apparently when I was born my parents couldn't agree about what my
name would be and the doctor simply wrote baby boy on the form and
filed it.
People were not as mobile back then as they are today. Asking for
someone to go to the local "hall of records" or such was a short trip
and fairly simple. Today, we are more mobile and obtaining such
information might be more difficult.
Luckily it was a small town and every one knew every one and the
records guy just filled out a new form and filled it.
Yep. If the DMV had followed their own rules, I would have needed to
have obtained a current birth certificate from Germany. Fortunately,
there are services that will do the necessary paper shuffling, for a
price, of course: <https://www.germany-service.com/birth-certificate-germany.html>
$89 to $299.
1996 Immigration and Nationality Act:
"The statute permits
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to summarily
remove aliens arriving at a designated U.S. port of entry
(arriving aliens) without further hearing or review if
they are inadmissible either because they (1) lack valid
entry documents, or (2) tried to procure their admission
into the United States through fraud or misrepresentation. "
On Tue Jul 1 18:41:00 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jul 2025 19:45:31 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Mon Jun 16 09:04:15 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 23:58:39 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Can you suggest what is wrong with a person who KNOWS that education is not mandatory in Mexico
Illiteracy in Mexico is very similar to the US... around 5%.
I'd say a person that KNOWS education is not mandatory in
Mexico is very ignorant, maybe illiterate. That's what's wrong with
him/her.
[]'s
PS 12 years of schooling is mandatory in Mexico,13 years in
Brazil vs only 10 years in the US. You don't need to be literate to
salute the flag, die as a soldier defending the rich's interests
abroad or to memorize (usually incorrectly) quotes from the blible.
Mandatory education in the US is from kindergarten to the 12th grade which is 134 years of mandatory education. You certainly have a very active imagination.
LOL
I love the math. Was that 50 year of schooling math or a
higher grade?
PS When you've figured out how to read a World map, look here
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_education>
Pretty picture
I always figured you for someone that believed Wikipedia.
The same people that "fact checked" others on how despite claims of noted athorities the mRNA vaccine was "safe and effective."
On Mon Jun 16 09:24:09 2025 Shadow wrote:
Shouldn't you tell us again how the mRNA vaccines were safe and effective?
Or perhaps you can tell us that no large group of pubic MD's never testified before congress that 76% of the so-called Covid-19 deaths were in fact murder by vaccination?
On Tue Jul 1 14:31:35 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Tom, from where did you excavate your amazing information?
"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your
informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant."
(Harlan Ellison)
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
(Aldous Huxley, Complete Essays, Vol. II: 1926-1929)
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity." (Martin Luther King Jr)
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn."
(Benjamin Franklin)
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
(George Orwell, 1984)
"Better be unborn than untaught, for ignorance is the root of
misfortune." (Plato)
More of the same:
<https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/ignorance>
Show us your highly educated expertise by telling us what important position Harlan Ellison held in pubplic office.
https://www.msn.com/en-in/public-safety-and-emergencies/health-and-safety-alerts/covid-vaccines-caused-74-deaths-dr-peter-mccullough-shocks-senate-with-bombshell-claim/vi-AA1Fxgs6
So, my comment that the liberals in Canada were attempting to follow their American conterparts by rigging electoions is untrue from the mouth of Jeff Liebermann.--
Idiot. I read the article THEN check the sources. World Bank
data in the case of that graph. Next you'll be telling me the World
Bank is "communist".
On Wed Jun 11 05:27:44 2025 zen cycle wrote:Exercising that JD from Harvard again? Tell us again how you know how to program.
How many of those 'corporations' had to register for the draft?
Yet more extensive ignorance from the Flunky who shows just why I gave him that name - EVERY individual of those corporations of draft age were registered to draft. Tell us how you operate a corporation without people who operate the corporation.
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 16:01:29 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Tue Jul 1 14:31:35 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Tom, from where did you excavate your amazing information?
"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your
informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant."
(Harlan Ellison)
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
(Aldous Huxley, Complete Essays, Vol. II: 1926-1929)
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity." (Martin Luther King Jr)
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn."
(Benjamin Franklin)
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
(George Orwell, 1984)
"Better be unborn than untaught, for ignorance is the root of
misfortune." (Plato)
More of the same:
<https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/ignorance>
Show us your highly educated expertise by telling us what important position Harlan Ellison held in pubplic office.
https://www.msn.com/en-in/public-safety-and-emergencies/health-and-safety-alerts/covid-vaccines-caused-74-deaths-dr-peter-mccullough-shocks-senate-with-bombshell-claim/vi-AA1Fxgs6
So, my comment that the liberals in Canada were attempting to follow their American conterparts by rigging electoions is untrue from the mouth of Jeff Liebermann.
Tom, from where did you excavate your amazing information? (The info
you conveniently trimmed).
Peter A. McCullough
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough>
"From the beginnings of the COVID-19 pandemic, McCullough has promoted misinformation and conspiracy theories about COVID-19, its treatments,
and mRNA vaccines."
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough#COVID-19_misinformation> "He is a co-author of a 2023 review, "A systematic review of autopsy
findings in deaths after COVID-19 vaccination", that was retracted."
"ABIM Revokes Certification of Another Doctor Who Made Controversial
COVID Claims"
<https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/113624> <https://www.abim.org/verify-physician?type=name&ln=mccullough&fn=peter> Cardiovascular Disease: Not Certified, Revoked
Internal Medicine: Not Certified, Revoked
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073824001968?via%3Dihub>
Looks like Tom and McCullough think alike:
"Members of the scientific community raised concerns about this Article-in-Press following its posting online. The concerns
encompassed.
- Inappropriate citation of references.
- Inappropriate design of methodology.
- Errors, misrepresentation, and lack of factual support for the
conclusions.
- Failure to recognise and cite disconfirming evidence.
"
You'll also find Peter A. McCullough under:
- The Wellness Company, Boca Raton, FL, United States
- Truth for Health Foundation, Tucson, AZ, United States
20 minutes wasted backtracking Tom's amazing information back to their sources.
I'm still stacking firewood today. Almost done: <https://photos.app.goo.gl/47NPs5YQAt4k9yDW7>
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 23:09:44 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
remember that there are about a million Jews in NYC
Not just New York City. Besides the 5 boroughs of NYC, Nassau,
Suffolk and Westchester counties are usually included in the count.
"Jewish population of New York reaches 1.4 million" (May 14, 2024) <https://www.thejc.com/news/usa/jewish-population-of-new-york-reaches-14-million-rj1jw48x>
Do process, don't process, there is no try process.
(My apologies to Yoda)
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 23:09:44 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>Thats quite a bit higher than Britain or London which is lower in number
wrote:
remember that there are about a million Jews in NYC
Not just New York City. Besides the 5 boroughs of NYC, Nassau,
Suffolk and Westchester counties are usually included in the count.
"Jewish population of New York reaches 1.4 million" (May 14, 2024)
<https://www.thejc.com/news/usa/jewish-population-of-new-york-reaches-14-million-rj1jw48x>
Do process, don't process, there is no try process.
(My apologies to Yoda)
and probably % of the population, at most half a million with half of that
in London.
Roger Merriman
On Tue Jul 1 08:05:15 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/30/2025 1:44 PM, cyclintom wrote:Indeed! The idea that a 80+ would be a threat or threatening, is as ever
while I COULD break bones of you, Liebermann and Flunky, I wouldn't. I >>>> would just like you to know just how powerless you are.Nobody believes that, Tom. You're an old man with self-described balance >>> and vision problems. I see no reason to believe you are particularly
strong or have acceptable reflexes.
I suspect that if you did get into a fight, all a person would have to
do would be dodge your swing once or twice. You'd soon lose your balance >>> and fall to the ground. And I think you know that, so you'd avoid acting >>> out your silly threats.
Consider therapy, Tom. It may help.
not believable let alone balance problems.
Roger, please don't show that you've never been in a fight either. If you know how to fight, it isn't a matter of perfect balance but observation
and response. 5 years after my concussion I hosptalized a man who started
a fight with me because I asked him to hold down his shouting love for
Obama. Even I can't believe the crying and tears from that guy when I had backed up three times and told him not to do that as he swung at me. And
he was nearly my height and outweighed me by 30 lbs.
And at that time I still had rails all over the house to keep from
falling down! After a bout at middle weight, my Uncle often needed to
recover for up to 6 months. My father was dying from emphasyma and he
knocked 3, 30 somethings down on the ground with three punches. None of
them so much as dared to try again.
I expect such comments from Krygowski who is a coward, but I don't expect them from you.
On 6 Jul 2025 12:30:51 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue Jul 1 08:05:15 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/30/2025 1:44 PM, cyclintom wrote:Indeed! The idea that a 80+ would be a threat or threatening, is as ever >>>> not believable let alone balance problems.
while I COULD break bones of you, Liebermann and Flunky, I wouldn't. I >>>>>> would just like you to know just how powerless you are.Nobody believes that, Tom. You're an old man with self-described balance >>>>> and vision problems. I see no reason to believe you are particularly >>>>> strong or have acceptable reflexes.
I suspect that if you did get into a fight, all a person would have to >>>>> do would be dodge your swing once or twice. You'd soon lose your balance >>>>> and fall to the ground. And I think you know that, so you'd avoid acting >>>>> out your silly threats.
Consider therapy, Tom. It may help.
Roger, please don't show that you've never been in a fight either. If you >>> know how to fight, it isn't a matter of perfect balance but observation
and response. 5 years after my concussion I hosptalized a man who started >>> a fight with me because I asked him to hold down his shouting love for
Obama. Even I can't believe the crying and tears from that guy when I had >>> backed up three times and told him not to do that as he swung at me. And >>> he was nearly my height and outweighed me by 30 lbs.
And at that time I still had rails all over the house to keep from
falling down! After a bout at middle weight, my Uncle often needed to
recover for up to 6 months. My father was dying from emphasyma and he
knocked 3, 30 somethings down on the ground with three punches. None of
them so much as dared to try again.
I expect such comments from Krygowski who is a coward, but I don't expect them from you.
Youre living in a fantasy world if you expect folks to believe a 70/80
year old recovering from concussion, would be able to fight, or frankly
pose a threat!
Maybe 20 years ago but as with life it passes!
Roger Merriman
Which is why I carry a gun on my bike rides.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue Jul 1 08:05:15 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/30/2025 1:44 PM, cyclintom wrote:Indeed! The idea that a 80+ would be a threat or threatening, is as ever >>> not believable let alone balance problems.
while I COULD break bones of you, Liebermann and Flunky, I wouldn't. I >>>>> would just like you to know just how powerless you are.Nobody believes that, Tom. You're an old man with self-described balance >>>> and vision problems. I see no reason to believe you are particularly
strong or have acceptable reflexes.
I suspect that if you did get into a fight, all a person would have to >>>> do would be dodge your swing once or twice. You'd soon lose your balance >>>> and fall to the ground. And I think you know that, so you'd avoid acting >>>> out your silly threats.
Consider therapy, Tom. It may help.
Roger, please don't show that you've never been in a fight either. If you
know how to fight, it isn't a matter of perfect balance but observation
and response. 5 years after my concussion I hosptalized a man who started
a fight with me because I asked him to hold down his shouting love for
Obama. Even I can't believe the crying and tears from that guy when I had
backed up three times and told him not to do that as he swung at me. And
he was nearly my height and outweighed me by 30 lbs.
And at that time I still had rails all over the house to keep from
falling down! After a bout at middle weight, my Uncle often needed to
recover for up to 6 months. My father was dying from emphasyma and he
knocked 3, 30 somethings down on the ground with three punches. None of
them so much as dared to try again.
I expect such comments from Krygowski who is a coward, but I don't expect them from you.
Youre living in a fantasy world if you expect folks to believe a 70/80
year old recovering from concussion, would be able to fight, or frankly
pose a threat!
Maybe 20 years ago but as with life it passes!
Roger Merriman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 6 Jul 2025 12:30:51 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:Admittedly Im younger and have a solid build but I dont see personal >risks in that way being at all likely on bike rides, considering most are
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue Jul 1 08:05:15 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/30/2025 1:44 PM, cyclintom wrote:Indeed! The idea that a 80+ would be a threat or threatening, is as ever >>>>> not believable let alone balance problems.
while I COULD break bones of you, Liebermann and Flunky, I wouldn't. I >>>>>>> would just like you to know just how powerless you are.Nobody believes that, Tom. You're an old man with self-described balance >>>>>> and vision problems. I see no reason to believe you are particularly >>>>>> strong or have acceptable reflexes.
I suspect that if you did get into a fight, all a person would have to >>>>>> do would be dodge your swing once or twice. You'd soon lose your balance >>>>>> and fall to the ground. And I think you know that, so you'd avoid acting >>>>>> out your silly threats.
Consider therapy, Tom. It may help.
Roger, please don't show that you've never been in a fight either. If you >>>> know how to fight, it isn't a matter of perfect balance but observation >>>> and response. 5 years after my concussion I hosptalized a man who started >>>> a fight with me because I asked him to hold down his shouting love for >>>> Obama. Even I can't believe the crying and tears from that guy when I had >>>> backed up three times and told him not to do that as he swung at me. And >>>> he was nearly my height and outweighed me by 30 lbs.
And at that time I still had rails all over the house to keep from
falling down! After a bout at middle weight, my Uncle often needed to
recover for up to 6 months. My father was dying from emphasyma and he
knocked 3, 30 somethings down on the ground with three punches. None of >>>> them so much as dared to try again.
I expect such comments from Krygowski who is a coward, but I don't expect them from you.
You?re living in a fantasy world if you expect folks to believe a 70/80
year old recovering from concussion, would be able to fight, or frankly
pose a threat!
Maybe 20 years ago but as with life it passes!
Roger Merriman
Which is why I carry a gun on my bike rides.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
for leisure, Id probably not if I did think it was a risk.
Roger Merriman
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue Jul 1 08:05:15 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/30/2025 1:44 PM, cyclintom wrote:Indeed! The idea that a 80+ would be a threat or threatening, is as ever >>> not believable let alone balance problems.
while I COULD break bones of you, Liebermann and Flunky, I wouldn't. I >>>>> would just like you to know just how powerless you are.Nobody believes that, Tom. You're an old man with self-described balance >>>> and vision problems. I see no reason to believe you are particularly
strong or have acceptable reflexes.
I suspect that if you did get into a fight, all a person would have to >>>> do would be dodge your swing once or twice. You'd soon lose your balance >>>> and fall to the ground. And I think you know that, so you'd avoid acting >>>> out your silly threats.
Consider therapy, Tom. It may help.
Roger, please don't show that you've never been in a fight either. If you
know how to fight, it isn't a matter of perfect balance but observation
and response. 5 years after my concussion I hosptalized a man who started
a fight with me because I asked him to hold down his shouting love for
Obama. Even I can't believe the crying and tears from that guy when I had
backed up three times and told him not to do that as he swung at me. And
he was nearly my height and outweighed me by 30 lbs.
And at that time I still had rails all over the house to keep from
falling down! After a bout at middle weight, my Uncle often needed to
recover for up to 6 months. My father was dying from emphasyma and he
knocked 3, 30 somethings down on the ground with three punches. None of
them so much as dared to try again.
I expect such comments from Krygowski who is a coward, but I don't expect them from you.
You’re living in a fantasy world if you expect folks to believe a 70/80 year old recovering from concussion, would be able to fight, or frankly
pose a threat!
Maybe 20 years ago but as with life it passes!
Roger Merriman
On 7/6/2025 9:14 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 6 Jul 2025 12:30:51 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue Jul 1 08:05:15 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/30/2025 1:44 PM, cyclintom wrote:Indeed! The idea that a 80+ would be a threat or threatening, is as ever >>>>>> not believable let alone balance problems.
while I COULD break bones of you, Liebermann and Flunky, I wouldn't. I >>>>>>>> would just like you to know just how powerless you are.Nobody believes that, Tom. You're an old man with self-described balance
and vision problems. I see no reason to believe you are particularly >>>>>>> strong or have acceptable reflexes.
I suspect that if you did get into a fight, all a person would have to >>>>>>> do would be dodge your swing once or twice. You'd soon lose your balance
and fall to the ground. And I think you know that, so you'd avoid acting
out your silly threats.
Consider therapy, Tom. It may help.
Roger, please don't show that you've never been in a fight either. If you >>>>> know how to fight, it isn't a matter of perfect balance but observation >>>>> and response. 5 years after my concussion I hosptalized a man who started >>>>> a fight with me because I asked him to hold down his shouting love for >>>>> Obama. Even I can't believe the crying and tears from that guy when I had >>>>> backed up three times and told him not to do that as he swung at me. And >>>>> he was nearly my height and outweighed me by 30 lbs.
And at that time I still had rails all over the house to keep from
falling down! After a bout at middle weight, my Uncle often needed to >>>>> recover for up to 6 months. My father was dying from emphasyma and he >>>>> knocked 3, 30 somethings down on the ground with three punches. None of >>>>> them so much as dared to try again.
I expect such comments from Krygowski who is a coward, but I don't expect them from you.
You?re living in a fantasy world if you expect folks to believe a 70/80 >>>> year old recovering from concussion, would be able to fight, or frankly >>>> pose a threat!
Which is why I carry a gun on my bike rides.
Admittedly Im younger and have a solid build but I dont see personal
risks in that way being at all likely on bike rides...
Some people are much more fearful than others.
No kidding...Now tommy invents a fantasy story of hospitalizing someone.
If that were true, do you think tommy would have waited ten years to
tell us about it?
On 5 Jul 2025 07:48:45 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 23:09:44 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>Thats quite a bit higher than Britain or London which is lower in number >> and probably % of the population, at most half a million with half of that >> in London.
wrote:
remember that there are about a million Jews in NYC
Not just New York City. Besides the 5 boroughs of NYC, Nassau,
Suffolk and Westchester counties are usually included in the count.
"Jewish population of New York reaches 1.4 million" (May 14, 2024)
<https://www.thejc.com/news/usa/jewish-population-of-new-york-reaches-14-million-rj1jw48x>
Do process, don't process, there is no try process.
(My apologies to Yoda)
Roger Merriman
You might find the Jewish populations of various cities, expressed as
a percentage of total population, of interest:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_city>
Click on the "% of Jews out of total population" column heading to
sort by percent.
"Nearly all these key centers of Jewish settlement typically include
national or regional capitals with high standards of living, advanced infrastructure supporting higher education and technology sectors, and extensive transnational connections."
"New York City is home to the largest Jewish community outside of
Israel. In 2011, according to the UJA-Federation of New York, the five boroughs of New York City proper was home to 1,086,000 Jews,
representing 13% of the city's population. In 2023, 960,000 Jews live
in the city, nearly half of them live in Brooklyn."
Ignoring cities in Israel:
New York City 10.8%
Miami 8.7%
Philadelphia 6.8%
Boston 5.1%
San Francisco 5.0%
etc Less than 5%
Also interesting is that Jews represent only 0.2% of the world
population:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_country>
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
On 5 Jul 2025 07:48:45 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:They have an influence above and beyond their numbers, is a small pocket or possibly larger I’ve not checked in Cardiff which is a fairly small city but the capital and so on.
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 23:09:44 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>Thats quite a bit higher than Britain or London which is lower in number >>> and probably % of the population, at most half a million with half of that >>> in London.
wrote:
remember that there are about a million Jews in NYC
Not just New York City. Besides the 5 boroughs of NYC, Nassau,
Suffolk and Westchester counties are usually included in the count.
"Jewish population of New York reaches 1.4 million" (May 14, 2024)
<https://www.thejc.com/news/usa/jewish-population-of-new-york-reaches-14-million-rj1jw48x>
Do process, don't process, there is no try process.
(My apologies to Yoda)
Roger Merriman
You might find the Jewish populations of various cities, expressed as
a percentage of total population, of interest:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_city>
Click on the "% of Jews out of total population" column heading to
sort by percent.
"Nearly all these key centers of Jewish settlement typically include
national or regional capitals with high standards of living, advanced
infrastructure supporting higher education and technology sectors, and
extensive transnational connections."
"New York City is home to the largest Jewish community outside of
Israel. In 2011, according to the UJA-Federation of New York, the five
boroughs of New York City proper was home to 1,086,000 Jews,
representing 13% of the city's population. In 2023, 960,000 Jews live
in the city, nearly half of them live in Brooklyn."
Ignoring cities in Israel:
New York City 10.8%
Miami 8.7%
Philadelphia 6.8%
Boston 5.1%
San Francisco 5.0%
etc Less than 5%
Also interesting is that Jews represent only 0.2% of the world
population:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_country>
Roger Merriman
On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 12:07:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/6/2025 9:14 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 6 Jul 2025 12:30:51 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue Jul 1 08:05:15 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/30/2025 1:44 PM, cyclintom wrote:Indeed! The idea that a 80+ would be a threat or threatening, is as ever
while I COULD break bones of you, Liebermann and Flunky, I wouldn't. INobody believes that, Tom. You're an old man with self-described balance
would just like you to know just how powerless you are.
and vision problems. I see no reason to believe you are particularly >>>>>>>> strong or have acceptable reflexes.
I suspect that if you did get into a fight, all a person would have to >>>>>>>> do would be dodge your swing once or twice. You'd soon lose your balance
and fall to the ground. And I think you know that, so you'd avoid acting
out your silly threats.
Consider therapy, Tom. It may help.
not believable let alone balance problems.
Roger, please don't show that you've never been in a fight either. If you
know how to fight, it isn't a matter of perfect balance but observation >>>>>> and response. 5 years after my concussion I hosptalized a man who started
a fight with me because I asked him to hold down his shouting love for >>>>>> Obama. Even I can't believe the crying and tears from that guy when I had
backed up three times and told him not to do that as he swung at me. And >>>>>> he was nearly my height and outweighed me by 30 lbs.
And at that time I still had rails all over the house to keep from >>>>>> falling down! After a bout at middle weight, my Uncle often needed to >>>>>> recover for up to 6 months. My father was dying from emphasyma and he >>>>>> knocked 3, 30 somethings down on the ground with three punches. None of >>>>>> them so much as dared to try again.
I expect such comments from Krygowski who is a coward, but I don't expect them from you.
You?re living in a fantasy world if you expect folks to believe a 70/80 >>>>> year old recovering from concussion, would be able to fight, or frankly >>>>> pose a threat!
Which is why I carry a gun on my bike rides.
Admittedly I’m younger and have a “solid build” but I don’t see personal
risks in that way being at all likely on bike rides...
Some people are much more fearful than others.
Some people weigh the benefits and detriments and make wise decisions. There's a small benefit to carrying a gun, but there's zero
detriments.
Am 06.07.2025 um 18:30 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 12:07:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/6/2025 9:14 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 6 Jul 2025 12:30:51 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue Jul 1 08:05:15 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/30/2025 1:44 PM, cyclintom wrote:Indeed! The idea that a 80+ would be a threat or threatening, is as ever
while I COULD break bones of you, Liebermann and Flunky, I wouldn't. INobody believes that, Tom. You're an old man with self-described balance
would just like you to know just how powerless you are.
and vision problems. I see no reason to believe you are particularly >>>>>>>>> strong or have acceptable reflexes.
I suspect that if you did get into a fight, all a person would have to
do would be dodge your swing once or twice. You'd soon lose your balance
and fall to the ground. And I think you know that, so you'd avoid acting
out your silly threats.
Consider therapy, Tom. It may help.
not believable let alone balance problems.
Roger, please don't show that you've never been in a fight either. If you
know how to fight, it isn't a matter of perfect balance but observation >>>>>>> and response. 5 years after my concussion I hosptalized a man who started
a fight with me because I asked him to hold down his shouting love for >>>>>>> Obama. Even I can't believe the crying and tears from that guy when I had
backed up three times and told him not to do that as he swung at me. And
he was nearly my height and outweighed me by 30 lbs.
And at that time I still had rails all over the house to keep from >>>>>>> falling down! After a bout at middle weight, my Uncle often needed to >>>>>>> recover for up to 6 months. My father was dying from emphasyma and he >>>>>>> knocked 3, 30 somethings down on the ground with three punches. None of >>>>>>> them so much as dared to try again.
I expect such comments from Krygowski who is a coward, but I don't expect them from you.
You?re living in a fantasy world if you expect folks to believe a 70/80 >>>>>> year old recovering from concussion, would be able to fight, or frankly >>>>>> pose a threat!
Which is why I carry a gun on my bike rides.
Admittedly Im younger and have a solid build but I dont see personal >>>> risks in that way being at all likely on bike rides...
Some people are much more fearful than others.
Some people weigh the benefits and detriments and make wise decisions.
There's a small benefit to carrying a gun, but there's zero
detriments.
There's "zero detriment" only for people who regularly use guns anyways.
If a rookie sees the need to carry a gun for cycling, they first have to
buy a gun (which implies filling the paperwork needed, which implies
getting the necessary licences if needed). Then they have to spend lots
of hours training to use a gun which they might prefer spending on
bicycling.
Am 06.07.2025 um 18:30 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 12:07:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/6/2025 9:14 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 6 Jul 2025 12:30:51 GMT, Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue Jul 1 08:05:15 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/30/2025 1:44 PM, cyclintom wrote:Indeed! The idea that a 80+ would be a threat or
while I COULD break bones of you, Liebermann andNobody believes that, Tom. You're an old man with
Flunky, I wouldn't. I
would just like you to know just how powerless you
are.
self-described balance
and vision problems. I see no reason to believe you
are particularly
strong or have acceptable reflexes.
I suspect that if you did get into a fight, all a
person would have to
do would be dodge your swing once or twice. You'd
soon lose your balance
and fall to the ground. And I think you know that,
so you'd avoid acting
out your silly threats.
Consider therapy, Tom. It may help.
threatening, is as ever
not believable let alone balance problems.
Roger, please don't show that you've never been in a
fight either. If you
know how to fight, it isn't a matter of perfect
balance but observation
and response. 5 years after my concussion I
hosptalized a man who started
a fight with me because I asked him to hold down his
shouting love for
Obama. Even I can't believe the crying and tears from
that guy when I had
backed up three times and told him not to do that as
he swung at me. And
he was nearly my height and outweighed me by 30 lbs.
And at that time I still had rails all over the house
to keep from
falling down! After a bout at middle weight, my Uncle
often needed to
recover for up to 6 months. My father was dying from
emphasyma and he
knocked 3, 30 somethings down on the ground with
three punches. None of
them so much as dared to try again.
I expect such comments from Krygowski who is a
coward, but I don't expect them from you.
You?re living in a fantasy world if you expect folks
to believe a 70/80
year old recovering from concussion, would be able to
fight, or frankly
pose a threat!
Which is why I carry a gun on my bike rides.
Admittedly I’m younger and have a “solid build” but I
don’t see personal
risks in that way being at all likely on bike rides...
Some people are much more fearful than others.
Some people weigh the benefits and detriments and make
wise decisions.
There's a small benefit to carrying a gun, but there's zero
detriments.
There's "zero detriment" only for people who regularly use
guns anyways. If a rookie sees the need to carry a gun for
cycling, they first have to buy a gun (which implies filling
the paperwork needed, which implies getting the necessary
licences if needed). Then they have to spend lots of hours
training to use a gun which they might prefer spending on
bicycling.
Am 06.07.2025 um 18:30 schrieb floriduh dumbass:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 12:07:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/6/2025 9:14 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
floriduh dumbass <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Which is why I carry a gun on my bike rides.
Admittedly I’m younger and have a “solid build” but I don’t see >>>> personal
risks in that way being at all likely on bike rides...
Some people are much more fearful than others.
Some people weigh the benefits and detriments and make wise decisions.
There's a small benefit to carrying a gun, but there's zero
detriments.
Am 06.07.2025 um 18:30 schrieb floriduh dumbass:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 12:07:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/6/2025 9:14 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
floriduh dumbass <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Which is why I carry a gun on my bike rides.
Admittedly I’m younger and have a “solid build” but I don’t see >>>>> personal
risks in that way being at all likely on bike rides...
Some people are much more fearful than others.
Some people weigh the benefits and detriments and make wise decisions.
There's a small benefit to carrying a gun, but there's zero
detriments.
Zero indeed.... https://www.8newsnow.com/crime/police-investigate-homicide-in-downtown- las-vegas-4/
https://abc7ny.com/brooklyn-subway-shooting-charges-man-shot-hoyt- schermerhorn-station/14554319/
https://abc7ny.com/brooklyn-subway-shooting-charges-man-shot-hoyt- schermerhorn-station/14554319/
https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/23/us/video/jacksonville-police-shot-man- accidentally-at-traffic-stop-digvid
I'm willing to bet each of of those fully legal and licensed carriers
said "There's a small benefit to carrying a gun, but there's zero
detriments" as well.
zero detriments....Gawd yer a dumbass.
On 7/7/2025 5:42 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 06.07.2025 um 18:30 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 12:07:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/6/2025 9:14 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 6 Jul 2025 12:30:51 GMT, Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue Jul 1 08:05:15 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/30/2025 1:44 PM, cyclintom wrote:Indeed! The idea that a 80+ would be a threat or
while I COULD break bones of you, Liebermann andNobody believes that, Tom. You're an old man with
Flunky, I wouldn't. I
would just like you to know just how powerless you
are.
self-described balance
and vision problems. I see no reason to believe you
are particularly
strong or have acceptable reflexes.
I suspect that if you did get into a fight, all a
person would have to
do would be dodge your swing once or twice. You'd
soon lose your balance
and fall to the ground. And I think you know that,
so you'd avoid acting
out your silly threats.
Consider therapy, Tom. It may help.
threatening, is as ever
not believable let alone balance problems.
Roger, please don't show that you've never been in a
fight either. If you
know how to fight, it isn't a matter of perfect
balance but observation
and response. 5 years after my concussion I
hosptalized a man who started
a fight with me because I asked him to hold down his
shouting love for
Obama. Even I can't believe the crying and tears from
that guy when I had
backed up three times and told him not to do that as
he swung at me. And
he was nearly my height and outweighed me by 30 lbs.
And at that time I still had rails all over the house
to keep from
falling down! After a bout at middle weight, my Uncle
often needed to
recover for up to 6 months. My father was dying from
emphasyma and he
knocked 3, 30 somethings down on the ground with
three punches. None of
them so much as dared to try again.
I expect such comments from Krygowski who is a
coward, but I don't expect them from you.
You?re living in a fantasy world if you expect folks
to believe a 70/80
year old recovering from concussion, would be able to
fight, or frankly
pose a threat!
Which is why I carry a gun on my bike rides.
Admittedly Im younger and have a solid build but I
dont see personal
risks in that way being at all likely on bike rides...
Some people are much more fearful than others.
Some people weigh the benefits and detriments and make
wise decisions.
There's a small benefit to carrying a gun, but there's zero
detriments.
There's "zero detriment" only for people who regularly use
guns anyways. If a rookie sees the need to carry a gun for
cycling, they first have to buy a gun (which implies filling
the paperwork needed, which implies getting the necessary
licences if needed). Then they have to spend lots of hours
training to use a gun which they might prefer spending on
bicycling.
You make an excellent point. I agree heartily.
Besides which, a great many people are psychologically
ill-suited to a deadly weapon. Both ways, too; the hotheads
and the hesitant.
On 7/7/2025 11:18 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
Am 06.07.2025 um 18:30 schrieb floriduh dumbass:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 12:07:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/6/2025 9:14 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
floriduh dumbass <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Which is why I carry a gun on my bike rides.
Admittedly I’m younger and have a “solid build” but I
don’t see personal
risks in that way being at all likely on bike rides...
Some people are much more fearful than others.
Some people weigh the benefits and detriments and make
wise decisions.
There's a small benefit to carrying a gun, but there's zero
detriments.
Zero indeed....
https://www.8newsnow.com/crime/police-investigate-
homicide-in-downtown- las-vegas-4/
https://abc7ny.com/brooklyn-subway-shooting-charges-man-
shot-hoyt- schermerhorn-station/14554319/
https://abc7ny.com/brooklyn-subway-shooting-charges-man-
shot-hoyt- schermerhorn-station/14554319/
https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/23/us/video/jacksonville-
police-shot-man- accidentally-at-traffic-stop-digvid
I'm willing to bet each of of those fully legal and
licensed carriers said "There's a small benefit to
carrying a gun, but there's zero detriments" as well.
zero detriments....Gawd yer a dumbass.
Just noticed I listed the same link twice - I meant for one
to be this one:
https://www.concealedcarry.com/safety/man-disarmed-and-shot- with-own-handgun-in-parking-lot/
Interesting comment on that one:
- GeneO on March 1, 2023 at 5:49 pm
" I am a retired LEO. I call open carry the “shoot me
first” tactic. Not a fan."
On 7/7/2025 10:55 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 7/7/2025 11:18 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
Am 06.07.2025 um 18:30 schrieb floriduh dumbass:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 12:07:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/6/2025 9:14 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
floriduh dumbass <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Which is why I carry a gun on my bike rides.
Admittedly I’m younger and have a “solid build” but I don’t see >>>>>>> personal
risks in that way being at all likely on bike rides...
Some people are much more fearful than others.
Some people weigh the benefits and detriments and make wise decisions. >>>>> There's a small benefit to carrying a gun, but there's zero
detriments.
Zero indeed....
https://www.8newsnow.com/crime/police-investigate- homicide-in-
downtown- las-vegas-4/
https://abc7ny.com/brooklyn-subway-shooting-charges-man- shot-hoyt-
schermerhorn-station/14554319/
https://abc7ny.com/brooklyn-subway-shooting-charges-man- shot-hoyt-
schermerhorn-station/14554319/
https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/23/us/video/jacksonville- police-shot-
man- accidentally-at-traffic-stop-digvid
I'm willing to bet each of of those fully legal and licensed carriers
said "There's a small benefit to carrying a gun, but there's zero
detriments" as well.
zero detriments....Gawd yer a dumbass.
Just noticed I listed the same link twice - I meant for one to be this
one:
https://www.concealedcarry.com/safety/man-disarmed-and-shot- with-own-
handgun-in-parking-lot/
Interesting comment on that one:
- GeneO on March 1, 2023 at 5:49 pm
" I am a retired LEO. I call open carry the “shoot me first”
tactic. Not a fan."
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no- kings-shooting/786412/
But then again: https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed- police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar situations. One never knows on any given morning.
On 7/7/2025 10:55 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 7/7/2025 11:18 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
Am 06.07.2025 um 18:30 schrieb floriduh dumbass:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 12:07:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/6/2025 9:14 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
floriduh dumbass <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Which is why I carry a gun on my bike rides.
Admittedly Im younger and have a solid build but I
dont see personal
risks in that way being at all likely on bike rides...
Some people are much more fearful than others.
Some people weigh the benefits and detriments and make
wise decisions.
There's a small benefit to carrying a gun, but there's zero
detriments.
Zero indeed....
https://www.8newsnow.com/crime/police-investigate-
homicide-in-downtown- las-vegas-4/
https://abc7ny.com/brooklyn-subway-shooting-charges-man-
shot-hoyt- schermerhorn-station/14554319/
https://abc7ny.com/brooklyn-subway-shooting-charges-man-
shot-hoyt- schermerhorn-station/14554319/
https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/23/us/video/jacksonville-
police-shot-man- accidentally-at-traffic-stop-digvid
I'm willing to bet each of of those fully legal and
licensed carriers said "There's a small benefit to
carrying a gun, but there's zero detriments" as well.
zero detriments....Gawd yer a dumbass.
Just noticed I listed the same link twice - I meant for one
to be this one:
https://www.concealedcarry.com/safety/man-disarmed-and-shot-
with-own-handgun-in-parking-lot/
Interesting comment on that one:
- GeneO on March 1, 2023 at 5:49 pm
" I am a retired LEO. I call open carry the shoot me
first tactic. Not a fan."
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no-kings-shooting/786412/
But then again: >https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed-police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar
situations. One never knows on any given morning.
On 7/7/2025 7:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 12:42:07 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
wrote:
Am 06.07.2025 um 18:30 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
There's a small benefit to carrying a gun, but there's zero
detriments.
There's "zero detriment" only for people who regularly use guns anyways. >>> If a rookie sees the need to carry a gun for cycling, they first have to >>> buy a gun (which implies filling the paperwork needed, which implies
getting the necessary licences if needed). Then they have to spend lots >>> of hours training to use a gun which they might prefer spending on
bicycling.
+1
Absolutely true... and for those who are afraid of guns, the
detriments are huge.
For those who are simply uninterested in guns, or who are insufficiently >fearful, the detriments outweigh the minuscule potential (but
unrealistic) benefits.
And almost all who are fearful enough to want a gun for a bike ride
would admit they have never used its "protection," if they were being
honest.
On 7/7/2025 2:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Jul 7 12:42:07 2025 Rolf Mantel wrote:
There's "zero detriment" only for people who regularly use guns anyways. >>> If a rookie sees the need to carry a gun for cycling, they first have to >>> buy a gun (which implies filling the paperwork needed, which implies
getting the necessary licences if needed). Then they have to spend lots >>> of hours training to use a gun which they might prefer spending on
bicycling.
In most states here there is no paperwork to buy a gun. We have the
2nd Amendment.
Well, yes. And them there's California...
On 7/7/2025 3:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/7/2025 2:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Jul 7 12:42:07 2025 Rolf Mantel wrote:
There's "zero detriment" only for people who regularly
use guns anyways.
If a rookie sees the need to carry a gun for cycling,
they first have to
buy a gun (which implies filling the paperwork needed,
which implies
getting the necessary licences if needed). Then they
have to spend lots
of hours training to use a gun which they might prefer
spending on
bicycling.
In most states here there is no paperwork to buy a gun.
We have the 2nd Amendment.
Well, yes. And them there's California...
In Massachusetts you have to go though a state-approved
firearms course, then submit an application to the state
police if you want a license to carry (LTC) which also has
to be approved by the Chief of Police in your town of
residence. If you just want a Firearm permit (FID) you still
need to course but can just apply through you town. The big
difference is that a License to Carry allows you to buy a
hand gun. A FID only lets you buy long guns.
But then again: >https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed-police-video-shows/16857433/
Let me see now, your hero, Gavbin Loathsome has made California a sancturary city that releases illegal alien murderers out to pray on citizen
On Sun Jul 6 09:37:59 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 09:47:36 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
No kidding...Now tommy invents a fantasy story of hospitalizing someone.
If that were true, do you think tommy would have waited ten years to
tell us about it?
Tom waited 6 years to warn the world about the alleged dangers of
carbon fiber bicycles. Tom's accident was in 2010:
05/14/2010
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Sgfdk0T4HlI/m/htJl6zQSimgJ> >> "My CARBON fork collapsed about three months ago and planted me face
first onto the asphalt. The helmet never even touched the ground. The
injuries caused are just beginning to clear up."
Tom's warnings were in 2016 and were posted to at least 3 different
bicycle forums. This one is the best because Tom claims that the
accident happened to "my friend Tom Kunich (who was also riding a full
carbon fiber Colnago C-40) crashed on the downhill." It also includes
an email exchange with Colnago's legal council.
(July 10, 2016)
"Danger From Carbon Fiber Bikes"
<https://www.twospoke.com/threads/danger-from-carbon-fiber-bikes.17594/>
"On the way back to Castro Valley, my friend Tom Kunich (who was also
riding a full carbon fiber Colnago C-40) crashed on the downhill."
Well, you certainly carefully accepted my warning since you never bought a carbon fiber bike,
In fact
you never even bought bar tape to put on that old steel piece of junk with components from 1950's on it.
Why don't you show us that photo with a pile of old rusting discrded junk bikes as if we would be impressed?
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 10:48:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 7:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 12:42:07 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
wrote:
Am 06.07.2025 um 18:30 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
There's a small benefit to carrying a gun, but there's zero
detriments.
There's "zero detriment" only for people who regularly use guns anyways. >>>> If a rookie sees the need to carry a gun for cycling, they first have to >>>> buy a gun (which implies filling the paperwork needed, which implies
getting the necessary licences if needed). Then they have to spend lots >>>> of hours training to use a gun which they might prefer spending on
bicycling.
+1
Absolutely true... and for those who are afraid of guns, the
detriments are huge.
For those who are simply uninterested in guns, or who are insufficiently >>fearful, the detriments outweigh the minuscule potential (but
unrealistic) benefits.
Like I said, "those who are afraid of guns, the detriments are huge."
But for me, I believe the detriments are zero, so unless someone
convinces me otherwise, I will continue to carry a gun on my bike
rides.
Everyone must weigh the benefits and detriments (I prefer to call that
"pros and cons") for themselves.
And almost all who are fearful enough to want a gun for a bike ride
would admit they have never used its "protection," if they were being >>honest.
I believe the vast majority of people who own guns have never fired
one for protection. I definately fall into that category. I hope I
never have to fire one for protection.
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how-rhode-island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons-ban-over-the-finish-line
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-
protester-killed-no- kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-
suspect-posed- police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar
situations. One never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's
pretending both outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose
data demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot
if he has a gun available.
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:03:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how-rhode-island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons-ban-over-the-finish-line
I suggest that at least part of the problem is defining what an
assault rifle is. Big magazine? But there are 5 round magazines
availed for AR's. and if you rule "semi automatic and big magazines"
then you outlaw most pistols :-}
--
cheers,
John B.
On 7/7/2025 8:11 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:03:37 -0500, AMuziAnd why does your pistol need more than five rounds? What
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how-
rhode-island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons-
ban-over-the-finish-line
I suggest that at least part of the problem is defining
what an
assault rifle is. Big magazine? But there are 5 round
magazines
availed for AR's. and if you rule "semi automatic and big
magazines"
then you outlaw most pistols :-}
are the benefits vs. detriments?
Benefits seem to be "I won't have to reload as much."
Detriments include "A user can blow away a lot more innocent
people."
I can accept five or six rounds as a compromise. I see no
realistic reason for 30 rounds in either handguns or long guns.
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:03:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how-rhode-island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons-ban-over-the-finish-line
I suggest that at least part of the problem is defining what an
assault rifle is. Big magazine? But there are 5 round magazines
availed for AR's. and if you rule "semi automatic and big magazines"
then you outlaw most pistols :-}
On 7/7/2025 3:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
You keep using that term "insufficiently fearful" and yet had to prepare yoursely to ride through Youngstown because it is largely minorities.
As Zen frequently says about your nonsense posts: No matter how many
times you repeat that, it will never be true.
More briefly: Give a link to the post where you claim I said that. If
you can't, then stop lying about it.
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending both >outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data
demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has a gun >available.
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 14:14:30 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 10:48:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 7:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 12:42:07 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> >>>> wrote:
Am 06.07.2025 um 18:30 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
There's a small benefit to carrying a gun, but there's zero
detriments.
There's "zero detriment" only for people who regularly use guns anyways. >>>>> If a rookie sees the need to carry a gun for cycling, they first have to >>>>> buy a gun (which implies filling the paperwork needed, which implies >>>>> getting the necessary licences if needed). Then they have to spend lots >>>>> of hours training to use a gun which they might prefer spending on
bicycling.
+1
Absolutely true... and for those who are afraid of guns, the
detriments are huge.
For those who are simply uninterested in guns, or who are insufficiently >>>fearful, the detriments outweigh the minuscule potential (but >>>unrealistic) benefits.
Like I said, "those who are afraid of guns, the detriments are huge."
But for me, I believe the detriments are zero, so unless someone
convinces me otherwise, I will continue to carry a gun on my bike
rides.
Everyone must weigh the benefits and detriments (I prefer to call that >>"pros and cons") for themselves.
And almost all who are fearful enough to want a gun for a bike ride
would admit they have never used its "protection," if they were being >>>honest.
I believe the vast majority of people who own guns have never fired
one for protection. I definately fall into that category. I hope I
never have to fire one for protection.
most "safety" devices are not used because one plans
on using them, quit the opposite in fact. But according to Frankie's
theories military flyers are cowards because they wear a parachute.
On 7/7/2025 7:59 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 14:14:30 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 10:48:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 7:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 12:42:07 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> >>>>> wrote:
Am 06.07.2025 um 18:30 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
There's a small benefit to carrying a gun, but there's zero
detriments.
There's "zero detriment" only for people who regularly use guns anyways. >>>>>> If a rookie sees the need to carry a gun for cycling, they first have to >>>>>> buy a gun (which implies filling the paperwork needed, which implies >>>>>> getting the necessary licences if needed). Then they have to spend lots >>>>>> of hours training to use a gun which they might prefer spending on >>>>>> bicycling.
+1
Absolutely true... and for those who are afraid of guns, the
detriments are huge.
For those who are simply uninterested in guns, or who are insufficiently >>>> fearful, the detriments outweigh the minuscule potential (but
unrealistic) benefits.
Like I said, "those who are afraid of guns, the detriments are huge."
But for me, I believe the detriments are zero, so unless someone
convinces me otherwise, I will continue to carry a gun on my bike
rides.
Everyone must weigh the benefits and detriments (I prefer to call that
"pros and cons") for themselves.
And almost all who are fearful enough to want a gun for a bike ride
would admit they have never used its "protection," if they were being
honest.
I believe the vast majority of people who own guns have never fired
one for protection. I definately fall into that category. I hope I
never have to fire one for protection.
most "safety" devices are not used because one plans
on using them, quit the opposite in fact. But according to Frankie's
theories military flyers are cowards because they wear a parachute.
A) You had promised to stop reading my posts!
B) Military flying is far, far more hazardous than riding a bike,
including riding a bike on a dead flat suburban bike trail.
I'm sure you can recount incidents where a military flyer made use of
his parachute. But in years of discussion of Mr. Tricycle's fear of
riding without his gun, nobody seems to have posted an account of a
single successful defensive use of a gun by a bicyclist.
In fact, John, I'd bet you (almost?) never carried a handgun for defense
when you rode your bikes. Am I wrong?
On 7/7/2025 8:12 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/7/2025 6:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn- protester-killed-
no- kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery- suspect-
posed- police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar situations.
One never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data
demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has a gun
available.
Which correlation may have several ramifications besides 'the damned
device just up and shot me!'
Of course. But most of those have been dealt with. Remember, family
members shooting other family members was a not-uncommon scenario.
That's a long way from "I blasted my way to safety in this dangerous >neighborhood" which seems to be a common imaginary scenario.
On 7/7/2025 8:11 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:03:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:And why does your pistol need more than five rounds? What are the
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how-rhode-island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons-ban-over-the-finish-line
I suggest that at least part of the problem is defining what an
assault rifle is. Big magazine? But there are 5 round magazines
availed for AR's. and if you rule "semi automatic and big magazines"
then you outlaw most pistols :-}
benefits vs. detriments?
Benefits seem to be "I won't have to reload as much." Detriments include
"A user can blow away a lot more innocent people."
I can accept five or six rounds as a compromise.
I see no realistic
reason for 30 rounds in either handguns or long guns.
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:25:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 3:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
You keep using that term "insufficiently fearful" and yet had to
prepare yoursely to ride through Youngstown because it is largely minorities.
As Zen frequently says about your nonsense posts: No matter how many
times you repeat that, it will never be true.
More briefly: Give a link to the post where you claim I said that. If
you can't, then stop lying about it.
Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to visit
a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!>
ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of
other races living there.
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Mon Jul 7 13:58:10 2025 Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 12:03:50 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 10:55 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 7/7/2025 11:18 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
Am 06.07.2025 um 18:30 schrieb floriduh dumbass:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 12:07:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/6/2025 9:14 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
floriduh dumbass <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Which is why I carry a gun on my bike rides.
Admittedly I?m younger and have a ?solid build? but I
don?t see personal
risks in that way being at all likely on bike rides...
Some people are much more fearful than others.
Some people weigh the benefits and detriments and make
wise decisions.
There's a small benefit to carrying a gun, but there's zero
detriments.
Zero indeed....
https://www.8newsnow.com/crime/police-investigate-
homicide-in-downtown- las-vegas-4/
https://abc7ny.com/brooklyn-subway-shooting-charges-man-
shot-hoyt- schermerhorn-station/14554319/
https://abc7ny.com/brooklyn-subway-shooting-charges-man-
shot-hoyt- schermerhorn-station/14554319/
https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/23/us/video/jacksonville-
police-shot-man- accidentally-at-traffic-stop-digvid
I'm willing to bet each of of those fully legal and
licensed carriers said "There's a small benefit to
carrying a gun, but there's zero detriments" as well.
zero detriments....Gawd yer a dumbass.
Just noticed I listed the same link twice - I meant for one
to be this one:
https://www.concealedcarry.com/safety/man-disarmed-and-shot-
with-own-handgun-in-parking-lot/
Interesting comment on that one:
- GeneO on March 1, 2023 at 5:49 pm
? " I am a retired LEO. I call open carry the ?shoot me
first? tactic. Not a fan."
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no-kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed-police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar
situations. One never knows on any given morning.
I am very much opposed to open carry except for law enforcement.
Now that the flooded England with migrants, I understand the police there now carry guns.
floriduh dumbass <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:25:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 3:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
You keep using that term "insufficiently fearful" and yet had to
prepare yoursely to ride through Youngstown because it is largely minorities.
As Zen frequently says about your nonsense posts: No matter how many
times you repeat that, it will never be true.
More briefly: Give a link to the post where you claim I said that. If
you can't, then stop lying about it.
Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to visit
a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!>
ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of
other races living there.
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
--
C'est bon
Soloman
floriduh dumbass <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no- >>>> kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed- >>>> police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar situations. One >>>> never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data
demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes
who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a
correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:25:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 3:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
You keep using that term "insufficiently fearful" and yet had to
prepare yoursely to ride through Youngstown because it is largely minorities.
As Zen frequently says about your nonsense posts: No matter how many
times you repeat that, it will never be true.
More briefly: Give a link to the post where you claim I said that. If
you can't, then stop lying about it.
Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to visit
a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!>
ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of
other races living there.
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That doesnt say or rather mean what you think it does! Its a joke, as
its such a non issue!
Roger Merriman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no- >>>> kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed- >>>> police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar situations. One >>>> never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data
demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes
who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a
correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Its not twisted logic, its just opportunity, the gun is there, there is
an argument or so on. If the gun isnt there arguments still happen but
less likely to have lethal outcomes.
Roger Merriman
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 19:14:29 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Let me see now, your hero, Gavbin Loathsome has made California a sancturary city that releases illegal alien murderers out to pray on citizen
He's doing a terrible job, choosing the wrong guys. Stats show
that violent crime committed by immigrants is minimal compared to the
carnage Americans do.
I suggest you vote for Gavin Handsome next time. Great
politician, and he's not a even a fascist!
[]'s
On 7/8/2025 5:17 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
floriduh dumbass <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no- >>>>> kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed- >>>>> police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar situations. One >>>>> never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data
demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has a gun >>>> available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes
who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a
correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and
people not getting shot.
Only for those with no concept of causal relationships
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
Yup, that's twisted logic on your part. If you think there's a study out >there that supports your claim, present it. Otherwise, its just you
making the dumbshine state proud again.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:59:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 8:11 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:03:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:And why does your pistol need more than five rounds? What are the
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how-rhode-island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons-ban-over-the-finish-line
I suggest that at least part of the problem is defining what an
assault rifle is. Big magazine? But there are 5 round magazines
availed for AR's. and if you rule "semi automatic and big magazines"
then you outlaw most pistols :-}
benefits vs. detriments?
There are no detriments to having a few more rounds, but eventually, a >handgun can get too heavy and bulky to conceal.
Benefits seem to be "I won't have to reload as much." Detriments include
"A user can blow away a lot more innocent people."
<eyeroll>
I can accept five or six rounds as a compromise.
Nobody needs to compromise with you.
I see no realistic
reason for 30 rounds in either handguns or long guns.
What you can see is insignificant.
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed- >>> police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar situations. One >>> never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending both >>outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data
demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has a gun >>available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes
who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a
correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
On 7/7/2025 7:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/7/2025 8:11 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:03:37 -0500, AMuziAnd why does your pistol need more than five rounds? What
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how-
rhode-island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons-
ban-over-the-finish-line
I suggest that at least part of the problem is defining
what an
assault rifle is. Big magazine? But there are 5 round
magazines
availed for AR's. and if you rule "semi automatic and big
magazines"
then you outlaw most pistols :-}
are the benefits vs. detriments?
Benefits seem to be "I won't have to reload as much."
Detriments include "A user can blow away a lot more innocent
people."
I can accept five or six rounds as a compromise. I see no
realistic reason for 30 rounds in either handguns or long guns.
People more familiar than you with firearms overwhelmingly
buy 20 and 30 round models. They are ubiquitous, cheap and
plentiful because that's what people want.
Then again some people think they need to be fashionable
with more than one gear on their bicycle. And some of them
_coast_!
On 8 Jul 2025 09:17:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:25:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 3:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
You keep using that term "insufficiently fearful" and yet had to
prepare yoursely to ride through Youngstown because it is largely minorities.
As Zen frequently says about your nonsense posts: No matter how many
times you repeat that, it will never be true.
More briefly: Give a link to the post where you claim I said that. If
you can't, then stop lying about it.
Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to visit
a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!>
ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of
other races living there.
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That doesnt say or rather mean what you think it does! Its a joke, as
its such a non issue!
Roger Merriman
I know exactly whay it means. It means that he believes there is
something unique about riding through a non-white neighborhood. That
tells me quit a bit about what kind of a person he is.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 8 Jul 2025 09:17:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:No he was noting the ubiquitous of it, he probably does this ride
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:25:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 3:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
You keep using that term "insufficiently fearful" and yet had to
prepare yoursely to ride through Youngstown because it is largely minorities.
As Zen frequently says about your nonsense posts: No matter how many >>>>> times you repeat that, it will never be true.
More briefly: Give a link to the post where you claim I said that. If >>>>> you can't, then stop lying about it.
Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to visit >>>> a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!>
ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of
other races living there.
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That doesn?t say or rather mean what you think it does! It?s a joke, as
it?s such a non issue!
Roger Merriman
I know exactly whay it means. It means that he believes there is
something unique about riding through a non-white neighborhood. That
tells me quit a bit about what kind of a person he is.
frequently its just normal.
Kinda proving that youre missing the point.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:46:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 7:59 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 14:14:30 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 10:48:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 7:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 12:42:07 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> >>>>>> wrote:
Am 06.07.2025 um 18:30 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
There's a small benefit to carrying a gun, but there's zero
detriments.
There's "zero detriment" only for people who regularly use guns anyways.
If a rookie sees the need to carry a gun for cycling, they first have to
buy a gun (which implies filling the paperwork needed, which implies >>>>>>> getting the necessary licences if needed). Then they have to spend lots
of hours training to use a gun which they might prefer spending on >>>>>>> bicycling.
+1
Absolutely true... and for those who are afraid of guns, the
detriments are huge.
For those who are simply uninterested in guns, or who are insufficiently >>>>> fearful, the detriments outweigh the minuscule potential (but
unrealistic) benefits.
Like I said, "those who are afraid of guns, the detriments are huge."
But for me, I believe the detriments are zero, so unless someone
convinces me otherwise, I will continue to carry a gun on my bike
rides.
Everyone must weigh the benefits and detriments (I prefer to call that >>>> "pros and cons") for themselves.
And almost all who are fearful enough to want a gun for a bike ride
would admit they have never used its "protection," if they were being >>>>> honest.
I believe the vast majority of people who own guns have never fired
one for protection. I definately fall into that category. I hope I
never have to fire one for protection.
most "safety" devices are not used because one plans
on using them, quit the opposite in fact. But according to Frankie's
theories military flyers are cowards because they wear a parachute.
A) You had promised to stop reading my posts!
B) Military flying is far, far more hazardous than riding a bike,
including riding a bike on a dead flat suburban bike trail.
I'm sure you can recount incidents where a military flyer made use of
his parachute. But in years of discussion of Mr. Tricycle's fear of
riding without his gun, nobody seems to have posted an account of a
single successful defensive use of a gun by a bicyclist.
you want personal anecdotes? Really?
In fact, John, I'd bet you (almost?) never carried a handgun for defense >>when you rode your bikes. Am I wrong?
Krygowski believes undocumented personal anecdotes are an acceptable
way to argue.
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:03:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how-rhode-island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons-ban-over-the-finish-line
I suggest that at least part of the problem is defining what an
assault rifle is. Big magazine? But there are 5 round magazines
availed for AR's. and if you rule "semi automatic and big magazines"
then you outlaw most pistols :-}
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 17:11:49 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:03:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how-rhode-island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons-ban-over-the-finish-line
I suggest that at least part of the problem is defining what an
assault rifle is. Big magazine? But there are 5 round magazines
availed for AR's. and if you rule "semi automatic and big magazines"
then you outlaw most pistols :-}
They believe a rifle with a pistol grip makes them more deadly. That's
how stupid the anti-AR clowns are.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 21:08:45 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 7:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/7/2025 8:11 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:03:37 -0500, AMuziAnd why does your pistol need more than five rounds? What
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how-
rhode-island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons-
ban-over-the-finish-line
I suggest that at least part of the problem is defining
what an
assault rifle is. Big magazine? But there are 5 round
magazines
availed for AR's. and if you rule "semi automatic and big
magazines"
then you outlaw most pistols :-}
are the benefits vs. detriments?
Benefits seem to be "I won't have to reload as much."
Detriments include "A user can blow away a lot more innocent
people."
I can accept five or six rounds as a compromise. I see no
realistic reason for 30 rounds in either handguns or long guns.
People more familiar than you with firearms overwhelmingly
buy 20 and 30 round models. They are ubiquitous, cheap and
plentiful because that's what people want.
Then again some people think they need to be fashionable
with more than one gear on their bicycle. And some of them
_coast_!
This chap that is define magazine capacity limits is the famous
firearms expert who brags that he fired a ".22" a few times.
--
cheers,
John B.
On 7/7/2025 3:05 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jul 6 12:07:34 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
Some people are much more fearful than others.
So that is why you had to be prepared to ride through Youngstown.
As I've said, my preparation was a pump, patch kit, water bottle and
jacket.
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 17:11:49 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:03:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how-rhode-island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons-ban-over-the-finish-line
I suggest that at least part of the problem is defining what an
assault rifle is. Big magazine? But there are 5 round magazines
availed for AR's. and if you rule "semi automatic and big magazines"
then you outlaw most pistols :-}
Most self defense shootings use around 2 rounds. (I remember
Jeff Cooper said that in one of his books). So large magazines are
more suited for mass shootings... or for people with VERY small
penises.
No one uses 14 or 20 rounds to defend their home.
A six shot revolver is ample for a civilian. Or even a 7 shot
auto... or a shotgun....
[]'s
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 09:25:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 17:11:49 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:03:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how-rhode-island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons-ban-over-the-finish-line
I suggest that at least part of the problem is defining what an
assault rifle is. Big magazine? But there are 5 round magazines
availed for AR's. and if you rule "semi automatic and big magazines"
then you outlaw most pistols :-}
Most self defense shootings use around 2 rounds. (I remember
Jeff Cooper said that in one of his books). So large magazines are
more suited for mass shootings... or for people with VERY small
penises.
No one uses 14 or 20 rounds to defend their home.
A six shot revolver is ample for a civilian. Or even a 7 shot
auto... or a shotgun....
[]'s
And you know this... how? I've no statistics on this. However the
latest figures I've seen on police "shoot outs" is that the empty
their guns and historically in the wild west, gun fights lasted until
the opposition fell down or the guns were empty.
--
cheers,
John B.
On 7/8/2025 6:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:57:06 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:46:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 7:59 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 14:14:30 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 10:48:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 7:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 12:42:07 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de>
wrote:
Am 06.07.2025 um 18:30 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
There's a small benefit to carrying a gun, but
there's zero
detriments.
There's "zero detriment" only for people who
regularly use guns anyways.
If a rookie sees the need to carry a gun for
cycling, they first have to
buy a gun (which implies filling the paperwork
needed, which implies
getting the necessary licences if needed). Then
they have to spend lots
of hours training to use a gun which they might
prefer spending on
bicycling.
+1
Absolutely true... and for those who are afraid of
guns, the
detriments are huge.
For those who are simply uninterested in guns, or who
are insufficiently
fearful, the detriments outweigh the minuscule
potential (but
unrealistic) benefits.
Like I said, "those who are afraid of guns, the
detriments are huge."
But for me, I believe the detriments are zero, so
unless someone
convinces me otherwise, I will continue to carry a gun
on my bike
rides.
Everyone must weigh the benefits and detriments (I
prefer to call that
"pros and cons") for themselves.
And almost all who are fearful enough to want a gun
for a bike ride
would admit they have never used its "protection," if
they were being
honest.
I believe the vast majority of people who own guns
have never fired
one for protection. I definately fall into that
category. I hope I
never have to fire one for protection.
most "safety" devices are not used because one plans
on using them, quit the opposite in fact. But
according to Frankie's
theories military flyers are cowards because they wear
a parachute.
A) You had promised to stop reading my posts!
B) Military flying is far, far more hazardous than
riding a bike,
including riding a bike on a dead flat suburban bike trail.
I'm sure you can recount incidents where a military
flyer made use of
his parachute. But in years of discussion of Mr.
Tricycle's fear of
riding without his gun, nobody seems to have posted an
account of a
single successful defensive use of a gun by a bicyclist.
you want personal anecdotes? Really?
Oh please! You used your personal anecdote to justify always
carrying a handgun when you ride. You told us of your terror
when some bum tore your jacket. Now you're always ready to
kill potential jacket tearers.
Oh, and you never documented that anecdote. You don't meet
your own standards.
In fact, John, I'd bet you (almost?) never carried a
handgun for defense
when you rode your bikes. Am I wrong?
And what does my carrying a gun or not have with the legal
right to
carry a gun. Or to put it another way if it is legal why
shouldn't one
do it?
Because the rabid proliferation of guns in America has led
to insane death counts. And because refusing to ride without
a gun is a sign of cowardice.
Admit it, Mr. Tricycle Rider is far more timid than you ever
were. You're so passionate about guns, you won't even admit
that you didn't feel any need to ride with one. Your own
behavior belies your arguments.
Oh, and thanks for reading, John! ;-)
On 7/8/2025 4:32 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in
their homes
who don't get shot than those who do. That means that
there is a
correlation between the number of people having guns in
their home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that
suggests that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
The fundamental mathematical ignorance in those two
paragraphs is astonishing!
On 7/7/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/7/2025 7:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I can accept five or six rounds as a compromise. I see no
realistic reason for 30 rounds in either handguns or long
guns.
People more familiar than you with firearms overwhelmingly
buy 20 and 30 round models. They are ubiquitous, cheap and
plentiful because that's what people want.
"That's what people want." IOW, "That's the fashion."
Sorry, that's really, really weak. In some neighborhoods,
"what they want" are auto-sears and, practically speaking,
machine guns. Yet you seem to dislike those fashionable
features.
Why? I suspect it's because you view the disadvantages of
full-auto in public hands to be greater than the advantages.
Just as I view 30 round magazines in semi-autos.
On 7/8/2025 6:28 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:59:39 -0400, Frank KrygowskiAnd as usual the fool ignores military, police, and all
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I see no realistic
reason for 30 rounds in either handguns or long guns.
the others
that carry a pistol as part of their workday equipment
that is
designed and manufactured with a large magazine.
You can't _seriously_ be thinking that any weapon useful for
military or police work should be legal for every thug on a
street corner! You _must_ be more intelligent than that!
On 7/8/2025 9:39 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 09:25:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 17:11:49 -0700, John B.
A six shot revolver is ample for a civilian. Or even
a 7 shot
auto... or a shotgun....
[]'s
And you know this... how? I've no statistics on this.
However the
latest figures I've seen on police "shoot outs" is that
the empty
their guns and historically in the wild west, gun fights
lasted until
the opposition fell down or the guns were empty.
Wow. Let's see: Thugs who get into "shoot outs" with police
cause the police to fire many, many rounds. So we need to
make sure that thugs can get plenty of big magazines? How do
you not see the disadvantages there?
If the thugs were limited to, say, six rounds, would things
not be better?
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 17:11:49 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:03:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how-rhode-island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons-ban-over-the-finish-line
I suggest that at least part of the problem is defining what an
assault rifle is. Big magazine? But there are 5 round magazines
availed for AR's. and if you rule "semi automatic and big magazines"
then you outlaw most pistols :-}
Most self defense shootings use around 2 rounds. (I remember
Jeff Cooper said that in one of his books). So large magazines are
more suited for mass shootings... or for people with VERY small
penises.
No one uses 14 or 20 rounds to defend their home.
A six shot revolver is ample for a civilian. Or even a 7 shot
auto... or a shotgun....
[]'s
On 7/8/2025 6:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:57:06 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:46:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 7:59 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 14:14:30 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 10:48:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 7:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 12:42:07 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> >>>>>>>> wrote:
Am 06.07.2025 um 18:30 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
There's a small benefit to carrying a gun, but there's zero >>>>>>>>>> detriments.
There's "zero detriment" only for people who regularly use guns anyways.
If a rookie sees the need to carry a gun for cycling, they first have to
buy a gun (which implies filling the paperwork needed, which implies >>>>>>>>> getting the necessary licences if needed). Then they have to spend lots
of hours training to use a gun which they might prefer spending on >>>>>>>>> bicycling.
+1
Absolutely true... and for those who are afraid of guns, the
detriments are huge.
For those who are simply uninterested in guns, or who are insufficiently
fearful, the detriments outweigh the minuscule potential (but
unrealistic) benefits.
Like I said, "those who are afraid of guns, the detriments are huge." >>>>>>
But for me, I believe the detriments are zero, so unless someone
convinces me otherwise, I will continue to carry a gun on my bike
rides.
Everyone must weigh the benefits and detriments (I prefer to call that >>>>>> "pros and cons") for themselves.
And almost all who are fearful enough to want a gun for a bike ride >>>>>>> would admit they have never used its "protection," if they were being >>>>>>> honest.
I believe the vast majority of people who own guns have never fired >>>>>> one for protection. I definately fall into that category. I hope I >>>>>> never have to fire one for protection.
most "safety" devices are not used because one plans
on using them, quit the opposite in fact. But according to Frankie's >>>>> theories military flyers are cowards because they wear a parachute.
A) You had promised to stop reading my posts!
B) Military flying is far, far more hazardous than riding a bike,
including riding a bike on a dead flat suburban bike trail.
I'm sure you can recount incidents where a military flyer made use of
his parachute. But in years of discussion of Mr. Tricycle's fear of
riding without his gun, nobody seems to have posted an account of a
single successful defensive use of a gun by a bicyclist.
you want personal anecdotes? Really?
Oh please! You used your personal anecdote to justify always carrying a >handgun when you ride. You told us of your terror when some bum tore
your jacket.
Now you're always ready to kill potential jacket tearers.
Oh, and you never documented that anecdote. You don't meet your own >standards.
In fact, John, I'd bet you (almost?) never carried a handgun for defense >>>> when you rode your bikes. Am I wrong?
And what does my carrying a gun or not have with the legal right to
carry a gun. Or to put it another way if it is legal why shouldn't one
do it?
Because the rabid proliferation of guns in America has led to insane
death counts. And because refusing to ride without a gun is a sign of >cowardice.
Admit it, Mr. Tricycle Rider is far more timid than you ever were.
You're so passionate about guns, you won't even admit that you didn't
feel any need to ride with one. Your own behavior belies your arguments.
Oh, and thanks for reading, John! ;-)
On 7/8/2025 4:32 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes
who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a
correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
The fundamental mathematical ignorance in those two paragraphs is >astonishing.
On 7/8/2025 6:31 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 8 Jul 2025 09:17:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:No he was noting the ubiquitous of it, he probably does this ride
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:25:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 3:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
You keep using that term "insufficiently fearful" and yet had to >>>>>>> prepare yoursely to ride through Youngstown because it is largely minorities.
As Zen frequently says about your nonsense posts: No matter how many >>>>>> times you repeat that, it will never be true.
More briefly: Give a link to the post where you claim I said that. If >>>>>> you can't, then stop lying about it.
Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to visit >>>>> a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!>
ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of >>>>> other races living there.
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That doesn?t say or rather mean what you think it does! It?s a joke, as >>>> it?s such a non issue!
Roger Merriman
I know exactly whay it means. It means that he believes there is
something unique about riding through a non-white neighborhood. That
tells me quit a bit about what kind of a person he is.
frequently its just normal.
Kinda proving that youre missing the point.
We're corresponding with a man who admits to avoiding contact with
almost all other people. He's so deficient in normal human interactions
that he can't recognize jokes, sarcasm, etc.
On 7/7/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/7/2025 7:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I can accept five or six rounds as a compromise. I see no realistic
reason for 30 rounds in either handguns or long guns.
People more familiar than you with firearms overwhelmingly buy 20 and 30
round models. They are ubiquitous, cheap and plentiful because that's
what people want.
"That's what people want." IOW, "That's the fashion."
Sorry, that's really, really weak. In some neighborhoods, "what they
want" are auto-sears and, practically speaking, machine guns. Yet you
seem to dislike those fashionable features.
Why? I suspect it's because you view the disadvantages of full-auto in
public hands to be greater than the advantages. Just as I view 30 round >magazines in semi-autos.
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no- >>>>> kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed- >>>>> police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar situations. One >>>>> never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data
demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has a gun >>>> available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes
who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a
correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
I don't know about more or less ...
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've ignored
the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the >well-documented correlation between guns in the household and household >members being shot - usually by others in the home. The correlation is
strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using that
fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless.
On 7/8/2025 8:25 AM, Shadow wrote:
Most self defense shootings use around 2 rounds. (I remember
Jeff Cooper said that in one of his books). So large magazines are
more suited for mass shootings... or for people with VERY small
penises.
Exactly! Some guys need help to feel manly. The more feeble they are,
the more help they need.
No one uses 14 or 20 rounds to defend their home.Andrew has made that same point here in the past. He's said, for
A six shot revolver is ample for a civilian. Or even a 7 shot
auto... or a shotgun....
example, that a shotgun would be far better for home defense than an
AR-style rifle.
But a shotgun doesn't look as "manly," so it doesn't help in the other >department.
On 7/8/2025 9:39 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 09:25:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 17:11:49 -0700, John B.
A six shot revolver is ample for a civilian. Or even a 7 shot
auto... or a shotgun....
[]'s
And you know this... how? I've no statistics on this. However the
latest figures I've seen on police "shoot outs" is that the empty
their guns and historically in the wild west, gun fights lasted until
the opposition fell down or the guns were empty.
Wow. Let's see: Thugs who get into "shoot outs" with police cause the
police to fire many, many rounds. So we need to make sure that thugs can
get plenty of big magazines? How do you not see the disadvantages there?
If the thugs were limited to, say, six rounds, would things not be better?
On 7/7/2025 11:55 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
https://www.concealedcarry.com/safety/man-disarmed-and-shot-with-own-
handgun-in-parking-lot/
Interesting comment on that one:
- GeneO on March 1, 2023 at 5:49 pm
" I am a retired LEO. I call open carry the shoot me first tactic.
Not a fan."
Other comments were interesting. A frequent theme was "I carry my gun
_this_ way so it's always protected and ready; and I practice SO
diligently!"
Right. The world is so, so dangerous that you must be armed at all
times. And when the evil bad guy finally appears (after decades of your >paranoia and practicing) you're finally going to be the hero, acting out
your fantasies and save the day!
So manly? No, so childish and fearful. And such a waste of time, expense
and effort.
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 09:25:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 17:11:49 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:03:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how-rhode-island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons-ban-over-the-finish-line
I suggest that at least part of the problem is defining what an
assault rifle is. Big magazine? But there are 5 round magazines
availed for AR's. and if you rule "semi automatic and big magazines"
then you outlaw most pistols :-}
Most self defense shootings use around 2 rounds. (I remember
Jeff Cooper said that in one of his books). So large magazines are
more suited for mass shootings... or for people with VERY small
penises.
No one uses 14 or 20 rounds to defend their home.
A six shot revolver is ample for a civilian. Or even a 7 shot
auto... or a shotgun....
[]'s
As if you'd know...
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:28:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:28 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:59:39 -0400, Frank KrygowskiAnd as usual the fool ignores military, police, and all the others
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I see no realistic
reason for 30 rounds in either handguns or long guns.
that carry a pistol as part of their workday equipment that is
designed and manufactured with a large magazine.
You can't _seriously_ be thinking that any weapon useful for military or >>police work should be legal for every thug on a street corner! You
_must_ be more intelligent than that!
Strawman alert...
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:13:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:31 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 8 Jul 2025 09:17:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:No he was noting the ubiquitous of it, he probably does this ride
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:25:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 3:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
You keep using that term "insufficiently fearful" and yet had to >>>>>>>> prepare yoursely to ride through Youngstown because it is largely minorities.
As Zen frequently says about your nonsense posts: No matter how many >>>>>>> times you repeat that, it will never be true.
More briefly: Give a link to the post where you claim I said that. If >>>>>>> you can't, then stop lying about it.
Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to visit >>>>>> a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!>
ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of >>>>>> other races living there.
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That doesn?t say or rather mean what you think it does! It?s a joke, as >>>>> it?s such a non issue!
Roger Merriman
I know exactly whay it means. It means that he believes there is
something unique about riding through a non-white neighborhood. That
tells me quit a bit about what kind of a person he is.
frequently its just normal.
Kinda proving that youre missing the point.
We're corresponding with a man who admits to avoiding contact with
almost all other people. He's so deficient in normal human interactions >>that he can't recognize jokes, sarcasm, etc.
I long ago recognized Krygowski as a bigot because a bigot is someone
who in intolerant of anyone who does not believe, act, and do things
as he prefers.
Some time ago, I began to wonder if his bigotry extended to racist
bigotry when he made up an story about some gated condo guy telling
him that he shouldn't ride through a black neighborhood. I believe
that the people who make up racist stories are usually the most racist >themselves (see Al Sharpton and Jazmin Crocket)
When Krygowski posted the "people of other races" story, it became
clear that he is a bit of a racist. His implication is that riding
though the non-white neighborhood is something to make note of.
Those of us who regularly ride, work, live with, and hang out with
people of "other races" don't make note of things like that.
He'll probably respond with a made up anecdote about his black best
friend, but I'll have to see a couple of pictures before I believe
it...
Youngstown is a pretty diverse community. I wonder how many "people of
other races" are members of his biking club.. of his church...
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 16:09:35 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:13:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:31 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 8 Jul 2025 09:17:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>No he was noting the ubiquitous of it, he probably does this ride
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:25:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 3:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
You keep using that term "insufficiently fearful" and yet had to >>>>>>>>> prepare yoursely to ride through Youngstown because it is largely minorities.
As Zen frequently says about your nonsense posts: No matter how many >>>>>>>> times you repeat that, it will never be true.
More briefly: Give a link to the post where you claim I said that. If >>>>>>>> you can't, then stop lying about it.
Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to visit >>>>>>> a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!> >>>>>>> ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of >>>>>>> other races living there.
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That doesn?t say or rather mean what you think it does! It?s a joke, as >>>>>> it?s such a non issue!
Roger Merriman
I know exactly whay it means. It means that he believes there is
something unique about riding through a non-white neighborhood. That >>>>> tells me quit a bit about what kind of a person he is.
frequently it’s just normal.
Kinda proving that you’re missing the point.
We're corresponding with a man who admits to avoiding contact with
almost all other people. He's so deficient in normal human interactions
that he can't recognize jokes, sarcasm, etc.
I long ago recognized Krygowski as a bigot because a bigot is someone
who in intolerant of anyone who does not believe, act, and do things
as he prefers.
Some time ago, I began to wonder if his bigotry extended to racist
bigotry when he made up an story about some gated condo guy telling
him that he shouldn't ride through a black neighborhood. I believe
that the people who make up racist stories are usually the most racist
themselves (see Al Sharpton and Jazmin Crocket)
When Krygowski posted the "people of other races" story, it became
clear that he is a bit of a racist. His implication is that riding
though the non-white neighborhood is something to make note of.
Those of us who regularly ride, work, live with, and hang out with
people of "other races" don't make note of things like that.
He'll probably respond with a made up anecdote about his black best
friend, but I'll have to see a couple of pictures before I believe
it...
Youngstown is a pretty diverse community. I wonder how many "people of
other races" are members of his biking club.. of his church...
But the internet has "Francis R Krygowski Age 77" living at at 29
Ohio Ave, Poland, 44514 Ohio. Isn't this our very own
Frankie?
The population was 2,463 at the 2020 United States census.[4] A suburb
about 7 miles (11 km) south of Youngstown, Area • Total
1.66 sq mi (4.29 km2)
--
cheers,
John B.
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:12:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:57:06 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:46:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 7:59 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 14:14:30 -0400, Catrike RyderA) You had promised to stop reading my posts!
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 10:48:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 7:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 12:42:07 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
wrote:
Am 06.07.2025 um 18:30 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
There's a small benefit to carrying a gun, but there's zero >>>>>>>>>>> detriments.
There's "zero detriment" only for people who regularly use guns anyways.
If a rookie sees the need to carry a gun for cycling, they first have to
buy a gun (which implies filling the paperwork needed, which implies >>>>>>>>>> getting the necessary licences if needed). Then they have to spend lots
of hours training to use a gun which they might prefer spending on >>>>>>>>>> bicycling.
+1
Absolutely true... and for those who are afraid of guns, the >>>>>>>>> detriments are huge.
For those who are simply uninterested in guns, or who are insufficiently
fearful, the detriments outweigh the minuscule potential (but
unrealistic) benefits.
Like I said, "those who are afraid of guns, the detriments are huge." >>>>>>>
But for me, I believe the detriments are zero, so unless someone >>>>>>> convinces me otherwise, I will continue to carry a gun on my bike >>>>>>> rides.
Everyone must weigh the benefits and detriments (I prefer to call that >>>>>>> "pros and cons") for themselves.
And almost all who are fearful enough to want a gun for a bike ride >>>>>>>> would admit they have never used its "protection," if they were being >>>>>>>> honest.
I believe the vast majority of people who own guns have never fired >>>>>>> one for protection. I definately fall into that category. I hope I >>>>>>> never have to fire one for protection.
most "safety" devices are not used because one plans
on using them, quit the opposite in fact. But according to Frankie's >>>>>> theories military flyers are cowards because they wear a parachute. >>>>>
B) Military flying is far, far more hazardous than riding a bike,
including riding a bike on a dead flat suburban bike trail.
On 7/8/2025 11:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/8/2025 9:26 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/7/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/7/2025 7:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I can accept five or six rounds as a compromise. I see no realistic
reason for 30 rounds in either handguns or long guns.
People more familiar than you with firearms overwhelmingly buy 20 and
30 round models. They are ubiquitous, cheap and plentiful because
that's what people want.
"That's what people want." IOW, "That's the fashion."
Sorry, that's really, really weak. In some neighborhoods, "what they
want" are auto-sears and, practically speaking, machine guns. Yet you
seem to dislike those fashionable features.
Why? I suspect it's because you view the disadvantages of full-auto in
public hands to be greater than the advantages. Just as I view 30
round magazines in semi-autos.
Would you address the snipped comments and then defend benefits of 2x12
versus 3x7 gearing with such a large price differential? Extra points
for defending coasting on your bike.
As we've discussed, "snipping" has long been considered proper Usenet >etiquette, to respond only to certain portions of a post. That's true
even though it seems to now be out of "fashion."
But if you insist: I found your remarks on gearing irrelevant, because >fashionable choices of bike gears (or coasting) have no detrimental
effect on any other person.
OTOH, the fashionable choice of large magazines (and gun proliferation)
has had large societal detriments. We're spending lots of tax money to >station law enforcement in every school, plus harden entrances, install
metal detectors, etc. The last two concerts I attended had me scanned
with detector wands. All those measures were never considered necessary >before punks began blasting away at innocents using dozens of rounds.
There's also been the increase in police expenses - body armor, more
powerful guns, etc. - for their defense in shoot-outs. We're all paying
for those measures, but why? So punks can have fun shooting fast?
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 15:48:58 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:12:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:57:06 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:46:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 7:59 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 14:14:30 -0400, Catrike RyderA) You had promised to stop reading my posts!
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 10:48:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 7:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 12:42:07 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
wrote:
Am 06.07.2025 um 18:30 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
There's a small benefit to carrying a gun, but there's zero >>>>>>>>>>>> detriments.
There's "zero detriment" only for people who regularly use guns anyways.
If a rookie sees the need to carry a gun for cycling, they first have to
buy a gun (which implies filling the paperwork needed, which implies
getting the necessary licences if needed). Then they have to spend lots
of hours training to use a gun which they might prefer spending on >>>>>>>>>>> bicycling.
+1
Absolutely true... and for those who are afraid of guns, the >>>>>>>>>> detriments are huge.
For those who are simply uninterested in guns, or who are insufficiently
fearful, the detriments outweigh the minuscule potential (but >>>>>>>>> unrealistic) benefits.
Like I said, "those who are afraid of guns, the detriments are huge." >>>>>>>>
But for me, I believe the detriments are zero, so unless someone >>>>>>>> convinces me otherwise, I will continue to carry a gun on my bike >>>>>>>> rides.
Everyone must weigh the benefits and detriments (I prefer to call that >>>>>>>> "pros and cons") for themselves.
And almost all who are fearful enough to want a gun for a bike ride >>>>>>>>> would admit they have never used its "protection," if they were being >>>>>>>>> honest.
I believe the vast majority of people who own guns have never fired >>>>>>>> one for protection. I definately fall into that category. I hope I >>>>>>>> never have to fire one for protection.
most "safety" devices are not used because one plans
on using them, quit the opposite in fact. But according to Frankie's
theories military flyers are cowards because they wear a parachute. >>>>>>
B) Military flying is far, far more hazardous than riding a bike,
including riding a bike on a dead flat suburban bike trail.
Yet more evidence of "dumbrosky's" lack of knowledge.
From the web:
How often do fighter pilots eject from a jet during flight
Today it's minimal - a handful Navy wide per year. In the 80's when I
started flying the odds of a severe mishap were about 6 per 100,000
flight hours.
Bicycle deaths seem to e measured in 100's per month.
On 7/8/2025 11:13 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/8/2025 9:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:57:06 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:46:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 7:59 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 14:14:30 -0400, Catrike RyderA) You had promised to stop reading my posts!
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 10:48:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 7:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 12:42:07 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig- >>>>>>>>>> mantel.de>
wrote:
Am 06.07.2025 um 18:30 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
There's a small benefit to carrying a gun, but there's zero >>>>>>>>>>>> detriments.
There's "zero detriment" only for people who regularly use >>>>>>>>>>> guns anyways.
If a rookie sees the need to carry a gun for cycling, they >>>>>>>>>>> first have to
buy a gun (which implies filling the paperwork needed, which >>>>>>>>>>> implies
getting the necessary licences if needed). Then they have to >>>>>>>>>>> spend lots
of hours training to use a gun which they might prefer
spending on
bicycling.
+1
Absolutely true... and for those who are afraid of guns, the >>>>>>>>>> detriments are huge.
For those who are simply uninterested in guns, or who are
insufficiently
fearful, the detriments outweigh the minuscule potential (but >>>>>>>>> unrealistic) benefits.
Like I said, "those who are afraid of guns, the detriments are >>>>>>>> huge."
But for me, I believe the detriments are zero, so unless someone >>>>>>>> convinces me otherwise, I will continue to carry a gun on my bike >>>>>>>> rides.
Everyone must weigh the benefits and detriments (I prefer to call >>>>>>>> that
"pros and cons") for themselves.
And almost all who are fearful enough to want a gun for a bike ride >>>>>>>>> would admit they have never used its "protection," if they were >>>>>>>>> being
honest.
I believe the vast majority of people who own guns have never fired >>>>>>>> one for protection. I definately fall into that category. I hope I >>>>>>>> never have to fire one for protection.
most "safety" devices are not used because one plans
on using them, quit the opposite in fact. But according to
Frankie's
theories military flyers are cowards because they wear a parachute. >>>>>>
B) Military flying is far, far more hazardous than riding a bike,
including riding a bike on a dead flat suburban bike trail.
I'm sure you can recount incidents where a military flyer made use of >>>>>> his parachute. But in years of discussion of Mr. Tricycle's fear of >>>>>> riding without his gun, nobody seems to have posted an account of a >>>>>> single successful defensive use of a gun by a bicyclist.
you want personal anecdotes? Really?
Oh please! You used your personal anecdote to justify always carrying
a handgun when you ride. You told us of your terror when some bum tore
your jacket. Now you're always ready to kill potential jacket tearers.
Oh, and you never documented that anecdote. You don't meet your own
standards.
In fact, John, I'd bet you (almost?) never carried a handgun for
defense
when you rode your bikes. Am I wrong?
And what does my carrying a gun or not have with the legal right to
carry a gun. Or to put it another way if it is legal why shouldn't one >>>> do it?
Because the rabid proliferation of guns in America has led to insane
death counts. And because refusing to ride without a gun is a sign of
cowardice.
Admit it, Mr. Tricycle Rider is far more timid than you ever were.
You're so passionate about guns, you won't even admit that you didn't
feel any need to ride with one. Your own behavior belies your arguments. >>>
Oh, and thanks for reading, John! ;-)
With a small amount of self awareness, one might note that 'some bad
things involve firearms' does not mean that 'all firearms are bad'.
Of course. And there's never been a time I've claimed that all firearms
are bad.
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 16:09:35 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:13:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:31 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 8 Jul 2025 09:17:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>No he was noting the ubiquitous of it, he probably does this ride
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:25:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 3:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
You keep using that term "insufficiently fearful" and yet had to >>>>>>>>> prepare yoursely to ride through Youngstown because it is largely minorities.
As Zen frequently says about your nonsense posts: No matter how many >>>>>>>> times you repeat that, it will never be true.
More briefly: Give a link to the post where you claim I said that. If >>>>>>>> you can't, then stop lying about it.
Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to visit >>>>>>> a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!> >>>>>>> ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of >>>>>>> other races living there.
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That doesn?t say or rather mean what you think it does! It?s a joke, as >>>>>> it?s such a non issue!
Roger Merriman
I know exactly whay it means. It means that he believes there is
something unique about riding through a non-white neighborhood. That >>>>> tells me quit a bit about what kind of a person he is.
frequently its just normal.
Kinda proving that youre missing the point.
We're corresponding with a man who admits to avoiding contact with
almost all other people. He's so deficient in normal human interactions >>>that he can't recognize jokes, sarcasm, etc.
I long ago recognized Krygowski as a bigot because a bigot is someone
who in intolerant of anyone who does not believe, act, and do things
as he prefers.
Some time ago, I began to wonder if his bigotry extended to racist
bigotry when he made up an story about some gated condo guy telling
him that he shouldn't ride through a black neighborhood. I believe
that the people who make up racist stories are usually the most racist >>themselves (see Al Sharpton and Jazmin Crocket)
When Krygowski posted the "people of other races" story, it became
clear that he is a bit of a racist. His implication is that riding
though the non-white neighborhood is something to make note of.
Those of us who regularly ride, work, live with, and hang out with
people of "other races" don't make note of things like that.
He'll probably respond with a made up anecdote about his black best
friend, but I'll have to see a couple of pictures before I believe
it...
Youngstown is a pretty diverse community. I wonder how many "people of >>other races" are members of his biking club.. of his church...
But the internet has "Francis R Krygowski Age 77" living at at 29
Ohio Ave, Poland, 44514 Ohio. Isn't this our very own
Frankie?
The population was 2,463 at the 2020 United States census.[4] A suburb
about 7 miles (11 km) south of Youngstown, Area Total
1.66 sq mi (4.29 km2)
On 7/8/2025 11:20 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/8/2025 9:28 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:28 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:59:39 -0400, Frank KrygowskiAnd as usual the fool ignores military, police, and all the others
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I see no realistic
reason for 30 rounds in either handguns or long guns.
that carry a pistol as part of their workday equipment that is
designed and manufactured with a large magazine.
You can't _seriously_ be thinking that any weapon useful for military
or police work should be legal for every thug on a street corner! You
_must_ be more intelligent than that!
Hardware and criminal acts are not the same thing.
There is hardware whose only practical use is criminal.
Besides which, every State has extensive categories of 'prohibitedYou've tossed that argument out dozens of times, as if lack of 100%
persons' who account for the greater bulk of firearms crime. And you
want more laws??
success means a law is worthless.
But breaking into bike shops is against the law. Yet bike shops still
get broken into, and some bike shop thefts are massive. Does that mean
we should remove laws prohibiting bike shop theft?
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 15:14:21 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 09:25:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 17:11:49 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:03:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how-rhode-island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons-ban-over-the-finish-line
I suggest that at least part of the problem is defining what an
assault rifle is. Big magazine? But there are 5 round magazines
availed for AR's. and if you rule "semi automatic and big magazines" >>>>then you outlaw most pistols :-}
Most self defense shootings use around 2 rounds. (I remember
Jeff Cooper said that in one of his books). So large magazines are
more suited for mass shootings... or for people with VERY small
penises.
No one uses 14 or 20 rounds to defend their home.
A six shot revolver is ample for a civilian. Or even a 7 shot >>>auto... or a shotgun....
[]'s
As if you'd know...
I live in Brazil. Here the risks are not imaginary...
[]'s
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no- >>>>>>> kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending both >>>>>> outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data
demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has a gun >>>>>> available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes
who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a
correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and >>>>> people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not >>>>> having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
I don't know about more or less ...
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've ignored
the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the
well-documented correlation between guns in the household and household
members being shot - usually by others in the home. The correlation is
strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using that
fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless.
The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you didn't bother to
read them.
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
On 7/8/2025 11:16 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/8/2025 9:16 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:32 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes
who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a
correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and >>>> people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not >>>> having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
The fundamental mathematical ignorance in those two paragraphs is
astonishing!
Not if one assumes the sample was skewed urban and possibly too small to
reflect overall conditions accurately.
No, Andrew, that's no excuse for the math failure. Do you really need
further explanation? If so, I can present an analogy:
Let's have a group of people jump off a 10' high roof, while another
group of people refuses to try that. Instead, they sit in a lawn chair
and watch.
Of those that jump, quite a few break a leg as a result. But most
jumpers do not break a leg.
Does this mean that jumping off a roof is no more likely to break a leg
than sitting in a lawn chair? Of course not! Subjecting oneself to the
risk leads to _more_ likelihood of injury, even if the chance of injury
is less than 50%.
IOW you don't need _all_ gun owners shot to prove there is an increased >chance of getting shot when you own a gun.
And the data's quite clear that gun owners are more likely to get shot,
even accounting for confounding factors like crime levels in
neighborhoods, age of owners, etc. etc.
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending both >>>>>>> outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data
demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has a gun >>>>>>> available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes >>>>>> who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a
correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and >>>>>> people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not >>>>>> having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
I don't know about more or less ...
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've ignored >>>> the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the
well-documented correlation between guns in the household and household >>>> members being shot - usually by others in the home. The correlation is >>>> strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using that
fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless.
The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you didn't bother to
read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I listed.... here's
some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs in the home?
How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with criminals?
How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children could play with
them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way to kill
themselves?
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 04:14:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending both >>>>>>>> outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data >>>>>>>> demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has a gun >>>>>>>> available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes >>>>>>> who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and >>>>>>> people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not >>>>>>> having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
I don't know about more or less ...
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've ignored >>>>> the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the
well-documented correlation between guns in the household and household >>>>> members being shot - usually by others in the home. The correlation is >>>>> strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using that >>>>> fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless.
The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you didn't bother to >>>read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I listed.... here's
some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs in the home?
How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with criminals?
How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children could play with
them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way to kill
themselves?
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
NO! NO! NO!
Your factors must be ignored! Why to admit them to the discussion
would simply highlight Franky's lack (once again) of knowledge of the >subject.
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 21:14:42 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 15:14:21 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 09:25:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 17:11:49 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:03:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how-rhode-island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons-ban-over-the-finish-line
I suggest that at least part of the problem is defining what an
assault rifle is. Big magazine? But there are 5 round magazines
availed for AR's. and if you rule "semi automatic and big magazines" >>>>> then you outlaw most pistols :-}
Most self defense shootings use around 2 rounds. (I remember
Jeff Cooper said that in one of his books). So large magazines are
more suited for mass shootings... or for people with VERY small
penises.
No one uses 14 or 20 rounds to defend their home.
A six shot revolver is ample for a civilian. Or even a 7 shot
auto... or a shotgun....
[]'s
As if you'd know...
I live in Brazil. Here the risks are not imaginary...
[]'s
Irrelevent response
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 03:06:06 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 04:14:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending both >>>>>>>>> outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data >>>>>>>>> demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes >>>>>>>> who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and >>>>>>>> people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not >>>>>>>> having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
I don't know about more or less ...
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've ignored >>>>>> the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the
well-documented correlation between guns in the household and household >>>>>> members being shot - usually by others in the home. The correlation is >>>>>> strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using that >>>>>> fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless.
The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you didn't bother to >>>>read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I listed.... here's >>>some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs in the home?
How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with criminals?
How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children could play with >>>them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way to kill >>>themselves?
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
NO! NO! NO!
Your factors must be ignored! Why to admit them to the discussion
would simply highlight Franky's lack (once again) of knowledge of the >>subject.
The people who conducted the "studies" told what the "correct"
conclusions were. Krygowski nodded his head in approval and repeated
it here on Usenet.
After all, he says in his illogical ignorance... "The correlation is
strong enough that it should be beyond doubt."
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending both >>>>>>> outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data
demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has a gun >>>>>>> available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes >>>>>> who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a
correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and >>>>>> people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not >>>>>> having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
I don't know about more or less ...
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've ignored >>>> the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the
well-documented correlation between guns in the household and household >>>> members being shot - usually by others in the home. The correlation is >>>> strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using that
fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless.
The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you didn't bother to
read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I listed.... here's
some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs in the home?
How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with criminals?
How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children could play with
them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way to kill
themselves?
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger
On 7/9/2025 3:13 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 21:14:42 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 15:14:21 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 09:25:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 17:11:49 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:03:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how-rhode-island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons-ban-over-the-finish-line
I suggest that at least part of the problem is defining what an
assault rifle is. Big magazine? But there are 5 round magazines
availed for AR's. and if you rule "semi automatic and big magazines" >>>>>> then you outlaw most pistols :-}
Most self defense shootings use around 2 rounds. (I remember
Jeff Cooper said that in one of his books). So large magazines are
more suited for mass shootings... or for people with VERY small
penises.
No one uses 14 or 20 rounds to defend their home.
A six shot revolver is ample for a civilian. Or even a 7 shot
auto... or a shotgun....
[]'s
As if you'd know...
I live in Brazil. Here the risks are not imaginary...
[]'s
Irrelevent response
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It's quite relevant to an older retired Brasilian!
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:57:06 -0400,floriduh dumbass
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:46:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 7:59 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 14:14:30 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 10:48:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 7:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 12:42:07 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> >>>>>>> wrote:
Am 06.07.2025 um 18:30 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
There's a small benefit to carrying a gun, but there's zero
detriments.
There's "zero detriment" only for people who regularly use guns anyways.
If a rookie sees the need to carry a gun for cycling, they first have to
buy a gun (which implies filling the paperwork needed, which implies >>>>>>>> getting the necessary licences if needed). Then they have to spend lots
of hours training to use a gun which they might prefer spending on >>>>>>>> bicycling.
+1
Absolutely true... and for those who are afraid of guns, the
detriments are huge.
For those who are simply uninterested in guns, or who are insufficiently >>>>>> fearful, the detriments outweigh the minuscule potential (but
unrealistic) benefits.
Like I said, "those who are afraid of guns, the detriments are huge." >>>>>
But for me, I believe the detriments are zero, so unless someone
convinces me otherwise, I will continue to carry a gun on my bike
rides.
Everyone must weigh the benefits and detriments (I prefer to call that >>>>> "pros and cons") for themselves.
And almost all who are fearful enough to want a gun for a bike ride >>>>>> would admit they have never used its "protection," if they were being >>>>>> honest.
I believe the vast majority of people who own guns have never fired
one for protection. I definately fall into that category. I hope I
never have to fire one for protection.
most "safety" devices are not used because one plans
on using them, quit the opposite in fact. But according to Frankie's >>>> theories military flyers are cowards because they wear a parachute.
A) You had promised to stop reading my posts!
B) Military flying is far, far more hazardous than riding a bike,
including riding a bike on a dead flat suburban bike trail.
I'm sure you can recount incidents where a military flyer made use of
his parachute. But in years of discussion of Mr. Tricycle's fear of
riding without his gun, nobody seems to have posted an account of a
single successful defensive use of a gun by a bicyclist.
you want personal anecdotes? Really?
In fact, John, I'd bet you (almost?) never carried a handgun for defense >>> when you rode your bikes. Am I wrong?
Krygowski believes undocumented personal anecdotes are an acceptable
way to argue.
On 7/8/2025 9:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:57:06 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:46:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 7:59 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 14:14:30 -0400, Catrike RyderA) You had promised to stop reading my posts!
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 10:48:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 7:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 12:42:07 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig- >>>>>>>>> mantel.de>
wrote:
Am 06.07.2025 um 18:30 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
There's a small benefit to carrying a gun, but there's zero >>>>>>>>>>> detriments.
There's "zero detriment" only for people who regularly use >>>>>>>>>> guns anyways.
If a rookie sees the need to carry a gun for cycling, they >>>>>>>>>> first have to
buy a gun (which implies filling the paperwork needed, which >>>>>>>>>> implies
getting the necessary licences if needed). Then they have to >>>>>>>>>> spend lots
of hours training to use a gun which they might prefer
spending on
bicycling.
+1
Absolutely true... and for those who are afraid of guns, the >>>>>>>>> detriments are huge.
For those who are simply uninterested in guns, or who are
insufficiently
fearful, the detriments outweigh the minuscule potential (but
unrealistic) benefits.
Like I said, "those who are afraid of guns, the detriments are
huge."
But for me, I believe the detriments are zero, so unless someone >>>>>>> convinces me otherwise, I will continue to carry a gun on my bike >>>>>>> rides.
Everyone must weigh the benefits and detriments (I prefer to call >>>>>>> that
"pros and cons") for themselves.
And almost all who are fearful enough to want a gun for a bike ride >>>>>>>> would admit they have never used its "protection," if they were >>>>>>>> being
honest.
I believe the vast majority of people who own guns have never fired >>>>>>> one for protection. I definately fall into that category. I hope I >>>>>>> never have to fire one for protection.
most "safety" devices are not used because one plans
on using them, quit the opposite in fact. But according to
Frankie's
theories military flyers are cowards because they wear a parachute. >>>>>
B) Military flying is far, far more hazardous than riding a bike,
including riding a bike on a dead flat suburban bike trail.
I'm sure you can recount incidents where a military flyer made use of >>>>> his parachute. But in years of discussion of Mr. Tricycle's fear of
riding without his gun, nobody seems to have posted an account of a
single successful defensive use of a gun by a bicyclist.
you want personal anecdotes? Really?
Oh please! You used your personal anecdote to justify always carrying
a handgun when you ride. You told us of your terror when some bum tore
your jacket. Now you're always ready to kill potential jacket tearers.
Oh, and you never documented that anecdote. You don't meet your own
standards.
In fact, John, I'd bet you (almost?) never carried a handgun for
defense
when you rode your bikes. Am I wrong?
And what does my carrying a gun or not have with the legal right to
carry a gun. Or to put it another way if it is legal why shouldn't one
do it?
Because the rabid proliferation of guns in America has led to insane
death counts. And because refusing to ride without a gun is a sign of
cowardice.
Admit it, Mr. Tricycle Rider is far more timid than you ever were.
You're so passionate about guns, you won't even admit that you didn't
feel any need to ride with one. Your own behavior belies your arguments.
Oh, and thanks for reading, John! ;-)
With a small amount of self awareness, one might note that 'some bad
things involve firearms' does not mean that 'all firearms are bad'.
Exactly as your average US automobile pilot, who has seen cyclists run
red lights and ride wrong way, concludes 'all cyclists are bad'.
Some discernment might lead to better conclusions.
On 7/9/2025 3:14 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending both >>>>>>>> outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data >>>>>>>> demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has a gun >>>>>>>> available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes >>>>>>> who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and >>>>>>> people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not >>>>>>> having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
I don't know about more or less ...
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've ignored >>>>> the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the
well-documented correlation between guns in the household and household >>>>> members being shot - usually by others in the home. The correlation is >>>>> strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using that >>>>> fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless.
The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you didn't bother to
read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I listed.... here's
some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs in the home?
How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with criminals?
How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children could play with
them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way to kill
themselves?
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger
Moreover, how many were lawfully owned? That is how many
were stolen or in possession of prohibited persons?
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 16:09:35 -0400, floriduh dumbass
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:13:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:31 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 8 Jul 2025 09:17:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>No he was noting the ubiquitous of it, he probably does this ride
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:25:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 3:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
You keep using that term "insufficiently fearful" and yet had to >>>>>>>>> prepare yoursely to ride through Youngstown because it is largely minorities.
As Zen frequently says about your nonsense posts: No matter how many >>>>>>>> times you repeat that, it will never be true.
More briefly: Give a link to the post where you claim I said that. If >>>>>>>> you can't, then stop lying about it.
Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to visit >>>>>>> a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!> >>>>>>> ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of >>>>>>> other races living there.
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That doesn?t say or rather mean what you think it does! It?s a joke, as >>>>>> it?s such a non issue!
Roger Merriman
I know exactly whay it means. It means that he believes there is
something unique about riding through a non-white neighborhood. That >>>>> tells me quit a bit about what kind of a person he is.
frequently it’s just normal.
Kinda proving that you’re missing the point.
We're corresponding with a man who admits to avoiding contact with
almost all other people. He's so deficient in normal human interactions
that he can't recognize jokes, sarcasm, etc.
I long ago recognized Krygowski as a bigot because a bigot is someone
who in intolerant of anyone who does not believe, act, and do things
as he prefers.
Some time ago, I began to wonder if his bigotry extended to racist
bigotry when he made up an story about some gated condo guy telling
him that he shouldn't ride through a black neighborhood. I believe
that the people who make up racist stories are usually the most racist
themselves (see Al Sharpton and Jazmin Crocket)
When Krygowski posted the "people of other races" story, it became
clear that he is a bit of a racist. His implication is that riding
though the non-white neighborhood is something to make note of.
Those of us who regularly ride, work, live with, and hang out with
people of "other races" don't make note of things like that.
He'll probably respond with a made up anecdote about his black best
friend, but I'll have to see a couple of pictures before I believe
it...
Youngstown is a pretty diverse community. I wonder how many "people of
other races" are members of his biking club.. of his church...
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 16:09:35 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:13:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:31 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 8 Jul 2025 09:17:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>No he was noting the ubiquitous of it, he probably does this ride
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:25:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 3:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
You keep using that term "insufficiently fearful" and yet had to >>>>>>>>> prepare yoursely to ride through Youngstown because it is largely minorities.
As Zen frequently says about your nonsense posts: No matter how many >>>>>>>> times you repeat that, it will never be true.
More briefly: Give a link to the post where you claim I said that. If >>>>>>>> you can't, then stop lying about it.
Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to visit >>>>>>> a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!> >>>>>>> ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of >>>>>>> other races living there.
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That doesn?t say or rather mean what you think it does! It?s a joke, as >>>>>> it?s such a non issue!
Roger Merriman
I know exactly whay it means. It means that he believes there is
something unique about riding through a non-white neighborhood. That >>>>> tells me quit a bit about what kind of a person he is.
frequently it’s just normal.
Kinda proving that you’re missing the point.
We're corresponding with a man who admits to avoiding contact with
almost all other people. He's so deficient in normal human interactions
that he can't recognize jokes, sarcasm, etc.
I long ago recognized Krygowski as a bigot because a bigot is someone
who in intolerant of anyone who does not believe, act, and do things
as he prefers.
Some time ago, I began to wonder if his bigotry extended to racist
bigotry when he made up an story about some gated condo guy telling
him that he shouldn't ride through a black neighborhood. I believe
that the people who make up racist stories are usually the most racist
themselves (see Al Sharpton and Jazmin Crocket)
When Krygowski posted the "people of other races" story, it became
clear that he is a bit of a racist. His implication is that riding
though the non-white neighborhood is something to make note of.
Those of us who regularly ride, work, live with, and hang out with
people of "other races" don't make note of things like that.
He'll probably respond with a made up anecdote about his black best
friend, but I'll have to see a couple of pictures before I believe
it...
Youngstown is a pretty diverse community. I wonder how many "people of
other races" are members of his biking club.. of his church...
But the internet has "Francis R Krygowski Age 77" living at at 29
Ohio Ave, Poland, 44514 Ohio. Isn't this our very own
Frankie?
The population was 2,463 at the 2020 United States census.[4] A suburb
about 7 miles (11 km) south of Youngstown, Area • Total
1.66 sq mi (4.29 km2)
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 16:09:35 -0400, floriduh dumbass
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:13:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:31 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 8 Jul 2025 09:17:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>>No he was noting the ubiquitous of it, he probably does this ride
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:25:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 3:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
You keep using that term "insufficiently fearful" and yet had to >>>>>>>>>> prepare yoursely to ride through Youngstown because it is largely minorities.
As Zen frequently says about your nonsense posts: No matter how many >>>>>>>>> times you repeat that, it will never be true.
More briefly: Give a link to the post where you claim I said that. If >>>>>>>>> you can't, then stop lying about it.
Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to visit >>>>>>>> a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!> >>>>>>>> ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of >>>>>>>> other races living there.
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That doesn?t say or rather mean what you think it does! It?s a joke, as >>>>>>> it?s such a non issue!
Roger Merriman
I know exactly whay it means. It means that he believes there is
something unique about riding through a non-white neighborhood. That >>>>>> tells me quit a bit about what kind of a person he is.
frequently its just normal.
Kinda proving that youre missing the point.
We're corresponding with a man who admits to avoiding contact with
almost all other people. He's so deficient in normal human interactions >>>> that he can't recognize jokes, sarcasm, etc.
I long ago recognized Krygowski as a bigot because a bigot is someone
who in intolerant of anyone who does not believe, act, and do things
as he prefers.
Some time ago, I began to wonder if his bigotry extended to racist
bigotry when he made up an story about some gated condo guy telling
him that he shouldn't ride through a black neighborhood. I believe
that the people who make up racist stories are usually the most racist
themselves (see Al Sharpton and Jazmin Crocket)
When Krygowski posted the "people of other races" story, it became
clear that he is a bit of a racist. His implication is that riding
though the non-white neighborhood is something to make note of.
Those of us who regularly ride, work, live with, and hang out with
people of "other races" don't make note of things like that.
Undocumented anecdote duly noted and dismissed as an undocumented
anecdote, likely contrived, and more likely untrue.
He'll probably respond with a made up anecdote about his black best
friend, but I'll have to see a couple of pictures before I believe
it...
Youngstown is a pretty diverse community. I wonder how many "people of
other races" are members of his biking club.. of his church...
Tell us about your alleged 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' friends,
you lying sack of shit.
On 7/9/2025 3:14 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester- >>>>>>>>> killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-
suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar
situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending >>>>>>>> both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data >>>>>>>> demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has >>>>>>>> a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes >>>>>>> who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their
home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests
that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
I don't know about more or less ...
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've ignored >>>>> the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the
well-documented correlation between guns in the household and
household
members being shot - usually by others in the home. The correlation is >>>>> strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using that >>>>> fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless.
The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you didn't bother to
read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I listed.... here's
some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs in the home?
How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with criminals?
How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children could play with
them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way to kill
themselves?
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger
On 7/9/2025 3:14 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester- >>>>>>>>> killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-
suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar
situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending >>>>>>>> both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data >>>>>>>> demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has >>>>>>>> a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes >>>>>>> who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their
home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests
that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
I don't know about more or less ...
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've ignored >>>>> the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the
well-documented correlation between guns in the household and
household
members being shot - usually by others in the home. The correlation is >>>>> strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using that >>>>> fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless.
The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you didn't bother to
read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I listed.... here's
some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs in the home?
How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with criminals?
How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children could play with
them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way to kill
themselves?
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger
Moreover, how many were lawfully owned? That is how many were stolen or
in possession of prohibited persons?
On 7/7/2025 7:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/7/2025 8:11 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:03:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:And why does your pistol need more than five rounds? What are the
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how- rhode-
island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons- ban-over-the-
finish-line
I suggest that at least part of the problem is defining what an
assault rifle is. Big magazine? But there are 5 round magazines
availed for AR's. and if you rule "semi automatic and big magazines"
then you outlaw most pistols :-}
benefits vs. detriments?
Benefits seem to be "I won't have to reload as much." Detriments
include "A user can blow away a lot more innocent people."
I can accept five or six rounds as a compromise. I see no realistic
reason for 30 rounds in either handguns or long guns.
People more familiar than you with firearms overwhelmingly buy 20 and 30 round models. They are ubiquitous, cheap and plentiful because that's
what people want.
Then again some people think they need to be fashionable with more than
one gear on their bicycle. And some of them _coast_!
On 7/9/2025 3:14 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester- >>>>>>>>>> killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery- >>>>>>>>>> suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar
situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending >>>>>>>>> both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data >>>>>>>>> demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has >>>>>>>>> a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes >>>>>>>> who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their
home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests
that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
I don't know about more or less ...
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've ignored >>>>>> the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the
well-documented correlation between guns in the household and
household
members being shot - usually by others in the home. The correlation is >>>>>> strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using that >>>>>> fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless.
The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you didn't bother to >>>> read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I listed.... here's
some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs in the home?
How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with criminals?
How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children could play with
them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way to kill
themselves?
Gee, dumbass, if you had read the studies you might have seen what
factors were accounted for.
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
and irony meters all over the internet explode.
--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger
As you've aptly demonstrated: never. When that time comes where you feel
the need to pull you gun on someone on the bike path (maybe for having
the audacity to stop you to ask about your trike), and that person grabs
it from your feeble old hands, pistol whips you with it, and steals it
it, you'll still think carrying the gun was a good idea. _you_, will
never learn.
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 16:20:46 -0400, floriduh dumbass
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:28:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:28 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:59:39 -0400, Frank KrygowskiAnd as usual the fool ignores military, police, and all the others
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I see no realistic
reason for 30 rounds in either handguns or long guns.
that carry a pistol as part of their workday equipment that is
designed and manufactured with a large magazine.
You can't _seriously_ be thinking that any weapon useful for military or >>> police work should be legal for every thug on a street corner! You
_must_ be more intelligent than that!
Strawman alert...
On 7/9/2025 8:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/9/2025 3:14 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-
mourn-protester- killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-
robbery- suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many
dissimilar situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking.
It's pretending both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several
studies whose data
demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get
shot if he has a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns
in their homes
who don't get shot than those who do. That means
that there is a
correlation between the number of people having guns
in their home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that
suggests that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to
get shot.
I don't know about more or less ...
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that
means you've ignored
the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to
understand the
well-documented correlation between guns in the
household and household
members being shot - usually by others in the home.
The correlation is
strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member.
But using that
fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely
senseless.
The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you
didn't bother to
read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I
listed.... here's
some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs in
the home?
How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with
criminals?
How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children
could play with
them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way
to kill
themselves?
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger
Moreover, how many were lawfully owned? That is how many
were stolen or in possession of prohibited persons?
Why would that be relevant? a significant number of people
believe there should be no restrictions on gun ownership. In
their minds, there is no such thing as an unlawful gun or a
'prohibited person'.
On 7/9/2025 3:13 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 21:14:42 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 15:14:21 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 09:25:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 17:11:49 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:03:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how-rhode-
island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons-ban-over-the-
finish-line
I suggest that at least part of the problem is defining what an
assault rifle is. Big magazine? But there are 5 round magazines
availed for AR's. and if you rule "semi automatic and big magazines" >>>>>> then you outlaw most pistols :-}
Most self defense shootings use around 2 rounds. (I remember >>>>> Jeff Cooper said that in one of his books). So large magazines are
more suited for mass shootings... or for people with VERY small
penises.
No one uses 14 or 20 rounds to defend their home.
A six shot revolver is ample for a civilian. Or even a 7 shot >>>>> auto... or a shotgun....
[]'s
As if you'd know...
I live in Brazil. Here the risks are not imaginary...
[]'s
Irrelevent response
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It's quite relevant to an older retired Brasilian!
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:33:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 3:05 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jul 6 12:07:34 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
Some people are much more fearful than others.
So that is why you had to be prepared to ride through Youngstown.
As I've said, my preparation was a pump, patch kit, water bottle and
jacket.
What, no pump action shotgun loaded with buckshot?
Oh, the risks!!!
[]'s
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 03:06:06 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 04:14:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending both >>>>>>>>> outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data >>>>>>>>> demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes >>>>>>>> who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and >>>>>>>> people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not >>>>>>>> having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
I don't know about more or less ...
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've ignored >>>>>> the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the
well-documented correlation between guns in the household and household >>>>>> members being shot - usually by others in the home. The correlation is >>>>>> strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using that >>>>>> fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless.
The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you didn't bother to >>>>read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I listed.... here's >>>some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs in the home?
How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with criminals?
How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children could play with >>>them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way to kill >>>themselves?
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
NO! NO! NO!
Your factors must be ignored! Why to admit them to the discussion
would simply highlight Franky's lack (once again) of knowledge of the >>subject.
The people who conducted the "studies" told what the "correct"
conclusions were. Krygowski nodded his head in approval and repeated
it here on Usenet.
After ll, he says in his illogical ignorance... "The correlation is
sng enough that it should be beyond doubt."
On 7/9/2025 8:59 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 7/9/2025 8:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/9/2025 3:14 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family- mourn-
protester- killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots- robbery- >>>>>>>>>>> suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar >>>>>>>>>>> situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's
pretending both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data >>>>>>>>>> demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he >>>>>>>>>> has a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their >>>>>>>>> homes
who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their >>>>>>>>> home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests >>>>>>>>> that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
I don't know about more or less ...
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've
ignored
the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the
well-documented correlation between guns in the household and
household
members being shot - usually by others in the home. The
correlation is
strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using >>>>>>> that
fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless.
The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you didn't bother to >>>>> read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I listed.... here's >>>> some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs in the home?
How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with criminals?
How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children could play with
them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way to kill
themselves?
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger
Moreover, how many were lawfully owned? That is how many were stolen
or in possession of prohibited persons?
Why would that be relevant? a significant number of people believe
there should be no restrictions on gun ownership. In their minds,
there is no such thing as an unlawful gun or a 'prohibited person'.
Yes there are such advocates. And yet Statutes remain unchanged.
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 08:18:40 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 03:06:06 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 04:14:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data >>>>>>>>>> demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes >>>>>>>>> who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
I don't know about more or less ...
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've ignored >>>>>>> the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the
well-documented correlation between guns in the household and household >>>>>>> members being shot - usually by others in the home. The correlation is >>>>>>> strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using that >>>>>>> fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless.
The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you didn't bother to >>>>>read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I listed.... here's >>>>some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs in the home?
How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with criminals?
How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children could play with >>>>them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way to kill >>>>themselves?
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
NO! NO! NO!
Your factors must be ignored! Why to admit them to the discussion
would simply highlight Franky's lack (once again) of knowledge of the >>>subject.
The people who conducted the "studies" told what the "correct"
conclusions were. Krygowski nodded his head in approval and repeated
it here on Usenet.
After ll, he says in his illogical ignorance... "The correlation is
sng enough that it should be beyond doubt."
I fid it strange that my family kept guns in the house for generations
with no problems and we weren't unique as I'd say that most the
families in my town did as well, and my knowledge comes from being
there and seeing it.
And now we have a chap who's experience, from his own posts, consist
of shooting a .22 a couple of times, and is telling all the details of
size, shape and caliber, we need to defend our home.
I guess e must be one of them "professor" people that run about
professing to know what they are talking about.
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 08:18:40 -0400, floriduh dumbass
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 03:06:06 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 04:14:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data >>>>>>>>>> demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes >>>>>>>>> who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
I don't know about more or less ...
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've ignored >>>>>>> the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the
well-documented correlation between guns in the household and household >>>>>>> members being shot - usually by others in the home. The correlation is >>>>>>> strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using that >>>>>>> fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless.
The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you didn't bother to >>>>> read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I listed.... here's >>>> some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs in the home?
How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with criminals?
How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children could play with
them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way to kill
themselves?
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
NO! NO! NO!
Your factors must be ignored! Why to admit them to the discussion
would simply highlight Franky's lack (once again) of knowledge of the
subject.
The people who conducted the "studies" told what the "correct"
conclusions were.
Krygowski nodded his head in approval and repeated
it here on Usenet.
After ll, he says in his illogical ignorance... "The correlation is
sng enough that it should be beyond doubt."
I fid it strange that my family kept guns in the house for generations
with no problems and we weren't unique as I'd say that most the
families in my town did as well, and my knowledge comes from being
there and seeing it.
And now we have a chap who's experience, from his own posts, consist
of shooting a .22 a couple of times,
and is telling all the details of
size, shape and caliber, we need to defend our home.
I guess e must be one of them "professor" people that run about
professing to know what they are talking about.
On 7/8/2025 11:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/8/2025 9:26 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/7/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/7/2025 7:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I can accept five or six rounds as a compromise. I see
no realistic reason for 30 rounds in either handguns or
long guns.
People more familiar than you with firearms
overwhelmingly buy 20 and 30 round models. They are
ubiquitous, cheap and plentiful because that's what
people want.
"That's what people want." IOW, "That's the fashion."
Sorry, that's really, really weak. In some neighborhoods,
"what they want" are auto-sears and, practically
speaking, machine guns. Yet you seem to dislike those
fashionable features.
Why? I suspect it's because you view the disadvantages of
full-auto in public hands to be greater than the
advantages. Just as I view 30 round magazines in semi-autos.
Would you address the snipped comments and then defend
benefits of 2x12 versus 3x7 gearing with such a large
price differential? Extra points for defending coasting
on your bike.
As we've discussed, "snipping" has long been considered
proper Usenet etiquette, to respond only to certain portions
of a post. That's true even though it seems to now be out of
"fashion."
But if you insist: I found your remarks on gearing
irrelevant, because fashionable choices of bike gears (or
coasting) have no detrimental effect on any other person.
OTOH, the fashionable choice of large magazines (and gun
proliferation) has had large societal detriments. We're
spending lots of tax money to station law enforcement in
every school, plus harden entrances, install metal
detectors, etc. The last two concerts I attended had me
scanned with detector wands. All those measures were never
considered necessary before punks began blasting away at
innocents using dozens of rounds.
There's also been the increase in police expenses - body
armor, more powerful guns, etc. - for their defense in
shoot-outs. We're all paying for those measures, but why? So
punks can have fun shooting fast?
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 07:42:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/9/2025 3:13 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 21:14:42 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 15:14:21 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 09:25:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 17:11:49 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:03:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>>
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how-rhode-island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons-ban-over-the-finish-line
I suggest that at least part of the problem is defining what an
assault rifle is. Big magazine? But there are 5 round magazines
availed for AR's. and if you rule "semi automatic and big magazines" >>>>>>> then you outlaw most pistols :-}
Most self defense shootings use around 2 rounds. (I remember
Jeff Cooper said that in one of his books). So large magazines are >>>>>> more suited for mass shootings... or for people with VERY small
penises.
No one uses 14 or 20 rounds to defend their home.
A six shot revolver is ample for a civilian. Or even a 7 shot
auto... or a shotgun....
[]'s
As if you'd know...
I live in Brazil. Here the risks are not imaginary...
[]'s
Irrelevent response
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It's quite relevant to an older retired Brasilian!
Ot doesn't address his qualifications to advise on how many rounds is >"ample."
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 09:26:41 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 07:42:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/9/2025 3:13 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 21:14:42 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 15:14:21 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 09:25:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 17:11:49 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:03:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how-rhode-island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons-ban-over-the-finish-line
I suggest that at least part of the problem is defining what an >>>>>>>> assault rifle is. Big magazine? But there are 5 round magazines >>>>>>>> availed for AR's. and if you rule "semi automatic and big magazines" >>>>>>>> then you outlaw most pistols :-}
Most self defense shootings use around 2 rounds. (I remember >>>>>>> Jeff Cooper said that in one of his books). So large magazines are >>>>>>> more suited for mass shootings... or for people with VERY small
penises.
No one uses 14 or 20 rounds to defend their home.
A six shot revolver is ample for a civilian. Or even a 7 shot >>>>>>> auto... or a shotgun....
[]'s
As if you'd know...
I live in Brazil. Here the risks are not imaginary...
[]'s
Irrelevent response
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It's quite relevant to an older retired Brasilian!
Ot doesn't address his qualifications to advise on how many rounds is >>"ample."
Well, Jeff Cooper wrote the book almost 50 years ago. There
was almost a "welfare state"in the US, so the police were well trained
and well paid.
Come the 80's and 90's police were considered a necessary
nuisance by right wingers. Low salaries, people hired with not much
training and rudimentary psychological evaluations. The number of
rounds fired rose to "over 4".
And now with practically NO training (I honestly think they
"study" watching westerns) the AVERAGE is over 7 rounds fired. Most
don't go anywhere near the target, some hit innocent people. A lot are >overkills. like over 20 shots into an unarmed man...
Look it up.
I load my revolver with 5 rounds. I doubt I'll ever need to
fire more than 2. If two shots doesn't make a burglar leave, it's
because he's dead or I'm dead.
Unless I'm shooting up a school or a church, or course. Then
I'd go with a semi auto carbine with a 50 round magazine. It's what
they were designed for.
[]'s
On 7/8/2025 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 16:09:35 -0400, Catrike RyderWhere the flying fuck do you get off posting peoples addresses you
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:13:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:31 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 8 Jul 2025 09:17:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>>No he was noting the ubiquitous of it, he probably does this ride
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:25:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 3:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
You keep using that term "insufficiently fearful" and yet had to >>>>>>>>>> prepare yoursely to ride through Youngstown because it is largely minorities.
As Zen frequently says about your nonsense posts: No matter how many >>>>>>>>> times you repeat that, it will never be true.
More briefly: Give a link to the post where you claim I said that. If >>>>>>>>> you can't, then stop lying about it.
Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to visit >>>>>>>> a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!> >>>>>>>> ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of >>>>>>>> other races living there.
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That doesn?t say or rather mean what you think it does! It?s a joke, as >>>>>>> it?s such a non issue!
Roger Merriman
I know exactly whay it means. It means that he believes there is
something unique about riding through a non-white neighborhood. That >>>>>> tells me quit a bit about what kind of a person he is.
frequently its just normal.
Kinda proving that youre missing the point.
We're corresponding with a man who admits to avoiding contact with
almost all other people. He's so deficient in normal human interactions >>>> that he can't recognize jokes, sarcasm, etc.
I long ago recognized Krygowski as a bigot because a bigot is someone
who in intolerant of anyone who does not believe, act, and do things
as he prefers.
Some time ago, I began to wonder if his bigotry extended to racist
bigotry when he made up an story about some gated condo guy telling
him that he shouldn't ride through a black neighborhood. I believe
that the people who make up racist stories are usually the most racist
themselves (see Al Sharpton and Jazmin Crocket)
When Krygowski posted the "people of other races" story, it became
clear that he is a bit of a racist. His implication is that riding
though the non-white neighborhood is something to make note of.
Those of us who regularly ride, work, live with, and hang out with
people of "other races" don't make note of things like that.
He'll probably respond with a made up anecdote about his black best
friend, but I'll have to see a couple of pictures before I believe
it...
Youngstown is a pretty diverse community. I wonder how many "people of
other races" are members of his biking club.. of his church...
But the internet has " Age 77" living at at 29
Ohio Ave, Poland, 44514 Ohio. Isn't this our very own
Frankie?
The population was 2,463 at the 2020 United States census.[4] A suburb
about 7 miles (11 km) south of Youngstown, Area Total
1.66 sq mi (4.29 km2)
asshole? Go fuck yourself.
On 7/9/2025 3:14 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester- >>>>>>>>>> killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery- >>>>>>>>>> suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar
situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending >>>>>>>>> both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data >>>>>>>>> demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has >>>>>>>>> a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes >>>>>>>> who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their
home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests
that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
I don't know about more or less ...
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've ignored >>>>>> the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the
well-documented correlation between guns in the household and
household
members being shot - usually by others in the home. The correlation is >>>>>> strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using that >>>>>> fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless.
The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you didn't bother to >>>> read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I listed.... here's
some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs in the home?
How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with criminals?
How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children could play with
them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way to kill
themselves?
Gee, dumbass, if you had read the studies you might have seen what
factors were accounted for.
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
and irony meters all over the internet explode.
--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger
As you've aptly demonstrated: never. When that time comes where you feel
the need to pull you gun on someone on the bike path (maybe for having
the audacity to stop you to ask about your trike), and that person grabs
it from your feeble old hands, pistol whips you with it, and steals it
it, you'll still think carrying the gun was a good idea. _you_, will
never learn.
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 19:34:53 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 19:30:08 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 09:26:41 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 07:42:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/9/2025 3:13 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 21:14:42 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 15:14:21 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 09:25:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 17:11:49 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:03:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how-rhode-island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons-ban-over-the-finish-line
I suggest that at least part of the problem is defining what an >>>>>>>>>> assault rifle is. Big magazine? But there are 5 round magazines >>>>>>>>>> availed for AR's. and if you rule "semi automatic and big magazines" >>>>>>>>>> then you outlaw most pistols :-}
Most self defense shootings use around 2 rounds. (I remember >>>>>>>>> Jeff Cooper said that in one of his books). So large magazines are >>>>>>>>> more suited for mass shootings... or for people with VERY small >>>>>>>>> penises.
No one uses 14 or 20 rounds to defend their home.
A six shot revolver is ample for a civilian. Or even a 7 shot >>>>>>>>> auto... or a shotgun....
[]'s
As if you'd know...
I live in Brazil. Here the risks are not imaginary...
[]'s
Irrelevent response
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It's quite relevant to an older retired Brasilian!
Ot doesn't address his qualifications to advise on how many rounds is
"ample."
Well, Jeff Cooper wrote the book almost 50 years ago. There
was almost a "welfare state"in the US, so the police were well trained
and well paid.
Come the 80's and 90's police were considered a necessary
nuisance by right wingers. Low salaries, people hired with not much
training and rudimentary psychological evaluations. The number of
rounds fired rose to "over 4".
And now with practically NO training (I honestly think they
"study" watching westerns) the AVERAGE is over 7 rounds fired. Most
don't go anywhere near the target, some hit innocent people. A lot are
overkills. like over 20 shots into an unarmed man...
Look it up.
I load my revolver with 5 rounds. I doubt I'll ever need to
fire more than 2. If two shots doesn't make a burglar leave, it's
because he's dead or I'm dead.
Unless I'm shooting up a school or a church, or course. Then
I'd go with a semi auto carbine with a 50 round magazine. It's what
they were designed for.
[]'s
Sorry, I still don't believe you're qualified to advise on how many
rounds are "ample," so I'll decide that for myself.
I wonder why load a revolver (that holds 6 cartridges) with only 5
rounds? Is it thought to be safer?
--
cheers,
John B.
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 19:30:08 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 09:26:41 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 07:42:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/9/2025 3:13 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 21:14:42 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 15:14:21 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 09:25:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 17:11:49 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:03:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how-rhode-island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons-ban-over-the-finish-line
I suggest that at least part of the problem is defining what an >>>>>>>>> assault rifle is. Big magazine? But there are 5 round magazines >>>>>>>>> availed for AR's. and if you rule "semi automatic and big magazines" >>>>>>>>> then you outlaw most pistols :-}
Most self defense shootings use around 2 rounds. (I remember >>>>>>>> Jeff Cooper said that in one of his books). So large magazines are >>>>>>>> more suited for mass shootings... or for people with VERY small >>>>>>>> penises.
No one uses 14 or 20 rounds to defend their home.
A six shot revolver is ample for a civilian. Or even a 7 shot >>>>>>>> auto... or a shotgun....
[]'s
As if you'd know...
I live in Brazil. Here the risks are not imaginary...
[]'s
Irrelevent response
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It's quite relevant to an older retired Brasilian!
Ot doesn't address his qualifications to advise on how many rounds is >>>"ample."
Well, Jeff Cooper wrote the book almost 50 years ago. There
was almost a "welfare state"in the US, so the police were well trained
and well paid.
Come the 80's and 90's police were considered a necessary
nuisance by right wingers. Low salaries, people hired with not much >>training and rudimentary psychological evaluations. The number of
rounds fired rose to "over 4".
And now with practically NO training (I honestly think they
"study" watching westerns) the AVERAGE is over 7 rounds fired. Most
don't go anywhere near the target, some hit innocent people. A lot are >>overkills. like over 20 shots into an unarmed man...
Look it up.
I load my revolver with 5 rounds. I doubt I'll ever need to
fire more than 2. If two shots doesn't make a burglar leave, it's
because he's dead or I'm dead.
Unless I'm shooting up a school or a church, or course. Then
I'd go with a semi auto carbine with a 50 round magazine. It's what
they were designed for.
[]'s
Sorry, I still don't believe you're qualified to advise on how many
rounds are "ample," so I'll decide that for myself.
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:54:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/9/2025 3:14 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester- >>>>>>>>>>> killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery- >>>>>>>>>>> suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar >>>>>>>>>>> situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending >>>>>>>>>> both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data >>>>>>>>>> demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has >>>>>>>>>> a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes >>>>>>>>> who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their >>>>>>>>> home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests >>>>>>>>> that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
I don't know about more or less ...
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've ignored >>>>>>> the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the
well-documented correlation between guns in the household and
household
members being shot - usually by others in the home. The correlation is >>>>>>> strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using that >>>>>>> fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless.
The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you didn't bother to >>>>> read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I listed.... here's >>>> some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs in the home?
How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with criminals?
How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children could play with
them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way to kill
themselves?
Gee, dumbass, if you had read the studies you might have seen what
factors were accounted for.
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
and irony meters all over the internet explode.
--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger
As you've aptly demonstrated: never. When that time comes where you feel
the need to pull you gun on someone on the bike path (maybe for having
the audacity to stop you to ask about your trike), and that person grabs
it from your feeble old hands, pistol whips you with it, and steals it
it, you'll still think carrying the gun was a good idea. _you_, will
never learn.
Goodness gracious, is this a common happening? Strange that I've known
a number of people that carried a gun and the never reported the above happening,
Vivid imagination?
--
cheers,
John B.
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:54:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/9/2025 3:14 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester- >>>>>>>>>>> killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery- >>>>>>>>>>> suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar >>>>>>>>>>> situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending >>>>>>>>>> both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data >>>>>>>>>> demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has >>>>>>>>>> a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes >>>>>>>>> who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their >>>>>>>>> home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests >>>>>>>>> that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
I don't know about more or less ...
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've ignored >>>>>>> the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the
well-documented correlation between guns in the household and
household
members being shot - usually by others in the home. The correlation is >>>>>>> strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using that >>>>>>> fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless.
The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you didn't bother to >>>>> read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I listed.... here's >>>> some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs in the home?
How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with criminals?
How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children could play with
them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way to kill
themselves?
Gee, dumbass, if you had read the studies you might have seen what
factors were accounted for.
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
and irony meters all over the internet explode.
--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger
As you've aptly demonstrated: never. When that time comes where you feel >>the need to pull you gun on someone on the bike path (maybe for having
the audacity to stop you to ask about your trike), and that person grabs
it from your feeble old hands, pistol whips you with it, and steals it
it, you'll still think carrying the gun was a good idea. _you_, will
never learn.
Goodness gracious, is this a common happening? Strange that I've known
a number of people that carried a gun and the never reported the above >happening,
Vivid imagination?
On 7/9/2025 10:43 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 7/9/2025 10:15 AM, John "the asshole" B. wrote:
And now we have a chap who's experience, from his own posts, consist
of shooting a .22 a couple of times,
I believe frank has claimed more experience than that.
You're correct, and John is wrong, as usual. But it doesn't matter what
I claim, based on past practice by these gun fetishists.
John (like Tom) will forget what's been said within minutes. And our
timid tricycle rider will say it doesn't count unless I have a notarized
form to present as proof - in which case he'll switch to saying I'm
bragging.
and is telling all the details of
size, shape and caliber, we need to defend our home.
which has been agreed to by other in this forum, who have more extensive
experience...
Right. I was repeating what Andrew Muzi said about home defense. How odd
that John didn't leap into the fray back then and scold Andrew.
BTW, I wonder what guns John uses for home defense? Based on his posts,
it's almost certainly not an AR-style rifle. He defends them rabidly,
but apparently has never owned one, and perhaps never shot one.
In the past, the crickets have been his only response to such questions.
On 7/9/2025 8:51 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/9/2025 7:45 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:54:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
When that time comes where you feel
the need to pull you gun on someone on the bike path (maybe for having >>>> the audacity to stop you to ask about your trike), and that person grabs >>>> it from your feeble old hands, pistol whips you with it, and steals it >>>> it, you'll still think carrying the gun was a good idea. _you_, will
never learn.
Goodness gracious, is this a common happening? Strange that I've known
a number of people that carried a gun and the never reported the above
happening,
Vivid imagination?
As I recall, we've never heard of a person needing to pull a gun to ward
off someone on a bike path. ISTM that makes carrying that gun "just in
case" an example of paranoia based on a vivid imagination.
And ISTM that John's imagination was not that vivid. He apparently has
never carried a gun while cycling, let alone used one for self defense
while cycling. If he had, he'd have told us the lurid tale by now.
John's just so deep into his gun fetish that he hates any skepticism
about needing one while bicycling - even though he's never needed one
while bicycling. (And the one he did own was useless during the home
invasion he claims to have suffered.)
Well, yesterday for example:
https://abc7ny.com/post/pastor-bridgeport-ct-describes-armed-carjacking-
baltimore-was-surveillance-caught-video/17039508/
I think you meant to post that to a driving discussion group. We were
talking about riding bikes. That involved cars, not bikes.
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 19:34:53 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 19:30:08 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 09:26:41 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 07:42:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/9/2025 3:13 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 21:14:42 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 15:14:21 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 09:25:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 17:11:49 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:03:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how-rhode-island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons-ban-over-the-finish-line
I suggest that at least part of the problem is defining what an >>>>>>>>>> assault rifle is. Big magazine? But there are 5 round magazines >>>>>>>>>> availed for AR's. and if you rule "semi automatic and big magazines" >>>>>>>>>> then you outlaw most pistols :-}
Most self defense shootings use around 2 rounds. (I remember >>>>>>>>> Jeff Cooper said that in one of his books). So large magazines are >>>>>>>>> more suited for mass shootings... or for people with VERY small >>>>>>>>> penises.
No one uses 14 or 20 rounds to defend their home.
A six shot revolver is ample for a civilian. Or even a 7 shot >>>>>>>>> auto... or a shotgun....
[]'s
As if you'd know...
I live in Brazil. Here the risks are not imaginary...
[]'s
Irrelevent response
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It's quite relevant to an older retired Brasilian!
Ot doesn't address his qualifications to advise on how many rounds is >>>>"ample."
Well, Jeff Cooper wrote the book almost 50 years ago. There
was almost a "welfare state"in the US, so the police were well trained >>>and well paid.
Come the 80's and 90's police were considered a necessary
nuisance by right wingers. Low salaries, people hired with not much >>>training and rudimentary psychological evaluations. The number of
rounds fired rose to "over 4".
And now with practically NO training (I honestly think they
"study" watching westerns) the AVERAGE is over 7 rounds fired. Most >>>don't go anywhere near the target, some hit innocent people. A lot are >>>overkills. like over 20 shots into an unarmed man...
Look it up.
I load my revolver with 5 rounds. I doubt I'll ever need to
fire more than 2. If two shots doesn't make a burglar leave, it's
because he's dead or I'm dead.
Unless I'm shooting up a school or a church, or course. Then
I'd go with a semi auto carbine with a 50 round magazine. It's what
they were designed for.
[]'s
Sorry, I still don't believe you're qualified to advise on how many
rounds are "ample," so I'll decide that for myself.
I wonder why load a revolver (that holds 6 cartridges) with only 5
rounds? Is it thought to be safer?
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:46:10 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/8/2025 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 16:09:35 -0400, Catrike RyderWhere the flying fuck do you get off posting peoples addresses you
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:13:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:31 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 8 Jul 2025 09:17:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>>>No he was noting the ubiquitous of it, he probably does this ride
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:25:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 3:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
You keep using that term "insufficiently fearful" and yet had to >>>>>>>>>>> prepare yoursely to ride through Youngstown because it is largely minorities.
As Zen frequently says about your nonsense posts: No matter how many >>>>>>>>>> times you repeat that, it will never be true.
More briefly: Give a link to the post where you claim I said that. If
you can't, then stop lying about it.
Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to visit
a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!> >>>>>>>>> ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of >>>>>>>>> other races living there.
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That doesn?t say or rather mean what you think it does! It?s a joke, as
it?s such a non issue!
Roger Merriman
I know exactly whay it means. It means that he believes there is >>>>>>> something unique about riding through a non-white neighborhood. That >>>>>>> tells me quit a bit about what kind of a person he is.
frequently its just normal.
Kinda proving that youre missing the point.
We're corresponding with a man who admits to avoiding contact with
almost all other people. He's so deficient in normal human interactions >>>>> that he can't recognize jokes, sarcasm, etc.
I long ago recognized Krygowski as a bigot because a bigot is someone
who in intolerant of anyone who does not believe, act, and do things
as he prefers.
Some time ago, I began to wonder if his bigotry extended to racist
bigotry when he made up an story about some gated condo guy telling
him that he shouldn't ride through a black neighborhood. I believe
that the people who make up racist stories are usually the most racist >>>> themselves (see Al Sharpton and Jazmin Crocket)
When Krygowski posted the "people of other races" story, it became
clear that he is a bit of a racist. His implication is that riding
though the non-white neighborhood is something to make note of.
Those of us who regularly ride, work, live with, and hang out with
people of "other races" don't make note of things like that.
He'll probably respond with a made up anecdote about his black best
friend, but I'll have to see a couple of pictures before I believe
it...
Youngstown is a pretty diverse community. I wonder how many "people of >>>> other races" are members of his biking club.. of his church...
But the internet has " Age 77" living at at 29
Ohio Ave, Poland, 44514 Ohio. Isn't this our very own
Frankie?
The population was 2,463 at the 2020 United States census.[4] A suburb
about 7 miles (11 km) south of Youngstown, Area Total
1.66 sq mi (4.29 km2)
asshole? Go fuck yourself.
Why ever not. Simply do a search for "Francis Krygowski" and you get
the information I posted above. Public information one assumes if it
is scattered all over the Web.
--
cheers,
John B.
BTW, I wonder what guns John uses for home defense? Based on his posts,
it's almost certainly not an AR-style rifle. He defends them rabidly,
but apparently has never owned one, and perhaps never shot one.
In the past, the crickets have been his only response to such questions.
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 22:34:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/9/2025 10:43 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 7/9/2025 10:15 AM, John "the asshole" B. wrote:
And now we have a chap who's experience, from his own posts, consist
of shooting a .22 a couple of times,
I believe frank has claimed more experience than that.
You're correct, and John is wrong, as usual. But it doesn't matter what
I claim, based on past practice by these gun fetishists.
Krygowski claims to have shot his "friend's" .45, but couldn't tell
what kind of a .45 it was. I'm sure he had no idea that there is more
than one when he made up and posted that story.
John (like Tom) will forget what's been said within minutes. And our
timid tricycle rider will say it doesn't count unless I have a notarized >>form to present as proof - in which case he'll switch to saying I'm >>bragging.
and is telling all the details of
size, shape and caliber, we need to defend our home.
which has been agreed to by other in this forum, who have more extensive >>> experience...
Right. I was repeating what Andrew Muzi said about home defense. How odd >>that John didn't leap into the fray back then and scold Andrew.
BTW, I wonder what guns John uses for home defense? Based on his posts, >>it's almost certainly not an AR-style rifle. He defends them rabidly,
but apparently has never owned one, and perhaps never shot one.
According to Krygowski's tactic, he must also believe you should not
argue in favor of inter-racial marriages unless you are in such a
marriage.
In the past, the crickets have been his only response to such questions.
When Krygowski's arguments fail him, he demands that his opponents
defend their differing opinion. It's a sure sign that he knows he's
lost the argument.
John B. <jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:46:10 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/8/2025 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 16:09:35 -0400, Catrike RyderWhere the flying fuck do you get off posting peoples addresses you
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:13:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:31 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 8 Jul 2025 09:17:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>No he was noting the ubiquitous of it, he probably does this ride >>>>>>> frequently it?s just normal.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:25:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 3:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
You keep using that term "insufficiently fearful" and yet had to >>>>>>>>>>>> prepare yoursely to ride through Youngstown because it is largely minorities.
As Zen frequently says about your nonsense posts: No matter how many
times you repeat that, it will never be true.
More briefly: Give a link to the post where you claim I said that. If
you can't, then stop lying about it.
Today I'm planning a solo ride through the inner city, partly to visit
a new library on the far side of town. I'll be riding on <gasp!> >>>>>>>>>> ordinary streets. Many of those streets will have <oh my!> people of >>>>>>>>>> other races living there.
--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Zu_BtGgv8Fs/m/vkwxt_GNBQAJ?hl=en&hl=en
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That doesn?t say or rather mean what you think it does! It?s a joke, as
it?s such a non issue!
Roger Merriman
I know exactly whay it means. It means that he believes there is >>>>>>>> something unique about riding through a non-white neighborhood. That >>>>>>>> tells me quit a bit about what kind of a person he is.
Kinda proving that you?re missing the point.
We're corresponding with a man who admits to avoiding contact with >>>>>> almost all other people. He's so deficient in normal human interactions >>>>>> that he can't recognize jokes, sarcasm, etc.
I long ago recognized Krygowski as a bigot because a bigot is someone >>>>> who in intolerant of anyone who does not believe, act, and do things >>>>> as he prefers.
Some time ago, I began to wonder if his bigotry extended to racist
bigotry when he made up an story about some gated condo guy telling
him that he shouldn't ride through a black neighborhood. I believe
that the people who make up racist stories are usually the most racist >>>>> themselves (see Al Sharpton and Jazmin Crocket)
When Krygowski posted the "people of other races" story, it became
clear that he is a bit of a racist. His implication is that riding
though the non-white neighborhood is something to make note of.
Those of us who regularly ride, work, live with, and hang out with
people of "other races" don't make note of things like that.
He'll probably respond with a made up anecdote about his black best
friend, but I'll have to see a couple of pictures before I believe
it...
Youngstown is a pretty diverse community. I wonder how many "people of >>>>> other races" are members of his biking club.. of his church...
But the internet has " Age 77" living at at 29
Ohio Ave, Poland, 44514 Ohio. Isn't this our very own
Frankie?
The population was 2,463 at the 2020 United States census.[4] A suburb >>>> about 7 miles (11 km) south of Youngstown, Area ? Total
1.66 sq mi (4.29 km2)
asshole? Go fuck yourself.
Why ever not. Simply do a search for "Francis Krygowski" and you get
the information I posted above. Public information one assumes if it
is scattered all over the Web.
--
cheers,
John B.
No thats definitely beyond a line!
Roger Merriman
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 19:34:53 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 19:30:08 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 09:26:41 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 07:42:52 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/9/2025 3:13 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 21:14:42 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 15:14:21 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 09:25:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 17:11:49 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:03:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-07-03/how-rhode-island-finally-pushed-a-partial-assault-weapons-ban-over-the-finish-line
I suggest that at least part of the problem is defining what an >>>>>>>>>> assault rifle is. Big magazine? But there are 5 round magazines >>>>>>>>>> availed for AR's. and if you rule "semi automatic and big magazines" >>>>>>>>>> then you outlaw most pistols :-}
Most self defense shootings use around 2 rounds. (I remember >>>>>>>>> Jeff Cooper said that in one of his books). So large magazines are >>>>>>>>> more suited for mass shootings... or for people with VERY small >>>>>>>>> penises.
No one uses 14 or 20 rounds to defend their home.
A six shot revolver is ample for a civilian. Or even a 7 shot >>>>>>>>> auto... or a shotgun....
[]'s
As if you'd know...
I live in Brazil. Here the risks are not imaginary...
[]'s
Irrelevent response
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It's quite relevant to an older retired Brasilian!
Ot doesn't address his qualifications to advise on how many rounds is >>>>"ample."
Well, Jeff Cooper wrote the book almost 50 years ago. There
was almost a "welfare state"in the US, so the police were well trained >>>and well paid.
Come the 80's and 90's police were considered a necessary
nuisance by right wingers. Low salaries, people hired with not much >>>training and rudimentary psychological evaluations. The number of
rounds fired rose to "over 4".
And now with practically NO training (I honestly think they
"study" watching westerns) the AVERAGE is over 7 rounds fired. Most >>>don't go anywhere near the target, some hit innocent people. A lot are >>>overkills. like over 20 shots into an unarmed man...
Look it up.
I load my revolver with 5 rounds. I doubt I'll ever need to
fire more than 2. If two shots doesn't make a burglar leave, it's
because he's dead or I'm dead.
Unless I'm shooting up a school or a church, or course. Then
I'd go with a semi auto carbine with a 50 round magazine. It's what
they were designed for.
[]'s
Sorry, I still don't believe you're qualified to advise on how many
rounds are "ample," so I'll decide that for myself.
I wonder why load a revolver (that holds 6 cartridges) with only 5
rounds? Is it thought to be safer?
On 7/9/2025 8:51 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/9/2025 7:45 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:54:26 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
When that time comes where you feel
the need to pull you gun on someone on the bike path
(maybe for having
the audacity to stop you to ask about your trike), and
that person grabs
it from your feeble old hands, pistol whips you with it,
and steals it
it, you'll still think carrying the gun was a good idea.
_you_, will
never learn.
Goodness gracious, is this a common happening? Strange
that I've known
a number of people that carried a gun and the never
reported the above
happening,
Vivid imagination?
As I recall, we've never heard of a person needing to pull a
gun to ward off someone on a bike path. ISTM that makes
carrying that gun "just in case" an example of paranoia
based on a vivid imagination.
And ISTM that John's imagination was not that vivid. He
apparently has never carried a gun while cycling, let alone
used one for self defense while cycling. If he had, he'd
have told us the lurid tale by now.
John's just so deep into his gun fetish that he hates any
skepticism about needing one while bicycling - even though
he's never needed one while bicycling. (And the one he did
own was useless during the home invasion he claims to have
suffered.)
Well, yesterday for example:
https://abc7ny.com/post/pastor-bridgeport-ct-describes-
armed-carjacking- baltimore-was-surveillance-caught-
video/17039508/
I think you meant to post that to a driving discussion
group. We were talking about riding bikes. That involved
cars, not bikes.
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 22:34:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
<snip>
BTW, I wonder what guns John uses for home defense? Based on his posts, >>it's almost certainly not an AR-style rifle. He defends them rabidly,
but apparently has never owned one, and perhaps never shot one.
In the past, the crickets have been his only response to such questions.
From what I've read, most guns in Thailand are black market.
There are a large number of law firms specialized in bribing the
government to obtain permits for foreigners, so it's probably quite an >expensive process.
but dun no, search engines are so biased these days I don't--
believe anything Glugle, Bing or Yahoo tells me anymore...
At a guess, he owns an illegal weapon.
Mine are all illegal. Although I bought and registered them
legally, we ere required by FHC to hand them in to "update the
licenses". I didn't. I suppose that makes me a criminal...
Though if I'm caught it'll probably be a just a fine for the
out-of-date registration. Maybe confiscation, depends on the judge.
Lula is personally pro-gun for self defense. He has not
revoked any of the crazy laws Bolsonaro passed, it fact he made it a
little cheaper for working class to register weapons.
[]'s
On 7/10/2025 8:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/9/2025 9:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/9/2025 8:51 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Well, yesterday for example:
https://abc7ny.com/post/pastor-bridgeport-ct-describes- armed-
carjacking- baltimore-was-surveillance-caught- video/17039508/
I think you meant to post that to a driving discussion group. We were
talking about riding bikes. That involved cars, not bikes.
Well, no one does topic drift as we here at RBT!
You mentioned disarming a gunman, as the featured pastor did on Tuesday.
You've said many times "America's a big country. We have one of
everything."
Except, perhaps, examples of someone actually using a gun for defense
when riding on a quiet Florida bike trail.
https://www.heraldtimesonline.com/story/news/crime/2025/07/09/attack-of-woman-on-b-line-trail-stopped-by-cane-wielding-passerby/84509329007/>
On 7/10/2025 8:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/9/2025 9:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/9/2025 8:51 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Well, yesterday for example:
https://abc7ny.com/post/pastor-bridgeport-ct-describes-
armed- carjacking- baltimore-was-surveillance-caught-
video/17039508/
I think you meant to post that to a driving discussion
group. We were talking about riding bikes. That involved
cars, not bikes.
Well, no one does topic drift as we here at RBT!
You mentioned disarming a gunman, as the featured pastor
did on Tuesday.
You've said many times "America's a big country. We have one
of everything."
Except, perhaps, examples of someone actually using a gun
for defense when riding on a quiet Florida bike trail.
On 7/10/2025 8:37 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/10/2025 8:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/9/2025 9:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/9/2025 8:51 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Well, yesterday for example:
https://abc7ny.com/post/pastor-bridgeport-ct-describes-
armed- carjacking- baltimore-was-surveillance-caught-
video/17039508/
I think you meant to post that to a driving discussion
group. We were talking about riding bikes. That involved
cars, not bikes.
Well, no one does topic drift as we here at RBT!
You mentioned disarming a gunman, as the featured pastor
did on Tuesday.
You've said many times "America's a big country. We have one
of everything."
Except, perhaps, examples of someone actually using a gun
for defense when riding on a quiet Florida bike trail.
Hmmmm. I don't know, let's see what there is.
A cane defense on a bike path a week ago: >https://www.heraldtimesonline.com/story/news/crime/2025/07/09/attack-of-woman-on-b-line-trail-stopped-by-cane-wielding-passerby/84509329007/
Successful defense without weapon a month ago: >https://abc13.com/post/woman-escapes-attempted-sex-assault-cypress-creek-hike-bike-trail-bridgewater-drive-deputies-say/16634882/
Another earlier this year: >https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/sex-offender-gets-22-years-to-life-in-attempted-springfield-bike-path-rape/LBG5WLO455HXBM5X7NLSCT4RJA/
And in Dayton OH: >https://www.wdtn.com/as-seen-on-2-news/clark-county-bike-path-assault-attempted-rape-conviction/
Ditto Springfield OH: >https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/registered-sex-offender-from-springfield-convicted-in-attempted-bike-path-rape/CJFNDKSQXZFGVNM27BAVQOWU34/
Didn't find and firearm defense on bicycle paths this year.
In my opinion, being a local news from all over reader and
from voluminous conversations with cyclists nationwide,
attempted bike theft or robbery on bike paths is poorly
reported and almost never charged unless there's significant
injury or death. Attempted rape, likely yes but attempted
bike theft, likely not.
Given all the homeless camps I see in the woods
On 7/10/2025 7:48 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 22:34:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Nope, I don't "defend" theBTW, I wonder what guns John uses for home defense? Based on his posts, >>>> it's almost certainly not an AR-style rifle. He defends them rabidly,
but apparently has never owned one, and perhaps never shot one.
AR type, I merely attempt to correct your lies and fanaticizes.
Shooting a .22 a couple of times and an unidentified "45" which when
asked for identification you were unable to give.
As for my "owning" an AR if you mean to have bought one and thus it is
my property then no, I have never owned one.... Never owing one he demands the
opposition must posses one. What's next? He will only accept arguments> from some one who has used one for it's intended use?
Better, by far, to learn something about the subject he is discussing.
About "learning something":
You, John, obviously love guns. You've demonstrated that you know (or
can quickly look up) details on calibers, grains of powder, muzzle
velocity, mass of bullets, rates of fire, history of various models and
much more. Congratulations!
I've shot many more guns than "a .22 a couple of times and an
unidentified 45." True, I don't make guns a hobby and I don't hunt. But >listen up, John: That doesn't make much difference if we're talking
about the societal effects of gun proliferation. It also doesn't make
much difference if we're talking about a paranoid's need for deadly
weaponry for a simple back-and-forth bike ride.
Based on your posts here, you don't think its necessary or valuable to
own an AR rifle. Based on your posts here, you never felt fearful enough
to arm yourself for a simple bike ride. You love defending the timid >tricyclist's choice to always go armed, but deep down you must suspect
his choice is unnecessary, because you yourself have always made a much >different choice.
Why? Because you've not been as fearful. In fact, apparently only one
person posting here is so scared, so fearful.
On 7/10/2025 9:57 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/10/2025 8:37 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/10/2025 8:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/9/2025 9:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:You've said many times "America's a big country. We have one of
On 7/9/2025 8:51 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Well, yesterday for example:
https://abc7ny.com/post/pastor-bridgeport-ct-describes- armed-
carjacking- baltimore-was-surveillance-caught- video/17039508/
I think you meant to post that to a driving discussion group. We
were talking about riding bikes. That involved cars, not bikes.
Well, no one does topic drift as we here at RBT!
You mentioned disarming a gunman, as the featured pastor did on Tuesday. >>>
everything."
Except, perhaps, examples of someone actually using a gun for defense
when riding on a quiet Florida bike trail.
Hmmmm. I don't know, let's see what there is.
A cane defense on a bike path a week ago:
https://www.heraldtimesonline.com/story/news/crime/2025/07/09/attack-of-
woman-on-b-line-trail-stopped-by-cane-wielding-passerby/84509329007/
Successful defense without weapon a month ago:
https://abc13.com/post/woman-escapes-attempted-sex-assault-cypress-
creek-hike-bike-trail-bridgewater-drive-deputies-say/16634882/
Another earlier this year:
https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/sex-offender-gets-22-years-to-
life-in-attempted-springfield-bike-path-rape/LBG5WLO455HXBM5X7NLSCT4RJA/
And in Dayton OH:
https://www.wdtn.com/as-seen-on-2-news/clark-county-bike-path-assault-
attempted-rape-conviction/
Ditto Springfield OH:
https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/registered-sex-offender-from-
springfield-convicted-in-attempted-bike-path-rape/
CJFNDKSQXZFGVNM27BAVQOWU34/
Didn't find and firearm defense on bicycle paths this year.
Or any other year, it seems. Mr. Tricycle found another case of a woman
who fought off a man without using a gun. So several attempted rapes - >certainly traumatic and serious events - but all successfully thwarted >without a gun. Those seem pretty weak arguments for needing a gun. I
know one woman who used to carry a tiny pepper spray device - but she
gave up carrying even that after years of never needing it.
Is Mr. Tricycle afraid of being raped? Is that a realistic fear?
On 7/10/2025 2:45 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 14:12:37 -0400, Frank KrygowskiHate's too strong a word. I don't think you're very smart, and I do
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/10/2025 7:48 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 22:34:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Nope, I don't "defend" theBTW, I wonder what guns John uses for home defense? Based on his posts, >>>>>> it's almost certainly not an AR-style rifle. He defends them rabidly, >>>>>> but apparently has never owned one, and perhaps never shot one.
AR type, I merely attempt to correct your lies and fanaticizes.
Shooting a .22 a couple of times and an unidentified "45" which when
asked for identification you were unable to give.
As for my "owning" an AR if you mean to have bought one and thus it is >>>> my property then no, I have never owned one.... Never owing one he demands the
opposition must posses one. What's next? He will only accept arguments> from some one who has used one for it's intended use?
Better, by far, to learn something about the subject he is discussing.
About "learning something":
You, John, obviously love guns. You've demonstrated that you know (or
can quickly look up) details on calibers, grains of powder, muzzle
velocity, mass of bullets, rates of fire, history of various models and
much more. Congratulations!
I've shot many more guns than "a .22 a couple of times and an
unidentified 45." True, I don't make guns a hobby and I don't hunt. But
listen up, John: That doesn't make much difference if we're talking
about the societal effects of gun proliferation. It also doesn't make
much difference if we're talking about a paranoid's need for deadly
weaponry for a simple back-and-forth bike ride.
Based on your posts here, you don't think its necessary or valuable to
own an AR rifle. Based on your posts here, you never felt fearful enough >>> to arm yourself for a simple bike ride. You love defending the timid
tricyclist's choice to always go armed, but deep down you must suspect
his choice is unnecessary, because you yourself have always made a much
different choice.
Why? Because you've not been as fearful. In fact, apparently only one
person posting here is so scared, so fearful.
I seem to be the subject of Krygowski's hate every day.
think you're very timid - afraid of not only bike path boogeymen, but
even normal human contact and conversation. I think you're a sucker for
right wing propaganda, and I think you revel in willful ignorance. I
think there's a lot of psychological compensation going on, probably to
deal with current physical failings after a life of few accomplishments.
I also think your obsession with me is really weird, as demonstrated by
your fast response to almost anything I post. I think it's another
example of compensation, making up for your fear of conversing face to
face with people in real life.
As Roger said, "It's not a good look."
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:46:10 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/8/2025 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
But the internet has " Age 77" living at at 29Where the flying fuck do you get off posting peoples addresses you
Ohio Ave, Poland, 44514 Ohio. Isn't this our very own
Frankie?
The population was 2,463 at the 2020 United States census.[4] A suburb
about 7 miles (11 km) south of Youngstown, Area Total
1.66 sq mi (4.29 km2)
asshole? Go fuck yourself.
Why ever not. Simply do a search for "Francis Krygowski" and you get
the information I posted above. Public information one assumes if it
is scattered all over the Web.
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 17:14:45 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:46:10 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On 7/8/2025 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
But the internet has " Age 77" living at at 29Where the flying fuck do you get off posting peoples addresses you >>>asshole? Go fuck yourself.
Ohio Ave, Poland, 44514 Ohio. Isn't this our very own
Frankie?
The population was 2,463 at the 2020 United States census.[4] A suburb >>>> about 7 miles (11 km) south of Youngstown, Area Total
1.66 sq mi (4.29 km2)
Why ever not. Simply do a search for "Francis Krygowski" and you get
the information I posted above. Public information one assumes if it
is scattered all over the Web.
That's not an "internet search". When I search for:
"Francis Krygowski" or "Francis Krygowski Ohio", using Google, I get
nothing:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Francis%20Krygowski%20ohio>
However, DuckDuckGo.com produces his address: ><https://duckduckgo.com/?t=h_&q=Francis%20Krygowski%20ohio&ia=web>
in three listings from data brokers that sell such information. I
suspect that Frank was not asked if he wanted his address to appear on
the internet. Just because someone has Franks address and can post it
on the internet, does not automatically give everyone permission to
ignore Frank's expectations of privacy.
Such privacy is a rather sticky questions and is subject to multiple >interpretations. For example, I was able to find Tom's address and
phone numbers online. However, I have NEVER posted these to >rec.bicycles.tech, even though they would have been very useful in a >discussion. Also, how would you like it if someone posted your home
address to a newsgroup without your consent?
There are paid services available to remove addresses and phone
numbers from internet sites and data broker services. For example: ><https://joindeleteme.com> ><https://lifelock.norton.com/learn/identity-theft-resources/remove-personal-information-from-the-internet>
More: ><https://www.google.com/search?q=remove%20personal%20information%20from%20internet>
<https://support.google.com/maps/answer/15439776>
Drivel: I survived surgery by the local hospital body mechanics
today. Details some other day mostly because I'm not feeling very
wonderful today.
On 7/10/2025 9:57 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/10/2025 8:37 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/10/2025 8:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/9/2025 9:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:You've said many times "America's a big country. We have one of
On 7/9/2025 8:51 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Well, yesterday for example:
https://abc7ny.com/post/pastor-bridgeport-ct-describes- armed-
carjacking- baltimore-was-surveillance-caught- video/17039508/
I think you meant to post that to a driving discussion group. We
were talking about riding bikes. That involved cars, not bikes.
Well, no one does topic drift as we here at RBT!
You mentioned disarming a gunman, as the featured pastor did on Tuesday. >>>
everything."
Except, perhaps, examples of someone actually using a gun for defense
when riding on a quiet Florida bike trail.
Hmmmm. I don't know, let's see what there is.
A cane defense on a bike path a week ago:
https://www.heraldtimesonline.com/story/news/crime/2025/07/09/attack-of-
woman-on-b-line-trail-stopped-by-cane-wielding-passerby/84509329007/
Successful defense without weapon a month ago:
https://abc13.com/post/woman-escapes-attempted-sex-assault-cypress-
creek-hike-bike-trail-bridgewater-drive-deputies-say/16634882/
Another earlier this year:
https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/sex-offender-gets-22-years-to-
life-in-attempted-springfield-bike-path-rape/LBG5WLO455HXBM5X7NLSCT4RJA/
And in Dayton OH:
https://www.wdtn.com/as-seen-on-2-news/clark-county-bike-path-assault-
attempted-rape-conviction/
Ditto Springfield OH:
https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/registered-sex-offender-from-
springfield-convicted-in-attempted-bike-path-rape/
CJFNDKSQXZFGVNM27BAVQOWU34/
Didn't find and firearm defense on bicycle paths this year.
Or any other year, it seems. Mr. Tricycle found another case of a woman
who fought off a man without using a gun. So several attempted rapes - certainly traumatic and serious events - but all successfully thwarted without a gun. Those seem pretty weak arguments for needing a gun. I
know one woman who used to carry a tiny pepper spray device - but she
gave up carrying even that after years of never needing it.
Is Mr. Tricycle afraid of being raped? Is that a realistic fear?
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 17:14:45 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:46:10 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/8/2025 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
But the internet has " Age 77" living at at 29Where the flying fuck do you get off posting peoples addresses you
Ohio Ave, Poland, 44514 Ohio. Isn't this our very own
Frankie?
The population was 2,463 at the 2020 United States census.[4] A suburb >>>> about 7 miles (11 km) south of Youngstown, Area • Total
1.66 sq mi (4.29 km2)
asshole? Go fuck yourself.
Why ever not. Simply do a search for "Francis Krygowski" and you get
the information I posted above. Public information one assumes if it
is scattered all over the Web.
That's not an "internet search". When I search for:
"Francis Krygowski" or "Francis Krygowski Ohio", using Google, I get
nothing:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Francis%20Krygowski%20ohio>
However, DuckDuckGo.com produces his address: <https://duckduckgo.com/?t=h_&q=Francis%20Krygowski%20ohio&ia=web>
in three listings from data brokers that sell such information. I
suspect that Frank was not asked if he wanted his address to appear on
the internet. Just because someone has Franks address and can post it
on the internet, does not automatically give everyone permission to
ignore Frank's expectations of privacy.
Such privacy is a rather sticky questions and is subject to multiple interpretations. For example, I was able to find Tom's address and
phone numbers online. However, I have NEVER posted these to rec.bicycles.tech, even though they would have been very useful in a discussion. Also, how would you like it if someone posted your home
address to a newsgroup without your consent?
There are paid services available to remove addresses and phone
numbers from internet sites and data broker services. For example: <https://joindeleteme.com> <https://lifelock.norton.com/learn/identity-theft-resources/remove-personal-information-from-the-internet>
More: <https://www.google.com/search?q=remove%20personal%20information%20from%20internet>
<https://support.google.com/maps/answer/15439776>
Drivel: I survived surgery by the local hospital body mechanics
today. Details some other day mostly because I'm not feeling very
wonderful today.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 14:39:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>Indeed while Frank has said that he lives in Poland in Youngstown and has >openly spoken about proximity to this and that hasnt said his street or
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 17:14:45 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:46:10 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/8/2025 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
But the internet has " Age 77" living at at 29Where the flying fuck do you get off posting peoples addresses you
Ohio Ave, Poland, 44514 Ohio. Isn't this our very own
Frankie?
The population was 2,463 at the 2020 United States census.[4] A suburb >>>>>> about 7 miles (11 km) south of Youngstown, Area ? Total
1.66 sq mi (4.29 km2)
asshole? Go fuck yourself.
Why ever not. Simply do a search for "Francis Krygowski" and you get
the information I posted above. Public information one assumes if it
is scattered all over the Web.
That's not an "internet search". When I search for:
"Francis Krygowski" or "Francis Krygowski Ohio", using Google, I get
nothing:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Francis%20Krygowski%20ohio>
However, DuckDuckGo.com produces his address:
<https://duckduckgo.com/?t=h_&q=Francis%20Krygowski%20ohio&ia=web>
in three listings from data brokers that sell such information. I
suspect that Frank was not asked if he wanted his address to appear on
the internet. Just because someone has Franks address and can post it
on the internet, does not automatically give everyone permission to
ignore Frank's expectations of privacy.
Such privacy is a rather sticky questions and is subject to multiple
interpretations. For example, I was able to find Tom's address and
phone numbers online. However, I have NEVER posted these to
rec.bicycles.tech, even though they would have been very useful in a
discussion. Also, how would you like it if someone posted your home
address to a newsgroup without your consent?
There are paid services available to remove addresses and phone
numbers from internet sites and data broker services. For example:
<https://joindeleteme.com>
<https://lifelock.norton.com/learn/identity-theft-resources/remove-personal-information-from-the-internet>
More:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=remove%20personal%20information%20from%20internet>
<https://support.google.com/maps/answer/15439776>
Drivel: I survived surgery by the local hospital body mechanics
today. Details some other day mostly because I'm not feeling very
wonderful today.
I figure anything a person posts about him/her self is fair game to be
look into, but any new information picked up from looking into it
should not be passed along... In other words, let everyone find it for
themselves.
even general area of Poland.
So Johns post was clearly intended with some malice and beyond what Frank >has posted.
My assumption is that if a person wants to discuss some part of theirIndeed, hence Johns post being of at best poor judgment.
private life, they would open the discussion. If a person doesn't do
that, I won't address it either.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 14:39:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 17:14:45 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:46:10 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/8/2025 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
But the internet has " Age 77" living at at 29Where the flying fuck do you get off posting peoples addresses you
Ohio Ave, Poland, 44514 Ohio. Isn't this our very own
Frankie?
The population was 2,463 at the 2020 United States census.[4] A suburb >>>>> about 7 miles (11 km) south of Youngstown, Area Total
1.66 sq mi (4.29 km2)
asshole? Go fuck yourself.
Why ever not. Simply do a search for "Francis Krygowski" and you get
the information I posted above. Public information one assumes if it
is scattered all over the Web.
That's not an "internet search". When I search for:
"Francis Krygowski" or "Francis Krygowski Ohio", using Google, I get
nothing:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Francis%20Krygowski%20ohio>
However, DuckDuckGo.com produces his address:
<https://duckduckgo.com/?t=h_&q=Francis%20Krygowski%20ohio&ia=web>
in three listings from data brokers that sell such information. I
suspect that Frank was not asked if he wanted his address to appear on
the internet. Just because someone has Franks address and can post it
on the internet, does not automatically give everyone permission to
ignore Frank's expectations of privacy.
Such privacy is a rather sticky questions and is subject to multiple
interpretations. For example, I was able to find Tom's address and
phone numbers online. However, I have NEVER posted these to
rec.bicycles.tech, even though they would have been very useful in a
discussion. Also, how would you like it if someone posted your home
address to a newsgroup without your consent?
There are paid services available to remove addresses and phone
numbers from internet sites and data broker services. For example:
<https://joindeleteme.com>
<https://lifelock.norton.com/learn/identity-theft-resources/remove-personal-information-from-the-internet>
More:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=remove%20personal%20information%20from%20internet>
<https://support.google.com/maps/answer/15439776>
Drivel: I survived surgery by the local hospital body mechanics
today. Details some other day mostly because I'm not feeling very
wonderful today.
I figure anything a person posts about him/her self is fair game to be
look into, but any new information picked up from looking into it
should not be passed along... In other words, let everyone find it for themselves.
My assumption is that if a person wants to discuss some part of their
private life, they would open the discussion. If a person doesn't do
that, I won't address it either.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/10/2025 9:57 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/10/2025 8:37 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/10/2025 8:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/9/2025 9:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:You've said many times "America's a big country. We have one of
On 7/9/2025 8:51 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Well, yesterday for example:
https://abc7ny.com/post/pastor-bridgeport-ct-describes- armed-
carjacking- baltimore-was-surveillance-caught- video/17039508/
I think you meant to post that to a driving discussion group. We
were talking about riding bikes. That involved cars, not bikes.
Well, no one does topic drift as we here at RBT!
You mentioned disarming a gunman, as the featured pastor did on Tuesday. >>>>
everything."
Except, perhaps, examples of someone actually using a gun for defense
when riding on a quiet Florida bike trail.
Hmmmm. I don't know, let's see what there is.
A cane defense on a bike path a week ago:
https://www.heraldtimesonline.com/story/news/crime/2025/07/09/attack-of- >>> woman-on-b-line-trail-stopped-by-cane-wielding-passerby/84509329007/
Successful defense without weapon a month ago:
https://abc13.com/post/woman-escapes-attempted-sex-assault-cypress-
creek-hike-bike-trail-bridgewater-drive-deputies-say/16634882/
Another earlier this year:
https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/sex-offender-gets-22-years-to-
life-in-attempted-springfield-bike-path-rape/LBG5WLO455HXBM5X7NLSCT4RJA/ >>>
And in Dayton OH:
https://www.wdtn.com/as-seen-on-2-news/clark-county-bike-path-assault-
attempted-rape-conviction/
Ditto Springfield OH:
https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/registered-sex-offender-from-
springfield-convicted-in-attempted-bike-path-rape/
CJFNDKSQXZFGVNM27BAVQOWU34/
Didn't find and firearm defense on bicycle paths this year.
Or any other year, it seems. Mr. Tricycle found another case of a woman
who fought off a man without using a gun. So several attempted rapes -
certainly traumatic and serious events - but all successfully thwarted
without a gun. Those seem pretty weak arguments for needing a gun. I
know one woman who used to carry a tiny pepper spray device - but she
gave up carrying even that after years of never needing it.
Stranger rape, makes news but its people you know, and is far more >ubiquitous than people particularly men imagine.
Is Mr. Tricycle afraid of being raped? Is that a realistic fear?
Roger Merriman
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 14:12:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/10/2025 7:48 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 22:34:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Nope, I don't "defend" theBTW, I wonder what guns John uses for home defense? Based on his posts, >>>>> it's almost certainly not an AR-style rifle. He defends them rabidly, >>>>> but apparently has never owned one, and perhaps never shot one.
AR type, I merely attempt to correct your lies and fanaticizes.
Shooting a .22 a couple of times and an unidentified "45" which when
asked for identification you were unable to give.
As for my "owning" an AR if you mean to have bought one and thus it is
my property then no, I have never owned one.... Never owing one he demands the
opposition must posses one. What's next? He will only accept arguments> from some one who has used one for it's intended use?
Better, by far, to learn something about the subject he is discussing.
About "learning something":
You, John, obviously love guns. You've demonstrated that you know (or
can quickly look up) details on calibers, grains of powder, muzzle >>velocity, mass of bullets, rates of fire, history of various models and >>much more. Congratulations!
I've shot many more guns than "a .22 a couple of times and an
unidentified 45." True, I don't make guns a hobby and I don't hunt. But >>listen up, John: That doesn't make much difference if we're talking
about the societal effects of gun proliferation. It also doesn't make
much difference if we're talking about a paranoid's need for deadly >>weaponry for a simple back-and-forth bike ride.
Based on your posts here, you don't think its necessary or valuable to
own an AR rifle. Based on your posts here, you never felt fearful enough
to arm yourself for a simple bike ride. You love defending the timid >>tricyclist's choice to always go armed, but deep down you must suspect
his choice is unnecessary, because you yourself have always made a much >>different choice.
Why? Because you've not been as fearful. In fact, apparently only one >>person posting here is so scared, so fearful.
I seem to be the subject of Krygowski's hate every day.
He hates me because he knows I see him for what he is... ..a lonely
little low intellect wuss with no ability to do what engineers are
trained to do.
I'll bet he's never designed nor created anything of value. If he had,
he'd surely brag about it.
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 17:14:45 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:46:10 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On 7/8/2025 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
But the internet has " Age 77" living at at 29Where the flying fuck do you get off posting peoples addresses you >>>asshole? Go fuck yourself.
Ohio Ave, Poland, 44514 Ohio. Isn't this our very own
Frankie?
The population was 2,463 at the 2020 United States census.[4] A suburb >>>> about 7 miles (11 km) south of Youngstown, Area Total
1.66 sq mi (4.29 km2)
Why ever not. Simply do a search for "Francis Krygowski" and you get
the information I posted above. Public information one assumes if it
is scattered all over the Web.
That's not an "internet search". When I search for:
"Francis Krygowski" or "Francis Krygowski Ohio", using Google, I get
nothing:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Francis%20Krygowski%20ohio>
However, DuckDuckGo.com produces his address: ><https://duckduckgo.com/?t=h_&q=Francis%20Krygowski%20ohio&ia=web>
in three listings from data brokers that sell such information. I
suspect that Frank was not asked if he wanted his address to appear on
the internet. Just because someone has Franks address and can post it
on the internet, does not automatically give everyone permission to
ignore Frank's expectations of privacy.
Such privacy is a rather sticky questions and is subject to multiple >interpretations. For example, I was able to find Tom's address and
phone numbers online. However, I have NEVER posted these to >rec.bicycles.tech, even though they would have been very useful in a >discussion. Also, how would you like it if someone posted your home
address to a newsgroup without your consent?
There are paid services available to remove addresses and phone
numbers from internet sites and data broker services. For example: ><https://joindeleteme.com> ><https://lifelock.norton.com/learn/identity-theft-resources/remove-personal-information-from-the-internet>
More: ><https://www.google.com/search?q=remove%20personal%20information%20from%20internet>
<https://support.google.com/maps/answer/15439776>
Drivel: I survived surgery by the local hospital body mechanics
today. Details some other day mostly because I'm not feeling very
wonderful today.
On 7/10/2025 7:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Indeed while Frank has said that he lives in Poland in Youngstown and has
openly spoken about proximity to this and that hasn’t said his street or >> even general area of Poland.
I'm not sure I ever volunteered the name of this suburban village.
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 14:45:38 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 14:12:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski >><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/10/2025 7:48 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 22:34:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Nope, I don't "defend" theBTW, I wonder what guns John uses for home defense? Based on his posts, >>>>>> it's almost certainly not an AR-style rifle. He defends them rabidly, >>>>>> but apparently has never owned one, and perhaps never shot one.
AR type, I merely attempt to correct your lies and fanaticizes.
Shooting a .22 a couple of times and an unidentified "45" which when
asked for identification you were unable to give.
As for my "owning" an AR if you mean to have bought one and thus it is >>>> my property then no, I have never owned one.... Never owing one he demands the
opposition must posses one. What's next? He will only accept arguments> from some one who has used one for it's intended use?
Better, by far, to learn something about the subject he is discussing.
About "learning something":
You, John, obviously love guns. You've demonstrated that you know (or
can quickly look up) details on calibers, grains of powder, muzzle >>>velocity, mass of bullets, rates of fire, history of various models and >>>much more. Congratulations!
I've shot many more guns than "a .22 a couple of times and an >>>unidentified 45." True, I don't make guns a hobby and I don't hunt. But >>>listen up, John: That doesn't make much difference if we're talking
about the societal effects of gun proliferation. It also doesn't make >>>much difference if we're talking about a paranoid's need for deadly >>>weaponry for a simple back-and-forth bike ride.
Based on your posts here, you don't think its necessary or valuable to >>>own an AR rifle. Based on your posts here, you never felt fearful enough >>>to arm yourself for a simple bike ride. You love defending the timid >>>tricyclist's choice to always go armed, but deep down you must suspect >>>his choice is unnecessary, because you yourself have always made a much >>>different choice.
Why? Because you've not been as fearful. In fact, apparently only one >>>person posting here is so scared, so fearful.
I seem to be the subject of Krygowski's hate every day.
He hates me because he knows I see him for what he is... ..a lonely
little low intellect wuss with no ability to do what engineers are
trained to do.
I'll bet he's never designed nor created anything of value. If he had,
he'd surely brag about it.
I must interject a point here. I am not so arrogant as to think I can >determine the mind set of an individual a thousand, or more, miles
away, based on the single fact that he carried a gun on a bicycle.
On 7/10/2025 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 14:45:38 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 14:12:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/10/2025 7:48 AM, John B. wrote:
About "learning something":
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 22:34:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Nope, I don't "defend" theBTW, I wonder what guns John uses for home defense? Based on his posts, >>>>>>> it's almost certainly not an AR-style rifle. He defends them rabidly, >>>>>>> but apparently has never owned one, and perhaps never shot one.
AR type, I merely attempt to correct your lies and fanaticizes.
Shooting a .22 a couple of times and an unidentified "45" which when >>>>> asked for identification you were unable to give.
As for my "owning" an AR if you mean to have bought one and thus it is >>>>> my property then no, I have never owned one.... Never owing one he demands the
opposition must posses one. What's next? He will only accept arguments> from some one who has used one for it's intended use?
Better, by far, to learn something about the subject he is discussing. >>>>
You, John, obviously love guns. You've demonstrated that you know (or
can quickly look up) details on calibers, grains of powder, muzzle
velocity, mass of bullets, rates of fire, history of various models and >>>> much more. Congratulations!
I've shot many more guns than "a .22 a couple of times and an
unidentified 45." True, I don't make guns a hobby and I don't hunt. But >>>> listen up, John: That doesn't make much difference if we're talking
about the societal effects of gun proliferation. It also doesn't make
much difference if we're talking about a paranoid's need for deadly
weaponry for a simple back-and-forth bike ride.
Based on your posts here, you don't think its necessary or valuable to >>>> own an AR rifle. Based on your posts here, you never felt fearful enough >>>> to arm yourself for a simple bike ride. You love defending the timid
tricyclist's choice to always go armed, but deep down you must suspect >>>> his choice is unnecessary, because you yourself have always made a much >>>> different choice.
Why? Because you've not been as fearful. In fact, apparently only one
person posting here is so scared, so fearful.
I seem to be the subject of Krygowski's hate every day.
He hates me because he knows I see him for what he is... ..a lonely
little low intellect wuss with no ability to do what engineers are
trained to do.
I'll bet he's never designed nor created anything of value. If he had,
he'd surely brag about it.
I must interject a point here. I am not so arrogant as to think I can
determine the mind set of an individual a thousand, or more, miles
away, based on the single fact that he carried a gun on a bicycle.
My opinions are based on a _lot_ more than his fearful need to always
have a gun at hand. He's posted here for years, giving plenty of
evidence of his character.
On 7/10/2025 7:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Indeed while Frank has said that he lives in Poland in Youngstown and has
openly spoken about proximity to this and that hasnt said his street or
even general area of Poland.
I'm not sure I ever volunteered the name of this suburban village. I
suspect John was the first person to dig it out, and after that some of
the less pleasant members of this group began using it for insults. And
I do consider that to be somewhat related to stalking.
I think a good rule of thumb for such behavior would be the Golden Rule.
And as far as I remember, John has told us nothing more specific than
the country he lives in.
So Johns post was clearly intended with some malice and beyond what Frank >> has posted....
Indeed, hence Johns post being of at best poor judgment.
Correct. It was a low-class move.
Am 11.07.2025 um 04:18 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
On 7/10/2025 7:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Indeed while Frank has said that he lives in Poland in Youngstown and has >>> openly spoken about proximity to this and that hasnt said his street or >>> even general area of Poland.
I'm not sure I ever volunteered the name of this suburban village.
Just for the record, I regularly offer that I live in Heidelberg. The
Strava links of my regular commute show the suburb but hopefully blur a >region of approx 100 yards. I do not wish to see the exact address here.
On 7/10/2025 7:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Indeed while Frank has said that he lives in Poland in Youngstown and has
openly spoken about proximity to this and that hasn’t said his street or >> even general area of Poland.
I'm not sure I ever volunteered the name of this suburban village. I
suspect John was the first person to dig it out, and after that some of
the less pleasant members of this group began using it for insults. And
I do consider that to be somewhat related to stalking.
I think a good rule of thumb for such behavior would be the Golden Rule.
And as far as I remember, John has told us nothing more specific than
the country he lives in.
So John’s post was clearly intended with some malice and beyond what Frank >> has posted....
Indeed, hence John’s post being of at best poor judgment.
Correct. It was a low-class move.
On Wed Jun 11 17:31:22 2025 Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <8jG1Q.965767$vvyf.10880@fx18.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm curious to know why you think that citizens can be declared as
criminals without court trial findings?
I would have thought this was obvious, but:
1. A law enforcement agency accuses a citizen of being a non-citizen.
2. That law enforcement agency immediately puts the accused on a plane
to a foreign prison because non-citizens don't have the right to due
process.
But maybe never in the history of the United States has a citizen ever
been accused of being a non-citizen, who can know.
Brian, what do you mean, "who can know"? You simply give your complete neme, date and place of birth and they request a records check!
My illegal next door neighbors
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 23:32:05 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
My illegal next door neighbors
Why haven't you reported them to Trump's Police State?
They'll put them on the plane without even checking their
nationality. It's their word against yours...
[]'s
On Fri Jun 6 19:05:26 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 19:52:16 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 16:27:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 04:27:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:29:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/5/2025 8:22 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Around here the idiot governor has driven most good people out of the state and they have been replace by honest hard working illegals. No one is coming back to the worst state just because it has the best weather.
I spent a week there not long ago. You're right, Tom, Mountain View,
Palo Alto, San Jose, Cupertino, San Francisco were like deserts! Nobody >> >>>>as far as the eye could see! :-)
I don't know what caused all the traffic. Robotaxis in disguise? But who >> >>>>would need them?
With over 817,000 residents leaving in 2023, California continues to
have one of the highest outbound migration rates. High housing costs,
rising taxes, and concerns about affordability are pushing residents
to states like Texas and Arizona. When asked what state has the most
people leaving, California consistently ranks at the top due to its
high cost of living and economic challenges.
https://clancymoving.com/blog/2025/april/moving-statistics-and-trends-for-2025-what-to-expect-this-year/
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_exodus#Demographics>
Leaving Calif -690,127 in 2023
Entering Calif +422,075 in 2023
=================================
Net change -268,052
Source of data:
<https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/state-to-state-migration.html>
I'd like to see the in/out numbers of registered voters
Thanks for ignoring what I wrote. Your numbers from Clancy Relocation
and Logistics appear to be faulty and not very authoritative. I
suggest you find a better source that provides sources for its
numbers. You also ignored everyone entering California.
I couldn't find anything that counted California in-migration and
out-migration by voter registration or political party affiliation.
Perhaps I could provide an answer if you could rewrite your request
into something that I can feed to an AI. Using ChatGPT 3 and asking:
"What is the percent immigration, in and out of California by
political party in 2024?"
<https://chatgpt.com/share/68439ab9-02c0-800c-8ef4-8b182445d370>
I could try to squeeze some better and more specific info out of the
AI, but I would need a clue as to what you are looking for. I can
also ask other AI's and/or reword the request. I don't care about
what you're trying to prove. Just what information you need to prove
your point.
What catrike wrote was perteinent. What you wrote was nothing more than a lie. The Liebermann special of the day.
On 7/11/2025 6:50 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 23:32:05 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
My illegal next door neighbors
Why haven't you reported them to Trump's Police State?
They'll put them on the plane without even checking their
nationality. It's their word against yours...
[]'s
Nothing about the problem, and none of the solutions, are
novel. We've been here before and we shall inevitably be
here again and the sky isn't falling any time soon.
https://www.history.com/articles/operation-wetback-eisenhower-1954-deportation
Recently: >https://infographicsite.com/infographic/deportations-under-us-presidents-statistics/
Long time scale numbers: >https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/yearbook/2019/table39
The radio news (no TeeVee, but I assume similar content)
just harangues Mr Holman every day about deportations.
Interestingly, he held the exact same job in the Obama
administrations and directed about 9 million deportations
then with hardly a media mention. Odd isn't it?
Jeff, why do you always give the half of the information that makes you look smart and not the other half that shows you as a complete idiot? Those "Entering California" are illegal aliens seeking the "safety" of sanctury cities and those "LeavingCalifornia" are the skilled laborers, engineers, accountants and other taxpayers.
Silicon Valley is GONE and probably will never return. My illegal next door neighbors came around the corner by our houses too fast hit the back of their SUV which dented my SUV parked in front of it.
The next day they had a NEW HONDA SUV and a NEW Mustang GT. They could not even afford the manditory insurance on either of those vehicles so Gavin Newsom is picking up the bill meaning MY MONEY. I get to pay for someone wrecking my car.
On 7/11/2025 8:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/11/2025 6:50 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 23:32:05 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
My illegal next door neighbors
Why haven't you reported them to Trump's Police State?
They'll put them on the plane without even checking
their
nationality. It's their word against yours...
[]'s
Nothing about the problem, and none of the solutions, are
novel. We've been here before and we shall inevitably be
here again and the sky isn't falling any time soon.
https://www.history.com/articles/operation-wetback-
eisenhower-1954- deportation
Recently:
https://infographicsite.com/infographic/deportations-
under-us- presidents-statistics/
Long time scale numbers:
https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/yearbook/2019/table39
The radio news (no TeeVee, but I assume similar content)
just harangues Mr Holman every day about deportations.
Interestingly, he held the exact same job in the Obama
administrations and directed about 9 million deportations
then with hardly a media mention. Odd isn't it?
It's certainly interesting. But in all those previous years,
I don't recall anything about massive raids by armed and
armored agents wearing masks and no visible identification,
and giving no opportunity for legal representation or
appeal. If that was happening under, say, Biden and Obama,
the right wing media should have been all over it.
I also don't remember hearing about shipping aliens directly
off to prisons in other countries. Was that done? Enlighten me.
On 7/11/2025 8:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/11/2025 6:50 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 23:32:05 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
My illegal next door neighbors
Why haven't you reported them to Trump's Police State?
They'll put them on the plane without even checking their
nationality. It's their word against yours...
[]'s
Nothing about the problem, and none of the solutions, are novel. We've
been here before and we shall inevitably be here again and the sky isn't
falling any time soon.
https://www.history.com/articles/operation-wetback-eisenhower-1954-
deportation
Recently:
https://infographicsite.com/infographic/deportations-under-us-
presidents-statistics/
Long time scale numbers:
https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/yearbook/2019/table39
The radio news (no TeeVee, but I assume similar content) just harangues
Mr Holman every day about deportations. Interestingly, he held the exact
same job in the Obama administrations and directed about 9 million
deportations then with hardly a media mention. Odd isn't it?
It's certainly interesting. But in all those previous years, I don't
recall anything about massive raids by armed and armored agents wearing
masks and no visible identification, and giving no opportunity for legal >representation or appeal. If that was happening under, say, Biden and
Obama, the right wing media should have been all over it.
I also don't remember hearing about shipping aliens directly off to
prisons in other countries. Was that done? Enlighten me.
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:54:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/9/2025 3:14 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester- >>>>>>>>>>> killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery- >>>>>>>>>>> suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar >>>>>>>>>>> situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending >>>>>>>>>> both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data >>>>>>>>>> demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has >>>>>>>>>> a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes >>>>>>>>> who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their >>>>>>>>> home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests >>>>>>>>> that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
I don't know about more or less ...
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've ignored >>>>>>> the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the
well-documented correlation between guns in the household and
household
members being shot - usually by others in the home. The correlation is >>>>>>> strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using that >>>>>>> fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless.
The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you didn't bother to >>>>> read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I listed.... here's >>>> some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs in the home?
How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with criminals?
How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children could play with
them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way to kill
themselves?
Gee, dumbass, if you had read the studies you might have seen what
factors were accounted for.
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
and irony meters all over the internet explode.
--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger
As you've aptly demonstrated: never. When that time comes where you feel
the need to pull you gun on someone on the bike path (maybe for having
the audacity to stop you to ask about your trike), and that person grabs
it from your feeble old hands, pistol whips you with it, and steals it
it, you'll still think carrying the gun was a good idea. _you_, will
never learn.
Goodness gracious, is this a common happening?
Strange that I've known
a number of people that carried a gun and the never reported the above happening,
Vivid imagination?
--
cheers,
John B.
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 14:39:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 17:14:45 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:46:10 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/8/2025 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
But the internet has " Age 77" living at at 29Where the flying fuck do you get off posting peoples addresses you
Ohio Ave, Poland, 44514 Ohio. Isn't this our very own
Frankie?
The population was 2,463 at the 2020 United States census.[4] A suburb >>>>> about 7 miles (11 km) south of Youngstown, Area • Total
1.66 sq mi (4.29 km2)
asshole? Go fuck yourself.
Why ever not. Simply do a search for "Francis Krygowski" and you get
the information I posted above. Public information one assumes if it
is scattered all over the Web.
That's not an "internet search". When I search for:
"Francis Krygowski" or "Francis Krygowski Ohio", using Google, I get
nothing:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Francis%20Krygowski%20ohio>
However, DuckDuckGo.com produces his address:
<https://duckduckgo.com/?t=h_&q=Francis%20Krygowski%20ohio&ia=web>
in three listings from data brokers that sell such information. I
suspect that Frank was not asked if he wanted his address to appear on
the internet. Just because someone has Franks address and can post it
on the internet, does not automatically give everyone permission to
ignore Frank's expectations of privacy.
Such privacy is a rather sticky questions and is subject to multiple
interpretations. For example, I was able to find Tom's address and
phone numbers online. However, I have NEVER posted these to
rec.bicycles.tech, even though they would have been very useful in a
discussion. Also, how would you like it if someone posted your home
address to a newsgroup without your consent?
There are paid services available to remove addresses and phone
numbers from internet sites and data broker services. For example:
<https://joindeleteme.com>
<https://lifelock.norton.com/learn/identity-theft-resources/remove-personal-information-from-the-internet>
More:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=remove%20personal%20information%20from%20internet>
<https://support.google.com/maps/answer/15439776>
Drivel: I survived surgery by the local hospital body mechanics
today. Details some other day mostly because I'm not feeling very
wonderful today.
Strange, a quick look here gets:
Francis R Krygowski, Age 77, Poland, OH
Francis Krygowski Living on Ohio Ave in Youngstown, OH
On 7/9/2025 8:45 PM, "the asshole" wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:54:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/9/2025 3:14 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank KrygowskiI don't know about more or less ...
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester- >>>>>>>>>>>> killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery- >>>>>>>>>>>> suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar >>>>>>>>>>>> situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending >>>>>>>>>>> both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data >>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has >>>>>>>>>>> a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes >>>>>>>>>> who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their >>>>>>>>>> home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests >>>>>>>>>> that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot. >>>>>>>>>
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've ignored >>>>>>>> the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the >>>>>>>> well-documented correlation between guns in the household and
household
members being shot - usually by others in the home. The correlation is >>>>>>>> strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using that >>>>>>>> fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless. >>>>>>>
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you didn't bother to >>>>>> read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I listed.... here's >>>>> some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs in the home?
How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with criminals?
How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children could play with >>>>> them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way to kill
themselves?
Gee, dumbass, if you had read the studies you might have seen what
factors were accounted for.
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
and irony meters all over the internet explode.
--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger
As you've aptly demonstrated: never. When that time comes where you feel >>> the need to pull you gun on someone on the bike path (maybe for having
the audacity to stop you to ask about your trike), and that person grabs >>> it from your feeble old hands, pistol whips you with it, and steals it
it, you'll still think carrying the gun was a good idea. _you_, will
never learn.
Goodness gracious, is this a common happening?
Common enough that multiple links have been posted here, Of course, you
- like the floriduh dumbass - will claim it never happens because you've >never seen it personally and other bigger reason: you don't _want_ it to
be true.
Strange that I've known
a number of people that carried a gun and the never reported the above
happening,
Q.E.D., the fact that your experience growing up in a small new
hampshire village in the 1950s is in no way representative of the US at
large in the 21st century notwithstanding.
On 7/9/2025 8:45 PM, "the asshole" wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:54:26 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/9/2025 3:14 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-
mourn-protester-
killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-
shoots-robbery-
suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many
dissimilar
situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking.
It's pretending
both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several
studies whose data
demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get
shot if he has
a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have
guns in their homes
who don't get shot than those who do. That means
that there is a
correlation between the number of people having
guns in their
home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented,
that suggests
that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to
get shot.
I don't know about more or less ...
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that
means you've ignored
the multiple research papers I've cited and linked
here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to
understand the
well-documented correlation between guns in the
household and
household
members being shot - usually by others in the home.
The correlation is
strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household
member. But using that
fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely
senseless.
The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you
didn't bother to
read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I
listed.... here's
some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs
in the home?
How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with
criminals?
How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children
could play with
them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way
to kill
themselves?
Gee, dumbass, if you had read the studies you might have
seen what
factors were accounted for.
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
and irony meters all over the internet explode.
--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger
As you've aptly demonstrated: never. When that time comes
where you feel
the need to pull you gun on someone on the bike path
(maybe for having
the audacity to stop you to ask about your trike), and
that person grabs
it from your feeble old hands, pistol whips you with it,
and steals it
it, you'll still think carrying the gun was a good idea.
_you_, will
never learn.
Goodness gracious, is this a common happening?
Common enough that multiple links have been posted here, Of
course, you - like the floriduh dumbass - will claim it
never happens because you've never seen it personally and
other bigger reason: you don't _want_ it to be true.
Strange that I've known
a number of people that carried a gun and the never
reported the above
happening,
Q.E.D., the fact that your experience growing up in a small
new hampshire village in the 1950s is in no way
representative of the US at large in the 21st century
notwithstanding.
Vivid imagination?
no, news reports. And no, I'm not going to do your homework
for you, asshole. Many links have been posted here, and the
information is easily searchable. look it up yourself.
--
cheers,
John B.
On 7/12/2025 5:25 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/9/2025 8:45 PM, "the asshole" wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:54:26 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/9/2025 3:14 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-
mourn-protester-
killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-
shoots-robbery-
suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many
dissimilar
situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking.
It's pretending
both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several
studies whose data
demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get
shot if he has
a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have
guns in their homes
who don't get shot than those who do. That means
that there is a
correlation between the number of people having
guns in their
home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented,
that suggests
that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to
get shot.
I don't know about more or less ...
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that
means you've ignored
the multiple research papers I've cited and linked
here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to
understand the
well-documented correlation between guns in the
household and
household
members being shot - usually by others in the home.
The correlation is
strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household
member. But using that
fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely
senseless.
The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you
didn't bother to
read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I
listed.... here's
some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs
in the home?
How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with
criminals?
How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children
could play with
them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way
to kill
themselves?
Gee, dumbass, if you had read the studies you might have
seen what
factors were accounted for.
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
and irony meters all over the internet explode.
--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger
As you've aptly demonstrated: never. When that time comes
where you feel
the need to pull you gun on someone on the bike path
(maybe for having
the audacity to stop you to ask about your trike), and
that person grabs
it from your feeble old hands, pistol whips you with it,
and steals it
it, you'll still think carrying the gun was a good idea.
_you_, will
never learn.
Goodness gracious, is this a common happening?
Common enough that multiple links have been posted here, Of
course, you - like the floriduh dumbass - will claim it
never happens because you've never seen it personally and
other bigger reason: you don't _want_ it to be true.
Strange that I've known
a number of people that carried a gun and the never
reported the above
happening,
Q.E.D., the fact that your experience growing up in a small
new hampshire village in the 1950s is in no way
representative of the US at large in the 21st century
notwithstanding.
Vivid imagination?
no, news reports. And no, I'm not going to do your homework
for you, asshole. Many links have been posted here, and the
information is easily searchable. look it up yourself.
--
cheers,
John B.
My experience in Wisconsin was similar. I'm much younger
but in my area most men had rifles and we boys pilfered
rounds, separated them, and did things such as floating a
model boat with propellant and a candle in the stream to
watch it flare and sink. And of course melted the lead.
We were not supposed to touch firearms, and certainly never
load one, and AFAIK no one ever did. The only pistols I saw
as a boy were police/sheriff revolvers. I never saw one out
of its holster.
On Fri Jul 11 20:50:18 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 23:32:05 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
My illegal next door neighbors
Why haven't you reported them to Trump's Police State?
They'll put them on the plane without even checking their
nationality. It's their word against yours...
If you want to enter the USA illegally you will be sent to anywhere they will take you. Tough shit if you don't like it. I have NO resposibility to hold your hand and sing kum-by-yah.
Exactly! The point is that for generations people lived, and likely
still do , with guns in home with no problems and today it's all
changed and people like Frank are shouting "its the guns, the guns
made them do it".
As an aside it's not a village in the 1950's, it is "for generators..
On 7/11/2025 8:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/11/2025 6:50 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 23:32:05 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
My illegal next door neighbors
Why haven't you reported them to Trump's Police State?
They'll put them on the plane without even checking their
nationality. It's their word against yours...
[]'s
Nothing about the problem, and none of the solutions, are novel. We've
been here before and we shall inevitably be here again and the sky isn't
falling any time soon.
https://www.history.com/articles/operation-wetback-eisenhower-1954-
deportation
Recently:
https://infographicsite.com/infographic/deportations-under-us-
presidents-statistics/
Long time scale numbers:
https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/yearbook/2019/table39
The radio news (no TeeVee, but I assume similar content) just harangues
Mr Holman every day about deportations. Interestingly, he held the exact
same job in the Obama administrations and directed about 9 million
deportations then with hardly a media mention. Odd isn't it?
It's certainly interesting. But in all those previous years, I don't
recall anything about massive raids by armed and armored agents wearing
masks and no visible identification, and giving no opportunity for legal >representation or appeal. If that was happening under, say, Biden and
Obama, the right wing media should have been all over it.
I also don't remember hearing about shipping aliens directly off to
prisons in other countries. Was that done? Enlighten me.
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 05:08:01 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
Exactly! The point is that for generations people lived, and likely
still do , with guns in home with no problems and today it's all
changed and people like Frank are shouting "its the guns, the guns
made them do it".
As an aside it's not a village in the 1950's, it is "for generators..
You had State run mental institutions for maybe hundreds of
years. Anyone not "quite right in the head" would be "put away".
Now mental illness is big business and psychotics can buy
guns.
So some things HAVE changed.
[]'s
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 00:35:55 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Fri Jul 11 20:50:18 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 23:32:05 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
My illegal next door neighbors
Why haven't you reported them to Trump's Police State?
They'll put them on the plane without even checking their
nationality. It's their word against yours...
If you want to enter the USA illegally you will be sent to anywhere they
will take you. Tough shit if you don't like it. I have NO resposibility
to hold your hand and sing kum-by-yah.
I wouldn't enter the US if you paid me.
You didn't answer my question. Why don't you report them to
the Trump's Police State?
[]'s
Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 00:35:55 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Fri Jul 11 20:50:18 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 23:32:05 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
My illegal next door neighbors
Why haven't you reported them to Trump's Police State?
They'll put them on the plane without even checking their
nationality. It's their word against yours...
If you want to enter the USA illegally you will be sent to anywhere they >>> will take you. Tough shit if you don't like it. I have NO resposibility
to hold your hand and sing kum-by-yah.
I wouldn't enter the US if you paid me.
I’m told this is true for lots of people, be that for business or leisure, US isn’t making itself open for travel.
Hence the decline in tourism and business travel.
You didn't answer my question. Why don't you report them to
the Trump's Police State?
[]'s
Roger Merriman
On 7/12/2025 1:57 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 05:08:01 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
Exactly! The point is that for generations people lived, and likely
still do , with guns in home with no problems and today it's all
changed and people like Frank are shouting "its the guns, the guns
made them do it".
As an aside it's not a village in the 1950's, it is "for generators..
You had State run mental institutions for maybe hundreds of
years. Anyone not "quite right in the head" would be "put away".
Now mental illness is big business and psychotics can buy
guns.
So some things HAVE changed.
[]'s
Yes, a disservice to the mentally crippled and their long
suffering neighborhoods. But there's some history to it.
There were real and horrific abuse incidents at some
institutions
which were widely publicized. We're still--
living in the over reaction from those.
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 06:25:34 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2025 8:45 PM, "the asshole" wrote:Exactly!
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:54:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/9/2025 3:14 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank KrygowskiI don't know about more or less ...
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester- >>>>>>>>>>>>> killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery- >>>>>>>>>>>>> suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar >>>>>>>>>>>>> situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending >>>>>>>>>>>> both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data >>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has >>>>>>>>>>>> a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes >>>>>>>>>>> who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their >>>>>>>>>>> home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests >>>>>>>>>>> that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot. >>>>>>>>>>
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've ignored
the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the >>>>>>>>> well-documented correlation between guns in the household and >>>>>>>>> household
members being shot - usually by others in the home. The correlation is
strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using that >>>>>>>>> fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless. >>>>>>>>
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you didn't bother to >>>>>>> read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I listed.... here's >>>>>> some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs in the home? >>>>>> How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with criminals?
How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children could play with >>>>>> them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way to kill
themselves?
Gee, dumbass, if you had read the studies you might have seen what
factors were accounted for.
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
and irony meters all over the internet explode.
--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger
As you've aptly demonstrated: never. When that time comes where you feel >>>> the need to pull you gun on someone on the bike path (maybe for having >>>> the audacity to stop you to ask about your trike), and that person grabs >>>> it from your feeble old hands, pistol whips you with it, and steals it >>>> it, you'll still think carrying the gun was a good idea. _you_, will
never learn.
Goodness gracious, is this a common happening?
Common enough that multiple links have been posted here, Of course, you
- like the floriduh dumbass - will claim it never happens because you've
never seen it personally and other bigger reason: you don't _want_ it to
be true.
Strange that I've known
a number of people that carried a gun and the never reported the above
happening,
Q.E.D., the fact that your experience growing up in a small new
hampshire village in the 1950s is in no way representative of the US at
large in the 21st century notwithstanding.
The point is that for generations people lived, and likely
still do , with guns in home with no problems
and today it's all
changed and people like Frank are shouting "its the guns, the guns
made them do it".
As an aside it's not a village in the 1950's, it is "for generators..
So what happened? Perhaps a quick look at the studies of firearm
homicides? And who is doing the shooting?
https://www.bradyunited.org/resources/issues/gun-violence-is-a-racial-justice-issue#:~:text=THE%20HOMICIDE%20DIVIDE&text=A%20Black%20person.%20is%20over,firearm%20compared%20to%20white%20people.
For example, one of many
--
cheers,
John B.
On 7/12/2025 8:08 AM, asshole wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 06:25:34 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2025 8:45 PM, "the asshole" wrote:Exactly!
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:54:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/9/2025 3:14 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank KrygowskiI don't know about more or less ...
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar >>>>>>>>>>>>>> situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending >>>>>>>>>>>>> both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data >>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has >>>>>>>>>>>>> a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes
who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their >>>>>>>>>>>> home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests >>>>>>>>>>>> that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot. >>>>>>>>>>>
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've ignored
the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the >>>>>>>>>> well-documented correlation between guns in the household and >>>>>>>>>> household
members being shot - usually by others in the home. The correlation is
strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using that
fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless. >>>>>>>>>
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you didn't bother to >>>>>>>> read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I listed.... here's >>>>>>> some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs in the home? >>>>>>> How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with criminals?
How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children could play with >>>>>>> them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way to kill
themselves?
Gee, dumbass, if you had read the studies you might have seen what
factors were accounted for.
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
and irony meters all over the internet explode.
--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger
As you've aptly demonstrated: never. When that time comes where you feel >>>>> the need to pull you gun on someone on the bike path (maybe for having >>>>> the audacity to stop you to ask about your trike), and that person grabs >>>>> it from your feeble old hands, pistol whips you with it, and steals it >>>>> it, you'll still think carrying the gun was a good idea. _you_, will >>>>> never learn.
Goodness gracious, is this a common happening?
Common enough that multiple links have been posted here, Of course, you
- like the floriduh dumbass - will claim it never happens because you've >>> never seen it personally and other bigger reason: you don't _want_ it to >>> be true.
Strange that I've known
a number of people that carried a gun and the never reported the above >>>> happening,
Q.E.D., the fact that your experience growing up in a small new
hampshire village in the 1950s is in no way representative of the US at
large in the 21st century notwithstanding.
in your experience...
The point is that for generations people lived, and likely
still do , with guns in home with no problems
That isn't the point at all, and It doesn't change the fact that having
a gun in the home increases the chance of someone in the home getting
shot with it.
and today it's all
changed and people like Frank are shouting "its the guns, the guns
made them do it".
Post a link to where Frank every claimed "the guns made them do it".
As an aside it's not a village in the 1950's, it is "for generators..
So what happened? Perhaps a quick look at the studies of firearm
homicides? And who is doing the shooting?
https://www.bradyunited.org/resources/issues/gun-violence-is-a-racial-justice-issue#:~:text=THE%20HOMICIDE%20DIVIDE&text=A%20Black%20person.%20is%20over,firearm%20compared%20to%20white%20people.
For example, one of many
which has nothing to do with the fact that having a gun in the home
increases the chance of someone in the home getting shot with it.
--
cheers,
John B.
"While tourism is booming across the rest of the world, the U.S. is a
notable loser this year as tens of millions of international visitors
are choosing to travel elsewherecosting the economy up to $29
billionand risking millions of jobs. "
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 18:09:50 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 16:27:26 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"While tourism is booming across the rest of the world, the U.S. is a >>>notable loser this year as tens of millions of international visitors
are choosing to travel elsewherecosting the economy up to $29 >>>billionand risking millions of jobs. "
"The U.S. Travel Winter 2025 Forecast projects travel expenditure in
the U.S. will continue to grow at normalized rates, driven by
resilient consumer spending, sustained business investment and major
events promoting international visits. The forecast data is driven by >>Tourism Economics' travel forecasting model."
https://www.ustravel.org/research
Well, that was a nice pro-Trump prediction. Here are the
latest (real) figures:
Remember, don't believe what you see, believe what Fox "News"
tells you:
https://www.ustravel.org/us-travel-snapshot-april-2025
//
International Travel to the United States is Trending Down
Based on preliminary data from the Department of Commerce, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection and outside organizations, international
visits to the United States fell approximately 14% in March 2025
compared to the same period last year.
The decline is most notable in:
Canada: 26% annual decline in overnight land trips in March and
air travel down 14% YoY (StatsCan).
Western Europe: 17% decline in visits for March of 2025 is the
first decline since 2021 (Department of Commerce).
Asia: A second consecutive month of declines in visits from a
region still 25% below 2019 levels (Department of Commerce).
South America: 10% decrease in visits in March after a flat
February (Department of Commerce).
These are historically our highest-value inbound travel markets.
Florida was the top destination for international visitors in March >(Department of Commerce).
The Economic Cost
Every 1% drop in international visitor spending = $1.8 billion
lost in export revenue annually. If this 14% decline were to hold
through 2025, the U.S. stands to lose $21 billion in travel-related
exports.
//
(I bet Trump sold all his shares in tourism)
[]'s
PS Just read a far right wing site that explains that
Canadians are preferring countries "closer to home" like England and
France. I almost choked, then remembered that Americans are not taught >geography at school.....so most Trumpsters probably believe it.
Source : Fareleaders.
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 16:27:26 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"While tourism is booming across the rest of the world, the U.S. is a >>notable loser this year as tens of millions of international visitors
are choosing to travel elsewherecosting the economy up to $29
billionand risking millions of jobs. "
"The U.S. Travel Winter 2025 Forecast projects travel expenditure in
the U.S. will continue to grow at normalized rates, driven by
resilient consumer spending, sustained business investment and major
events promoting international visits. The forecast data is driven by
Tourism Economics' travel forecasting model."
https://www.ustravel.org/research
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 19:57:47 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 18:09:50 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 16:27:26 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"While tourism is booming across the rest of the world, the U.S. is a >>>>notable loser this year as tens of millions of international visitors >>>>are choosing to travel elsewherecosting the economy up to $29 >>>>billionand risking millions of jobs. "
"The U.S. Travel Winter 2025 Forecast projects travel expenditure in
the U.S. will continue to grow at normalized rates, driven by
resilient consumer spending, sustained business investment and major >>>events promoting international visits. The forecast data is driven by >>>Tourism Economics' travel forecasting model."
https://www.ustravel.org/research
Well, that was a nice pro-Trump prediction. Here are the
latest (real) figures:
Remember, don't believe what you see, believe what Fox "News"
tells you:
https://www.ustravel.org/us-travel-snapshot-april-2025
//
International Travel to the United States is Trending Down
Based on preliminary data from the Department of Commerce, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection and outside organizations, international >>visits to the United States fell approximately 14% in March 2025
compared to the same period last year.
The decline is most notable in:
Canada: 26% annual decline in overnight land trips in March and
air travel down 14% YoY (StatsCan).
Western Europe: 17% decline in visits for March of 2025 is the
first decline since 2021 (Department of Commerce).
Asia: A second consecutive month of declines in visits from a
region still 25% below 2019 levels (Department of Commerce).
South America: 10% decrease in visits in March after a flat
February (Department of Commerce).
These are historically our highest-value inbound travel markets.
Florida was the top destination for international visitors in March >>(Department of Commerce).
The Economic Cost
Every 1% drop in international visitor spending = $1.8 billion
lost in export revenue annually. If this 14% decline were to hold
through 2025, the U.S. stands to lose $21 billion in travel-related >>exports.
//
(I bet Trump sold all his shares in tourism)
[]'s
PS Just read a far right wing site that explains that
Canadians are preferring countries "closer to home" like England and >>France. I almost choked, then remembered that Americans are not taught >>geography at school.....so most Trumpsters probably believe it.
Source : Fareleaders.
From that cite:
Based on preliminary data from the Department of Commerce, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection and outside organizations, international
visits to the United States fell approximately 14% in March 2025
compared to the same period last year.
One month? Really?
All hospitals have been required since the 1800's to record births and pass them on to the city, county and state hall of records.
NO ONE doesn't have a birth certificate.
On 7/12/2025 1:57 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 05:08:01 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
Exactly! The point is that for generations people lived, and likely
still do , with guns in home with no problems and today it's all
changed and people like Frank are shouting "its the guns, the guns
made them do it".
As an aside it's not a village in the 1950's, it is "for generators..
You had State run mental institutions for maybe hundreds of
years. Anyone not "quite right in the head" would be "put away".
Now mental illness is big business and psychotics can buy
guns.
So some things HAVE changed.
[]'s
Yes, a disservice to the mentally crippled and their long
suffering neighborhoods. But there's some history to it.
There were real and horrific abuse incidents at some
institutions which were widely publicized. We're still
living in the over reaction from those.
On 7/12/2025 5:25 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/9/2025 8:45 PM, "the asshole" wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:54:26 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/9/2025 3:14 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-
mourn-protester-
killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-
shoots-robbery-
suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many
dissimilar
situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking.
It's pretending
both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several
studies whose data
demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get
shot if he has
a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have
guns in their homes
who don't get shot than those who do. That means
that there is a
correlation between the number of people having
guns in their
home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented,
that suggests
that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to
get shot.
I don't know about more or less ...
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that
means you've ignored
the multiple research papers I've cited and linked
here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to
understand the
well-documented correlation between guns in the
household and
household
members being shot - usually by others in the home.
The correlation is
strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household
member. But using that
fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely
senseless.
The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you
didn't bother to
read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I
listed.... here's
some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs
in the home?
How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with
criminals?
How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children
could play with
them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way
to kill
themselves?
Gee, dumbass, if you had read the studies you might have
seen what
factors were accounted for.
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
and irony meters all over the internet explode.
--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger
As you've aptly demonstrated: never. When that time comes
where you feel
the need to pull you gun on someone on the bike path
(maybe for having
the audacity to stop you to ask about your trike), and
that person grabs
it from your feeble old hands, pistol whips you with it,
and steals it
it, you'll still think carrying the gun was a good idea.
_you_, will
never learn.
Goodness gracious, is this a common happening?
Common enough that multiple links have been posted here, Of
course, you - like the floriduh dumbass - will claim it
never happens because you've never seen it personally and
other bigger reason: you don't _want_ it to be true.
Strange that I've known
a number of people that carried a gun and the never
reported the above
happening,
Q.E.D., the fact that your experience growing up in a small
new hampshire village in the 1950s is in no way
representative of the US at large in the 21st century
notwithstanding.
Vivid imagination?
no, news reports. And no, I'm not going to do your homework
for you, asshole. Many links have been posted here, and the
information is easily searchable. look it up yourself.
--
cheers,
John B.
My experience in Wisconsin was similar. I'm much younger
but in my area most men had rifles and we boys pilfered
rounds, separated them, and did things such as floating a
model boat with propellant and a candle in the stream to
watch it flare and sink. And of course melted the lead.
We were not supposed to touch firearms, and certainly never
load one, and AFAIK no one ever did. The only pistols I saw
as a boy were police/sheriff revolvers. I never saw one out
of its holster.
On 7/12/2025 8:08 AM, asshole wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 06:25:34 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2025 8:45 PM, "the asshole" wrote:Exactly!
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:54:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/9/2025 3:14 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank KrygowskiI don't know about more or less ...
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar >>>>>>>>>>>>>> situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending >>>>>>>>>>>>> both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data >>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has >>>>>>>>>>>>> a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes
who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their >>>>>>>>>>>> home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests >>>>>>>>>>>> that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot. >>>>>>>>>>>
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've ignored
the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here.
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the >>>>>>>>>> well-documented correlation between guns in the household and >>>>>>>>>> household
members being shot - usually by others in the home. The correlation is
strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using that
fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless. >>>>>>>>>
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you didn't bother to >>>>>>>> read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I listed.... here's >>>>>>> some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs in the home? >>>>>>> How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with criminals?
How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children could play with >>>>>>> them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way to kill
themselves?
Gee, dumbass, if you had read the studies you might have seen what
factors were accounted for.
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
and irony meters all over the internet explode.
--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger
As you've aptly demonstrated: never. When that time comes where you feel >>>>> the need to pull you gun on someone on the bike path (maybe for having >>>>> the audacity to stop you to ask about your trike), and that person grabs >>>>> it from your feeble old hands, pistol whips you with it, and steals it >>>>> it, you'll still think carrying the gun was a good idea. _you_, will >>>>> never learn.
Goodness gracious, is this a common happening?
Common enough that multiple links have been posted here, Of course, you
- like the floriduh dumbass - will claim it never happens because you've >>> never seen it personally and other bigger reason: you don't _want_ it to >>> be true.
Strange that I've known
a number of people that carried a gun and the never reported the above >>>> happening,
Q.E.D., the fact that your experience growing up in a small new
hampshire village in the 1950s is in no way representative of the US at
large in the 21st century notwithstanding.
in your experience...
The point is that for generations people lived, and likely
still do , with guns in home with no problems
That isn't the point at all, and It doesn't change the fact that having
a gun in the home increases the chance of someone in the home getting
shot with it.
and today it's all
changed and people like Frank are shouting "its the guns, the guns
made them do it".
Post a link to where Frank every claimed "the guns made them do it".
As an aside it's not a village in the 1950's, it is "for generators..
So what happened? Perhaps a quick look at the studies of firearm
homicides? And who is doing the shooting?
https://www.bradyunited.org/resources/issues/gun-violence-is-a-racial-justice-issue#:~:text=THE%20HOMICIDE%20DIVIDE&text=A%20Black%20person.%20is%20over,firearm%20compared%20to%20white%20people.
For example, one of many
which has nothing to do with the fact that having a gun in the home
increases the chance of someone in the home getting shot with it.
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 19:05:39 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 19:57:47 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 18:09:50 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 16:27:26 -0400, zen cycle >>>><funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"While tourism is booming across the rest of the world, the U.S. is a >>>>>notable loser this year as tens of millions of international visitors >>>>>are choosing to travel elsewherecosting the economy up to $29 >>>>>billionand risking millions of jobs. "
"The U.S. Travel Winter 2025 Forecast projects travel expenditure in >>>>the U.S. will continue to grow at normalized rates, driven by
resilient consumer spending, sustained business investment and major >>>>events promoting international visits. The forecast data is driven by >>>>Tourism Economics' travel forecasting model."
https://www.ustravel.org/research
Well, that was a nice pro-Trump prediction. Here are the
latest (real) figures:
Remember, don't believe what you see, believe what Fox "News"
tells you:
https://www.ustravel.org/us-travel-snapshot-april-2025
//
International Travel to the United States is Trending Down
Based on preliminary data from the Department of Commerce, U.S. >>>Customs and Border Protection and outside organizations, international >>>visits to the United States fell approximately 14% in March 2025
compared to the same period last year.
The decline is most notable in:
Canada: 26% annual decline in overnight land trips in March and
air travel down 14% YoY (StatsCan).
Western Europe: 17% decline in visits for March of 2025 is the
first decline since 2021 (Department of Commerce).
Asia: A second consecutive month of declines in visits from a
region still 25% below 2019 levels (Department of Commerce).
South America: 10% decrease in visits in March after a flat
February (Department of Commerce).
These are historically our highest-value inbound travel markets.
Florida was the top destination for international visitors in March >>>(Department of Commerce).
The Economic Cost
Every 1% drop in international visitor spending = $1.8 billion
lost in export revenue annually. If this 14% decline were to hold
through 2025, the U.S. stands to lose $21 billion in travel-related >>>exports.
//
(I bet Trump sold all his shares in tourism)
[]'s
PS Just read a far right wing site that explains that
Canadians are preferring countries "closer to home" like England and >>>France. I almost choked, then remembered that Americans are not taught >>>geography at school.....so most Trumpsters probably believe it.
Source : Fareleaders.
From that cite:
Based on preliminary data from the Department of Commerce, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection and outside organizations, international >>visits to the United States fell approximately 14% in March 2025
compared to the same period last year.
One month? Really?
The data is the latest "official", for the month of March. If
you can find more recent data, post a link.
Yes, there was a drop of 14% compared to March of last year
under Biden.
Note the article also compares with the years of 2019
(pre-Covid), 2021 and even February 2015.
It's not just March. But by all means, buy shares in Hotels
and other venues International travelers use in the US. It's your
money.
[]'s
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 14:23:33 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/12/2025 1:57 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 05:08:01 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
Exactly! The point is that for generations people lived, and likely
still do , with guns in home with no problems and today it's all
changed and people like Frank are shouting "its the guns, the guns
made them do it".
As an aside it's not a village in the 1950's, it is "for generators..
You had State run mental institutions for maybe hundreds of
years. Anyone not "quite right in the head" would be "put away".
Now mental illness is big business and psychotics can buy
guns.
So some things HAVE changed.
[]'s
Yes, a disservice to the mentally crippled and their long
suffering neighborhoods. But there's some history to it.
There were real and horrific abuse incidents at some
institutions which were widely publicized. We're still
living in the over reaction from those.
I've even read studies that propose that those like Frank, running up
and the street shouting, "Oh the Gun!, The Gun! were responsible for
some of the shootings by publicizing the events as so many appeared to >copycat events.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5296697/ >https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/08/06/748767807/mass-shootings-can-be-contagious-research-shows
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/yes-mass-killings-inspire-copycats-study-finds-n386141
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 16:20:01 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2025 8:08 AM, asshole wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 06:25:34 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2025 8:45 PM, "the asshole" wrote:Exactly!
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:54:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 7/9/2025 3:14 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank KrygowskiI don't know about more or less ...
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending >>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data >>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes
who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>>>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their >>>>>>>>>>>>> home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests >>>>>>>>>>>>> that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot. >>>>>>>>>>>>
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've ignored
the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here. >>>>>>>>>>>
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the >>>>>>>>>>> well-documented correlation between guns in the household and >>>>>>>>>>> household
members being shot - usually by others in the home. The correlation is
strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using that
fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless. >>>>>>>>>>
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you didn't bother to
read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I listed.... here's >>>>>>>> some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs in the home? >>>>>>>> How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with criminals? >>>>>>>> How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children could play with >>>>>>>> them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way to kill >>>>>>>> themselves?
Gee, dumbass, if you had read the studies you might have seen what >>>>>> factors were accounted for.
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
and irony meters all over the internet explode.
--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger
As you've aptly demonstrated: never. When that time comes where you feel >>>>>> the need to pull you gun on someone on the bike path (maybe for having >>>>>> the audacity to stop you to ask about your trike), and that person grabs >>>>>> it from your feeble old hands, pistol whips you with it, and steals it >>>>>> it, you'll still think carrying the gun was a good idea. _you_, will >>>>>> never learn.
Goodness gracious, is this a common happening?
Common enough that multiple links have been posted here, Of course, you >>>> - like the floriduh dumbass - will claim it never happens because you've >>>> never seen it personally and other bigger reason: you don't _want_ it to >>>> be true.
Strange that I've known
a number of people that carried a gun and the never reported the above >>>>> happening,
Q.E.D., the fact that your experience growing up in a small new
hampshire village in the 1950s is in no way representative of the US at >>>> large in the 21st century notwithstanding.
in your experience...
The point is that for generations people lived, and likely
still do , with guns in home with no problems
That isn't the point at all, and It doesn't change the fact that having
a gun in the home increases the chance of someone in the home getting
shot with it.
and today it's all
changed and people like Frank are shouting "its the guns, the guns
made them do it".
Post a link to where Frank every claimed "the guns made them do it".
As an aside it's not a village in the 1950's, it is "for generators..
So what happened? Perhaps a quick look at the studies of firearm
homicides? And who is doing the shooting?
https://www.bradyunited.org/resources/issues/gun-violence-is-a-racial-justice-issue#:~:text=THE%20HOMICIDE%20DIVIDE&text=A%20Black%20person.%20is%20over,firearm%20compared%20to%20white%20people.
For example, one of many
which has nothing to do with the fact that having a gun in the home >>increases the chance of someone in the home getting shot with it.
Of course it does just as living in a home that has a car increases
the chance of someone in the home dying in an auto wreck, and those
that live in boats drowning, and, and, .............. wait for
it...... and those that ride bicycles dying in a bike crash.....
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 21:23:54 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 19:05:39 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 19:57:47 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 18:09:50 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 16:27:26 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"While tourism is booming across the rest of the world, the U.S. is a >>>>>> notable loser this year as tens of millions of international visitors >>>>>> are choosing to travel elsewherecosting the economy up to $29
billionand risking millions of jobs. "
"The U.S. Travel Winter 2025 Forecast projects travel expenditure in >>>>> the U.S. will continue to grow at normalized rates, driven by
resilient consumer spending, sustained business investment and major >>>>> events promoting international visits. The forecast data is driven by >>>>> Tourism Economics' travel forecasting model."
https://www.ustravel.org/research
Well, that was a nice pro-Trump prediction. Here are the
latest (real) figures:
Remember, don't believe what you see, believe what Fox "News"
tells you:
https://www.ustravel.org/us-travel-snapshot-april-2025
//
International Travel to the United States is Trending Down
Based on preliminary data from the Department of Commerce, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection and outside organizations, international >>>> visits to the United States fell approximately 14% in March 2025
compared to the same period last year.
The decline is most notable in:
Canada: 26% annual decline in overnight land trips in March and
air travel down 14% YoY (StatsCan).
Western Europe: 17% decline in visits for March of 2025 is the
first decline since 2021 (Department of Commerce).
Asia: A second consecutive month of declines in visits from a
region still 25% below 2019 levels (Department of Commerce).
South America: 10% decrease in visits in March after a flat
February (Department of Commerce).
These are historically our highest-value inbound travel markets.
Florida was the top destination for international visitors in March
(Department of Commerce).
The Economic Cost
Every 1% drop in international visitor spending = $1.8 billion
lost in export revenue annually. If this 14% decline were to hold
through 2025, the U.S. stands to lose $21 billion in travel-related
exports.
//
(I bet Trump sold all his shares in tourism)
[]'s
PS Just read a far right wing site that explains that
Canadians are preferring countries "closer to home" like England and
France. I almost choked, then remembered that Americans are not taught >>>> geography at school.....so most Trumpsters probably believe it.
Source : Fareleaders.
From that cite:
Based on preliminary data from the Department of Commerce, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection and outside organizations, international
visits to the United States fell approximately 14% in March 2025
compared to the same period last year.
One month? Really?
The data is the latest "official", for the month of March. If
you can find more recent data, post a link.
Yes, there was a drop of 14% compared to March of last year
under Biden.
Note the article also compares with the years of 2019
(pre-Covid), 2021 and even February 2015.
It's not just March. But by all means, buy shares in Hotels
and other venues International travelers use in the US. It's your
money.
[]'s
I understand why tourists don't want to visit the big blue cities with
the hotels full of freeloading illegals and the sidewalks crammed with homeless and their excrement, but here in Florida, there's no problem.
"Overseas visitation is estimated at 2.1 million in Q1 2024 [Florida]"
https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2024/governor-ron-desantis-announces-record-breaking-tourism-numbers>
"From the 1st quarter of 2025 (January to March 2025), 41.19 million
visitors traveled to Florida."
"This total includes 37.85 million domestic visitors, 2.11 million
overseas visitors, and 1.23 million visitors from Canada." https://roadgenius.com/statistics/tourism/usa/florida/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 21:23:54 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 19:05:39 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 19:57:47 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 18:09:50 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 16:27:26 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"While tourism is booming across the rest of the world, the U.S. is a >>>>>>> notable loser this year as tens of millions of international visitors >>>>>>> are choosing to travel elsewhere?costing the economy up to $29
billion?and risking millions of jobs. "
"The U.S. Travel Winter 2025 Forecast projects travel expenditure in >>>>>> the U.S. will continue to grow at normalized rates, driven by
resilient consumer spending, sustained business investment and major >>>>>> events promoting international visits. The forecast data is driven by >>>>>> Tourism Economics' travel forecasting model."
https://www.ustravel.org/research
Well, that was a nice pro-Trump prediction. Here are the
latest (real) figures:
Remember, don't believe what you see, believe what Fox "News"
tells you:
https://www.ustravel.org/us-travel-snapshot-april-2025
//
International Travel to the United States is Trending Down
Based on preliminary data from the Department of Commerce, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection and outside organizations, international >>>>> visits to the United States fell approximately 14% in March 2025
compared to the same period last year.
The decline is most notable in:
Canada: 26% annual decline in overnight land trips in March and
air travel down 14% YoY (StatsCan).
Western Europe: 17% decline in visits for March of 2025 is the
first decline since 2021 (Department of Commerce).
Asia: A second consecutive month of declines in visits from a
region still 25% below 2019 levels (Department of Commerce).
South America: 10% decrease in visits in March after a flat
February (Department of Commerce).
These are historically our highest-value inbound travel markets.
Florida was the top destination for international visitors in March
(Department of Commerce).
The Economic Cost
Every 1% drop in international visitor spending = $1.8 billion
lost in export revenue annually. If this 14% decline were to hold
through 2025, the U.S. stands to lose $21 billion in travel-related
exports.
//
(I bet Trump sold all his shares in tourism)
[]'s
PS Just read a far right wing site that explains that
Canadians are preferring countries "closer to home" like England and >>>>> France. I almost choked, then remembered that Americans are not taught >>>>> geography at school.....so most Trumpsters probably believe it.
Source : Fareleaders.
From that cite:
Based on preliminary data from the Department of Commerce, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection and outside organizations, international >>>> visits to the United States fell approximately 14% in March 2025
compared to the same period last year.
One month? Really?
The data is the latest "official", for the month of March. If
you can find more recent data, post a link.
Yes, there was a drop of 14% compared to March of last year
under Biden.
Note the article also compares with the years of 2019
(pre-Covid), 2021 and even February 2015.
It's not just March. But by all means, buy shares in Hotels
and other venues International travelers use in the US. It's your
money.
[]'s
I understand why tourists don't want to visit the big blue cities with
the hotels full of freeloading illegals and the sidewalks crammed with
homeless and their excrement, but here in Florida, there's no problem.
Think about the Canadians there is good reason why they might be put off, >hint its orange!
Other places its more the instability and risks.
"Overseas visitation is estimated at 2.1 million in Q1 2024 [Florida]"
https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2024/governor-ron-desantis-announces-record-breaking-tourism-numbers>
"From the 1st quarter of 2025 (January to March 2025), 41.19 million
visitors traveled to Florida."
"This total includes 37.85 million domestic visitors, 2.11 million
overseas visitors, and 1.23 million visitors from Canada."
https://roadgenius.com/statistics/tourism/usa/florida/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Doesnt take more than a cursory search to see that the dip is a decline,
ie the 1st quarter was a dip but into the 2nd and its rate is continuing.
Clearly as above its mainly driven by the Canadians who understandably are >annoyed by Trump and his government.
Roger Merriman
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 18:09:50 -0400, floriduh dumbass
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 16:27:26 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"While tourism is booming across the rest of the world, the U.S. is a
notable loser this year as tens of millions of international visitors
are choosing to travel elsewhere—costing the economy up to $29
billion—and risking millions of jobs. "
"The U.S. Travel Winter 2025 Forecast projects travel expenditure in
the U.S. will continue to grow at normalized rates, driven by
resilient consumer spending, sustained business investment and major
events promoting international visits. The forecast data is driven by
Tourism Economics' travel forecasting model."
https://www.ustravel.org/research
https://www.ustravel.org/us-travel-snapshot-april-2025
//
International Travel to the United States is Trending Down
Based on preliminary data from the Department of Commerce, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection and outside organizations, international
visits to the United States fell approximately 14% in March 2025
compared to the same period last year.
The decline is most notable in:
Canada: 26% annual decline in overnight land trips in March and
air travel down 14% YoY (StatsCan).
Western Europe: 17% decline in visits for March of 2025 is the
first decline since 2021 (Department of Commerce).
Asia: A second consecutive month of declines in visits from a
region still 25% below 2019 levels (Department of Commerce).
South America: 10% decrease in visits in March after a flat
February (Department of Commerce).
These are historically our highest-value inbound travel markets.
Florida was the top destination for international visitors in March (Department of Commerce).
The Economic Cost
Every 1% drop in international visitor spending = $1.8 billion
lost in export revenue annually. If this 14% decline were to hold
through 2025, the U.S. stands to lose $21 billion in travel-related
exports.
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 16:20:01 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2025 8:08 AM, asshole wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 06:25:34 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2025 8:45 PM, "the asshole" wrote:Exactly!
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:54:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 7/9/2025 3:14 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank KrygowskiI don't know about more or less ...
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending >>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data >>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes
who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>>>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their >>>>>>>>>>>>> home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests >>>>>>>>>>>>> that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot. >>>>>>>>>>>>
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've ignored
the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here. >>>>>>>>>>>
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the >>>>>>>>>>> well-documented correlation between guns in the household and >>>>>>>>>>> household
members being shot - usually by others in the home. The correlation is
strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using that
fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless. >>>>>>>>>>
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you didn't bother to
read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I listed.... here's >>>>>>>> some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs in the home? >>>>>>>> How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with criminals? >>>>>>>> How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children could play with >>>>>>>> them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way to kill >>>>>>>> themselves?
Gee, dumbass, if you had read the studies you might have seen what >>>>>> factors were accounted for.
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
and irony meters all over the internet explode.
--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger
As you've aptly demonstrated: never. When that time comes where you feel >>>>>> the need to pull you gun on someone on the bike path (maybe for having >>>>>> the audacity to stop you to ask about your trike), and that person grabs >>>>>> it from your feeble old hands, pistol whips you with it, and steals it >>>>>> it, you'll still think carrying the gun was a good idea. _you_, will >>>>>> never learn.
Goodness gracious, is this a common happening?
Common enough that multiple links have been posted here, Of course, you >>>> - like the floriduh dumbass - will claim it never happens because you've >>>> never seen it personally and other bigger reason: you don't _want_ it to >>>> be true.
Strange that I've known
a number of people that carried a gun and the never reported the above >>>>> happening,
Q.E.D., the fact that your experience growing up in a small new
hampshire village in the 1950s is in no way representative of the US at >>>> large in the 21st century notwithstanding.
in your experience...
The point is that for generations people lived, and likely
still do , with guns in home with no problems
That isn't the point at all, and It doesn't change the fact that having
a gun in the home increases the chance of someone in the home getting
shot with it.
and today it's all
changed and people like Frank are shouting "its the guns, the guns
made them do it".
Post a link to where Frank every claimed "the guns made them do it".
As an aside it's not a village in the 1950's, it is "for generators..
So what happened? Perhaps a quick look at the studies of firearm
homicides? And who is doing the shooting?
https://www.bradyunited.org/resources/issues/gun-violence-is-a-racial-justice-issue#:~:text=THE%20HOMICIDE%20DIVIDE&text=A%20Black%20person.%20is%20over,firearm%20compared%20to%20white%20people.
For example, one of many
which has nothing to do with the fact that having a gun in the home
increases the chance of someone in the home getting shot with it.
Of course it does
just as living in a home that has a car increases
the chance of someone in the home dying in an auto wreck, and those
that live in boats drowning, and, and, .............. wait for
it...... and those that ride bicycles dying in a bike crash.....
--
cheers,
John B.
On 7/13/2025 1:21 AM, asshole wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 16:20:01 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2025 8:08 AM, asshole wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 06:25:34 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2025 8:45 PM, "the asshole" wrote:Exactly!
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:54:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 7/9/2025 3:14 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 22:29:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:18 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/8/2025 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:The correlation doesn't address any other factors.
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 04:32:47 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:I don't know about more or less ...
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending
both
outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has
a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes
who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> home and
people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that not
having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
It's good that you admit you don't know. But that means you've ignored
the multiple research papers I've cited and linked here. >>>>>>>>>>>>
I suspect you have enough competence at math to understand the >>>>>>>>>>>> well-documented correlation between guns in the household and >>>>>>>>>>>> household
members being shot - usually by others in the home. The correlation is
strong enough that it should be beyond doubt.
True, not _every_ gun shoots _every_ household member. But using that
fact to try disproving the correlation is absolutely senseless. >>>>>>>>>>>
The papers I cited most certainly did. Apparently you didn't bother to
read them.
Not that Krygowski snipped out the "other factors" I listed.... here's
some factors that weren't addressed.
How many of the gun owners who got shot also had drugs in the home? >>>>>>>>> How many used drugs?
How many were alcoholics?
How many had criminals in the home or hung out with criminals? >>>>>>>>> How many had no idea how to handle a gun?
How many were morons who left guns out where children could play with >>>>>>>>> them?
How many were suicidal and would have found another way to kill >>>>>>>>> themselves?
Gee, dumbass, if you had read the studies you might have seen what >>>>>>> factors were accounted for.
Willful ignorance! Such bliss, eh?
Indeed....
and irony meters all over the internet explode.
--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger
As you've aptly demonstrated: never. When that time comes where you feel
the need to pull you gun on someone on the bike path (maybe for having >>>>>>> the audacity to stop you to ask about your trike), and that person grabs
it from your feeble old hands, pistol whips you with it, and steals it >>>>>>> it, you'll still think carrying the gun was a good idea. _you_, will >>>>>>> never learn.
Goodness gracious, is this a common happening?
Common enough that multiple links have been posted here, Of course, you >>>>> - like the floriduh dumbass - will claim it never happens because you've >>>>> never seen it personally and other bigger reason: you don't _want_ it to >>>>> be true.
Strange that I've known
a number of people that carried a gun and the never reported the above >>>>>> happening,
Q.E.D., the fact that your experience growing up in a small new
hampshire village in the 1950s is in no way representative of the US at >>>>> large in the 21st century notwithstanding.
in your experience...
The point is that for generations people lived, and likely
still do , with guns in home with no problems
That isn't the point at all, and It doesn't change the fact that having
a gun in the home increases the chance of someone in the home getting
shot with it.
and today it's all
changed and people like Frank are shouting "its the guns, the guns
made them do it".
Post a link to where Frank every claimed "the guns made them do it".
As an aside it's not a village in the 1950's, it is "for generators..
So what happened? Perhaps a quick look at the studies of firearm
homicides? And who is doing the shooting?
https://www.bradyunited.org/resources/issues/gun-violence-is-a-racial-justice-issue#:~:text=THE%20HOMICIDE%20DIVIDE&text=A%20Black%20person.%20is%20over,firearm%20compared%20to%20white%20people.
For example, one of many
which has nothing to do with the fact that having a gun in the home
increases the chance of someone in the home getting shot with it.
Of course it does
No, dumbass, the link you posted has nothing to do with the fact that
having a gun in the home increases the chance of someone in the home
getting shot with it.
just as living in a home that has a car increases
the chance of someone in the home dying in an auto wreck, and those
that live in boats drowning, and, and, .............. wait for
it...... and those that ride bicycles dying in a bike crash.....
and....wait for it....just as participating in a forum with willfully >ignorant assholes increases the likelyhood of one of them posting a
willfully ignorant opinion.
That's been the point all along, you idiot - having a gun in the home
increases the chance of someone in the home getting shot with it.
It's you two dumbasses that keep denying that correlation, for two reasons:
1 - Frank was the one that posted the original study - in your two
pea-brains that means by default it's wrong
2 - you don't want it to be true, therefore it can't be. Newsflash,
dumbass - facts don't care about your opinion.
--
cheers,
John B.
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 22:46:11 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
All hospitals have been required since the 1800's to record births and pass them on to the city, county and state hall of records.
Nope. Only since 1902 in the US:
"When Were Birth Certificates First Used?" <https://www.usbirthcertificates.com/articles/history-birth-certificates>
"It wasn’t until 1902 however that the United States introduced a nationally regulated process at a federal level. This was overseen at
first by the Bureau of the Census.
At this point, a standard form was produced for registering births in
each state, although state governments still had overall control over
the issuance of birth certificates. This is still true today."
"1946: Birth Certificates Are Regularized in America"
This presented a problem to around 43 million Americans who had no way
of proving their citizenship status, despite being born in the USA."
NO ONE doesn't have a birth certificate.
I guess the business of replacing lost birth certificates is an
indication that not every has a copy of their birth certificate.
Let's ask an AI for an opinion:
<https://chatgpt.com/share/687311e2-7400-800c-a33d-a09a54f6c1cf>
"People Who May Not Have One:
1. Unregistered or Home Births
2. Older Adults
3. Undocumented Immigrants
4. Homeless or Displaced Persons
"
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 18:09:50 -0400, floriduh dumbass
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 16:27:26 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"While tourism is booming across the rest of the world, the U.S. is a
notable loser this year as tens of millions of international visitors
are choosing to travel elsewherecosting the economy up to $29
billionand risking millions of jobs. "
"The U.S. Travel Winter 2025 Forecast projects travel expenditure in
the U.S. will continue to grow at normalized rates, driven by
resilient consumer spending, sustained business investment and major
events promoting international visits. The forecast data is driven by
Tourism Economics' travel forecasting model."
https://www.ustravel.org/research
Did you check the date on your link, dumbass? January 09, 2025
Dr. Shadow was kind enough to show what happened since Trump went into >full-on asshole mode and decided to piss off the entire planet,
including our closest friends and allies:
https://www.ustravel.org/us-travel-snapshot-april-2025
//
International Travel to the United States is Trending Down
Based on preliminary data from the Department of Commerce, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection and outside organizations, international
visits to the United States fell approximately 14% in March 2025
compared to the same period last year.
The decline is most notable in:
Canada: 26% annual decline in overnight land trips in March and
air travel down 14% YoY (StatsCan).
Western Europe: 17% decline in visits for March of 2025 is the
first decline since 2021 (Department of Commerce).
Asia: A second consecutive month of declines in visits from a
region still 25% below 2019 levels (Department of Commerce).
South America: 10% decrease in visits in March after a flat
February (Department of Commerce).
These are historically our highest-value inbound travel markets.
Florida was the top destination for international visitors in March
(Department of Commerce).
The Economic Cost
Every 1% drop in international visitor spending = $1.8 billion
lost in export revenue annually. If this 14% decline were to hold
through 2025, the U.S. stands to lose $21 billion in travel-related
exports.
Of course whatever right wing pabulum you're swallowing will try to deny
it or ignore it.
Willfully ignorant floriduh dumbass, making the dumbshine state proud
once again.
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 14:23:33 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/12/2025 1:57 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 05:08:01 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
Exactly! The point is that for generations people lived, and likely
still do , with guns in home with no problems and today it's all
changed and people like Frank are shouting "its the guns, the guns
made them do it".
As an aside it's not a village in the 1950's, it is "for generators..
You had State run mental institutions for maybe hundreds of
years. Anyone not "quite right in the head" would be "put away".
Now mental illness is big business and psychotics can buy
guns.
So some things HAVE changed.
[]'s
Yes, a disservice to the mentally crippled and their long
suffering neighborhoods. But there's some history to it.
There were real and horrific abuse incidents at some
institutions
They're called "schools".
The US is one of the few countries where you send your
children to school and hope to see them again.
PS
//
Between the late 1960s and early 1980s, at least ten major and many
smaller inquiries were held into neglectful, abusive and violent
practices in a number of psychiatric and 'mental handicap' hospitals.
Many of these institutions, or certain wards inside them, had become professionally isolated and severely under-resourced.
//
Under resourced? Yes, that'll do it. Public health, although
it costs 1/10 of private medicine, is not and never will be free.
I worked in a mental Institution in Brazil. Not a 5 star
hotel, but there was no abuse. 3 healthy meals, clean linen and
hospital clothes and an option to do gardening or "manual therapy".
OTOH, we had powerful anti-psychotics to subdue the most
violent.
I wonder how they coped when they did not exist.
[]'s
which were widely publicized. We're still
living in the over reaction from those.
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 18:09:50 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 16:27:26 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"While tourism is booming across the rest of the world, the U.S. is a
notable loser this year as tens of millions of international visitors
are choosing to travel elsewhere—costing the economy up to $29
billion—and risking millions of jobs. "
"The U.S. Travel Winter 2025 Forecast projects travel expenditure in
the U.S. will continue to grow at normalized rates, driven by
resilient consumer spending, sustained business investment and major
events promoting international visits. The forecast data is driven by
Tourism Economics' travel forecasting model."
https://www.ustravel.org/research
Well, that was a nice pro-Trump prediction. Here are the
latest (real) figures:
Remember, don't believe what you see, believe what Fox "News"
tells you:
https://www.ustravel.org/us-travel-snapshot-april-2025
//
International Travel to the United States is Trending Down
Based on preliminary data from the Department of Commerce, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection and outside organizations, international
visits to the United States fell approximately 14% in March 2025
compared to the same period last year.
The decline is most notable in:
Canada: 26% annual decline in overnight land trips in March and
air travel down 14% YoY (StatsCan).
Western Europe: 17% decline in visits for March of 2025 is the
first decline since 2021 (Department of Commerce).
Asia: A second consecutive month of declines in visits from a
region still 25% below 2019 levels (Department of Commerce).
South America: 10% decrease in visits in March after a flat
February (Department of Commerce).
These are historically our highest-value inbound travel markets.
Florida was the top destination for international visitors in March (Department of Commerce).
The Economic Cost
Every 1% drop in international visitor spending = $1.8 billion
lost in export revenue annually. If this 14% decline were to hold
through 2025, the U.S. stands to lose $21 billion in travel-related
exports.
//
(I bet Trump sold all his shares in tourism)
[]'s
PS Just read a far right wing site that explains that
Canadians are preferring countries "closer to home" like England and
France. I almost choked, then remembered that Americans are not taught geography at school.....so most Trumpsters probably believe it.
Source : Fareleaders.
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 21:54:44 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 14:23:33 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/12/2025 1:57 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 05:08:01 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
Exactly! The point is that for generations people lived, and likelyYou had State run mental institutions for maybe hundreds of
still do , with guns in home with no problems and today it's all
changed and people like Frank are shouting "its the guns, the guns
made them do it".
As an aside it's not a village in the 1950's, it is "for generators.. >>>>
years. Anyone not "quite right in the head" would be "put away".
Now mental illness is big business and psychotics can buy
guns.
So some things HAVE changed.
[]'s
Yes, a disservice to the mentally crippled and their long
suffering neighborhoods. But there's some history to it.
There were real and horrific abuse incidents at some
institutions which were widely publicized. We're still
living in the over reaction from those.
I've even read studies that propose that those like Frank, running up
and the street shouting, "Oh the Gun!, The Gun! were responsible for
some of the shootings by publicizing the events as so many appeared to
copycat events.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5296697/
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/08/06/748767807/mass-shootings-can-be-contagious-research-shows
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/yes-mass-killings-inspire-copycats-study-finds-n386141
It's likely that one of the reason's AR type guns became so popular is because the gun grabbing nitwits tried so hard to ban them.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 7/12/2025 8:20 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <TugcQ.218883$KxI2.90463@fx45.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed Jun 11 17:31:22 2025 Beej Jorgensen wrote:
But maybe never in the history of the United States has a citizen
ever been accused of being a non-citizen, who can know.
Brian, what do you mean, "who can know"?
I mean, who can know in the history of the United States if a citizen
has even been accused of being a non-citizen.
NO ONE doesn't have a birth certificate.
Though I'm not a financial advisor, I'm highly confident you should not
bet any money on that absolute.
There are egregious cases such as Emma Goldman whose US citizenship was revoked and she was deported to her birthplace. the Empire of Russia.
Liebermann who may not even be an American citizen...
Frank, if you are so against the Constitution that you have to continually complsin about it I suggest you move to Brazil where you can interface with people like Shadow.
Because that is what communists do - the world is not working right unless they have total control over us.
Krygowski, Liebermann and Flunky are all the great losers in the game of free enterprise. All of this endless nosing into what is none of their business shows the endless fears that all losers unfortuenately have and an small minority have to blame onsomeomne else. The private busimesses I started could have made me much wealthier than I presently am but I liked being an engineer and the everyday challenges it provided. Those three are scared shitless of challenges. Krygowski fled to the safety of
I need only remind you that Roger said that he would prefer Liebermann as a navigator than me even though I worked 8 years repairing navigational equipment and have a degree in commercial navigation. That is certainly not a good look for poor Roger.
Particularly when Liebermann doesn't even know WHY there are latittitude and Longitude lines on a navigational chart.
On Thu Jul 10 14:25:46 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 11:56:28 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Given all the homeless camps I see in the woods
Vote better.
We did, and he is about to go against the election fraud so common in the blue states.
That is why the Democrats HATE President Trump so much. He give credence to the common man being able to think for himseolf
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:59:57 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Thu Jul 10 14:25:46 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 11:56:28 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Given all the homeless camps I see in the woods
Vote better.
We did, and he is about to go against the election fraud so common in the blue states.
How is that relevant to the number of homeless people in
America?
[]'s
On 7/13/2025 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/12/2025 8:20 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:According to Google she was born in Lithuania and was
In article <TugcQ.218883$KxI2.90463@fx45.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed Jun 11 17:31:22 2025 Beej Jorgensen wrote:
But maybe never in the history of the United States has
a citizen
ever been accused of being a non-citizen, who can know.
Brian, what do you mean, "who can know"?
I mean, who can know in the history of the United States
if a citizen
has even been accused of being a non-citizen.
NO ONE doesn't have a birth certificate.
Though I'm not a financial advisor, I'm highly confident
you should not
bet any money on that absolute.
There are egregious cases such as Emma Goldman whose US
citizenship was revoked and she was deported to her
birthplace. the Empire of Russia.
deported to the USSR in 1920, ultimately in Petrograd where
she lived before emigrating to the US. The Russian Empire no
longer existed by then.
For those who do not believe, no truth is possible: [photo]
On Thu Jul 10 14:49:16 2025 Catrike Ryder wrote:
..and here's Krygowski posting about me again. I'll bet he dreams
about me.....
They are probably wet dreams.
On 7/13/2025 3:01 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 21:54:44 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 14:23:33 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/12/2025 1:57 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 05:08:01 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
Exactly! The point is that for generations people lived, and likely >>>>>> still do , with guns in home with no problems and today it's allYou had State run mental institutions for maybe hundreds of
changed and people like Frank are shouting "its the guns, the guns >>>>>> made them do it".
As an aside it's not a village in the 1950's, it is "for generators.. >>>>>
years. Anyone not "quite right in the head" would be "put away".
Now mental illness is big business and psychotics can buy
guns.
So some things HAVE changed.
[]'s
Yes, a disservice to the mentally crippled and their long
suffering neighborhoods. But there's some history to it.
There were real and horrific abuse incidents at some
institutions which were widely publicized. We're still
living in the over reaction from those.
I've even read studies that propose that those like Frank, running up
and the street shouting, "Oh the Gun!, The Gun! were responsible for
some of the shootings by publicizing the events as so many appeared to
copycat events.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5296697/
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/08/06/748767807/mass-shootings-can-be-contagious-research-shows
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/yes-mass-killings-inspire-copycats-study-finds-n386141
It's likely that one of the reason's AR type guns became so popular is
because the gun grabbing nitwits tried so hard to ban them.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I think you may be on to something there.
From the hyperventilating misnomer about AR platform as an
'assault rifle', culminating in the Federal ban of 1994:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1388010/share-ar-15-united-states-firearm-production-historical/
sales dropped, then rose after 1996 then changed to a
greater rate of increase after the 2008 election* but sales
numbers may not reflect that directly. Perhaps but not
clearly, not to me anyway. Lower prices and perhaps other
factors may be afoot; I just don't know.
* the Federal Act expired in 2004 and Congress did not vote
to renew it. Also in some circles Mr Obama has been called
the world's best firearms salesman. True or not, the numbers
may show a trend. You're on your own with that analysis;
it's not clear to me.
Left: >https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/environment/record-gun-sales-cemented-obamas-conservation-legacy
Right: >https://ammo.com/articles/obama-greatest-gun-salesman-in-america-infographic
On Thu Jul 10 08:51:22 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 22:34:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
<snip>
BTW, I wonder what guns John uses for home defense? Based on his posts,
it's almost certainly not an AR-style rifle. He defends them rabidly,
but apparently has never owned one, and perhaps never shot one.
In the past, the crickets have been his only response to such questions.
From what I've read, most guns in Thailand are black market.
There are a large number of law firms specialized in bribing the
government to obtain permits for foreigners, so it's probably quite an
expensive process.
But dun no, search engines are so biased these days I don't
believe anything Glugle, Bing or Yahoo tells me anymore...
At a guess, he owns an illegal weapon.
Mine are all illegal. Although I bought and registered them
legally, we ere required by FHC to hand them in to "update the
licenses". I didn't. I suppose that makes me a criminal...
Though if I'm caught it'll probably be a just a fine for the
out-of-date registration. Maybe confiscation, depends on the judge.
Lula is personally pro-gun for self defense. He has not
revoked any of the crazy laws Bolsonaro passed, it fact he made it a
little cheaper for working class to register weapons.
Thailand is not a country that has open borders allowing the worst criminals from all over the world to walk right in an do anything they like. The Thai's themselves do not worry about other Thais but the Chinese.
Why do you insist on talking about things you have no knowledge of?
In article <q6r77kd5g3aii46nnblkd9g4p9llk2dell@4ax.com>,
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
For those who do not believe, no truth is possible: [photo]
Y'all have heard the problems we've had with identity theft, right?
On 7/13/2025 11:47 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/13/2025 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/12/2025 8:20 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:According to Google she was born in Lithuania and was
In article <TugcQ.218883$KxI2.90463@fx45.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed Jun 11 17:31:22 2025 Beej Jorgensen wrote:
But maybe never in the history of the United States has
a citizen
ever been accused of being a non-citizen, who can know.
Brian, what do you mean, "who can know"?
I mean, who can know in the history of the United States
if a citizen
has even been accused of being a non-citizen.
NO ONE doesn't have a birth certificate.
Though I'm not a financial advisor, I'm highly confident
you should not
bet any money on that absolute.
There are egregious cases such as Emma Goldman whose US
citizenship was revoked and she was deported to her
birthplace. the Empire of Russia.
deported to the USSR in 1920, ultimately in Petrograd where
she lived before emigrating to the US. The Russian Empire no
longer existed by then.
Thanks I misremembered the date.
Still and all, I can't recall another US citizen stripped of
citizenship.
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 21:06:42 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>--
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 01:12:34 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <q6r77kd5g3aii46nnblkd9g4p9llk2dell@4ax.com>,
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
For those who do not believe, no truth is possible: [photo]
Y'all have heard the problems we've had with identity theft, right?
Yes, it's possible. All my information on my form N-560 is available >>though online sources. I've paid data brokers for my information and
found that it's all there, but not necessarily correct. I've also
changed my name twice, which adds to the complications.
A better image of the form is available via Google Images: >><https://www.google.com/search?q=Certificate%20of%20Citizenship%20&udm=2> >>If anyone tries to use the information on the form for identification >>purposes, they will soon find that they will need to obtain an updated >>version. Notice that the seal in the lower right is missing: >><https://citizenpath.com/certificate-of-citizenship-replacement-process/> >>Notice that those born in the USA cannot obtain a certificate of >>citizenship and must rely on a passport book or passport card.
My 3 kids with my first wife were born in different states and while
two had a U.S. Air Force issued birth certificate just as though the
had been in an over seas air base, one received a State certificate.
When I had to produce a birth certificate when the kid started school
I had a terrible time - they couldn't find the state certificate and >searching by mail wasn't working so well.
A U.S.A.F.. doctor was trying to adapt a tow hitch to his car and
stopped at the USAF welding shop to see if we could do it. I told him
of my birth certificate problems while he was telling me his problems
with his toe hitch problems and to gather we solved both problems ;-)
However, you're correct. I should have redacted the application
number... done. I'm probably taking some manner of risk posting the >>document, but the satisfaction gained from making Tom (again) look
foolish is worth the risk.
On Thu Jul 10 14:49:16 2025 floriduh dumbass wrote:
..and here's Krygowski posting about me again. I'll bet he dreams
about me.....
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:27:34 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That is why the Democrats HATE President Trump so much. He give credence to the common man being able to think for himseolf
OMG. He even got that wrong!
Did Trump get ANYTHING right?
[]'s
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:07:02 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Thu Jul 10 08:51:22 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 22:34:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
<snip>
From what I've read, most guns in Thailand are black market.
BTW, I wonder what guns John uses for home defense? Based on his posts, >>>> it's almost certainly not an AR-style rifle. He defends them rabidly,
but apparently has never owned one, and perhaps never shot one.
In the past, the crickets have been his only response to such questions. >>>
There are a large number of law firms specialized in bribing the
government to obtain permits for foreigners, so it's probably quite an
expensive process.
But dun no, search engines are so biased these days I don't
believe anything Glugle, Bing or Yahoo tells me anymore...
At a guess, he owns an illegal weapon.
Mine are all illegal. Although I bought and registered them
legally, we ere required by FHC to hand them in to "update the
licenses". I didn't. I suppose that makes me a criminal...
Though if I'm caught it'll probably be a just a fine for the
out-of-date registration. Maybe confiscation, depends on the judge.
Lula is personally pro-gun for self defense. He has not
revoked any of the crazy laws Bolsonaro passed, it fact he made it a
little cheaper for working class to register weapons.
Thailand is not a country that has open borders allowing the worst criminals from all over the world to walk right in an do anything they like. The Thai's themselves do not worry about other Thais but the Chinese.
Why do you insist on talking about things you have no knowledge of?
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:21:18 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Krygowski, Liebermann and Flunky are all the great losers in the game of free enterprise.
All of this endless nosing into what is none of their business shows the endless fears that all losers unfortuenately have and an small minority have to blame on someomne else.
The private busimesses I started could have made me much wealthier than I presently am but I liked being an engineer and the everyday challenges it provided.
Those three are scared shitless of challenges. Krygowski fled to the safety of being an instructor, Liebermann to the safety of being a technician if he ever could have admitted to himself that he knew very little and Flunky who has a job where hisboss doesn't care what he does as long as he signs off the paperwork.
I need only remind you that Roger said that he would prefer Liebermann as a navigator than me even though I worked 8 years repairing navigational equipment and
have a degree in commercial navigation.
That is certainly not a good look for poor Roger.
Particularly when Liebermann doesn't even know WHY there are latittitude and Longitude lines on a navigational chart.
You mentioned my name 4 times. You must be desperate for attention.
However, quantity is a poor substitute for quality. Maybe try writing something that is worth reading.
Incidentally, you started posting 22 messages between 10:05AM and
12:59PM. I don't trust myself yet to do that math, but that seems
like a fairly high number of worthless messages per hour. At 2:12PM,
you continued to the message bombardment with 3 more messages. I'm
sure there will be more. Do you really think all that pollution will
improve your image, make up for your lies, fix your fault math or
otherwise do damage control to your reputation?
On 13 Jul 2025 10:31:45 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 21:23:54 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 19:05:39 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 19:57:47 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 18:09:50 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 16:27:26 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"While tourism is booming across the rest of the world, the U.S. is a >>>>>>>> notable loser this year as tens of millions of international visitors >>>>>>>> are choosing to travel elsewhere?costing the economy up to $29 >>>>>>>> billion?and risking millions of jobs. "
"The U.S. Travel Winter 2025 Forecast projects travel expenditure in >>>>>>> the U.S. will continue to grow at normalized rates, driven by
resilient consumer spending, sustained business investment and major >>>>>>> events promoting international visits. The forecast data is driven by >>>>>>> Tourism Economics' travel forecasting model."
https://www.ustravel.org/research
Well, that was a nice pro-Trump prediction. Here are the
latest (real) figures:
Remember, don't believe what you see, believe what Fox "News"
tells you:
https://www.ustravel.org/us-travel-snapshot-april-2025
//
International Travel to the United States is Trending Down
Based on preliminary data from the Department of Commerce, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection and outside organizations, international >>>>>> visits to the United States fell approximately 14% in March 2025
compared to the same period last year.
The decline is most notable in:
Canada: 26% annual decline in overnight land trips in March and
air travel down 14% YoY (StatsCan).
Western Europe: 17% decline in visits for March of 2025 is the
first decline since 2021 (Department of Commerce).
Asia: A second consecutive month of declines in visits from a
region still 25% below 2019 levels (Department of Commerce).
South America: 10% decrease in visits in March after a flat
February (Department of Commerce).
These are historically our highest-value inbound travel markets.
Florida was the top destination for international visitors in March >>>>>> (Department of Commerce).
The Economic Cost
Every 1% drop in international visitor spending = $1.8 billion
lost in export revenue annually. If this 14% decline were to hold
through 2025, the U.S. stands to lose $21 billion in travel-related >>>>>> exports.
//
(I bet Trump sold all his shares in tourism)
[]'s
PS Just read a far right wing site that explains that
Canadians are preferring countries "closer to home" like England and >>>>>> France. I almost choked, then remembered that Americans are not taught >>>>>> geography at school.....so most Trumpsters probably believe it.
Source : Fareleaders.
From that cite:
Based on preliminary data from the Department of Commerce, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection and outside organizations, international >>>>> visits to the United States fell approximately 14% in March 2025
compared to the same period last year.
One month? Really?
The data is the latest "official", for the month of March. If
you can find more recent data, post a link.
Yes, there was a drop of 14% compared to March of last year
under Biden.
Note the article also compares with the years of 2019
(pre-Covid), 2021 and even February 2015.
It's not just March. But by all means, buy shares in Hotels
and other venues International travelers use in the US. It's your
money.
[]'s
I understand why tourists don't want to visit the big blue cities with
the hotels full of freeloading illegals and the sidewalks crammed with
homeless and their excrement, but here in Florida, there's no problem.
Think about the Canadians there is good reason why they might be put off, >> hint its orange!
Other places its more the instability and risks.
"Overseas visitation is estimated at 2.1 million in Q1 2024 [Florida]"
https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2024/governor-ron-desantis-announces-record-breaking-tourism-numbers>
"From the 1st quarter of 2025 (January to March 2025), 41.19 million
visitors traveled to Florida."
"This total includes 37.85 million domestic visitors, 2.11 million
overseas visitors, and 1.23 million visitors from Canada."
https://roadgenius.com/statistics/tourism/usa/florida/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Doesnt take more than a cursory search to see that the dip is a decline, >> ie the 1st quarter was a dip but into the 2nd and its rate is continuing.
Clearly as above its mainly driven by the Canadians who understandably are >> annoyed by Trump and his government.
Roger Merriman
What "dip" are you referring to? Check the numbers again.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Thu Jul 10 22:19:28 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
Stranger rape, makes news but it?s people you know, and is far more
ubiquitous than people particularly men imagine.
But since the rapist is known, the law can actually work. Stranger rape
and possible murder is something else altogether.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 10:31:45 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:The rise youve posted was last year, and was for all tourists, as the
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 21:23:54 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 19:05:39 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 19:57:47 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 18:09:50 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 16:27:26 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"While tourism is booming across the rest of the world, the U.S. is a >>>>>>>>> notable loser this year as tens of millions of international visitors >>>>>>>>> are choosing to travel elsewhere?costing the economy up to $29 >>>>>>>>> billion?and risking millions of jobs. "
"The U.S. Travel Winter 2025 Forecast projects travel expenditure in >>>>>>>> the U.S. will continue to grow at normalized rates, driven by
resilient consumer spending, sustained business investment and major >>>>>>>> events promoting international visits. The forecast data is driven by >>>>>>>> Tourism Economics' travel forecasting model."
https://www.ustravel.org/research
Well, that was a nice pro-Trump prediction. Here are the
latest (real) figures:
Remember, don't believe what you see, believe what Fox "News"
tells you:
https://www.ustravel.org/us-travel-snapshot-april-2025
//
International Travel to the United States is Trending Down
Based on preliminary data from the Department of Commerce, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection and outside organizations, international >>>>>>> visits to the United States fell approximately 14% in March 2025 >>>>>>> compared to the same period last year.
The decline is most notable in:
Canada: 26% annual decline in overnight land trips in March and
air travel down 14% YoY (StatsCan).
Western Europe: 17% decline in visits for March of 2025 is the
first decline since 2021 (Department of Commerce).
Asia: A second consecutive month of declines in visits from a
region still 25% below 2019 levels (Department of Commerce).
South America: 10% decrease in visits in March after a flat
February (Department of Commerce).
These are historically our highest-value inbound travel markets. >>>>>>> Florida was the top destination for international visitors in March >>>>>>> (Department of Commerce).
The Economic Cost
Every 1% drop in international visitor spending = $1.8 billion
lost in export revenue annually. If this 14% decline were to hold >>>>>>> through 2025, the U.S. stands to lose $21 billion in travel-related >>>>>>> exports.
//
(I bet Trump sold all his shares in tourism)
[]'s
PS Just read a far right wing site that explains that
Canadians are preferring countries "closer to home" like England and >>>>>>> France. I almost choked, then remembered that Americans are not taught >>>>>>> geography at school.....so most Trumpsters probably believe it.
Source : Fareleaders.
From that cite:
Based on preliminary data from the Department of Commerce, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection and outside organizations, international >>>>>> visits to the United States fell approximately 14% in March 2025
compared to the same period last year.
One month? Really?
The data is the latest "official", for the month of March. If
you can find more recent data, post a link.
Yes, there was a drop of 14% compared to March of last year
under Biden.
Note the article also compares with the years of 2019
(pre-Covid), 2021 and even February 2015.
It's not just March. But by all means, buy shares in Hotels
and other venues International travelers use in the US. It's your
money.
[]'s
I understand why tourists don't want to visit the big blue cities with >>>> the hotels full of freeloading illegals and the sidewalks crammed with >>>> homeless and their excrement, but here in Florida, there's no problem.
Think about the Canadian?s there is good reason why they might be put off, >>> hint it?s orange!
Other places it?s more the instability and risks.
"Overseas visitation is estimated at 2.1 million in Q1 2024 [Florida]" >>>>> https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2024/governor-ron-desantis-announces-record-breaking-tourism-numbers>
"From the 1st quarter of 2025 (January to March 2025), 41.19 million
visitors traveled to Florida."
"This total includes 37.85 million domestic visitors, 2.11 million
overseas visitors, and 1.23 million visitors from Canada."
https://roadgenius.com/statistics/tourism/usa/florida/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Doesn?t take more than a cursory search to see that the dip is a decline, >>> ie the 1st quarter was a dip but into the 2nd and its rate is continuing. >>>
Clearly as above it?s mainly driven by the Canadians who understandably are >>> annoyed by Trump and his government.
Roger Merriman
What "dip" are you referring to? Check the numbers again.
reason is Trump its unlikely that US citizens are going to be put off >traveling vs international travellers.
<https://www.orlandoweekly.com/news/floridas-international-tourist-numbers-are-down-so-far-in-2025-39569047>
Your Governor seems to be ignoring it, but Id guess hes quite a Trump fan >so not unexpected.
The main problem for US tourism is the Canadians tourists who both in
numbers and rate have dropped more than others such as Europe.
Clearly might change though seems unlikely.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:16:35 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/13/2025 11:47 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/13/2025 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/12/2025 8:20 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:According to Google she was born in Lithuania and was
In article <TugcQ.218883$KxI2.90463@fx45.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed Jun 11 17:31:22 2025 Beej Jorgensen wrote:
But maybe never in the history of the United States has
a citizen
ever been accused of being a non-citizen, who can know.
Brian, what do you mean, "who can know"?
I mean, who can know in the history of the United States
if a citizen
has even been accused of being a non-citizen.
NO ONE doesn't have a birth certificate.
Though I'm not a financial advisor, I'm highly confident
you should not
bet any money on that absolute.
There are egregious cases such as Emma Goldman whose US
citizenship was revoked and she was deported to her
birthplace. the Empire of Russia.
deported to the USSR in 1920, ultimately in Petrograd where
she lived before emigrating to the US. The Russian Empire no
longer existed by then.
Thanks I misremembered the date.
Still and all, I can't recall another US citizen stripped of
citizenship.
"Relinquishing U.S. Nationality" <https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/Relinquishing-US-Nationality.html>
It can be done, but I couldn't find any names or dates when it has
happened. I suspect that defecting to the Soviet Union might have
been a common cause.
You may lose your U.S. citizenship in specific cases, including if
you:
- Run for public office in a foreign country (under certain
conditions)
- Enter military service in a foreign country (under certain
conditions)
- Apply for citizenship in a foreign country with the intention of
giving up U.S. citizenship
- Commit an act of treason against the United States
- Are a naturalized U.S. citizen who faces denaturalization due to
committing certain crimes
I guess we can add criticizing the president to the list:
"Trump threatens to revoke US citizenship of longtime critic Rosie O’Donnell" (July 12, 2025) <https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/12/trump-revoke-citizenship-rosie-odonnell-00449920>
"The White House declined to comment on whether Trump was serious
about the threat, or how he would revoke the American actor’s
citizenship - a move for which there is no clear legal precedent."
(...)
DOJ announces plans to prioritize cases to revoke citizenship" (June
30, 2025) <https://www.npr.org/2025/06/30/nx-s1-5445398/denaturalization-trump-immigration-enforcement>
Denaturalization is a tactic that was heavily used during the McCarthy
era of the late 1940s and the early 1950s and one that was expanded
during the Obama administration and grew further during President
Trump's first term. It's meant to strip citizenship from those who may
have lied about their criminal convictions or membership in illegal
groups like the Nazi party, or communists during McCarthyism, on their citizenship applications."
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 09:45:55 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/13/2025 3:01 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 21:54:44 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 14:23:33 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>
On 7/12/2025 1:57 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 05:08:01 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
Exactly! The point is that for generations people lived, and likely >>>>>>> still do , with guns in home with no problems and today it's all >>>>>>> changed and people like Frank are shouting "its the guns, the guns >>>>>>> made them do it".You had State run mental institutions for maybe hundreds of
As an aside it's not a village in the 1950's, it is "for generators.. >>>>>>
years. Anyone not "quite right in the head" would be "put away".
Now mental illness is big business and psychotics can buy
guns.
So some things HAVE changed.
[]'s
Yes, a disservice to the mentally crippled and their long
suffering neighborhoods. But there's some history to it.
There were real and horrific abuse incidents at some
institutions which were widely publicized. We're still
living in the over reaction from those.
I've even read studies that propose that those like Frank, running up
and the street shouting, "Oh the Gun!, The Gun! were responsible for
some of the shootings by publicizing the events as so many appeared to >>>> copycat events.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5296697/
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/08/06/748767807/mass-shootings-can-be-contagious-research-shows
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/yes-mass-killings-inspire-copycats-study-finds-n386141
It's likely that one of the reason's AR type guns became so popular is
because the gun grabbing nitwits tried so hard to ban them.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I think you may be on to something there.
From the hyperventilating misnomer about AR platform as an
'assault rifle', culminating in the Federal ban of 1994:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1388010/share-ar-15-united-states-firearm-production-historical/
sales dropped, then rose after 1996 then changed to a
greater rate of increase after the 2008 election* but sales
numbers may not reflect that directly. Perhaps but not
clearly, not to me anyway. Lower prices and perhaps other
factors may be afoot; I just don't know.
* the Federal Act expired in 2004 and Congress did not vote
to renew it. Also in some circles Mr Obama has been called
the world's best firearms salesman. True or not, the numbers
may show a trend. You're on your own with that analysis;
it's not clear to me.
Left:
https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/environment/record-gun-sales-cemented-obamas-conservation-legacy
Right:
https://ammo.com/articles/obama-greatest-gun-salesman-in-america-infographic
But isn't the original civilian 15 illegal for deer hunting in many
(most?) states?
--
cheers,
John B.
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 21:19:55 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
More on denaturalization:
<https://www.npr.org/2025/06/30/nx-s1-5445398/denaturalization-trump-immigration-enforcement>
"Denaturalization goes back to McCarthy era"
"
In a 2019 report co-authored by Robertson, (Un)Civil Denaturalization,
she writes that denaturalization was wielded frequently as a political
tool in the McCarthy era.
"At the height of denaturalization, there were about 22,000 cases a
year of denaturalization filed, and this was on a smaller population.
It was huge," she told NPR.
The Supreme Court stepped in and issued a ruling in 1967 that said
that denaturalization is "inconsistent with the American form of
democracy, because it creates two levels of citizenship," Robertson explained.
"So the United States went from having 20,000 some cases of
denaturalization a year to having just a handful, like 1, 2, 5, 6,
very small numbers for years after 1967," Robertson said.
"
The article continues explaining how Obama expanded denaturalization
under "Operation Janus". Also see "corrections" at bottom of page.
On 14 Jul 2025 10:14:39 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 10:31:45 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:The rise youve posted was last year, and was for all tourists, as the
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 21:23:54 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:Think about the Canadian?s there is good reason why they might be put off, >>>> hint it?s orange!
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 19:05:39 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 19:57:47 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 18:09:50 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 16:27:26 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"While tourism is booming across the rest of the world, the U.S. is a
notable loser this year as tens of millions of international visitors
are choosing to travel elsewhere?costing the economy up to $29 >>>>>>>>>> billion?and risking millions of jobs. "
"The U.S. Travel Winter 2025 Forecast projects travel expenditure in >>>>>>>>> the U.S. will continue to grow at normalized rates, driven by >>>>>>>>> resilient consumer spending, sustained business investment and major >>>>>>>>> events promoting international visits. The forecast data is driven by >>>>>>>>> Tourism Economics' travel forecasting model."
https://www.ustravel.org/research
Well, that was a nice pro-Trump prediction. Here are the
latest (real) figures:
Remember, don't believe what you see, believe what Fox "News"
tells you:
https://www.ustravel.org/us-travel-snapshot-april-2025
//
International Travel to the United States is Trending Down
Based on preliminary data from the Department of Commerce, U.S. >>>>>>>> Customs and Border Protection and outside organizations, international >>>>>>>> visits to the United States fell approximately 14% in March 2025 >>>>>>>> compared to the same period last year.
The decline is most notable in:
Canada: 26% annual decline in overnight land trips in March and >>>>>>>> air travel down 14% YoY (StatsCan).
Western Europe: 17% decline in visits for March of 2025 is the >>>>>>>> first decline since 2021 (Department of Commerce).
Asia: A second consecutive month of declines in visits from a
region still 25% below 2019 levels (Department of Commerce).
South America: 10% decrease in visits in March after a flat
February (Department of Commerce).
These are historically our highest-value inbound travel markets. >>>>>>>> Florida was the top destination for international visitors in March >>>>>>>> (Department of Commerce).
The Economic Cost
Every 1% drop in international visitor spending = $1.8 billion >>>>>>>> lost in export revenue annually. If this 14% decline were to hold >>>>>>>> through 2025, the U.S. stands to lose $21 billion in travel-related >>>>>>>> exports.
//
(I bet Trump sold all his shares in tourism)
[]'s
PS Just read a far right wing site that explains that
Canadians are preferring countries "closer to home" like England and >>>>>>>> France. I almost choked, then remembered that Americans are not taught >>>>>>>> geography at school.....so most Trumpsters probably believe it. >>>>>>>> Source : Fareleaders.
From that cite:
Based on preliminary data from the Department of Commerce, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection and outside organizations, international >>>>>>> visits to the United States fell approximately 14% in March 2025 >>>>>>> compared to the same period last year.
One month? Really?
The data is the latest "official", for the month of March. If
you can find more recent data, post a link.
Yes, there was a drop of 14% compared to March of last year
under Biden.
Note the article also compares with the years of 2019
(pre-Covid), 2021 and even February 2015.
It's not just March. But by all means, buy shares in Hotels
and other venues International travelers use in the US. It's your
money.
[]'s
I understand why tourists don't want to visit the big blue cities with >>>>> the hotels full of freeloading illegals and the sidewalks crammed with >>>>> homeless and their excrement, but here in Florida, there's no problem. >>>>
Other places it?s more the instability and risks.
"Overseas visitation is estimated at 2.1 million in Q1 2024 [Florida]" >>>>>> https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2024/governor-ron-desantis-announces-record-breaking-tourism-numbers>
"From the 1st quarter of 2025 (January to March 2025), 41.19 million >>>>> visitors traveled to Florida."
"This total includes 37.85 million domestic visitors, 2.11 million
overseas visitors, and 1.23 million visitors from Canada."
https://roadgenius.com/statistics/tourism/usa/florida/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Doesn?t take more than a cursory search to see that the dip is a decline, >>>> ie the 1st quarter was a dip but into the 2nd and its rate is continuing. >>>>
Clearly as above it?s mainly driven by the Canadians who understandably are
annoyed by Trump and his government.
Roger Merriman
What "dip" are you referring to? Check the numbers again.
reason is Trump its unlikely that US citizens are going to be put off
traveling vs international travellers.
<https://www.orlandoweekly.com/news/floridas-international-tourist-numbers-are-down-so-far-in-2025-39569047>
Your Governor seems to be ignoring it, but Id guess hes quite a Trump fan
so not unexpected.
The main problem for US tourism is the Canadians tourists who both in
numbers and rate have dropped more than others such as Europe.
Clearly might change though seems unlikely.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
----------------------- 2024 q1 2025 q1
Florida total visitors 37.85M 41.19M
Florida overseas visitors 2.1M 2.11M
Florida Canadian visitors 1.3M 1.23M
https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2024/governor-ron-desantis-announces-record-breaking-tourism-numbers>
https://roadgenius.com/statistics/tourism/usa/florida/
You dug up the "Orlando Weekly" which posts stuff that only the far
left freakies want to read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Weekly
Orlando is notoriously far left.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 7/13/2025 8:09 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:27:34 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That is why the Democrats HATE President Trump so much.
He give credence to the common man being able to think
for himseolf
OMG. He even got that wrong!
Did Trump get ANYTHING right?
[]'s
lol....The only thing I can think of that he got mostly
right was going after the Sacklers.
Other than that, trumps sole 'contribution' to the US
(indeed, the world) was to give license to loudmouth
obnoxious assholes to be publicly loud obnoxious assholes.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 14 Jul 2025 10:14:39 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:Posting the Governors press release, of last year which was yes a record >year, doesnt alter that well that was last year not this year.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 10:31:45 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:The rise you?ve posted was last year, and was for all tourists, as the
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 21:23:54 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:Think about the Canadian?s there is good reason why they might be put off,
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 19:05:39 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 19:57:47 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 18:09:50 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 16:27:26 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"While tourism is booming across the rest of the world, the U.S. is a
notable loser this year as tens of millions of international visitors
are choosing to travel elsewhere?costing the economy up to $29 >>>>>>>>>>> billion?and risking millions of jobs. "
"The U.S. Travel Winter 2025 Forecast projects travel expenditure in >>>>>>>>>> the U.S. will continue to grow at normalized rates, driven by >>>>>>>>>> resilient consumer spending, sustained business investment and major >>>>>>>>>> events promoting international visits. The forecast data is driven by
Tourism Economics' travel forecasting model."
https://www.ustravel.org/research
Well, that was a nice pro-Trump prediction. Here are the
latest (real) figures:
Remember, don't believe what you see, believe what Fox "News" >>>>>>>>> tells you:
https://www.ustravel.org/us-travel-snapshot-april-2025
//
International Travel to the United States is Trending Down
Based on preliminary data from the Department of Commerce, U.S. >>>>>>>>> Customs and Border Protection and outside organizations, international
visits to the United States fell approximately 14% in March 2025 >>>>>>>>> compared to the same period last year.
The decline is most notable in:
Canada: 26% annual decline in overnight land trips in March and >>>>>>>>> air travel down 14% YoY (StatsCan).
Western Europe: 17% decline in visits for March of 2025 is the >>>>>>>>> first decline since 2021 (Department of Commerce).
Asia: A second consecutive month of declines in visits from a >>>>>>>>> region still 25% below 2019 levels (Department of Commerce). >>>>>>>>>
South America: 10% decrease in visits in March after a flat
February (Department of Commerce).
These are historically our highest-value inbound travel markets. >>>>>>>>> Florida was the top destination for international visitors in March >>>>>>>>> (Department of Commerce).
The Economic Cost
Every 1% drop in international visitor spending = $1.8 billion >>>>>>>>> lost in export revenue annually. If this 14% decline were to hold >>>>>>>>> through 2025, the U.S. stands to lose $21 billion in travel-related >>>>>>>>> exports.
//
(I bet Trump sold all his shares in tourism)
[]'s
PS Just read a far right wing site that explains that
Canadians are preferring countries "closer to home" like England and >>>>>>>>> France. I almost choked, then remembered that Americans are not taught
geography at school.....so most Trumpsters probably believe it. >>>>>>>>> Source : Fareleaders.
From that cite:
Based on preliminary data from the Department of Commerce, U.S. >>>>>>>> Customs and Border Protection and outside organizations, international >>>>>>>> visits to the United States fell approximately 14% in March 2025 >>>>>>>> compared to the same period last year.
One month? Really?
The data is the latest "official", for the month of March. If
you can find more recent data, post a link.
Yes, there was a drop of 14% compared to March of last year
under Biden.
Note the article also compares with the years of 2019
(pre-Covid), 2021 and even February 2015.
It's not just March. But by all means, buy shares in Hotels
and other venues International travelers use in the US. It's your >>>>>>> money.
[]'s
I understand why tourists don't want to visit the big blue cities with >>>>>> the hotels full of freeloading illegals and the sidewalks crammed with >>>>>> homeless and their excrement, but here in Florida, there's no problem. >>>>>
hint it?s orange!
Other places it?s more the instability and risks.
"Overseas visitation is estimated at 2.1 million in Q1 2024 [Florida]" >>>>>>> https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2024/governor-ron-desantis-announces-record-breaking-tourism-numbers>
"From the 1st quarter of 2025 (January to March 2025), 41.19 million >>>>>> visitors traveled to Florida."
"This total includes 37.85 million domestic visitors, 2.11 million >>>>>> overseas visitors, and 1.23 million visitors from Canada."
https://roadgenius.com/statistics/tourism/usa/florida/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Doesn?t take more than a cursory search to see that the dip is a decline, >>>>> ie the 1st quarter was a dip but into the 2nd and its rate is continuing. >>>>>
Clearly as above it?s mainly driven by the Canadians who understandably are
annoyed by Trump and his government.
Roger Merriman
What "dip" are you referring to? Check the numbers again.
reason is Trump it?s unlikely that US citizens are going to be put off
traveling vs international travellers.
<https://www.orlandoweekly.com/news/floridas-international-tourist-numbers-are-down-so-far-in-2025-39569047>
Your Governor seems to be ignoring it, but I?d guess he?s quite a Trump fan >>> so not unexpected.
The main problem for US tourism is the Canadians tourists who both in
numbers and rate have dropped more than others such as Europe.
Clearly might change though seems unlikely.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
----------------------- 2024 q1 2025 q1
Florida total visitors 37.85M 41.19M
Florida overseas visitors 2.1M 2.11M
Florida Canadian visitors 1.3M 1.23M
https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2024/governor-ron-desantis-announces-record-breaking-tourism-numbers>
https://roadgenius.com/statistics/tourism/usa/florida/
You dug up the "Orlando Weekly" which posts stuff that only the far
left freakies want to read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Weekly
Orlando is notoriously far left.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Its one of many, news outlets and general Tourism magazines discussing it, >ie that international and particularly Canadian tourists have dropped, both >to Florida and US in general, including Canadian tourism organisations
noting the dramatic drop in cross border tourism. Ie not just one source
and they are using the Florida tourism industry as their sources.
Ie need to look beyond your bubble which seems a common theme really!
Roger Merriman
On 7/13/2025 8:26 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 09:45:55 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:1/5 of States actually.
On 7/13/2025 3:01 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 21:54:44 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 14:23:33 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>
On 7/12/2025 1:57 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 05:08:01 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
Exactly! The point is that for generations people lived, and likely >>>>>>>> still do , with guns in home with no problems and today it's all >>>>>>>> changed and people like Frank are shouting "its the guns, the guns >>>>>>>> made them do it".You had State run mental institutions for maybe hundreds of >>>>>>> years. Anyone not "quite right in the head" would be "put away". >>>>>>> Now mental illness is big business and psychotics can buy >>>>>>> guns.
As an aside it's not a village in the 1950's, it is "for generators.. >>>>>>>
So some things HAVE changed.
[]'s
Yes, a disservice to the mentally crippled and their long
suffering neighborhoods. But there's some history to it.
There were real and horrific abuse incidents at some
institutions which were widely publicized. We're still
living in the over reaction from those.
I've even read studies that propose that those like Frank, running up >>>>> and the street shouting, "Oh the Gun!, The Gun! were responsible for >>>>> some of the shootings by publicizing the events as so many appeared to >>>>> copycat events.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5296697/
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/08/06/748767807/mass-shootings-can-be-contagious-research-shows
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/yes-mass-killings-inspire-copycats-study-finds-n386141
It's likely that one of the reason's AR type guns became so popular is >>>> because the gun grabbing nitwits tried so hard to ban them.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I think you may be on to something there.
From the hyperventilating misnomer about AR platform as an
'assault rifle', culminating in the Federal ban of 1994:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1388010/share-ar-15-united-states-firearm-production-historical/
sales dropped, then rose after 1996 then changed to a
greater rate of increase after the 2008 election* but sales
numbers may not reflect that directly. Perhaps but not
clearly, not to me anyway. Lower prices and perhaps other
factors may be afoot; I just don't know.
* the Federal Act expired in 2004 and Congress did not vote
to renew it. Also in some circles Mr Obama has been called
the world's best firearms salesman. True or not, the numbers
may show a trend. You're on your own with that analysis;
it's not clear to me.
Left:
https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/environment/record-gun-sales-cemented-obamas-conservation-legacy
Right:
https://ammo.com/articles/obama-greatest-gun-salesman-in-america-infographic
But isn't the original civilian 15 illegal for deer hunting in many
(most?) states?
--
cheers,
John B.
https://www.battlbox.com/blogs/hunting/what-states-allow-223-for-deer-hunting-understanding-the-regulations-and-best-practices
The argument is made that the delivered energy is too far
below other common rounds such as .308.
https://www.outdoorlife.com/guns/308-vs-556/
I am not an expert but I know that people have various
criteria to select any particular round. (or bicycle, auto,
whatever). Is greater accuracy worth less impact force?
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 05:08:01 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
Exactly! The point is that for generations people lived, and likely
still do , with guns in home with no problems and today it's all
changed and people like Frank are shouting "its the guns, the guns
made them do it".
As an aside it's not a village in the 1950's, it is "for generators..
You had State run mental institutions for maybe hundreds of
years. Anyone not "quite right in the head" would be "put away".
Now mental illness is big business and psychotics can buy
guns.
So some things HAVE changed.
[]'s
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 08:30:43 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/13/2025 8:26 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 09:45:55 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:1/5 of States actually.
On 7/13/2025 3:01 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 21:54:44 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 14:23:33 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>
On 7/12/2025 1:57 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 05:08:01 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
Exactly! The point is that for generations people lived, and likely >>>>>>>>> still do , with guns in home with no problems and today it's all >>>>>>>>> changed and people like Frank are shouting "its the guns, the guns >>>>>>>>> made them do it".You had State run mental institutions for maybe hundreds of >>>>>>>> years. Anyone not "quite right in the head" would be "put away". >>>>>>>> Now mental illness is big business and psychotics can buy >>>>>>>> guns.
As an aside it's not a village in the 1950's, it is "for generators.. >>>>>>>>
So some things HAVE changed.
[]'s
Yes, a disservice to the mentally crippled and their long
suffering neighborhoods. But there's some history to it.
There were real and horrific abuse incidents at some
institutions which were widely publicized. We're still
living in the over reaction from those.
I've even read studies that propose that those like Frank, running up >>>>>> and the street shouting, "Oh the Gun!, The Gun! were responsible for >>>>>> some of the shootings by publicizing the events as so many appeared to >>>>>> copycat events.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5296697/
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/08/06/748767807/mass-shootings-can-be-contagious-research-shows
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/yes-mass-killings-inspire-copycats-study-finds-n386141
It's likely that one of the reason's AR type guns became so popular is >>>>> because the gun grabbing nitwits tried so hard to ban them.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I think you may be on to something there.
From the hyperventilating misnomer about AR platform as an
'assault rifle', culminating in the Federal ban of 1994:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1388010/share-ar-15-united-states-firearm-production-historical/
sales dropped, then rose after 1996 then changed to a
greater rate of increase after the 2008 election* but sales
numbers may not reflect that directly. Perhaps but not
clearly, not to me anyway. Lower prices and perhaps other
factors may be afoot; I just don't know.
* the Federal Act expired in 2004 and Congress did not vote
to renew it. Also in some circles Mr Obama has been called
the world's best firearms salesman. True or not, the numbers
may show a trend. You're on your own with that analysis;
it's not clear to me.
Left:
https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/environment/record-gun-sales-cemented-obamas-conservation-legacy
Right:
https://ammo.com/articles/obama-greatest-gun-salesman-in-america-infographic
But isn't the original civilian 15 illegal for deer hunting in many
(most?) states?
--
cheers,
John B.
https://www.battlbox.com/blogs/hunting/what-states-allow-223-for-deer-hunting-understanding-the-regulations-and-best-practices
The argument is made that the delivered energy is too far
below other common rounds such as .308.
https://www.outdoorlife.com/guns/308-vs-556/
I am not an expert but I know that people have various
criteria to select any particular round. (or bicycle, auto,
whatever). Is greater accuracy worth less impact force?
There are some 30 caliber AR types.
https://prepperpress.com/30-caliber-ar-15-options/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 7/14/2025 9:11 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 08:30:43 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/13/2025 8:26 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 09:45:55 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>1/5 of States actually.
On 7/13/2025 3:01 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 21:54:44 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 14:23:33 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 7/12/2025 1:57 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 05:08:01 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
Exactly! The point is that for generations people lived, and likely >>>>>>>>>> still do , with guns in home with no problems and today it's all >>>>>>>>>> changed and people like Frank are shouting "its the guns, the guns >>>>>>>>>> made them do it".
As an aside it's not a village in the 1950's, it is "for generators..
You had State run mental institutions for maybe hundreds of >>>>>>>>> years. Anyone not "quite right in the head" would be "put away". >>>>>>>>> Now mental illness is big business and psychotics can buy >>>>>>>>> guns.
So some things HAVE changed.
[]'s
Yes, a disservice to the mentally crippled and their long
suffering neighborhoods. But there's some history to it.
There were real and horrific abuse incidents at some
institutions which were widely publicized. We're still
living in the over reaction from those.
I've even read studies that propose that those like Frank, running up >>>>>>> and the street shouting, "Oh the Gun!, The Gun! were responsible for >>>>>>> some of the shootings by publicizing the events as so many appeared to >>>>>>> copycat events.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5296697/
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/08/06/748767807/mass-shootings-can-be-contagious-research-shows
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/yes-mass-killings-inspire-copycats-study-finds-n386141
It's likely that one of the reason's AR type guns became so popular is >>>>>> because the gun grabbing nitwits tried so hard to ban them.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I think you may be on to something there.
From the hyperventilating misnomer about AR platform as an
'assault rifle', culminating in the Federal ban of 1994:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1388010/share-ar-15-united-states-firearm-production-historical/
sales dropped, then rose after 1996 then changed to a
greater rate of increase after the 2008 election* but sales
numbers may not reflect that directly. Perhaps but not
clearly, not to me anyway. Lower prices and perhaps other
factors may be afoot; I just don't know.
* the Federal Act expired in 2004 and Congress did not vote
to renew it. Also in some circles Mr Obama has been called
the world's best firearms salesman. True or not, the numbers
may show a trend. You're on your own with that analysis;
it's not clear to me.
Left:
https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/environment/record-gun-sales-cemented-obamas-conservation-legacy
Right:
https://ammo.com/articles/obama-greatest-gun-salesman-in-america-infographic
But isn't the original civilian 15 illegal for deer hunting in many
(most?) states?
--
cheers,
John B.
https://www.battlbox.com/blogs/hunting/what-states-allow-223-for-deer-hunting-understanding-the-regulations-and-best-practices
The argument is made that the delivered energy is too far
below other common rounds such as .308.
https://www.outdoorlife.com/guns/308-vs-556/
I am not an expert but I know that people have various
criteria to select any particular round. (or bicycle, auto,
whatever). Is greater accuracy worth less impact force?
There are some 30 caliber AR types.
https://prepperpress.com/30-caliber-ar-15-options/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Yes that's right and even higher caliber variants. But most
AR-15 are .223 and most AR-10 are .308.
AFAIK the various Statutes specify the round, not the platform.
Connecticut Statutes, for example, specify deer hunt
weaponry differently for public and for private lands:
https://portal.ct.gov/deep/hunting/2025-connecticut-hunting-and-trapping-guide/deer-hunting
On 7/14/2025 4:44 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/13/2025 8:09 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:27:34 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That is why the Democrats HATE President Trump so much.
He give credence to the common man being able to think
for himseolf
OMG. He even got that wrong!
Did Trump get ANYTHING right?
[]'s
lol....The only thing I can think of that he got mostly
right was going after the Sacklers.
Other than that, trumps sole 'contribution' to the US
(indeed, the world) was to give license to loudmouth
obnoxious assholes to be publicly loud obnoxious assholes.
I'm skeptical (as are you) about the ongoing tariff
uncertainty and the long term plan, if any. But there is an
actual problem and Mr Trump is at least addressing it:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/world-bank-backs-trump-s-gripe-over-other-nations-higher-tariffs-on-us-goods/ar-AA1GrdzB
We'll see if things become better or worse for this. I don't
know.
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:07:02 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Thu Jul 10 08:51:22 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 22:34:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
<snip>
From what I've read, most guns in Thailand are black market.
BTW, I wonder what guns John uses for home defense? Based on his posts, >>> >it's almost certainly not an AR-style rifle. He defends them rabidly,
but apparently has never owned one, and perhaps never shot one.
In the past, the crickets have been his only response to such questions. >>>
There are a large number of law firms specialized in bribing the
government to obtain permits for foreigners, so it's probably quite an
expensive process.
But dun no, search engines are so biased these days I don't
believe anything Glugle, Bing or Yahoo tells me anymore...
At a guess, he owns an illegal weapon.
Mine are all illegal. Although I bought and registered them
legally, we ere required by FHC to hand them in to "update the
licenses". I didn't. I suppose that makes me a criminal...
Though if I'm caught it'll probably be a just a fine for the
out-of-date registration. Maybe confiscation, depends on the judge.
Lula is personally pro-gun for self defense. He has not
revoked any of the crazy laws Bolsonaro passed, it fact he made it a
little cheaper for working class to register weapons.
Thailand is not a country that has open borders allowing the worst criminals from all over the world to walk right in an do anything they like. The Thai's themselves do not worry about other Thais but the Chinese.
Why do you insist on talking about things you have no knowledge of?
Re 'no knowledge'.
Thailand has entry/resident laws similar to other countries.
Re Chinese.... a large portion of Thai's, as many as 14% are ethnic or >decended from Chinese. My wife's father was Chinese. Nobody worries
about that now, in fact several P.M.s, have been of the The Shinawatra >(Chinese) family.
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 08:44:59 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/14/2025 4:44 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/13/2025 8:09 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:27:34 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That is why the Democrats HATE President Trump so much.
He give credence to the common man being able to think
for himseolf
OMG. He even got that wrong!
Did Trump get ANYTHING right?
[]'s
lol....The only thing I can think of that he got mostly
right was going after the Sacklers.
Other than that, trumps sole 'contribution' to the US
(indeed, the world) was to give license to loudmouth
obnoxious assholes to be publicly loud obnoxious assholes.
I'm skeptical (as are you) about the ongoing tariff
uncertainty and the long term plan, if any. But there is an
actual problem and Mr Trump is at least addressing it:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/world-bank-backs-trump-s-gripe-over-other-nations-higher-tariffs-on-us-goods/ar-AA1GrdzB
We'll see if things become better or worse for this. I don't
know.
I don't know either, but I may have a clue. I suggest you watch this
YouTube video on the history of politicized economics in Argentina.
"Argentina Does The IMPOSSIBLE In Just 1 Year From Bankruptcy To
BOOMING Economy"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NVUsM5AUdY> (31:28)
Some of the experiments tried by the various predecessors of Javier
Melei, the current president of Argentina, resemble what I think Trump
is attempting to implement in the US. It's not a perfect comparison,
but I think it's close enough. You don't need my opinion. Decide for yourself.
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:16:35 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/13/2025 11:47 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/13/2025 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/12/2025 8:20 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:According to Google she was born in Lithuania and was
In article <TugcQ.218883$KxI2.90463@fx45.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed Jun 11 17:31:22 2025 Beej Jorgensen wrote:
But maybe never in the history of the United States has
a citizen
ever been accused of being a non-citizen, who can know.
Brian, what do you mean, "who can know"?
I mean, who can know in the history of the United States
if a citizen
has even been accused of being a non-citizen.
NO ONE doesn't have a birth certificate.
Though I'm not a financial advisor, I'm highly confident
you should not
bet any money on that absolute.
There are egregious cases such as Emma Goldman whose US
citizenship was revoked and she was deported to her
birthplace. the Empire of Russia.
deported to the USSR in 1920, ultimately in Petrograd where
she lived before emigrating to the US. The Russian Empire no
longer existed by then.
Thanks I misremembered the date.
Still and all, I can't recall another US citizen stripped of
citizenship.
"Relinquishing U.S. Nationality" ><https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/Relinquishing-US-Nationality.html>
It can be done, but I couldn't find any names or dates when it has
happened. I suspect that defecting to the Soviet Union might have
been a common cause.
You may lose your U.S. citizenship in specific cases, including if
you:
- Run for public office in a foreign country (under certain
conditions)
- Enter military service in a foreign country (under certain
conditions)
- Apply for citizenship in a foreign country with the intention of
giving up U.S. citizenship
- Commit an act of treason against the United States
- Are a naturalized U.S. citizen who faces denaturalization due to
committing certain crimes
I guess we can add criticizing the president to the list:
"Trump threatens to revoke US citizenship of longtime critic Rosie
ODonnell" (July 12, 2025)
The article continues explaining how Obama expanded denaturalization
under "Operation Janus". Also see "corrections" at bottom of page.
On 7/14/2025 4:44 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/13/2025 8:09 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:27:34 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That is why the Democrats HATE President Trump so much.
He give credence to the common man being able to think
for himseolf
OMG. He even got that wrong!
Did Trump get ANYTHING right?
[]'s
lol....The only thing I can think of that he got mostly
right was going after the Sacklers.
Other than that, trumps sole 'contribution' to the US
(indeed, the world) was to give license to loudmouth
obnoxious assholes to be publicly loud obnoxious assholes.
I'm skeptical (as are you) about the ongoing tariff
uncertainty and the long term plan, if any. But there is an
actual problem and Mr Trump is at least addressing it:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/world-bank-backs-trump-s-gripe-over-other-nations-higher-tariffs-on-us-goods/ar-AA1GrdzB
We'll see if things become better or worse for this. I don't
know.
On 7/12/2025 1:57 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 05:08:01 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
Exactly! The point is that for generations people lived, and likely
still do , with guns in home with no problems and today it's all
changed and people like Frank are shouting "its the guns, the guns
made them do it".
As an aside it's not a village in the 1950's, it is "for generators..
You had State run mental institutions for maybe hundreds of
years. Anyone not "quite right in the head" would be "put away".
Now mental illness is big business and psychotics can buy
guns.
So some things HAVE changed.
[]'s
Further to all that, this today:
https://nypost.com/2025/07/14/us-news/registered-sex-offender-to-walk-free-after-elementary-school-kidnapping-attempt-prosecutors-say/
Not only are the citizens yet at risk, but the addled
pervert may well be shot dead by an aggrieved mother next
time. How is this a rational policy? I don't get it.
On 7/12/2025 5:57 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 18:09:50 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 16:27:26 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"While tourism is booming across the rest of the world, the U.S. is a
notable loser this year as tens of millions of international visitors
are choosing to travel elsewhere—costing the economy up to $29
billion—and risking millions of jobs. "
"The U.S. Travel Winter 2025 Forecast projects travel expenditure in
the U.S. will continue to grow at normalized rates, driven by
resilient consumer spending, sustained business investment and major
events promoting international visits. The forecast data is driven by
Tourism Economics' travel forecasting model."
https://www.ustravel.org/research
Well, that was a nice pro-Trump prediction. Here are the
latest (real) figures:
Remember, don't believe what you see, believe what Fox "News"
tells you:
https://www.ustravel.org/us-travel-snapshot-april-2025
//
International Travel to the United States is Trending Down
Based on preliminary data from the Department of Commerce, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection and outside organizations, international
visits to the United States fell approximately 14% in March 2025
compared to the same period last year.
The decline is most notable in:
Canada: 26% annual decline in overnight land trips in March and
air travel down 14% YoY (StatsCan).
Western Europe: 17% decline in visits for March of 2025 is the
first decline since 2021 (Department of Commerce).
Asia: A second consecutive month of declines in visits from a
region still 25% below 2019 levels (Department of Commerce).
South America: 10% decrease in visits in March after a flat
February (Department of Commerce).
These are historically our highest-value inbound travel markets.
Florida was the top destination for international visitors in March
(Department of Commerce).
The Economic Cost
Every 1% drop in international visitor spending = $1.8 billion
lost in export revenue annually. If this 14% decline were to hold
through 2025, the U.S. stands to lose $21 billion in travel-related
exports.
//
(I bet Trump sold all his shares in tourism)
[]'s
PS Just read a far right wing site that explains that
Canadians are preferring countries "closer to home" like England and
France. I almost choked, then remembered that Americans are not taught
geography at school.....so most Trumpsters probably believe it.
Source : Fareleaders.
I don't know so I checked the State Department visa numbers.
No dice; they only publish totals at year end and details
are only shown through 2017.
I did find this which is also not clear about present trend:
https://roadgenius.com/statistics/tourism/usa/
Although it does show steady increase from the record lows
for 2020~2021.
I suppose we'll know about any trend by year's end.
On 7/14/2025 12:25 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 08:44:59 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:There's much speculation, the most charitable explanation
On 7/14/2025 4:44 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/13/2025 8:09 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:27:34 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That is why the Democrats HATE President Trump so much.
He give credence to the common man being able to think
for himseolf
OMG. He even got that wrong!
Did Trump get ANYTHING right?
[]'s
lol....The only thing I can think of that he got mostly
right was going after the Sacklers.
Other than that, trumps sole 'contribution' to the US
(indeed, the world) was to give license to loudmouth
obnoxious assholes to be publicly loud obnoxious assholes.
I'm skeptical (as are you) about the ongoing tariff
uncertainty and the long term plan, if any. But there is an
actual problem and Mr Trump is at least addressing it:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/world-bank-backs-trump-s-gripe-over-other-nations-higher-tariffs-on-us-goods/ar-AA1GrdzB
We'll see if things become better or worse for this. I don't
know.
I don't know either, but I may have a clue. I suggest you watch this
YouTube video on the history of politicized economics in Argentina.
"Argentina Does The IMPOSSIBLE In Just 1 Year From Bankruptcy To
BOOMING Economy"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NVUsM5AUdY> (31:28)
Some of the experiments tried by the various predecessors of Javier
Melei, the current president of Argentina, resemble what I think Trump
is attempting to implement in the US. It's not a perfect comparison,
but I think it's close enough. You don't need my opinion. Decide for
yourself.
being that Mr Trump is getting other countries' attention
with increased duties, leading eventually to zero-zero or at
least reciprocal rates. Nice thought, but so far utter
fantasy without grounding in fact.
But it's early. We'll see.
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 13:49:02 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/14/2025 12:25 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 08:44:59 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:There's much speculation, the most charitable explanation
On 7/14/2025 4:44 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/13/2025 8:09 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:27:34 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That is why the Democrats HATE President Trump so much.
He give credence to the common man being able to think
for himseolf
OMG. He even got that wrong!
Did Trump get ANYTHING right?
[]'s
lol....The only thing I can think of that he got mostly
right was going after the Sacklers.
Other than that, trumps sole 'contribution' to the US
(indeed, the world) was to give license to loudmouth
obnoxious assholes to be publicly loud obnoxious assholes.
I'm skeptical (as are you) about the ongoing tariff
uncertainty and the long term plan, if any. But there is an
actual problem and Mr Trump is at least addressing it:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/world-bank-backs-trump-s-gripe-over-other-nations-higher-tariffs-on-us-goods/ar-AA1GrdzB
We'll see if things become better or worse for this. I don't
know.
I don't know either, but I may have a clue. I suggest you watch this
YouTube video on the history of politicized economics in Argentina.
"Argentina Does The IMPOSSIBLE In Just 1 Year From Bankruptcy To
BOOMING Economy"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NVUsM5AUdY> (31:28)
Some of the experiments tried by the various predecessors of Javier
Melei, the current president of Argentina, resemble what I think Trump
is attempting to implement in the US. It's not a perfect comparison,
but I think it's close enough. You don't need my opinion. Decide for
yourself.
being that Mr Trump is getting other countries' attention
with increased duties, leading eventually to zero-zero or at
least reciprocal rates. Nice thought, but so far utter
fantasy without grounding in fact.
But it's early. We'll see.
I have a different view. I see that the collections from Trump's
tariff increases are going to the US government general fund, where it
can be redirected to Trump's friends, supporters and accomplices.
Nobody is talking about what to do with the money collected in the
form of tariffs, as if they're expecting the money to just evaporate.
I sometimes wonder if the upcoming fiasco is just a way to pay off our >rapidly increasing $1.4 trillion dollar national debt with inflated
dollars. See the Argentina video (above) for some examples of how
well inflationary financing worked.
"Deficit Tracker"
<https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/deficit-tracker/>
"The cumulative fiscal year 2025 deficit was $1.4 trillion at the end
of May 2025"
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 09:13:16 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/12/2025 1:57 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 05:08:01 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
Exactly! The point is that for generations people lived, and likely
still do , with guns in home with no problems and today it's all
changed and people like Frank are shouting "its the guns, the guns
made them do it".
As an aside it's not a village in the 1950's, it is "for generators..
You had State run mental institutions for maybe hundreds of
years. Anyone not "quite right in the head" would be "put away".
Now mental illness is big business and psychotics can buy
guns.
So some things HAVE changed.
[]'s
Further to all that, this today:
https://nypost.com/2025/07/14/us-news/registered-sex-offender-to-walk-free-after-elementary-school-kidnapping-attempt-prosecutors-say/
Not only are the citizens yet at risk, but the addled
pervert may well be shot dead by an aggrieved mother next
time. How is this a rational policy? I don't get it.
"After his arrest, Galligan underwent a mental competency evaluation
that determined he was unfit to stand trial."
I hope they did it for free. A glance at his photo and ANYONE
could make that diagnosis.
So hand him over to the nearest State Mental facility. Being
born psychotic is not a crime, unless you're into proactive eugenics.
In which case you would have to kill all the diabetics and others with inherited diseases.
PS Private facilities cost THIRTY THOUSAND dollars a month PER
PATIENT Anyone recommending the State pay for "outsourced" mental
hospitals is crazy enough to be sent to one.
[]'s
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 21:19:55 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:16:35 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/13/2025 11:47 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/13/2025 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/12/2025 8:20 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:According to Google she was born in Lithuania and was
In article <TugcQ.218883$KxI2.90463@fx45.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed Jun 11 17:31:22 2025 Beej Jorgensen wrote:
But maybe never in the history of the United States has
a citizen
ever been accused of being a non-citizen, who can know.
Brian, what do you mean, "who can know"?
I mean, who can know in the history of the United States
if a citizen
has even been accused of being a non-citizen.
NO ONE doesn't have a birth certificate.
Though I'm not a financial advisor, I'm highly confident
you should not
bet any money on that absolute.
There are egregious cases such as Emma Goldman whose US
citizenship was revoked and she was deported to her
birthplace. the Empire of Russia.
deported to the USSR in 1920, ultimately in Petrograd where
she lived before emigrating to the US. The Russian Empire no
longer existed by then.
Thanks I misremembered the date.
Still and all, I can't recall another US citizen stripped of
citizenship.
"Relinquishing U.S. Nationality"
<https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/Relinquishing-US-Nationality.html>
It can be done, but I couldn't find any names or dates when it has
happened. I suspect that defecting to the Soviet Union might have
been a common cause.
You may lose your U.S. citizenship in specific cases, including if
you:
- Run for public office in a foreign country (under certain
conditions)
- Enter military service in a foreign country (under certain
conditions)
- Apply for citizenship in a foreign country with the intention of
giving up U.S. citizenship
- Commit an act of treason against the United States
- Are a naturalized U.S. citizen who faces denaturalization due to
committing certain crimes
I guess we can add criticizing the president to the list:
"Trump threatens to revoke US citizenship of longtime critic Rosie
O’Donnell" (July 12, 2025)
//
Roseann O'Donnell
Born March 21, 1962 inCommack, New York, U.S.
//
American born and bred. Apparently she committed the crime of
"free speech". In a Police State, that is practically treason...
[]'s
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 13:49:02 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/14/2025 12:25 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 08:44:59 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:There's much speculation, the most charitable explanation
On 7/14/2025 4:44 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/13/2025 8:09 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:27:34 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That is why the Democrats HATE President Trump so much.
He give credence to the common man being able to think
for himseolf
OMG. He even got that wrong!
Did Trump get ANYTHING right?
[]'s
lol....The only thing I can think of that he got mostly
right was going after the Sacklers.
Other than that, trumps sole 'contribution' to the US
(indeed, the world) was to give license to loudmouth
obnoxious assholes to be publicly loud obnoxious assholes.
I'm skeptical (as are you) about the ongoing tariff
uncertainty and the long term plan, if any. But there is an
actual problem and Mr Trump is at least addressing it:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/world-bank-backs-trump-s-gripe-over-other-nations-higher-tariffs-on-us-goods/ar-AA1GrdzB
We'll see if things become better or worse for this. I don't
know.
I don't know either, but I may have a clue. I suggest you watch this
YouTube video on the history of politicized economics in Argentina.
"Argentina Does The IMPOSSIBLE In Just 1 Year From Bankruptcy To
BOOMING Economy"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NVUsM5AUdY> (31:28)
Some of the experiments tried by the various predecessors of Javier
Melei, the current president of Argentina, resemble what I think Trump
is attempting to implement in the US. It's not a perfect comparison,
but I think it's close enough. You don't need my opinion. Decide for
yourself.
being that Mr Trump is getting other countries' attention
with increased duties, leading eventually to zero-zero or at
least reciprocal rates. Nice thought, but so far utter
fantasy without grounding in fact.
But it's early. We'll see.
I have a different view. I see that the collections from Trump's
tariff increases are going to the US government general fund, where it
can be redirected to Trump's friends, supporters and accomplices.
Nobody is talking about what to do with the money collected in the
form of tariffs, as if they're expecting the money to just evaporate.
I sometimes wonder if the upcoming fiasco is just a way to pay off our rapidly increasing $1.4 trillion dollar national debt with inflated
dollars. See the Argentina video (above) for some examples of how
well inflationary financing worked.
"Deficit Tracker"
<https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/deficit-tracker/>
"The cumulative fiscal year 2025 deficit was $1.4 trillion at the end
of May 2025"
On 7/14/2025 2:42 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 09:13:16 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/12/2025 1:57 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 05:08:01 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
Exactly! The point is that for generations people lived, and likelyYou had State run mental institutions for maybe hundreds of
still do , with guns in home with no problems and today it's all
changed and people like Frank are shouting "its the guns, the guns
made them do it".
As an aside it's not a village in the 1950's, it is "for generators.. >>>>
years. Anyone not "quite right in the head" would be "put away".
Now mental illness is big business and psychotics can buy
guns.
So some things HAVE changed.
[]'s
Further to all that, this today:
https://nypost.com/2025/07/14/us-news/registered-sex-offender-to-walk-free-after-elementary-school-kidnapping-attempt-prosecutors-say/
Not only are the citizens yet at risk, but the addled
pervert may well be shot dead by an aggrieved mother next
time. How is this a rational policy? I don't get it.
"After his arrest, Galligan underwent a mental competency evaluation
that determined he was unfit to stand trial."
I hope they did it for free. A glance at his photo and ANYONE
could make that diagnosis.
So hand him over to the nearest State Mental facility. Being
born psychotic is not a crime, unless you're into proactive eugenics.
In which case you would have to kill all the diabetics and others with
inherited diseases.
PS Private facilities cost THIRTY THOUSAND dollars a month PER
PATIENT Anyone recommending the State pay for "outsourced" mental
hospitals is crazy enough to be sent to one.
[]'s
There's an egregious case every day if not more:
https://thedailycrime.org/2025/07/14/mummified-childs-body-found-in-hotel-room/
The Legislature filed suit promptly(...)
but the court dismissed on latches, noting no injury had
been inflicted since the election had yet to be held.
The day after the election, the Legislature filed again.
The PA courts dismissed again on latches, as the election
had been held already and so no remedy was possible.
On 7/14/2025 5:45 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <twddQ.332972$z995.149899@fx48.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
Brian, you're quite right. But they STILL voted for him over a
Republican.
They voted for him over Trump. There are a lot of people like me who,
when Trump said it was allowable to terminate the articles of the
Constitution, decided the man wasn't fit to be President of the United
States since that's a direct contradiction to his oath of office. Not to
mention a seriously offensive thing to say to all Americans.
So from my perspective, I'd have voted for a wet bag of rocks before
Trump, since the wet bag of rocks has more respect for the Constitution
than he does.
And they looked the other way at election fraud so flagrant that it
takes people like Flunky to claim "there was not proof".
Trump made me extremely confident with his 60+ court cases that there
was no fraud. That was a lot of thorough investigation, maybe more than
has happened in any other election.
You'll never find a stronger proponent for legitimate and complete
elections than myself, and I encouraged all those court cases. If there
was something there, I wanted to know about it. And after all that, they
failed to show fraud despite having so-called mountains of evidence.
Of those 60 cases, all dismissed or resolved on procedural
issues, was there one in which any evidence or testimony was
entered into the court record? If there was one, I missed it.
The most blatant was Pennsylvania, where unauthorized
officials made drastic changes to PA election law just
before the election of 2020, in direct violation of the
Constitution:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole
Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State
may be entitled in the Congress..."
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/
which gives the State Legislature the exclusive and plenary
power over elections. The Legislature filed suit promptly
but the court dismissed on latches, noting no injury had
been inflicted since the election had yet to be held.
The day after the election, the Legislature filed again. The
PA courts dismissed again on latches, as the election had
been held already and so no remedy was possible.
On 7/14/2025 1:54 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 21:19:55 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:16:35 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/13/2025 11:47 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/13/2025 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/12/2025 8:20 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:According to Google she was born in Lithuania and was
In article <TugcQ.218883$KxI2.90463@fx45.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed Jun 11 17:31:22 2025 Beej Jorgensen wrote:
But maybe never in the history of the United States has
a citizen
ever been accused of being a non-citizen, who can know.
Brian, what do you mean, "who can know"?
I mean, who can know in the history of the United States
if a citizen
has even been accused of being a non-citizen.
NO ONE doesn't have a birth certificate.
Though I'm not a financial advisor, I'm highly confident
you should not
bet any money on that absolute.
There are egregious cases such as Emma Goldman whose US
citizenship was revoked and she was deported to her
birthplace. the Empire of Russia.
deported to the USSR in 1920, ultimately in Petrograd where
she lived before emigrating to the US. The Russian Empire no
longer existed by then.
Thanks I misremembered the date.
Still and all, I can't recall another US citizen stripped of
citizenship.
"Relinquishing U.S. Nationality"
<https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-
considerations/Relinquishing-US-Nationality.html>
It can be done, but I couldn't find any names or dates when it has
happened. I suspect that defecting to the Soviet Union might have
been a common cause.
You may lose your U.S. citizenship in specific cases, including if
you:
- Run for public office in a foreign country (under certain
conditions)
- Enter military service in a foreign country (under certain
conditions)
- Apply for citizenship in a foreign country with the intention of
giving up U.S. citizenship
- Commit an act of treason against the United States
- Are a naturalized U.S. citizen who faces denaturalization due to
committing certain crimes
I guess we can add criticizing the president to the list:
"Trump threatens to revoke US citizenship of longtime critic Rosie
O’Donnell" (July 12, 2025)
//
Roseann O'Donnell
Born March 21, 1962 inCommack, New York, U.S.
//
American born and bred. Apparently she committed the crime of
"free speech". In a Police State, that is practically treason...
[]'s
pfffft. Never charged, never prosecuted. Who cares?
I have made more articulate criticisms of US administrations (most of
them) than her best day since before she could write her name.
Passion? sure. Well crafted argument? Nope.
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 08:44:59 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/14/2025 4:44 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/13/2025 8:09 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:27:34 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That is why the Democrats HATE President Trump so much.
He give credence to the common man being able to think
for himseolf
OMG. He even got that wrong!
Did Trump get ANYTHING right?
[]'s
lol....The only thing I can think of that he got mostly
right was going after the Sacklers.
Other than that, trumps sole 'contribution' to the US
(indeed, the world) was to give license to loudmouth
obnoxious assholes to be publicly loud obnoxious assholes.
I'm skeptical (as are you) about the ongoing tariff
uncertainty and the long term plan, if any. But there is an
actual problem and Mr Trump is at least addressing it:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/world-bank-backs-trump-s-gripe-over-other-nations-higher-tariffs-on-us-goods/ar-AA1GrdzB
We'll see if things become better or worse for this. I don't
know.
The US practically owns the World Bank.
They're probably too scared to contradict him...
[]'s
On 7/14/2025 5:45 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <twddQ.332972$z995.149899@fx48.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
Brian, you're quite right. But they STILL voted for him over a
Republican.
They voted for him over Trump. There are a lot of people like me who,
when Trump said it was allowable to terminate the articles of the
Constitution, decided the man wasn't fit to be President of the United
States since that's a direct contradiction to his oath of office. Not to
mention a seriously offensive thing to say to all Americans.
So from my perspective, I'd have voted for a wet bag of rocks before
Trump, since the wet bag of rocks has more respect for the Constitution
than he does.
And they looked the other way at election fraud so flagrant that it
takes people like Flunky to claim "there was not proof".
Trump made me extremely confident with his 60+ court cases that there
was no fraud. That was a lot of thorough investigation, maybe more than
has happened in any other election.
You'll never find a stronger proponent for legitimate and complete
elections than myself, and I encouraged all those court cases. If there
was something there, I wanted to know about it. And after all that, they
failed to show fraud despite having so-called mountains of evidence.
Of those 60 cases, all dismissed or resolved on procedural issues, was
there one in which any evidence or testimony was entered into the court record? If there was one, I missed it.
The most blatant was Pennsylvania, where unauthorized officials made
drastic changes to PA election law just before the election of 2020, in direct violation of the Constitution:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..."
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/
which gives the State Legislature the exclusive and plenary power over elections. The Legislature filed suit promptly but the court dismissed
on latches, noting no injury had been inflicted since the election had
yet to be held.
The day after the election, the Legislature filed again. The PA courts dismissed again on latches, as the election had been held already and so
no remedy was possible.
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 19:29:18 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The Legislature filed suit promptly(...)
but the court dismissed on latches, noting no injury had
been inflicted since the election had yet to be held.
The day after the election, the Legislature filed again.
The PA courts dismissed again on latches, as the election
had been held already and so no remedy was possible.
Spelling error. That should be "laches", not "latches". <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)>
I must admit that I don't understand the Wikipedia page, but I
couldn't find anything better. More comments later. I'm not feeling
very well right now (constipation from the pain killers).
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 19:29:18 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/14/2025 5:45 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <twddQ.332972$z995.149899@fx48.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
Brian, you're quite right. But they STILL voted for him over a
Republican.
They voted for him over Trump. There are a lot of people like me who,
when Trump said it was allowable to terminate the articles of the
Constitution, decided the man wasn't fit to be President of the United
States since that's a direct contradiction to his oath of office. Not to >>> mention a seriously offensive thing to say to all Americans.
So from my perspective, I'd have voted for a wet bag of rocks before
Trump, since the wet bag of rocks has more respect for the Constitution
than he does.
And they looked the other way at election fraud so flagrant that it
takes people like Flunky to claim "there was not proof".
Trump made me extremely confident with his 60+ court cases that there
was no fraud. That was a lot of thorough investigation, maybe more than
has happened in any other election.
You'll never find a stronger proponent for legitimate and complete
elections than myself, and I encouraged all those court cases. If there
was something there, I wanted to know about it. And after all that, they >>> failed to show fraud despite having so-called mountains of evidence.
Of those 60 cases, all dismissed or resolved on procedural
issues, was there one in which any evidence or testimony was
entered into the court record? If there was one, I missed it.
The most blatant was Pennsylvania, where unauthorized
officials made drastic changes to PA election law just
before the election of 2020, in direct violation of the
Constitution:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole
Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State
may be entitled in the Congress..."
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/
which gives the State Legislature the exclusive and plenary
power over elections. The Legislature filed suit promptly
but the court dismissed on latches, noting no injury had
been inflicted since the election had yet to be held.
The day after the election, the Legislature filed again. The
PA courts dismissed again on latches, as the election had
been held already and so no remedy was possible.
Wow.. Thank you for that.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 7/14/2025 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/14/2025 1:54 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 21:19:55 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:16:35 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/13/2025 11:47 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/13/2025 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/12/2025 8:20 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:According to Google she was born in Lithuania and was
In article <TugcQ.218883$KxI2.90463@fx45.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed Jun 11 17:31:22 2025 Beej Jorgensen wrote:
But maybe never in the history of the United
States has
a citizen
ever been accused of being a non-citizen, who can
know.
Brian, what do you mean, "who can know"?
I mean, who can know in the history of the United
States
if a citizen
has even been accused of being a non-citizen.
NO ONE doesn't have a birth certificate.
Though I'm not a financial advisor, I'm highly
confident
you should not
bet any money on that absolute.
There are egregious cases such as Emma Goldman whose US
citizenship was revoked and she was deported to her
birthplace. the Empire of Russia.
deported to the USSR in 1920, ultimately in Petrograd
where
she lived before emigrating to the US. The Russian
Empire no
longer existed by then.
Thanks I misremembered the date.
Still and all, I can't recall another US citizen
stripped of
citizenship.
"Relinquishing U.S. Nationality"
<https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/
travel-legal- considerations/Relinquishing-US-
Nationality.html>
It can be done, but I couldn't find any names or dates
when it has
happened. I suspect that defecting to the Soviet Union
might have
been a common cause.
You may lose your U.S. citizenship in specific cases,
including if
you:
- Run for public office in a foreign country (under certain
conditions)
- Enter military service in a foreign country (under
certain
conditions)
- Apply for citizenship in a foreign country with the
intention of
giving up U.S. citizenship
- Commit an act of treason against the United States
- Are a naturalized U.S. citizen who faces
denaturalization due to
committing certain crimes
I guess we can add criticizing the president to the list:
"Trump threatens to revoke US citizenship of longtime
critic Rosie
O’Donnell" (July 12, 2025)
//
Roseann O'Donnell
Born March 21, 1962 inCommack, New York, U.S.
//
American born and bred. Apparently she committed the
crime of
"free speech". In a Police State, that is practically
treason...
[]'s
pfffft. Never charged, never prosecuted. Who cares?
I have made more articulate criticisms of US
administrations (most of them) than her best day since
before she could write her name.
Passion? sure. Well crafted argument? Nope.
Attempt at distraction from the issue duly noted and
dismissed as an attempted distraction.
“Because of the fact that Rosie O’Donnell is not in the best
interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious
consideration to taking away her Citizenship,”
The asshole-in-chief feels it's within his right to violate
the constitution (not that SCOTUS hasn't has attempted to
re-establish the balance of power at all).
On 7/14/2025 8:29 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/14/2025 5:45 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <twddQ.332972$z995.149899@fx48.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
Brian, you're quite right. But they STILL voted for him
over a
Republican.
They voted for him over Trump. There are a lot of people
like me who,
when Trump said it was allowable to terminate the
articles of the
Constitution, decided the man wasn't fit to be President
of the United
States since that's a direct contradiction to his oath of
office. Not to
mention a seriously offensive thing to say to all Americans.
So from my perspective, I'd have voted for a wet bag of
rocks before
Trump, since the wet bag of rocks has more respect for
the Constitution
than he does.
And they looked the other way at election fraud so
flagrant that it
takes people like Flunky to claim "there was not proof".
Trump made me extremely confident with his 60+ court
cases that there
was no fraud. That was a lot of thorough investigation,
maybe more than
has happened in any other election.
You'll never find a stronger proponent for legitimate and
complete
elections than myself, and I encouraged all those court
cases. If there
was something there, I wanted to know about it. And after
all that, they
failed to show fraud despite having so-called mountains
of evidence.
Of those 60 cases, all dismissed or resolved on procedural
issues, was there one in which any evidence or testimony
was entered into the court record? If there was one, I
missed it.
Of course you completely gloss over the fact that even trump
appointed judges saw the cases had no merit - the evidence
presented wasn't anywhere near compelling enough to justify
a trial. Oh, thens there's this:
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-biden/barr-sees-no-sign- of-major-u-s-vote-fraud-despite-trumps-claims-idUSKBN28B5UK/
The most blatant was Pennsylvania, where unauthorized
officials made drastic changes to PA election law just
before the election of 2020, in direct violation of the
Constitution:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the
Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,
equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives
to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..."
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/
which gives the State Legislature the exclusive and
plenary power over elections. The Legislature filed suit
promptly but the court dismissed on latches, noting no
injury had been inflicted since the election had yet to be
held.
The day after the election, the Legislature filed again.
The PA courts dismissed again on latches, as the election
had been held already and so no remedy was possible.
And of course, no where in that is there any allegation of
widespread fraud.
Sorry andrew, this 'dismissed on procedural grounds' trope
you keep supporting doesn't hold any merit whatsoever. If
there was a case - _any_ case - where there was enough
evidence that any fraud had an effect on the election, all
that would have needed to be done was present the evidence
in the proper venue by people with the proper standing. The
fact that the magatards couldn't muster that after so much
allegation of widespread fraud is in and of itself some
evidence the claims were false.
"To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have
affected a different outcome in the election," - Bob Barr,
December 1, 2020.
On 7/14/2025 8:29 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/14/2025 5:45 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <twddQ.332972$z995.149899@fx48.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
Brian, you're quite right. But they STILL voted for him
over a
Republican.
They voted for him over Trump. There are a lot of people
like me who,
when Trump said it was allowable to terminate the
articles of the
Constitution, decided the man wasn't fit to be President
of the United
States since that's a direct contradiction to his oath of
office. Not to
mention a seriously offensive thing to say to all Americans.
So from my perspective, I'd have voted for a wet bag of
rocks before
Trump, since the wet bag of rocks has more respect for
the Constitution
than he does.
And they looked the other way at election fraud so
flagrant that it
takes people like Flunky to claim "there was not proof".
Trump made me extremely confident with his 60+ court
cases that there
was no fraud. That was a lot of thorough investigation,
maybe more than
has happened in any other election.
You'll never find a stronger proponent for legitimate and
complete
elections than myself, and I encouraged all those court
cases. If there
was something there, I wanted to know about it. And after
all that, they
failed to show fraud despite having so-called mountains
of evidence.
Of those 60 cases, all dismissed or resolved on procedural
issues, was there one in which any evidence or testimony
was entered into the court record? If there was one, I
missed it.
Of course you completely gloss over the fact that even trump
appointed judges saw the cases had no merit - the evidence
presented wasn't anywhere near compelling enough to justify
a trial. Oh, thens there's this:
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-biden/barr-sees-no-sign- of-major-u-s-vote-fraud-despite-trumps-claims-idUSKBN28B5UK/
The most blatant was Pennsylvania, where unauthorized
officials made drastic changes to PA election law just
before the election of 2020, in direct violation of the
Constitution:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the
Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,
equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives
to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..."
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/
which gives the State Legislature the exclusive and
plenary power over elections. The Legislature filed suit
promptly but the court dismissed on latches, noting no
injury had been inflicted since the election had yet to be
held.
The day after the election, the Legislature filed again.
The PA courts dismissed again on latches, as the election
had been held already and so no remedy was possible.
And of course, no where in that is there any allegation of
widespread fraud.
Sorry andrew, this 'dismissed on procedural grounds' trope
you keep supporting doesn't hold any merit whatsoever. If
there was a case - _any_ case - where there was enough
evidence that any fraud had an effect on the election, all
that would have needed to be done was present the evidence
in the proper venue by people with the proper standing. The
fact that the magatards couldn't muster that after so much
allegation of widespread fraud is in and of itself some
evidence the claims were false.
"To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have
affected a different outcome in the election," - Bob Barr,
December 1, 2020.
On 7/15/2025 4:52 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/14/2025 8:29 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/14/2025 5:45 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <twddQ.332972$z995.149899@fx48.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
Brian, you're quite right. But they STILL voted for him
over a
Republican.
They voted for him over Trump. There are a lot of people
like me who,
when Trump said it was allowable to terminate the
articles of the
Constitution, decided the man wasn't fit to be President
of the United
States since that's a direct contradiction to his oath of
office. Not to
mention a seriously offensive thing to say to all Americans.
So from my perspective, I'd have voted for a wet bag of
rocks before
Trump, since the wet bag of rocks has more respect for
the Constitution
than he does.
And they looked the other way at election fraud so
flagrant that it
takes people like Flunky to claim "there was not proof".
Trump made me extremely confident with his 60+ court
cases that there
was no fraud. That was a lot of thorough investigation,
maybe more than
has happened in any other election.
You'll never find a stronger proponent for legitimate and
complete
elections than myself, and I encouraged all those court
cases. If there
was something there, I wanted to know about it. And after
all that, they
failed to show fraud despite having so-called mountains
of evidence.
Of those 60 cases, all dismissed or resolved on procedural
issues, was there one in which any evidence or testimony
was entered into the court record? If there was one, I
missed it.
Of course you completely gloss over the fact that even trump
appointed judges saw the cases had no merit - the evidence
presented wasn't anywhere near compelling enough to justify
a trial. Oh, thens there's this:
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-biden/barr-sees-no-sign-
of-major-u-s-vote-fraud-despite-trumps-claims-idUSKBN28B5UK/
The most blatant was Pennsylvania, where unauthorized
officials made drastic changes to PA election law just
before the election of 2020, in direct violation of the
Constitution:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the
Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,
equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives
to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..."
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/
which gives the State Legislature the exclusive and
plenary power over elections. The Legislature filed suit
promptly but the court dismissed on latches, noting no
injury had been inflicted since the election had yet to be
held.
The day after the election, the Legislature filed again.
The PA courts dismissed again on latches, as the election
had been held already and so no remedy was possible.
And of course, no where in that is there any allegation of
widespread fraud.
Sorry andrew, this 'dismissed on procedural grounds' trope
you keep supporting doesn't hold any merit whatsoever. If
there was a case - _any_ case - where there was enough
evidence that any fraud had an effect on the election, all
that would have needed to be done was present the evidence
in the proper venue by people with the proper standing. The
fact that the magatards couldn't muster that after so much
allegation of widespread fraud is in and of itself some
evidence the claims were false.
"To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have
affected a different outcome in the election," - Bob Barr,
December 1, 2020.
From the sublime to the ridiculous. This today:
https://ktla.com/news/local-news/former-sheriff-candidate-to-face-trial-for-allegedly-registering-cats-to-vote/
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 08:36:31 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/15/2025 4:52 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/14/2025 8:29 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/14/2025 5:45 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <twddQ.332972$z995.149899@fx48.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
Brian, you're quite right. But they STILL voted for him
over a
Republican.
They voted for him over Trump. There are a lot of people
like me who,
when Trump said it was allowable to terminate the
articles of the
Constitution, decided the man wasn't fit to be President
of the United
States since that's a direct contradiction to his oath of
office. Not to
mention a seriously offensive thing to say to all Americans.
So from my perspective, I'd have voted for a wet bag of
rocks before
Trump, since the wet bag of rocks has more respect for
the Constitution
than he does.
And they looked the other way at election fraud so
flagrant that it
takes people like Flunky to claim "there was not proof".
Trump made me extremely confident with his 60+ court
cases that there
was no fraud. That was a lot of thorough investigation,
maybe more than
has happened in any other election.
You'll never find a stronger proponent for legitimate and
complete
elections than myself, and I encouraged all those court
cases. If there
was something there, I wanted to know about it. And after
all that, they
failed to show fraud despite having so-called mountains
of evidence.
Of those 60 cases, all dismissed or resolved on procedural
issues, was there one in which any evidence or testimony
was entered into the court record? If there was one, I
missed it.
Of course you completely gloss over the fact that even trump
appointed judges saw the cases had no merit - the evidence
presented wasn't anywhere near compelling enough to justify
a trial. Oh, thens there's this:
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-biden/barr-sees-no-sign-
of-major-u-s-vote-fraud-despite-trumps-claims-idUSKBN28B5UK/
The most blatant was Pennsylvania, where unauthorized
officials made drastic changes to PA election law just
before the election of 2020, in direct violation of the
Constitution:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the
Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,
equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives
to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..."
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/
which gives the State Legislature the exclusive and
plenary power over elections. The Legislature filed suit
promptly but the court dismissed on latches, noting no
injury had been inflicted since the election had yet to be
held.
The day after the election, the Legislature filed again.
The PA courts dismissed again on latches, as the election
had been held already and so no remedy was possible.
And of course, no where in that is there any allegation of
widespread fraud.
Sorry andrew, this 'dismissed on procedural grounds' trope
you keep supporting doesn't hold any merit whatsoever. If
there was a case - _any_ case - where there was enough
evidence that any fraud had an effect on the election, all
that would have needed to be done was present the evidence
in the proper venue by people with the proper standing. The
fact that the magatards couldn't muster that after so much
allegation of widespread fraud is in and of itself some
evidence the claims were false.
"To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have
affected a different outcome in the election," - Bob Barr,
December 1, 2020.
From the sublime to the ridiculous. This today:
https://ktla.com/news/local-news/former-sheriff-candidate-to-face-trial-for-allegedly-registering-cats-to-vote/
And look who they elected (:-)
--
cheers,
John B.
More comments later. I'm not feeling
very well right now (constipation from the pain killers).
On 7/14/2025 3:33 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 08:44:59 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/14/2025 4:44 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/13/2025 8:09 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:27:34 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That is why the Democrats HATE President Trump so much.
He give credence to the common man being able to think
for himseolf
OMG. He even got that wrong!
Did Trump get ANYTHING right?
[]'s
lol....The only thing I can think of that he got mostly
right was going after the Sacklers.
Other than that, trumps sole 'contribution' to the US
(indeed, the world) was to give license to loudmouth
obnoxious assholes to be publicly loud obnoxious assholes.
I'm skeptical (as are you) about the ongoing tariff
uncertainty and the long term plan, if any. But there is an
actual problem and Mr Trump is at least addressing it:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/world-bank-backs-trump-s-gripe-over-other-nations-higher-tariffs-on-us-goods/ar-AA1GrdzB
We'll see if things become better or worse for this. I don't
know.
The US practically owns the World Bank.
They're probably too scared to contradict him...
[]'s
The asshole-in-chief is using tariffs as sanctions to achieve whatever >political ends how somehow feels are justified - apparently he feels
it's worth a 50% tariff to (try to) stop Lula's government from
prosecuting Bolsonaro's jan 6 copycat move.
Of course, as usual, trump engages in blatant lies as "justification"
https://fortune.com/2025/07/09/trump-brazil-tariff-50-percent-bolsonaro-trial-lula/
"Please understand that the 50 percent number is far less than what is >needed to have the Level Playing Field we must have with your Country,
Trump added."
The reality is that We had over a 6.7 billion dollar surplus with Brazil
in 2024, are on track for the same this year, and have had a surplus
with them since 2007.
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c3510.html
https://ktla.com/news/local-news/former-sheriff-candidate-to-face-trial-for-allegedly-registering-cats-to-vote/
And look who they elected
https://sheriff.venturacounty.gov/welcome/sheriff-james-fryhoff/
officials made drastic changes to PA election law just
before the election of 2020
From the sublime to the ridiculous. This today: [former sheriff
candidate registers cats to vote]
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 09:37:16 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
https://sheriff.venturacounty.gov/welcome/sheriff-james-fryhoff/
//
Jim is married to his wife ....
//
Not someone else's wife. He chose his own wife!!!
Now that's what I call well written article.
[]'s
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 05:25:10 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7/14/2025 3:33 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 08:44:59 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/14/2025 4:44 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/13/2025 8:09 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:27:34 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That is why the Democrats HATE President Trump so much.
He give credence to the common man being able to think
for himseolf
OMG. He even got that wrong!
Did Trump get ANYTHING right?
[]'s
lol....The only thing I can think of that he got mostly
right was going after the Sacklers.
Other than that, trumps sole 'contribution' to the US
(indeed, the world) was to give license to loudmouth
obnoxious assholes to be publicly loud obnoxious assholes.
I'm skeptical (as are you) about the ongoing tariff
uncertainty and the long term plan, if any. But there is an
actual problem and Mr Trump is at least addressing it:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/world-bank-backs-trump-s-gripe-over-other-nations-higher-tariffs-on-us-goods/ar-AA1GrdzB
We'll see if things become better or worse for this. I don't
know.
The US practically owns the World Bank.
They're probably too scared to contradict him...
[]'s
The asshole-in-chief is using tariffs as sanctions to achieve whatever
political ends how somehow feels are justified - apparently he feels
it's worth a 50% tariff to (try to) stop Lula's government from
prosecuting Bolsonaro's jan 6 copycat move.
Of course, as usual, trump engages in blatant lies as "justification"
https://fortune.com/2025/07/09/trump-brazil-tariff-50-percent-bolsonaro-trial-lula/
"“Please understand that the 50 percent number is far less than what is
needed to have the Level Playing Field we must have with your Country,”
Trump added."
The reality is that We had over a 6.7 billion dollar surplus with Brazil
in 2024, are on track for the same this year, and have had a surplus
with them since 2007.
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c3510.html
LOL. "Had" being the key word. Now you'll pay almost 50% more
for coffee, beef, chocolate, and petroleum...
And we'll pay 50% more for Disneyland toys and MAGA caps. And machinery, which used to employ a LOT of Americans. Nah, we'll import
them from China.
PS Bolsonaro hired various hit men to kill Lula, some Supreme
court judges and Alckmin (vice president). Under his orders hundreds
invaded our "white house", destroyed paintings, furniture, shat
(shitted?) on the supreme court's judges benches, smashed vases (all
very valuable) and attempted to set fire to the place.
Bolsonaro gave the orders and paid for most of the would be
coup. Trump calls taking him to court a "witch hunt". PS the would be
killers and vandals practically all confessed. As did Bolsonaro's main
aids. Bolsonaro is so stupid he WROTE THE COUP PLAN DOWN on paper and
shared it on What!Crap!.
His son is an illegal alien, living on a expired tourist visa
and frequently visits Trump and Rubio. He is also a narcotics dealer
and wanted for embezzlement. And yet ICE won't deport him. Isn't that unconstitutional?
[]'s
I'm surprise you're so well informed. Let me guess, it wasn't
Fox "News"!
In article <10547ct$3m9v9$4@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The most blatant was Pennsylvania, where unauthorized
officials made drastic changes to PA election law just
before the election of 2020
All the changes I'm aware of in PA either were legislative acts or were allowed by the PA supreme court or SCOTUS.
And if we're not going to listen to the courts when it comes to election matters, Al Gore would like a word. :)
I'll always take more references if you have them.
On 7/15/2025 10:43 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 05:25:10 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7/14/2025 3:33 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 08:44:59 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>
On 7/14/2025 4:44 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/13/2025 8:09 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:27:34 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That is why the Democrats HATE President Trump so much.
He give credence to the common man being able to think
for himseolf
OMG. He even got that wrong!
Did Trump get ANYTHING right?
[]'s
lol....The only thing I can think of that he got mostly
right was going after the Sacklers.
Other than that, trumps sole 'contribution' to the US
(indeed, the world) was to give license to loudmouth
obnoxious assholes to be publicly loud obnoxious assholes.
I'm skeptical (as are you) about the ongoing tariff
uncertainty and the long term plan, if any. But there is an
actual problem and Mr Trump is at least addressing it:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/world-bank-backs-trump-s-gripe-over-other-nations-higher-tariffs-on-us-goods/ar-AA1GrdzB
We'll see if things become better or worse for this. I don't
know.
The US practically owns the World Bank.
They're probably too scared to contradict him...
[]'s
The asshole-in-chief is using tariffs as sanctions to achieve whatever
political ends how somehow feels are justified - apparently he feels
it's worth a 50% tariff to (try to) stop Lula's government from
prosecuting Bolsonaro's jan 6 copycat move.
Of course, as usual, trump engages in blatant lies as "justification"
https://fortune.com/2025/07/09/trump-brazil-tariff-50-percent-bolsonaro-trial-lula/
"Please understand that the 50 percent number is far less than what is
needed to have the Level Playing Field we must have with your Country,
Trump added."
The reality is that We had over a 6.7 billion dollar surplus with Brazil >>> in 2024, are on track for the same this year, and have had a surplus
with them since 2007.
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c3510.html
LOL. "Had" being the key word. Now you'll pay almost 50% more
for coffee, beef, chocolate, and petroleum...
And we'll pay 50% more for Disneyland toys and MAGA caps. And
machinery, which used to employ a LOT of Americans. Nah, we'll import
them from China.
PS Bolsonaro hired various hit men to kill Lula, some Supreme
court judges and Alckmin (vice president). Under his orders hundreds
invaded our "white house", destroyed paintings, furniture, shat
(shitted?) on the supreme court's judges benches, smashed vases (all
very valuable) and attempted to set fire to the place.
Bolsonaro gave the orders and paid for most of the would be
coup. Trump calls taking him to court a "witch hunt". PS the would be
killers and vandals practically all confessed. As did Bolsonaro's main
aids. Bolsonaro is so stupid he WROTE THE COUP PLAN DOWN on paper and
shared it on What!Crap!.
His son is an illegal alien, living on a expired tourist visa
and frequently visits Trump and Rubio. He is also a narcotics dealer
and wanted for embezzlement. And yet ICE won't deport him. Isn't that
unconstitutional?
[]'s
I'm surprise you're so well informed. Let me guess, it wasn't
Fox "News"!
If the punitive high duties are a tactic on the path to
zero-zero or even reciprocal rates, then I'm OK with
temporary dysfunction. A fine (and yet elusive for decades)
goal.
But if those rates are policy in themselves, it's a
classically stupid move and will fall of its own weight.
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 19:52:12 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
More comments later. I'm not feeling
very well right now (constipation from the pain killers).
Not good. Narcotics?
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 11:57:36 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/15/2025 10:43 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 05:25:10 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7/14/2025 3:33 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 08:44:59 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>
On 7/14/2025 4:44 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/13/2025 8:09 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:27:34 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That is why the Democrats HATE President Trump so much.
He give credence to the common man being able to think
for himseolf
OMG. He even got that wrong!
Did Trump get ANYTHING right?
[]'s
lol....The only thing I can think of that he got mostly
right was going after the Sacklers.
Other than that, trumps sole 'contribution' to the US
(indeed, the world) was to give license to loudmouth
obnoxious assholes to be publicly loud obnoxious assholes.
I'm skeptical (as are you) about the ongoing tariff
uncertainty and the long term plan, if any. But there is an
actual problem and Mr Trump is at least addressing it:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/world-bank-backs-trump-s-gripe-over-other-nations-higher-tariffs-on-us-goods/ar-AA1GrdzB
We'll see if things become better or worse for this. I don't
know.
The US practically owns the World Bank.
They're probably too scared to contradict him...
[]'s
The asshole-in-chief is using tariffs as sanctions to achieve whatever >>>> political ends how somehow feels are justified - apparently he feels
it's worth a 50% tariff to (try to) stop Lula's government from
prosecuting Bolsonaro's jan 6 copycat move.
Of course, as usual, trump engages in blatant lies as "justification"
https://fortune.com/2025/07/09/trump-brazil-tariff-50-percent-bolsonaro-trial-lula/
"“Please understand that the 50 percent number is far less than what is >>>> needed to have the Level Playing Field we must have with your Country,” >>>> Trump added."
The reality is that We had over a 6.7 billion dollar surplus with Brazil >>>> in 2024, are on track for the same this year, and have had a surplus
with them since 2007.
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c3510.html
LOL. "Had" being the key word. Now you'll pay almost 50% more
for coffee, beef, chocolate, and petroleum...
And we'll pay 50% more for Disneyland toys and MAGA caps. And
machinery, which used to employ a LOT of Americans. Nah, we'll import
them from China.
PS Bolsonaro hired various hit men to kill Lula, some Supreme
court judges and Alckmin (vice president). Under his orders hundreds
invaded our "white house", destroyed paintings, furniture, shat
(shitted?) on the supreme court's judges benches, smashed vases (all
very valuable) and attempted to set fire to the place.
Bolsonaro gave the orders and paid for most of the would be
coup. Trump calls taking him to court a "witch hunt". PS the would be
killers and vandals practically all confessed. As did Bolsonaro's main
aids. Bolsonaro is so stupid he WROTE THE COUP PLAN DOWN on paper and
shared it on What!Crap!.
His son is an illegal alien, living on a expired tourist visa
and frequently visits Trump and Rubio. He is also a narcotics dealer
and wanted for embezzlement. And yet ICE won't deport him. Isn't that
unconstitutional?
[]'s
I'm surprise you're so well informed. Let me guess, it wasn't
Fox "News"!
If the punitive high duties are a tactic on the path to
zero-zero or even reciprocal rates, then I'm OK with
temporary dysfunction. A fine (and yet elusive for decades)
goal.
But if those rates are policy in themselves, it's a
classically stupid move and will fall of its own weight.
The tariffs are conditional. Trump told Lula: Drop the charges
for attempted murder, drug trafficking and embezzlement on
Bolsonaro/family or I'll raise the tariffs.
It has absolutely nothing to do with our trade (deficit).
Trouble is, Lula does not decide. The Supreme Court is
autonomous. It's like ordering Lula to ignore our Constitution. He
can't.
In Brazil, you don't simply "order the supreme court to drop
the charges". They have the proof, the money trail and the
confessions....
And hopefully, the criminals will go to jail. Hundreds have
been jailed, but Bolsonaro's pitiful attempts to justify the coup are
popular in the media. "Lula was going to make Brazil communist" ...
third year of Lula and no sign of any "commies"
Awaiting Eduardo Bolsonaros extradition.....
[]'s
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:46:15 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 19:52:12 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>wrote:
More comments later. I'm not feeling
very well right now (constipation from the pain killers).
Not good. Narcotics?
Probably. I had an orchiectomy on July 10. ><https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/procedures/orchiectomy>
There were probably some narcotics involved. I haven't received a
surgical summary from the hospital yet and therefore don't know what
drugs were used. I had been erratically taking a laxative
(polyethylene glycol 3350), which didn't work. Yesterday, I switched
to "Smooth Move" tea. The tea tasted awful but a teaspoon of sugar
helped: ><https://www.traditionalmedicinals.com/products/smooth-move-peppermint-tea> >After about 6 hrs, the tea worked. I trashed my bathroom and created
a smelly mess, but that was expected. Some of the pains returned,
probably because I may have done some internal damage. The pain was
gone by this morning. I plan to sleep most of the day. It will be a
week or two before the lab tests arrive. Hopefully, the tumor won't
be cancer.
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 19:58:52 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
My DIRECT observation of an entire busload of illegals brought in who couldn't even speak English and were all bearing a slip of paper with the name of people who had died or moved out of the polling region doesn't even phase you. I must be lying.
You're lying. We went through this a few weeks ago. I found some >inconsistencies with your story. Want links to my postings so you can
ignore them later?
Judicial Watch has sued using recent Supreme Court rulings and had 5 MILLION dead Democrat voter removed from the polls.
No they haven't. I just searched for such an event, which if true,
would be all over the media. I found nothing. How about some
corroboration of your claims instead of unsubstantiated lies and >fabrications?
That did happen is in Oct 2020, Judicial Watch sued Pennsylvania to
remove 800,000 names from the voter rolls:
"The real reason a right-wing group is suing Pa. to scrub its voter
rolls" ><https://penncapital-star.com/commentary/the-real-reason-a-right-wing-group-is-suing-pa-to-scrub-its-voter-rolls-wednesday-morning-coffee/>
"In its lawsuit, the group claims that elections officials in the
three suburban Philadelphia counties, which have been trending
steadily Democratic over the last four years, have removed a combined
total of 17 names from voter rolls of more than 1.2 million voters
during the most recent, two-year reporting cycle."
It would be amazing if "5 million" names were removed from the
Pennsylvania voting rolls because they have only 9,175,133 registered
voters (in Nov 2024). ><https://www.pa.gov/content/dam/copapwp-pagov/en/dos/resources/voting-and-elections/voting-and-election-statistics/voter-registration-statistics/2024%20Election%20Nov..pdf>
My DIRECT observation of an entire busload of illegals brought in who couldn't even speak English and were all bearing a slip of paper with the name of people who had died or moved out of the polling region doesn't even phase you. I must be lying.
Judicial Watch has sued using recent Supreme Court rulings and had 5 MILLION dead Democrat voter removed from the polls.
https://lawshun.com/article/how-did-pennsylvania-break-election-law
https://www.pahousegop.com/News/18715/Latest-News/Ryan-Analysis-of-PA-Election-Irregularities-Cited-in-Texas-Case-Before-US-Supreme-Court
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/11/27/laches-and-the-pennsylvania-election-litigation/
https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/68%20MAP%202020%20Concurring%20Statement%20(J.%20Wecht)final.pdf?cb=2
https://publicintegrity.org/politics/elections/who-counts/ballot-curing-chaos-looms-over-pennsylvania-midterms/
In article <105628c$652r$3@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
All the machinations were well reported at the time.
But where's the beef? For example:
https://lawshun.com/article/how-did-pennsylvania-break-election-law
This page says that voting laws were broken in two ways: the voting
results were not posted at the polling places (and were only posted
online), and police were allowed within 100 feet of a polling place. It explicitly says laws were not broken with respect to counting mail-in
ballots or with the use of voting machines.
https://www.pahousegop.com/News/18715/Latest-News/Ryan-Analysis-of-PA-Election-Irregularities-Cited-in-Texas-Case-Before-US-Supreme-Court
I don't get this fixation on not counting legitimate votes past
"election day". There's a real "election day" in the Constitution and as
long as the results are in by then, it shouldn't matter. Choosing an
earlier arbitrary day and disallowing votes past it is nonsensical to
people interested in an accurate vote. For people interested in swaying
an election, however, it makes perfect sense.
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/11/27/laches-and-the-pennsylvania-election-litigation/
https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/68%20MAP%202020%20Concurring%20Statement%20(J.%20Wecht)final.pdf?cb=2
I think I'm in agreement here, that last-minute challenges to elections
are really not a great idea. These laws have been on the books for a
long time (one link you shared complains about PA's patchwork of
regulations and incomplete laws) and there's been plenty of opportunity
to hash that out, either legally or, preferably, legislatively. Doing it
at the last minute and willfully throwing the election into disarray is
not a good solution (again, depending on ones goals).
https://publicintegrity.org/politics/elections/who-counts/ballot-curing-chaos-looms-over-pennsylvania-midterms/
Definitely discusses issues with PA's regulations, but it looks like everything has been through the courts.
do not necessarily constitute "been through the courts".
In article <1058jmk$q337$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
We're in general agreement, but IMHO dismissals (and there were many)
do not necessarily constitute "been through the courts".
I don't know if that's something that's open to debate in America,
though. Dismissals are an integral part of our court process, and still requires an examination by the courts.
On 7/16/2025 1:03 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <1058jmk$q337$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
We're in general agreement, but IMHO dismissals (and there were many)
do not necessarily constitute "been through the courts".
I don't know if that's something that's open to debate in America,
though. Dismissals are an integral part of our court process, and still
requires an examination by the courts.
The Constitution says State legislatures have exclusive and
plenary power over elections. Unauthorized officials make
last-minute changes to election protocol. Legislature's
case is not heard but rather dismissed on laches.
Examinati9on? We differ on that.
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 13:05:43 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/16/2025 1:03 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <1058jmk$q337$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
We're in general agreement, but IMHO dismissals (and there were many)
do not necessarily constitute "been through the courts".
I don't know if that's something that's open to debate in America,
though. Dismissals are an integral part of our court process, and still
requires an examination by the courts.
The Constitution says State legislatures have exclusive and
plenary power over elections. Unauthorized officials make
last-minute changes to election protocol. Legislature's
case is not heard but rather dismissed on laches.
Examinati9on? We differ on that.
When Pennsylvania election workers demanded that the official obervers
stand back 15 feet. I knew how Pennsylvania's vote count was going to
turn out.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:46:15 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 19:52:12 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>wrote:
More comments later. I'm not feeling
very well right now (constipation from the pain killers).
Not good. Narcotics?
Probably. I had an orchiectomy on July 10. ><https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/procedures/orchiectomy>
There were probably some narcotics involved. I haven't received a
surgical summary from the hospital yet and therefore don't know what
drugs were used. I had been erratically taking a laxative
(polyethylene glycol 3350), which didn't work. Yesterday, I switched
to "Smooth Move" tea. The tea tasted awful but a teaspoon of sugar
helped: ><https://www.traditionalmedicinals.com/products/smooth-move-peppermint-tea> >After about 6 hrs, the tea worked. I trashed my bathroom and created
a smelly mess, but that was expected. Some of the pains returned,
probably because I may have done some internal damage. The pain was
gone by this morning. I plan to sleep most of the day. It will be a
week or two before the lab tests arrive. Hopefully, the tumor won't
be cancer.
The Constitution says State legislatures have exclusive and plenary
power over elections.
On 7/15/2025 1:03 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 11:57:36 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/15/2025 10:43 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 05:25:10 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7/14/2025 3:33 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 08:44:59 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>
On 7/14/2025 4:44 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/13/2025 8:09 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:27:34 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That is why the Democrats HATE President Trump so much.
He give credence to the common man being able to think
for himseolf
OMG. He even got that wrong!
Did Trump get ANYTHING right?
[]'s
lol....The only thing I can think of that he got mostly
right was going after the Sacklers.
Other than that, trumps sole 'contribution' to the US
(indeed, the world) was to give license to loudmouth
obnoxious assholes to be publicly loud obnoxious assholes.
I'm skeptical (as are you) about the ongoing tariff
uncertainty and the long term plan, if any. But there is an
actual problem and Mr Trump is at least addressing it:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/world-bank-backs-trump-s-gripe-over-other-nations-higher-tariffs-on-us-goods/ar-AA1GrdzB
We'll see if things become better or worse for this. I don't
know.
The US practically owns the World Bank.
They're probably too scared to contradict him...
[]'s
The asshole-in-chief is using tariffs as sanctions to achieve whatever >>>>> political ends how somehow feels are justified - apparently he feels >>>>> it's worth a 50% tariff to (try to) stop Lula's government from
prosecuting Bolsonaro's jan 6 copycat move.
Of course, as usual, trump engages in blatant lies as "justification" >>>>>
https://fortune.com/2025/07/09/trump-brazil-tariff-50-percent-bolsonaro-trial-lula/
"Please understand that the 50 percent number is far less than what is >>>>> needed to have the Level Playing Field we must have with your Country, >>>>> Trump added."
The reality is that We had over a 6.7 billion dollar surplus with Brazil >>>>> in 2024, are on track for the same this year, and have had a surplus >>>>> with them since 2007.
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c3510.html
LOL. "Had" being the key word. Now you'll pay almost 50% more
for coffee, beef, chocolate, and petroleum...
And we'll pay 50% more for Disneyland toys and MAGA caps. And
machinery, which used to employ a LOT of Americans. Nah, we'll import
them from China.
PS Bolsonaro hired various hit men to kill Lula, some Supreme
court judges and Alckmin (vice president). Under his orders hundreds
invaded our "white house", destroyed paintings, furniture, shat
(shitted?) on the supreme court's judges benches, smashed vases (all
very valuable) and attempted to set fire to the place.
Bolsonaro gave the orders and paid for most of the would be
coup. Trump calls taking him to court a "witch hunt". PS the would be
killers and vandals practically all confessed. As did Bolsonaro's main >>>> aids. Bolsonaro is so stupid he WROTE THE COUP PLAN DOWN on paper and
shared it on What!Crap!.
His son is an illegal alien, living on a expired tourist visa
and frequently visits Trump and Rubio. He is also a narcotics dealer
and wanted for embezzlement. And yet ICE won't deport him. Isn't that >>>> unconstitutional?
[]'s
I'm surprise you're so well informed. Let me guess, it wasn't
Fox "News"!
If the punitive high duties are a tactic on the path to
zero-zero or even reciprocal rates, then I'm OK with
temporary dysfunction. A fine (and yet elusive for decades)
goal.
But if those rates are policy in themselves, it's a
classically stupid move and will fall of its own weight.
The tariffs are conditional. Trump told Lula: Drop the charges
for attempted murder, drug trafficking and embezzlement on
Bolsonaro/family or I'll raise the tariffs.
It has absolutely nothing to do with our trade (deficit).
Trouble is, Lula does not decide. The Supreme Court is
autonomous. It's like ordering Lula to ignore our Constitution. He
can't.
In Brazil, you don't simply "order the supreme court to drop
the charges". They have the proof, the money trail and the
confessions....
And hopefully, the criminals will go to jail. Hundreds have
been jailed, but Bolsonaro's pitiful attempts to justify the coup are
popular in the media. "Lula was going to make Brazil communist" ...
third year of Lula and no sign of any "commies"
Awaiting Eduardo Bolsonaros extradition.....
[]'s
I can't say definitively whether you are right or wrong but
there are serious questions by many people in both our
countries on those points.
In article <1058pln$rk5c$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/16/2025 1:03 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
The Constitution says State legislatures have exclusive and plenary
power over elections.
It looked to me in those materials that the court looked at the law
passed by the legislature and determined there was no matching signature requirements. And that if the legislature wanted that, they'd have to
pass a law to that effect.
On 7/16/2025 5:35 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <1058pln$rk5c$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/16/2025 1:03 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
The Constitution says State legislatures have exclusive and plenary
power over elections.
It looked to me in those materials that the court looked at the law
passed by the legislature and determined there was no matching signature
requirements. And that if the legislature wanted that, they'd have to
pass a law to that effect.
Page 66 here, which relates to Section 302(p) of the PA
Election Code
"On November 19, the Court denied the Petition for Review.
The Court began its
analysis by noting that previous case law on the issue has
militated in favor of enfranchising
voters, not disenfranchising them, notwithstanding the canon
that all provisions of the
Election Code should be strictly enforced. In an attempt to
balance these two overriding
principles, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that
certain provision of the Election
Code are mandatory, and some are directory. Ballots should
not be disqualified if they
fail to follow directory provisions of the law.
The campaign pointed to the use of the word shall
throughout the Election Code,
and particularly in the sections of the code requiring a
date, printed name, and address.
Regarding the ballots with a partial date handwritten on the
outer envelope, the Court held
that those ballots should not be invalidated as the parties
stipulated that such ballots were
received by Election Day.
Regarding the ballots with no date on the envelope, the
Court found that the
Election Code was clear in its mandate of requiring a date
along with a signature on the
outer envelope. However, the Court noted that the board
co-mingled ballots from undated outer envelopes with all
other ballots, so it is impossible to tell which ballots
came from
which envelopes. "
And a slew of other issues exposed in the report: >https://jsg.legis.state.pa.us/resources/documents/ftp/publications/2021-06-23%20(Act%2012)%20ELAB%20web%206.23.2021.pdf
The Statute says signed and dated, the courts said, uh,
yeah, whatever.
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 05:25:10 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7/14/2025 3:33 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 08:44:59 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/14/2025 4:44 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/13/2025 8:09 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:27:34 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That is why the Democrats HATE President Trump so much.
He give credence to the common man being able to think
for himseolf
OMG. He even got that wrong!
Did Trump get ANYTHING right?
[]'s
lol....The only thing I can think of that he got mostly
right was going after the Sacklers.
Other than that, trumps sole 'contribution' to the US
(indeed, the world) was to give license to loudmouth
obnoxious assholes to be publicly loud obnoxious assholes.
I'm skeptical (as are you) about the ongoing tariff
uncertainty and the long term plan, if any. But there is an
actual problem and Mr Trump is at least addressing it:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/world-bank-backs-trump-s-gripe-over-other-nations-higher-tariffs-on-us-goods/ar-AA1GrdzB
We'll see if things become better or worse for this. I don't
know.
The US practically owns the World Bank.
They're probably too scared to contradict him...
[]'s
The asshole-in-chief is using tariffs as sanctions to achieve whatever
political ends how somehow feels are justified - apparently he feels
it's worth a 50% tariff to (try to) stop Lula's government from
prosecuting Bolsonaro's jan 6 copycat move.
Of course, as usual, trump engages in blatant lies as "justification"
https://fortune.com/2025/07/09/trump-brazil-tariff-50-percent-bolsonaro-trial-lula/
"“Please understand that the 50 percent number is far less than what is
needed to have the Level Playing Field we must have with your Country,”
Trump added."
The reality is that We had over a 6.7 billion dollar surplus with Brazil
in 2024, are on track for the same this year, and have had a surplus
with them since 2007.
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c3510.html
LOL. "Had" being the key word. Now you'll pay almost 50% more
for coffee, beef, chocolate, and petroleum...
And we'll pay 50% more for Disneyland toys and MAGA caps. And machinery, which used to employ a LOT of Americans. Nah, we'll import
them from China.
PS Bolsonaro hired various hit men to kill Lula, some Supreme
court judges and Alckmin (vice president). Under his orders hundreds
invaded our "white house", destroyed paintings, furniture, shat
(shitted?) on the supreme court's judges benches, smashed vases (all
very valuable) and attempted to set fire to the place.
Bolsonaro gave the orders and paid for most of the would be
coup. Trump calls taking him to court a "witch hunt". PS the would be
killers and vandals practically all confessed. As did Bolsonaro's main
aids. Bolsonaro is so stupid he WROTE THE COUP PLAN DOWN on paper and
shared it on What!Crap!.
His son is an illegal alien, living on a expired tourist visa
and frequently visits Trump and Rubio. He is also a narcotics dealer
and wanted for embezzlement. And yet ICE won't deport him. Isn't that unconstitutional?
[]'s
I'm surprise you're so well informed. Let me guess, it wasn't
Fox "News"!
On 7/15/2025 10:43 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 05:25:10 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7/14/2025 3:33 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 08:44:59 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>
On 7/14/2025 4:44 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/13/2025 8:09 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:27:34 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That is why the Democrats HATE President Trump so much.
He give credence to the common man being able to think
for himseolf
OMG. He even got that wrong!
Did Trump get ANYTHING right?
[]'s
lol....The only thing I can think of that he got mostly
right was going after the Sacklers.
Other than that, trumps sole 'contribution' to the US
(indeed, the world) was to give license to loudmouth
obnoxious assholes to be publicly loud obnoxious assholes.
I'm skeptical (as are you) about the ongoing tariff
uncertainty and the long term plan, if any. But there is an
actual problem and Mr Trump is at least addressing it:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/world-bank-backs-trump-s-
gripe-over-other-nations-higher-tariffs-on-us-goods/ar-AA1GrdzB
We'll see if things become better or worse for this. I don't
know.
The US practically owns the World Bank.
They're probably too scared to contradict him...
[]'s
The asshole-in-chief is using tariffs as sanctions to achieve whatever
political ends how somehow feels are justified - apparently he feels
it's worth a 50% tariff to (try to) stop Lula's government from
prosecuting Bolsonaro's jan 6 copycat move.
Of course, as usual, trump engages in blatant lies as "justification"
https://fortune.com/2025/07/09/trump-brazil-tariff-50-percent-
bolsonaro-trial-lula/
"“Please understand that the 50 percent number is far less than what is >>> needed to have the Level Playing Field we must have with your Country,” >>> Trump added."
The reality is that We had over a 6.7 billion dollar surplus with Brazil >>> in 2024, are on track for the same this year, and have had a surplus
with them since 2007.
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c3510.html
LOL. "Had" being the key word. Now you'll pay almost 50% more
for coffee, beef, chocolate, and petroleum...
And we'll pay 50% more for Disneyland toys and MAGA caps. And
machinery, which used to employ a LOT of Americans. Nah, we'll import
them from China.
PS Bolsonaro hired various hit men to kill Lula, some Supreme
court judges and Alckmin (vice president). Under his orders hundreds
invaded our "white house", destroyed paintings, furniture, shat
(shitted?) on the supreme court's judges benches, smashed vases (all
very valuable) and attempted to set fire to the place.
Bolsonaro gave the orders and paid for most of the would be
coup. Trump calls taking him to court a "witch hunt". PS the would be
killers and vandals practically all confessed. As did Bolsonaro's main
aids. Bolsonaro is so stupid he WROTE THE COUP PLAN DOWN on paper and
shared it on What!Crap!.
His son is an illegal alien, living on a expired tourist visa
and frequently visits Trump and Rubio. He is also a narcotics dealer
and wanted for embezzlement. And yet ICE won't deport him. Isn't that
unconstitutional?
[]'s
I'm surprise you're so well informed. Let me guess, it wasn't
Fox "News"!
If the punitive high duties are a tactic on the path to zero-zero or
even reciprocal rates, then I'm OK with temporary dysfunction. A fine
(and yet elusive for decades) goal.
But if those rates are policy in themselves, it's a classically stupid
move and will fall of its own weight.
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 08:36:31 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/15/2025 4:52 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/14/2025 8:29 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/14/2025 5:45 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <twddQ.332972$z995.149899@fx48.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
Brian, you're quite right. But they STILL voted for him
over a
Republican.
They voted for him over Trump. There are a lot of people
like me who,
when Trump said it was allowable to terminate the
articles of the
Constitution, decided the man wasn't fit to be President
of the United
States since that's a direct contradiction to his oath of
office. Not to
mention a seriously offensive thing to say to all Americans.
So from my perspective, I'd have voted for a wet bag of
rocks before
Trump, since the wet bag of rocks has more respect for
the Constitution
than he does.
And they looked the other way at election fraud so
flagrant that it
takes people like Flunky to claim "there was not proof".
Trump made me extremely confident with his 60+ court
cases that there
was no fraud. That was a lot of thorough investigation,
maybe more than
has happened in any other election.
You'll never find a stronger proponent for legitimate and
complete
elections than myself, and I encouraged all those court
cases. If there
was something there, I wanted to know about it. And after
all that, they
failed to show fraud despite having so-called mountains
of evidence.
Of those 60 cases, all dismissed or resolved on procedural
issues, was there one in which any evidence or testimony
was entered into the court record? If there was one, I
missed it.
Of course you completely gloss over the fact that even trump
appointed judges saw the cases had no merit - the evidence
presented wasn't anywhere near compelling enough to justify
a trial. Oh, thens there's this:
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-biden/barr-sees-no-sign-
of-major-u-s-vote-fraud-despite-trumps-claims-idUSKBN28B5UK/
The most blatant was Pennsylvania, where unauthorized
officials made drastic changes to PA election law just
before the election of 2020, in direct violation of the
Constitution:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the
Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,
equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives
to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..."
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/
which gives the State Legislature the exclusive and
plenary power over elections. The Legislature filed suit
promptly but the court dismissed on latches, noting no
injury had been inflicted since the election had yet to be
held.
The day after the election, the Legislature filed again.
The PA courts dismissed again on latches, as the election
had been held already and so no remedy was possible.
And of course, no where in that is there any allegation of
widespread fraud.
Sorry andrew, this 'dismissed on procedural grounds' trope
you keep supporting doesn't hold any merit whatsoever. If
there was a case - _any_ case - where there was enough
evidence that any fraud had an effect on the election, all
that would have needed to be done was present the evidence
in the proper venue by people with the proper standing. The
fact that the magatards couldn't muster that after so much
allegation of widespread fraud is in and of itself some
evidence the claims were false.
"To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have
affected a different outcome in the election," - Bob Barr,
December 1, 2020.
From the sublime to the ridiculous. This today:
https://ktla.com/news/local-news/former-sheriff-candidate-to-face-trial-for-allegedly-registering-cats-to-vote/
And look who they elected (:-)
--
On 7/16/2025 1:29 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 13:05:43 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/16/2025 1:03 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <1058jmk$q337$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
We're in general agreement, but IMHO dismissals (and there were many) >>>>> do not necessarily constitute "been through the courts".
I don't know if that's something that's open to debate in America,
though. Dismissals are an integral part of our court process, and still >>>> requires an examination by the courts.
The Constitution says State legislatures have exclusive and
plenary power over elections. Unauthorized officials make
last-minute changes to election protocol. Legislature's
case is not heard but rather dismissed on laches.
Examinati9on? We differ on that.
When Pennsylvania election workers demanded that the official obervers
stand back 15 feet. I knew how Pennsylvania's vote count was going to
turn out.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Not only.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/10/fact-check- videos-crowd-locked-out-detroit-center-lack-context/6195038002/
Well balanced overview from which people will draw different
conclusions, as always.
On 7/15/2025 4:52 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/14/2025 8:29 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/14/2025 5:45 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <twddQ.332972$z995.149899@fx48.iad>,
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
Brian, you're quite right. But they STILL voted for him over a
Republican.
They voted for him over Trump. There are a lot of people like me who,
when Trump said it was allowable to terminate the articles of the
Constitution, decided the man wasn't fit to be President of the United >>>> States since that's a direct contradiction to his oath of office.
Not to
mention a seriously offensive thing to say to all Americans.
So from my perspective, I'd have voted for a wet bag of rocks before
Trump, since the wet bag of rocks has more respect for the Constitution >>>> than he does.
And they looked the other way at election fraud so flagrant that it
takes people like Flunky to claim "there was not proof".
Trump made me extremely confident with his 60+ court cases that there
was no fraud. That was a lot of thorough investigation, maybe more than >>>> has happened in any other election.
You'll never find a stronger proponent for legitimate and complete
elections than myself, and I encouraged all those court cases. If there >>>> was something there, I wanted to know about it. And after all that,
they
failed to show fraud despite having so-called mountains of evidence.
Of those 60 cases, all dismissed or resolved on procedural issues,
was there one in which any evidence or testimony was entered into the
court record? If there was one, I missed it.
Of course you completely gloss over the fact that even trump appointed
judges saw the cases had no merit - the evidence presented wasn't
anywhere near compelling enough to justify a trial. Oh, thens there's
this:
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-biden/barr-sees-no-sign- of-major-
u-s-vote-fraud-despite-trumps-claims-idUSKBN28B5UK/
The most blatant was Pennsylvania, where unauthorized officials made
drastic changes to PA election law just before the election of 2020,
in direct violation of the Constitution:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof
may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of
Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in
the Congress..."
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/
which gives the State Legislature the exclusive and plenary power
over elections. The Legislature filed suit promptly but the court
dismissed on latches, noting no injury had been inflicted since the
election had yet to be held.
The day after the election, the Legislature filed again. The PA
courts dismissed again on latches, as the election had been held
already and so no remedy was possible.
And of course, no where in that is there any allegation of widespread
fraud.
Sorry andrew, this 'dismissed on procedural grounds' trope you keep
supporting doesn't hold any merit whatsoever. If there was a case -
_any_ case - where there was enough evidence that any fraud had an
effect on the election, all that would have needed to be done was
present the evidence in the proper venue by people with the proper
standing. The fact that the magatards couldn't muster that after so
much allegation of widespread fraud is in and of itself some evidence
the claims were false.
"To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a
different outcome in the election," - Bob Barr, December 1, 2020.
Sheesh. Drastically wrecking settled election procedures just before an election in direct violation of both US Constitution and also
Pennsylvania's doesn't bother you at all?
That was perhaps the worst example but not the only State or
municipality to finagle the 2024 election. Near me a local elections
clerk ran TeeVee ads to promote her clearly illegal ballot harvesting in public parks.
And so on across the nation.
When Pennsylvania election workers demanded that the official obervers
stand back 15 feet. I knew how Pennsylvania's vote count was going to
turn out.
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 14:29:22 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
When Pennsylvania election workers demanded that the official obervers
stand back 15 feet. I knew how Pennsylvania's vote count was going to
turn out.
Which Pennsylvania county was the one that required official observers
to stand back 15 ft?
Where did you find a 15 ft limit?
This is for the state of Pennsylvania (Oct 5, 2022):
"Guidance Concerning Poll Watchers and Authorized Representatives" <https://www.pa.gov/agencies/vote/voter-support/your-rights-and-the-law/poll-watchers>
No mention of a 15 ft limit.
"Poll watchers must remain outside the enclosed space of the polling
place."
This looks like a later version. (April 7, 2025)
"Guidance on Rules in Effect at the Polling Place on Election Day" <https://www.pa.gov/content/dam/copapwp-pagov/en/dos/resources/voting-and-elections/directives-and-guidance/2025/2025-04-guidance-rules-atpollingplace-on-electionday-2.1.pdf>
Pole Watchers starts on Pg 3.
"Watchers must always remain outside the enclosed space where voting
occurs."
I suspect that "where voting occurs" is the area surrounding the
voting machines. Also, no mention of a 15 ft limit.
On 7/16/2025 10:35 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 14:29:22 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
When Pennsylvania election workers demanded that the official obervers
stand back 15 feet. I knew how Pennsylvania's vote count was going to
turn out.
Which Pennsylvania county was the one that required official observers
to stand back 15 ft?
Where did you find a 15 ft limit?
This is for the state of Pennsylvania (Oct 5, 2022):
"Guidance Concerning Poll Watchers and Authorized Representatives"
<https://www.pa.gov/agencies/vote/voter-support/your-rights-and-the-law/poll-watchers>
No mention of a 15 ft limit.
"Poll watchers must remain outside the enclosed space of the polling
place."
This looks like a later version. (April 7, 2025)
"Guidance on Rules in Effect at the Polling Place on Election Day"
<https://www.pa.gov/content/dam/copapwp-pagov/en/dos/resources/voting-and-elections/directives-and-guidance/2025/2025-04-guidance-rules-atpollingplace-on-electionday-2.1.pdf>
Pole Watchers starts on Pg 3.
"Watchers must always remain outside the enclosed space where voting
occurs."
I suspect that "where voting occurs" is the area surrounding the
voting machines. Also, no mention of a 15 ft limit.
I found two mentions, one peripheral as a comment: >https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pennsylvania-judge-permits-campaign-observers-close-view-ballot/story?id=74040279
and one in a PA Supreme court ruling: >https://ktwb.com/2020/11/18/pennsylvania-high-court-to-hear-trump-challenge-to-thousands-of-votes/
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 14:29:22 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
When Pennsylvania election workers demanded that the official obervers >>stand back 15 feet. I knew how Pennsylvania's vote count was going to
turn out.
Which Pennsylvania county was the one that required official observers
to stand back 15 ft?
Where did you find a 15 ft limit?
This is for the state of Pennsylvania (Oct 5, 2022):
"Guidance Concerning Poll Watchers and Authorized Representatives" ><https://www.pa.gov/agencies/vote/voter-support/your-rights-and-the-law/poll-watchers>
No mention of a 15 ft limit.
"Poll watchers must remain outside the enclosed space of the polling
place."
This looks like a later version. (April 7, 2025)
"Guidance on Rules in Effect at the Polling Place on Election Day" ><https://www.pa.gov/content/dam/copapwp-pagov/en/dos/resources/voting-and-elections/directives-and-guidance/2025/2025-04-guidance-rules-atpollingplace-on-electionday-2.1.pdf>
Pole Watchers starts on Pg 3.
"Watchers must always remain outside the enclosed space where voting
occurs."
I suspect that "where voting occurs" is the area surrounding the
voting machines. Also, no mention of a 15 ft limit.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 08:31:57 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/16/2025 10:35 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 14:29:22 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
When Pennsylvania election workers demanded that the official obervers >>>> stand back 15 feet. I knew how Pennsylvania's vote count was going to
turn out.
Which Pennsylvania county was the one that required official observers
to stand back 15 ft?
Where did you find a 15 ft limit?
This is for the state of Pennsylvania (Oct 5, 2022):
"Guidance Concerning Poll Watchers and Authorized Representatives"
<https://www.pa.gov/agencies/vote/voter-support/your-rights-and-the-law/poll-watchers>
No mention of a 15 ft limit.
"Poll watchers must remain outside the enclosed space of the polling
place."
This looks like a later version. (April 7, 2025)
"Guidance on Rules in Effect at the Polling Place on Election Day"
<https://www.pa.gov/content/dam/copapwp-pagov/en/dos/resources/voting-and-elections/directives-and-guidance/2025/2025-04-guidance-rules-atpollingplace-on-electionday-2.1.pdf>
Pole Watchers starts on Pg 3.
"Watchers must always remain outside the enclosed space where voting
occurs."
I suspect that "where voting occurs" is the area surrounding the
voting machines. Also, no mention of a 15 ft limit.
I found two mentions, one peripheral as a comment: >>https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pennsylvania-judge-permits-campaign-observers-close-view-ballot/story?id=74040279
and one in a PA Supreme court ruling: >>https://ktwb.com/2020/11/18/pennsylvania-high-court-to-hear-trump-challenge-to-thousands-of-votes/
Good find and thanks. However, the ABCnews link is from Nov 5, 2020
and the KTWB link is from Nov 18, 2020. The original comment was:
"When Pennsylvania election workers demanded that the official
observers stand back 15 feet"
which implies that it's a current or at least recent event.
The KTWB link mentions:
"In another Trump lawsuit, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled
against the campaign on Tuesday and said Philadelphia officials acted >reasonably in keeping Trump observers behind barricades and 15 feet
(4.5 m) from counting tables."
which seems to have been initiated by Republicans and not by
"Pennsylvania election workers".
Personally, I don't think anyone could perform ballot or documentation >observation at a distance of 15ft without a periscope and/or
binoculars.
On 7/16/2025 2:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/16/2025 1:29 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 13:05:43 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/16/2025 1:03 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <1058jmk$q337$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
We're in general agreement, but IMHO dismissals (and there were many) >>>>>> do not necessarily constitute "been through the courts".
I don't know if that's something that's open to debate in America,
though. Dismissals are an integral part of our court process, and still >>>>> requires an examination by the courts.
The Constitution says State legislatures have exclusive and
plenary power over elections. Unauthorized officials make
last-minute changes to election protocol. Legislature's
case is not heard but rather dismissed on laches.
Examinati9on? We differ on that.
When Pennsylvania election workers demanded that the official obervers
stand back 15 feet. I knew how Pennsylvania's vote count was going to
turn out.
Observers are supposed to maintain distance, you fucking idiot.
In article <1059amt$uo8f$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The Statute says signed and dated, the courts said, uh, yeah, whatever.
But if the undated ones had been comingled with the dated ones and
couldn't be discerned, what would the correct move have been? Discard
*all* the ballots? That would be insane.
It would have been nice if they hadn't been comingled, however:
1) All the ballots were received with plenty of time for the electors to
cast their votes. There was absolutely zero time crunch.
2) Even if they were dated, writing in a date that is other than the
date of the signature is trivial and undetectable, so this is not a
method of preventing late votes.
I understand that Republicans really wanted all the mail-in ballots
discarded in PA, but that would have made the vote less accurate, not
more.
On 7/17/2025 12:50 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <1059amt$uo8f$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The Statute says signed and dated, the courts said, uh, yeah, whatever.
But if the undated ones had been comingled with the dated ones and
couldn't be discerned, what would the correct move have been? Discard
*all* the ballots? That would be insane.
It would have been nice if they hadn't been comingled, however:
1) All the ballots were received with plenty of time for the electors to
cast their votes. There was absolutely zero time crunch.
2) Even if they were dated, writing in a date that is other than the
date of the signature is trivial and undetectable, so this is not a
method of preventing late votes.
I understand that Republicans really wanted all the mail-in ballots
discarded in PA, but that would have made the vote less accurate, not
more.
Agreed, there are no practical remedies to election
officials' finagling, cheating, malfeasance or ineptitude
(you make that call, which is not clear).
Meanwhile, nearly all advanced nations hold elections on one
day (not 30 or more) and post results before the next
morning. It certainly is possible, as we once achieved here.
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/17/2025 12:50 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <1059amt$uo8f$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The Statute says signed and dated, the courts said, uh, yeah, whatever. >>>But if the undated ones had been comingled with the dated ones and
couldn't be discerned, what would the correct move have been? Discard
*all* the ballots? That would be insane.
It would have been nice if they hadn't been comingled, however:
1) All the ballots were received with plenty of time for the electors to >>> cast their votes. There was absolutely zero time crunch.
2) Even if they were dated, writing in a date that is other than the
date of the signature is trivial and undetectable, so this is not a
method of preventing late votes.
I understand that Republicans really wanted all the mail-in ballots
discarded in PA, but that would have made the vote less accurate, not
more.
Agreed, there are no practical remedies to election
officials' finagling, cheating, malfeasance or ineptitude
(you make that call, which is not clear).
Meanwhile, nearly all advanced nations hold elections on one
day (not 30 or more) and post results before the next
morning. It certainly is possible, as we once achieved here.
In my experience at least with the Uk you can see who has won or lost the >Election by maybe 4am next day, voting stops at 10pm.
Exit polls taken just after are normally fairly close but will be
individual seats in Parliament being counted or possibly recounted until
late in the next day, some like postal voting are counted ahead of time and >so on.
We have voter ID now despite near zero cases and in particular seats where
it made a difference.
Its a lot of effort for little gain, and high risks.
Roger Merriman
I suspect that there are "near zero" voter fraud cases simply because
they are so hard to detect.
voter ID is essential.
30 or more) and post results before the next morning.
Personally, I don't think anyone could perform ballot or documentation >observation at a distance of 15ft without a periscope and/or
binoculars.
In article <3eki7k5pugdd14qd2kh5psus2bbqlutp8q@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I suspect that there are "near zero" voter fraud cases simply because
they are so hard to detect.
Or it could be because it's actually difficult to do.
For me to cast illegal ballots in my state would take monumental effort
and I'd be virtually certain to be caught. I'd have to print duplicate >ballots for other registered voters and try to submit those and hope
that my signature matched (good luck with that) and that the legitimate >voters didn't also submit their own ballots.
Or I could try to fabricate different individuals and get them
registered; the easiest way to do this would be to print fake utility
bills and try to register with those, hoping that the registrar didn't
check.
For both of those, there's no way I'd be able to do it at scale even if
they didn't catch me. I couldn't swing an election.
How would you do it in your state?
This is why I'm always amused to hear tales of busing illegal voters >somewhere because it's the highest risk, lowest payoff way to influence
an election. You can legally get millions of votes with much less
effort--why try to do it with a handful of fake voters and risk prison?
voter ID is essential.
I don't have a problem with voter ID as long as we actively put an ID in
the hands of every legitimate voter in the country. I've had Republicans
tell me things like "it should be hard to vote" and "if you can't put in
the effort to get an ID, you don't deserve to vote". The fact that such >policies negatively impact the Democrats doesn't seem to bother them
much.
Nonsense. States don't clear out registered voters when they move or
die, so those names are eligible to vote...
In most states, getting an ID is simple and free.
On 17 Jul 2025 18:21:19 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/17/2025 12:50 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <1059amt$uo8f$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The Statute says signed and dated, the courts said, uh, yeah, whatever. >>>>But if the undated ones had been comingled with the dated ones and
couldn't be discerned, what would the correct move have been? Discard
*all* the ballots? That would be insane.
It would have been nice if they hadn't been comingled, however:
1) All the ballots were received with plenty of time for the electors to >>>> cast their votes. There was absolutely zero time crunch.
2) Even if they were dated, writing in a date that is other than the
date of the signature is trivial and undetectable, so this is not a
method of preventing late votes.
I understand that Republicans really wanted all the mail-in ballots
discarded in PA, but that would have made the vote less accurate, not
more.
Agreed, there are no practical remedies to election
officials' finagling, cheating, malfeasance or ineptitude
(you make that call, which is not clear).
Meanwhile, nearly all advanced nations hold elections on one
day (not 30 or more) and post results before the next
morning. It certainly is possible, as we once achieved here.
In my experience at least with the Uk you can see who has won or lost the
Election by maybe 4am next day, voting stops at 10pm.
Exit polls taken just after are normally fairly close but will be
individual seats in Parliament being counted or possibly recounted until
late in the next day, some like postal voting are counted ahead of time and >> so on.
We have voter ID now despite near zero cases and in particular seats where >> it made a difference.
Its a lot of effort for little gain, and high risks.
Roger Merriman
I suspect that there are "near zero" voter fraud cases simply because
they are so hard to detect. I also suspect that the people who make
that claim know it. With so many people wandering around the USA who
are not qualified to vote, voter ID is essential.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 17 Jul 2025 18:21:19 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/17/2025 12:50 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <1059amt$uo8f$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The Statute says signed and dated, the courts said, uh, yeah, whatever. >>>>>But if the undated ones had been comingled with the dated ones and
couldn't be discerned, what would the correct move have been? Discard >>>>> *all* the ballots? That would be insane.
It would have been nice if they hadn't been comingled, however:
1) All the ballots were received with plenty of time for the electors to >>>>> cast their votes. There was absolutely zero time crunch.
2) Even if they were dated, writing in a date that is other than the >>>>> date of the signature is trivial and undetectable, so this is not a
method of preventing late votes.
I understand that Republicans really wanted all the mail-in ballots
discarded in PA, but that would have made the vote less accurate, not >>>>> more.
Agreed, there are no practical remedies to election
officials' finagling, cheating, malfeasance or ineptitude
(you make that call, which is not clear).
Meanwhile, nearly all advanced nations hold elections on one
day (not 30 or more) and post results before the next
morning. It certainly is possible, as we once achieved here.
In my experience at least with the Uk you can see who has won or lost the >>> Election by maybe 4am next day, voting stops at 10pm.
Exit polls taken just after are normally fairly close but will be
individual seats in Parliament being counted or possibly recounted until >>> late in the next day, some like postal voting are counted ahead of time and >>> so on.
We have voter ID now despite near zero cases and in particular seats where >>> it made a difference.
It?s a lot of effort for little gain, and high risks.
Roger Merriman
I suspect that there are "near zero" voter fraud cases simply because
they are so hard to detect. I also suspect that the people who make
that claim know it. With so many people wandering around the USA who
are not qualified to vote, voter ID is essential.
The means needs to justify the ends, to use a bike
infrastructure/disability that does come up, its barriers to keep kids on >motorbikes out of parks and paths, which then impact intended users, be
that folks with non standard bikes, yes Trikes and cargo bikes, to bikes
with child seats, to wheelchair and other users, all are prevented/struggle >as someone is worried about some youth on a motorbike that was seen once!
Ie its overkill, i suspect in the US the idea of voter fraud in in some >quarters just truth much like in uk idea of benefits fraud which is not
even single digits bar Blue Badge parking as cars and parking.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
In article <ac6i7kdcoj2445thnju287lbd6j3u77pql@4ax.com>,
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
Personally, I don't think anyone could perform ballot or documentation
observation at a distance of 15ft without a periscope and/or
binoculars.
Depends on what you need to observe. What does an overseer need to
observe?
In article <ac6i7kdcoj2445thnju287lbd6j3u77pql@4ax.com>,
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
Personally, I don't think anyone could perform ballot or documentation >>observation at a distance of 15ft without a periscope and/or
binoculars.
Depends on what you need to observe. What does an overseer need to
observe?
On 17 Jul 2025 18:21:19 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/17/2025 12:50 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <1059amt$uo8f$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The Statute says signed and dated, the courts said, uh, yeah, whatever. >>>>But if the undated ones had been comingled with the dated ones and
couldn't be discerned, what would the correct move have been? Discard
*all* the ballots? That would be insane.
It would have been nice if they hadn't been comingled, however:
1) All the ballots were received with plenty of time for the electors to >>>> cast their votes. There was absolutely zero time crunch.
2) Even if they were dated, writing in a date that is other than the
date of the signature is trivial and undetectable, so this is not a
method of preventing late votes.
I understand that Republicans really wanted all the mail-in ballots
discarded in PA, but that would have made the vote less accurate, not
more.
Agreed, there are no practical remedies to election
officials' finagling, cheating, malfeasance or ineptitude
(you make that call, which is not clear).
Meanwhile, nearly all advanced nations hold elections on one
day (not 30 or more) and post results before the next
morning. It certainly is possible, as we once achieved here.
In my experience at least with the Uk you can see who has won or lost the
Election by maybe 4am next day, voting stops at 10pm.
Exit polls taken just after are normally fairly close but will be
individual seats in Parliament being counted or possibly recounted until
late in the next day, some like postal voting are counted ahead of time and >> so on.
We have voter ID now despite near zero cases and in particular seats where >> it made a difference.
It’s a lot of effort for little gain, and high risks.
Roger Merriman
I suspect that there are "near zero" voter fraud cases simply because
they are so hard to detect. I also suspect that the people who make
that claim know it. With so many people wandering around the USA who
are not qualified to vote, voter ID is essential.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
In article <105bdbo$1ftqk$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Meanwhile, nearly all advanced nations hold elections on one day (not
30 or more) and post results before the next morning.
But, again, why do it all in a day? What's the benefit?
In article <3eki7k5pugdd14qd2kh5psus2bbqlutp8q@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I suspect that there are "near zero" voter fraud cases simply because
they are so hard to detect.
Or it could be because it's actually difficult to do.
For me to cast illegal ballots in my state would take monumental effort
and I'd be virtually certain to be caught. I'd have to print duplicate ballots for other registered voters and try to submit those and hope
that my signature matched (good luck with that) and that the legitimate voters didn't also submit their own ballots.
Or I could try to fabricate different individuals and get them
registered; the easiest way to do this would be to print fake utility
bills and try to register with those, hoping that the registrar didn't
check.
For both of those, there's no way I'd be able to do it at scale even if
they didn't catch me. I couldn't swing an election.
How would you do it in your state?
This is why I'm always amused to hear tales of busing illegal voters somewhere because it's the highest risk, lowest payoff way to influence
an election. You can legally get millions of votes with much less
effort--why try to do it with a handful of fake voters and risk prison?
voter ID is essential.
I don't have a problem with voter ID as long as we actively put an ID in
the hands of every legitimate voter in the country. I've had Republicans
tell me things like "it should be hard to vote" and "if you can't put in
the effort to get an ID, you don't deserve to vote". The fact that such policies negatively impact the Democrats doesn't seem to bother them
much.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 20:03:12 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <3eki7k5pugdd14qd2kh5psus2bbqlutp8q@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I suspect that there are "near zero" voter fraud cases simply because
they are so hard to detect.
Or it could be because it's actually difficult to do.
Nonsense. States don't clear out registered voters when they move or
die, so those names are eligible to vote... and without voter ID,
there's no check to see if you are really that person.
For me to cast illegal ballots in my state would take monumental effort
and I'd be virtually certain to be caught. I'd have to print duplicate
ballots for other registered voters and try to submit those and hope
that my signature matched (good luck with that) and that the legitimate
voters didn't also submit their own ballots.
Or I could try to fabricate different individuals and get them
registered; the easiest way to do this would be to print fake utility
bills and try to register with those, hoping that the registrar didn't
check.
For both of those, there's no way I'd be able to do it at scale even if
they didn't catch me. I couldn't swing an election.
How would you do it in your state?
This is why I'm always amused to hear tales of busing illegal voters
somewhere because it's the highest risk, lowest payoff way to influence
an election. You can legally get millions of votes with much less
effort--why try to do it with a handful of fake voters and risk prison?
voter ID is essential.
I don't have a problem with voter ID as long as we actively put an ID in
the hands of every legitimate voter in the country. I've had Republicans
tell me things like "it should be hard to vote" and "if you can't put in
the effort to get an ID, you don't deserve to vote". The fact that such
policies negatively impact the Democrats doesn't seem to bother them
much.
Those republicans who tell you that are morons. In most states,
getting an ID is simple and free.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
In article <kami7k9eb64nt8m4idpo6tle5pdjdg71rl@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Nonsense. States don't clear out registered voters when they move or
die, so those names are eligible to vote...
False by contradiction. My state does exactly that--they cross-reference multiple sources to see if a voter is deceased or has otherwise become ineligible. They do this continuously, 12 months a year.
What state doesn't?
In most states, getting an ID is simple and free.
I don't have the numbers. What percentage of states is it free? And are
you definitely putting one in the hands of everyone who is able to vote?
The two voter ID states I looked at had giant loopholes.
In Texas you can fill out a form, that cannot be questioned, saying you
can't get an ID for, say, transportation reasons. If a dead person is on
the rolls, you can just show up, fill that out, and vote in their place.
https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/pol-sub/7-62f.pdf
In North Carolina, to get a voter ID you need a name, date of birth, and
the last four digits of a Social Security number. So if you knew a dead person on the rolls, you could just get an ID and vote for them.
https://www.ncsbe.gov/voting/voter-id/get-free-voter-photo-id
So the goal doesn't seem to be stopping dead voters.
On 7/17/2025 12:50 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <1059amt$uo8f$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The Statute says signed and dated, the courts said, uh, yeah, whatever.
But if the undated ones had been comingled with the dated ones and
couldn't be discerned, what would the correct move have been? Discard
*all* the ballots? That would be insane.
It would have been nice if they hadn't been comingled, however:
1) All the ballots were received with plenty of time for the electors to
cast their votes. There was absolutely zero time crunch.
2) Even if they were dated, writing in a date that is other than the
date of the signature is trivial and undetectable, so this is not a >> method of preventing late votes.
I understand that Republicans really wanted all the mail-in ballots
discarded in PA, but that would have made the vote less accurate, not
more.
Agreed, there are no practical remedies to election officials'
finagling, cheating, malfeasance or ineptitude (you make that call,
which is not clear).
Meanwhile, nearly all advanced nations hold elections on one day (not 30
or more) and post results before the next morning. It certainly is
possible, as we once achieved here.
On 7/17/2025 1:54 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/17/2025 12:50 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:Other advanced nations also have mandatory voting and give
In article <1059amt$uo8f$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The Statute says signed and dated, the courts said, uh,
yeah, whatever.
But if the undated ones had been comingled with the dated
ones and
couldn't be discerned, what would the correct move have
been? Discard
*all* the ballots? That would be insane.
It would have been nice if they hadn't been comingled,
however:
1) All the ballots were received with plenty of time for
the electors to
cast their votes. There was absolutely zero time crunch.
2) Even if they were dated, writing in a date that is
other than the
date of the signature is trivial and undetectable, so
this is not a
method of preventing late votes.
I understand that Republicans really wanted all the mail-
in ballots
discarded in PA, but that would have made the vote less
accurate, not
more.
Agreed, there are no practical remedies to election
officials' finagling, cheating, malfeasance or ineptitude
(you make that call, which is not clear).
Meanwhile, nearly all advanced nations hold elections on
one day (not 30 or more) and post results before the next
morning. It certainly is possible, as we once achieved here.
a federal 'holiday'. Besides that, what's the problem with
having an extended voting period, especially when certain
jurisdictions are intentionally eliminating voting access in
areas that tend to vote democrat? Allowing more time to vote
is a positive benefit.
ballots (two or multiple selections for one office). Counter adds
ballot for candidate A to candidate B's count. And more.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/names-cleaned-from-voter-rolls/
and popularity, change day by day.
In article <105c7ni$1lci9$2@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
For mailed ballots, illegible or missing signature/date. Spoiled
ballots (two or multiple selections for one office). Counter adds
ballot for candidate A to candidate B's count. And more.
We're not handing the ballots to some randos to do with as they please.
If your state wants some additional verification by various party
members, that's fine, but they're going to have to set it up with sworn public servants. And this is going to have to be organized well in
advance.
In article <105c9ha$1lci9$9@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
A partial list:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/names-cleaned-from-voter-rolls/
"[...] resulted in the removal of five million names from voter rolls in nearly a dozen states and localities over the last several years."
Since 3 million Americans die per year, this seems to be a reasonable
number given where and when they claim to have looked.
In article <105c8gq$1lci9$4@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Because elections are held at a specific point in time and the issues,
and popularity, change day by day.
So the election should reflect a snapshot of the issues and popularity
on that one day?
What if someone voted on that day, but their mail-in ballot wasn't
received until 3 days later?
vote on election day.
Imagine if the Howard Dean scream or Gary Hart's yachting incident or
Mr Kennedy at Chappaquiddick had happened in the last week of October.
In article <105ei1e$2a3uk$3@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
In my opinion, that voter didn't care enough to actually show up to
vote on election day.
But they will have made up their mind by the day, right? Just took time
for the post office to get the ballot delivered. Should it not be
counted?
Imagine if the Howard Dean scream or Gary Hart's yachting incident or
Mr Kennedy at Chappaquiddick had happened in the last week of October.
This feels like kicking the can to me. What if Dean's scream had been
the day after he won the election? Then *everyone* would have voted
before they had complete information.
In article <105egub$2a3uk$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Observers are citizens who volunteer to observe. They do not handle the
actual ballots.
If they don't handle the ballots, how do they detect spoiled ones?
I'm just trying to imagine the process. An election worker takes a stack
of ballots and drops them in a counting machine, and the observer is
doing what at what distance?
Don't get me wrong--I'm for anything that increases election accuracy.
But let's get it set up *now* and not wait until the election and have a giant mess. I think it would save us a lot of trouble to have Republican observers (or whatever) in there; or better still, Republican poll
workers.
[...]
In article <105emv1$2bdfd$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Vote tabulation machines are supposed to reject ballots with multiple
selections for one office. There's judgement involved, for example
[...]
I agree--but how does this manifest in practice? Is the idea that the observer is over someone's shoulder silently noting if they think the judgment was accurate?
On 7/18/2025 5:06 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <105c8gq$1lci9$4@dont-email.me>, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Because elections are held at a specific point in time and the issues,
and popularity, change day by day.
So the election should reflect a snapshot of the issues and popularity
on that one day?
What if someone voted on that day, but their mail-in ballot wasn't
received until 3 days later?
In my opinion, that voter didn't care enough to actually show up to vote
on election day. Some State Statutes, and you, disagree with my opinion.
And yes, elections do turn on late breaking* events, gaffes, position
changes etc. Those who 'voted early' (couldn't be bothered to show up)
cast ballots before knowi8ng relevant facts. The general idea,
worldwide for a very long time, is that an election should measure the public's overall sentiment at a point in time.
The Constitution species 'Day' not week, month or season, for Electors
to select a President but leaves 'Time and Manner' of elections to the
State Legislatures. Which means people may disagree, and States may
vary, as they do in that as many things.
*
Imagine if the Howard Dean scream
or Gary Hart's yachting incident
or Mr
Kennedy at Chappaquiddick had happened in the last week of October.
Each
of them was favored until, in just one day, they were not. With voting
in some States starting in September, there's a lot of potential
information before the actual election day.
On 7/18/2025 4:01 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/17/2025 1:54 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/17/2025 12:50 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:Other advanced nations also have mandatory voting and give a federal
In article <1059amt$uo8f$1@dont-email.me>, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The Statute says signed and dated, the courts said, uh, yeah,
whatever.
But if the undated ones had been comingled with the dated ones and
couldn't be discerned, what would the correct move have been? Discard
*all* the ballots? That would be insane.
It would have been nice if they hadn't been comingled, however:
1) All the ballots were received with plenty of time for the
electors to
cast their votes. There was absolutely zero time crunch.
2) Even if they were dated, writing in a date that is other than the
date of the signature is trivial and undetectable, so this is not a >>>> method of preventing late votes.
I understand that Republicans really wanted all the mail- in ballots
discarded in PA, but that would have made the vote less accurate, not
more.
Agreed, there are no practical remedies to election officials'
finagling, cheating, malfeasance or ineptitude (you make that call,
which is not clear).
Meanwhile, nearly all advanced nations hold elections on one day (not
30 or more) and post results before the next morning. It certainly is
possible, as we once achieved here.
'holiday'. Besides that, what's the problem with having an extended
voting period, especially when certain jurisdictions are intentionally
eliminating voting access in areas that tend to vote democrat?
Allowing more time to vote is a positive benefit.
That's one view.
IMHO it also allows staff at the county clerk's office to edit the
ballots for weeks.
I show up promptly when the polls open, in person.
On 7/18/2025 6:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/18/2025 5:06 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <105c8gq$1lci9$4@dont-email.me>, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Because elections are held at a specific point in time
and the issues,
and popularity, change day by day.
So the election should reflect a snapshot of the issues
and popularity
on that one day?
What if someone voted on that day, but their mail-in
ballot wasn't
received until 3 days later?
In my opinion, that voter didn't care enough to actually
show up to vote on election day. Some State Statutes, and
you, disagree with my opinion.
Sure, so residents of a state who are living outside their
voting jurisdiction with no real opportunity to return to
their voting jurisdiction (americans living abroad, active
duty military, people on business trips, college students)
shouldn't be allowed to vote.
And yes, elections do turn on late breaking* events,
gaffes, position changes etc. Those who 'voted
early' (couldn't be bothered to show up) cast ballots
before knowi8ng relevant facts. The general idea,
worldwide for a very long time, is that an election should
measure the public's overall sentiment at a point in time.
The Constitution species 'Day' not week, month or season,
for Electors to select a President but leaves 'Time and
Manner' of elections to the State Legislatures. Which
means people may disagree, and States may vary, as they do
in that as many things.
*
Imagine if the Howard Dean scream
oh please, a mildly embarrassing public performance which
had absolutely nothing to do with the character or policies
of Mr. Dean. The right wing media made hay by ridiculing him
as if it was a reflection of his presidential potential.
That isn't what lost him the race. FFS, trump was elected
after he said it was OK to grab a womans pussy because he
was rich.
or Gary Hart's yachting incident
sure, back then the moral character of a presidential
candidate had some meaning. The recent twice-elected
philanderer-in-chief shows exactly what the majority of
americans think of a presidents moral character these days.
or Mr Kennedy at Chappaquiddick had happened in the last
week of October.
Chappaquiddick happened in june. He was re-elected to his
second senate term that fall, and went on to win re-election
to 5 more senate terms after that. If Chappaquiddick was an
incident of any real concern to the electorate 4 months
wouldn't have been enough time to dull the publics perception.
Besides, what if all those incidents happened the 2nd week
of november?
Each of them was favored until, in just one day, they were
not. With voting in some States starting in September,
there's a lot of potential information before the actual
election day.
meh, All that changes is the public perception of the
candidate. IMHO it's worth ensuring as many eligible voters
are franchised as possible rather than some vague and remote
possibility of an "october surprise".
On 7/19/2025 6:07 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/18/2025 6:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/18/2025 5:06 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <105c8gq$1lci9$4@dont-email.me>, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Because elections are held at a specific point in time and the issues, >>>>> and popularity, change day by day.
So the election should reflect a snapshot of the issues and popularity >>>> on that one day?
What if someone voted on that day, but their mail-in ballot wasn't
received until 3 days later?
In my opinion, that voter didn't care enough to actually show up to
vote on election day. Some State Statutes, and you, disagree with my
opinion.
Sure, so residents of a state who are living outside their voting
jurisdiction with no real opportunity to return to their voting
jurisdiction (americans living abroad, active duty military, people on
business trips, college students) shouldn't be allowed to vote.
And yes, elections do turn on late breaking* events, gaffes, position
changes etc. Those who 'voted early' (couldn't be bothered to show
up) cast ballots before knowi8ng relevant facts. The general idea,
worldwide for a very long time, is that an election should measure
the public's overall sentiment at a point in time.
The Constitution species 'Day' not week, month or season, for
Electors to select a President but leaves 'Time and Manner' of
elections to the State Legislatures. Which means people may
disagree, and States may vary, as they do in that as many things.
*
Imagine if the Howard Dean scream
oh please, a mildly embarrassing public performance which had
absolutely nothing to do with the character or policies of Mr. Dean.
The right wing media made hay by ridiculing him as if it was a
reflection of his presidential potential. That isn't what lost him the
race. FFS, trump was elected after he said it was OK to grab a womans
pussy because he was rich.
or Gary Hart's yachting incident
sure, back then the moral character of a presidential candidate had
some meaning. The recent twice-elected philanderer-in-chief shows
exactly what the majority of americans think of a presidents moral
character these days.
or Mr Kennedy at Chappaquiddick had happened in the last week of
October.
Chappaquiddick happened in june. He was re-elected to his second
senate term that fall, and went on to win re-election to 5 more senate
terms after that. If Chappaquiddick was an incident of any real
concern to the electorate 4 months wouldn't have been enough time to
dull the publics perception.
Besides, what if all those incidents happened the 2nd week of november?
Each of them was favored until, in just one day, they were not. With
voting in some States starting in September, there's a lot of
potential information before the actual election day.
meh, All that changes is the public perception of the candidate. IMHO
it's worth ensuring as many eligible voters are franchised as possible
rather than some vague and remote possibility of an "october surprise".
Traditionally absentee ballots were routine for people (railroad
personnel, traveling salesmen, soldiers, medical residents with long
shifts etc) who were unable to visit their polling place. Voters had to show good cause and the system worked well for decades.
On Tue Jul 8 09:17:01 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true.
On 4 Aug 2025 19:07:18 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue Jul 8 09:17:01 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no- >>>>>>> kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending both >>>>>> outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data
demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has a gun >>>>>> available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes
who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a
correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and >>>>> people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not >>>>> having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It?s not twisted logic, it?s just opportunity, the gun is there, there is >>>> an argument or so on. If the gun isn?t there arguments still happen but >>>> less likely to have lethal outcomes.
There is no gun in the home and there is an argument and one is killed
with a kitchen knife. Explain the difference?
Guns are many magnitudes easier to kill people, you absolutely can kill and >>seriously harm someone with a knife but does take more effort, and >>certainly for mass killing such events by a knife, relatively few are >>killed.
Last year in Southport someone attacked a childrens yoga dance class 26 >>kids plus some adults in the building, only 3 where killed, multiple where >>injured but survived.
Remarkably he survived as well, as he was arrested before the armed >>response arrived.
Roger Merriman
There are too many ways to kill people. Eliminate one method and
another will take it's place.
On 4 Aug 2025 19:07:18 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue Jul 8 09:17:01 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no- >>>>>>> kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending both >>>>>> outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data
demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has a gun >>>>>> available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes
who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a
correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and >>>>> people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not >>>>> having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It?s not twisted logic, it?s just opportunity, the gun is there, there is >>>> an argument or so on. If the gun isn?t there arguments still happen but >>>> less likely to have lethal outcomes.
There is no gun in the home and there is an argument and one is killed
with a kitchen knife. Explain the difference?
Guns are many magnitudes easier to kill people, you absolutely can kill and >> seriously harm someone with a knife but does take more effort, and
certainly for mass killing such events by a knife, relatively few are
killed.
Last year in Southport someone attacked a childrens yoga dance class 26
kids plus some adults in the building, only 3 where killed, multiple where >> injured but survived.
Remarkably he survived as well, as he was arrested before the armed
response arrived.
Roger Merriman
There are too many ways to kill people. Eliminate one method and
another will take it's place.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Tue Jul 8 22:28:25 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/8/2025 11:16 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/8/2025 9:16 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:32 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes
who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a
correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and >>>>> people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not >>>>> having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
The fundamental mathematical ignorance in those two paragraphs is
astonishing!
Not if one assumes the sample was skewed urban and possibly too small to >>> reflect overall conditions accurately.
No, Andrew, that's no excuse for the math failure. Do you really need
further explanation? If so, I can present an analogy:
Let's have a group of people jump off a 10' high roof, while another
group of people refuses to try that. Instead, they sit in a lawn chair
and watch.
Of those that jump, quite a few break a leg as a result. But most
jumpers do not break a leg.
Does this mean that jumping off a roof is no more likely to break a leg
than sitting in a lawn chair? Of course not! Subjecting oneself to the
risk leads to _more_ likelihood of injury, even if the chance of injury
is less than 50%.
IOW you don't need _all_ gun owners shot to prove there is an increased
chance of getting shot when you own a gun.
And the data's quite clear that gun owners are more likely to get shot,
even accounting for confounding factors like crime levels in
neighborhoods, age of owners, etc. etc.
Frank, you are pitiful. Having a gun in the house and being shot are two completely different things. What's more being shot by a gun in the home
is so rare as to be impossible to measure accurately. EVERYONE in my
entire neighborhood has a gun in the house and not only has no one been
shot with them but there are NO home invasions except over in the far northend of town where drug dealers operate.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 4 Aug 2025 19:07:18 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:Absolutely but some are easier, particularly for mass shooters hence most >places have some sort of regulations with firearms.
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue Jul 8 09:17:01 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending both >>>>>>> outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data
demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has a gun >>>>>>> available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes >>>>>> who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a
correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and >>>>>> people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not >>>>>> having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It?s not twisted logic, it?s just opportunity, the gun is there, there is >>>>> an argument or so on. If the gun isn?t there arguments still happen but >>>>> less likely to have lethal outcomes.
There is no gun in the home and there is an argument and one is killed >>>> with a kitchen knife. Explain the difference?
Guns are many magnitudes easier to kill people, you absolutely can kill and >>> seriously harm someone with a knife but does take more effort, and
certainly for mass killing such events by a knife, relatively few are
killed.
Last year in Southport someone attacked a children?s yoga dance class 26 >>> kids plus some adults in the building, only 3 where killed, multiple where >>> injured but survived.
Remarkably he survived as well, as he was arrested before the armed
response arrived.
Roger Merriman
There are too many ways to kill people. Eliminate one method and
another will take it's place.
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue Jul 8 22:28:25 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/8/2025 11:16 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/8/2025 9:16 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:32 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes >>>>>> who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a
correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and >>>>>> people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not >>>>>> having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
The fundamental mathematical ignorance in those two paragraphs is
astonishing!
Not if one assumes the sample was skewed urban and possibly too small to >>>> reflect overall conditions accurately.
No, Andrew, that's no excuse for the math failure. Do you really need
further explanation? If so, I can present an analogy:
Let's have a group of people jump off a 10' high roof, while another
group of people refuses to try that. Instead, they sit in a lawn chair
and watch.
Of those that jump, quite a few break a leg as a result. But most
jumpers do not break a leg.
Does this mean that jumping off a roof is no more likely to break a leg
than sitting in a lawn chair? Of course not! Subjecting oneself to the
risk leads to _more_ likelihood of injury, even if the chance of injury
is less than 50%.
IOW you don't need _all_ gun owners shot to prove there is an increased
chance of getting shot when you own a gun.
And the data's quite clear that gun owners are more likely to get shot,
even accounting for confounding factors like crime levels in
neighborhoods, age of owners, etc. etc.
Frank, you are pitiful. Having a gun in the house and being shot are two
completely different things. What's more being shot by a gun in the home
is so rare as to be impossible to measure accurately. EVERYONE in my
entire neighborhood has a gun in the house and not only has no one been
shot with them but there are NO home invasions except over in the far
northend of town where drug dealers operate.
Violent crime be from rape to gun crime, the public idea is its stranger >danger, walking home at night or home invasions, but these are fairly rare.
Its people you know well family or close friends.
Roger Merriman
On Mon, 04 Aug 2025 15:12:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 4 Aug 2025 19:07:18 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue Jul 8 09:17:01 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending both >>>>>>> outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data
demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has a gun >>>>>>> available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes >>>>>> who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a
correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and >>>>>> people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not >>>>>> having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It?s not twisted logic, it?s just opportunity, the gun is there, there is >>>>> an argument or so on. If the gun isn?t there arguments still happen but >>>>> less likely to have lethal outcomes.
There is no gun in the home and there is an argument and one is killed >>>> with a kitchen knife. Explain the difference?
Guns are many magnitudes easier to kill people, you absolutely can kill and >>> seriously harm someone with a knife but does take more effort, and
certainly for mass killing such events by a knife, relatively few are
killed.
Last year in Southport someone attacked a children’s yoga dance class 26 >>> kids plus some adults in the building, only 3 where killed, multiple where >>> injured but survived.
Remarkably he survived as well, as he was arrested before the armed
response arrived.
Roger Merriman
There are too many ways to kill people. Eliminate one method and
another will take it's place.
Or not kill people.
As i've mentioned, my family had guns in the house for 4
generations... no gun deaths.
--
cheers,
John B.
On 5 Aug 2025 09:26:10 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 4 Aug 2025 19:07:18 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:Absolutely but some are easier, particularly for mass shooters hence most
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue Jul 8 09:17:01 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending both >>>>>>>> outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data >>>>>>>> demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has a gun >>>>>>>> available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes >>>>>>> who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and >>>>>>> people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not >>>>>>> having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It?s not twisted logic, it?s just opportunity, the gun is there, there is
an argument or so on. If the gun isn?t there arguments still happen but >>>>>> less likely to have lethal outcomes.
There is no gun in the home and there is an argument and one is killed >>>>> with a kitchen knife. Explain the difference?
Guns are many magnitudes easier to kill people, you absolutely can kill and
seriously harm someone with a knife but does take more effort, and
certainly for mass killing such events by a knife, relatively few are
killed.
Last year in Southport someone attacked a children?s yoga dance class 26 >>>> kids plus some adults in the building, only 3 where killed, multiple where >>>> injured but survived.
Remarkably he survived as well, as he was arrested before the armed
response arrived.
Roger Merriman
There are too many ways to kill people. Eliminate one method and
another will take it's place.
places have some sort of regulations with firearms.
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
Most homicides are done with handguns. Eliminating AR type guns would
be a waste of time and money.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 5 Aug 2025 09:28:37 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue Jul 8 22:28:25 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/8/2025 11:16 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/8/2025 9:16 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/8/2025 4:32 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes >>>>>>> who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and >>>>>>> people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not >>>>>>> having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
The fundamental mathematical ignorance in those two paragraphs is
astonishing!
Not if one assumes the sample was skewed urban and possibly too small to >>>>> reflect overall conditions accurately.
No, Andrew, that's no excuse for the math failure. Do you really need
further explanation? If so, I can present an analogy:
Let's have a group of people jump off a 10' high roof, while another
group of people refuses to try that. Instead, they sit in a lawn chair >>>> and watch.
Of those that jump, quite a few break a leg as a result. But most
jumpers do not break a leg.
Does this mean that jumping off a roof is no more likely to break a leg >>>> than sitting in a lawn chair? Of course not! Subjecting oneself to the >>>> risk leads to _more_ likelihood of injury, even if the chance of injury >>>> is less than 50%.
IOW you don't need _all_ gun owners shot to prove there is an increased >>>> chance of getting shot when you own a gun.
And the data's quite clear that gun owners are more likely to get shot, >>>> even accounting for confounding factors like crime levels in
neighborhoods, age of owners, etc. etc.
Frank, you are pitiful. Having a gun in the house and being shot are two >>> completely different things. What's more being shot by a gun in the home >>> is so rare as to be impossible to measure accurately. EVERYONE in my
entire neighborhood has a gun in the house and not only has no one been
shot with them but there are NO home invasions except over in the far
northend of town where drug dealers operate.
Violent crime be from rape to gun crime, the public idea is its stranger
danger, walking home at night or home invasions, but these are fairly rare. >>
Its people you know well family or close friends.
Roger Merriman
Well, modern USAF aircraft are pertty reliable and safe...
But the pilots stil wear parachutes.
--
cheers,
John B.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 5 Aug 2025 09:26:10 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:Probably yes, plus easier to conceal re mass shootings, certainly why UK
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 4 Aug 2025 19:07:18 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:Absolutely but some are easier, particularly for mass shooters hence most >>> places have some sort of regulations with firearms.
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue Jul 8 09:17:01 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending both >>>>>>>>> outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data >>>>>>>>> demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has a gun
available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes >>>>>>>> who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and >>>>>>>> people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not >>>>>>>> having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It?s not twisted logic, it?s just opportunity, the gun is there, there is
an argument or so on. If the gun isn?t there arguments still happen but >>>>>>> less likely to have lethal outcomes.
There is no gun in the home and there is an argument and one is killed >>>>>> with a kitchen knife. Explain the difference?
Guns are many magnitudes easier to kill people, you absolutely can kill and
seriously harm someone with a knife but does take more effort, and
certainly for mass killing such events by a knife, relatively few are >>>>> killed.
Last year in Southport someone attacked a children?s yoga dance class 26 >>>>> kids plus some adults in the building, only 3 where killed, multiple where
injured but survived.
Remarkably he survived as well, as he was arrested before the armed
response arrived.
Roger Merriman
There are too many ways to kill people. Eliminate one method and
another will take it's place.
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
Most homicides are done with handguns. Eliminating AR type guns would
be a waste of time and money.
and other countries Handguns are much more strictly regulated than firearms >used for hunting or protection of farming animals, ie hunting
rifles/shotguns
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
On 8/4/2025 9:35 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2025 15:12:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 4 Aug 2025 19:07:18 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue Jul 8 09:17:01 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 19:59:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes that's true. And worse:
https://ksltv.com/crime-public-safety/family-mourn-protester-killed-no-
kings-shooting/786412/
But then again:
https://abc13.com/post/houston-store-owner-shoots-robbery-suspect-posed-
police-video-shows/16857433/
There are travesties and victories under many dissimilar situations. One
never knows on any given morning.
That's extremely simplistic "yeah but" thinking. It's pretending both >>>>>>>> outcomes are equally probable. They are not.
Over the past months, I've linked to several studies whose data >>>>>>>> demonstrate that a person is _more_ likely to get shot if he has a gun >>>>>>>> available.
I submit it is likely that far more people have guns in their homes >>>>>>> who don't get shot than those who do. That means that there is a >>>>>>> correlation between the number of people having guns in their home and >>>>>>> people not getting shot.
According to the twisted logic being presented, that suggests that not >>>>>>> having a gun in your home makes you less likely to get shot.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It?s not twisted logic, it?s just opportunity, the gun is there, there is
an argument or so on. If the gun isn?t there arguments still happen but >>>>>> less likely to have lethal outcomes.
There is no gun in the home and there is an argument and one is killed >>>>> with a kitchen knife. Explain the difference?
Guns are many magnitudes easier to kill people, you absolutely can kill and
seriously harm someone with a knife but does take more effort, and
certainly for mass killing such events by a knife, relatively few are
killed.
Last year in Southport someone attacked a childrens yoga dance class 26 >>>> kids plus some adults in the building, only 3 where killed, multiple where >>>> injured but survived.
Remarkably he survived as well, as he was arrested before the armed
response arrived.
Roger Merriman
There are too many ways to kill people. Eliminate one method and
another will take it's place.
Or not kill people.
As i've mentioned, my family had guns in the house for 4
generations... no gun deaths.
--
cheers,
John B.
And some 400 million civilian firearms passed another
uneventful day, oiled in their cases. Not a single one
jumped up and shot by itself.
Liebermann, you still haven't told us why after 6 years of college you couldn't get an engineering job?
On Tue Aug 5 09:28:37 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
Violent crime be from rape to gun crime, the public idea is its stranger
danger, walking home at night or home invasions, but these are fairly rare. >>
It?s people you know well family or close friends.
So you actually think that keeping guns in a home is more dangerous than
not? Typical British thinking. People do not kill their loved one's even accidently. And YOU have a higher chance of being run over than being shot.
On Tue Jul 15 18:55:57 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 19:58:52 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
My DIRECT observation of an entire busload of illegals brought in who couldn't even speak English and were all bearing a slip of paper with the name of people who had died or moved out of the polling region doesn't even phase you. I must be lying.
You're lying. We went through this a few weeks ago. I found some
inconsistencies with your story. Want links to my postings so you can
ignore them later?
Tell me, the smartest man in the world who couldn't get a job in hottest EE market in the world. You found some inconsistencies in a poll that you've never been to, have no idea where it is located and what happened there 8 years ago? You just cannothelp yourself from showing why no one would hire you, can you?
Judicial Watch has sued using recent Supreme Court rulings and had 5 MILLION dead Democrat voter removed from the polls.
No they haven't. I just searched for such an event, which if true,
would be all over the media. I found nothing. How about some
corroboration of your claims instead of unsubstantiated lies and
fabrications?
Proving yet again that the world's smartest man can't even use Google properly
https://www.judicialwatch.org/lawsuits-clean-up-voter-rolls/
On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 22:58:27 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>help yourself from showing why no one would hire you, can you?
wrote:
On Tue Jul 15 18:55:57 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 19:58:52 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
My DIRECT observation of an entire busload of illegals brought in who couldn't even speak English and were all bearing a slip of paper with the name of people who had died or moved out of the polling region doesn't even phase you. I must be lying.
You're lying. We went through this a few weeks ago. I found some
inconsistencies with your story. Want links to my postings so you can
ignore them later?
Tell me, the smartest man in the world who couldn't get a job in hottest EE market in the world. You found some inconsistencies in a poll that you've never been to, have no idea where it is located and what happened there 8 years ago? You just cannot
Quite the opposite. Judicial is suing others :-)
Judicial Watch has sued using recent Supreme Court rulings and had 5 MILLION dead Democrat voter removed from the polls.
No they haven't. I just searched for such an event, which if true,
would be all over the media. I found nothing. How about some
corroboration of your claims instead of unsubstantiated lies and
fabrications?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 42:24:02 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,214 |
