Kind of ironic this happened...

[Admiral Halsey]

Call me an idiot if you want but I have no clue who that is.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Admiral Halsey

Call me an idiot if you want but I have no clue who that is.

Caesar Chavez.Some radical marxist type who lead the fruit pickers etc back in the day, disgusting how he gets honors.I think Obama's SECNAV named a ship after him recently.Having a US Navy ship named after a marxist? SMH

[vienna]

Says you, not that difficult to take remarks out of context.I was referring to an illegal immigrant, is by just being in the country, is ALWAYS disrespecting the law.I drove after a few drinks years ago, so it was more a temporary disrespect for the laws pertaining to DUI.Some laws are unjust, and therefore are no laws at all ie obamacare .Tribes, like you, has a personal agenda here.Again, distracting the real issue, illegal immigration, of which I became even more of a victim.All of us are victims by their undercutting of the labor market, their drain on the system...schools, hospitals, jails, etc but now, myself and someone I care about have been victimized further to where our physical health and lives were threatened by someone who had no right to even be in the country.How you people can okay with an illegal immigrant doing such a thing, is beyond me or anyone else with sense.

No agenda, Bubbles, just a real dislike and disgust of hypocrisy in all forms no matter who does it or what their agenda...

... oh wait, my mistake, you obviously have no agenda. Let's see what you do have: you have no facts to support most of your assertions; you contradict yourself continually; you make grand statements bereft of any logic or reason and expect others to accept them as truth; you dance around your shortcomings with a frenzy that would put Gregory Hines to envy; you belittle and insult others who reply ('ignorant', 'troll', etc.) to your disjointed ramblings rather than even make the weakest attempt to defend your words with any amount of logic, reason, or just plain facts; and the list goes on...

In a way your statements regarding "respect for the law" smacks quite a bit of the sort of "law and order" posturing done by the Far Right in the 60s and 70s. Nixon, Agnew and the rest of that lot swept into office roaring and thundering about "law and order" and "respect for the law", yet, when all was said and done, they and their cronies were the biggest crooks of all. In the 80s, Reagan came to office with a likewise vociferous stance on "law and order", standing against illegal immigration, and getting tough on terror: "I will never negotiate with terrorists!" and he enlisted the Religious Right as allies in his campaigns against "disrespect for law". Again, when the last of the dust settled, he and his cronies were neck deep in the Bandini having engaged in all sorts of illegal activities, making backdoor deals with Iran, granting amnesty to illegals, and generally flaunting the Constitution and laws of this nation. And what can be siad of his pious allies? Sex scandals, financial misdeeds, and all sorts of sins of the flesh and violations of the law. I do dislike hyporicsy and some of your's has me waiting for the spectacle of you weeping and asking for forgiveness like a televangelist...

You brought up the subject of laws and respect for the law. As a law student, you should know a witness has to be careful of what he expresses since any statement can open the door for opposing counsel to take that breach and widen it in order to prove their case. You have provided the basis for the other posters to refute your claims and point out your hypocrisies. The old saying about people in "glass houses" is one you ought to look up: you might learn something...


As a sidenote regarding Caesar Chavez: I have often gotten a chuckle out of the supporters of amnesty who use his name in their efforts. During the early days of Chavez's organizing of the farm workers, one of his demands was for action to be taken to halt illegal immigration; Chavez and his early farm worker associates were angered over the farm owners simply replacing the striking Union workers with newer illegal immigrants as a union busting tactic. The extent of the hypocrisy of the amnesty boosters is something they are very loathe to address...


<O>

[AVGWarhawk]

Tribesman:

A PBJ wouldn't result in a 22 would it
Besides which most states exclude even first offenders under DUI from trying that plea of a stay.
12 years after DUI conviction is the regular cut off point for notification on motor insurance policies. Unless of course it is a felony DUI.

I received a PBJ many moons ago. Nothing on my record nor will any be found. I did not need to report anything to anyone. When asked, and I was by the FBI, I did not need to relinquish the info nor did they find anything in my background check. It simply did not happen as a result of the PBJ and me fulfilling the requirements of said PBJ.

By and large, unless you have done something really heinous, DUI does go lightly for first time offenders. Large fines. Restricted license perhaps or license taken for a while.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Having a US Navy ship named after a marxist? SMH

Insert Goebbel's rant from Der Untergang here

[Ducimus]

/godwin X 2

This thread should have ended at page two.

This thread should have ended at page two.

It probably would have, if bubbles hadn't kept trying to dodge the little inconvenient detail that is his conviction for drink driving.

In the U.S.?
We call it drunk driving.
Can't say I really give a hoot what you call it over there.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It probably would have, if bubbles hadn't kept trying to dodge the little inconvenient detail that is his conviction for drink driving.

My one DUI(funny you assume it was a conviction) and is immaterial to the discussion anyways.I was dodging nothing, you have managed to distract from the topic, like a good troll. Fact is, my girlfriend and I were injured by criminal who had no business being in the country at all, period.This thread was started as a follow up to the other discussion on illegal immigration.

My one DUI(funny you assume it was a conviction)

Are you trying to say you was not convicted

and is immaterial to the discussion anyways.

young man......Kind of ironic.....
The irony being that there were two DUIs involved in this incident.
What would be really ironic is if one of the DUIs wasn't covered on his girlfriends car insurance.

This thread was started as a follow up to the other discussion on illegal immigration.

Is that the discussion where the moderators put in a public warning about your hatred and racism?
You are really good at digging yourself into a hole ain't ya

Perhaps you should read some Vienna again and actually take it in this time....
You brought up the subject of laws and respect for the law. As a law student, you should know a witness has to be careful of what he expresses since any statement can open the door for opposing counsel to take that breach and widen it in order to prove their case. You have provided the basis for the other posters to refute your claims and point out your hypocrisies. The old saying about people in "glass houses" is one you ought to look up: you might learn something...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It probably would have, if bubbles hadn't kept trying to dodge the little inconvenient detail that is his conviction for drink driving.

This is a "little inconvenient detail" that you and you alone seem to think matters. I will point out that you have been flogging this single-minded idea with a vengeance and passion that indicate that you don't really care about discussing the issues, just attacking your target of the week. It would be nice if you actually discussed the issues for a change.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I really wish people would stop quoting trolls..... I have them on ignore for a reason - and you quoting them makes me see their stupidity.

The problem there is that you can't answer someone's statement without quoting them. Actually you can, but that leads to complaints about not following proper forum procedures.

There is no indication - much less proof - that Bubblehead was doing anything wrong.

This much is true.

The fact that Tribesman is allowed to simply make continual baseless accusations against someone without repercussion is reprehensible and not in line with the values of this community. I continue to wonder why some are allowed to breach conduct rules and others are not.

If you check different users' infractions you will find that is not true. It only seems that way when you are looking at certain threads.

To the original topic - the irony is that Bubblehead has discussed the real need to deal with illegal immigration before more people are victimized by those who should not even be here to commit further crimes inside our borders - and now he has become one of those victims.

True, but as usual he has done so in a way that invites criticism. He tends to sound more like a radio talk-show host than a person interested in serious discussion.

Tribesman needs to learn that kicking people just for the sake of doing it is not the way to conduct an argument.

Bubblehead needs to learn that shouting opinions and claiming them to be fact is not the way to conduct a discussion. Tribesman seems to get more slack than he actually does for that very reason.


All that said, it's sounding like it's time to bring out the ban-hammer threat again and ask people a little less politely - turn down the rhetoric and conduct an honest debate, or face the consequences.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

bring out the ban-hammer threat

(Is this the part where we start postin' funny hammer pictures and the thread takes another turn?)

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

If you check different users' infractions you will find that is not true. It only seems that way when you are looking at certain threads.

Thanks for the reply Steve. Honestly - it may just "seem" like it based on certain threads - but the issue isn't thread by thread - its a continual and constant issue that continues despite whatever actions have been taken.

Personal attacks on other forum members are supposed to be not welcome here. At what point is the line drawn? When is "enough" truly enough?

Not my call - just voicing continued frustration. If I were out there always bringing up other people's views and personally attacking them for their past in a mocking way - how long would it be tolerated?

[Father Goose]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I really wish people would stop quoting trolls.....

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The problem there is that you can't answer someone's statement without quoting them. Actually you can, but that leads to complaints about not following proper forum procedures.

To be clear, I don't care if you quote or not quote.
What I was trying to point out is if you're going to quote please include the "Originally Posted by", at least for the first quote. Steve did it correctly above in post 93 & 98. Then his following quotes did not have to repeat it since it was the same person. CaptainHaplo always does it correctly too. But others...

It makes it easier for the reader to follow who is being quoted instead of back-tracking through the thread to find who said what. That's all.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Admiral Halsey

Call me an idiot if you want but I have no clue who that is.

we had a little discussion about him last year: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom//sho...d.php?t=195022