Thread: Britian requires ID cards for foreigners

How "clever". You even intentionally misspelled "Strother Martin" in an attempt to demonstrate your ignorance of the name.

You've added nothing (at least nothing your side of the balance sheet) so I will add nothing. But please keep posting. Even your nothings are invaluable.

Do not question moderator actions on the open boards

End of discussion about this matter and it's evident that you have violated a rule.

Please review the rules.

Dixie

Originally Posted by Dixie

Do not question moderator actions on the open boards

End of discussion about this matter and it's evident that you have violated a rule.

Please review the rules.

Dixie

Are you a moderator?

It doesn't say anything by your profile. . .. If so, sorry.

But where did I ever question a moderator's action, if you're not?

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

How "clever". You even intentionally misspelled "Strother Martin" in an attempt to demonstrate your ignorance of the name.

Good grief.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

He's using you.

You've got to be kidding me! My history here and involvement in the issue that is the focus of this site speaks for itself, just as your history here and previously at other sites speaks for itself. You are not as clever as you think.

I'm not saying you're using him in general. I think your membership and posting here is probably bona fide.

But you are doubtlessly using him to hide from my busting of the untruths you so blithely speak.

You won't provide a source to ninety nine point infinite nine of what you merely type. You won't honestly characterize my arguments in your enfeebled responses. And intellectual honesty on matters that I've encountered from you on this board is startlingly absent.

You are begging for protection from the moderator, conjuring some sort of crop circle villian of a "troll," only because you cannot provide the facts or sources to meet me head on.

You know it. I know it.

the proof of your trolldom is that you have yet to acknowledge or rebut one of these successful rebuttals.

What are you saying you did, later edited your pre-existing posts to provide the "rebuttal"?

If so, just tell me what thread. I'm not going to go back through and read each of your posts looking for edits, for crying out louder than a Miss USA contentant.

If not, I'm unsurprised.

Everybody back to their respective corners please

Bama
I've asked you before {you can search for the post yourself} to end the challenges and resist hitting the submit button if you've nothing of value to add to the discussions.

If you should have valid information to rebut another, simply post it withOUT your blathering challenges to another poster----no matter who that poster might be.

I don't give a flying fig who you are or if you are posting under an alias.
What I do care about is your seeming desire to disrupt debate & discussion.

You have made claim that you came here concerned with Illegal Immigration and have little knowledge of the subject.

I ask you if you've spent any time researching our site so that you can educate yourself on the subject in order for you to then bring something of substance to the table?

We all appreciate that you're original intention, as you mentioned, was to familiarize yourself with the issue of America's Illegal Invasion and hope that you will now move towards fullfilling that goal.

Can the crap and move on please. We look forward to your questions and discussions on Immigration and Illegal Aliens.
Thank You

Crockett is not begging me for moderator assistance.

I decided to post this question because many of our board users are becoming annoyed at this conflict between the two of you.

On one hand we have a member that has been with ALIPAC for some time and has contributed a lot of time and energy to our cause and on the other hand we have someone that is new and has made almost 50 points that are all directing criticism at our existing member.

Bamajdphd has made no posts about our topic of illegal immigration until asked about it today. No comments on articles and no points made about any other content except for Crockett's posts.

Since this conversation has split into to areas, I'm going to post Bama's more detailed response to me from the other thread here.

My PM function's disabled, I guess.

But my first inclination was to politely decline your invitation of me to share my political views on this issue. And, to be perfectly honest, I'm kind of still wondering whether I'll tell you now as I type. It seems like a litmus test and I'm generally averse to any sort of compelled statements of fidelity to any one thing, entity, or person.

However.

I do see your point. This is a topical discussion board for the most part, which is why I came here in the first place, which I intend to address shortly, and you'd prefer to keep it that way. Understood. It is also obvious to me that you're wondering, as I would were I in your shoes, whether Ghost's stultifying accusations of "stalking," and, evidently, prior familiarity are true. I have never encountered Ghost before this board in my life, and I deny that, completely. I would ask you to read the threads in question and see his naked ploy for what it is: he's getting walloped on the facts, embarrassingly so, and he's resorting to this stalking nonsense as a distraction, in the fashion of wag the dog.

Because I think you've given me the opportunity to state my case, I'm not so rankled by my concerns with a litmus test.

The reason I came here is that my mind is not made up on the issue beyond the rather obvious notion that I wish there weren't illegal immigration at all.

Where I live we don't have much problem at all with illegal immigration. We're pretty white. So I hadn't much occasion to get caught up in the issue. I knew it was out there, but, like many issues, it seemed too remote for me.

But, about 20 minutes from my city, is a rather smallish-town, maybe 20,000 people, MAYBE, with a huge meatpacking plant, Hormel's, I think. This town made the news about five weeks ago, because of all the busted illegal immigrants working there.

I've got nothing against Mexican people. But I do think they should abide by our laws. Coming here illegally is not right. It probably takes jobs from Americans, probably keeps the wage rate low, and probably impacts crime and other matters like healthcare costs and ER availability. I'm still learning on the subject. The issue's complicated for me because I am concerned about the welfare, a term so despised but I'll use it anyway, of the children left in the lurch.

Further compounding it, I see two breeds of empowered interests at odds with each other: on the one hand are the racists, who simply don't like the Mexicans, I live among plenty of these WASPS and despise their bigotry but see that they're absolutely right in saying Mexicans just can't come into this country with impunity; we need to protect our borders; others aren't so racist as they are hyper-capitalist and want Mexicans to come into the country, laws against it bedamned, because it's good for the shareholder's pocket book.

I don't explain myself to you thinking this is anything new to you.

It's just relatively new to me. I'm still trying to make up my mind, but you asked, and those are my thoughts, pedestrian though they may be to you.

I'd hardly got to this site when I saw Ghost's cogent posts (by my lights) regarding the border patrol agents' convictions for shooting the illegal immigrant. I think my first post was one to give substance to a challenge by another poster regarding what appeared to that person as an anomaly in the judge forcing the jury to deliberate. It's done all the time and I posted it as such: it's called an Allen charge, after its namesake case.

Ghost thanked me. And so I noticed him. He's an enviably clear writer and very very very prolific. So I couldn't help but notice him.

Then I learned, setting aside completely the bizarreness of some of his views, I probably have some of those, too, but read about his proclamations about the law. I saw somebody tonight even state that he's the FIRST person they'd go to regarding issues related to illegal immigration.

The thing is, Ghost has a remarkable talent for clearly expressing matters that he has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. I know this because if there's one thing I know, it's the law. And when he expounds on the law, it's embarrassingly wrong and often something beyond absurd. So I've spent so much time correcting him and his continued obfuscations and accusations that I somehow know who he is that it's detracted me from an opportunity to learn more about illegal immigration here, but, to the people who read this admittedly esoteric topic we're discussing, I'm doing a service to the board by providing the truth.

In sum, my mind is not made up on illegal immigration. A wall. Amnesty. Corporate crackdown. I'm as puzzled by the solution as I am by the inertia of abject inactivity, of any sort, by the federal government on this issue.

One thing I know for sure: the UCC does not apply in the least to the propriety of the illegal immigrant lady's sweepstakes issue or to sweepstakes at all!

I'm not here to cause trouble, Ghost's delusional claims notwithstanding. I have no idea who he is or why he thinks he knows me; but I do think he's making his accusations as a distraction, playing the victim card, when the facts I've laid down have doomed him. It's an ego thing, probably.

And, if I can say this, I think I've made a modest contribution to the excellence you seek on your board by correcting the amazing misinformation set forth by Ghost.

Bama,

I see several things of interest in your posts. You say of your community "We're pretty white." and define this as a conflict between racists and hyper-capitalist.

I have to take issue with this. The polls show consistently that over 80% of America's legal citizens want our borders secured and existing laws enforced. Of this 80%, only a small segment are motivated primarily by the amount of pigmentation in the skin of many illegal aliens. There are literally hundreds of intense reasons that Americans of all races want this invasion stopped. It is not merely racists fighting hyper-capitalists that are willing to poison the air and water, sell crack, or sell children for a buck.

If you have a love for the law Bama, then why direct it at Crockett on the eve of destruction for concepts like the Rule of Law?

Why are you fixated on the comments of on man on our boards while ignoring the data swarming around you of the invasion of America that is spreading Gang Rule and an anarchy matching the living conditions in Central and S. American where their citizens no longer call the police when their children are stolen by the "hyper-capitalist" gangs that sell them into sexual slavery.

Six to ten thousand people that could give a rats butt about our laws and our welfare just entered the US illegally again yesterday. How much respect do you think they have for your concerns about accuracy, correct legal terminology, and court precedents?

Seems to me Bama that you are trying to argue with a fellow passenger on the deck of the Titanic oblivious of the real issues that the fine Americans on these boards have gathered to combat.

W

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

Crockett is not begging me for moderator assistance.

I decided to post this question because many of our board users are becoming annoyed at this conflict between the two of you.

On one hand we have a member that has been with ALIPAC for some time and has contributed a lot of time and energy to our cause and on the other hand we have someone that is new and has made almost 50 points that are all directing criticism at our existing member.

Bamajdphd has made no posts about our topic of illegal immigration until asked about it today. No comments on articles and no points made about any other content except for Crockett's posts.

Since this conversation has split into to areas, I'm going to post Bama's more detailed response to me from the other thread here.

My PM function's disabled, I guess.

But my first inclination was to politely decline your invitation of me to share my political views on this issue. And, to be perfectly honest, I'm kind of still wondering whether I'll tell you now as I type. It seems like a litmus test and I'm generally averse to any sort of compelled statements of fidelity to any one thing, entity, or person.

However.

I do see your point. This is a topical discussion board for the most part, which is why I came here in the first place, which I intend to address shortly, and you'd prefer to keep it that way. Understood. It is also obvious to me that you're wondering, as I would were I in your shoes, whether Ghost's stultifying accusations of "stalking," and, evidently, prior familiarity are true. I have never encountered Ghost before this board in my life, and I deny that, completely. I would ask you to read the threads in question and see his naked ploy for what it is: he's getting walloped on the facts, embarrassingly so, and he's resorting to this stalking nonsense as a distraction, in the fashion of wag the dog.

Because I think you've given me the opportunity to state my case, I'm not so rankled by my concerns with a litmus test.

The reason I came here is that my mind is not made up on the issue beyond the rather obvious notion that I wish there weren't illegal immigration at all.

Where I live we don't have much problem at all with illegal immigration. We're pretty white. So I hadn't much occasion to get caught up in the issue. I knew it was out there, but, like many issues, it seemed too remote for me.

But, about 20 minutes from my city, is a rather smallish-town, maybe 20,000 people, MAYBE, with a huge meatpacking plant, Hormel's, I think. This town made the news about five weeks ago, because of all the busted illegal immigrants working there.

I've got nothing against Mexican people. But I do think they should abide by our laws. Coming here illegally is not right. It probably takes jobs from Americans, probably keeps the wage rate low, and probably impacts crime and other matters like healthcare costs and ER availability. I'm still learning on the subject. The issue's complicated for me because I am concerned about the welfare, a term so despised but I'll use it anyway, of the children left in the lurch.

Further compounding it, I see two breeds of empowered interests at odds with each other: on the one hand are the racists, who simply don't like the Mexicans, I live among plenty of these WASPS and despise their bigotry but see that they're absolutely right in saying Mexicans just can't come into this country with impunity; we need to protect our borders; others aren't so racist as they are hyper-capitalist and want Mexicans to come into the country, laws against it bedamned, because it's good for the shareholder's pocket book.

I don't explain myself to you thinking this is anything new to you.

It's just relatively new to me. I'm still trying to make up my mind, but you asked, and those are my thoughts, pedestrian though they may be to you.

I'd hardly got to this site when I saw Ghost's cogent posts (by my lights) regarding the border patrol agents' convictions for shooting the illegal immigrant. I think my first post was one to give substance to a challenge by another poster regarding what appeared to that person as an anomaly in the judge forcing the jury to deliberate. It's done all the time and I posted it as such: it's called an Allen charge, after its namesake case.

Ghost thanked me. And so I noticed him. He's an enviably clear writer and very very very prolific. So I couldn't help but notice him.

Then I learned, setting aside completely the bizarreness of some of his views, I probably have some of those, too, but read about his proclamations about the law. I saw somebody tonight even state that he's the FIRST person they'd go to regarding issues related to illegal immigration.

The thing is, Ghost has a remarkable talent for clearly expressing matters that he has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. I know this because if there's one thing I know, it's the law. And when he expounds on the law, it's embarrassingly wrong and often something beyond absurd. So I've spent so much time correcting him and his continued obfuscations and accusations that I somehow know who he is that it's detracted me from an opportunity to learn more about illegal immigration here, but, to the people who read this admittedly esoteric topic we're discussing, I'm doing a service to the board by providing the truth.

In sum, my mind is not made up on illegal immigration. A wall. Amnesty. Corporate crackdown. I'm as puzzled by the solution as I am by the inertia of abject inactivity, of any sort, by the federal government on this issue.

One thing I know for sure: the UCC does not apply in the least to the propriety of the illegal immigrant lady's sweepstakes issue or to sweepstakes at all!

I'm not here to cause trouble, Ghost's delusional claims notwithstanding. I have no idea who he is or why he thinks he knows me; but I do think he's making his accusations as a distraction, playing the victim card, when the facts I've laid down have doomed him. It's an ego thing, probably.

And, if I can say this, I think I've made a modest contribution to the excellence you seek on your board by correcting the amazing misinformation set forth by Ghost.

Bama,

I see several things of interest in your posts. You say of your community "We're pretty white." and define this as a conflict between racists and hyper-capitalist.

I have to take issue with this. The polls show consistently that over 80% of America's legal citizens want our borders secured and existing laws enforced. Of this 80%, only a small segment are motivated primarily by the amount of pigmentation in the skin of many illegal aliens. There are literally hundreds of intense reasons that Americans of all races want this invasion stopped. It is not merely racists fighting hyper-capitalists that are willing to poison the air and water, sell crack, or sell children for a buck.

If you have a love for the law Bama, then why direct it at Crockett on the eve of destruction for concepts like the Rule of Law?

Why are you fixated on the comments of on man on our boards while ignoring the data swarming around you of the invasion of America that is spreading Gang Rule and an anarchy matching the living conditions in Central and S. American where their citizens no longer call the police when their children are stolen by the "hyper-capitalist" gangs that sell them into sexual slavery.

Six to ten thousand people that could give a rats butt about our laws and our welfare just entered the US illegally again yesterday. How much respect do you think they have for your concerns about accuracy, correct legal terminology, and court precedents?

Seems to me Bama that you are trying to argue with a fellow passenger on the deck of the Titanic oblivious of the real issues that the fine Americans on these boards have gathered to combat.

W

Thanks for your post. I'll try to fairly address it.

ALIPAC states:

You say of your community "We're pretty white." and define this as a conflict between racists and hyper-capitalist.

I did say that, and it's true; but I don't think I defined my community as solely a conflict between racists and hypercapitalists; if I did so, I didn't mean it to be so cookie-cutterish.

In my defense, the "we're pretty white" language and my reference to the conflict I see came three paragraphs apart. And I don't think I painted my whole community, or "define it," with such a broad brush, consisting only of "white racists" and "white hyper-capitalists. I know I didn't mean to, anway. Insttead, three paragraphs later, I'd stated that I see the conflict between two empowered interests: some racists v. some hyper-capitalists. "Further compounding it, I see two breeds of empowered interests at odds with each other: on the one hand are the racists . . . and on the other the hypercapitalists," I'd written. They both exist, and just this very day, the legislators in my state's capitol are considering a bill to punish the latter who hire illegal immingrants.

ALIPAC states:

On one hand we have a member that has been with ALIPAC for some time and has contributed a lot of time and energy to our cause and on the other hand we have someone that is new and has made almost 50 points that are all directing criticism at our existing member.

Bamajdphd has made no posts about our topic of illegal immigration until asked about it today. No comments on articles and no points made about any other content except for Crockett's posts.

It actually makes perfect sense that it would unfold that way, without any personal animus underlying the interaction. It's largely just a numbers game. Think of it. A new visitor, with little exposure to the problem of illegal immigration, comes to this board after a google search spawned by a local event in a nearby town, to better inform the basis of his nascent opinion on the matter. The new visitor then encounters one of your most prolific posters. That makes sense from a sheer statistical standpoint.

I didn't post on the immigration issue probably because of three reasons: (1) I don't have a strong opinion on it yet as I'm still looking into the controversy; (2) I'm averse to half-cocked opinion spouters, which I'd definitely be were I to be outspoken on this issue at present; and (3) I had the misfortune of encountering Ghost's woefully-wrong statements as to the law, something I'm way beyond passably familiar with. Scoff, don't scoff, whichever, but I am a legal expert and shall let my posts in that regard speak for themselves henceforth. (It came up only because I think Ghost impugned my qualifications, getting it wrong again, requiring my rebuttal.)

Ghost kept repeating his sourceless errors, a problem which he compounded with red herring distractions and even more unsourced errors that truly require a sense of the bizarre to even propound in the first place. His chorus of references to my presence as being troll-like I believe are planted only to distract from his stern and indefatigable correction by my hands. I realize it's an esoteric topic but if you take the time to read it, you'll see that I'm right. If you know a lawyer friend, even email him or her whatever part of the exchange you wonder about, and you'll see for yourself just how wrong Ghost is without having to take my word for it.

ALIPAC states:

I have to take issue with this. The polls show consistently that over 80% of America's legal citizens want our borders secured and existing laws enforced. Of this 80%, only a small segment are motivated primarily by the amount of pigmentation in the skin of many illegal aliens. There are literally hundreds of intense reasons that Americans of all races want this invasion stopped. It is not merely racists fighting hyper-capitalists that are willing to poison the air and water, sell crack, or sell children for a buck.

Fair enough point. As I say, I'm learning about this issue. All I can speak from at this point is my personal experience. And at this juncture I do see landed hyper-capitalists enjoying the fruits of illegal immigration, and more than a few who oppose illegal immigration where I live come across to me as quite racist. I understand there's a middle ground for I'm presently occupying part of it.

ALIPAC states:

If you have a love for the law Bama, then why direct it at Crockett on the eve of destruction for concepts like the Rule of Law?

True enough, the law is a jealous mistress, as they say, which means I must get back to work, but listen: I don't have what can fairly be called a love for the law. That's not a term I've ever used to describe myself anyway. But, while my posts could well have been put to better use directed elsewhere, I had no idea Ghost would be so disingenuously stubborn in his repeated misrepresenations on the law. He was incorrigible, and, as a result, as you can see, the discussion just went on and on and on, quite to my surprise, as I kept apace with his stunning misapprehension in quite an array of things legal.

ALIPAC states:

Why are you fixated on the comments of on man on our boards while ignoring the data swarming around you of the invasion of America that is spreading Gang Rule and an anarchy matching the living conditions in Central and S. American where their citizens no longer call the police when their children are stolen by the "hyper-capitalist" gangs that sell them into sexual slavery.

I believe my earlier responses above addressed this question. If not, feel free to reposit it.

ALIPAC states:

Six to ten thousand people that could give a rats butt about our laws and our welfare just entered the US illegally again yesterday. How much respect do you think they have for your concerns about accuracy, correct legal terminology, and court precedents?

Probably no such respect, which, as demonstrated, is definitely a trait shared by Ghost. But you know, I can't slay all the dragons. Which is to say that, as I sat at the keyboard, I'd made a decision to correct the first errant post I'd seen Ghost publish, not knowing that my response would lead to his continuing error in so many posts that followed.

ALIPAC states:

Seems to me Bama that you are trying to argue with a fellow passenger on the deck of the Titanic oblivious of the real issues that the fine Americans on these boards have gathered to combat.

Naturally it takes two to tango. And if I was somehow oblivious, I wasn't alone. Indeed, it wasn't me who first opined that the UCC somehow governs or applies to an illegal immigrant's sweepstakes issue, or to sweepstakes at all -- which was just a first among staggeringly sweeping, demonstrably unsupported, startlingly uncited, and woefully errant mistatements of something I really do know and really do have informed opinions about.

I hope this adequately addresses your concerns. If I don't respond to any further inquiry, it's not because I'm ignoring you. But duty and justice call.

Because the law really is a jealous mistress.

Bamajdphd,

I understand about your conflict with Crockett although many on our boards are not that interested in a legal debate on minutia.

It is my understanding of history that before the formation of western democracies that there was very little need for attorneys. Laws existed and were administered by rulers and administrators, but the governed had very little in the way of rights or recourse.

No, I have no desire to go around the web grabbing citations and sources to illustrate how I came to these opinions.

It is also my understanding that America has been celebrated as a jewel of Democracy. For those that are sticklers about semantics, we are supposed to be Republic or a Representative Democracy with the greatest respect for freedom and civil rights for our citizens that has ever existed, but most importantly we are revered as the self governed with a Government that is to derive it's authority and direction from We The People.

It is my opinion, and this is an opinion shared by many reading this exchange, that our entire form of self governance has been derailed over the issue of illegal immigration.

After all, using reverse forensics on the process, if the Executive Branch refuses to enforce the existing laws supported by over 80% of the public to the pleasure of Global Corporations / elite financial interests, then that means the Congress is politically impotent or powerless.

If the Congress is powerless and the laws they crafted, debated, and voted on have been practically discarded by the Executive Branch, then every American has been deprived of representation involving taxation.

In short, it is back to the old days for us where monarchs and oligarchs ruled because our opinions mean nothing and the fruits of our system of self governance have been discarded or usurped!

Now, our movement has a great need for attorney's and legal minded people.

It is baffling to me that you would be more interested in mincing words with Crockett than these much larger issues that are the core reason we were all here talking and working before you arrived.

Couldn't you be using your skills and abilities to go after our opposition instead of one of our loyal supporters? Could you not be helping, advising, and assisting our activists instead of challenging them and fighting them?

W

I hope that I can defend myself without fanning the flames, so here goes:

I offered some specific citations of law and professional commentary in support of my posts to gauge the response of this poster, who I know to be a troll I have encountered countless times. His standard modus operandi is to bog down sites with endless demands of "proof" or of citation of case law. What the troll has done consistently on other sites it to demand such citations and then either dismiss them out of hand for some superfluous reason or to move directly to another "challenge" without admitting that the cited material invalidates his claim. In other words, he refuses to address the cites when they are accurately provided or else makes absurd challenges to the cites themselves by claiming they do not mean what they patently say. In this manner, he may derail a thread or threads for dozens of pages or so bog down a given poster with his harangues as to make it impossible for them to post without his assault and endless superfluous demands. This has been evident by his bird-dogging me through several threads while failing to once address the subject for which this cite was created.

The evidence that this poster is the troll Strother Martin is that he has followed his pattern precisely, down to the point of being able to regurgitate minutiae from earlier posts yet allegedly not being able to locate a single of the several evidenciary cites that have been provided. Understand? He does not want to debate. He wants to upend any meaningful discussion with his tried and true ploy of making endless demands over consequential and inconsequential points alike. I provided the demanded evidence in several cases, not because I thought it would satisfy this troll, but because I knew that it would satisfy reasonable readers and, more importantly, because I KNEW that this troll would follow the typical Strother Martin MO and either pretend to have not seen the cites, which could not possibly have been missed, or to somehow attempt to summarily dismiss them with zero contrary evidence. In so doing, he has confirmed his identity. For that reason, I will accept no additional challenges from this troll or his other personae and sock puppets. Having stated this position unambiguously, I will consider any additional harangues and false claims by this troll to be personal attacks and will treat them as such.

If any real member of this site has specific questions about any information I have provided anywhere on this site I will, as always, provide as much substantiation or additional information as you may require. I will not, however, enable a notorious troll who has employed this gambit to disrupt innumerable sites.