Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #447239 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-10 16:51 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-02-21 10:24 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 80 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
OT: Federal Judges Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-10 16:51 -0700
Re: OT: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-10 15:56 -0800
Re: OT: Federal Judges bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 13:17 -0800
Re: OT: Federal Judges amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-02-10 19:08 -0600
Re: Federal Judges "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-02-10 21:20 -0500
Re: Federal Judges Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-10 19:34 -0700
Re: Federal Judges "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-02-10 21:43 -0500
Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-10 19:06 -0800
Re: Federal Judges Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-10 20:09 -0700
Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-10 20:08 -0800
Re: Federal Judges jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 04:48 -0800
Re: Federal Judges Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-11 16:05 +0000
Re: Federal Judges Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-11 09:21 -0700
Re: Federal Judges "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-02-11 20:53 -0500
Re: Federal Judges Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-12 12:59 +1100
Re: Federal Judges krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-11 22:09 -0500
Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 17:51 -0800
Re: Federal Judges Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:55 +0000
Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 18:57 -0800
Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 17:39 -0800
Re: Federal Judges Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-11 17:53 -0800
Re: Federal Judges krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-11 22:10 -0500
Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 20:37 -0800
Re: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-12 06:13 -0800
Re: Federal Judges "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-02-12 15:10 -0500
Re: Federal Judges krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-12 17:06 -0500
Re: Federal Judges krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-12 17:06 -0500
Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 19:04 -0800
Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 20:30 -0800
Re: Federal Judges Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:58 +0000
Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 19:12 -0800
Re: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-18 17:03 -0800
Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-18 17:15 -0800
Re: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-18 17:27 -0800
Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-18 19:38 -0800
Re: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-19 05:47 -0800
Re: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-19 08:20 -0800
Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 08:29 -0800
Re: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-19 11:41 -0800
Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 18:20 -0800
Re: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-19 19:00 -0800
Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-20 03:38 -0800
Re: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-20 07:04 -0800
Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-20 19:41 -0800
Re: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-21 05:26 -0800
Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-21 06:50 -0800
Re: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-21 12:46 -0800
Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-21 20:23 -0800
Re: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-19 07:13 -0800
Re: Federal Judges Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-19 08:21 -0700
Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 09:04 -0800
Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 08:52 -0800
Re: Federal Judges Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-19 05:53 +0000
Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 01:01 -0800
Re: Federal Judges "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-02-18 16:15 -0500
Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-18 17:25 -0800
Re: OT: Federal Judges Wanderer <wanderer@dialup4less.com> - 2017-02-11 06:21 -0800
Re: OT: Federal Judges John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-11 09:32 -0800
Re: OT: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-11 06:29 -0800
Re: OT: Federal Judges Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-11 16:09 +0000
Re: OT: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 20:41 -0800
Re: OT: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 18:07 -0800
Re: OT: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-12 12:07 -0800
Re: OT: Federal Judges "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-02-18 16:21 -0500
Re: OT: Federal Judges Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-18 23:45 +0000
Re: OT: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-18 17:01 -0800
Re: OT: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-18 17:41 -0800
Re: OT: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-19 07:38 -0800
Re: OT: Federal Judges Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-19 09:49 -0700
Re: OT: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-19 09:27 -0800
Re: OT: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 10:38 -0800
Re: OT: Federal Judges Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-19 16:41 -0700
Re: OT: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 10:24 -0800
Re: OT: Federal Judges whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 18:33 -0800
Re: OT: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-19 08:19 -0800
Re: OT: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 18:31 -0800
Re: OT: Federal Judges whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 20:22 -0800
Re: OT: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-22 10:33 -0800
Re: OT: Federal Judges Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 07:41 -0800
Re: OT: Federal Judges Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-21 10:24 -0700
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 17:53 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Federal Judges |
| Message-ID | <0c901d45-71e9-4352-b8d4-ef81421dede7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447352 |
Den søndag den 12. februar 2017 kl. 02.39.46 UTC+1 skrev bill....@ieee.org: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 11:48:21 PM UTC+11, jurb...@gmail.com wrote: > > Jim, you got elected here because I do not respond directly to Slowman. Again, he is trying to exercise armchair social engineering from a country that wants to push us to take in every Mohammed, Jesus and Achmed, while they put such people on an island. > > Wrong. We only want you to take the ones who aren't terrorists - which is the overwhelming majority. Concentrating on Muslim terrorist may mean that you aren't paying enough attention to people like Timothy McVeigh who was a born-again Christian. > > The people that Australia puts in off-shore detention are just the ones that try to get to Australia by being smuggled in on fishing boats. It got to be an industry a decade or so ago, and the plan was to wreck the economic model by declaring that if you tried to get in illegally by boat, you were never going to get in, which does seem to have discouraged the people smugglers. > so when Trump talks about not letting in illegal immigrants he's hitler, when Australia does it it is a great idea? double standards must be twice as good as standards... > The Australian immigration service doesn't ask whether potential immigrants are Muslim. We seem to be accepting fewer Muslims than we once did, but it doesn't seem to be because of their religion. > Trumbs silly ban doesn't mention religion either, it is a list of countries
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 22:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Federal Judges |
| Message-ID | <sfkv9cp6h8dmaqhu6bfmvj8j9u8f9em8uv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #447356 |
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 17:53:14 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote: >Den søndag den 12. februar 2017 kl. 02.39.46 UTC+1 skrev bill....@ieee.org: >> On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 11:48:21 PM UTC+11, jurb...@gmail.com wrote: >> > Jim, you got elected here because I do not respond directly to Slowman. Again, he is trying to exercise armchair social engineering from a country that wants to push us to take in every Mohammed, Jesus and Achmed, while they put such people on an island. >> >> Wrong. We only want you to take the ones who aren't terrorists - which is the overwhelming majority. Concentrating on Muslim terrorist may mean that you aren't paying enough attention to people like Timothy McVeigh who was a born-again Christian. >> >> The people that Australia puts in off-shore detention are just the ones that try to get to Australia by being smuggled in on fishing boats. It got to be an industry a decade or so ago, and the plan was to wreck the economic model by declaring that if you tried to get in illegally by boat, you were never going to get in, which does seem to have discouraged the people smugglers. >> > >so when Trump talks about not letting in illegal immigrants he's hitler, when Australia does it it is a great idea? > >double standards must be twice as good as standards... > > >> The Australian immigration service doesn't ask whether potential immigrants are Muslim. We seem to be accepting fewer Muslims than we once did, but it doesn't seem to be because of their religion. >> > >Trumbs silly ban doesn't mention religion either, it is a list of countries > A list put together by Obama. There should have been several more countries on the list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 20:37 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Federal Judges |
| Message-ID | <6e7f4121-1a21-4703-a1dd-30d71c86a66f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447366 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 2:10:49 PM UTC+11, k...@notreal.com wrote: > On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 17:53:14 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen > <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote: > > >Den søndag den 12. februar 2017 kl. 02.39.46 UTC+1 skrev bill....@ieee.org: > >> On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 11:48:21 PM UTC+11, jurb...@gmail.com wrote: > >> > Jim, you got elected here because I do not respond directly to Slowman. Again, he is trying to exercise armchair social engineering from a country that wants to push us to take in every Mohammed, Jesus and Achmed, while they put such people on an island. > >> > >> Wrong. We only want you to take the ones who aren't terrorists - which is the overwhelming majority. Concentrating on Muslim terrorist may mean that you aren't paying enough attention to people like Timothy McVeigh who was a born-again Christian. > >> > >> The people that Australia puts in off-shore detention are just the ones that try to get to Australia by being smuggled in on fishing boats. It got to be an industry a decade or so ago, and the plan was to wreck the economic model by declaring that if you tried to get in illegally by boat, you were never going to get in, which does seem to have discouraged the people smugglers. > >> > > > >so when Trump talks about not letting in illegal immigrants he's hitler, when Australia does it it is a great idea? > > > >double standards must be twice as good as standards... > > > > > >> The Australian immigration service doesn't ask whether potential immigrants are Muslim. We seem to be accepting fewer Muslims than we once did, but it doesn't seem to be because of their religion. > >> > > > >Trumps silly ban doesn't mention religion either, it is a list of countries > > > A list put together by Obama. There should have been several more > countries on the list. The list put together by Obama had a different aim - a closer scrunity of the people who might be let in - rather than setting up a blanket ban based on nationality https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/02/07/trumps-claim-that-obama-first-identified-the-seven-countries-in-his-travel-ban/?utm_term=.58b346c639f9 -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 06:13 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Federal Judges |
| Message-ID | <cb795353-3a31-4d7c-a6fa-b76f3d685360@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447370 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 11:37:11 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>
> The list put together by Obama had a different aim - a closer scrunity of the people who might be let in - rather than setting up a blanket ban based on nationality
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney
You seem vastly ignorant. What you call a blanket ban is actually a ban for ninety days during which better vetting procedures are to be developed. That is to develop a better way to perform closer scrutiny of the people that might be let in.
I personally think they should have just tried to figure out a better vetting process while continuing business as usual. The chance of coming up with the ultimate vetting procedure in 90 days is slim.
Dan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 15:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Federal Judges |
| Message-ID | <o7qfbe$38o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #447402 |
dcaster@krl.org wrote: > > I personally think they should have just tried to figure out a > better vetting process while continuing business as usual. The > chance of coming up with the ultimate vetting procedure in 90 days is > slim. There is no way to vet them. We vetted people from Iraq because we collected data on individuals there, but we have no data on individuals from other countries. The policy's opponents point to the vetting of Iraqis but they seem not to understand the need for data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 17:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Federal Judges |
| Message-ID | <93n1ac521b1rajb5b3atkhk068s85i8ave@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #447447 |
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 15:10:05 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote: >dcaster@krl.org wrote: >> >> I personally think they should have just tried to figure out a >> better vetting process while continuing business as usual. The >> chance of coming up with the ultimate vetting procedure in 90 days is >> slim. > >There is no way to vet them. We vetted people from Iraq because we >collected data on individuals there, but we have no data on individuals >from other countries. The policy's opponents point to the vetting of >Iraqis but they seem not to understand the need for data. > There is no governent from which to _get_ data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 17:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Federal Judges |
| Message-ID | <32n1ac1kktq1g65sjd9hqfgljmfms7va94@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #447402 |
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 06:13:33 -0800 (PST), "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> wrote: >On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 11:37:11 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > >> >> The list put together by Obama had a different aim - a closer scrunity of the people who might be let in - rather than setting up a blanket ban based on nationality >> > >> -- >> Bill Sloman, Sydney > > >You seem vastly ignorant. What you call a blanket ban is actually a ban for ninety days during which better vetting procedures are to be developed. That is to develop a better way to perform closer scrutiny of the people that might be let in. > >I personally think they should have just tried to figure out a better vetting process while continuing business as usual. The chance of coming up with the ultimate vetting procedure in 90 days is slim. So simply drop the 90-days clause. Simple enough.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 19:04 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Federal Judges |
| Message-ID | <d1c80c23-6f69-4403-b8f3-7d1ab49793da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447402 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 1:13:36 AM UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 11:37:11 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > The list put together by Obama had a different aim - a closer scrunity of the people who might be let in - rather than setting up a blanket ban based on nationality. > > You seem vastly ignorant. What you call a blanket ban is actually a ban for ninety days during which better vetting procedures are to be developed. The vast ignorance is all yours. The US has been working on those vetting procedures for decades, and ninety days isn't going to be enough to invent something better and different. > That is to develop a better way to perform closer scrutiny of the people that might be let in. Dream on. It was always about pandering to anxieties about immigrants, and had no actual content at all. > I personally think they should have just tried to figure out a better vetting process while continuing business as usual. The chance of coming up with the ultimate vetting procedure in 90 days is slim. Agreed. We differ in thinking that there was ever any prospect of an improved vetting procedure, or that Trump was buying time to invent one. It was just one more deceitful dramatic gesture. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 20:30 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Federal Judges |
| Message-ID | <b4b488f6-97b7-492b-93c1-7f985f612c85@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447356 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 12:53:17 PM UTC+11, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: > Den søndag den 12. februar 2017 kl. 02.39.46 UTC+1 skrev bill....@ieee.org: > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 11:48:21 PM UTC+11, jurb...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Jim, you got elected here because I do not respond directly to Slowman. Again, he is trying to exercise armchair social engineering from a country that wants to push us to take in every Mohammed, Jesus and Achmed, while they put such people on an island. > > > > Wrong. We only want you to take the ones who aren't terrorists - which is the overwhelming majority. Concentrating on Muslim terrorist may mean that you aren't paying enough attention to people like Timothy McVeigh who was a born-again Christian. > > > > The people that Australia puts in off-shore detention are just the ones that try to get to Australia by being smuggled in on fishing boats. It got to be an industry a decade or so ago, and the plan was to wreck the economic model by declaring that if you tried to get in illegally by boat, you were never going to get in, which does seem to have discouraged the people smugglers. > > > > so when Trump talks about not letting in illegal immigrants he's Hitler, when Australia does it it is a great idea? That isn't the point being discussed here. Trump is welcome to reject illegal immigrants. The problem with his immigration ban was that it prevented an arbitrary group of perfectly legal immigrants from getting into the US because they came from a perversely selected group of predominantly Muslim countries. > double standards must be twice as good as standards... Your powers of discrimination are as wonky as Trump's. > > The Australian immigration service doesn't ask whether potential immigrants are Muslim. We seem to be accepting fewer Muslims than we once did, but it doesn't seem to be because of their religion. > > Trumps silly ban doesn't mention religion either, it is a list of countries. Which happen to be predominantly Muslim. Curiously, nobody who came from any of these countries has committed a terrorist act in the USA, while people from similar countries which weren't included in the ban have. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 15:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Federal Judges |
| Message-ID | <o7q0md$1r7$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #447356 |
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 17:53:14 -0800, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: > Trumbs silly ban doesn't mention religion either, it is a list of > countries Trump has proposed nothing that hasn't already been done before by the likes of Carter, Reagan and - wait for it - Obama. They're just hindering him because he's not one of "them" - (thank god).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 19:12 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Federal Judges |
| Message-ID | <281ec465-d9b2-4254-85be-5fa11f90972a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447413 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 3:00:01 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote: > On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 17:53:14 -0800, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: > > > Trumps silly ban doesn't mention religion either, it is a list of > > countries > > Trump has proposed nothing that hasn't already been done before by the > likes of Carter, Reagan and - wait for it - Obama. > They're just hindering him because he's not one of "them" - (thank god). Obama blocked the visa-waiver option for the seven countries that Trump to block, and a couple more. Trump's proposal would have blocked people who had already been vetted thoroughly enough to have got a visa. This is not something that "has been done before". It's a lot more draconian, and uniquely indiscriminate. All that is a bit too complicated for the Mail. Better newspapers - and there are plenty of them - can do better. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011/?utm_term=.365fa66610c0 -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 17:03 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Federal Judges |
| Message-ID | <9bc46338-d88a-464c-a8d0-b84fff2c7712@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447356 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 8:53:17 PM UTC-5, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: > Den søndag den 12. februar 2017 kl. 02.39.46 UTC+1 skrev bill....@ieee.org: > > The people that Australia puts in off-shore detention are just the ones that try to get to Australia by being smuggled in on fishing boats. It got to be an industry a decade or so ago, and the plan was to wreck the economic model by declaring that if you tried to get in illegally by boat, you were never going to get in, which does seem to have discouraged the people smugglers. > > > > so when Trump talks about not letting in illegal immigrants he's hitler, when Australia does it it is a great idea? > > double standards must be twice as good as standards... +1.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 17:15 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Federal Judges |
| Message-ID | <c9e9c062-8523-43fe-a436-2ab1a7f755d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #448261 |
On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 12:03:26 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 8:53:17 PM UTC-5, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: > > Den søndag den 12. februar 2017 kl. 02.39.46 UTC+1 skrev bill....@ieee.org: > > > > The people that Australia puts in off-shore detention are just the ones that try to get to Australia by being smuggled in on fishing boats. It got to be an industry a decade or so ago, and the plan was to wreck the economic model by declaring that if you tried to get in illegally by boat, you were never going to get in, which does seem to have discouraged the people smugglers. > > > > > > > so when Trump talks about not letting in illegal immigrants he's hitler, when Australia does it it is a great idea? > > > > double standards must be twice as good as standards... > > +1. James Arthur endorses more right-wing non-thinking. The objections to Trump's travel ban was that he was arbitrarily going to block people who already had visa's - legal immigrants. Nobody has ever had a problem with countries not letting in illegal immigrants. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 17:27 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Federal Judges |
| Message-ID | <6b6a6c6e-8b8a-49ee-8070-5aaf98b8e9c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #448262 |
On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 8:15:48 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> James Arthur endorses more right-wing non-thinking. The objections to Trump's travel ban was that he was arbitrarily going to block people who already had visa's - legal immigrants. Nobody has ever had a problem with countries not letting in illegal immigrants.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney
My understanding is that a Visa allows you to visit a country, but not remain in the country.. And that a immigrant is someone who is moving to a country. In other words having a visa does not make you a legal immigrant.
If this is wrong, please direct me to a site that explains what each category is.
Dan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 19:38 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Federal Judges |
| Message-ID | <37b41f0e-e15e-44cb-9f84-b4589434de99@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #448266 |
On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 12:27:43 PM UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote: > On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 8:15:48 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > James Arthur endorses more right-wing non-thinking. The objections to Trump's travel ban was that he was arbitrarily going to block people who already had visa's - legal immigrants. Nobody has ever had a problem with countries not letting in illegal immigrants. > > My understanding is that a Visa allows you to visit a country, but not remain in the country.. And that a immigrant is someone who is moving to a country. In other words having a visa does not make you a legal immigrant. > > If this is wrong, please direct me to a site that explains what each category is. Some of the people being blocked were legal immigrants. They needed - and had got - an immigrant visa to get in. Others people also blocked would have had a visitor's visa. James Arthur was using Australia's stance of blocking illegal immigrants - who hadn't bothered to get any kind of visa - as if it justified Trump's attempt to block people who had gone through all the procedures required to get in legally. Google "US immigrant visa" for further clarification. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-19 05:47 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Federal Judges |
| Message-ID | <dd112d48-3d38-4b26-b194-b058e910be59@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #448288 |
On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 10:38:09 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> >
> > My understanding is that a Visa allows you to visit a country, but not remain in the country.. And that a immigrant is someone who is moving to a country. In other words having a visa does not make you a legal immigrant.
> >
> > If this is wrong, please direct me to a site that explains what each category is.
>
> Some of the people being blocked were legal immigrants. They needed - and had got - an immigrant visa to get in.
Having an immigrant visa does not make one a legal immigrant. Getting a immigrant visa is just the first step in becoming a legal immigrant. For clarification Google "US immigrant visa"
Dan
>
> Others people also blocked would have had a visitor's visa.
>
> Google "US immigrant visa" for further clarification.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-19 08:20 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Federal Judges |
| Message-ID | <71dea539-21b8-4025-8a76-33af3ef297e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #448340 |
On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 8:47:34 AM UTC-5, dca...@krl.org wrote: > On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 10:38:09 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > > > My understanding is that a Visa allows you to visit a country, but not remain in the country.. And that a immigrant is someone who is moving to a country. In other words having a visa does not make you a legal immigrant. > > > > > > If this is wrong, please direct me to a site that explains what each category is. > > > > Some of the people being blocked were legal immigrants. They needed - and had got - an immigrant visa to get in. > > > Having an immigrant visa does not make one a legal immigrant. Getting a immigrant visa is just the first step in becoming a legal immigrant. For clarification Google "US immigrant visa" > > Dan Exactly correct. Cheers, James Arthur
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-19 08:29 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Federal Judges |
| Message-ID | <fe0c9db0-5562-46a8-b57c-c4deb3704a66@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #448340 |
On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 12:47:34 AM UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote: > On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 10:38:09 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > > > My understanding is that a Visa allows you to visit a country, but not remain in the country.. And that a immigrant is someone who is moving to a country. In other words having a visa does not make you a legal immigrant. > > > > > > If this is wrong, please direct me to a site that explains what each category is. > > > > Some of the people being blocked were legal immigrants. They needed - and had got - an immigrant visa to get in. > > Having an immigrant visa does not make one a legal immigrant. Getting a immigrant visa is just the first step in becoming a legal immigrant. For clarification Google "US immigrant visa". I didn't say it did. But Trump's plan was to stop potentially legal immigrants from getting into the USA - or back into the USA - where they could do the rest of the job. That's not a point that needs clarifying, though this might not be obvious to somebody who is as slow as you are now. Your days of being a clever undergraduate are long past (if they ever happened). > > Others people also blocked would have had a visitor's visa. > > > > Google "US immigrant visa" for further clarification. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-19 11:41 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Federal Judges |
| Message-ID | <b4683ce2-433c-4d63-8ce7-a7169555556d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #448363 |
On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 11:29:14 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > Some of the people being blocked were legal immigrants. They needed - and had got - an immigrant visa to get in.
> >
> > Having an immigrant visa does not make one a legal immigrant. Getting a immigrant visa is just the first step in becoming a legal immigrant. For clarification Google "US immigrant visa".
>
> I didn't say it did. But Trump's plan was to stop potentially legal immigrants from getting into the USA - or back into the USA - where they could do the rest of the job. That's not a point that needs clarifying, though this might not be obvious to somebody who is as slow as you are now. Your days of being a clever undergraduate are long past (if they ever happened).
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney
Why not admit you were wrong. Everyone that read you post already realizes that you were wrong. Denying it just makes you look silly.
Dan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-19 18:20 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Federal Judges |
| Message-ID | <a12e2494-b2e9-45b6-83ab-edd0e71dfbfa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #448386 |
On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 6:41:28 AM UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote: > On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 11:29:14 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > Some of the people being blocked were legal immigrants. They needed - and had got - an immigrant visa to get in. > > > > > > Having an immigrant visa does not make one a legal immigrant. Getting a immigrant visa is just the first step in becoming a legal immigrant. For clarification Google "US immigrant visa". > > > > I didn't say it did. But Trump's plan was to stop potentially legal immigrants from getting into the USA - or back into the USA - where they could do the rest of the job. That's not a point that needs clarifying, though this might not be obvious to somebody who is as slow as you are now. Your days of being a clever undergraduate are long past (if they ever happened). > > Why not admit you were wrong. I wasn't wrong. When I'm wrong I admit it > Everyone that read you post already realizes that you were wrong. Denying it just makes you look silly. So far, the only person who has come to that conclusion seems to be you. It's a pretty silly conclusion, but you make that kind of mistake all the time. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web