You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #22: Why don't you tell us? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Why don't you tell us?
What sort of agenda would lead one to have such deep knowledge of the status of Mexicans illegally in the United States and be completely ignorant of the reciprocal arrangements?

Probably won't take anybody else too long to figure it out, only questions is whether you'll admit to it or feign innocence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  - Illegal alien wins defamation case for being called a 'criminal' set back for 1st Amendment The Northerner  Apr-23-10 03:34 PM   #0 
  - What do you think about this?  blm   Apr-23-10 03:42 PM   #1 
  - A Proper Verdict, Sir: Hardly a 'Set-Back For The First Amendment'  The Magistrate   Apr-23-10 03:45 PM   #2 
  - If I were to sneak into Mexico, I could not accurately be described there as a criminal? n/t  lumberjack_jeff   Apr-23-10 03:51 PM   #7 
     - My Ignorance Of Mexican Law, Sir, Is Complete  The Magistrate   Apr-23-10 03:56 PM   #10 
     - in mexico, it's a two year felony to enter unlawfully fwiw  paulsby   Apr-23-10 05:08 PM   #65 
        - Thank You For The Fact, Sir, But Of Course It Is Irrelevant To This Discussion  The Magistrate   Apr-23-10 05:12 PM   #68 
           - i agree. but u claimed ignorance on this matter  paulsby   Apr-23-10 05:19 PM   #75 
              - No Problem, Sir  The Magistrate   Apr-23-10 05:23 PM   #79 
     - Of course  notesdev   Apr-23-10 04:03 PM   #16 
     - And What, Sir, Is My Agenda?  The Magistrate   Apr-23-10 04:06 PM   #18 
     - Why don't you tell us?  notesdev   Apr-23-10 04:09 PM   #22 
        - Have You Read The Article, Sir? Poor Tripe As It Is, It Makes What the Verdict Actually Concerned  The Magistrate   Apr-23-10 04:12 PM   #26 
        - I suspect His Honor is a sleeper for the Mexican Government,  EFerrari   Apr-23-10 04:13 PM   #27 
        - ROFLMAO!  laughingliberal   Apr-23-10 04:15 PM   #30 
        - What does the Mexican side of the equation half to do with the price of beans in China?  MattBaggins   Apr-23-10 04:20 PM   #33 
     - NEWSFLASH: the US Constitution & your civil rights end at the border  WolverineDG   Apr-23-10 05:02 PM   #59 
     - Sure and that's why your government is a criminal for sneaking into Mexico  EFerrari   Apr-23-10 04:09 PM   #21 
     - If you had been tried in a court of law and found to be a criminal  MattBaggins   Apr-23-10 04:15 PM   #29 
        - So you think emails should be held to the same standard as TV news? n/t  lumberjack_jeff   Apr-23-10 05:38 PM   #87 
           - Absolutely  MattBaggins   Apr-23-10 07:01 PM   #103 
              - Then DU's days are numbered. n/t  lumberjack_jeff   Apr-23-10 07:05 PM   #104 
  - The 1st amendment doesn't protect defamation.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Apr-23-10 03:46 PM   #3 
  - 'set back (sic) for 1st Amendment'? - dramatic!  Bluebear   Apr-23-10 03:47 PM   #4 
  - Their copy editors are utterly hopeless  anigbrowl   Apr-23-10 04:32 PM   #38 
  - I'm not sure what the set back is to the First Amendment  DefenseLawyer   Apr-23-10 03:47 PM   #5 
  - Apparently, Sir, A White Racist was Held To Account In Court By A Brown Person For Lawbreaking  The Magistrate   Apr-23-10 03:50 PM   #6 
     - Well after all, the man just wants his country back.  DefenseLawyer   Apr-23-10 03:57 PM   #11 
     - Do Not Forget Hitler, Sir! He Did Just The Same Thing, Too!  The Magistrate   Apr-23-10 04:01 PM   #14 
     - What else should we be able to call a Mexican?  county worker   Apr-23-10 05:34 PM   #85 
        - Um, I was being facetious  DefenseLawyer   Apr-23-10 06:36 PM   #100 
           - Some People, Sir, Should Not Play Cards For Money....  The Magistrate   Apr-23-10 06:40 PM   #101 
     - +1000 nt  laughingliberal   Apr-23-10 04:06 PM   #19 
     - i heart you.  BlooInBloo   Apr-23-10 07:24 PM   #106 
  - reinforcement of 1st amendment  spanone   Apr-23-10 03:54 PM   #8 
  - One can certainly hope the law-breaking non-criminal can now  Obamanaut   Apr-23-10 03:54 PM   #9 
  - Umm, since he was here illegally, then by default wouldn't he be a criminal?  MadHound   Apr-23-10 03:59 PM   #12 
  - It is not a crime to be in the country without documentation  DefenseLawyer   Apr-23-10 04:02 PM   #15 
  - Let's see,  MadHound   Apr-23-10 04:10 PM   #23 
     - English...but a very exact and specific form of it.  anigbrowl   Apr-23-10 04:46 PM   #48 
        - I think that you're misreading a lot, including the law  MadHound   Apr-23-10 05:26 PM   #81 
  - In Any Case, Sir, the Defamation Was Not Concerned With Immigration Violations  The Magistrate   Apr-23-10 04:05 PM   #17 
  - Thanks so much for your posts on this thread.  redqueen   Apr-23-10 04:12 PM   #25 
  - The ruling by the judge was because the defendant called the plaintiff a criminal  MadHound   Apr-23-10 04:15 PM   #28 
  - Not So, Sir: He Said the Man Was Wanted For Robbery, Assault, And Battery  The Magistrate   Apr-23-10 04:17 PM   #32 
  - But that is not what the judged ruled on,  MadHound   Apr-23-10 04:23 PM   #34 
     - That, Sir, Is Simply Sloppy Reporting  The Magistrate   Apr-23-10 04:28 PM   #36 
        - Maybe, maybe not, I would like to see the original case record  MadHound   Apr-23-10 04:39 PM   #43 
           - Circulation Of the 'Wanted Poster', Sir, Is What the Case Concerned  The Magistrate   Apr-23-10 04:54 PM   #52 
              - Well, apparently a police department did seek him out,  MadHound   Apr-23-10 05:02 PM   #60 
                 - Not Sure Where You Get That, Sir  The Magistrate   Apr-23-10 05:06 PM   #63 
                    - Next paragraph down, apparently there was a criminal trial regarding this assault  MadHound   Apr-23-10 05:10 PM   #67 
                       - It Does Not Say That Concerned This Assault, Sir  The Magistrate   Apr-23-10 05:22 PM   #77 
                          - Hmm, you don't think that a criminal trial in '07 has nothing to do with the Monti assault  MadHound   Apr-23-10 05:29 PM   #82 
                             - Clearly, Sir, It Had Nothing To Do With A Charge Of Assaulting Or Robbing Monti  The Magistrate   Apr-23-10 05:34 PM   #86 
  - It does not  treestar   Apr-23-10 05:51 PM   #94 
  - Broadcast?  lumberjack_jeff   Apr-23-10 05:40 PM   #88 
     - Several Points, Sir  The Magistrate   Apr-23-10 05:54 PM   #97 
  - No. He'd be subject to administrative law, not criminal law.  EFerrari   Apr-23-10 04:11 PM   #24 
  - Yet by entering illegally he is still breaking the law,  MadHound   Apr-23-10 04:16 PM   #31 
     - Overstaying a parking meter is against the law  DefenseLawyer   Apr-23-10 04:25 PM   #35 
     - Really? I think you've got it wrong  MadHound   Apr-23-10 04:36 PM   #41 
     - Let me put it another way, when I translated these cases  EFerrari   Apr-23-10 04:39 PM   #44 
     - But there is a criminal penalty  MadHound   Apr-23-10 04:44 PM   #47 
        - you are misreading the article  anigbrowl   Apr-23-10 04:56 PM   #55 
           - No, Sir, He Claims Defamation Because He Was Said To Be Wanted For Robbery And Assault And Battery  The Magistrate   Apr-23-10 04:57 PM   #57 
           - oops - made a mistake  anigbrowl   Apr-23-10 05:03 PM   #61