Originally posted by wolfgang59There is no need for enforcement of laws?
Nonsense. Providing laws are sensible and just there is no need for
enforcement. For instance not parking in disabled bays, not dropping
litter, picking up your dog's poop. These are things we do as part of our
"debt" to society not because we fear getting caught by "The Enforcer".
What on earth are you babbling about? Why even have laws then? Why not just let people do what is right in their own eyes?
What a load of poo.
Originally posted by whodeyI refuted your hackneyed "Laws are only as good as those willing
There is no need for enforcement of laws?
What on earth are you babbling about? Why even have laws then? Why not just let people do what is right in their own eyes?
What a load of poo.
to enforce them" with examples, and then your childish retort is
"What a load of poo". mmmm ... don't know why I bother.
And I never said "There is no need for enforcement of laws" did I?
What's the point of having a law if it is not enforced? An unenforced law is worse than useless because it shows a lack of will for maintaining a peaceful society. The purpose of (good) laws is for maintaining security and safety for everyone.
"My rights end where your nose begins" (and the corollary that says your rights end where my nose begins) is a good governing principle that most people would agree with. But if I don't agree with both sides of this simple principle, and am only concerned about what I want from it, then I deserve to be stopped and/or dissuaded from stepping on the rights of other people. And the same would apply to anyone else who might think their rights supercede mine.
24 Oct 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59Well it is true.
I refuted your hackneyed "Laws are only as good as those willing
to enforce them" with examples, and then your childish retort is
"What a load of poo". mmmm ... don't know why I bother.
And I never said "There is no need for enforcement of laws" did I?
A law that is ignored is worse than one that doesn not even exist, because it sends a message that the powers that be don't give a damn. Take laws in the US regarding illegal aliens, for example. They are completly ignored.
It sends a message that the said "good" laws will be ignored, or that they don't have the will to over turn "bad" laws.
24 Oct 14
Take laws in the US regarding illegal aliens, for example. They are completly ignoredCompletely ignored? Haven't more people been deported in the last 6 years than in the previous 20 years put together? And isn't the number getting in illegally at its lowest level since the end of the Clinton administration? Aren't there more people employed deporting people and preventing people from getting in now than at any time in U.S. history? What do you mean when you say the laws are being "completely ignored"?
24 Oct 14
Originally posted by FMFDon't confuse Whodey with facts.
Completely ignored? Haven't more people been deported in the last 6 years than in the previous 20 years put together? And isn't the number getting in illegally at its lowest level since the end of the Clinton administration? Aren't there more people employed deporting people and preventing people from getting in now than at any time in U.S. history? What do you mean when you say the laws are being "completely ignored"?
24 Oct 14
Originally posted by whodeyI agree; a law that is ignored should be removed from statute.
Well it is true.
A law that is ignored is worse than one that doesn not even exist, because it sends a message that the powers that be don't give a damn. Take laws in the US regarding illegal aliens, for example. They are completly ignored.
It sends a message that the said "good" laws will be ignored, or that they don't have the will to over turn "bad" laws.
But my original statement (that you took exception to) was that
most laws do not need enforcing. They are de facto agreements
between members of society.
I do not rob my neighbours house because the burglary law is
going to be enforced. It is because of mutually accepted laws.
25 Oct 14
Originally posted by FMFNo. More were deported under Bush
Completely ignored? Haven't more people been deported in the last 6 years than in the previous 20 years put together? And isn't the number getting in illegally at its lowest level since the end of the Clinton administration? Aren't there more people employed deporting people and preventing people from getting in now than at any time in U.S. history? What do you mean when you say the laws are being "completely ignored"?
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117412/deportations-under-obama-vs-bush-who-deported-more-immigrants
That aside, neither president was serious about securing the border. If they were, there would not continue to be millions to return back to Mexico. In addition, signing Executive Orders to exclude certain illegal aliens from deportation like Obama has done is simply ignoring the law and writing his own.
The most serious the US has been about deportation was during Eisenhauers Presidency. Just look up "Operation Wetback". They were so harsh on illegals that they began to self deport.
And lastly, suing the state of Arizona for wanting to help deport illegals out of their own state is absurd. This alone tells us the real intent.
25 Oct 14
Originally poster by whodeyWhen you said that the laws were being "completely ignored" were you aware or unaware that you were saying something untrue?
No. More were deported under Bush
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117412/deportations-under-obama-vs-bush-who-deported-more-immigrants
That aside, neither president was serious about securing the border. If they were, there would not continue to be millions to return back to Mexico. In addition, signing Executive Orders to exclude certain illegal ...[text shortened]... to help deport illegals out of their own state is absurd. This alone tells us the real intent.
25 Oct 14
Originally posted by FMFWhen you claimed "completely ignored" was untrue did you mean completely untrue or partially untrue? If you meant completely untrue then that is blatantly false.
The suggestion that US laws pertaining to illegal aliens are being "completely ignored" is blatantly false.
I'm wondering how it is someone like you would know more about this than people living close to the border, and are able to see firsthand whether or not our laws are being effectively 'enforced'. Where are you getting your information?
25 Oct 14
2 edits
Originally posted by lemon limeIn this day and age, most likely from pretty much the same sources as Americans. Whodey did not say anything about the laws being more or less effectively enforced, he made an untrue statement about the laws being "completely ignored".
I'm wondering how it is someone like you would know more about this than people living close to the border, and are able to see firsthand whether or not our laws are being effectively 'enforced'. Where are you getting your information?
25 Oct 14
Originally posted by lemon limeWhodey's contention that the laws in question are being "completely ignored" is demonstrably untrue. Whodey even provided data that demonstrated (inadvertently presumably) that his own claim was untrue.
When you claimed "completely ignored" was untrue did you mean completely untrue or partially untrue? If you meant completely untrue then that is blatantly false.