Well, you forgot to tell us you were changing your premise mid-debate. *Again* But that's ok, I'll excuse your oversight and then you can either give a reasonable answer or it will be proven once and for all that you're incapable of doing so. You said I was breaking Federal law. When asked to back up your accusation, you cite an unrelated California law. How in your wildest fantasy can you try even try to connect California laws to the forfeiture laws imposed on Michigan property owners? I'm not in California so California doesn't have jurisdiction over me, I'm in Michigan as confirmed in my user profile, and in Michigan it can and does happen, they seize cars too.All the time. I had no idea this was just a Michigan thing. I thought drug forfeiture laws were enforced Federally but I could be wrong so I won't go off on yet another tangent to debate this too since it's not at all relevant to a discussion about Mexicans and Muslims. (I didn't get why you brought that into the discussion in the first place, didn't make a bit of sense, but oh well, not much you say does...) Back to the question asked before your lame attempt at evasion: Let me simplify this for you. Forget about houses, they are irrelevant to this discussion/flamewar anyway and I'll tell you why... take a deep breath, close your eyes and think DEA. I assume you understand the purpose of the DEA? Now think INS. Compare these two Federal agencies in your mind, keep in mind their purpose and jurisdiction. Now, recall that you accused me of Aiding Federal Criminals. When challenged to back up your accusations you deny the basic fact that you did indeed make that accusation so I'll refresh your memory. Again. mojo: By your stance on illegal immigration, you endorse breaking the law.. federal law. mojo: I say your aiding federal criminals. mojo: I didn;t say you were breaking the law I said by your stance, you are aiding illegal aliens by providing sympathy to criminals. mojo: Aiding criminals is against the law? wrong, aiding AND abetting is.. Fact: " in law, a person who becomes equally guilty in the crime of another by knowingly and voluntarily aiding the criminal prior to or after the crime." I'm well aware of that, you don't want to offer proofs, you only want to bitch about Mexicans and Muslims. If someone doesn't agree with you, you get nasty and abusive, then when the target of your abuse gives a little back to you, you forget that you started it and cry foul. You are a typical flaming troll. Your bias has been showing throughout this thread. BTW, I don't care one bit if you hate me. In fact given what you've shown us of your character I welcome your hatred. Your style of writing, spelling, grammar, capitalization, and inability to maintain consistency is NOT indicative of an LAPD police officer. Police officers are college graduates. Shame on you for impersonating one of LA's finest, and shame on you for doing it so ignorantly. What if someone reads this trash and believes your claim of being a member of the LAPD? Not only are you showing a terrible bias and hatred of, as you put it, half the population of California, you're doing it using the communication skills of an semi-literate child. If you were really an LAPD officer, you would be proud of that. You would have no problem offering proof. Are you aware that it's a crime to impersonate an officer? If you don't show us here that you are indeed an officer I will contact the LAPD to make them aware of your embarrassing impersonation. If you think you're anonymous on the Internet, think again. Stop acting so immature and go back to school where you belong. Honor your officers and stop trying to make them look like asses.
But Lexiseek, if he's telling the truth and he really is an LAPD police officer there is no crime and he can't possibly be arrested. Or he could admit he's a liar, and apologize. Ball's in his court.
Afraid I'd have to agree. From what I have seen, insults are leveled, until a credible response is made. Then, nothing, or further, baseless insults. In my case, on the WWIII thread, after making the ahistorical claim that and, among other things, naming McKinley and Hoover as Democrat Presidents, he was provided with evidence to disabuse him of his errors. While there earlier, I noted he paid a visit, but at least to now, no response. Personally, I will enter into a dialogue with folks from diametrically opposed viewpoints - provided we discourse honestly, and have the courage to admit when we're wrong. I have no use for the others.