OT: "Papers, please!"

[Alan Baker]

'Passengers on a domestic flight from San Francisco to New York received
an unusual greeting when they landed at JFK Airport Wednesday night: two
Customs and Border Protection agents waiting on the jet bridge to check
IDs as people exited the aircraft.'

<https://news.vice.com/story/ice-manhunt-forces-passengers-to-show-id-to-exit-domestic-flight>

[MNMikeW]

LOL!! The pipsqueak of the north outraged at nothing again.

Funny how you left off why there were showing their IDs. Well, not
really. That is what trolls like you do.

[Moderate]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

You make this sound like a bad thing.

It is a breath of fresh air.
--

[Alan Baker]

What does it matter, Mikey?

If you're in the street, do you believe that police should have the
power to stop you and demand you show your ID with no probable cause?

[Moderate]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

That is not what happened.
--

[Alan Baker]

That is precisely what happened.

[Moderate]

"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> Moderate wrote:
>>
>> You make this sound like a bad thing.
>>
>> It is a breath of fresh air.
>

> You'd say that if you were in an elevator with Trump and he farted.

So you like the smell of farts?

Cheeky bastard.


--

[Moderate]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> On 2017-02-24 9:51 AM, Moderate wrote:
>>>
>>> If you're in the street, do you believe that police should have the
>>> power to stop you and demand you show your ID with no probable cause?
>>>
>>
>> That is not what happened.
>>
>
> That is precisely what happened.
>

That is the opposite of what happened.
--

[Alan Baker]

Nope.

The CBP agents had no probable cause to stop anyone on that plane.

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-02-24 9:30 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>> 'Passengers on a domestic flight from San Francisco to New York received
>>> an unusual greeting when they landed at JFK Airport Wednesday night: two
>>> Customs and Border Protection agents waiting on the jet bridge to check
>>> IDs as people exited the aircraft.'
>>>
>>> <https://news.vice.com/story/ice-manhunt-forces-passengers-to-show-id-to-exit-domestic-flight>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> LOL!! The pipsqueak of the north outraged at nothing again.
>>
>> Funny how you left off why there were showing their IDs. Well, not
>> really. That is what trolls like you do.
>>
>>
>
> What does it matter, Mikey?

LOL!!! Facts never matter to you. It's all about the troll. Fraudulent
little fuck.

>
> If you're in the street, do you believe that police should have the
> power to stop you and demand you show your ID with no probable cause?

They were not in the street now were they little man. There were also
not police. But continue on with your fantasy.

[MNMikeW]

You are a fucking liar.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-02-24 10:03 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2017-02-24 9:30 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> 'Passengers on a domestic flight from San Francisco to New York
>>>> received
>>>> an unusual greeting when they landed at JFK Airport Wednesday night:
>>>> two
>>>> Customs and Border Protection agents waiting on the jet bridge to check
>>>> IDs as people exited the aircraft.'
>>>>
>>>> <https://news.vice.com/story/ice-manhunt-forces-passengers-to-show-id-to-exit-domestic-flight>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> LOL!! The pipsqueak of the north outraged at nothing again.
>>>
>>> Funny how you left off why there were showing their IDs. Well, not
>>> really. That is what trolls like you do.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What does it matter, Mikey?
>
> LOL!!! Facts never matter to you. It's all about the troll. Fraudulent
> little fuck.

Facts matter in their proper context, Mikey.

>>
>> If you're in the street, do you believe that police should have the
>> power to stop you and demand you show your ID with no probable cause?
>
> They were not in the street now were they little man. There were also
> not police. But continue on with your fantasy.

So you lose your civil rights if you take a domestic flight, Mikey: is
that what you want to go with?

[Moderate]

Looking for a fugitive is probable cause.
--

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-02-24 10:03 AM, MNMikeW wrote:

Nope.

A whole bunch of people were preventing from peaceably going about their
business, because the CBP believed their might be one person among them
who was in the country illegally.

Make the plane a building and station the CBP at the front door, and
you're comfortable with them stopping 200 people because one of them
MIGHT be an illegal immigrant, Mikey?

What about permanent checkpoints in the streets, Mikey?

Is there nowhere you'll draw the line?

[michae...@gmail.com]

Did you bother to read the article, Asshole?

It states they were on a manhunt.

But I wouldn't put it past you to hide that fact.

God you're a stoopid piece of shit troll.

"In a statement to VICE News, a spokesperson for the agency said the agents were present because Immigration and Customs and Enforcement (ICE) had asked for help locating an individual “ordered removed by an immigration judge.”

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-02-24 10:08 AM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>> On 2017-02-24 9:54 AM, Moderate wrote:
>>> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>>> On 2017-02-24 9:51 AM, Moderate wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you're in the street, do you believe that police should have the
>>>>>> power to stop you and demand you show your ID with no probable cause?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not what happened.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is precisely what happened.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is the opposite of what happened.
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> The CBP agents had no probable cause to stop anyone on that plane.
>>
>
> Looking for a fugitive is probable cause.
>

So the police can stop everyone exiting a skyscraper at the end of the
workday... ...to search for one fugitive?

Presumably, they know at least something about this alleged
fugitive--one would presume at least the sex...

...so why were they stopping men and women?

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-02-24 10:14 AM, michae...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 12:19:33 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
>> 'Passengers on a domestic flight from San Francisco to New York
>> received an unusual greeting when they landed at JFK Airport
>> Wednesday night: two Customs and Border Protection agents waiting
>> on the jet bridge to check IDs as people exited the aircraft.'
>>
>> <https://news.vice.com/story/ice-manhunt-forces-passengers-to-show-id-to-exit-domestic-flight>
>
>>
> Did you bother to read the article, Asshole?
>
> It states they were on a manhunt.

Yup. And?

If police are on a manhunt, can they stop and demand the ID of everyone
exiting a building; of both sexes?

>
> But I wouldn't put it past you to hide that fact.
>
> God you're a stoopid piece of shit troll.
>
> "In a statement to VICE News, a spokesperson for the agency said the
> agents were present because Immigration and Customs and Enforcement
> (ICE) had asked for help locating an individual “ordered removed by
> an immigration judge.”
>

So in addition to the sex of this individual, they must have known quite
a bit more, do you agree?

So how is it reasonable to stop everyone, regardless of whether there is
any possibility of them being this individual?

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:53:58 -0600 (CST), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
wrote:

So you couldn't think of a response! The dumbest thing you could have
said.

>
>Cheeky bastard.

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:

> Yup. And?
>
> If police are on a manhunt, can they stop and demand the ID of everyone
> exiting a building; of both sexes?
>
>>
>> But I wouldn't put it past you to hide that fact.
>>
>> God you're a stoopid piece of shit troll.
>>
>> "In a statement to VICE News, a spokesperson for the agency said the
>> agents were present because Immigration and Customs and Enforcement
>> (ICE) had asked for help locating an individual “ordered removed by
>> an immigration judge.”
>>
>
> So in addition to the sex of this individual, they must have known quite
> a bit more, do you agree?
>
> So how is it reasonable to stop everyone, regardless of whether there is
> any possibility of them being this individual?

Good thing you are a part-time Ipad repair man and not in law enforcement.

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-02-24 10:03 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2017-02-24 9:51 AM, Moderate wrote:
>>>> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>>>> On 2017-02-24 9:30 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!! The pipsqueak of the north outraged at nothing again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Funny how you left off why there were showing their IDs. Well, not
>>>>>> really. That is what trolls like you do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What does it matter, Mikey?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're in the street, do you believe that police should have the
>>>>> power to stop you and demand you show your ID with no probable cause?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is not what happened.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is precisely what happened.
>>
>> You are a fucking liar.
>
> Nope.
>
> A whole bunch of people were preventing from peaceably going about their
> business, because the CBP believed their might be one person among them
> who was in the country illegally.

Hey dipshit. Did they have to show that same ID when getting ON the plane?

>
> Make the plane a building and station the CBP at the front door, and
> you're comfortable with them stopping 200 people because one of them
> MIGHT be an illegal immigrant, Mikey?
>
> What about permanent checkpoints in the streets, Mikey?
>
> Is there nowhere you'll draw the line?

LOL! Rich fantasy life you have. Too bad it's your only life.

[Alan Baker]

So you've completely dodged addressing my questions...

...but then you usually do that.

:-)

[MNMikeW]

Alan the trollmaster Baker wrote:

>>>> LOL!! The pipsqueak of the north outraged at nothing again.
>>>>
>>>> Funny how you left off why there were showing their IDs. Well, not
>>>> really. That is what trolls like you do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> What does it matter, Mikey?
>>
>> LOL!!! Facts never matter to you. It's all about the troll. Fraudulent
>> little fuck.
>
> Facts matter in their proper context, Mikey.

Which you conveniently left off in this case. Standard Baker operating
procedures.

>
>>>
>>> If you're in the street, do you believe that police should have the
>>> power to stop you and demand you show your ID with no probable cause?
>>
>> They were not in the street now were they little man. There were also
>> not police. But continue on with your fantasy.
>
> So you lose your civil rights if you take a domestic flight, Mikey: is
> that what you want to go with?
>

Showing an ID is hardly losing civil rights. Perhaps to stupid,
pansy-assed, Canadians.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-02-24 10:24 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2017-02-24 10:03 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2017-02-24 9:51 AM, Moderate wrote:
>>>>> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>>>>> On 2017-02-24 9:30 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL!! The pipsqueak of the north outraged at nothing again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Funny how you left off why there were showing their IDs. Well, not
>>>>>>> really. That is what trolls like you do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does it matter, Mikey?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you're in the street, do you believe that police should have the
>>>>>> power to stop you and demand you show your ID with no probable cause?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not what happened.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is precisely what happened.
>>>
>>> You are a fucking liar.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> A whole bunch of people were preventing from peaceably going about their
>> business, because the CBP believed their might be one person among them
>> who was in the country illegally.
>
> Hey dipshit. Did they have to show that same ID when getting ON the plane?

No. You don't actually have to show ID to board a flight.

Pity I know your laws better than you do, isn't it?

>>
>> Make the plane a building and station the CBP at the front door, and
>> you're comfortable with them stopping 200 people because one of them
>> MIGHT be an illegal immigrant, Mikey?
>>
>> What about permanent checkpoints in the streets, Mikey?
>>
>> Is there nowhere you'll draw the line?
>
> LOL! Rich fantasy life you have. Too bad it's your only life.

Your evasion noted.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-02-24 10:26 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
> Alan the trollmaster Baker wrote:
>
>>>>> LOL!! The pipsqueak of the north outraged at nothing again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny how you left off why there were showing their IDs. Well, not
>>>>> really. That is what trolls like you do.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What does it matter, Mikey?
>>>
>>> LOL!!! Facts never matter to you. It's all about the troll. Fraudulent
>>> little fuck.
>>
>> Facts matter in their proper context, Mikey.
>
> Which you conveniently left off in this case. Standard Baker operating
> procedures.

The fact of a search for an illegal immigrant doesn't matter in the
context of stopping people and demanding ID without probable cause.

>>
>>>>
>>>> If you're in the street, do you believe that police should have the
>>>> power to stop you and demand you show your ID with no probable cause?
>>>
>>> They were not in the street now were they little man. There were also
>>> not police. But continue on with your fantasy.
>>
>> So you lose your civil rights if you take a domestic flight, Mikey: is
>> that what you want to go with?
>>
>
> Showing an ID is hardly losing civil rights. Perhaps to stupid,
> pansy-assed, Canadians.

So then you'll be fine if they set up checkpoints in the street that do
the same thing, Mikey?

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:

>
> So you've completely dodged addressing my questions...
>

Come up with questions that aren't idiotic and you might have better luck.

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:

>
> So then you'll be fine if they set up checkpoints in the street that do
> the same thing, Mikey?
>

There goes that fantasy life again.

[Alan Baker]

Asking why they couldn't limit their inquiries to people who could
possibly BE the person they were looking for is "idiotic", Mikey?

[Alan Baker]

Nope.

You're suggesting that being asked for ID isn't really a violation of
your civil rights...


...so why not in the streets?

[Moderate]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

Your argument falls flat so you gin up a completely different scenario.

Such a liar.
--

[Moderate]

MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> Wrote in message:

It is like he has never flown commercial. He is lying.
--

[Moderate]

Bob...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

It didn't really it deserve a response. I thought I would give it
all the seriousness it deserved.
>
>>
>>Cheeky bastard.
>


--

[Alan Baker]

No. The scenario is the same: ordinary citizens going about their
ordinary business.

>
> Such a liar.
>

[Alan Baker]

Oh, doofus: it is so sad that I know more about your country and its
laws than you and Mikey do...

'TSA Travel Tips Tuesday – Can You Fly Without an ID?

Did the gnome that steals your socks and car keys run off with your ID?
Did your license expire and you don’t have time to renew it before you
travel? Did you lose your wallet? Did you simply forget your ID at home?
While it is much easier to go through screening with the proper
identification, you’re not going to cause a snafu if you don’t have it.'

<http://blog.tsa.gov/2013/04/tsa-travel-tips-tuesday-can-you-fly.html>

'Seriously though… You’ll be able to fly as long as you provide us with
some information that will help us determine you are who you say you are.

If you’re willing to provide some additional information, we have other
means of substantiating your identity, such as using publicly available
databases. If we can confirm your identity, you’ll be cleared to go
through security, and you may or may not have to go through some
additional screening.

If we can’t confirm your identity with the information you provide or
you’re not willing to provide us with the information to help us make a
determination, you may not be able to fly. Regardless, if you do not
have ID, please allow extra time for check in. We would not want you to
miss you flight.'

[MNMikeW]

Gee, wonder why he skipped this.

Adult passengers 18 and over must show valid identification at the
airport checkpoint in order to travel

[Moderate]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> On 2017-02-24 11:43 AM, Moderate wrote:
>>
>> It is like he has never flown commercial. He is lying.
>>
>
> Oh, doofus: it is so sad that I know more about your country and its
> laws than you and Mikey do...
>

You know less. Much less.

Not sure why you cited TSA travel tips. I guess think that is law.

You don't know what constitutes a misdemeanor.


--

[Moderate]

MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> Wrote in message:
>

> Gee, wonder why he skipped this.
>
> Adult passengers 18 and over must show valid identification at the
> airport checkpoint in order to travel

It did not fit the fantasy scenario he is trying to create.
--

[Alan Baker]

Hmmm...

Perhaps because that text appears nowhere in what I posted?

Perhaps you don't like the previous, because it's from the TSA's blog,
Mikey? How about this then:

'Forgot Your ID?
In the event you arrive at the airport without valid identification,
because it is lost or at home, you may still be allowed to fly. The TSA
officer may ask you to complete a form to include your name and current
address, and may ask additional questions to confirm your identity. If
your identity is confirmed, you will be allowed to enter the screening
checkpoint. You may be subject to additional screening.

You will not be allowed to fly if your identity cannot be confirmed, you
chose to not provide proper identification or you decline to cooperate
with the identity verification process.'

<https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification>

So... ...your source was what?

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-02-24 12:33 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>> On 2017-02-24 11:43 AM, Moderate wrote:
>>>
>>> It is like he has never flown commercial. He is lying.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, doofus: it is so sad that I know more about your country and its
>> laws than you and Mikey do...
>>
>
> You know less. Much less.
>
> Not sure why you cited TSA travel tips. I guess think that is law.

You "guess think", do you?

[Alan Baker]

[MNMikeW]

Alan the lying fuck Baker wrote:


>>
>> Gee, wonder why he skipped this.
>>
>> Adult passengers 18 and over must show valid identification at the
>> airport checkpoint in order to travel
>>
>>
>
> Hmmm...
>
> Perhaps because that text appears nowhere in what I posted?

You are either blind or a liar. I'm going with liar.

>
> Perhaps you don't like the previous, because it's from the TSA's blog,
> Mikey? How about this then:
>
> 'Forgot Your ID?
> In the event you arrive at the airport without valid identification,
> because it is lost or at home, you may still be allowed to fly. The TSA
> officer may ask you to complete a form to include your name and current
> address, and may ask additional questions to confirm your identity. If
> your identity is confirmed, you will be allowed to enter the screening
> checkpoint. You may be subject to additional screening.
>
> You will not be allowed to fly if your identity cannot be confirmed, you
> chose to not provide proper identification or you decline to cooperate
> with the identity verification process.'
>
> <https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification>
>
> So... ...your source was what?

https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification

[Alan Baker]

So you call me a liar...

...and then prove that the source I provided was not the source of your
quote...

...and you ignore this at the bottom of the source you have now provided:

[MNMikeW]

LOL! If you look above, your link is identical to my link, LOL!

>
> ...and you ignore this at the bottom of the source you have now provided:
>
> 'Forgot Your ID?
>
> In the event you arrive at the airport without valid identification,
> because it is lost or at home, you may still be allowed to fly. The TSA
> officer may ask you to complete a form to include your name and current
> address, and may ask additional questions to confirm your identity. If
> your identity is confirmed, you will be allowed to enter the screening
> checkpoint. You may be subject to additional screening.
>
> You will not be allowed to fly if your identity cannot be confirmed, you
> chose to not provide proper identification or you decline to cooperate
> with the identity verification process.'

And you continue to ignore this liarboy.

Adult passengers 18 and over must show valid identification at the

airport checkpoint in order to travel.

[Alan Baker]

Can you not read what is also on that page, Mikey?

Are the words too difficult?

'Forgot Your ID?

In the event you arrive at the airport without valid identification,
because it is lost or at home, you may still be allowed to fly. The TSA
officer may ask you to complete a form to include your name and current
address, and may ask additional questions to confirm your identity. If
your identity is confirmed, you will be allowed to enter the screening
checkpoint. You may be subject to additional screening.

You will not be allowed to fly if your identity cannot be confirmed, you
chose to not provide proper identification or you decline to cooperate
with the identity verification process.'

Are you just going to deny what is said on the very same page you cite
as authoritative.

[MNMikeW]

You seem to STILL be denying this

Adult passengers 18 and over must show valid identification at the
airport checkpoint in order to travel.

Are the words too difficult? LOL!!

[Alan Baker]

I'm not denying it.

This started with you attempting to claim that there was no way anyone
could be on a domestic flight without ID...

...and I have shown you clearly that the TSA does allow people to fly
without ID.

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:

>>
>> You seem to STILL be denying this
>>
>> Adult passengers 18 and over must show valid identification at the
>> airport checkpoint in order to travel.
>>
>> Are the words too difficult? LOL!!
>>
>>
>
> I'm not denying it.
>
> This started with you attempting to claim that there was no way anyone
> could be on a domestic flight without ID...
>
> ...and I have shown you clearly that the TSA does allow people to fly
> without ID.

More lies.

[Alan Baker]

Nope.

Shall I quote you, or would you just rather go full Trump?

[Moderate]

MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> Wrote in message:
>

> You seem to STILL be denying this
>
> Adult passengers 18 and over must show valid identification at the
> airport checkpoint in order to travel.
>
> Are the words too difficult? LOL!!
>

His entire premise is a lie.


--

[Moderate]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>

> Shall I quote you, or would you just rather go full Trump?
>

You should quote him.
--

[Alan Baker]

Yes or no question...

...if that's not beyond you:

Can you travel on a domestic commercial flight without having to produce ID?

[Alan Baker]

If he asks, I will.

:-)

[Bob...@onramp.net]

What a worthless, repetitive thread.

[Dene]

Bob...@onramp.net

What a worthless, repetitive thread.

Yep...but it's fun to watch the troll get caught in another lie.

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:08:11 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

>Bob...@onramp.net
>What a worthless, repetitive thread.
>
>Yep...but it's fun to watch the troll get caught in another lie.

I didn't see any lies, but a lot of mistaken thoughts.

[David Laville]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:55:25 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:

>Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>
>> So then you'll be fine if they set up checkpoints in the street that do
>> the same thing, Mikey?
>>
>There goes that fantasy life again.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e

Looks like Canada already has an ID law. Have you ever heard him cry
his civil rights were being violated?

[David Laville]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:26:35 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:

>> So you lose your civil rights if you take a domestic flight, Mikey: is
>> that what you want to go with?
>>
>
>Showing an ID is hardly losing civil rights. Perhaps to stupid,
>pansy-assed, Canadians.

The stupid is strong with that one.

[David Laville]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:51:58 -0600 (CST), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
wrote:

>> If you're in the street, do you believe that police should have the
>> power to stop you and demand you show your ID with no probable cause?
>>
>
>That is not what happened.

They did have probable cause but it doesn't fit the idiot's agenda.

Funny how you never heard him once complain about having to show an ID
to get ON a plane for the past eight years. Was he not concerned with
probable cause or civil rights?

[David Laville]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:30:47 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:

>Alan Baker wrote:

>> 'Passengers on a domestic flight from San Francisco to New York received
>> an unusual greeting when they landed at JFK Airport Wednesday night: two
>> Customs and Border Protection agents waiting on the jet bridge to check
>> IDs as people exited the aircraft.'
>>
>> <https://news.vice.com/story/ice-manhunt-forces-passengers-to-show-id-to-exit-domestic-flight>
>>
>LOL!! The pipsqueak of the north outraged at nothing again.
>
>Funny how you left off why there were showing their IDs. Well, not
>really. That is what trolls like you do.

You mean he was doing his own version of fake news?

[MNMikeW]

Remember. He's only here to be an argumentative asshole. He's admitted it.

[Alan Baker]

Wow.

You didn't bother reading more than the top line, did you:

'Show two pieces of ID

At least one must have your current address'

And then they listed what was acceptable (and I've underscored a few
that aren't exactly "ID" as you're trying to describe it):

'health card

Canadian passport

birth certificate

certificate of Canadian citizenship

citizenship card

social insurance number card

Indian status card

band membership card

Métis card

card issued by an Inuit local authority

Canadian Forces identity card

Veterans Affairs health card

old age security card

hospital card

medical clinic card

label on a prescription container
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

identity bracelet issued by a hospital or long-term care facility
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

blood donor card

CNIB card

credit card

debit card

employee card

student identity card

public transportation card

library card

liquor identity card

parolee card

firearms licence

licence or card issued for fishing, trapping or hunting

utility bill (e.g. electricity; water; telecommunications services
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
including telephone, cable or satellite)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

bank statement
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

credit union statement
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

credit card statement
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

personal cheque
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

government statement of benefits
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

government cheque or cheque stub
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

pension plan statement
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

residential lease or sub-lease
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

mortgage contract or statement
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

income tax assessment
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

property tax assessment or evaluation
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

vehicle ownership
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

insurance certificate, policy or statement
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

correspondence issued by a school, college or university
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

letter from a public curator, public guardian or public trustee
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

targeted revision form from Elections Canada to residents of long-term
care facilities

letter of confirmation of residence from a First Nations band or reserve
or an Inuit local authority

letter of confirmation of residence, letter of stay, admission form or
statement of benefits from one of the following designated establishments:
student residence
seniors' residence
long-term care facility
shelter
soup kitchen

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-02-28 2:01 PM, David Laville wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:51:58 -0600 (CST), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> If you're in the street, do you believe that police should have the
>>> power to stop you and demand you show your ID with no probable cause?
>>>
>>
>> That is not what happened.
>
> They did have probable cause but it doesn't fit the idiot's agenda.

No.

If they were looking for a man (or woman), then how did they have
probable cause to ask for ID from women (or men)?

>
> Funny how you never heard him once complain about having to show an ID
> to get ON a plane for the past eight years. Was he not concerned with
> probable cause or civil rights?

You don't have to show ID to get on a plane.

>
>
>
>

[Dene]

Mikey....DL has Baker plonked.

I have IT plonked too, in that I have promised myself to never respond to anything IT says again until IT admits his lies and renounces trolling.

That leaves only Moderate and you to argue with IT. If both of you were to cease and desist, IT would have nobody to argue with and would perhaps go away for good.

Interested...??? Trust me...it's amusing both to ignore him and watch him vainly try to get a reaction.

-Greg

[MNMikeW]

Dene wrote:

>>>
>> Remember. He's only here to be an argumentative asshole. He's
>> admitted it.
>
> Mikey....DL has Baker plonked.
>
> I have IT plonked too, in that I have promised myself to never
> respond to anything IT says again until IT admits his lies and
> renounces trolling.
>
> That leaves only Moderate and you to argue with IT. If both of you
> were to cease and desist, IT would have nobody to argue with and
> would perhaps go away for good.
>
> Interested...??? Trust me...it's amusing both to ignore him and
> watch him vainly try to get a reaction.
>
> -Greg

I ignore most of his BS. Go away for good? You are delusional. TROLL TO
LIVE. LIVE TO TROLL.

[Dene]

I ignore most of his BS. Go away for good? You are delusional. TROLL TO
LIVE. LIVE TO TROLL.

I agree. You don't feed him…mostly ridicule, as do I.

For some strange reason, he lives to troll. I'm just hoping he takes his act somewhere else. It took quite a while before RSG figured him out. Surely there are other forums or he can play his silly ass games,

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 4:43:12 PM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 3:03:41 PM UTC-8, MNMikeW wrote:
> > David Laville wrote:
> > > On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:55:25 -0600, MNMikeW<mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Alan Baker wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> So then you'll be fine if they set up checkpoints in the street that do
> > >>> the same thing, Mikey?
> > >>>
> > >> There goes that fantasy life again.
> > >
> > > http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e
> > >
> > > Looks like Canada already has an ID law. Have you ever heard him cry
> > > his civil rights were being violated?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Remember. He's only here to be an argumentative asshole. He's admitted it.
>
> Mikey....DL has Baker plonked.

Laville is the most fragile of hypocrite snowflakes on RSG; it only took
a few posts to discredit him back in February and he ran away from me too.


BTW Greg - - I'm still waiting to hear anyone dare to answer my
"So Whose Ox Gets Gored?" on the healthcare question.


In other news, the snow's still MIA in the Northeast and there have
been multiple warm days. Snowdrops & crocuses are blooming early,
and business at the driving ranges is picking up. A few colleagues
have even hit the links for an early season round as we've also
not gotten a lot of "make mud" rains to make things too soft.
Some have blamed global warming .. and sure, that's a factor, but
IMO that's being stacked with it also being a La Nina cyclic year,
which is known to have a locally warm-biased statistical variance
(El Nino years are similarly known to trend cooler).


-hh

[MNMikeW]

His M.O. is the same in every group he infests.

[Carbon]

Alan can spell. He can form coherent sentences. He uses cites. He's civil.
So he's better than you in all those ways.

In what way is he worse than you? Just one will suffice.

[Dene]

- hide quoted text -

------------

Good grief Carbs. How you rationally draw any comparison?

Does Mike lie?
Does Mike troll?
Does Mike have stalkers?
Does Mike stalk?
Does Mike frequent other NG's for purpose of causing arguments?

You appreciate Alan at times because of one reason. His politics agree with your politics. Regardless..his methods are far distinct from your's and Mike's, John's, BK's, any other respected person in here. Don't insult my intelligence and proclaim otherwise.

[Dene]

Laville is the most fragile of hypocrite snowflakes on RSG; it only took
a few posts to discredit him back in February and he ran away from me too.


BTW Greg - - I'm still waiting to hear anyone dare to answer my
"So Whose Ox Gets Gored?" on the healthcare question.


In other news, the snow's still MIA in the Northeast and there have
been multiple warm days. Snowdrops & crocuses are blooming early,
and business at the driving ranges is picking up. A few colleagues
have even hit the links for an early season round as we've also
not gotten a lot of "make mud" rains to make things too soft.
Some have blamed global warming .. and sure, that's a factor, but
IMO that's being stacked with it also being a La Nina cyclic year,
which is known to have a locally warm-biased statistical variance
(El Nino years are similarly known to trend cooler).

DL does not suffer fools.
I don't suffer blowhards.
Occasionally you have a 1 to 2 paragraph post. If it's is succinct and legible, I'll read it.
If a reply is buried in a bunch of blather, I will ignore it.
That's probably what happened to the ox question.

-Greg

[Carbon]

On 03/01/2017 08:40 PM, Dene wrote:
>> On 03/01/2017 06:32 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
>>> Dene wrote:
>>>
>>>> I ignore most of his BS. Go away for good? You are delusional. TROLL
>>>> TO LIVE. LIVE TO TROLL.
>>>>
>>>> I agree. You don't feed him…mostly ridicule, as do I.
>>>>
>>>> For some strange reason, he lives to troll. I'm just hoping he takes
>>>> his act somewhere else. It took quite a while before RSG figured him
>>>> out. Surely there are other forums or he can play his silly ass
>>>> games,
>>>
>>> His M.O. is the same in every group he infests.
>>
>> Alan can spell. He can form coherent sentences. He uses cites. He's
>> civil. So he's better than you in all those ways.
>>
>> In what way is he worse than you? Just one will suffice.
>

> Good grief Carbs. How you rationally draw any comparison?

I'm completely serious.

> Does Mike lie? Does Mike troll? Does Mike have stalkers? Does Mike
> stalk? Does Mike frequent other NG's for purpose of causing arguments?
>
> You appreciate Alan at times because of one reason. His politics agree
> with your politics. Regardless..his methods are far distinct from your's
> and Mike's, John's, BK's, any other respected person in here. Don't
> insult my intelligence and proclaim otherwise.

Let's be honest here: we're all middle-aged men who like to bicker about
politics. Everyone already knows where everyone else stands, and we all
know that no one is going to change. The entire game, it seems to me, is
scoring points.

You can insult Alan and HH for being liberals or whatever, but the fact is
they're just better at bickering. So of course Mike, with his butchered
English and his malformed arguments, routinely gets ripped to pieces.

For those keeping score at home, if you're been reduced to hurling feces,
as Mike so often does, you're losing.

You'll notice I haven't said anything about ideology. I haven't done so
because it's irrelevant.

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:49:40 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com> wrote:

>
>
>Laville is the most fragile of hypocrite snowflakes on RSG; it only took
>a few posts to discredit him back in February and he ran away from me too.
>
>BTW Greg - - I'm still waiting to hear anyone dare to answer my
>"So Whose Ox Gets Gored?" on the healthcare question.
>

<clip>

>DL does not suffer fools.

he just throws out the fool's cliches.

[Dene]

Let's be honest here: we're all middle-aged men who like to bicker about
politics. Everyone already knows where everyone else stands, and we all
know that no one is going to change. The entire game, it seems to me, is
scoring points.

You can insult Alan and HH for being liberals or whatever, but the fact is
they're just better at bickering. So of course Mike, with his butchered
English and his malformed arguments, routinely gets ripped to pieces.

For those keeping score at home, if you're been reduced to hurling feces,
as Mike so often does, you're losing.

You'll notice I haven't said anything about ideology. I haven't done so
because it's irrelevant.

I'm talking about MO. Look at Bakers OT posts and then ask yourself, is he really asserting his view or are they serving as a catalyst for a desired argument? Bakers doesn't say anything that represents his own POV.. He simply nitpicks what other people assert, for the sole purpose of perpetuating an argument. It is never an honest discussion, like you and I are having right now. (By the way, I pay attention to what you say, specially when you don't Trump bash).

In essence, he is a quintessential troll and that's what trolls do.

Don't get me started about his bold face lies.

As for HH, it's a matter of writing style, which I don't have the patience for. I don't think there's any spite and deviance with him. He doesn't compare to Baker. Nobody does.

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

So then Greg ... in order for the public to have lower healthcare costs, someone
ultimately has to get paid less. Hence, "So whose ox gets gored?".

Will it be the hands-on service providers? (MDs & Hospitals)
Or will it be Pharma?
Or will it be the claims paperwork managers?


-hh

[Dene]

Don't know. You tell me.

What I do know is that health insurance premiums are driven by the fact that young immortals remain uninsured or on public insurance, leaving private insurers to insure Boomers....who are falling apart.

[Carbon]

On 03/01/2017 09:44 PM, Dene wrote:
>
>> Let's be honest here: we're all middle-aged men who like to bicker
>> about politics. Everyone already knows where everyone else stands, and
>> we all know that no one is going to change. The entire game, it seems
>> to me, is scoring points.
>>
>> You can insult Alan and HH for being liberals or whatever, but the fact
>> is they're just better at bickering. So of course Mike, with his
>> butchered English and his malformed arguments, routinely gets ripped to
>> pieces.
>>
>> For those keeping score at home, if you're been reduced to hurling
>> feces, as Mike so often does, you're losing.
>>
>> You'll notice I haven't said anything about ideology. I haven't done so
>> because it's irrelevant.
>
> I'm talking about MO. Look at Bakers OT posts and then ask yourself, is
> he really asserting his view or are they serving as a catalyst for a
> desired argument? Bakers doesn't say anything that represents his own
> POV.. He simply nitpicks what other people assert, for the sole purpose
> of perpetuating an argument. It is never an honest discussion, like you
> and I are having right now. (By the way, I pay attention to what you
> say, specially when you don't Trump bash).
>
> In essence, he is a quintessential troll and that's what trolls do.

Yes, Alan likes to bicker. But then, so do the rest of us. I can't speak
for him, but imo he posts factual cites that contradict some cherished yet
unprovable belief held by some of the regulars here. Yes, for the purpose
of starting arguments. Is it his fault if they rise to the bait and do
such a terrible job of defending themselves?

For that matter, is that really so different than your sudden conversion
to Trumpean neo-Fascism? A lot of the threads you participate in are
really getting some action, hmmm? ;-)

FWIW I've also felt like Alan has pushed things too far in the past. At
that point, I just stop arguing and the thread dies a natural death. It
works every time.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-03-01 5:40 PM, Dene wrote:
> - hide quoted text -
> On 03/01/2017 06:32 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
>> Dene wrote:
>>
>>> I ignore most of his BS. Go away for good? You are delusional. TROLL TO
>>> LIVE. LIVE TO TROLL.
>>>
>>> I agree. You don't feed him…mostly ridicule, as do I.
>>>
>>> For some strange reason, he lives to troll. I'm just hoping he takes
>>> his act somewhere else. It took quite a while before RSG figured him
>>> out. Surely there are other forums or he can play his silly ass games,
>>
>> His M.O. is the same in every group he infests.
>
> Alan can spell. He can form coherent sentences. He uses cites. He's civil.
> So he's better than you in all those ways.
>
> In what way is he worse than you? Just one will suffice.
>
> ------------
>
> Good grief Carbs. How you rationally draw any comparison?
>
> Does Mike lie?

About me... ...yes.

> Does Mike troll?

Yup.

> Does Mike have stalkers?

How is that germaine?

> Does Mike stalk?

How could he know?

[Alan Baker]

You're a coward.

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

Well, his latest response to the "Whose Ox?" was first:

"Don't know. You tell me."

... which is clearly a cop-out.

Especially since Greg is allegedly in this line of business, so if he
doesn't know what's been going on for years in his own industry...

...particularly since it is also trivial to look at just whose stocks
have soared in the market since the Election: "Follow the Money".


And then:

"What I do know is that health insurance premiums are driven
by the fact that young immortals remain uninsured or on public
insurance, leaving private insurers to insure Boomers....who are
falling apart."

Again, knowing his own industry - yes, there's a Boomers bubble
in the population, but does this claim really track to the data?

For example, the YoY healthcare insurance costs have been growing
at rates higher than inflation for 25+ years ... i.e., back through the
days when the Boomers were still young & immortal ...


In any event, another elephant in the room can be seen on literally any
contemporary medical bill. Take this one of mine which I got in the mail
literally yesterday for a simple Vitamin D labwork test:

Type of Service: Diagnostic Pathology
Submitted Charges: $298.00
Plan Allowance: $33.88
What [Insurance] Paid: $33.88
What Customer Owes: $0

In plain English, a simple test has a claimed "Retail Value" of ~$300,
but they accepted payment of ~$34 .. that's a ~90% discount.

Now this sort of price structure is purposefully exclusionary against
anyone who doesn't have a "Mafia Membership Card", and is very
obviously part of the larger problems. It is coercive, which has the
effect of dissuading people from self-insuring and IMO probably
nothing less than an illegal oligopoly.


-hh

[MNMikeW]

Carbon wrote:

>>
>> Good grief Carbs. How you rationally draw any comparison?
>
> I'm completely serious.
>
>> Does Mike lie? Does Mike troll? Does Mike have stalkers? Does Mike
>> stalk? Does Mike frequent other NG's for purpose of causing arguments?
>>
>> You appreciate Alan at times because of one reason. His politics agree
>> with your politics. Regardless..his methods are far distinct from your's
>> and Mike's, John's, BK's, any other respected person in here. Don't
>> insult my intelligence and proclaim otherwise.
>
> Let's be honest here: we're all middle-aged men who like to bicker about
> politics. Everyone already knows where everyone else stands, and we all
> know that no one is going to change. The entire game, it seems to me, is
> scoring points.
>
> You can insult Alan and HH for being liberals or whatever, but the fact is
> they're just better at bickering. So of course Mike, with his butchered
> English and his malformed arguments, routinely gets ripped to pieces.

Ripped? BWHAHAHHA! Not from you pussies.

[Dene]

Further proof you are a pompous prick. Get this through your thick head. I shop and set up insurance plans. I do not handle claims. The example you cite below is a claims issue, of which I'm not part of, nor ever will be.

Buh Bye Blowhard.

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 11:16:26 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:

I'm sorry you think so, but I was trying to avoid being blunt
and noting that the possibilities are limited to you either
being utterly incompetent in your profession or a flat out liar.

> Get this through your thick head. I shop and set up insurance
> plans. I do not handle claims.

So what? What you do is still *a* part of the industry.

> The example you cite below is a claims issue, of which I'm
> not part of, nor ever will be.

Bullshit, because the _cost_ of insurance claims is directly
dependent on all three of the legs of the stool I detailed.


> Buh Bye Blowhard.

Unfortunately for you, your personal shortcomings do not
change if you try to run away & hide from them.


-hh

[MNMikeW]

recscub...@cuntzinger.com wrote:

>>
>> Further proof you are a pompous prick.
>
> I'm sorry you think so, but I was trying to avoid being blunt
> and noting that the possibilities are limited to you either
> being utterly incompetent in your profession or a flat out liar.

It isn't just him that thinks so, asswipe. So, you must be in the
industry then yourself right? Or are you just running your mouth to be
heard as usual.

[Alan Baker]

He's doing what you and your ilk apparently cannot, Mikey:

He's applying logic and rational thought to the question.

[MNMikeW]

LOL!!!!!!

[Carbon]

On 03/02/2017 09:56 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
> Carbon wrote:
>>
>>> Good grief Carbs. How you rationally draw any comparison?
>>
>> I'm completely serious.
>>
>>> Does Mike lie? Does Mike troll? Does Mike have stalkers? Does Mike
>>> stalk? Does Mike frequent other NG's for purpose of causing arguments?
>>>
>>> You appreciate Alan at times because of one reason. His politics agree
>>> with your politics. Regardless..his methods are far distinct from
>>> your's and Mike's, John's, BK's, any other respected person in here.
>>> Don't insult my intelligence and proclaim otherwise.
>>
>> Let's be honest here: we're all middle-aged men who like to bicker
>> about politics. Everyone already knows where everyone else stands, and
>> we all know that no one is going to change. The entire game, it seems
>> to me, is scoring points.
>>
>> You can insult Alan and HH for being liberals or whatever, but the fact
>> is they're just better at bickering. So of course Mike, with his
>> butchered English and his malformed arguments, routinely gets ripped to
>> pieces.
>
> Ripped? BWHAHAHHA! Not from you pussies.

Well! You sure put me in my place! Truly, I am no match for your incisive
wit.

[Dene]

- show quoted text -
LOL!!!!!!

Butt buddies...both of them.
Neither of them are worth anybody's time.

[Alan Baker]

Seriously: do you still have acne?

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

> Seriously: do you have acne?

Unfortunately, it's YA example of egotistical insecurity: he lacks the maturity and
self-confidence to objectively reassess and admit that they're wrong, and personal
insecurity makes him cave in to the "feed ones own ego" temptation of childish name calling.

Same thing was on a recent edit on my domain name, maliciously changing the
"h" to a "c" so that it became a cuss word: YA self-nuke.

In both cases, they were unable to counter the logical argument, but are not mature
enough to admit that they had lost...and their personal insecurity makes them lash out.


-hh

[MNMikeW]

Carbon wrote:

>>>
>>> You can insult Alan and HH for being liberals or whatever, but the fact
>>> is they're just better at bickering. So of course Mike, with his
>>> butchered English and his malformed arguments, routinely gets ripped to
>>> pieces.
>>
>> Ripped? BWHAHAHHA! Not from you pussies.
>
> Well! You sure put me in my place! Truly, I am no match for your incisive
> wit.
>

Admitting it is the first step to recovery. ;-)

[MNMikeW]

Total lack of self-awareness.

[MNMikeW]

recscub...@huntzinger.com wrote:

>
> In both cases, they were unable to counter the logical argument, but are not mature
> enough to admit that they had lost...and their personal insecurity makes them lash out.
>
>
> -hh

You're a disciple of the Alan Baker school of debate. You don't know how
to make a logical argument. All blather and bullshit.

[Alan Baker]

LOL!

[Dene]

BINGO!!

[Alan Baker]

How could you possibly know, Greg?

You've admitted you can't be bothered reading what HH writes...

...so how can you know whether he forms logical arguments or not?