New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters-cyclists-nyc.html?unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters-cyclists-nyc.html?unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share
This is a direct attack on immigrant workers, Ms. Guallpa said. The intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where our communities could be targets for deportation.
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters-cyclists-nyc.html?unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters-cyclists-nyc.html?unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share
?This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,? Ms. Guallpa said. ?The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where our
communities could be targets for deportation.?
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I guess is the argument that it�s disproportionate? Sounds from the article >(though could be incorrect) that traffic volitions are linked to the
driving License more in the US?
In uk it�s not so all forms are broadly under same regulations, are clearly >exemptions such as speed limits which where introduced for motor vehicles >only.
Aka the law is limited rather than broad in scope.
Roger Merriman
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters-cyclists-nyc.html?unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share
“This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,” Ms. Guallpa said. “The intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where our communities could be targets for deportation.”
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 26 May 2025 10:14:13 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters-cyclists-nyc.html?unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share
?This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,? Ms. Guallpa said. ?The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where our
communities could be targets for deportation.?
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I guess is the argument that it’s disproportionate? Sounds from the article
(though could be incorrect) that traffic volitions are linked to the
driving License more in the US?
In uk it’s not so all forms are broadly under same regulations, are clearly
exemptions such as speed limits which where introduced for motor vehicles
only.
Aka the law is limited rather than broad in scope.
Roger Merriman
The fact that the NYT published that kind of garbage is why I wouldn't subscribe if it were free. I'm sure they do it to appease their wokie readers.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters-cyclists-nyc.html?unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share
This is a direct attack on immigrant workers, Ms. Guallpa said. The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where our
communities could be targets for deportation.
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I guess is the argument that it’s disproportionate? Sounds from the article (though could be incorrect) that traffic volitions are linked to the
driving License more in the US?
In uk it’s not so all forms are broadly under same regulations, are clearly exemptions such as speed limits which where introduced for motor vehicles only.
Aka the law is limited rather than broad in scope.
Roger Merriman
On 5/26/2025 5:42 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 26 May 2025 10:14:13 GMT, Roger Merriman
<[email protected]> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike
traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people past the
paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-
scooters-cyclists-nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-
share
?This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,? Ms.
Guallpa said. ?The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a
situation where our
communities could be targets for deportation.?
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I guess is the argument that it’s disproportionate?
Sounds from the article
(though could be incorrect) that traffic volitions are
linked to the
driving License more in the US?
In uk it’s not so all forms are broadly under same
regulations, are clearly
exemptions such as speed limits which where introduced
for motor vehicles
only.
Aka the law is limited rather than broad in scope.
Roger Merriman
The fact that the NYT published that kind of garbage is
why I wouldn't
subscribe if it were free. I'm sure they do it to appease
their wokie
readers.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
My Saturday paper was digested by the USPS system. I spent
an hour driving around for a paper, to no avail. Since
girlfriend was waiting for me to make dinner, I gave up and
bought a Times, impulsively. Utter waste of money, paper
and my time to read it. Blecchhhhhh.
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike
traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people past the
paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-
scooters-cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-
share
“This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,” Ms.
Guallpa said. “The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a
situation where our
communities could be targets for deportation.”
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who
cannot vote) are ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal
illegal aliens who, by Statute, cannot work and who are
subject to summary deportation by the same Statutes, are
where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair
trigger!
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about
three paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The
rest deals with the disparity between ebike and car
enforcement policies, noting that cars kill far, far more
pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC life is
totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic.
Yet people are enraged about the comparatively minuscule
effects of ebikes, and ebike riders are in some ways being
treated more harshly than car drivers.
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S.
ebikes are too fast, and/or should be legally treated more
like motorcycles - meaning integrated into traffic and kept
off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention
of immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog
whistles, even if you have to blow the whistle yourself.
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters-cyclists-
nyc.html?unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share
�This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,� Ms. Guallpa said. �The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where our
communities could be targets for deportation.�
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot vote) are
ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens who, by
Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary deportation by the
same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair trigger!
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three
paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals with the >disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting that cars
kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC life is >totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet people are >enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, and ebike
riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car drivers.
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S. ebikes are
too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like motorcycles -
meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog whistles, even
if you have to blow the whistle yourself.
On 5/26/2025 1:15 PM, NFN Smith wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters-cyclists-
nyc.html?unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share
Ignoring the political drivel of the story...
The problem is with classifying ebikes as "bikes" (e.g. 2 wheels) rather
than accounting the dynamics of a powered vehicle.
When it comes to bicycles, it's too easy to consider a traditional bike
to be a "pedestrian", because it's slower than a motor vehicle, and is
not powered. However a lot of the time, traditional bikes and
pedestrians are incompatible sharing the same space.
I agree. In bike advocacy discussions, I've heard very competent people
point out that bikes and pedestrians mix badly. It can be OK with conscientious cyclists and sensible pedestrians, but both are often absent.
I've found that even
multi-use paths are frequently not a good place for serious riding,
because of the speed differential between a bicycle and a pedestrian.
Yes. I've heard the term "pathlete" applied derisively to bicyclists
doing speed work on multi-use paths.
And there's even an in-between space for things like unpowered scooters
or roller blades that are faster than pedestrians but slower than bikes.
However, with ebikes (and for that matter, powered scooters) when you
add powered propulsion, then you're adding an extra measure of speed,
including that too many ebikes are capable of speeds in excess of what
is possible than for all but the fastest fitness riders.
And it's been pointed out that to ride at 20 mph, most people require
years of training. They start slow and tend to make most of their
mistakes at slow (less dangerous) speeds. But ebikes allow total novices
to ride faster than most experts.
I'm fully of the opinion that any bike should be regarded as a vehicle,
and generally, ridden on streets, where it's understood by both the
rider and motorists that the bike is subject to all the rules of the
road, both rights and responsibilities. Yet at the same time, I
recognize there are combinations of road and bike (and rider) that are
incompatible with each other. It's not unlike trying to drive a Ferrari
in a school zone, or taking an antique Model-T Ford out onto a freeway.
However, the issue with the ebikes is the question of speed, as well as
the understanding of the rules of the road. With a motorcycle, it's
normally necessary to have licensing, both for the bike and the
operator. Somehow, it seems to have not occurred that just because the
propulsion system of an ebike is electrical rather than an internal
combustion engine that the ebike should not be subject to the same rules
as the motorcycle, rather than being regarded in the same light as an
unpowered bicycle, simply because it has two wheels.
All true. Regarding the "somehow" - the crazy legal situation arose, as
I understand, from intense lobbying by bicycle industry lobbyists. They always need "the next big thing" to save their industry, and they
realized that if ebikes needed licensing and were prohibited from bike
lanes and paths, that they would sell far fewer of them.
And here we are.
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters-
cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share
“This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,” Ms. Guallpa said. “The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where our
communities could be targets for deportation.”
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot vote) are
ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens who, by
Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary deportation by the
same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair trigger!
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three
paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals with the disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting that cars
kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC life is totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet people are enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, and ebike
riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car drivers.
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S. ebikes are
too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like motorcycles -
meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog whistles, even
if you have to blow the whistle yourself.
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters-
cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share
�This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,� Ms. Guallpa said. �The >>>> intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where our
communities could be targets for deportation.�
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot vote) are
ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens who, by
Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary deportation by the
same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair trigger!
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three
paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals with the
disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting that cars
kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC life is
totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet people are
enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, and ebike
riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car drivers.
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S. ebikes are
too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like motorcycles -
meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog whistles, even
if� you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will consistently look for
a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their ignorant
opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink nonsense.
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing
himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda - there is
no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal aliens....are
where her sympathies lie."
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters-
cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share
“This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,” Ms. Guallpa said. “The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where our >>>>> communities could be targets for deportation.”
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot vote) are
ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens who, by
Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary deportation by the >>>> same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair trigger!
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three
paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals with the
disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting that cars
kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC life is >>> totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet people are >>> enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, and ebike
riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car drivers.
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S. ebikes are
too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like motorcycles -
meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog whistles, even
if you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will consistently look for
a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their ignorant
opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink nonsense. >>
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing
himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda - there is
no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal aliens....are
where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA illegally, her
statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the illegals.
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters-
cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share
�This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,� Ms. Guallpa said. �The >>>>>> intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where our >>>>>> communities could be targets for deportation.�
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot vote) are >>>>> ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens who, by
Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary deportation by the >>>>> same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair trigger!
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three
paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals with the >>>> disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting that cars >>>> kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC life is >>>> totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet people are >>>> enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, and ebike >>>> riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car drivers.
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S. ebikes are >>>> too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like motorcycles -
meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog whistles, even >>>> if� you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will consistently look for >>> a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their ignorant
opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink nonsense. >>>
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing
himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda - there is >>> no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal aliens....are
where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA illegally, her
statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the illegals.
Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the administration,
not only to people legally determined illegal.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.
Many people have sympathies with following "due process" irrespective of >whether they have sympathies with people accused of committing misdemeanors.
On Fri, 30 May 2025 15:16:21 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic >>>>>>>> violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall: >>>>>>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters-
cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share
“This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,” Ms. Guallpa said. “The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where our >>>>>>> communities could be targets for deportation.”
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot vote) are >>>>>> ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens who, by
Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary deportation by the >>>>>> same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair trigger!
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three
paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals with the >>>>> disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting that cars >>>>> kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC life is >>>>> totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet people are >>>>> enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, and ebike >>>>> riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car drivers. >>>>>
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S. ebikes are >>>>> too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like motorcycles -
meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog whistles, even >>>>> if you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will consistently look for >>>> a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their ignorant
opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink nonsense. >>>>
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing
himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda - there is >>>> no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal aliens....are >>>> where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA illegally, her
statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the illegals.
Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the administration,
not only to people legally determined illegal.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.
Ilegalas are not entitled to due process.
Nonsense. Whether a person is here illegally or not is very easy to determine and to prove.
Many people have sympathies with following "due process" irrespective of
whether they have sympathies with people accused of committing misdemeanors.
Am 30.05.2025 um 15:37 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 15:16:21 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>> wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic >>>>>>>>> violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall: >>>>>>>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters- >>>>>>>>> cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share
�This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,� Ms. Guallpa said. �The >>>>>>>> intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where our >>>>>>>> communities could be targets for deportation.�
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot vote) are >>>>>>> ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens who, by >>>>>>> Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary deportation by the >>>>>>> same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair trigger!
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three
paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals with the >>>>>> disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting that cars >>>>>> kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC life is >>>>>> totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet people are >>>>>> enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, and ebike >>>>>> riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car drivers. >>>>>>
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S. ebikes are >>>>>> too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like motorcycles - >>>>>> meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog whistles, even >>>>>> if� you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will consistently look for >>>>> a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their ignorant
opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink nonsense.
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing
himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda - there is >>>>> no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal aliens....are >>>>> where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA illegally, her
statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the illegals.
Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the administration,
not only to people legally determined illegal.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.
Ilegalas are not entitled to due process.
So your local head of ICE can claim you're illegal (because you beat him
in poker) and deport you?
You're not entitled to due process as per your own declaration.
Nonsense. Whether a person is here illegally or not is very easy to determine and to prove.
Your local head of ICE has already put you in a plane so he doesn't have
to pay his poker debts. Tough luck for you: without due process, his >decision is final.
"Due Process" is the legal framework that gives you a chance to prove
that you're in the USA legally.
Many people have sympathies with following "due process" irrespective of >>> whether they have sympathies with people accused of committing misdemeanors.
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters-
cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share
“This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,” Ms. Guallpa said. “The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where our >>>>> communities could be targets for deportation.”
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot vote) are
ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens who, by
Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary deportation by the >>>> same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair trigger!
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three
paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals with the
disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting that cars
kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC life is >>> totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet people are >>> enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, and ebike
riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car drivers.
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S. ebikes are
too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like motorcycles -
meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog whistles, even
if you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will consistently look for
a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their ignorant
opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink nonsense. >>
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing
himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda - there is
no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal aliens....are
where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA illegally, her
statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the illegals.
Beyond that, the fact that the NYT included that reference in the
article is documentation that the NYT's sympathies are also with the illegals.
AS for me, I want all the illegals deported, the sooner the better.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Fri, 30 May 2025 15:16:21 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic >>>>>>>> violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall: >>>>>>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters-
cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share
“This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,” Ms. Guallpa said. “The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where our >>>>>>> communities could be targets for deportation.”
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot vote) are >>>>>> ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens who, by
Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary deportation by the >>>>>> same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair trigger!
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three
paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals with the >>>>> disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting that cars >>>>> kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC life is >>>>> totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet people are >>>>> enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, and ebike >>>>> riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car drivers. >>>>>
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S. ebikes are >>>>> too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like motorcycles -
meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog whistles, even >>>>> if you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will consistently look for >>>> a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their ignorant
opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink nonsense. >>>>
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing
himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda - there is >>>> no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal aliens....are >>>> where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA illegally, her
statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the illegals.
Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the administration,
not only to people legally determined illegal.
Nonsense. Whether a person is here illegally or not is very easy to
detirmine and to prove.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.
Ilegalas are not entitled to due process.
Many people have sympathies with following "due process" irrespective of
whether they have sympathies with people accused of committing misdemeanors.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Am 30.05.2025 um 15:37 schrieb floriduh dumbass:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 15:16:21 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>> wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic >>>>>>>>> violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall: >>>>>>>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters- >>>>>>>>> cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share
“This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,” Ms. Guallpa >>>>>>>> said. “The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where >>>>>>>> our
communities could be targets for deportation.”
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot vote) >>>>>>> are
ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens who, by >>>>>>> Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary deportation
by the
same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair trigger!
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three
paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals with >>>>>> the
disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting that
cars
kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC
life is
totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet
people are
enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, and
ebike
riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car drivers. >>>>>>
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S.
ebikes are
too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like motorcycles - >>>>>> meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog whistles,
even
if you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will consistently
look for
a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their ignorant
opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink
nonsense.
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing
himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda -
there is
no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal aliens....are >>>>> where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA illegally, her
statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the illegals.
Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the administration,
not only to people legally determined illegal.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.
Ilegalas are not entitled to due process.
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters-
cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share
“This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,” Ms. Guallpa said. >>>>>> “The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where our >>>>>> communities could be targets for deportation.”
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot vote) are >>>>> ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens who, by
Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary deportation by the >>>>> same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair trigger!
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three
paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals with the >>>> disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting that cars >>>> kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC
life is
totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet people
are
enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, and ebike >>>> riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car drivers.
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S. ebikes are >>>> too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like motorcycles -
meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog whistles, even >>>> if you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will consistently look for >>> a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their ignorant
opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink
nonsense.
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing
himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda - there is >>> no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal aliens....are
where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA illegally, her
statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the illegals.
Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the administration,
not only to people legally determined illegal.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.
On 5/30/2025 8:37 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 15:16:21 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>> wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic >>>>>>>>> violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall: >>>>>>>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters- >>>>>>>>> cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share
“This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,” Ms. Guallpa >>>>>>>> said. “The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where >>>>>>>> our
communities could be targets for deportation.”
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot vote) >>>>>>> are
ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens who, by >>>>>>> Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary deportation
by the
same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair trigger!
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three
paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals with >>>>>> the
disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting that
cars
kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC
life is
totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet
people are
enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, and
ebike
riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car drivers. >>>>>>
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S.
ebikes are
too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like motorcycles - >>>>>> meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog whistles,
even
if you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will consistently
look for
a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their ignorant
opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink
nonsense.
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing
himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda -
there is
no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal aliens....are >>>>> where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA illegally, her
statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the illegals.
Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the administration,
not only to people legally determined illegal.
Nonsense. Whether a person is here illegally or not is very easy to
detirmine and to prove.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.
Ilegalas are not entitled to due process.
Many people have sympathies with following "due process" irrespective of >>> whether they have sympathies with people accused of committing
misdemeanors.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Am 30.05.2025 um 15:37 schrieb floriduh dumbass:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 15:16:21 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic >>>>>>>>>> violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall: >>>>>>>>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters- >>>>>>>>>> cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share >>>>>>>>>
�This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,� Ms. Guallpa
said. �The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where >>>>>>>>> our
communities could be targets for deportation.�
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot vote) >>>>>>>> are
ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens who, by >>>>>>>> Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary deportation >>>>>>>> by the
same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair trigger! >>>>>>>
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three >>>>>>> paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals with >>>>>>> the
disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting that >>>>>>> cars
kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC >>>>>>> life is
totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet
people are
enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, and >>>>>>> ebike
riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car drivers. >>>>>>>
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S.
ebikes are
too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like motorcycles - >>>>>>> meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog whistles, >>>>>>> even
if� you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will consistently
look for
a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their ignorant >>>>>> opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink
nonsense.
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing
himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda -
there is
no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal aliens....are >>>>>> where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA illegally, her
statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the illegals.
Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the administration, >>>> not only to people legally determined illegal.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.
Ilegalas are not entitled to due process.
Yes, you braindead magatard, they are:
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2025/05/11/yes-immigrants-in-the-u-s-illegally-still-have-due-process-rights/83481316007/
"Despite Trump�s dismissal of and questions about due process for
immigrants, the U.S. Constitution, legal experts and decades of court >decisions agree: Immigrants in the U.S., regardless of how they entered
the U.S., legally or illegally, have due process rights."
Yet another case of the floriduh dumbass parroting magatard groupthink >propaganda
On 5/30/2025 9:16 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic >>>>>>>> violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall: >>>>>>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters-
cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share
�This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,� Ms. Guallpa said. >>>>>>> �The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where our >>>>>>> communities could be targets for deportation.�
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot vote) are >>>>>> ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens who, by
Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary deportation by the >>>>>> same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair trigger!
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three
paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals with the >>>>> disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting that cars >>>>> kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC
life is
totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet people >>>>> are
enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, and ebike >>>>> riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car drivers. >>>>>
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S. ebikes are >>>>> too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like motorcycles -
meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog whistles, even >>>>> if� you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will consistently look for >>>> a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their ignorant
opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink
nonsense.
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing
himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda - there is >>>> no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal aliens....are >>>> where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA illegally, her
statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the illegals.
Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the administration,
not only to people legally determined illegal.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.
+1, There have already been several well documented detentions and
attempted deportations of _legal_ immigrants.
On 5/30/2025 10:29 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/30/2025 8:37 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 15:16:21 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic >>>>>>>>>> violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall: >>>>>>>>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters- >>>>>>>>>> cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share >>>>>>>>>
�This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,� Ms. Guallpa
said. �The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where >>>>>>>>> our
communities could be targets for deportation.�
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot vote) >>>>>>>> are
ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens who, by >>>>>>>> Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary deportation >>>>>>>> by the
same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair trigger! >>>>>>>
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three >>>>>>> paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals with >>>>>>> the
disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting that >>>>>>> cars
kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC >>>>>>> life is
totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet
people are
enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, and >>>>>>> ebike
riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car drivers. >>>>>>>
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S.
ebikes are
too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like motorcycles - >>>>>>> meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog whistles, >>>>>>> even
if� you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will consistently
look for
a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their ignorant >>>>>> opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink
nonsense.
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing
himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda -
there is
no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal aliens....are >>>>>> where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA illegally, her
statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the illegals.
Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the administration, >>>> not only to people legally determined illegal.
Nonsense. Whether a person is here illegally or not is very easy to
detirmine and to prove.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.
Ilegalas are not entitled to due process.
Many people have sympathies with following "due process" irrespective of >>>> whether they have sympathies with people accused of committing
misdemeanors.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
bullshit - it's demonstrably false.
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2025/05/11/yes-immigrants-in-the-u-s-illegally-still-have-due-process-rights/83481316007/
"Despite Trump�s dismissal of and questions about due process for
immigrants, the U.S. Constitution, legal experts and decades of court >decisions agree: Immigrants in the U.S., regardless of how they entered
the U.S., legally or illegally, have due process rights."
On Mon May 26 21:17:54 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 1:15 PM, NFN Smith wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters-cyclists-
nyc.html?unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share
Ignoring the political drivel of the story...
The problem is with classifying ebikes as "bikes" (e.g. 2 wheels) rather >> > than accounting the dynamics of a powered vehicle.
When it comes to bicycles, it's too easy to consider a traditional bike
to be a "pedestrian", because it's slower than a motor vehicle, and is
not powered. However a lot of the time, traditional bikes and
pedestrians are incompatible sharing the same space.
I agree. In bike advocacy discussions, I've heard very competent people
point out that bikes and pedestrians mix badly. It can be OK with
conscientious cyclists and sensible pedestrians, but both are often absent. >>
I've found that even
multi-use paths are frequently not a good place for serious riding,
because of the speed differential between a bicycle and a pedestrian.
Yes. I've heard the term "pathlete" applied derisively to bicyclists
doing speed work on multi-use paths.
And there's even an in-between space for things like unpowered scooters
or roller blades that are faster than pedestrians but slower than bikes. >> >
However, with ebikes (and for that matter, powered scooters) when you
add powered propulsion, then you're adding an extra measure of speed,
including that too many ebikes are capable of speeds in excess of what
is possible than for all but the fastest fitness riders.
And it's been pointed out that to ride at 20 mph, most people require
years of training. They start slow and tend to make most of their
mistakes at slow (less dangerous) speeds. But ebikes allow total novices
to ride faster than most experts.
I'm fully of the opinion that any bike should be regarded as a vehicle,
and generally, ridden on streets, where it's understood by both the
rider and motorists that the bike is subject to all the rules of the
road, both rights and responsibilities.
On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:41:51 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/30/2025 9:16 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>> wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic >>>>>>>>> violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall: >>>>>>>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters- >>>>>>>>> cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share
“This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,” Ms. Guallpa said. >>>>>>>> “The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where our >>>>>>>> communities could be targets for deportation.”
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot vote) are >>>>>>> ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens who, by >>>>>>> Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary deportation by the >>>>>>> same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair trigger!
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three
paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals with the >>>>>> disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting that cars >>>>>> kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC
life is
totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet people >>>>>> are
enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, and ebike >>>>>> riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car drivers. >>>>>>
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S. ebikes are >>>>>> too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like motorcycles - >>>>>> meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog whistles, even >>>>>> if you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will consistently look for >>>>> a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their ignorant
opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink
nonsense.
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing
himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda - there is >>>>> no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal aliens....are >>>>> where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA illegally, her
statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the illegals.
Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the administration,
not only to people legally determined illegal.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.
+1, There have already been several well documented detentions and
attempted deportations of _legal_ immigrants.
Mistakes were made. All were quickly corrected.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:39:17 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 15:37 schrieb floriduh dumbass:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 15:16:21 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote:Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the administration, >>>>> not only to people legally determined illegal.
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic >>>>>>>>>>> violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall: >>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters- >>>>>>>>>>> cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share >>>>>>>>>>
�This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,� Ms. Guallpa >>>>>>>>>> said. �The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where >>>>>>>>>> our
communities could be targets for deportation.�
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot vote) >>>>>>>>> are
ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens who, by >>>>>>>>> Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary deportation >>>>>>>>> by the
same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair trigger! >>>>>>>>
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three >>>>>>>> paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals with >>>>>>>> the
disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting that >>>>>>>> cars
kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC >>>>>>>> life is
totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet
people are
enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, and >>>>>>>> ebike
riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car drivers. >>>>>>>>
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S.
ebikes are
too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like motorcycles - >>>>>>>> meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog whistles, >>>>>>>> even
if� you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will consistently
look for
a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their ignorant >>>>>>> opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink >>>>>>> nonsense.
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing >>>>>>> himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda -
there is
no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal aliens....are >>>>>>> where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA illegally, her >>>>>> statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the illegals. >>>>>
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.
Ilegalas are not entitled to due process.
Yes, you braindead magatard, they are:
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2025/05/11/yes-immigrants-in-the-u-s-illegally-still-have-due-process-rights/83481316007/
"Despite Trump�s dismissal of and questions about due process for >>immigrants, the U.S. Constitution, legal experts and decades of court >>decisions agree: Immigrants in the U.S., regardless of how they entered
the U.S., legally or illegally, have due process rights."
Yet another case of the floriduh dumbass parroting magatard groupthink >>propaganda
No, they don't.
On 5/30/2025 10:23 AM, AMuzi wrote:
The Statute (of long standing) is clear. Illegal aliens are subject
to summary deportation.
An argument can be made, and I'd agree, that a finding of fact (is this
person actually here illegally?) is a reasonable precursor.
Thank you. But obviously, finding of fact has been absent in many cases,
as noted in the news. Things like photoshopped images of tattoos have
been used instead of facts.
Illegal aliens either previously convicted of a crime or subject to a prior >> deportation order are the bulk of the present deportees, which is both
morally and legally correct IMHO.
I see some inconsistencies in your thinking. You often dig out uncommon, >unusual events and post links here, seemingly to complain about some >government system or procedure. You don't normally compare those events
to "the bulk of" similar cases.
On 5/30/2025 11:07 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:41:51 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the administration, >>>> not only to people legally determined illegal.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.
+1, There have already been several well documented detentions and
attempted deportations of _legal_ immigrants.
Mistakes were made. All were quickly corrected.
On 5/30/2025 11:07 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:41:51 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/30/2025 9:16 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic >>>>>>>>>> violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall: >>>>>>>>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters- >>>>>>>>>> cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share >>>>>>>>>
“This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,” Ms. Guallpa said. >>>>>>>>> “The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation
where our
communities could be targets for deportation.”
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot
vote) are
ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens who, by >>>>>>>> Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary deportation >>>>>>>> by the
same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair trigger! >>>>>>>
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three >>>>>>> paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals
with the
disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting that >>>>>>> cars
kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC >>>>>>> life is
totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet people >>>>>>> are
enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, and >>>>>>> ebike
riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car drivers. >>>>>>>
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S.
ebikes are
too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like motorcycles - >>>>>>> meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog whistles, >>>>>>> even
if you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will consistently
look for
a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their ignorant >>>>>> opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink
nonsense.
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing
himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda -
there is
no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal
aliens....are
where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA illegally, her
statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the illegals.
Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the administration, >>>> not only to people legally determined illegal.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.
+1, There have already been several well documented detentions and
attempted deportations of _legal_ immigrants.
Mistakes were made. All were quickly corrected.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Compare with some 20 million errors in the other direction in the past
four years.
On 5/30/2025 11:07 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:41:51 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the administration, >>>>> not only to people legally determined illegal.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.
+1, There have already been several well documented detentions and
attempted deportations of _legal_ immigrants.
Mistakes were made. All were quickly corrected.
Let's stick your lame ass in a cell in Louisiana for six weeks and see
if you call it "quickly corrected" you dumb fucking magatard minion.
Tuft University PhD R�meysa �zt�rk was snatched off the street by masked
ICE agents in an unmarked van in Cambridge Ma on march 25th. No warrant
for her arrest was ever issued. She was released from prison in
Louisiana last week while the government decides if they have a case.
Gee, that's not fascistic at all..
�zt�rk is legally in the US on an F-1 student visa. What was her great
threat to american security? She co-authored an article published in the >Tufts newspaper criticizing the schools policy regarding the war in Gaza.
A legal US resident jailed for six weeks for publishing an article >criticizing her school. OH NO!!!!IT'S THE BEGINNING OF SHARIA LAW!!!!
ICE eventually said she was snatched for supporting Hamas - there is no >evidence anywhere supporting that. None of her social media postings
gave any hints of it, and the article in question made no mention of it.
And all we get from you fascist supporting assholes is a fucking shrug,
or in your case, tipping back a cognac with a chuckle. I hope it happens
to someone in your family ("oh, it won't we're all good little magatard >fascists)
On 5/30/2025 12:28 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/30/2025 11:07 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:41:51 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/30/2025 9:16 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote:Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the administration, >>>>> not only to people legally determined illegal.
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic >>>>>>>>>>> violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall: >>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters- >>>>>>>>>>> cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share >>>>>>>>>>
�This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,� Ms. Guallpa said. >>>>>>>>>> �The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation >>>>>>>>>> where our
communities could be targets for deportation.�
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot
vote) are
ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens who, by >>>>>>>>> Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary deportation >>>>>>>>> by the
same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair trigger! >>>>>>>>
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three >>>>>>>> paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals
with the
disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting that >>>>>>>> cars
kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC >>>>>>>> life is
totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet people >>>>>>>> are
enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, and >>>>>>>> ebike
riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car drivers. >>>>>>>>
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S.
ebikes are
too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like motorcycles - >>>>>>>> meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog whistles, >>>>>>>> even
if� you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will consistently
look for
a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their ignorant >>>>>>> opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink >>>>>>> nonsense.
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing >>>>>>> himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda -
there is
no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal
aliens....are
where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA illegally, her >>>>>> statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the illegals. >>>>>
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.
+1, There have already been several well documented detentions and
attempted deportations of _legal_ immigrants.
Mistakes were made. All were quickly corrected.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Compare with some 20 million errors in the other direction in the past
four years.
Oh, great, now you're on board with 'The Great Replacement' theory.
Interesting that an admitted atheist would be supportive of blatantly
white christian nationalist fascism. Gee Andrew, who's going to be there
when they come for you?
On 5/30/2025 12:28 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/30/2025 11:07 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:41:51 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/30/2025 9:16 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on
ebike traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people
past the paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/
ebikes-scooters-
cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share >>>>>>>>>>
“This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,”
Ms. Guallpa said.
“The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a
situation where our
communities could be targets for deportation.”
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people
who cannot vote) are
ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal
aliens who, by
Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary
deportation by the
same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on
hair trigger!
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only
about three
paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The
rest deals with the
disparity between ebike and car enforcement
policies, noting that cars
kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even
mention that NYC
life is
totally dominated by the negative effects of car
traffic. Yet people
are
enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of
ebikes, and ebike
riders are in some ways being treated more harshly
than car drivers.
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I
think U.S. ebikes are
too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like
motorcycles -
meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike
paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief
mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing
dog whistles, even
if you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will
consistently look for
a political scapegoat for any issue they have based
their ignorant
opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard
groupthink
nonsense.
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently
is allowing
himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink
propaganda - there is
no evidence in that article to support "Criminal
illegal aliens....are
where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA
illegally, her
statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with
the illegals.
Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the
administration,
not only to people legally determined illegal.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people
illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.
+1, There have already been several well documented
detentions and
attempted deportations of _legal_ immigrants.
Mistakes were made. All were quickly corrected.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Compare with some 20 million errors in the other direction
in the past four years.
Oh, great, now you're on board with 'The Great Replacement'
theory.
Interesting that an admitted atheist would be supportive of
blatantly white christian nationalist fascism. Gee Andrew,
who's going to be there when they come for you?
Am 30.05.2025 um 15:37 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 15:16:21 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>> wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic >>>>>>>>> violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall: >>>>>>>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters- >>>>>>>>> cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share
�This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,� Ms. Guallpa said. �The >>>>>>>> intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where our >>>>>>>> communities could be targets for deportation.�
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot vote) are >>>>>>> ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens who, by >>>>>>> Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary deportation by the >>>>>>> same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair trigger!
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three
paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals with the >>>>>> disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting that cars >>>>>> kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC life is >>>>>> totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet people are >>>>>> enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, and ebike >>>>>> riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car drivers. >>>>>>
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S. ebikes are >>>>>> too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like motorcycles - >>>>>> meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog whistles, even >>>>>> if� you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will consistently look for >>>>> a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their ignorant
opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink nonsense.
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing
himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda - there is >>>>> no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal aliens....are >>>>> where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA illegally, her
statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the illegals.
Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the administration,
not only to people legally determined illegal.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.
Ilegalas are not entitled to due process.
So your local head of ICE can claim you're illegal (because you beat him
in poker) and deport you?
You're not entitled to due process as per your own declaration.
Nonsense. Whether a person is here illegally or not is very easy to determine and to prove.
Your local head of ICE has already put you in a plane so he doesn't have
to pay his poker debts. Tough luck for you: without due process, his >decision is final.
"Due Process" is the legal framework that gives you a chance to prove
that you're in the USA legally.
Many people have sympathies with following "due process" irrespective of >>> whether they have sympathies with people accused of committing misdemeanors.
On 5/30/2025 1:43 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/30/2025 12:28 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/30/2025 11:07 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:41:51 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>> wrote:
On 5/30/2025 9:16 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen CycleDeportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic >>>>>>>>>>>> violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall: >>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ ebikes-scooters- >>>>>>>>>>>> cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share >>>>>>>>>>>
“This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,” Ms. Guallpa >>>>>>>>>>> said.
“The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation >>>>>>>>>>> where our
communities could be targets for deportation.”
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot >>>>>>>>>> vote) are
ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens who, by >>>>>>>>>> Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary
deportation by the
same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair trigger! >>>>>>>>>
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three >>>>>>>>> paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals >>>>>>>>> with the
disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting >>>>>>>>> that cars
kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC >>>>>>>>> life is
totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet >>>>>>>>> people
are
enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, >>>>>>>>> and ebike
riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car
drivers.
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S. >>>>>>>>> ebikes are
too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like motorcycles - >>>>>>>>> meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of >>>>>>>>> immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog
whistles, even
if you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will consistently >>>>>>>> look for
a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their ignorant >>>>>>>> opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink >>>>>>>> nonsense.
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing >>>>>>>> himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda - >>>>>>>> there is
no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal
aliens....are
where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA illegally, her >>>>>>> statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the illegals. >>>>>>
administration,
not only to people legally determined illegal.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.
+1, There have already been several well documented detentions and
attempted deportations of _legal_ immigrants.
Mistakes were made. All were quickly corrected.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Compare with some 20 million errors in the other direction in the
past four years.
Oh, great, now you're on board with 'The Great Replacement' theory.
Interesting that an admitted atheist would be supportive of blatantly
white christian nationalist fascism. Gee Andrew, who's going to be
there when they come for you?
I have no idea what you're raving about.
Go find a blatant white Christian nationalist fascist who's expounding
some 'replacement theory' and give her a piece of your mind.
Even SCOTUS agrees that open borders as fiat policy is unlawful:
https://apnews.com/article/trump-supreme-court-immigration- deportation-8bc46820c6444fbb3540c09764e32905
On 5/30/2025 5:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/30/2025 1:43 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/30/2025 12:28 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/30/2025 11:07 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:41:51 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote:
On 5/30/2025 9:16 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen CycleDeportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic >>>>>>>>>>>>> violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall: >>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ ebikes-scooters- >>>>>>>>>>>>> cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share >>>>>>>>>>>>
�This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,� Ms. Guallpa >>>>>>>>>>>> said.
�The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation >>>>>>>>>>>> where our
communities could be targets for deportation.�
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot >>>>>>>>>>> vote) are
ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens who, by >>>>>>>>>>> Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary
deportation by the
same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair trigger! >>>>>>>>>>
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three >>>>>>>>>> paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals >>>>>>>>>> with the
disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting >>>>>>>>>> that cars
kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC >>>>>>>>>> life is
totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet >>>>>>>>>> people
are
enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, >>>>>>>>>> and ebike
riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car >>>>>>>>>> drivers.
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S. >>>>>>>>>> ebikes are
too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like motorcycles - >>>>>>>>>> meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of >>>>>>>>>> immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog
whistles, even
if� you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will consistently >>>>>>>>> look for
a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their ignorant >>>>>>>>> opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink >>>>>>>>> nonsense.
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing >>>>>>>>> himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda - >>>>>>>>> there is
no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal
aliens....are
where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA illegally, her >>>>>>>> statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the illegals. >>>>>>>
administration,
not only to people legally determined illegal.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.
+1, There have already been several well documented detentions and >>>>>> attempted deportations of _legal_ immigrants.
Mistakes were made. All were quickly corrected.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Compare with some 20 million errors in the other direction in the
past four years.
Oh, great, now you're on board with 'The Great Replacement' theory.
Interesting that an admitted atheist would be supportive of blatantly
white christian nationalist fascism. Gee Andrew, who's going to be
there when they come for you?
I have no idea what you're raving about.
yes you do, you're just unwilling to admit it.
Go find a blatant white Christian nationalist fascist who's expounding
some 'replacement theory' and give her a piece of your mind.
Just for everyone else's edification who might be ignorant:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-twisted-logic-behind-the-rights-great-replacement-arguments/
Don't try to feign ignorance Andrew, you're far too well-read and aware
for me to buy that bullshit.
Even SCOTUS agrees that open borders as fiat policy is unlawful:
https://apnews.com/article/trump-supreme-court-immigration-
deportation-8bc46820c6444fbb3540c09764e32905
WTF? Are you taking kunich lessons now? You changed the subject then
posted a link which doesn't support your claim.
1) we weren't discussing open borders, we were discussing due process
for deportation of illegal immigrants.
2) your website doesn't address open borders, it addresses revoking
_legal_ status for asylum seekers. The first sentence states:
"The Supreme Court on Friday again cleared the way for the Trump >administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of >thousands of immigrants".
Regardless of your attempted distraction, the premise floated in this
forum by the floriduh dumbass that illegal aliens have no due process >protection is flat out wrong.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/removal-of-aliens-who-have-entered-the-united-states
"Despite the government�s broad power over immigration, the Supreme
Court has recognized that aliens who have physically entered the United >States generally come under the protective scope of the Due Process
Clause, which applies �to all �persons� within the United States,
including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful,
temporary, or permanent.�"
On 5/30/2025 5:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/30/2025 1:43 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/30/2025 12:28 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/30/2025 11:07 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:41:51 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/30/2025 9:16 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down
on ebike traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people
past the paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/
ebikes-scooters-
cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share >>>>>>>>>>>>
“This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,”
Ms. Guallpa said.
“The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a
situation where our
communities could be targets for deportation.”
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people
who cannot vote) are
ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal
aliens who, by
Statute, cannot work and who are subject to
summary deportation by the
same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always
on hair trigger!
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those,
only about three
paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The
rest deals with the
disparity between ebike and car enforcement
policies, noting that cars
kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even
mention that NYC
life is
totally dominated by the negative effects of car
traffic. Yet people
are
enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects
of ebikes, and ebike
riders are in some ways being treated more harshly
than car drivers.
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I
think U.S. ebikes are
too fast, and/or should be legally treated more
like motorcycles -
meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike
paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief
mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right
wing dog whistles, even
if you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will
consistently look for
a political scapegoat for any issue they have based
their ignorant
opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of
magatard groupthink
nonsense.
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more
recently is allowing
himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink
propaganda - there is
no evidence in that article to support "Criminal
illegal aliens....are
where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA
illegally, her
statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are
with the illegals.
Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by
the administration,
not only to people legally determined illegal.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people
illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.
+1, There have already been several well documented
detentions and
attempted deportations of _legal_ immigrants.
Mistakes were made. All were quickly corrected.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Compare with some 20 million errors in the other
direction in the past four years.
Oh, great, now you're on board with 'The Great
Replacement' theory.
Interesting that an admitted atheist would be supportive
of blatantly white christian nationalist fascism. Gee
Andrew, who's going to be there when they come for you?
I have no idea what you're raving about.
yes you do, you're just unwilling to admit it.
Go find a blatant white Christian nationalist fascist
who's expounding some 'replacement theory' and give her a
piece of your mind.
Just for everyone else's edification who might be ignorant:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-twisted-logic- behind-the-rights-great-replacement-arguments/
Don't try to feign ignorance Andrew, you're far too well-
read and aware for me to buy that bullshit.
Even SCOTUS agrees that open borders as fiat policy is
unlawful:
https://apnews.com/article/trump-supreme-court-
immigration- deportation-8bc46820c6444fbb3540c09764e32905
WTF? Are you taking kunich lessons now? You changed the
subject then posted a link which doesn't support your claim.
1) we weren't discussing open borders, we were discussing
due process for deportation of illegal immigrants.
2) your website doesn't address open borders, it addresses
revoking _legal_ status for asylum seekers. The first
sentence states:
"The Supreme Court on Friday again cleared the way for the
Trump administration to strip temporary legal protections
from hundreds of thousands of immigrants".
Regardless of your attempted distraction, the premise
floated in this forum by the floriduh dumbass that illegal
aliens have no due process protection is flat out wrong.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/ removal-of-aliens-who-have-entered-the-united-states
"Despite the government’s broad power over immigration, the
Supreme Court has recognized that aliens who have physically
entered the United States generally come under the
protective scope of the Due Process Clause, which applies
“to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including
aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful,
temporary, or permanent.”"
There's some good nuance here, important stuff that's often easy to lose
in public debate.
Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/26/2025 1:15 PM, NFN Smith wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
Very much depends on the location and situation, the park paths and so on, >> I use for the commute differ to the cycleway I use which has occasional
foot traffic, to the newer cycle infrastructure.
In terms of expectations and speed etc wildly varying.
Very true. For where you are, it appears to be an urban environment, and where there's a lot of commuting traffic. That's different for where I
am, where it's a mix of suburban and rural. We're in almost entirely
flat spaces and very straight roads that are spaced exactly one mile a
part, in both directions. When you get closer in to urbanized density,
most roads are 2 lanes in each direction (often 3, for newer roads), and where there's a dedicated 2-way left turn lane in the center, and
usually a traffic speed limit of 45 MPH. Further out, the roads narrow,
and are not much more than farm roads -- one lane in each direction,
soft, graveled shoulder, and not much more maintenance than road crews dropping some hot asphalt (about once a year) into places that potholes
have developed, and speed limits of only 25 MPH.
We also have several canals (including one right next to my house) that
have dedicated multi-use paths on one side of the canal. These are more
or less municipal paths, and very much a magnet for recreational use,
ranging from simple pedestrians to serious cyclists. On the other side
of the canal (at least in the space near my house) what's there is essentially a service road that is owned by the water utility that
operates the canal. In some places, the service road is paved (and also suitable for cycling, as it's even wider than the multi-use path), but
only a mile in either direction, the surface is gravel.
For the multi-use path, I termed as "mostly" municipal, and that
reflects the governing philosophy of the town I live in. The town tends
to be tax-phobic, and as a result there are a lot of things that other
towns or cities would pay for that they outsource to private entities.
For roads (as noted above), one of the common effects is "scalloping",
where the town doesn't do any serious infrastructure investments.
Instead, they wait for an agricultural plot (typically an alfalfa field)
to be converted to a housing subdivision, and then make the developer
pay for all the improvements in the space directly facing the
subdivision, but nothing more. Development is often uneven, and as a
result, it's frequent to have a road that is improved with good
pavement, space for at least 2 lanes of traffic in one direction and
space for the common left turn lane, plus curb, gutter and sidewalk on
one side for the quarter mile that faces the subdivision, which turns
back to farm road when the edge(s) of the subdivision are reached, and
farm road on the other side of the road.
The handling of the multi-use paths are similar. For the path near my
house, I think it's pretty much completed for the entire length of the
canal. In neighboring cities, the path was done by the relevant
governments, but in my town, where most of the construction is
subdivisions, the town outsourced construction. In the space near my
house, for some reason, the part of the path was put on neighborhood property, and where maintenance belongs to the homeowner's association, rather than being put on the right-of-way that belongs to the water company.
About a mile further up, the path was still unimproved (gravel only)
until an apartment complex was built next to it. When that happened,
it's pretty obvious that the developer did the required improvements by hiring a contractor that normally does sidewalks, and for the quarter
mile in front of that complex, the surface is essentially a sidewalk.
Good, solid concrete, but seams 10 or 12 feet apart, and not really wide enough for two bicycles to ride abreast. It's tricky to pass when there
are bikes coming from opposite directions.
For the path near my house, maintenance by the homeowner's association
is something of an issue, because it's in a place not seen (or used) by
a lot of the residents, and there is something of an "out of sight, out
of mind" attitude. The layout is where the path is lower than the space
next to it (deliberately), and takes a lot of runoff -- thus, problems
with puddles that turn to silt, and infrequent sweeping. Plus, the neighborhood has aged enough that there are some number of trees nearby
that have root systems that cause buckles in the surface. Not
necessarily a problem for bicycles with large wheels and soft tires, but definitely an issue for things like skates and scooters. Because the
path is on neighborhood property, it's the neighborhood's responsibility
to maintain.
I reported the issue with uneven surface to the homeowners' association management, and it took a little bit to establish with the current
manager that despite the public right-of-way, the path is on
neighborhood property, and not the responsibility of the city, even if
it's a publicly-accessible thoroughfare. In the process, they
discovered that the condition of the path was also in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act. The neighborhood wasn't happy about
putting out nearly $25,000 for repairs, but it is a legal requirement.
It's also not an abstraction, as there's another neighborhood a few
miles away, where there are outstanding claims of $3.1 million following
a crash by a teenager on a similar surface (with buckles) on a motorized scooter. I don't remember if the claims are against the neighborhood
(and their insurance) or against the town. However, what our
neighborhood paid in preventative repairs was a small fraction of what
is being claimed on the other crash.
I’d again say you get what you design for.
That's really the crux of the issue -- there are multiple design
agendas, and they're sometimes in conflict with each other. It doesn't
help when the people who make decisions aren't the the actual users, and often, where they're projecting their own stereotypes, based on either minimal personal experience, or the more abstract objectives of urban planning, where there's a lot of "what should be" or what is envisioned, rather than what actually is.
I've found that even
multi-use paths are frequently not a good place for serious riding,
because of the speed differential between a bicycle and a pedestrian.
Yes. I've heard the term "pathlete" applied derisively to bicyclists
doing speed work on multi-use paths.
An interesting term.
I’ve not really noticed that, but UK and London is lot more accessible for >> bicycling than the US, more some runners who are using somewhat
inappropriate places, or times of day etc.
I can imagine. I've spent time in London, although only as a tourist,
and not really seeing how bicycles fit into the landscape.
And there's even an in-between space for things like unpowered scooters >>>> or roller blades that are faster than pedestrians but slower than bikes. >>>>
However, with ebikes (and for that matter, powered scooters) when you
add powered propulsion, then you're adding an extra measure of speed,
including that too many ebikes are capable of speeds in excess of what >>>> is possible than for all but the fastest fitness riders.
And it's been pointed out that to ride at 20 mph, most people require
years of training. They start slow and tend to make most of their
mistakes at slow (less dangerous) speeds. But ebikes allow total novices >>> to ride faster than most experts.
This I’d and UK law would class as a moped and should be considered as
such, at that point particularly with a throttle! It fails the does it walk >> and talk like a duck? Which the pedal assist 15mph cut off do.
I think that's the critical point. Although there's a measure of
difference between a traditional human-powered bicycle and pedal assist bikes, the real problem is with the fully motorized bikes. Throttle is a
good differentiator, but it's also the question of both max speed and sustained speed, and entirely incompatible with foot-based pedestrians
and vehicles whose speed is less than 5 MPH.
I'm fully of the opinion that any bike should be regarded as a vehicle, >>>> and generally, ridden on streets, where it's understood by both the
rider and motorists that the bike is subject to all the rules of the
road, both rights and responsibilities. Yet at the same time, I
recognize there are combinations of road and bike (and rider) that are >>>> incompatible with each other. It's not unlike trying to drive a Ferrari >>>> in a school zone, or taking an antique Model-T Ford out onto a freeway. >>>>
However, the issue with the ebikes is the question of speed, as well as >>>> the understanding of the rules of the road. With a motorcycle, it's
normally necessary to have licensing, both for the bike and the
operator. Somehow, it seems to have not occurred that just because the >>>> propulsion system of an ebike is electrical rather than an internal
combustion engine that the ebike should not be subject to the same rules >>>> as the motorcycle, rather than being regarded in the same light as an
unpowered bicycle, simply because it has two wheels.
All true. Regarding the "somehow" - the crazy legal situation arose, as
I understand, from intense lobbying by bicycle industry lobbyists. They
always need "the next big thing" to save their industry, and they
realized that if ebikes needed licensing and were prohibited from bike
lanes and paths, that they would sell far fewer of them.
True, but it's also new technologies moving into areas where there's no
legal and philosophical underpinnings of how they should interact with
the world around them. And where the promoters of those technologies
have a vested interest in filling the gaps with their products, and
hopefully (at least for them) that they generate enough demand for their products that by the time that the legal process catches up, they can
object with "it's obvious that we're filling a need, you can't put legal restrictions on us!" Even if the biggest need being met is not
necessarily customer demand, but maintaining their revenue streams.
We had that happen several year ago, when there was a big outbreak of
the pay-by-the-minute motorized scooters that were all over town, not
just in the central part of town, or along major thoroughfares, but even
in neighborhoods further away, where users simply abandoned them
wherever they were when they were no longer needed. There were several
that ended up near my house, and I was tempted to take one or two of
those scooters and throw into the canal.
As it turns out, when the question came up with town governance, the
scooters weren't totally banned, but there were enough operating
restrictions put on them that they pretty much disappeared, even if
there are a small number in one high-density part of town.
Most lobbyists and companies such as Bosch are very much not in favour of
And here we are.
higher power, for the above reasons see UK Government suggesting to
increase power and EU talking of stricter regulations as DIGI have been
pushing the limits with 1000watt boosts and so on.
Aka they will get banned from stuff and so on.
Yep. See above.
Thanks for further opportunity to think out loud.
Smith
Roger Merriman wrote:
London so urban to Suburban, I’m outer london so mainly suburban, lower
speed limits 20mph is common, almost certainly and reasonably chance of it >> being enforced aka speed cameras.
Just curious -- are you inside or outside of the M25?
We also have several canals (including one right next to my house) that
have dedicated multi-use paths on one side of the canal. These are more >>> or less municipal paths, and very much a magnet for recreational use,
ranging from simple pedestrians to serious cyclists. On the other side
of the canal (at least in the space near my house) what's there is
essentially a service road that is owned by the water utility that
operates the canal. In some places, the service road is paved (and also
suitable for cycling, as it's even wider than the multi-use path), but
only a mile in either direction, the surface is gravel.
Those are lovely places but not particularly useful for utility purposes as >> they are narrow and is limited as to how many can useful use such places.
Besides passing visual similarities, the two are entirely different situations.
In Europe, I think that most canals tend to be done to facilitate
drainage, especially working around population density. Where I am, the
space is flat and very spread out. Our canal system was actually built several hundred years before the first European or Euro-American
settlers. The Europeans modified somewhat with more modern engineering,
but for both, the intent of the canals is to move water from the river
system into places that it can be used for agricultural irrigation.
Smith
On 5/31/2025 7:57 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 5/30/2025 5:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/30/2025 1:43 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/30/2025 12:28 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/30/2025 11:07 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:41:51 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/30/2025 9:16 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike >>>>>>>>>>>>>> traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people past the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ ebikes-scooters- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share >>>>>>>>>>>>>
“This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,” Ms. Guallpa >>>>>>>>>>>>> said.
“The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation >>>>>>>>>>>>> where our
communities could be targets for deportation.”
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot >>>>>>>>>>>> vote) are
ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens >>>>>>>>>>>> who, by
Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary
deportation by the
same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair >>>>>>>>>>> trigger!
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three >>>>>>>>>>> paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals >>>>>>>>>>> with the
disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting >>>>>>>>>>> that cars
kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC >>>>>>>>>>> life is
totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet >>>>>>>>>>> people
are
enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, >>>>>>>>>>> and ebike
riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car >>>>>>>>>>> drivers.
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S. >>>>>>>>>>> ebikes are
too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like
motorcycles -
meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths. >>>>>>>>>>>
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of >>>>>>>>>>> immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog
whistles, even
if you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will
consistently look for
a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their
ignorant
opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink >>>>>>>>>> nonsense.
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing >>>>>>>>>> himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda >>>>>>>>>> - there is
no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal
aliens....are
where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA illegally, her >>>>>>>>> statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the
illegals.
Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the
administration,
not only to people legally determined illegal.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and >>>>>>>> attempted to deport without due process.
+1, There have already been several well documented detentions and >>>>>>> attempted deportations of _legal_ immigrants.
Mistakes were made. All were quickly corrected.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Compare with some 20 million errors in the other direction in the
past four years.
Oh, great, now you're on board with 'The Great Replacement' theory.
Interesting that an admitted atheist would be supportive of
blatantly white christian nationalist fascism. Gee Andrew, who's
going to be there when they come for you?
I have no idea what you're raving about.
yes you do, you're just unwilling to admit it.
Go find a blatant white Christian nationalist fascist who's
expounding some 'replacement theory' and give her a piece of your mind.
Just for everyone else's edification who might be ignorant:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-twisted-logic- behind-the-
rights-great-replacement-arguments/
Don't try to feign ignorance Andrew, you're far too well- read and
aware for me to buy that bullshit.
Even SCOTUS agrees that open borders as fiat policy is unlawful:
https://apnews.com/article/trump-supreme-court- immigration-
deportation-8bc46820c6444fbb3540c09764e32905
WTF? Are you taking kunich lessons now? You changed the subject then
posted a link which doesn't support your claim.
1) we weren't discussing open borders, we were discussing due process
for deportation of illegal immigrants.
2) your website doesn't address open borders, it addresses revoking
_legal_ status for asylum seekers. The first sentence states:
"The Supreme Court on Friday again cleared the way for the Trump
administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of
thousands of immigrants".
Regardless of your attempted distraction, the premise floated in this
forum by the floriduh dumbass that illegal aliens have no due process
protection is flat out wrong.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/ removal-
of-aliens-who-have-entered-the-united-states
"Despite the government’s broad power over immigration, the Supreme
Court has recognized that aliens who have physically entered the
United States generally come under the protective scope of the Due
Process Clause, which applies “to all ‘persons’ within the United
States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful,
unlawful, temporary, or permanent.”"
My link is germane because making up a fictional legal status is a
purposeful attempt to thwart the actual Statute.
Regarding rights, US citizens enjoy full Constitutional rights including
full due process. We proudly keep to that standard even when it perverts justice. And that's a good thing overall. We haven't changed it for good reasons.
Franklin:
“That it is better one hundred guilty persons should escape than that
one innocent person should suffer is a maxim that has been long and
generally approved.”
Resident Legal Aliens have limited rights and their status can be
revoked. RAs do have significant process rights in that event. More than merely not enjoying the franchise, RAs are importantly not citizens.
Unlike our new fellow citizens who completed the naturalization process, Resident Aliens have not sworn loyalty to the nation and the nation in
turn may revoke that status, but not summarily. RAs have rights, but
more limited than citizens' rights.
Temporary visa holders are different again. These include people
permitted entry for tourism or business, student/educator, seasonal
work, specialty skill employment and more. All of those may be revoked
much more easily than Resident Alien status by the Secretary of State or
his agent, _"at his or her discretion"_:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/41.122
Illegal entry is a crime. Those in the country illegally are subject to summary deportation.
Anything above unpleasant to you may be changed by Statute. Write your Congressman with your ideas.
On 5/31/2025 12:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/31/2025 7:57 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 5/30/2025 5:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/30/2025 1:43 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/30/2025 12:28 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/30/2025 11:07 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:41:51 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/30/2025 9:16 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people past the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ ebikes-scooters- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
�This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,� Ms. Guallpa >>>>>>>>>>>>>> said.
�The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> where our
communities could be targets for deportation.�
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>> vote) are
ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens >>>>>>>>>>>>> who, by
Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary
deportation by the
same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair >>>>>>>>>>>> trigger!
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three >>>>>>>>>>>> paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals >>>>>>>>>>>> with the
disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting >>>>>>>>>>>> that cars
kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC >>>>>>>>>>>> life is
totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet >>>>>>>>>>>> people
are
enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, >>>>>>>>>>>> and ebike
riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car >>>>>>>>>>>> drivers.
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S. >>>>>>>>>>>> ebikes are
too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like
motorcycles -
meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths. >>>>>>>>>>>>
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of >>>>>>>>>>>> immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog >>>>>>>>>>>> whistles, even
if� you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will
consistently look for
a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their >>>>>>>>>>> ignorant
opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense.
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing >>>>>>>>>>> himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda >>>>>>>>>>> - there is
no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal >>>>>>>>>>> aliens....are
where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA illegally, her >>>>>>>>>> statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the >>>>>>>>>> illegals.
Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the
administration,
not only to people legally determined illegal.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and >>>>>>>>> attempted to deport without due process.
+1, There have already been several well documented detentions and >>>>>>>> attempted deportations of _legal_ immigrants.
Mistakes were made. All were quickly corrected.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Compare with some 20 million errors in the other direction in the
past four years.
Oh, great, now you're on board with 'The Great Replacement' theory.
Interesting that an admitted atheist would be supportive of
blatantly white christian nationalist fascism. Gee Andrew, who's
going to be there when they come for you?
I have no idea what you're raving about.
yes you do, you're just unwilling to admit it.
Just for everyone else's edification who might be ignorant:
Go find a blatant white Christian nationalist fascist who's
expounding some 'replacement theory' and give her a piece of your mind. >>>
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-twisted-logic- behind-the-
rights-great-replacement-arguments/
Don't try to feign ignorance Andrew, you're far too well- read and
aware for me to buy that bullshit.
Even SCOTUS agrees that open borders as fiat policy is unlawful:
https://apnews.com/article/trump-supreme-court- immigration-
deportation-8bc46820c6444fbb3540c09764e32905
WTF? Are you taking kunich lessons now? You changed the subject then
posted a link which doesn't support your claim.
1) we weren't discussing open borders, we were discussing due process
for deportation of illegal immigrants.
2) your website doesn't address open borders, it addresses revoking
_legal_ status for asylum seekers. The first sentence states:
"The Supreme Court on Friday again cleared the way for the Trump
administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of
thousands of immigrants".
Regardless of your attempted distraction, the premise floated in this
forum by the floriduh dumbass that illegal aliens have no due process
protection is flat out wrong.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/ removal-
of-aliens-who-have-entered-the-united-states
"Despite the government�s broad power over immigration, the Supreme
Court has recognized that aliens who have physically entered the
United States generally come under the protective scope of the Due
Process Clause, which applies �to all �persons� within the United
States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful,
unlawful, temporary, or permanent.�"
My link is germane because making up a fictional legal status is a
purposeful attempt to thwart the actual Statute.
What "fictional" legal status? The only fiction being promoted here is
the dumbasses claim that illegal aliens have no due process rights.
Regarding rights, US citizens enjoy full Constitutional rights including
full due process. We proudly keep to that standard even when it perverts
justice. And that's a good thing overall. We haven't changed it for good
reasons.
Franklin:
�That it is better one hundred guilty persons should escape than that
one innocent person should suffer is a maxim that has been long and
generally approved.�
Resident Legal Aliens have limited rights and their status can be
revoked. RAs do have significant process rights in that event. More than
merely not enjoying the franchise, RAs are importantly not citizens.
Unlike our new fellow citizens who completed the naturalization process,
Resident Aliens have not sworn loyalty to the nation and the nation in
turn may revoke that status, but not summarily.� RAs have rights, but
more limited than citizens' rights.
Temporary visa holders are different again. These include people
permitted entry for tourism or business, student/educator, seasonal
work, specialty skill employment and more.� All of those may be revoked
much more easily than Resident Alien status by the Secretary of State or
his agent, _"at his or her discretion"_:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/41.122
Illegal entry is a crime. Those in the country illegally are subject to
summary deportation.
Let me see if I can make this so simple that even you understand it:
ILLEGAL ALIENS HAVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
Does that make it more clear?
Anything above unpleasant to you may be changed by Statute. Write your
Congressman with your ideas.
The unpleasantness is the magatard's constant demonstrably false
declaration that illegal aliens have no due process rights. Everything
you've written above is true, the issue is that you're purposely
avoiding the due process issue.
You may find due process afforded to illegal aliens to be unpleasant,
but that is protected by statute, and as such may be changed by statute. >Write your congressperson about your ideas.
On 5/31/2025 12:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/31/2025 7:57 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 5/30/2025 5:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/30/2025 1:43 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/30/2025 12:28 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/30/2025 11:07 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:41:51 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/30/2025 9:16 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank
Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking
down on ebike traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people
past the paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/
ebikes-scooters-
cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“This is a direct attack on immigrant
workers,” Ms. Guallpa said.
“The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create
a situation where our
communities could be targets for deportation.”
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working
people who cannot vote) are
ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal
illegal aliens who, by
Statute, cannot work and who are subject to
summary deportation by the
same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always
on hair trigger!
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those,
only about three
paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers.
The rest deals with the
disparity between ebike and car enforcement
policies, noting that cars
kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even
mention that NYC
life is
totally dominated by the negative effects of car
traffic. Yet people
are
enraged about the comparatively minuscule
effects of ebikes, and ebike
riders are in some ways being treated more
harshly than car drivers.
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally.
I think U.S. ebikes are
too fast, and/or should be legally treated more
like motorcycles -
meaning integrated into traffic and kept off
bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the
brief mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right
wing dog whistles, even
if you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass
will consistently look for
a political scapegoat for any issue they have
based their ignorant
opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of
magatard groupthink
nonsense.
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more
recently is allowing
himself to get sucked into the magatard
groupthink propaganda - there is
no evidence in that article to support "Criminal
illegal aliens....are
where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the
USA illegally, her
statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are
with the illegals.
Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by
the administration,
not only to people legally determined illegal.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people
illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.
+1, There have already been several well documented
detentions and
attempted deportations of _legal_ immigrants.
Mistakes were made. All were quickly corrected.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Compare with some 20 million errors in the other
direction in the past four years.
Oh, great, now you're on board with 'The Great
Replacement' theory.
Interesting that an admitted atheist would be
supportive of blatantly white christian nationalist
fascism. Gee Andrew, who's going to be there when they
come for you?
I have no idea what you're raving about.
yes you do, you're just unwilling to admit it.
Go find a blatant white Christian nationalist fascist
who's expounding some 'replacement theory' and give her
a piece of your mind.
Just for everyone else's edification who might be ignorant:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-twisted-logic-
behind-the- rights-great-replacement-arguments/
Don't try to feign ignorance Andrew, you're far too well-
read and aware for me to buy that bullshit.
Even SCOTUS agrees that open borders as fiat policy is
unlawful:
https://apnews.com/article/trump-supreme-court-
immigration- deportation-8bc46820c6444fbb3540c09764e32905
WTF? Are you taking kunich lessons now? You changed the
subject then posted a link which doesn't support your claim.
1) we weren't discussing open borders, we were discussing
due process for deportation of illegal immigrants.
2) your website doesn't address open borders, it
addresses revoking _legal_ status for asylum seekers. The
first sentence states:
"The Supreme Court on Friday again cleared the way for
the Trump administration to strip temporary legal
protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants".
Regardless of your attempted distraction, the premise
floated in this forum by the floriduh dumbass that
illegal aliens have no due process protection is flat out
wrong.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/
amendment-5/ removal- of-aliens-who-have-entered-the-
united-states
"Despite the government’s broad power over immigration,
the Supreme Court has recognized that aliens who have
physically entered the United States generally come under
the protective scope of the Due Process Clause, which
applies “to all ‘persons’ within the United States,
including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful,
unlawful, temporary, or permanent.”"
My link is germane because making up a fictional legal
status is a purposeful attempt to thwart the actual Statute.
What "fictional" legal status? The only fiction being
promoted here is the dumbasses claim that illegal aliens
have no due process rights.
Regarding rights, US citizens enjoy full Constitutional
rights including full due process. We proudly keep to that
standard even when it perverts justice. And that's a good
thing overall. We haven't changed it for good reasons.
Franklin:
“That it is better one hundred guilty persons should
escape than that one innocent person should suffer is a
maxim that has been long and generally approved.”
Resident Legal Aliens have limited rights and their status
can be revoked. RAs do have significant process rights in
that event. More than merely not enjoying the franchise,
RAs are importantly not citizens. Unlike our new fellow
citizens who completed the naturalization process,
Resident Aliens have not sworn loyalty to the nation and
the nation in turn may revoke that status, but not
summarily. RAs have rights, but more limited than
citizens' rights.
Temporary visa holders are different again. These include
people permitted entry for tourism or business, student/
educator, seasonal work, specialty skill employment and
more. All of those may be revoked much more easily than
Resident Alien status by the Secretary of State or his
agent, _"at his or her discretion"_:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/41.122
Illegal entry is a crime. Those in the country illegally
are subject to summary deportation.
Let me see if I can make this so simple that even you
understand it:
ILLEGAL ALIENS HAVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
Does that make it more clear?
Anything above unpleasant to you may be changed by
Statute. Write your Congressman with your ideas.
The unpleasantness is the magatard's constant demonstrably
false declaration that illegal aliens have no due process
rights. Everything you've written above is true, the issue
is that you're purposely avoiding the due process issue.
You may find due process afforded to illegal aliens to be
unpleasant, but that is protected by statute, and as such
may be changed by statute. Write your congressperson about
your ideas.
On 6/1/2025 10:28 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Persons who are present illegally are subject to
deportation with extremely limited process:
https://www.usa.gov/deportation-process
Mostly a finding of fact that they are, indeed, illegally
present.
Didn't you just link the details of "due process"?
On 6/1/2025 10:28 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Persons who are present illegally are subject to deportation with
extremely limited process:
https://www.usa.gov/deportation-process
Mostly a finding of fact that they are, indeed, illegally present.
Didn't you just link the details of "due process"?
On 6/1/2025 10:41 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/1/2025 10:28 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Persons who are present illegally are subject to
deportation with extremely limited process:
https://www.usa.gov/deportation-process
Mostly a finding of fact that they are, indeed, illegally
present.
Didn't you just link the details of "due process"?
It is quite limited and unlike those for a citizen: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-6-2-3/
ALDE_00013726/
On 6/1/2025 12:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/1/2025 10:41 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/1/2025 10:28 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Persons who are present illegally are subject to deportation with
extremely limited process:
https://www.usa.gov/deportation-process
Mostly a finding of fact that they are, indeed, illegally present.
Didn't you just link the details of "due process"?
It is quite limited and unlike those for a citizen:
Right. But not nonexistent, as some claim.
On 6/1/2025 12:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/1/2025 10:41 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/1/2025 10:28 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Persons who are present illegally are subject to
deportation with extremely limited process:
https://www.usa.gov/deportation-process
Mostly a finding of fact that they are, indeed,
illegally present.
Didn't you just link the details of "due process"?
It is quite limited and unlike those for a citizen:
Right. But not nonexistent, as some claim.
On 6/1/2025 2:08 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 14:05:47 -0400, Frank KrygowskiSomeone claiming to be Catrike Ryder did, 5/30, posting here in an
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/1/2025 12:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/1/2025 10:41 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/1/2025 10:28 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Persons who are present illegally are subject to deportation with
extremely limited process:
https://www.usa.gov/deportation-process
Mostly a finding of fact that they are, indeed, illegally present.
Didn't you just link the details of "due process"?
It is quite limited and unlike those for a citizen:
Right. But not nonexistent, as some claim.
Who claimed that?
argument with Zen.
=========================
[feeble tricyclist:]
Ilegalas [sic] are not entitled to due process.
[Zen:] Yes, you braindead magatard, they are: >https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2025/05/11/yes-immigrants-in-the-u-s-illegally-still-have-due-process-rights/83481316007/
"Despite Trump�s dismissal of and questions about due process for
immigrants, the U.S. Constitution, legal experts and decades of court
decisions agree: Immigrants in the U.S., regardless of how they entered
the U.S., legally or illegally, have due process rights."
[feeble tricyclist:]
No, they don't.
=========================
If you're having memory problems, try taking notes. Or as with Tom,
learn how to re-read what you've posted upthread.
Krygowski is desperate to prove me wrong, and indeed I should have
said that illegal's due process rights are extremely limited and very
unlike the due process rights of citizens and legal immigrants.
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 14:35:21 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
Krygowski is desperate to prove me wrong, and indeed I should have
said that illegal's due process rights are extremely limited and very >>unlike the due process rights of citizens and legal immigrants.
All those students that paid a small fortune to do post-grads
at good universities were legal immigrants(albeit temporary). They had
visas.
Mr Windrip decided they had less rights than the cheap
immigrants he employs at his hotels...
But then Mr Windrip never did respect anyone's rights.
"The constitution? It's just a piece of paper."
"The supreme court? A bunch of old fools!"
[]'s
On 6/1/2025 2:35 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 14:18:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/1/2025 2:08 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 14:05:47 -0400, Frank KrygowskiSomeone claiming to be Catrike Ryder did, 5/30, posting here in an
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/1/2025 12:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/1/2025 10:41 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/1/2025 10:28 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Didn't you just link the details of "due process"?
Persons who are present illegally are subject to deportation with >>>>>>>> extremely limited process:
https://www.usa.gov/deportation-process
Mostly a finding of fact that they are, indeed, illegally present. >>>>>>>
It is quite limited and unlike those for a citizen:
Right. But not nonexistent, as some claim.
Who claimed that?
argument with Zen.
=========================
[feeble tricyclist:]
Ilegalas [sic] are not entitled to due process.
[Zen:] Yes, you braindead magatard, they are:
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2025/05/11/yes-immigrants-in-the-u-s-illegally-still-have-due-process-rights/83481316007/
"Despite Trump�s dismissal of and questions about due process for
immigrants, the U.S. Constitution, legal experts and decades of court
decisions agree: Immigrants in the U.S., regardless of how they entered >>> the U.S., legally or illegally, have due process rights."
[feeble tricyclist:]
No, they don't.
=========================
If you're having memory problems, try taking notes. Or as with Tom,
learn how to re-read what you've posted upthread.
Krygowski is desperate to prove me wrong, and indeed...
Indeed, you were wrong. Own it.
Roger Merriman wrote:
NFN Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
Roger Merriman wrote:
London so urban to Suburban, I’m outer london so mainly suburban, lower >>>> speed limits 20mph is common, almost certainly and reasonably chance of it >>>> being enforced aka speed cameras.
Just curious -- are you inside or outside of the M25?
Inside M25 tends to be line in the sand for if it’s London or not, are few >> places it passes through what is considered london but in general it’s the >> de facto border.
So some 40/50 miles across depending on where as it’s not a perfect ring by
any means!
If I remember a map right, the shape is kind of oval, wider on the
east-west axis.
No European Canals where for transportation of industrial materials had
In Europe, I think that most canals tend to be done to facilitate
drainage, especially working around population density. Where I am, the
space is flat and very spread out. Our canal system was actually built
several hundred years before the first European or Euro-American
settlers. The Europeans modified somewhat with more modern engineering, >>> but for both, the intent of the canals is to move water from the river
system into places that it can be used for agricultural irrigation.
fairly brief moment in history before the railways arrived, hence the tow
paths for horses.
That makes sense. In the US, I believe the Erie Canal was built that
way, to facilitate towing
Are places where you get irrigation and drainage such as the fens where
they have drained the swamp as you where, but they aren’t the normal use >> for canals which are transporting materials and goods. Are still some in
use like the ship canal between Liverpool and Manchester.
No drainage at all, as we're in the middle of the Sonora Desert. And
even if the river is at flood stage (very rarely) it's not navigable. Instead, there is a dam at one point in the river, and there, the river
is entirely diverted into our canal system. Everything downstream is
entirely dry, except for one place that they built a lake by putting in additional dams and re-flooding a 2-mile section of the riverbed.
Otherwise, the only times that there is water is on occasions when
reservoirs upstream are full enough that water is let out to keep them
from overfilling. Essentially, whether the river has water in it or not
is a matter of flood control.
One of the effects of that is that we have several roads that simply
ford the riverbed. But if the river is running, then the fords are
closed, and it usually takes several weeks before everything dries up
and the roads are re-opened to traffic.
The other effect of all the water diversion is that there is a lot of underground storage of water, and as a result, any water that comes out
of the municipal water system is very hard, with a high mineral content.
Not a big deal for flood-watering alfalfa fields, but not especially friendly for household use. Water that tastes bad, even if entirely
safe to drink), but also hard on plumbing and water-using appliances.
Smith
On 6/1/2025 6:32 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 5/31/2025 12:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/31/2025 7:57 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 5/30/2025 5:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/30/2025 1:43 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/30/2025 12:28 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/30/2025 11:07 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:41:51 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/30/2025 9:16 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people past the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ ebikes- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scooters-
cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share
“This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,” Ms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guallpa said.
“The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> situation where our
communities could be targets for deportation.” >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot vote) are
ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens >>>>>>>>>>>>>> who, by
Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary >>>>>>>>>>>>>> deportation by the
same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair >>>>>>>>>>>>> trigger!
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about >>>>>>>>>>>>> three
paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest >>>>>>>>>>>>> deals with the
disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, >>>>>>>>>>>>> noting that cars
kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention >>>>>>>>>>>>> that NYC
life is
totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet people
are
enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of >>>>>>>>>>>>> ebikes, and ebike
riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car >>>>>>>>>>>>> drivers.
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think >>>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. ebikes are
too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like >>>>>>>>>>>>> motorcycles -
meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of >>>>>>>>>>>>> immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog >>>>>>>>>>>>> whistles, even
if you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will
consistently look for
a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their >>>>>>>>>>>> ignorant
opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard
groupthink
nonsense.
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is >>>>>>>>>>>> allowing
himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink
propaganda - there is
no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal >>>>>>>>>>>> aliens....are
where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA
illegally, her
statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the >>>>>>>>>>> illegals.
Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the
administration,
not only to people legally determined illegal.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and >>>>>>>>>> attempted to deport without due process.
+1, There have already been several well documented detentions and >>>>>>>>> attempted deportations of _legal_ immigrants.
Mistakes were made. All were quickly corrected.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Compare with some 20 million errors in the other direction in the >>>>>>> past four years.
Oh, great, now you're on board with 'The Great Replacement' theory. >>>>>>
Interesting that an admitted atheist would be supportive of
blatantly white christian nationalist fascism. Gee Andrew, who's
going to be there when they come for you?
I have no idea what you're raving about.
yes you do, you're just unwilling to admit it.
Go find a blatant white Christian nationalist fascist who's
expounding some 'replacement theory' and give her a piece of your
mind.
Just for everyone else's edification who might be ignorant:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-twisted-logic- behind-the-
rights-great-replacement-arguments/
Don't try to feign ignorance Andrew, you're far too well- read and
aware for me to buy that bullshit.
Even SCOTUS agrees that open borders as fiat policy is unlawful:
https://apnews.com/article/trump-supreme-court- immigration-
deportation-8bc46820c6444fbb3540c09764e32905
WTF? Are you taking kunich lessons now? You changed the subject then
posted a link which doesn't support your claim.
1) we weren't discussing open borders, we were discussing due
process for deportation of illegal immigrants.
2) your website doesn't address open borders, it addresses revoking
_legal_ status for asylum seekers. The first sentence states:
"The Supreme Court on Friday again cleared the way for the Trump
administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of
thousands of immigrants".
Regardless of your attempted distraction, the premise floated in
this forum by the floriduh dumbass that illegal aliens have no due
process protection is flat out wrong.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/ amendment-5/
removal- of-aliens-who-have-entered-the- united-states
"Despite the government’s broad power over immigration, the Supreme
Court has recognized that aliens who have physically entered the
United States generally come under the protective scope of the Due
Process Clause, which applies “to all ‘persons’ within the United >>>> States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful,
unlawful, temporary, or permanent.”"
My link is germane because making up a fictional legal status is a
purposeful attempt to thwart the actual Statute.
What "fictional" legal status? The only fiction being promoted here is
the dumbasses claim that illegal aliens have no due process rights.
Regarding rights, US citizens enjoy full Constitutional rights
including full due process. We proudly keep to that standard even
when it perverts justice. And that's a good thing overall. We haven't
changed it for good reasons.
Franklin:
“That it is better one hundred guilty persons should escape than that
one innocent person should suffer is a maxim that has been long and
generally approved.”
Resident Legal Aliens have limited rights and their status can be
revoked. RAs do have significant process rights in that event. More
than merely not enjoying the franchise, RAs are importantly not
citizens. Unlike our new fellow citizens who completed the
naturalization process, Resident Aliens have not sworn loyalty to the
nation and the nation in turn may revoke that status, but not
summarily. RAs have rights, but more limited than citizens' rights.
Temporary visa holders are different again. These include people
permitted entry for tourism or business, student/ educator, seasonal
work, specialty skill employment and more. All of those may be
revoked much more easily than Resident Alien status by the Secretary
of State or his agent, _"at his or her discretion"_:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/41.122
Illegal entry is a crime. Those in the country illegally are subject
to summary deportation.
Let me see if I can make this so simple that even you understand it:
ILLEGAL ALIENS HAVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
Does that make it more clear?
Anything above unpleasant to you may be changed by Statute. Write
your Congressman with your ideas.
The unpleasantness is the magatard's constant demonstrably false
declaration that illegal aliens have no due process rights. Everything
you've written above is true, the issue is that you're purposely
avoiding the due process issue.
You may find due process afforded to illegal aliens to be unpleasant,
but that is protected by statute, and as such may be changed by
statute. Write your congressperson about your ideas.
"What "fictional" legal status? "
The Biden administration created a 'parole' designation out of thin air
to facilitate a lawless 'open border' regime. SCOTUS wasn't having it:
https://apnews.com/article/trump-supreme-court-immigration- deportation-8bc46820c6444fbb3540c09764e32905
Persons who are present illegally are subject to deportation with
extremely limited process:
https://www.usa.gov/deportation-process
Mostly a finding of fact that they are, indeed, illegally present.
On Fri, 30 May 2025 15:58:42 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 15:37 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 15:16:21 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic >>>>>>>>>> violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall: >>>>>>>>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters- >>>>>>>>>> cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share >>>>>>>>>
“This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,” Ms. Guallpa said. “The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where our >>>>>>>>> communities could be targets for deportation.”
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot vote) are >>>>>>>> ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens who, by >>>>>>>> Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary deportation by the >>>>>>>> same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair trigger! >>>>>>>
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three >>>>>>> paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals with the >>>>>>> disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting that cars >>>>>>> kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC life is
totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet people are
enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, and ebike >>>>>>> riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car drivers. >>>>>>>
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S. ebikes are >>>>>>> too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like motorcycles - >>>>>>> meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog whistles, even >>>>>>> if you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will consistently look for >>>>>> a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their ignorant >>>>>> opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink nonsense.
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing
himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda - there is >>>>>> no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal aliens....are >>>>>> where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA illegally, her
statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the illegals.
Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the administration, >>>> not only to people legally determined illegal.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.
Ilegalas are not entitled to due process.
So your local head of ICE can claim you're illegal (because you beat him
in poker) and deport you?
You're not entitled to due process as per your own declaration.
Nonsense. Whether a person is here illegally or not is very easy to
determine and to prove.
Your local head of ICE has already put you in a plane so he doesn't have
to pay his poker debts. Tough luck for you: without due process, his
decision is final.
"Due Process" is the legal framework that gives you a chance to prove
that you're in the USA legally.
Many people have sympathies with following "due process" irrespective of >>>> whether they have sympathies with people accused of committing misdemeanors.
It's years since I had anything to do with the Immigration people but
back then a legal Immigrant was issued a "green card".
No card then illegal.
Am 31.05.2025 um 03:10 schrieb John B.:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 15:58:42 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 15:37 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 15:16:21 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote:Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the administration, >>>>> not only to people legally determined illegal.
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic >>>>>>>>>>> violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall: >>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters- >>>>>>>>>>> cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share >>>>>>>>>>
�This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,� Ms. Guallpa said. �The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation where our >>>>>>>>>> communities could be targets for deportation.�
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot vote) are >>>>>>>>> ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens who, by >>>>>>>>> Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary deportation by the
same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair trigger! >>>>>>>>
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three >>>>>>>> paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals with the >>>>>>>> disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting that cars >>>>>>>> kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC life is
totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet people are
enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes, and ebike >>>>>>>> riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car drivers. >>>>>>>>
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S. ebikes are
too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like motorcycles - >>>>>>>> meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog whistles, even >>>>>>>> if� you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will consistently look for
a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their ignorant >>>>>>> opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink nonsense.
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing >>>>>>> himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda - there is
no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal aliens....are >>>>>>> where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA illegally, her >>>>>> statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the illegals. >>>>>
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.
Ilegalas are not entitled to due process.
So your local head of ICE can claim you're illegal (because you beat him >>> in poker) and deport you?
You're not entitled to due process as per your own declaration.
Nonsense. Whether a person is here illegally or not is very easy to
determine and to prove.
Your local head of ICE has already put you in a plane so he doesn't have >>> to pay his poker debts. Tough luck for you: without due process, his
decision is final.
"Due Process" is the legal framework that gives you a chance to prove
that you're in the USA legally.
Many people have sympathies with following "due process" irrespective of >>>>> whether they have sympathies with people accused of committing misdemeanors.
It's years since I had anything to do with the Immigration people but
back then a legal Immigrant was issued a "green card".
The "green card" was best version of legal immigration but there
are/were lots of temporary visa varieties also providing legal immigration.
No card then illegal.
The current administration is of the opinion "Greed card and you're
still illegal if we don't like you". This is where "due process" is
most important: under which conditions is the administration allowed to >revoke a green card (or other visa permitting work in the USA)?
On 6/1/2025 10:28 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/1/2025 6:32 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 5/31/2025 12:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/31/2025 7:57 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 5/30/2025 5:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/30/2025 1:43 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 5/30/2025 12:28 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/30/2025 11:07 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:41:51 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/30/2025 9:16 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people past the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ ebikes- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scooters-
cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share
�This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,� Ms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guallpa said.
�The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> situation where our
communities could be targets for deportation.� >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot vote) are
ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who, by
Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deportation by the
same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair >>>>>>>>>>>>>> trigger!
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about >>>>>>>>>>>>>> three
paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest >>>>>>>>>>>>>> deals with the
disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> noting that cars
kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that NYC
life is
totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet people
are
enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ebikes, and ebike
riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car >>>>>>>>>>>>>> drivers.
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think >>>>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. ebikes are
too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like >>>>>>>>>>>>>> motorcycles -
meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog >>>>>>>>>>>>>> whistles, even
if� you have to blow the whistle yourself.
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will
consistently look for
a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their >>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorant
opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard >>>>>>>>>>>>> groupthink
nonsense.
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is >>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing
himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink
propaganda - there is
no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal >>>>>>>>>>>>> aliens....are
where her sympathies lie."
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA
illegally, her
statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the >>>>>>>>>>>> illegals.
Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the
administration,
not only to people legally determined illegal.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and >>>>>>>>>>> attempted to deport without due process.
+1, There have already been several well documented detentions and >>>>>>>>>> attempted deportations of _legal_ immigrants.
Mistakes were made. All were quickly corrected.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Compare with some 20 million errors in the other direction in the >>>>>>>> past four years.
Oh, great, now you're on board with 'The Great Replacement' theory. >>>>>>>
Interesting that an admitted atheist would be supportive of
blatantly white christian nationalist fascism. Gee Andrew, who's >>>>>>> going to be there when they come for you?
I have no idea what you're raving about.
yes you do, you're just unwilling to admit it.
Go find a blatant white Christian nationalist fascist who's
expounding some 'replacement theory' and give her a piece of your
mind.
Just for everyone else's edification who might be ignorant:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-twisted-logic- behind-the-
rights-great-replacement-arguments/
Don't try to feign ignorance Andrew, you're far too well- read and
aware for me to buy that bullshit.
Even SCOTUS agrees that open borders as fiat policy is unlawful:
https://apnews.com/article/trump-supreme-court- immigration-
deportation-8bc46820c6444fbb3540c09764e32905
WTF? Are you taking kunich lessons now? You changed the subject then >>>>> posted a link which doesn't support your claim.
1) we weren't discussing open borders, we were discussing due
process for deportation of illegal immigrants.
2) your website doesn't address open borders, it addresses revoking
_legal_ status for asylum seekers. The first sentence states:
"The Supreme Court on Friday again cleared the way for the Trump
administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of >>>>> thousands of immigrants".
Regardless of your attempted distraction, the premise floated in
this forum by the floriduh dumbass that illegal aliens have no due
process protection is flat out wrong.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/ amendment-5/
removal- of-aliens-who-have-entered-the- united-states
"Despite the government�s broad power over immigration, the Supreme
Court has recognized that aliens who have physically entered the
United States generally come under the protective scope of the Due
Process Clause, which applies �to all �persons� within the United
States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful,
unlawful, temporary, or permanent.�"
My link is germane because making up a fictional legal status is a
purposeful attempt to thwart the actual Statute.
What "fictional" legal status? The only fiction being promoted here is
the dumbasses claim that illegal aliens have no due process rights.
Regarding rights, US citizens enjoy full Constitutional rights
including full due process. We proudly keep to that standard even
when it perverts justice. And that's a good thing overall. We haven't
changed it for good reasons.
Franklin:
�That it is better one hundred guilty persons should escape than that
one innocent person should suffer is a maxim that has been long and
generally approved.�
Resident Legal Aliens have limited rights and their status can be
revoked. RAs do have significant process rights in that event. More
than merely not enjoying the franchise, RAs are importantly not
citizens. Unlike our new fellow citizens who completed the
naturalization process, Resident Aliens have not sworn loyalty to the
nation and the nation in turn may revoke that status, but not
summarily.� RAs have rights, but more limited than citizens' rights.
Temporary visa holders are different again. These include people
permitted entry for tourism or business, student/ educator, seasonal
work, specialty skill employment and more.� All of those may be
revoked much more easily than Resident Alien status by the Secretary
of State or his agent, _"at his or her discretion"_:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/41.122
Illegal entry is a crime. Those in the country illegally are subject
to summary deportation.
Let me see if I can make this so simple that even you understand it:
ILLEGAL ALIENS HAVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
Does that make it more clear?
Anything above unpleasant to you may be changed by Statute. Write
your Congressman with your ideas.
The unpleasantness is the magatard's constant demonstrably false
declaration that illegal aliens have no due process rights. Everything
you've written above is true, the issue is that you're purposely
avoiding the due process issue.
You may find due process afforded to illegal aliens to be unpleasant,
but that is protected by statute, and as such may be changed by
statute. Write your congressperson about your ideas.
"What "fictional" legal status? "
The Biden administration created a 'parole' designation out of thin air
to facilitate a lawless 'open border' regime. SCOTUS wasn't having it:
https://apnews.com/article/trump-supreme-court-immigration-
deportation-8bc46820c6444fbb3540c09764e32905
oh fer fucks sake. Would you _please_ read your links before you post them?
1- Humanitarian parole is no more fiction that the sun will rise
tomorrow. It's well within the presidents authority to create such LEGAL >pathways.
2- It's not an "open border" policy...stop parroting karoline leavitt.
2- Scotus didn't determine that humanitarian parole was not legal. The
case in your link determined that Trump had the authority to revoke the >status. The white house _wants_ to spin the policy as illegal, but that
was never the question, and the courts didn't come anywhere close to
claiming humanitarian parole was illegal.
It's funny how you people rant fictitious claims of biden creating 'open >borders' and unconstitutional protections, but remain silent when trump
wants to overturn constitutional protections (birthright citizenship) by >executive order.
You may find birthright citizenship to be unpleasant, but that is
protected by the constitution, and as such may be changed only changed
by constitutional amendment. Write your congressperson about your ideas.
Persons who are present illegally are subject to deportation with
extremely limited process:
https://www.usa.gov/deportation-process
Mostly a finding of fact that they are, indeed, illegally present.
You may find due process afforded to illegal aliens to be unpleasant,
but that is protected by statute, and as such may be changed by statute. >Write your congressperson about your ideas.
While you're at it, see if you can start a petition to allow trump to
change the constitution by executive order. But only for trump, of
course, because a democrat president would only use it as a means to
become a dictator.
NFN Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
Roger Merriman wrote:
No European Canals where for transportation of industrial materials had fairly brief moment in history before the railways arrived, hence the tow paths for horses.Besides passing visual similarities, the two are entirely differentWe also have several canals (including one right next to my house) that >>>> have dedicated multi-use paths on one side of the canal. These are more >>>> or less municipal paths, and very much a magnet for recreational use,
ranging from simple pedestrians to serious cyclists. On the other side >>>> of the canal (at least in the space near my house) what's there is
essentially a service road that is owned by the water utility that
operates the canal. In some places, the service road is paved (and also >>>> suitable for cycling, as it's even wider than the multi-use path), but >>>> only a mile in either direction, the surface is gravel.
Those are lovely places but not particularly useful for utility purposes as >>> they are narrow and is limited as to how many can useful use such places. >>
situations.
In Europe, I think that most canals tend to be done to facilitate
drainage, especially working around population density. Where I am, the
space is flat and very spread out. Our canal system was actually built
several hundred years before the first European or Euro-American
settlers. The Europeans modified somewhat with more modern engineering,
but for both, the intent of the canals is to move water from the river
system into places that it can be used for agricultural irrigation.
Are places where you get irrigation and drainage such as the fens where
they have drained the swamp as you where, but they aren’t the normal use for canals which are transporting materials and goods. Are still some in
use like the ship canal between Liverpool and Manchester.
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 14:35:21 -0400, floriduh dumbass
<[email protected]> wrote:
Krygowski is desperate to prove me wrong,
and indeed I should have
said that illegal's due process rights are extremely limited and very
unlike the due process rights of citizens and legal immigrants.
On 6/2/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 21:13:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/1/2025 2:35 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 14:18:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/1/2025 2:08 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 14:05:47 -0400, Frank KrygowskiSomeone claiming to be Catrike Ryder did, 5/30, posting here in an
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/1/2025 12:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/1/2025 10:41 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/1/2025 10:28 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Didn't you just link the details of "due process"?
Persons who are present illegally are subject to deportation with >>>>>>>>>> extremely limited process:
https://www.usa.gov/deportation-process
Mostly a finding of fact that they are, indeed, illegally present. >>>>>>>>>
It is quite limited and unlike those for a citizen:
Right. But not nonexistent, as some claim.
Who claimed that?
argument with Zen.
=========================
[feeble tricyclist:]
Ilegalas [sic] are not entitled to due process.
[Zen:] Yes, you braindead magatard, they are:
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2025/05/11/yes-immigrants-in-the-u-s-illegally-still-have-due-process-rights/83481316007/
"Despite Trump�s dismissal of and questions about due process for >>>>> immigrants, the U.S. Constitution, legal experts and decades of court >>>>> decisions agree: Immigrants in the U.S., regardless of how they entered
the U.S., legally or illegally, have due process rights."
[feeble tricyclist:]
No, they don't.
=========================
If you're having memory problems, try taking notes. Or as with Tom,
learn how to re-read what you've posted upthread.
Krygowski is desperate to prove me wrong, and indeed...
Indeed, you were wrong. Own it.
I just did...
And your anger and embarrassment are obvious, by your obscenities and >attacks. Others here have admitted their errors with far more class.
Maybe that's partly because they didn't invest a week in repeating the
same false claims over and over, repeatedly denying that they were wrong >despite evidence.
But hey, congratulations on finally learning a little bit!
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 14:35:21 -0400, floriduh dumbass
<[email protected]> wrote:
Krygowski is desperate to prove me wrong,
No one is desperate to prove you wrong, dumbass. You do that fine all on
your own.
and indeed I should have
said that illegal's due process rights are extremely limited and very
unlike the due process rights of citizens and legal immigrants.
But you didn't, and not just once, but after being shown information
that proved you wrong, you doubled down with "no, they don't".
You had the opportunity at that point to stop embarrassing yourself,
yet, much like kunich, you continued to do so even with direct evidence
to the contrary.
You were simply parroting what trump wants you to believe.
And of course, a mere 3 days later, you feign complete ignorance that
you ever made such a claim.
Floriduh dumbass continuing to make the dumbshine state proud.
Zen Cycle <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 14:35:21 -0400, floriduh dumbass
<[email protected]> wrote:
Krygowski is desperate to prove me wrong,
No one is desperate to prove you wrong, dumbass. You do that fine all on
your own.
and indeed I should have
said that illegal's due process rights are extremely limited and very
unlike the due process rights of citizens and legal immigrants.
But you didn't, and not just once, but after being shown information
that proved you wrong, you doubled down with "no, they don't".
You had the opportunity at that point to stop embarrassing yourself,
yet, much like kunich, you continued to do so even with direct evidence
to the contrary.
You were simply parroting what trump wants you to believe.
Or like a mockingbird
He is a relatively grey unassuming bird til he flies
Then you can see his racing stripes
And of course, a mere 3 days later, you feign complete ignorance that
you ever made such a claim.
Floriduh dumbass continuing to make the dumbshine state proud.
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 15:51:55 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 6/4/2025 2:54 PM, marika wrote:
Zen Cycle <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 14:35:21 -0400, floriduh dumbass
<[email protected]> wrote:
Krygowski is desperate to prove me wrong,
No one is desperate to prove you wrong, dumbass. You do that fine all on >>>> your own.
and indeed I should have
said that illegal's due process rights are extremely limited and very >>>>>> unlike the due process rights of citizens and legal immigrants.
But you didn't, and not just once, but after being shown information
that proved you wrong, you doubled down with "no, they don't".
You had the opportunity at that point to stop embarrassing yourself,
yet, much like kunich, you continued to do so even with direct evidence >>>> to the contrary.
You were simply parroting what trump wants you to believe.
Or like a mockingbird
He is a relatively grey unassuming bird til he flies
Then you can see his racing stripes
he's not realtively grey, he's absolutely grey, in addition to wrinkled, >>feeble, and somewhat infirmed
he can't fly - even metaphorically
His stripes aren't racing, they're ignorant.
And of course, a mere 3 days later, you feign complete ignorance that
you ever made such a claim.
Floriduh dumbass continuing to make the dumbshine state proud.
Trump hasn't been telling anyone what to say, but some democrats sure
have been doing that, pussified Tampon Timmy Walz, for instance.
https://apnews.com/article/tim-walz-minnesota-governor-south-carolina-democrats-86d6d99db5f5d5f39e8df8766df32609
On 6/4/2025 2:54 PM, marika wrote:
Zen Cycle <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 14:35:21 -0400, floriduh dumbass
<[email protected]> wrote:
Krygowski is desperate to prove me wrong,
No one is desperate to prove you wrong, dumbass. You do that fine all on >>> your own.
and indeed I should have
said that illegal's due process rights are extremely limited and very >>>>> unlike the due process rights of citizens and legal immigrants.
But you didn't, and not just once, but after being shown information
that proved you wrong, you doubled down with "no, they don't".
You had the opportunity at that point to stop embarrassing yourself,
yet, much like kunich, you continued to do so even with direct evidence
to the contrary.
You were simply parroting what trump wants you to believe.
Or like a mockingbird
He is a relatively grey unassuming bird til he flies
Then you can see his racing stripes
he's not realtively grey, he's absolutely grey, in addition to wrinkled, >feeble, and somewhat infirmed
he can't fly - even metaphorically
His stripes aren't racing, they're ignorant.
And of course, a mere 3 days later, you feign complete ignorance that
you ever made such a claim.
Floriduh dumbass continuing to make the dumbshine state proud.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 29:04:08 |
| Calls: | 12,107 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,240 |