REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Your papers, please.

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Friday, April 30, 2010 08:11
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2071
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 12:57 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I have to show my I.D. to vote. If I get pulled over for a traffic violation, I have to show proof of insurance, registration and an my driver's license. Any time I travel by plane,I needed to show my I.D. If I write a check or open a bank account, I have to show I.D. I even get carded, from time to time, when buying alcohol.

So, WTH is all this fuss over anyone having to show their proper I.D. , to a cop, when he lawfully asks for it ? We ALL do, almost routinely, and we don't riot over it, or wave signs accusing the Gov't of being RACISTS or BIGOTED.

There is no issue here. If you're here illegally, tough shit. If you're a citizen, join the club. It's what we ALL have to do, whether you like it or not.

Come into MY country, illegally, and then bitch about how you're treated, when it's only how EVERY citizen gets treated..... who the HELL do you think you are ?






Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:02 PM

BYTEMITE


Um, there are actually those of us here legally who look Anglo (I was born here, my parents have scottish ancestry) and would STILL prefer to not to have to submit to unwarranted search and scrutiny. As I've said before, it's a dangerous precedent. Saying that we already do it so it's okay doesn't make it right.

As for having to show when we've committed a crime or a violation... The only thing these people have against them is their language and skin colour, nothing else to initially make anyone suspicious of their committing a crime. Sorry, but it really is discrimination, it's assuming guilt before innocence, and even if they are innocent, then they're very likely to be mistreated anyway. It's like DWB.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:03 PM

MINCINGBEAST


sic' 'em kwicko!

(grabs organic, fair trade, low sodium, no-butter pop corn, takes a seat)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:03 PM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I have to show my I.D. to vote. If I get pulled over for a traffic violation, I have to show proof of insurance, registration and an my driver's license. Any time I travel by plane,I needed to show my I.D. If I write a check or open a bank account, I have to show I.D. I even get carded, from time to time, when buying alcohol.

So, WTH is all this fuss over anyone having to show their proper I.D. , to a cop, when he lawfully asks for it ? We ALL do, almost routinely, and we don't riot over it, or wave signs accusing the Gov't of being RACISTS or BIGOTED.

There is no issue here. If you're here illegally, tough shit. If you're a citizen, join the club. It's what we ALL have to do, whether you like it or not.

Come into MY country, illegally, and then bitch about how you're treated, when it's only how EVERY citizen gets treated..... who the HELL do you think you are ?






Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

And remember, they're not called "illeagal alliens" anymore, they're "un-registerd Democrats".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:07 PM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
sic' 'em kwicko!

(grabs organic, fair trade, low sodium, no-butter pop corn, takes a seat)

Organic fair trade low sodium no butter popcorn? Why don't you just chew styrofoam?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:07 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Um, there are actually those of us here legally who look Anglo and would STILL prefer to not to have to submit to unwarranted search and scrutiny. As I've said before, it's a dangerous precedent. Saying that we already do it so it's okay doesn't make it right.

As for having to show when we've committed a crime or a violation... The only thing these people have against them is their language and skin colour. Sorry, but it really is discrimination. It's like DWB.



There's zero discrimination going on here. Sorry. There's nothing in the AZ law which requires or allows a cop to shake down anyone simply because they 'look' like they're foreign. There has to be probable cause, just as there would be for a cop to ask any one else.

How is this in ANY way a "dangerous precedent " ? WE already do it, and have done it , for a long time. No, it doesn't make it RIGHT, but what is your solution to those situations ? Are you for a nationalized ID card, yes or no ?






Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:09 PM

MINCINGBEAST


generally speaking, cops only lawfully ask for your ID if they have a reason to. a reasonable articulable suspicion, or probable cause, that sort of thing.

the danger here, which you obviously aprehend, is that the new law expands the ambit of an officer's power to butt into your life, and what constitutes a lawful request for ID. it weakens the barrier between your life, and the awesome power of the state. you don't really dig the power of the state, do you? i never thought i'd live to see the day that you'd defend it.

in theory, i object to the law, because in practice, it will sanction stops that are premised on things that ought not be part of "reasonable suspicion" of a crime. like mexican-ity.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:12 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


No, I don't dig the power of the state, and I'm glad you agree that it does reach into our privacy. But my issue here is, we already , as CITIZENS, must face more scrutiny than any illegals do, and they have absolutely no reason to bitch and moan about anything when they're here ILLEGALLY to beging with in the first place.






Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:12 PM

MINCINGBEAST


Whether or not the text of the law itself mentions race, in practice, it leaves plenty of room for pretext. So long as the officer will be able to point to another suspicion besides race (which they teach cops how to do, in cop school, along with how to beat minorities with sticks, and pound donuts, etc...), the officer will be free to stop someone for seeming mexican. no joke, 'rappy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:12 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Are you for a nationalized ID card


Hell no.

Call me naive, but frankly I don't understand WHY illegal immigration is such a problem, aside from crime, which would happen anyway. I'm sure my scottish ancestors were illegal.

The more cheap labour we have here, the more BUSINESSES stay here which can employ the working class for working class wages. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. But like I said, I really don't understand what the problem is in the first place.

Actually, I think immigration is a scapegoat and a red herring issue to distract us from the real problems that are putting the economy in the crapper and creating a nice little police state.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:13 PM

MINCINGBEAST


dude, maybe its not just the illegals that are bitching and moaning (like we could understand them, anyway! they don't speak 'merican), but the legals (mexican or not) who are going to be subject to greater scrutiny from the police by virtue of "reasonable suspicion."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:17 PM

MINCINGBEAST


as a californian, illegal immigration is one of the issues that i get all crusty and facist on. i hate cant, and the term undocumented alien, i confess. i suspect that if those who enetered the country were blonde and wealthy, however, as opposed to poor and swarthy, that i might care a little bit less-and this is not to my credit. sound familiar?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:17 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
dude, maybe its not just the illegals that are bitching and moaning (like we could understand them, anyway! they don't speak 'merican), but the legals (mexican or not) who are going to be subject to greater scrutiny from the police by virtue of "reasonable suspicion."



Yes, that. Also people who aren't even Mexican descent, or who are merely Spanish LOOKING people.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:21 PM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
sic' 'em kwicko!

(grabs organic, fair trade, low sodium, no-butter pop corn, takes a seat)

Tell me, what is your favoret "bland" food?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:23 PM

MINCINGBEAST


Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:
Quote:

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
sic' 'em kwicko!

(grabs organic, fair trade, low sodium, no-butter pop corn, takes a seat)

Tell me, what is your favoret "bland" food?



rice cakes. or broccoli without any dressing. essentially, anything that lowers my testosterone level and makes my gums bleed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:25 PM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:
Quote:

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
sic' 'em kwicko!

(grabs organic, fair trade, low sodium, no-butter pop corn, takes a seat)

Tell me, what is your favoret "bland" food?



rice cakes. or broccoli without any dressing. essentially, anything that lowers my testosterone level and makes my gums bleed.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 2:46 PM

TRAVELER


If you don't drive, then you may not carry any ID. Where is it against the law not to have ID on your person? Oh wait. Arizona.


http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 2:47 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:
Quote:

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
sic' 'em kwicko!

(grabs organic, fair trade, low sodium, no-butter pop corn, takes a seat)

Tell me, what is your favoret "bland" food?



rice cakes. or broccoli without any dressing. essentially, anything that lowers my testosterone level and makes my gums bleed.



Buffalo wings. Sorry, that's as "bland" as I'll go.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 2:54 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Um, there are actually those of us here legally who look Anglo and would STILL prefer to not to have to submit to unwarranted search and scrutiny. As I've said before, it's a dangerous precedent. Saying that we already do it so it's okay doesn't make it right.

As for having to show when we've committed a crime or a violation... The only thing these people have against them is their language and skin colour. Sorry, but it really is discrimination. It's like DWB.



There's zero discrimination going on here. Sorry. There's nothing in the AZ law which requires or allows a cop to shake down anyone simply because they 'look' like they're foreign. There has to be probable cause, just as there would be for a cop to ask any one else.

How is this in ANY way a "dangerous precedent " ? WE already do it, and have done it , for a long time. No, it doesn't make it RIGHT, but what is your solution to those situations ? Are you for a nationalized ID card, yes or no ?




Tell us all: Are YOU for a nationalized ID card? Even if it's proposed by - GASP! - OBAMA?!

And you're just flat talking out your ass when it comes to the language of Arizona S.B. 1070. I posted the verbiage for you; you obviously can't read.

The law doesn't just "allow" such shakedowns; it REQUIRES them. And it doesn't mention probably cause or warrants - it requires such shakedowns based purely on "reasonable suspicion", which is left completely to the officer's discretion.

You're out of your element here; you've been corrected on this, more than once, and now you're just being a cock for the sake of being a cock about it. You really are embarrassing yourself. This is as bad as your idiotic rant about the 95% of Americans who pay no taxes.



Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 3:01 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


There are millions of illegal aliens who are white europeans. Especially Russian Mafiya.


BHOS: "I don't need no stinkin papers!"

Fukker never even went to college...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 9:07 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

that requires or allows a cop to shake down anyone simply because they 'look' like they're foreign
Jezus, you just can’t manage to comprehend, can you? Amazing, after all the times it’s been cited! The new law SPECIFICALLY requires that cops go after those who look foreign/illegal; IF THEY DO NOT OR DO NOT DO IT “ENOUGH”, THEY CAN BE SUED! Get it? It’s right there in the LAW!
Quote:

must face more scrutiny than any illegals do
Are you freaking KIDDING ME?? Where the hell you get that, I cannot imagine. To do exactly the same things you listed, anyone else has to do as well. The only difference is that if we don’t “look” illegal, we don’t have to show ID. The ONLY difference.

Ooops, I see Mike got here before me. No matter, your deliberate ignorance is just another sign that you come here only to get your jollies out of pushing people’s buttons. No sane person could have missed that by now.


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 10:48 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:

Are you for a nationalized ID card


Hell no.

Call me naive, but frankly I don't understand WHY illegal immigration is such a problem, aside from crime, which would happen anyway. I'm sure my scottish ancestors were illegal.



I don't know if my Irish or German ancestors were illegal ( hell, my German ancestor came here to fight FOR the British, but that's another story. And if your ancestors came over on a boat, it's very likely they were processed, so no, not illegal. ) Point is, you're VERY naive on the matter of illegal immigration. 12-15 MILLION less folks would mean a hell of a lot less crime, specifically in Arizona. Phoenix is 2nd in kidnappings across the entire world. ( Mexico City is # 1). And I suppose I'll be called a "racist" for brinig that point up as well, huh?
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6848672&page=1

Quote:



The more cheap labour we have here, the more BUSINESSES stay here which can employ the working class for working class wages. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. But like I said, I really don't understand what the problem is in the first place.

So, as long as you get your cheap labor, it's cool, right? Well, sorry. That labor comes at a cost, even if it's not at the expense of the employer.

Quote:

Actually, I think immigration is a scapegoat and a red herring issue to distract us from the real problems that are putting the economy in the crapper and creating a nice little police state.



What can I say to one who is so naive ? You're either very young, or ....well, I won't waste more of my time here.






Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 10:56 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

...well, I won't waste more of my time here.


So you say. And yet, you keep coming back.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 10:59 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

The law doesn't just "allow" such shakedowns; it REQUIRES them. And it doesn't mention probably cause or warrants - it requires such shakedowns based purely on "reasonable suspicion", which is left completely to the officer's discretion.



Wrong. As usual, you exaggerate and omit pretty much at will, to suit your needs and make yourself feel better. There has to be a REASONABLE suspicion, and it must be during a LAWFUL contact. Meaning, cops can't simply walk down the street, and for no damn reason, look at a group of people, minding their own business, and start to quiz them and shake them down. There's simply NOTHING in the law which 'requires' the police to do that. Nothing.

Quote:


You're out of your element here; you've been corrected on this, more than once, and now you're just being a cock for the sake of being a cock about it. You really are embarrassing yourself. This is as bad as your idiotic rant about the 95% of Americans who pay no taxes.




You can mock , ridicule and attack me all you want, but I'm right, and you're wrong.

The only way I'm " out of my element " here is that you rely on misinformation to form your views, and I don't.






Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:06 AM

BYTEMITE


I am still not satisfied with the explanation for why illegal immigration is a big deal.

Crime rate is based on measuring the number of reportable crimes over a certain amount of time.

Being an illegal immigrant is indeed a crime, but not really a measurable one (such as murder, theft, drug dealing, rape, or, as you mentioned, abduction). There may be a LINK to measurable crime, as I did acknowledge, but what you have presented lacks specific evidence for that link.

The suggestion that simple reduction of NUMBERS will solve crime problems is specious. You'll get your nasty criminals because simply by statistics you're likely to remove some criminals, but you'll also get people who aren't criminals beyond their immigration status caught in the net as well. What you're operating on is an assumption that illegal immigrants will necessarily commit more crimes than just the crime of the manner of entry into the country. This is true of people smuggled in by the Coyotes, but not the people who starve/dehydrate/freeze while trying to make the run on foot through the desert.

You'd be better served just looking for and TARGETING specific types of crimes and criminals than an entire demographic population. This is like trying to get rid of weeds by burning your lawn with gasoline. It seems like overkill. What's more, you might discourage the honest people from coming back over, but do you think being deported will really stop the actual criminals and smugglers? They'll just hop back over when they can. The Mexican government is in no state to detain the sheer quantity of people you're suggesting, and I suspect they actually encourage a lot of criminals to come here. It's catch and release revolving door, busy-work just to make the police departments look good and secure them more funding to deal with problems that could be better handled. Inefficient at best, and very likely corrupt at worst.

In any case, you don't want to talk to me, so I'll respect that and leave now.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:23 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I'd suggest you take the time to read up on CONVICTION rates of illegals in Arizona, and what % of the total # of crimes is committed by illegals.

Sobering , to say the least.






Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:38 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

The law doesn't just "allow" such shakedowns; it REQUIRES them. And it doesn't mention probably cause or warrants - it requires such shakedowns based purely on "reasonable suspicion", which is left completely to the officer's discretion.



Wrong. As usual, you exaggerate and omit pretty much at will, to suit your needs and make yourself feel better. There has to be a REASONABLE suspicion, and it must be during a LAWFUL contact.



Which is why I specifically quoted that "reasonable suspicion" part that you claim I omit. Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself.

Quote:


Meaning, cops can't simply walk down the street, and for no damn reason, look at a group of people, minding their own business, and start to quiz them and shake them down. There's simply NOTHING in the law which 'requires' the police to do that. Nothing.



Well, there's "nothing in the law which 'requires' the police to do that" EXCEPT for the specific wording and language of the law as written.

Quote:


You can mock , ridicule and attack me all you want, but I'm right, and you're wrong.



You're wrong, as always.

Quote:


The only way I'm " out of my element " here is that you rely on misinformation to form your views, and I don't.



Well, if you consider the text of the bill itself to be "misinformation", then I don't know what else to tell you.

But since you're so versed on the facts, can you PLEASE show us in the exact language of the bill where all this stuff ISN'T?

I'l wait.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:50 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


You're nonsensical putting 'reasonable suspicion' into quotes makes it seem dubious, when in fact, it's critical to the issue. I view it as a fair and rational part of the law, while YOU simply dismiss it, out of hand. You, like our current President, are overly dismissive of the officers in the blue uniforms.

The law is written EXTREMELY well, and will hold up to just this sort of demagoguery that comes from Leftists radicals, such as yourself.

I consider your version of what the bill says to be wrong. It's like The Princess Bride...

" I do not think it means what you say it means"










Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:59 PM

MINCINGBEAST


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
You're nonsensical putting 'reasonable suspicion' into quotes makes it seem dubious, when in fact, it's critical to the issue. I view it as a fair and rational part of the law, while YOU simply dismiss it, out of hand. You, like our current President, are overly dismissive of the officers in the blue uniforms.

The law is written EXTREMELY well, and will hold up to just this sort of demagoguery that comes from Leftists radicals, such as yourself.

I consider your version of what the bill says to be wrong. It's like The Princess Bride...

" I do not think it means what you say it means"



why do you say that the law is written extremely well, aside from the fact that you like it extremely much?

there are real legal problems with the new law, not the least of which is that immigration is a federal issue (we don't want 50 states making individual immigration decisions). not to mention potential issues with privacy, or due process, etc...even lindsey graham, who we can all agree is a doughy-looking fascist pig, has his reservations.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 1:02 PM

MINCINGBEAST


of course, when the law is inevitably over turned, it will provide our conservative friends with an opportunity to gnash their dentures and bemoan "judicial activism" and so forth. and such moments are always welcome.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 1:13 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
You're [sic] nonsensical putting 'reasonable suspicion' into quotes makes it seem dubious, when in fact, it's critical to the issue. I view it as a fair and rational part of the law, while YOU simply dismiss it, out of hand. You, like our current President, are overly dismissive of the officers in the blue uniforms.



You seem to be projecting. I put "reasonable suspicion" in quotes because it's the exact wording of the bill, not my interpretation of the bill. It's in there, in those exact words. Should I *NOT* quote the exact words of a law when speaking of that law? And I hardly "dismiss it out of hand". I find it very concerning. I also find the word "SHALL" instead of the word "MAY" to be most critical to the issue, as it changes the entire aim and scope of the law. I know you dismiss that utterly, but that's at your peril.

It's funny that it's the Republicans who always claim to be "law and order" candidates, but it's Democrats who actually give more funding to the police, time and time again, in efforts to give them the support and funding they need to do their job more effectively. I'll also note that it's you, not me, who has said that hunting down terrorists is a job the police aren't capable of, and that only the military can do the job, which seems overly dismissive of the abilities of the police and the justice system. Again, you seem to be projecting your own low opinions of the police. That's a you thing, not a me thing.

Quote:


The law is written EXTREMELY well, and will hold up to just this sort of demagoguery that comes from Leftists [sic] radicals, such as yourself.



We shall see. I have my suspicions that it won't pass constitutional muster on Fourth Amendment grounds, but time will tell. Nice use of the "leftists" plural where it doesn't belong, though. You really aren't capable of using plural forms of words ending in "ist" correctly, are you? It's systemic with you; you simply aren't able to use those words correctly in sentences. I've tried to show you how, but because it's me trying to tell you, you'll toss such advice and lessons aside. If I told you your clothes were on fire, you'd stand there and burn to death rather than heed anything I said, I suspect.

Quote:


I consider your version of what the bill says to be wrong. It's like The Princess Bride...

" I do not think it means what you say it means"



Yes, it is rather like that. And you're the one saying my interpretation is "inconthievable!". You're wrong, of course, but you'll never see it until well after you've drunk the poison.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 1:59 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
of course, when the law is inevitably over turned, it will provide our conservative friends with an opportunity to gnash their dentures and bemoan "judicial activism" and so forth. and such moments are always welcome.



It doesn't matter in the least to you that 70% of citizens in Arizona approve of this law. Hell, even if they'd voted on it, you'd just LOVE for the courts to step in and " fix " things.

Like standing up for the law needs to be 'fixed'.








Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 2:07 PM

MINCINGBEAST


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
of course, when the law is inevitably over turned, it will provide our conservative friends with an opportunity to gnash their dentures and bemoan "judicial activism" and so forth. and such moments are always welcome.



It doesn't matter in the least to you that 70% of citizens in Arizona approve of this law. Hell, even if they'd voted on it, you'd just LOVE for the courts to step in and " fix " this...
Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"



Ha, I mock your appeal to populism. It matters not if 70, even 100 percent of the folk approve of a law that is inconsistent with the constitution. In such instances the courts properly have a role to play. Moreover, your argument in favor of mob rule is silly. What if 70 percent of folk approved of slavery?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 29, 2010 3:41 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
You're nonsensical putting 'reasonable suspicion' into quotes makes it seem dubious, when in fact, it's critical to the issue. I view it as a fair and rational part of the law, while YOU simply dismiss it, out of hand. You, like our current President, are overly dismissive of the officers in the blue uniforms.




By the way, the Sheriff of Pima County, where Tucson is located, says you're wrong.

http://www.kvoa.com/news/pima-county-sheriff-speaks-out-against-sb-107
0
/

Somehow, I get the feeling you'll be rather dismissive of this "officer in blue".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 29, 2010 3:53 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


He doesn't say I'm wrong, he just is.

I'll side w/ Sherriff Joe Arpaio






Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 29, 2010 5:51 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'll side w/ Sherriff Joe Arpaio


So the psychotic, racist nutter sides with the psychotic, racist nutter - gee, color me unsurprised.

That statement not only demolishes any claim to credibility on your part, it also conveniently obliterates any claim to sanity, either.

You make it too easy.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 29, 2010 6:20 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
So, WTH is all this fuss over anyone having to show their proper I.D. , to a cop, when he lawfully asks for it ? We ALL do, almost routinely, and we don't riot over it, or wave signs accusing the Gov't of being RACISTS or BIGOTED.



You don't routinely show ID just for walking down the street, or buying groceries, or getting on a bus, or visiting a public library.

The instances you cited for showing ID involved driving, flying, banking, buying a controlled substance, something that many, many legal residents in big cities do not do.

But that's besides the point. The law isn't about showing ID. It is about proving legitimate immigration status. Whether someone is a legal resident is something a driver's license can't prove. Then what? All non-white citizens now have to walk around carrying their naturalization papers or passport, while white citizens can get by with, "I was born here, buddy"?

Even if you don't see the racial discrimination aspect, surely you see the part where this is further intrusion by the government. Of course, you may not care about govt intrusion, but many of us do.

I am a first generation immigrant. I look like an immigrant. I don't think I'll be visiting Arizona or Utah any time soon.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 29, 2010 10:00 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
So, WTH is all this fuss over anyone having to show their proper I.D. , to a cop, when he lawfully asks for it ? We ALL do, almost routinely, and we don't riot over it, or wave signs accusing the Gov't of being RACISTS or BIGOTED.



You don't routinely show ID just for walking down the street, or buying groceries, or getting on a bus, or visiting a public library.

The instances you cited for showing ID involved driving, flying, banking, buying a controlled substance, something that many, many legal residents in big cities do not do.

But that's besides the point. The law isn't about showing ID. It is about proving legitimate immigration status. Whether someone is a legal resident is something a driver's license can't prove. Then what? All non-white citizens now have to walk around carrying their naturalization papers or passport, while white citizens can get by with, "I was born here, buddy"?

Even if you don't see the racial discrimination aspect, surely you see the part where this is further intrusion by the government. Of course, you may not care about govt intrusion, but many of us do.

I am a first generation immigrant. I look like an immigrant. I don't think I'll be visiting Arizona or Utah any time soon.




Bingo. That's what I asked earlier, in another thread: What do you carry IN YOUR WALLET, that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you are indeed an American citizen?

Social Security card? Easy to forge, and often done.
Driver's license? Ditto.
Birth certificate? Really?
"Green Card"? I've never seen one. Are they really green?
Passport? Have you got yours? Do you carry it with you on a daily basis?

So let's look at this from another viewpoint. Let's say the courts uphold this law, BUT ONLY IF IT IS APPLIED EQUALLY TO EVERYBODY. Now you have to prove your citizenship on a regular basis. Not just those who "look like" they might be immigrants, but everyone.


Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2010 1:53 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

The more cheap labour we have here, the more BUSINESSES stay here which can employ the working class for working class wages. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
So, you're pro-exploitative business, Byte?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2010 5:29 AM

BYTEMITE


...I resent your terminology and labeling. "So are you still a wife-beater?" that's what I feel like this question is.

But to answer you... It's complicated. I was mostly using an argument that would appeal to people who hate illegal immigration and their love for business, because it's generally the same crowd.

And yes, some illegal immigrants are treated poorly, and because they are illegal, they can't go to people who might be able to put an end to the abuse, much like a prostitute can't do the same. I have some sympathy for that, and the people who would use a human that way are scum.

Yet at the same time, we're talking about people who have chosen to come here and don't have many other jobs available to them based on their technical skills.

I'd like to see them get minimum wage, and have their standards of living elevated, which has a great deal to do with the crime issue that revolves around illegal immigration. You give them a better standard of living, and serious crime tends to drop in a population.

But there IS an economic benefit to their willingness to supply cheap labour, and in most cases, we're not talking about economic benefit to corporations, who are pure evil. We're talking about local businesses, who are often themselves struggling to make ends meet in competition against the corporations. Often people hire illegal immigrants and feel like they're "helping" the illegal immigrants, and maybe they ARE, because no one else is.

Like many ethical issues, there's shades of grey.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2010 6:03 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Byte, I'm with you.

I take slight exception with the assumption that those who are most against illegals are also most pro-business. In my experience, it's often the most pro-business free-marketers who SAY they're against illegal immigration, but who then rush to hire illegals at well below minimum or fair wages.

As always, what they SAY and what they DO don't jibe.

But yes, if you want to take a firm stance against illegal immigration, it would make sense to NOT hire illegals, to hire legal workers, to check their status and verify it, and to pay them a fair wage. But this is anathema to big business. They want "personal responsibility", until they want the "big government" to intrude on their behalf.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2010 6:10 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


I'd *LIKE* to see a realistic path to citizenship, based on service to the country as part of the package. Want to come here illegally and work your way towards full naturalization and citizenship? We can do that. Here's your military enrollment papers. If that goes against your conscience, we can set up other programs for community service. Meanwhile, you'll be documented, you'll have your work visa (contingent on completing a certain number of hours of community service per month, for example), and you'll be paid a living wage at or above the minimum wage.


OH, and for those who are so vehemently against illegal immigration, the cost of fruits, vegetables, chickens, beef, pork, lawn and pool care, housecleaning, janitorial staff, hotels, and restaurants just went up by around 200%. ENJOY!

NOTE: I'm not saying we shouldn't address the issue. I'm saying that there WILL be a price, so please don't start whining about the price of things when prices go up to reflect the new higher wages we have to pay to legal workers. Oh, and getting all the businesses and farms into OSHA compliance will add to the costs, too.


Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2010 6:13 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

I take slight exception with the assumption that those who are most against illegals are also most pro-business. In my experience, it's often the most pro-business free-marketers who SAY they're against illegal immigration, but who then rush to hire illegals at well below minimum or fair wages.

As always, what they SAY and what they DO don't jibe.





Perhaps, I don't know. I'm just going by what I've observed where I live, that it's local business who hire, but my observations could be mistaken.

Cites? Fact-checking? Nah. But I'm usually willing to listen if statistics prove me wrong.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2010 6:29 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I'll address "reasonable suspicion". And yes, I put it in quotes because it is an overbroad term which leaves it up to the policeman entirely what's "reasonable". Given there are alredy cops in Arizona up on charges for abusing the laws they HAVE against illegal immigration, it's wide open for abuse and harrassment--even of law-abiding citizens who happen to fit their "interpretation" of what looks like an illegal immigrant.

You can NOT deny that politicians on the right have STATED that the kind of clothes or SHOES a person wears are "reasonable suspicion" for demanding an ID. If that is so, then ANYTHING a cop thinks is reasonable IS reasonable under this law. Given that the law says anyone can sue the police if they're not doing ENOUGH to satisfy that person's interpretation of the law, many police can't help but feel coerced to stop X number of potential illegal immigrants, just to avoid lawsuits. That means QUOTA--the quota being decided upon by others than law enforcement, inevitably by some likely racist people or just people who don't like the police and like the idea of being able to sue them, then that quota having to be enforced by the police, without even knowing how MUCH a quota should be.

Next, leaving the illegals out of it for a minute, how many regular CITIZENS or people with green cards on their way to citizenship, will suffer because of this law? How many will be arrested because they have no papers--including tourists who didn't even hear about the law being enacted--and kept in jail FOR MONTHS until it is cleared up, and even then being fined for not having papers?

As to criminality, I already posted statistics showing crime has gone DOWN in Arizona in recent years...where is your argument on that? If there are more illegals coming across than ever, why hasn't crime gone UP?

Added to that, the sheriff you so quickly dismissed already has the HIGHEST RATE of arrest of illegal immigrants in Arizona. He makes the very valid point that it is illogical for HIM to jail--at his citizens' expense--illegal immigrants who he currently turns over to ICE. Not only is the law wrong, but it's stupid in this respect.

This law will be overturned; if it gets to the Supreme Court, right-leaning as they are, it will be difficult for them to uphold it giving it's unconstitutionality and the overbroad requirements within it. The two points: "reasonable suspicion" and the right of citizens to sue the police if they're not harassing people who LOOK LIKE they might be illegal immigrants being left wide open. As activist as the Supremes ARE currently, they might uphold it. If so, gawd help us all, as they'd be showing that they're quite happy to ignore the Constitution in favor of their agenda.

Your determination to answer every disagreement with incorrect facts and hurl idiocies at those disagreeing with you is yet another obvious indication that you're not here to debate, even without facts, you're only here to stir people up and start something. That people take the time to buy into your game is sad, nothing more. You're not even sad, you're a determined interloper who has never once that I'm aware of admitted being wrong or paid attention to any facts presented in opposition to your stance.


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2010 7:48 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Niki, do not despair. Rappy has NEVER been here to debate; he refuses to hear other sides to any issue, he only exists to try to spew HIS side and then try to shout others down. He is this board's version of Bill O'Reilly, and about as disinterested in the truth of any matter.

But that doesn't mean he doesn't serve a purpose. His posts give the rest of us some golden opportunities to think, debate, argue, and learn about EACH OTHERS' views and stands on the issues, and Rappy also gives us a much-needed comedic outlet, because he provides such a target-rich environment for ridiculing, pointing, and laughing at. Hey, if he's not going to participate in a dialog based on factual information, his best service here is as laughingstock.

Don't let Rappy get you down. Just don't think you can actually talk to him in a reasonable, rational way, because he is incapable of that. Show him a hard, incontrovertible fact, such as the actual WORDING of a piece of legislation, and rather than debate the intention, spirit, or meaning of the quoted text, he'll simply close his eyes, put fingers in his ears, and start shouting. "THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS! THOSE WORDS AREN'T THERE! IT DOESN'T EVER APPEAR ANYWHERE IN ANY BILL! I CAN'T SEE IT, SO IT DOESN'T EXIST! BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT! I CAN'T SEE YOU ICAN'TSEEYOUICAN'TSEEYOUICAN'TSEEYOU
LOOOOLOOOLOOLIOOLOLLLOLLLOOO
LOOOLLOOOOLOOOOOIOOOOOO!"

THAT is what Rappy considers a "rational" discussion.

So the rest of us take our jabs at him, have a few laughs at his ignorance, point out facts here and there (mostly to each other, not because we think Rappy will EVER say something like, "Wow, ya know, you're right; I never looked at it like that"), have a few more laughs at his expense, and talk to each other about things that are real.

If you realize that you'll never be able to have a real conversation with Rappy, you'll never be disappointed by his behavior. As Signy and Frem have pointed out, repeatedly, Rappy lives in a world where he is able to hold radically conflicting ideas in his head at the same time, and where he's able to fully see things that aren't there and never were, and NOT see things that ARE there and ALWAYS were. Hell, Frem even goes easier on him because of his delusions, out of a sort of sympathy for any creature that is howling in pain, even if that pain is entirely self-inflicted.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2010 8:04 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I know all that, Mike. My question is why do so many respond to him, try to offer facts, etc.? Yes, I understand it when it comes to actually talking to one another under the guise of replying to him, but a lot of times that's not what happens. People get pissed and KEEP repeating the same things as if they'll get through, when everyone else has long since "got it". It's just a waste, and I don't understand why others don't catch on.

I have no problem with responding with facts and cites, obviously, and I have little problem with mocking him, but I'll continue to shake my head at why some buy into his obvious tactic and spend long posts trying to refute him and show the obvious idiocy. I kind of understand your "I know you are, but what am I", etc., and that you get a kick out of it somehow, but the rest just leaves me dumbfounded.

It's neither here nor there; I'll continue pointing out why he's really here, and of course nobody has to pay any attention to me. But maybe it'll make some people think and realize how much of their time they're wasting and how they're letting him get to them. It's worth it if it even gets through to one person (maybe someone who hasn't been here long enough to put it together).


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 30, 2010 8:11 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Don't know, Niki. Maybe for the same reason some feel the need to refute the blatant falsehoods spread by FauxNews and the like. It doesn't do any good, really; those who are invested in believing WILL believe. You just kinda hope that maybe someone will be dissuaded from believing, that someone who *MIGHT* pay attention and believe the outright lies will have their eyes opened a bit by the stark refutation of those lies, and maybe, just maybe, it will make someone think a bit.

You (and I mean the general "You", not you specifically, because when I say "You" in this instance, I include me!) do it not for the person shouting lies from the soapbox, but as a rebuttal to let some innocent bystander hear and let them think twice before blindly believing the falsehoods.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 21:07 - 2072 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Thu, March 28, 2024 21:02 - 54 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL