Pages: 1 … 9 10 11 12

 

Poll

Should Arizona rename itself to "Nazi-zona"?

Yes28%28% - 13
No71%71% - 33
Total: 46
2010-05-14 15:14:56
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Arizona's reputation is going into the toilet. Look at the cities lining up to "boycott" Arizona. Looks like there are going to be some consequences for all this negative action by Arizona... nothing wrong with consequences... people are disgusted by us versus them politics. And this may very well turn moderates off of the GOP again.
While I'll agree that there seems to mostly be negative publicity stemming from these laws, the other side of the coin is that cities like L.A. have shown their true colors.  We now know just how powerful activists, illegals, and their employers have become as a political force.

In effect, cities like L.A. have sold out their own country for the sake of cheap labor.  Arizona has done the same, but slowly, they're starting to turn things around.
2010-05-14 15:31:03
west-phoenix-az
Guns don't kill people. . . joe bidens advice does
+632|6679

Turquoise wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Right? Of course that ignores the fact that more effective measures should have been passed, like going after the employers. But then again aren't small business owners largely GOP supporters.
I'll give you that one though.
We already have a law that go against employers who hire illegals, but there are ways around that too. It's helped, but hasn't solved the problem. Here is that existing law if you are interested (23-212), but I know you won't read this one either. Part of AZ SB1070 modifies AZ ARS 23-212 (the existing law that goes after employers who hire illegals). If you read AZ SB1070 you'd already know this
https://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p123/west-phoenix-az/BF2S/bf2s_sig_9mmbrass.jpg
2010-05-14 15:32:32
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Turq- my beef is that it leaves open to interpretation what a reasonable suspicion that the person is illegal is.  The fact that I and more than a few people I know have been consistently harassed by the police for no reason (yes, no reason) is all the confirmation I need that this law will be misused to harass hispanics in general.
I'm not denying some harassment will occur, but I think it's worth it in the long run.

I'm perfectly fine with them passing an amendment to this law that more strictly defines probable cause, but for now, this law is better than not having anything in place.
2010-05-14 15:33:44
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

west-phoenix-az wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Right? Of course that ignores the fact that more effective measures should have been passed, like going after the employers. But then again aren't small business owners largely GOP supporters.
I'll give you that one though.
We already have a law that go against employers who hire illegals, but there are ways around that too. It's helped, but hasn't solved the problem. Here is that existing law if you are interested (23-212), but I know you won't read this one either. Part of AZ SB1070 modifies AZ ARS 23-212 (the existing law that goes after employers who hire illegals). If you read AZ SB1070 you'd already know this
Thanks for the link.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-05-14 15:39:22)

2010-05-14 15:44:02
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5648|London, England

lowing wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Women cops, like women NCOs, are just shitheads all around man. They've always got something to prove and will never ever in a million years admit they are wrong.
I think that was the case.  I said something that made her look foolish in front of her partner so she snapped....but what I did violated no laws.
My 2nd lawyer schooled me in on how police officers use "resisting arrest" to justify an arrest where no real crime has been committed.  It isnt more obvious in my case since there was no other crime attached to my charge
So you think you being a smart ass had something to do with being thrown into the back of a cop car? Hmmmmm are ya sure?
Nothing illegal about being a smart ass. I had a sergeant once hand me an Article 15 because I said something to the effect of 'Well, if you wanna be a dick about it'. His nickname after that was condom.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-05-14 16:09:14
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6942|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:


I think that was the case.  I said something that made her look foolish in front of her partner so she snapped....but what I did violated no laws.
My 2nd lawyer schooled me in on how police officers use "resisting arrest" to justify an arrest where no real crime has been committed.  It isnt more obvious in my case since there was no other crime attached to my charge
So you think you being a smart ass had something to do with being thrown into the back of a cop car? Hmmmmm are ya sure?
Nothing illegal about being a smart ass. I had a sergeant once hand me an Article 15 because I said something to the effect of 'Well, if you wanna be a dick about it'. His nickname after that was condom.
Fine, you go right ahead and give the cops a hard time everytime they ask you a question, and lets see how it works out for ya. Race has got nothing to do with eleven brav's story. His smart ass attitude did. Cops would treat anyone the same way.
2010-05-14 16:14:20
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6396|eXtreme to the maX
I see, so they persecute people who answer 'the man' back?
Seems just.
Fuck Israel
2010-05-14 16:36:15
nlsme1
Member
+32|5708

JohnG@lt wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Women cops, like women NCOs, are just shitheads all around man. They've always got something to prove and will never ever in a million years admit they are wrong.
I think that was the case.  I said something that made her look foolish in front of her partner so she snapped....but what I did violated no laws.
My 2nd lawyer schooled me in on how police officers use "resisting arrest" to justify an arrest where no real crime has been committed.  It isnt more obvious in my case since there was no other crime attached to my charge
Should've gone to the ACLU instead of depending on a public defender. They work pro bono.
No they don't. Public defenders are REGULAR lawyers. They get put in a pool and when their name is called, the government flips the bill. Most of the time they don't put the effort in that someone you paid would. Why, because they don't have to.

As for the op: the law is worded as to FORBID racial profiling. Cops usually try and follow the law. Lawyers have fun when they don't. Really makes for quit easy money. Especially with groups like "copwatchers".

Last edited by nlsme1 (2010-05-14 16:52:13)

2010-05-14 16:53:40
nlsme1
Member
+32|5708

Dilbert_X wrote:

I see, so they persecute people who answer 'the man' back?
Seems just.
One thing I know about cops, they demand respect. It goes a long way.
2010-05-14 17:21:49
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6396|eXtreme to the maX

nlsme1 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I see, so they persecute people who answer 'the man' back?
Seems just.
One thing I know about cops, they demand respect. It goes a long way.
Maybe they should stick to the law, and not being douchebags.
Fuck Israel
2010-05-14 22:11:45
Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|6996
No, and you are an imbecile.  Read the bill.  Or is it four pages too many for your infantile brain?  http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2281s.pdf
2010-05-15 02:20:23
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5527|Cleveland, Ohio

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

It's obvious you are trying to explain a simple concept to imbeciles.  Don't bother.  I forgot why I stopped posting in this section.

Thanks for reminding me guys.
you should stop posting if you are not going to follow the rules.  stupid fucking mods here make no sense.
2010-05-15 02:22:16
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5527|Cleveland, Ohio

Diesel_dyk wrote:

dork.
tl;dr...again.  stupid OP title and post is stupid.  already explained why.  you can save your wall of e-masturbation for someone else.
2010-05-15 02:29:03
Marlo Stanfield
online poker tax cheating
+122|5453

Marlo Stanfield wrote:

In regards to the OP and other comparisons with Nazis- considering the amount of time the Nazis were in power as well as the fact they were a legit government and poli party they had a bunch of postions and policies that were for the most part fairly pratical if not for a totally heartlesss agenda. In any case, the Nazis had a bunch of policies that were both lib and conservative, if you look hard enough you can find a connection with any party/policy and the Nazis and there isn't a single person here who doesn't have a postion that isn't shared with the Nazis. Comparing anyone or thing with the Nazis is fucking stupid unless they have the word Nazi in their or its name
2010-05-15 11:00:01
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6839|San Diego, CA, USA
California:  We <3 Paying for Illegals

We are 24 billion in the red...yet we don't address illegals who are syphoning the state dry.  This and and all the government employee unions voting themselves pay raises and increases in their pensions is what is going to have this state go bankrupt.
2010-05-15 14:39:13
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6942|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:


I think that was the case.  I said something that made her look foolish in front of her partner so she snapped....but what I did violated no laws.
My 2nd lawyer schooled me in on how police officers use "resisting arrest" to justify an arrest where no real crime has been committed.  It isnt more obvious in my case since there was no other crime attached to my charge
So you think you being a smart ass had something to do with being thrown into the back of a cop car? Hmmmmm are ya sure?
Nothing illegal about being a smart ass. I had a sergeant once hand me an Article 15 because I said something to the effect of 'Well, if you wanna be a dick about it'. His nickname after that was condom.
Point being? All I read was, your sargeant got a new nick name, and you got an article 15.
2010-05-15 14:46:25
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6285|Truthistan

west-phoenix-az wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Right? Of course that ignores the fact that more effective measures should have been passed, like going after the employers. But then again aren't small business owners largely GOP supporters.
I'll give you that one though.
We already have a law that go against employers who hire illegals, but there are ways around that too. It's helped, but hasn't solved the problem. Here is that existing law if you are interested (23-212), but I know you won't read this one either. Part of AZ SB1070 modifies AZ ARS 23-212 (the existing law that goes after employers who hire illegals). If you read AZ SB1070 you'd already know this
What a crock that law is, its based on a complaint system. What the govt should be doing is requiring companies to provide list of their employees so that their data can be checked.

And I have two criticisms on this law
1. the power to suspend licenses is discretionary not mandatory AND
2. there are no fines, that's real BS because with the economy these days the govt is busy enforcing laws that generate revenue. This law doesn't allow for the govt to recoup expenses in prosecutions.

So really this law only provides that if some company is reported, the govt sends a letter, the company then fires the illegals and promises not to do it again and then all is forgiven. Looks like a real wink wink nudge nudge I'm going to pretend to slap you on the wrist and you say ouch type of law. You know in that context, the a consumerism boycott makes a lot of sense because AZ should clean that shit up first before infringing on the rights of American Citizens.



As far as your other post, producing ID is an inconvenience, you can call it a small one, but its still an inconvenience. So you really just ducked my question entirely. So I'm still waiting Bueller, Bueller, Bueller....Whatever.

Turq has it right, what this law causes citizens who look like illegals to bear a burden that other citizens won't. IT such a clear point that there really is no debating that issue, its a fact. and IMO that means the law is inherently unequal and therefore flawed.

What people like you are doing is supporting a law that causes some people to bear this burden without even the courtesy of acknowledging that sacrifice for the greater good. I just find the whole thing hypocritical when people take Obamacare, or progressive taxation or some other law that treats people unequally and the cries from the right are socialism, or communism or even Nazism. But when the GOP comes up with a plan that causes certain citizens make a sacrifice for the greater good, what we see are denials that the sacrifice is even occurring. So I think what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I might as well pull out of the debate and just do what all the imbeciles do and that's to simply reflect the other side back. So here it goes.... "You know this law sounds like Nazi Germany, that Jan Brewer must be the second coming of Hitler, its a conspiracy, a global conspiracy, its socialist that's what that is, Hey West-Phoenix are you a communist or something, you have something against the American dream or the American constitution." (BTW that my best Glenn Beck/ McCarthyism that I can do, hope the message resonates on your frequency)

Gotta love hypocrisy, team cheer leading at its best, go team go.
2010-05-15 14:52:38
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6285|Truthistan

11 Bravo wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

dork.
tl;dr...again.  stupid OP title and post is stupid.  already explained why.  you can save your wall of e-masturbation for someone else.
WUT double DORK. I  didn't mean to interrupt your circle jerk with a real debate. This DST go back to EE. If don't read, don't post, its really that simple. Don't whine because its above your head and why bother posting to tell us that you're too lazy to even read. I bet your put you fingers in your ears and go "la la la la.." when your mommy scolds you too. Like Is said TL:DR = DORK.
2010-05-15 14:53:19
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Turq has it right, what this law causes citizens who look like illegals to bear a burden that other citizens won't. IT such a clear point that there really is no debating that issue, its a fact. and IMO that means the law is inherently unequal and therefore flawed.

What people like you are doing is supporting a law that causes some people to bear this burden without even the courtesy of acknowledging that sacrifice for the greater good. I just find the whole thing hypocritical when people take Obamacare, or progressive taxation or some other law that treats people unequally and the cries from the right are socialism, or communism or even Nazism. But when the GOP comes up with a plan that causes certain citizens make a sacrifice for the greater good, what we see are denials that the sacrifice is even occurring. So I think what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I might as well pull out of the debate and just do what all the imbeciles do and that's to simply reflect the other side back. So here it goes.... "You know this law sounds like Nazi Germany, that Jan Brewer must be the second coming of Hitler, its a conspiracy, a global conspiracy, its socialist that's what that is, Hey West-Phoenix are you a communist or something, you have something against the American dream or the American constitution." (BTW that my best Glenn Beck/ McCarthyism that I can do, hope the message resonates on your frequency)

Gotta love hypocrisy, team cheer leading at its best, go team go.
Look, I don't want to derail this too much, but honestly, if it weren't for the 14th Amendment, I'd support profiling -- period.  If it works, why not?

Maybe we're at a crossroads where we need to amend the Equal Protection Clause to allow for profiling, because honestly, I just see it as needlessly handicapping law enforcement.

If we have to operate under the assumption that cops are always racist or tend to be, then we might as well thrown in the towel.  If things are so bad here in terms of prejudice that the system itself can't be trusted to not be racist, then I don't see any point of return.

The thing is...  there's nothing wrong with this particular immigration law, because it is so similar to already existing laws at the fed level.  If the best argument against it is merely assuming that it will be abused more often than not, then that seems extremely pessimistic and paranoid.

Generally speaking, it's better to argue against something that has a tangible flaw -- like in the actual writing of the bill.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-05-15 14:54:02)

2010-05-15 15:20:39
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6285|Truthistan

Turquoise wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Turq has it right, what this law causes citizens who look like illegals to bear a burden that other citizens won't. IT such a clear point that there really is no debating that issue, its a fact. and IMO that means the law is inherently unequal and therefore flawed.

What people like you are doing is supporting a law that causes some people to bear this burden without even the courtesy of acknowledging that sacrifice for the greater good. I just find the whole thing hypocritical when people take Obamacare, or progressive taxation or some other law that treats people unequally and the cries from the right are socialism, or communism or even Nazism. But when the GOP comes up with a plan that causes certain citizens make a sacrifice for the greater good, what we see are denials that the sacrifice is even occurring. So I think what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I might as well pull out of the debate and just do what all the imbeciles do and that's to simply reflect the other side back. So here it goes.... "You know this law sounds like Nazi Germany, that Jan Brewer must be the second coming of Hitler, its a conspiracy, a global conspiracy, its socialist that's what that is, Hey West-Phoenix are you a communist or something, you have something against the American dream or the American constitution." (BTW that my best Glenn Beck/ McCarthyism that I can do, hope the message resonates on your frequency)

Gotta love hypocrisy, team cheer leading at its best, go team go.
Look, I don't want to derail this too much, but honestly, if it weren't for the 14th Amendment, I'd support profiling -- period.  If it works, why not?

Maybe we're at a crossroads where we need to amend the Equal Protection Clause to allow for profiling, because honestly, I just see it as needlessly handicapping law enforcement.

If we have to operate under the assumption that cops are always racist or tend to be, then we might as well thrown in the towel.  If things are so bad here in terms of prejudice that the system itself can't be trusted to not be racist, then I don't see any point of return.

The thing is...  there's nothing wrong with this particular immigration law, because it is so similar to already existing laws at the fed level.  If the best argument against it is merely assuming that it will be abused more often than not, then that seems extremely pessimistic and paranoid.

Generally speaking, it's better to argue against something that has a tangible flaw -- like in the actual writing of the bill.
I think you hit the nail on the head. The cops can't be trusted. It may be old school thinking, but the cops are not your friends. They are there for revenue generation and to protect special interests. Cops are human and bring their flaws with them on the job. Because its next to impossible to defend yourself against a cop who lies their ass off, it means that the less interaction you have with them the better. No matter how good the propagand spheel is that"cops are your friends" they aren't. So that's where I'm coming from on that one, and its more or less the assumption of the British common law which is the basis for our laws. What I find is that the push to codifiy laws and the assumption that the laws that are passed are there for a legitimate purpose and that the individual should yield to the greater good, well those are notion inherent in the more continental European countries where you are also presumed guilty untill innocent and the greater good truimphs over the individual. IMO its a lot to do with the immigration for continental Europe and those ideas that were brought here to this country. Personally I think that they are incompatible with the ideas that founded this country. The issues are that fundamental. What does it mean to be a citizen and what is the roll of govt, is it there to manage the country on your behalf, or is it there to control you. And that leads me to the idea running around that the 14th amendment needs to be repealed.... now that's a joke right?

On Racial profiling, its wrong. All I can say is thank God for the 14th Amendment and the other civil war amendments because without them, this country wouldn't be as great as it is. There would be no independant redress outside of the state structure to address grievances. We would definitely have more Christian crap prevading state govts. The country would be bulkenized basically on the same blue state red state line. IMO in the fight between individual liberty and states rights, states rights has to yield.

As far as the bill is concerned, you can read it and plainly see that it was carefully crafted to attempt to pass constitutional analysis. And we all know that in practice, this law is going to other things. I still remember how religious holidays were made into secular holidays by changing the name of the law and stating a different purpose, but it still fell on a date of religious significance. IMO the law is disingenuous.
2010-05-15 22:25:04
Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|6996
Obviously, this law is not going to do much by itself.  The next logical stem would be a wall, but the Federal government is too busy trying to move us toward socialism.
2010-05-15 22:35:22
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

Diesel_dyk wrote:

I think you hit the nail on the head. The cops can't be trusted. It may be old school thinking, but the cops are not your friends. They are there for revenue generation and to protect special interests. Cops are human and bring their flaws with them on the job. Because its next to impossible to defend yourself against a cop who lies their ass off, it means that the less interaction you have with them the better. No matter how good the propagand spheel is that"cops are your friends" they aren't. So that's where I'm coming from on that one, and its more or less the assumption of the British common law which is the basis for our laws. What I find is that the push to codifiy laws and the assumption that the laws that are passed are there for a legitimate purpose and that the individual should yield to the greater good, well those are notion inherent in the more continental European countries where you are also presumed guilty untill innocent and the greater good truimphs over the individual. IMO its a lot to do with the immigration for continental Europe and those ideas that were brought here to this country. Personally I think that they are incompatible with the ideas that founded this country. The issues are that fundamental. What does it mean to be a citizen and what is the roll of govt, is it there to manage the country on your behalf, or is it there to control you. And that leads me to the idea running around that the 14th amendment needs to be repealed.... now that's a joke right?
Well, I don't feel that way.  I do believe that a certain amount of questioning of authority is necessary, and people should be held accountable, but I don't believe that the average cop is a racist or a bad person overall.

And no, I'm not joking about the 14th Amendment.  I think the Equal Protection Clause is being twisted in its definition by activists the same way that the First Amendment is being twisted by lobbyism.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

On Racial profiling, its wrong. All I can say is thank God for the 14th Amendment and the other civil war amendments because without them, this country wouldn't be as great as it is. There would be no independant redress outside of the state structure to address grievances. We would definitely have more Christian crap prevading state govts. The country would be bulkenized basically on the same blue state red state line. IMO in the fight between individual liberty and states rights, states rights has to yield.
I don't see this as a states' rights issue though.  I see the Equal Protection Clause as being one that is intended to make sure that people have the same rights, but I don't really believe it has anything to do with profiling.  Granted, because it is being interpreted that way, I think it needs to be amended.

I don't believe there is a specific right to not being profiled.  I think profiling is just something that happens because of demographic patterns.  Honestly, I don't see this as being a problem overall.  I don't even believe it's morally wrong, unless it's actually being used to abuse or harass people.

For example, if you live in an area where blacks statistically commit more vehicle theft, and you happen to be black, if the cops pull you over to check if the car you're driving is stolen or not, that's not wrong in my opinion.  That's simply reacting to the situation at hand.  Now, if they harass you after you've given them reasonable proof (your license and registration) to show that you actually own the vehicle, then that's wrong.  Otherwise, I don't think it is.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

As far as the bill is concerned, you can read it and plainly see that it was carefully crafted to attempt to pass constitutional analysis. And we all know that in practice, this law is going to other things. I still remember how religious holidays were made into secular holidays by changing the name of the law and stating a different purpose, but it still fell on a date of religious significance. IMO the law is disingenuous.
That's quite possible, but I still believe the opposition is being paranoid about this.   The fact that abuse is possible is not a valid argument against a bill or law, in my opinion -- because that can literally be used against any law.
2010-05-16 02:17:40
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6285|Truthistan

Turquoise wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

I think you hit the nail on the head. The cops can't be trusted. It may be old school thinking, but the cops are not your friends. They are there for revenue generation and to protect special interests. Cops are human and bring their flaws with them on the job. Because its next to impossible to defend yourself against a cop who lies their ass off, it means that the less interaction you have with them the better. No matter how good the propagand spheel is that"cops are your friends" they aren't. So that's where I'm coming from on that one, and its more or less the assumption of the British common law which is the basis for our laws. What I find is that the push to codifiy laws and the assumption that the laws that are passed are there for a legitimate purpose and that the individual should yield to the greater good, well those are notion inherent in the more continental European countries where you are also presumed guilty untill innocent and the greater good truimphs over the individual. IMO its a lot to do with the immigration for continental Europe and those ideas that were brought here to this country. Personally I think that they are incompatible with the ideas that founded this country. The issues are that fundamental. What does it mean to be a citizen and what is the roll of govt, is it there to manage the country on your behalf, or is it there to control you. And that leads me to the idea running around that the 14th amendment needs to be repealed.... now that's a joke right?
Well, I don't feel that way.  I do believe that a certain amount of questioning of authority is necessary, and people should be held accountable, but I don't believe that the average cop is a racist or a bad person overall.

And no, I'm not joking about the 14th Amendment.  I think the Equal Protection Clause is being twisted in its definition by activists the same way that the First Amendment is being twisted by lobbyism.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

On Racial profiling, its wrong. All I can say is thank God for the 14th Amendment and the other civil war amendments because without them, this country wouldn't be as great as it is. There would be no independant redress outside of the state structure to address grievances. We would definitely have more Christian crap prevading state govts. The country would be bulkenized basically on the same blue state red state line. IMO in the fight between individual liberty and states rights, states rights has to yield.
I don't see this as a states' rights issue though.  I see the Equal Protection Clause as being one that is intended to make sure that people have the same rights, but I don't really believe it has anything to do with profiling.  Granted, because it is being interpreted that way, I think it needs to be amended.

I don't believe there is a specific right to not being profiled.  I think profiling is just something that happens because of demographic patterns.  Honestly, I don't see this as being a problem overall.  I don't even believe it's morally wrong, unless it's actually being used to abuse or harass people.

For example, if you live in an area where blacks statistically commit more vehicle theft, and you happen to be black, if the cops pull you over to check if the car you're driving is stolen or not, that's not wrong in my opinion.  That's simply reacting to the situation at hand.  Now, if they harass you after you've given them reasonable proof (your license and registration) to show that you actually own the vehicle, then that's wrong.  Otherwise, I don't think it is.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

As far as the bill is concerned, you can read it and plainly see that it was carefully crafted to attempt to pass constitutional analysis. And we all know that in practice, this law is going to other things. I still remember how religious holidays were made into secular holidays by changing the name of the law and stating a different purpose, but it still fell on a date of religious significance. IMO the law is disingenuous.
That's quite possible, but I still believe the opposition is being paranoid about this.   The fact that abuse is possible is not a valid argument against a bill or law, in my opinion -- because that can literally be used against any law.
If you don't feel that way, then like I said, its a fundamental question that's leads you to a different result. I know from parts of my own family, who came over from Europe during the past 120 years, the authorities are not your friends. you prosper inspite of them not because of them. And the police are their agents. They don't have to be racist or criminals, they have a job to do, they are told to go out and generate revenue. That's what tickets are for, its for revenue generation under the guise of public safety. Laws often have a dual purpose. The purpose for public consumption and then the real reason for the law. If I stand back,  I can honestly say, with full objectivity that the AZ laws on ID checks and the ethnic studies law, when taken together show that the AZ state are engaging in a policy that will see an exodus of illegals from the state. And that these people will probably just got to other states so the laws are not fixing the illegal immigration problem. And if AZ appears to be becoming too unfriendly or hostile to hispanic citizens, they will start leaving the state too. Its similar to cities giving homeless people bus tickets to other cities. If the people move then its not their "problem" anymore.

On the 14th Amendment, you do realize that that is the amendment that applies the bill of rights onto the states. So the whole argument about repealing the 14th Amendment is a states rights issue and the whole argument over repealing the 14 th Amendment is a twisted fantasy by states rights advocates to return the country to a pre civil war state. The civil war was fought to bring the states more fully into the union and to form more of a federation. The republic died with the civil war, states lost practically all of their powers with the civil war amendments, and we effectively became a federation from that point forward. Going back to pre civil war era would be a huge mistake and the problem we have today as I see it is that the civil war amendments were not fully implemented in the first place due to resistance from the states during the reconstruction period. So I'll differ with you on that one because I think that the full powers of the civil war amendments should be recognized and enforced and the states should be brought even further into a federal style of govt. and I think that the general trend has been towards the full recognition of the role of the federal govt vis-a-vis the civil war amendments. So in other words, I believe the exact opposite should occur, the 14th Amendment should be strengthened not diminished or repealed. The reason for my position on that is that being a US citizen should mean exactly the same thing no matter where I live. I shouldn't be a US citizen plus some rights in one state and a citizen minus some rights in another state. The whole idea of a checkerboard of rights is the antithetical to the idea of living in a nation, having national citizenship and rights based on the idea of individual equality. To permit differentiation between states regarding individual rights would permit states to make life difficult for groups deemed "undesirable" within their borders, in the hopes of pushing these groups into another state, whether those undesirables are hispanic, black, gay or whatever... which brings me back to the point of AZ becoming unfriendly to hispanic culture and singling out people who look illegal, which really reads who look hispanic, for the purpose of harrassment. So on the 14th Amendment argument, I would strongly disagree. It would be an absolute disaster if the country lost the progress made in the last 50 years that saw the country move towards a uniform or national standard of a individual rights. I personally would not want to see individuals thrown to the mercy of pockets of bigotry and that is exactly what you would get if the 14th Amendment were repealed. The people who are twisting the argument are those arguing in favor of its repeal and who dislike the progress on individual rights that is being made, like I posted before these positions are rear guard actions attempting to halt that progress, which is also why there has been an attempt to poison the word "progress."

Anyway, this talk about states rights wouldmake an interesting poll question for DST. do you consider yourself to be a US citizen, or a citizen of your state, or both? Which do you identify with more? And if there were a fight between the US govt and your state, which side would you pick up arms and fight against? hmmm and I wonder if it would matter to some people which party controlled the whitehouse. I guess its kind of an in depth civil war question.

For me, that would be easy, I would consider myself to be a US citizen first and foremost because I beleive in national citizenship, and I really don't need any recognition of state citizenship, as I consider that to be a relic of the past. and I would fight with the US govt against any state govt, including my own, regardless of who was in the whitehouse.

What do you think Turq? should I post it?
2010-05-16 02:46:48
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6512|teh FIN-land

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

Obviously, this law is not going to do much by itself.  The next logical stem would be a wall, but the Federal government is too busy trying to move us toward socialism.
great, someone else who has no idea what socialism means.

lowing wrote:

Fine, you go right ahead and give the cops a hard time everytime they ask you a question, and lets see how it works out for ya. Race has got nothing to do with eleven brav's story. His smart ass attitude did. Cops would treat anyone the same way.
If you're gonna be a cop you have to expect that some people won't like you. That doesn't fuckin mean every time someone tells you to fuck off you can arrest them. That's just bullshit. There's no law saying 'you must be polite to the police'. Get thick skin or don't be a cop tbh.

nlsme1 wrote:

One thing I know about cops, they demand respect. It goes a long way.
whatever happened to earning that respect in the first place?

Turquoise wrote:

For example, if you live in an area where blacks statistically commit more vehicle theft, and you happen to be black, if the cops pull you over to check if the car you're driving is stolen or not, that's not wrong in my opinion.
To an extent I can see your point, but maybe blacks in that area are arrested more BECAUSE of profiling? Maybe white people commit as many crimes, it's just that black people are stopped and arrested more often. Maybe a crime is committed and a black guy is set up to take the fall cos they can't find the actualy guy who did it. There's no way that the disparity in prison populations between blacks and other races is because black people commit so many more crimes. It's much more to do with the fact that they are disproportionally arrested, charged and sentenced compared to whites. If you want to make someone feel shit about themselves and not part of society, stopping them because of their skin colour while they're going about their lawful business is a pretty good start. Stopping people because of their colour on the basis that their colour makes them more likely to commit crimes? Racism right there.
2010-05-16 06:05:14
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6942|USA

ruisleipa wrote:

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

Obviously, this law is not going to do much by itself.  The next logical stem would be a wall, but the Federal government is too busy trying to move us toward socialism.
great, someone else who has no idea what socialism means.

lowing wrote:

Fine, you go right ahead and give the cops a hard time everytime they ask you a question, and lets see how it works out for ya. Race has got nothing to do with eleven brav's story. His smart ass attitude did. Cops would treat anyone the same way.
If you're gonna be a cop you have to expect that some people won't like you. That doesn't fuckin mean every time someone tells you to fuck off you can arrest them. That's just bullshit. There's no law saying 'you must be polite to the police'. Get thick skin or don't be a cop tbh.

nlsme1 wrote:

One thing I know about cops, they demand respect. It goes a long way.
whatever happened to earning that respect in the first place?

Turquoise wrote:

For example, if you live in an area where blacks statistically commit more vehicle theft, and you happen to be black, if the cops pull you over to check if the car you're driving is stolen or not, that's not wrong in my opinion.
To an extent I can see your point, but maybe blacks in that area are arrested more BECAUSE of profiling? Maybe white people commit as many crimes, it's just that black people are stopped and arrested more often. Maybe a crime is committed and a black guy is set up to take the fall cos they can't find the actualy guy who did it. There's no way that the disparity in prison populations between blacks and other races is because black people commit so many more crimes. It's much more to do with the fact that they are disproportionally arrested, charged and sentenced compared to whites. If you want to make someone feel shit about themselves and not part of society, stopping them because of their skin colour while they're going about their lawful business is a pretty good start. Stopping people because of their colour on the basis that their colour makes them more likely to commit crimes? Racism right there.
Got nothing to do with thick skin, and the only ones that really don't like cops are those that are always in trouble by them. Who else would hate cops?

and if you think you can tell a cop to go fuck off, everytime you feel like it, you are gunna hate cops even more.

 

Pages: 1 … 9 10 11 12

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard