I note a complete absence of outrage on the part of our allegedly "strict constructionalist, original-intent Constitutionalist" Republican and Teabagger friends here concerning the racist and blatantly unconstitutional activities of the Arizona Legislature. Could it be that Republibaggers are, really, truly, racist hypocrites? Inquiring minds want to know.

I take two sides on this. First, they are wrong to be asking for ID from anyone that looks Hispanic. And they know they are wrong. One sheriff simply says he will not enforce it.

The second side is that that I believe in states rights and when the US government cannot get it together to pass some kind of immigration laws that are fair, what is a state to do? Several other states are looking at passing similar laws.

It is pretty easy in the state of Washington where cartels aren't killing people (Phoenix is getting almost as scary as Mexican border towns) to not appreciate the Arizona problems and to criticize. Laws like this are born of frustration. The US government needs to take the lead on this and secure our borders from illegals while making it easier to legally go to and from the USA.

Who can blame Arizona for trying to protect themselves from this sort of thing. Our government has to do better for the border states.

Frustrating? I'm sure. Should laws be enforced? Of course. But it needs to remain constitutional. Requiring ID of anyone who could be suspicious reminds me of two things, both from the '80s. First, South Africa's apartheid required blacks to carry ID. The second is Cheech Marin's Born in East L.A.

Of course, if a law enforcement agency does not enforce this new law, it can legally be sued under it by any citizen that so chooses. Disgusting.

They haven't caught the shooter--but they "know" he was an illegal alien?

Why do I suspect that every crime committed in Arizona for the next several months by any nonwhite is going to involve a "suspected illegal alien"?

As in being white, you don't care.

Arizona lawmakers target ethnic studies programs

Russell Pearce, primary sponsor of Arizona's "show me your papers, brown person" law, with a friend:



Here's a shot of Russell's friend, J.T. Ready, at another political function a few weeks later--smiling at the camera!

As in knowing a few law enforcement officers, local included, I generally trust them to uphold the law in a lawful manner.

The Mexican cartels violence has spilled over the borders making parts of Arizona a drug battleground. If the police did not suspect illegals in this area they wouldn't be very good police since experience has shown them time and time again who does the smuggling.

Sounds like full employment for AZ lawyers. Interesting concept, though. Would gsdlover like to sue the Aberdeen police for failure to enforce the stop sign law?

And when the law itself is unlawful?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I guess you, like the Arizona legislature, feel there's some magic way to detect illegal aliens on sight.

I see my picture of Russell Pearce's pal J.T. Ready was removed from Imageshack, likely because of the presence of a swastika. I have reposted both shots in the Photo Gallery here.

Excellent column by Desmond Tutu on Arizona's law:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/desmond-tutu/arizona----the-wrong-answ_b_557955.html

And not one word about the "kill the Boer" campaign in SA.

Shocker. Not.

South Africa's ruling ANC has ordered its youth leader to stop inflammatory comments after he was accused of stoking racial tension by singing a song from the era of the struggle against apartheid with the words "Kill the Boer".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...e-Boer-ban.html

And the corresponding action from the Republican Party has been....?

That cycle of violence faded into history BECAUSE of Tutu and Mandela. It would have been very easy for the black majority to take their revenge on white South Africans. Instead, the first thing Mandela did was institute the truth and reconciliation commission.

I recently built a computer controlled router based on plans developed by by a person from South Africa. How South Africa (socially) got where they are is a fascinating and optimistic story.

According to The Arizona Republic Violence is not up on Arizona border.



Another popular myth, proliferated by folks with agendas, bites the dust.

The entire front page of The Republic today was consumed by an editorial on the subject of the need for immigration reform and gutless, grandstanding politicians.

The AP reports.

And because of FW de Klerk.

While I don't disagree with anything Archbishop Tutu wrote, he needs to get his own house in order before discussing immigration.

Huh, Wally? You're comparing mobs who are being sought and prosecuted by South African law enforcement when caught to a bad law written and passed by a legislature and signed by a governor? Seriously?

Gosh, if that's the standard, then the US will NEVER have the right to comment about anything other countries do as our house is definitely not in order either.

Or are you saying politicians are equal to a criminal mob?

I'm contrasting the street level response to illegal immigration. In SA they formed mobs, in AZ they supported a law. It may be a bad law, but it is law nonetheless, with stated objectives and penalties, subject to judicial and legislative review. I doubt it will lead to lynchings.

Also, Tutu compares the requirement that non-citizens carry documents to "police waking a man up in the middle of the night and hauling him off to jail for not having his documents on his person while he slept" under Apartheid. That is not a fair comparison. Control of borders, and who crosses them, is a legitimate function of government. Creating and maintaining Apartheid, was not.

I think that was Mark Twain.

I'm thinking the distinction will be lost on someone it happens to. In this particular government, according to the document that set it all up, we are secure in our homes and persons against unreasonable search and seizure, and that includes jackbooted thugs demanding our identity papers for whatever reason.

Is it really a bad law? It addresses a need and might shake up congress to come up with a real immigration law.



With over 50% of the illegal immigrants coming from Mexico and another quarter from Latin America, we need control over who comes in. Our nation is flooded with lower skilled workers.

A NYTimes editorial observes that:


Our southern neighbor is not very open about the USA dumping it's citizens SOB. To stay for extended lengths of time you have to prove that you have a minimum of $1200 a month being deposited in a bank. If you cannot meet that requirement you must cross the border every six months and then return. You cannot expect free medical, free schooling or even the right to compete for jobs unless you are a higher-skilled applicant.

I live amongst these people. They are wonderful and their government has a more realistic immigration plan than the USA.

Arizona's laws are passed because the USA refuses to do its job and keep our borders safe and control immigration. They are hardly bad laws if they force the US and congress to do their jobs.

But the AZ law isn't limited to border issues. While white people will probably get far less scrutiny than any brown person, under AZ law, a European naturalized citizen who still has an accent could be arrested while visiting the Grand Canyon. My Norwegian-born dad could have been arrested while traveling through AZ because he never lost his accent even though he became a citizen in '55 (give or take a year). Ridiculous!

And if someone heard him speak, called the police to have him investigated, and the police failed to respond or failed to arrest, this person can sue that police department. Even more ridiculous!

This law has nothing to do with border patrol. It is all about making harassing people legal.

You are wrong. This just gives police the means to question people who may be here illegally. Armed illegals who are part of the cartels are killing people in the US now and they are getting bolder. I wouldn't live in a border town in the US or in Mexico. This is going to get horrible unless we find a way to fix it.

On the state level what is Arizona to do? They haven't the means to patrol the borders. The only thing they can do is identify a suspected group which, in the cartel case, just happens to be Hispanic. They repeat over and over again that it will not be wholesale racial profiling. They sure as heck can question a group of possible illegals that appear to be very well off with no visible means of supporting themselves and ask to see if they are here legally. I would think that is a pretty valuable tool in crime prevention.

I don't think migrant workers are the target here.

There's a simple way to fix it - end prohibition.

You really do seem to have a sky is falling attitude.

The cartels have taken on the Mexican government. Why not the USA? The border patrols are becoming nothing but combat soldiers who are often outgunned.

You kill a policeman and it becomes pretty easy to shoot another. That is what is coming across the border besides drugs - the attitude that they are more powerful than the law.

Do you want to buy some cheap properties on the US side of the border? They are going to be plenty available.



Agreed. The reality is that the government cannot even sign off on medical marijuana. If drug legalization is going to happen it is years and years away.

I was referring to your notions on a variety of issues (i.e. the economy, the state of our public discourse, and etc).

The violence in Mexico is primarily directed at those involved in organized crime, including many of the police officers who have been killed. The violence is attributable to Calderon's decision to crack down. The same phenomena occurred in Colombia and in the USA during prohibition.

The Miami Herald carried a report in late April entitled "Study links drug enforcement to more violence".

No, what it does is violate the Constitution.

Arizona wants to do more to prevent illegal immigration, good on them. Let them find a way to do it that is not a direct violation of the Bill of Rights.

So far as I understand the AZ law, it seems there is just no way that it will not invite ethnic profiling and put police officers in a tough position between two causes of legal actions aimed against them. One for not enforcing the ridiculous law and the other for profiling.

It's just a really ignorant piece of legislation.

The upside to the legislation, though, is that the republican party continues to alienate Hispanic voters.

As Ron Brownstein, of the National Journal, observes.

I have read similar reports but that statement always brings the question to mind, "If we give in to people who threaten violence if we don't give them what they want, what is law enforcement about?"

Our public policy has created the criminals, just as it did during alcohol prohibition. All prohibition does is raise the price of a product to the point folks will risk their freedom and/or lives to cash in on the black market enabled by prohibition.

All that aside, the Colombia experience indicates that violence increases when a crackdown is initiated, but subsides once the resulting industry shakeout is completed.

The organized criminals trading in illicit drugs and humans constitute an industry. The Mexican government's captures and killings of leaders of various organized crime families, has resulted in a war for market share. The Zetas, initially lured by organized criminals from the Mexican military special forces to work as organized crime enforcers, are now waging war against various crime organizations for control of those organizations.

But I agree with you, Calderon's approach, I think from the general welfare perspective, is superior to the approaches of his PRI predecessors, which were to either ignore or go onto the payrolls of the organized criminals.

And Julius Malema is reviving it.

And then there's the whole deporting citizens thing...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/californ...immigrants.html

http://stateswithoutnations.blogspot.com/2009/04/us-citizen-deported-to-mexico-shipped.html

http://www.thenation.com/article/thin-ice

You need to update your sources.



Malema is on record saying that he intends to continue singing the song.

1.A law becomes unlawful when a State Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court says it is. Until then, law enforcement is sworn to uphold the law once it is in effect.

2.As for the Fourth Amendment, I believe there has been an assumption, but never a Supreme Court ruling specifically stating that aliens in this country illegally are afforded Fourth Amendment rights.

3.Why not? Illegal aliens magically appear in this country without documentation.

*sigh*

What about people who aren't illegals whose papers are demanded anyway? The point is that people who are American citizens will be subjected to unreasonable searches under this law. Because there is no way to tell an "illegal alien" on sight. We're not talking about illegal aliens being extended any rights. We're talking about American citizens having their rights violated.

Often legal law-abiding citizens are asked to show ID. I had to show legal ID to get a flippin' library card. Big whoop. I always carry ID with me. It's the sensible thing to do.

And if I am doing something that arouses probable cause suspicion on the part of law enforcement, I hope to shout they had better earn my tax dollars and stop to question me.

Good grief. You won't be thrown in jail if you don't have ID to get a flippin' library card.

And I'd bet my last dime that you don't carry anything proving you're a US citizen.

And the Arizona law does not require anybody doing anything suspicious to arouse probable cause. It just requires that you exist. Kinda hard to enter Arizona without existing, isn't it? But that's all it takes.

Ah, the "I have nothing to hide" argument.

Supposing you're walking down the street, minding your own business, Mr. "I have olive skin," and a policeman demands to see proof you are a citizen? I guess you won't mind spending the night in jail while they make sure.

1. But I won't get a library card. Weren't you taught that If you don't play by the rules, you should expect the consequences? If aliens haven't broken the law, they won't be "thrown in jail", either.

2. HA! Hand over that last dime. I carry a copy of my birth certificate with my driver's license.

3. You are wrong. Read the law...or at least the CNN article I linked.

It's funny how many of the same folks decrying the expansion of government authority, relative to the health insurance/care reform legislation, have no problem with expanding government authority to require police to stop folks and demand they produce their "papers".

Of course, then again, the only folks the police will be demanding "papers" of will be the swarthy types. So why worry about the great expansion of government authority contained in the AZ law?

The hypocrisy is astounding, and the bigotry is sickening.

Anyone looking like 70% of the FBI's most wanted for murder page should get a closer look, or law enforcement is not doing their job.

Grand Dragon Iky has spoken: Racism, in his view, is an acceptable basis for law enforcement.

Actually YOU are wrong. The law says, specifically, "any lawful contact." It's lawful for cops to talk to citizens at random.

From Wikipeida



In other words, to be sure you get the point, the FBI's ten most wanted list has nothing, nothing at all, to do with requiring police to stop folks and demand their papers.

So all I am able to find with which to respond to your inane remark is - fish.

It doesn't bother me that illegal aliens may be arrested or deported. They are breaking the law already. What bothers me is that U.S. citizens will need to keep documentation on their prescence to show that they aren't illegal aliens. U.S. citizens are already deported mistakenly and illegally. What are the safeguards to prevent that from happening under this law?

BTW, I wonder how many people on this board realize that ICE can setup checkpoints anywhere within 100 miles of an international border, including the Pacific Ocean and Puget Sound?

Driving from Merida, Yucatan Mexico to GHC in 2006 I was stopped at check points on both sides of the border. At Mexican checkpoints I was normally asked to open the back cover of my little pickup truck for the authorities to take a look.

At the USA checkpoints, one of which was on an Interstate highway, as soon as they saw I am Caucasian I was waved through, without a look in the back of my truck. Meanwhile the swarthy types were waved over for closer scrutiny.

Nor was I asked by USA authorities to open the back of my truck at the Brownsville border crossing when entering the USA.

Nope, you are wrong.
The word "contact" has been removed,
and among other changes, these words have been added:

"in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state"



psst...they're talking about you, Beaver

As I said, I carry mine at all times.
I don't find it to be a hardship at all.
It's just the sensible thing to do these days.
In case you hadn't noticed, we are not living in a perfect world.
Bye-bye Miss American Pie.
But hey!!! Healthcare for everyone!!! wOOt!

For any lawful contact stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state

"Yew got a burnt out tail light, boy. *smash* Guess I need to see them papers."

"Yew was jaywalking, boy, lemme see yer papers."

I'm SO reassured.

Let us also note what was NOT altered in any way:

"Allows a law enforcement officer, without a warrant, to arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S."

I.e. you look like an illegal alien to me. Up against the wall.

Racism is so unattractive.

Regardless of Beavis ridiculous southern small town officer act his is not a normal scenario.

But that aside it is a bad law. There are several reasons why this is so. The most important one to me is that the law REQUIRES an officer determine legal resident status if enforcing a law. Not request or allow but requires.

Anything with a requirement is bad for law enforcement because much of enforcing the law has to do with applying enforcement to the situation. Enforcing the law is NEVER black and white. Anyone who believes it is has never done the job (and I really don't care how many people in law enforcement you know its not the same).

In concert with this is the fact the law does not differentiate(sp?) between criminal and infraction. If my memory of Arizona law is correct, and it may not be, it is simliar to Washington in the sense that many traffic laws, etc are their version of civil infrations and not criminal offenses. So basically if you are pulled over for running a stop sign, speeding, etc (yes Beavis your tail light example is ridiculous and offensive to me) non-criminal offenses, you, the officer, are REQUIRED to verify the occupants are legal US citizens IF you have reasonable suspicion these folks are illegal.

So here is a question: what is reasonable suspicion? Is it skin color? Ethnic origin? Clothing? The law spells out these type of things are not to be used to determine whether or not to ask for ID regarding status so I ask again what is to be considered reasonable suspicion?

Probably though the most asinine portion of the law is the ability of any citizen (see - anyone moron with a chip on their shoulder) to sue an official i.e. officer if they feel they are not enforcing the law. Not the department, not the city, not the county but the officer. This puts the officer in a horrible position.

And don't try to show the part about not having to enforce it if it hinders an investigation. There are a thousand other reasons officers will rightfully not enforce this and none of them have to do with politics or views.

In the end I get the intent behind this law but some of the more well meaning of the supporters (yes some are just racist and not well meaning) but it is a bad law which is poorly written and thought out.

The one good thing to come from this however is maybe, just maybe this might make the feds stand up and take notice and start to actually work on an immigration solution.

As is your ignorance, not to mention lack of respect for law enforcement.

What don't you understand about the word "contact" being removed?

Reasonable suspicion is something more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch" which can be "articulated" from "specific reasonable inferences which he (an officer) is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience." (Alabama v. White; Terry v. Ohio)




I completely agree.





Rightfully?
Guess again.

http://www.azsos.gov/Info/LOYALTY_OATH_OF_OFFICE.pdf

So you failed to answer the question. Any officer with one day on knows you have to articulate your "reasonable suspicion". Spewing out Supreme Court speak does not answer the reasonable suspcion criteria. You must document the actual events that occured. So where is the reasonable suspicion in my scenario or any just like it? Exactly where do you see "reasonable suspicion" being applied in ANY scenario where someone is stopped for speeding, etc?

I'll answer that last part for you. The ONLY time it could be applied in my reading of the law is when someone forgets their wallet at home. Just like everyone in the world does at one time or another.

Meaning when the nice white english only speaking family of five in the family minivan on their way to church is stopped for speeding and daddy discovers he forgot his ID he gets hauled off even though the officer just by using common sense can REASON (there is the pesky little base for reasonable) he is a US citizen. If by following your obvious lack of understanding of the oath of office everything must be black and white and enforced no matter what the officer has no alternative. BTW I used white family for emphasis only it would be no more right to happen to family of any other origin either.

The person who rear-ended my daughter's car last fall didn't have their license with them. Within a minute or two the officer was able to verify the verbal ID information given to him by the driver was correct, and the person was indeed who they said they were beyond a reasonable doubt.



Any? OK:

A mini-van is stopped for speeding and plates which do not match the vehicle. Inside, 20-30 non-English speaking people are packed like tuna in a can...driver has no ID...neither do any of the passengers. You know at least one half million foreign nationals cross into Arizona illegally each year. There...an articulated reasonable suspicion that the people in the mini-van might not be here legally.

1. Plates don't match the vehicle, so obviously these must be illegals.

2. I'm guessing that 20 or 30 non-English speaking white people in a minivan is a fairly rare occurrence, but I could be wrong.

3. Why did the cop check the plate to begin with? Never mind, I'm sure "driving while brown" would suit your purposes.

You're right, it's not just a southern phenomenon.

I don't see any color included in the definition of "illegal" or "illegal immigrant", do you?

I don't see any exceptions in the Fourth Amendment, do you?

Read the Justice's commentary in the applicable Supreme Court cases.
There are exceptions.

1. Didn't realize 'driving while lost' was an offense....geesh.

2. The only option was to tazer or beat him? WTF?

3. Did the cop say "this will continue when I get off work!"? Wow.

While isolated incidents may not all be racially-motivated, I have no doubt that many of them are.

Getting 20 or 30 people in a van does happen:


And apparently, not just here:

Cases in which an unreasonable search and seizure is acceptable?

lmao

So much for the Constitution.

Why don't you try researching our laws for a change.

How about you read the Constitution? I know, as one of your heroes put it, "it's just a damned piece of paper," but some of us put more stock in it than that.

I don't have many personal heroes, and none are anyone that you know, or even know of.

However, I am guessing that you are referring to this:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a.html

Or would admit to publicly. lmao

This would so much more fun if it was an "us" issue. Our companies and individuals are hiring people who are not legal. If you manage hiring, you manage most of the issues discussed, but we want cheap everything, clothing, food, floral products, etc. We want the individuals who pick our crops, but not the ones who move next door.

Get pissed off about the violence regarding drug trafficking. We are the consumers. We are the country that has the ineffective laws regarding drug use. We are supplying the weapons that kill each other and the Mexicans living along the border who are trying to deal with our dung.

We are the ones who created this mess, but it's a whole lot easier to point fingers. We don't need to deal with "them," we need to fix us.

Arizona replies to comedian Obama:

"In defending my borders against the Mexican, I am doing the work of the Lord" to paraphrase another famous fascist.

I think you're exactly right.

According to the CDC, less than 10% of our population uses illicit drugs. Does less than 10% really qualify as "we?"

Yes. "We the people of the United States, in order...." and etc.

That was perhaps your silliest nitpick ever.

Really?? So the threshold is more than 30 million. Is it 50 million? Or, do it need to reach the magic 150+ million to earn "we" status?

I can't believe I haven't thought of this earlier. This makes everything easy.
Million abortions a year - may rise to a you issue, but not a we;
3 thousand 9/11 deaths - not a we status issue at all;
.5 million cancer deaths - who cares; and
57K breast cancer deaths - let them eat cake

This is shear brilliance.

I wish I would have thought of that.

Brilliant. Cudos to you.

"We the people of the United States, in order...." defines the powers of the government as originating from the people of the United States.

And originally, that excluded the "non-free."

"We the People" is not a group blame dumping ground for drug crimes practiced by a minority of those inhabiting the United States.

So now people with drug problems aren't Americans? Hey, there's a concept. I say we start with people who have brain damage...which has been scientifically proven to cause fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

Why don't you stop misrepresenting what I post?
Hey, there's a concept!

They should be stripped of their citizenship and sent packing.

OK, being apparent that you don't know what the preamble to the Constitution says, I'll do you the favor.

"We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,...."

You may deny it all you wish, but all of we the people of the USA are a union.

Did we drop a couple of H bombs on Japan? Using your perverted logic, it was only President Truman, other government officials, and those who flew the planes and dropped the bombs.

Do you work at saying ridiculous things or is it a natural predisposition?

Scroll down the link.

The meaning of the Preamble text has not changed.

That meaning would be the one I posted.

Deny it all you wish,
and/or take it up with the US Senate.


http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm


I'll take the high road and refrain from insult.

Iky disagrees with you, Turnow, therefore you are not a real American, or at least one of "we, the people."

I can't help but wonder how many of those original "We the People" folks were engaged in what would now be considered illegal drug activity? It wouldn't be fair to judge them for that, of course, but I don't think they were particularly against drugs.

Start preparing the deportation papers. Oh wait, I've already deported myself.

There is evidence that George Washington was a pot smoker.

They were also engaged in what are now considered terrorist acts.

Sorry, I forgot for a moment that to the end justifies the means folks there are good terrorists and bad terrorists.

And at age 11 he owned 10 slaves; at his death, over 300...so guess who cultivated and harvested his hemp crop.

What is the point of your non sequitur? That George Washington shouldn't be considered one of "We the people" because he kept slaves?

Who smoked it?

There are letters still in existence written by Washington to his gardener while Washington was on campaign with the Continental Army. In them, Washington reminds the gardener to separate the male and female plants.

There's no reason to separate the plants by sex if you are just growing hemp for fiber. The only reason to separate the plants by sex is that unfertilized female plants yield buds with the highest concentration of THC; in other words, they're more potent for smoking.

Yep--the father of our country was a pothead.

But that would make him not a real American in your eyes, right, Iky?

But no doubt he had a medical marijuana authorization.

What was the point of Beavis's?
He posted something incidental concerning Washington,
and I responded likewise.
Hot news: there were things legal and acceptable done then that are restricted or abolished by law now.

Hey...maybe you're smoking pot and that's why you respond to my posts from la-la land!

If you'll note, I didn't contest that Washington was a pothead. I don't have proof positive, but it wouldn't shock or surprise me that he and other founding fathers inhaled. Pssst...there were no laws or restrictions against it then.

OK, a review. You questioned whether the 10% of the USA population who uses drugs constitutes "We the people". Beavis, sticking to the subject of the discussion, pointed out that there are credible reports that George Washington, surely one of "We the people", smoked marijuana. A point you missed.

Then you introduced slavery non sequitur into the discussion.

So again I ask, what's your point?

Try to keep up with the posts, Turnow.



Violence. Drug trafficking. Ineffective laws.

1. No mention of the constitutional "We the People" is there? Just a general broad-brush "we", when over 90% of the "we" in the US don't use illicit drugs.

2. WAS GROWING OR SMOKING POT A VIOLENT DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME IN WASHINGTON'S LIFETIME? Hint...no.

So what the flippin' difference does it make to this thread, AZ HB 2162, or the US Constitution, if George Washington smoked pot?

OK. I understand. You were not making a point, just blathering.

Pity you feel the need to indulge in low road responses.
Well, whatever it takes for you to pump your manhood, I guess.

As usual your ultimate fall back position, after you've back and side peddled is the reliable whah, whah, you're being mean to me.

Learn how to argue.

I don't give a rat's ass if you're "mean to me."
You, as person, are nothing to me.
As are your opinions of me or anything else.
I just think it's interesting that I'm so easily able to provoke you into demeaning yourself with habitual low road responses.
Actually, I find it rather pathetic and humorous at the same time.

And, yet, it's you getting lathered up.

You're delusional...again.

I love it how you always stick to the "high road".

Just stating a fact.
Here I am, thousands of miles away from you, enjoying my roast dinner and Black Russian and watching The Daily Show...
and you assert that I'm "lathered up".
You are delusional.
I couldn't be more relaxed.

You also were deluded in asserting that I didn't know the meaning of the Preamble text...which I did, and may I point out, you obviously didn't...

so, as I said, just stating fact.

I'll try to bring it back to present day. Our founding fathers grew and most likely smoked pot, the boarders weren't overrun with drug smuggling, and, amazingly, our country didn't fall apart.

It seems like when we tried to control it's production and use, we then decided to spent untold amounts of money to control these ends. We, we, we.

I'm glad you are enjoying your drink, why on earth would it matter to you what I want to do to enjoy my evening? We created this mess, Mexico didn't.

If you are coming after my family, my friends, my dog, or myself to cause any of us harm, whether or not for your evening enjoyment, it might matter a great deal to me.

Oh oh! He WE go again with another Wee We diatribe.

Yeah...I'm not playing the "we-we" blame game when 90% of the "we" don't contribute to "the mess."

Unless you mean outlawing a bunch of drugs and then creating more powerful drugs for people to get hooked on. That was our U.S. government. Created by We the People. Governed with the consent of the governed. This is a problem that we, collectively, contribute to, not just the 10% or whatever that are using. BTW, I was the one that pointed out the founding fathers were users. Beavis elaborated, and Turnow explained the point beautifully.

By the way, I am no advocate for drug use, but it seems odd that so little time passed after the failure of prohibition that we looked for something else to ban.

Interestingly, one of the few videos that can be watched longer than 10 minutes on YouTube is Reefer Madness, one of the main pieces of propoganda that led to the marijuana prohibition:

Well hey, since "we" can't put all the drugs back into Pandora's Box,
"we" should rescind all drug laws.
"Problem" solved.

And any drug use by the founding fathers still has nothing to do with AZ HB 2162 or the Constitution.

Unfortunately, it seems that a majority of Americans are with you on this one, Iky. I'm sure that might change once a few of them are detained because they didn't have their passport on them(remember, Drivers License or birth certificate aren't good enough anymore).

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1591/public-...&proj=forum

Uh, oh. I don't even have a passport.

Perhaps because they actually read the bill before pronouncing judgment, unlike Beavless Cleavless and Eric Holder.

That would be strange. Most legislators don't even bother to read the bills that they vote to pass.

Perfect example why the bar needs to be raised for legislators and attorneys general. And add presidents who shoot from the lip without knowing all of the facts.

Yep. After eight years of that, we need to move on.

So...I am incorrect in my assertion that Arizona law enforcement officers are now required to check the immigration status of people who may, possibly, be committing civil code violations like having a car in their yard? There are limits to the number of people who are allowed to live in each dwelling as well. Let's say a child's birthday party is in progress and there are fifty kids running around a yard having a good time. Under this law a passing police officer is required--not permitted, required to stop and check everyone's immigration status, because there may be a civil code violation going on there.

I am amazed at how blithely you dismiss the Bill of Rights, Iky. Why do you hate America? Why do you have such contempt for the vision of the Founding Fathers?

Because it often conflicts with his rigid ideological perspective.

Well, there is that.

Too bad "we" haven't...
"I didn't know all the facts" Obama; and
"I haven't been briefed yet; I have not read it" Holder.

Let's see...the vision of the Founding Fathers...
oh, you must mean like Founding Father John Adams and the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts.

That's hilarious, Iky. You really are completely ignorant when it comes to history.

Do a Google search (since I don't expect you to crack any book, ever) for "fourth amendment."

Didn't pose a vision problem for Founding Father and President John Adams, now did it?

Not that I trust everything on Wikipedia, there is some interesting discussion, with references on the constitutionality of the Sedition Acts:

Maybe there is some validity to legalizing pot. I guess it's the only way to destroy the market for it:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126806429&sc=fb&cc=fp

Grays Harbor,

Just a bit if introspection regarding B.O. and his "thugs" over the last couple years...

Agree re:

- Campaigner-in-Chief (e.g., extraordinary exploitation of teleprompters);

- Complainer-in-Chief (e.g., 18 months later still beating up previous administration in a largely classless and useless manner);

- Comedian-in-Chief (e.g., yes, at times even better than Jay Leno);

- and, Union-boss-in-Chief (e.g., executing corrupt and ill-advised open-door policy for SEIU, UAW, etc. leadership to invade White House);

But, disagree re:

- Commander-in-Chief (e.g., truly leader of the "not ready for prime time players" as he and his advisors fumble and bumble seemingly every event or issue requiring leadership, character, an ability to listen, and/or apply a high-level intellectual capacity as a result of Chicago-style arrogance and gang-like style)!

We need to have a real President ASAP!

Welcome to the board, Baldy, and thanks for the regurgitated Beck/Hannity/Limbaughisms.

Welcome aboard.



We have a community organizer. What else do we need?

Make that a "black" community organizer. (I'm just saving Beavis the trouble!)

I know what it is--you guys have Obama Tourette's!

"We still have high unemployment left over from Bush"

"IT'S OBAMA'S FAULT!"

"An oil company punched a hole in the ocean and the Earth is bleeding to death"

"IT'S OBAMA'S FAULT!"

"Tiger Woods"

"IT'S OBAMA'S FAULT!"

"Gary Coleman had a brain hemorrhage and died"

"IT'S OBAMA'S FAULT!"

etc.

You are inventing a wonderful system for yourself where you need only to defend Obama by pointing out that he is attacked only because he is black. I think it is kind of a lazy system. I hope your brain doesn't seize up from inactivity using it.

I am hoping for better from our community leader/president in the future. We need better. My future is tied to what he is going to do the next couple years so it is a selfish motive for wishing him better.

It is really not the color thing at all.

It is the Chicago-style Pol stereotype B.O. admires and practices at each and every opportunity. This is why at the more local "community organizer" level he was successful on Chicago's southside. Further, we never even gave him a chance at the national level as a U.S. senator from Illinois as the lemmings in both media and academia paved his way in a truly ignorant and ill-advised strategy as he became the most powerful person on the planet.

However, more fundamental now at the global level as the Cdr-in-Chief, he must display a far more wise and mature approach than that of a gang member or punk from Chicago. This immature and reactionary approach to his overwhelming predictament within the truly extraordinary circumstances he faces today - national and international - will continue to dictate failure.

He is not Presidential for certain!

(Note: For informational purposes, I am a former Chicagoan ("Vote early, vote often.") and I think my dead grandfather (1960) still votes in his southside ward.)

What Obama is not is stupid. That does not mean he does not do stupid things but he has the ability to learn. It is on that I base my hopes for better choices by him in the future.

The color defense you will understand if you follow these forums much and read Beavis posts. You would think that black constituents would be backing his every play if color was truly a factor. They are getting dismayed with his performance as much as the rest.

I will say this about Obama. He is refreshing compared to Bush. He is just not the leader I hoped he would be.

I'm quite certain that if Barack Obama was a white man, you would be referring to him as a "gang member."

Riiiiiiiiight.

Since you apparently don't get it, why should Baldy?

Point is, you complain about something--your complaint is completely either a. answered, or b. exposed as ridiculous, not factual, or an outright lie...but you keep repeating it anyway.

When all questions have been answered, but the questioner keeps insisting they haven't, something else is going on.

Now on THIS statement we can agree completely, although we disagree on what form that "leadership" should be taking, and why it hasn't so far.

Well, sir, as with the rest of your "libtarded community" you enjoy representing while readily exploiting racial stereotypes and similar principles, I never equated "blackness" with gang-membership. There are millions of white, yellow and brown gang members across the country. B.O. has plenty of white gang-members with him by the way (e.g., Emanuel, Axelrod, Jarret, etc.). OBE

Thanks, Grand Dragon, I'll keep your spew in mind.

OBE is correct in the point that our President did come out of the Chicago political machine that has long history of corruption, and affiliation with a (mostly white) gang mentality. I don't assume that he is corrupt as a result. The race card gets old and reminds me of the boy who cried wolf. When we really do have people acting with racist motivation it does no good to call everyone on the right a racist. It's like calling everyone on the left a socialist. You're free to say it, but that doesn't mean that you're right.

Dear Friends,

We find ourselves indeed observing Chicago Politics at its worst. Some actually suggest it is even worse than "Chicago Politics!" ... Perhaps they are correct!

I must state after 30-plus years of service to the United States Government, there were numerous time where I easily could have made unethical, unwise and even criminal decisions (i.e., often the stupid and the easy ways out); however, it was relatively easy to arrive at the correct, moral, ethical and simply right decisions.

That said, the current administration is classless, clueless and criminal in its decision-making and political practices. Therefore, B.O. must go ASAP!!!

When I state that fact, his criminal thugs, fellow gang-members, academia punks, former terrorist buds, and commie friends are required to exit Stage Left...oops, Right as well (sorry).

Just a few examples of a new "Hell on this Earth" from B.O. and his buds:

a. Holder: How the hell can you be the Attorney General of the United States after permitting the Black Panther shits to molest and discourage white GRANDMAS from voting in the Nov 08 elections. You will rot in Hell! The video tells the truth more than anything else, scumbag!

b. Holder: Ok, calming down a bit, how could you exclude the A.G. of Florida on the meeting re: the Gulf Fiasco? So, all the other A.G.s from the surrounding states are invited, but you forbid the Florida A.G. as a result of a completely unrelated issue: Obamacare. You are one small moron, bud!

c. Holder: Ok, punk, when are you going to realize the BAD GUYS are crossing our borders daily aare exponentially increasing, nd your desire to try them in NYC (you are one goofy fuck!) encourages same?

d. Holder: How could you belittle the actions of the Governor of Arizona as she essentially replicated the federal law that you were required to enforce? How could you not read the relatively small document outlining the legistlation? Not doing so, how could you not believe, we, the citizens of the U.S.A., could not perceive your inadequacy? You need to get off the B.O. Kool-Aid!

e. B.O.: When you ignore/endorse/condone ASSASSINS from the Mexican Mafia/Drug Lords as they KILL American ranchers in southern Arizona, you are part of their mafia, moron! Do you not believe one day the citizens will awaken? Oh, I am assuming you will awaken...sorry, my bad!

f. B.O.: Even as I disagree with the Insane Cajun, Carville, the vast majority of the time, where is your empathy for the folks on the Gulf? He is spot on; they are dying, Bud!

g. B.O.: Hey, is there anyone around to cut off your excessive debt-producing credit card? Why are you destroying the nation that has given you so much, asshole? There is no way to legitimize the destruction you are orchestrating upon the middle class and small businesses! You will indeed rot in hell!

h. B.O.: When will you do a "Truman" and state: "The buck stops here!" You are one classless low-life! One day, bud, you will realize how stupid your mantra: "The Buck Starts Here!" truly is!

i. B.O.: Immigration? See "h." above!

j. Gulf?: Blame it on Bush, Dumbo; however, it happened on your watch after 18 months in charge. Hey, take charge and figure it out!

k. Bailouts?: Yep, there is one things the voters in 2012 will recall, and that is the horrific support you gave to the legacy unions! We are not the stupid society you and your friends from academia (a truly sad bunch of Slackers) or union officials (whether SEIU, UAW or the myriad of others on their last gasps), you will go down in the history books as the worst ever to occupy the White House! I predict someone will burn the White House upon your departure to get rid of the stench!

l. Healthcare?: You set the stage for your complete overall - the American Overall - in Nov 2010. I do so look forward to your embarrassment!

m. Sestak, Romanoff, et al? Tell the damn truth! I am sure you find a Fall Guy for the encounters vice Slick Willy! Maybe this entry should be under the Holder entries?

In the end, I do not regard you as authentic; your are not a leader in even a minimalist sense; and you and yours are indeed truly unprepared and incompetent for the challenges the U.S.A. faces today!

I look forward to you and Emanuel behind bars once the truth is told!

How sad for you to destroy a country needing no more than a 2d wind!

Yep! I am truly pissed off! And I can assure you I am not alone!

OBE

P.S. Israel Needs Our Support, but your classless Islamic-preferred administration continues to ensure the death and destruction of Israel; and the subsequent degradation of the USA!

"A truly happy person is one who can enjoy the scenery on a detour." - Anonymous

OBE: Please post any further hallucinations in the politics forum. Crazy and ignorant is no way to go through life, son.

Your post is a sign of the times. I don't quite agree with all of your statements but the Democrats are clueless as to what America needed and definitely, and I repeat here, did them in the wrong order.

Why in the world when you spent a trillion on bailout of banks and crooks, did you choose healthcare as your first order of things needing done instead of financial reform? Make no bones about it the Republicans will not do this. I call that the most important piece of legislation.

But maybe it is jobs. 18 months ago would have been a dandy time to raise taxes on oil based products and put that money right back into green energy jobs. The list is endless on what we might have done. Yes, the things China is doing right now is what we should have been doing.

Why healthcare in the form Democrats chose it? There are so many ways you could bring down expenses without this trillion dollar tax on citizens.

This oil spill...18 months on the job does means that Republicans are off the blame list. NOW they realize that there was a cozy relationship between oil and government. It is a bit late.

It will never be Obama's fault with some.

Anyway, you have a good set of gripes.

I love all of these supposed "patriots" talking about how the country is being "destroyed."

I have a little more faith in America than that.