Dirty Sanchez has the intellect of a kindergärtner. Please stop arguing with him. He's wrong and he has to know it at this point (Everyone else does). Why he continues is way fucking beyond me, but you cannot get through to him. At no point ever will he admit that he is wrong about this issue, no matter what arguments you make or how many times you prove him wrong. So just leave him alone.
The majority of the countrty agrees with arizona and yet? "He's wrong and he has to know it at this point (Everyone else does)" Ok troll.
Fucking with what the polls say? They're just polls, the one I posted from the preeminent news source of our day said 48%.
You fucking steaming pile of idiot shit, Rasmussen Reports is one of the major sources of poll information used by all the news sources of our day. Do you think the networks do their own polls?
You fucking steaming pile of idiot shit, Rasmussen Reports is one of the major sources of poll information used by all the news sources of our day. Do you think the networks do their own polls?
So it's likely Rasmussen, in their infinite poll wisdom, who's supporting my CNN stat that only 48% of Americans recently polled were in favor of this bill. :facepalm:
So it's likely Rasmussen, in their infinite poll wisdom, who's supporting my CNN stat that only 48% of Americans recently polled were in favor of this bill. :facepalm:
That is the problem there.
As for who supports and doesn't support it I can give two shits and you are not going to change my mind. Typical sheeple techniques.
So it's likely Rasmussen, in their infinite poll wisdom, who's supporting my CNN stat that only 48% of Americans recently polled were in favor of this bill. :facepalm:
Maybe maybe not it is your source so research it and confirm or deny. But do not assume and claim victory.
Between both of your posts I can't tell if you're being satirical
Obviously, no true man takes politics (break down the word, "Poly", the Greek word for "many" and "Ticks", which are bloodsucking insects) seriously, states Rolf.
This is the only important bit of what I just read. You people (who posted, please don't take this part the wrong way or I might die of laughter) don't believe in equality in America. That's alright, we don't really believe in equality here either, we try but it's apparent that we aren't a fully just nation. Even still, if we enacted this same law then most Canadians would be talking about our past with Japanese internment camps. Not whether an investigation based on somebody's race is something that we can just get away with if people don't look too closely at it.
And that's the problem as I see it. It seems to me that there is an overblown emphasis on race from the left (in the US) when someone or some entity does something or says something that they do not necessarily agree with. It's a tactic that I deplore because it is an attempt to shut down other viewpoints, opinions, and it attempts to stifle the forum for honest thoughtful debate. I can say this from personal experience because I didn't vote for Obama. Because of that there have been a few times that I have been accused of being a racist. Never-mind the fact the reason I didn't vote for him was because I didn't buy into his hope and change edict. Never-mind the fact that I didn't vote for him because I don't agree with most of his polices and political philosophy
On a related perspective the Arizona law goes beyond what race the individual is. It tackles a problem, illegal aliens, and the problems associated with it. But the people who are against this law are playing the race card because they think in their mind's eye that it is about race and not about the problems that illegal aliens bring with them. Problems such as drug trafficking, illegal labor and the exploitation of said labor by businesses, child sex trafficking, etc., are real problems that are part of the illegal immigration issue. But it seems that the people who are throwing out the race card are conveniently ignoring the problems associated with illegal immigration, naive about it, or are ignorant themselves of the whole issue.
btw the constitution does say pretty early on that all men have the right to, some bullshit I donno. All men, of any color sect or creed. Not just you men..
I think I know what you're saying but it's not in the Constitution. The document you're referring to is the Declaration of Independence, which says that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The Declaration of Independence might be the only more significant document in American history/ politics than the Constitution! Just sayin'.
And it's not that I don't understand that illegal immigration is a serious problem, because I do. It's just the method is racist because of the actual procedure which is to be carried out by police under the law's guidelines. I haven't heard anybody refute the point that singling out a certain ethnicity under rule of law is inherently racist. It doesn't matter if left wingers (:rolleyes:) have said the shit before about other things; it applies here and makes up a considerable portion of the issue.
The Declaration of Independence might be the only more significant document in American history/ politics than the Constitution! Just sayin'.
And it's not that I don't understand that illegal immigration is a serious problem, because I do. It's just the method is racist because of the actual procedure which is to be carried out by police under the law's guidelines. I haven't heard anybody refute the point that singling out a certain ethnicity under rule of law is inherently racist. It doesn't matter if left wingers (:rolleyes:) have said the shit before about other things; it applies here and makes up a considerable portion of the issue.
You admit illegals are a problem. How do you suggest we deal with them in a way that isnt seen as racist? Its not our fault and america isnt raist just because most illegals are from south of the border.
and yea, just solve it by putting stricter limitations on the employers, obviously. Deportation for illegals should go without saying, but if someone hires em, why not give that person 4-6 years to think about how they're hurting America? That's not racist, and would work.
Btw checking everyone's status at workplaces periodically would not be considered racist at all. Even if they were random checks, it's still fair game.
and yea, just solve it by putting stricter limitations on the employers, obviously. Deportation for illegals should go without saying, but if someone hires em, why not give that person 4-6 years to think about how they're hurting America? That's not racist, and would work.
Btw checking everyone's status at workplaces periodically would not be considered racist at all. Even if they were random checks, it's still fair game.
You idiot, once more you prove you have not even read AZ SB 1070. Had you read it you would know that there are severe penalties in the language for those who knowingly hire illegal aliens. :facepalm:
And it's not that I don't understand that illegal immigration is a serious problem, because I do. It's just the method is racist because of the actual procedure which is to be carried out by police under the law's guidelines. I haven't heard anybody refute the point that singling out a certain ethnicity under rule of law is inherently racist. It doesn't matter if left wingers (:rolleyes:) have said the shit before about other things; it applies here and makes up a considerable portion of the issue.
I believe it doesn't because like I said before illegal aliens do not make up an ethnicity, therefore there is no connection to race or it being inherently racist when a law targets them. While I do agree that singling out a certain ethnicity could have racial issues attached to it; it doesn't apply here because the law has no language that specifies ethnicity, nationality, or the color of someone's skin be singled out. All it targets is illegal aliens. The law is pretty explicit when it prohibits racial profiling. Governor Brewer signed an executive order for the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board to create the training material the day she signed the law.
Like I said before the whole race thing that people are stirring up is quite frankly an argument of convenience given Arizona's location. It is also an appeal to emotion fallacy because the groups who are opposed to this law are using race as an emotional tool to make the claim that the law is racist When in fact it is not because illegal aliens do not make up an ethnicity.
And it's not that I don't understand that illegal immigration is a serious problem, because I do. It's just the method is racist because of the actual procedure which is to be carried out by police under the law's guidelines. I haven't heard anybody refute the point that singling out a certain ethnicity under rule of law is inherently racist. It doesn't matter if left wingers (:rolleyes:) have said the shit before about other things; it applies here and makes up a considerable portion of the issue.
Race is no part of the issue except in your feeble mind which can't even handle reading and comprehending 15 pages. In the original version signed into law there was only one reference to race. It was to spell out that racial profiling was not permitted under AZ SB 1070. After it was singed it was amended and passed to remove any reference to race whatsoever due to pressure from Hispanic advocacy groups. But again, if you had read the FUCKING bill you would know this.
As you refuse read the bill and insist on fabricating what you think AZ SB 1070 entails you have proven yourself to either be a colossal idiot or a total troll.
The Declaration of Independence in not law the U.S. Constitution is! Just sayin'
Good cuz I was worried that it's historical significance would be lost on you.
Race is no part of the issue except in your feeble mind which can't even handle reading and comprehending 15 pages. In the original version signed into law there was only one reference to race. It was to spell out that racial profiling was not permitted under AZ SB 1070. After it was singed it was amended and passed to remove any reference to race whatsoever due to pressure from Hispanic advocacy groups. But again, if you had read the FUCKING bill you would know this.
As you refuse read the bill and insist on fabricating what you think AZ SB 1070 entails you have proven yourself to either be a colossal idiot or a total troll.
Since when did it have nothing to do with race. Which argument that it is are you contesting? You can't just say it isn't a matter of race and leave it there. You can say anything about prohibiting profiling, doesn't mean shit coming from the people who actually drafted this law. It's explicitly targeting all brown mexicanos, forcing em to comply with avoidable profiling which is inherent to the act of following the law, and nothing you say will change that. Fucking cretin, how many times can I make you spin in a circle. Too fuckin' many :mad: I'm tired of commanding you, go find a new owner mutt.
Good cuz I was worried that it's historical significance would be lost on you.
Since when did it have nothing to do with race. Which argument that it is are you contesting? You can't just say it isn't a matter of race and leave it there. You can say anything about prohibiting profiling, doesn't mean shit coming from the people who actually drafted this law. It's explicitly targeting all brown mexicanos, forcing em to comply with avoidable profiling which is inherent to the act of following the law, and nothing you say will change that. Fucking cretin, how many times can I make you spin in a circle. Too fuckin' many :mad: I'm tired of commanding you, go find a new owner mutt.
The only circle is is the circle jerk you are the center of. I have given you every opportunity to back your claims about this law by citing the language in AZ SB 1070 that supports your claims. You can not or will not do it. "The people who actually drafted this law" can you name even one of the authors of this bill? Can you tell me 3 facts about that persons political record in terms of what they have voted for or against? No to both questions and we all know it.
In other words now you have resorted to 3rd party absentee accusations against persons who you do not even know that name of. Your last post was nothing more than a poorly crafted attempt to hide your stupidity within an argumentum ad hominem. Since you know nothing of this bill, nothing of the people who drafted this bill, and even less about me why don't you take that leash wich you falsely believe you have lead me around by, ball it up real tight, soak it in tabasco and hot salt, and cram it up your ass.
Unless you have a change of heart and read this bill or STFU about it I will continue to mock your ignorance child.
^:rolleyes: Idiot, that addresses the fewest number of concerns yet. Relevant points: 0.
And this post definantly addresses the relavent concerns:rolleyes: Sorry if I doubt a canandians grasp of my countrys laws.
Also the supreme court is the only court that hast he power to overturn this according to the constitution.
Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…
The law is unconstitutional Obama has no choice but to strike it down.
To TheDarkRodent and whoever else is trying to say they know better than him please try to read and understand the 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It's really as simple as that.
"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."
The law is unconstitutional Obama has no choice but to strike it down.
To TheDarkRodent and whoever else is trying to say they know better than him please try to read and understand the 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It's really as simple as that.
"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."
It's so fucking simple.
Yeah it is fucking simple. The amendment applies TO CITIZENS.:facepalm:
It wasn't "founded" on the rights of the states or of the federal government. There are limits to what each can do, and immigration law falls outside of what a state is constitutionally allowed to do. If anything, it's Obama's responsibility to strike down this law. It's funny, Obama does something according to the constitution and the right is still pissy about it.
Please show me exactly where in the constitution the power to govern immigration issues if given solely to congress or denied to the states.
Comments
Exactly, states Rolf. How dare he be against illegal immigration, he's a fascist pig who is also probably a member of the Waffen SS! states Rolf
Between both of your posts I can't tell if you're being satirical
Still not going any further with this
The majority of the countrty agrees with arizona and yet? "He's wrong and he has to know it at this point (Everyone else does)" Ok troll.
Erm, for the purposes of debate let's assume that everybody =\= just me and JustAnotherAsshole.
And I posted the CNN stat earlier in this thread, 48% or whatever is hardly a 'majority' :rolleyes:
This says 56% oppose a lawsuit
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/12/poll-finds-broad-support-for-arizona-immigration-law/
"Eighty-two percent of Republicans support the law as do 64 percent of independents. By contrast, 45 percent of Democrats approve of it."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arizona/70_of_arizona_voters_favor_new_state_measure_cracking_down_on_illegal_immigration
"70% of Arizona Voters Favor New State Measure Cracking Down On Illegal Immigration"
Those seem to indicate more than 48%. In fact it seems like your fucking with what the polls say only democrats are only around 45 to 48% for it.
You fucking steaming pile of idiot shit, Rasmussen Reports is one of the major sources of poll information used by all the news sources of our day. Do you think the networks do their own polls?
:facepalm:
So it's likely Rasmussen, in their infinite poll wisdom, who's supporting my CNN stat that only 48% of Americans recently polled were in favor of this bill. :facepalm:
That is the problem there.
As for who supports and doesn't support it I can give two shits and you are not going to change my mind. Typical sheeple techniques.
Maybe maybe not it is your source so research it and confirm or deny. But do not assume and claim victory.
Obviously, no true man takes politics (break down the word, "Poly", the Greek word for "many" and "Ticks", which are bloodsucking insects) seriously, states Rolf.
And that's the problem as I see it. It seems to me that there is an overblown emphasis on race from the left (in the US) when someone or some entity does something or says something that they do not necessarily agree with. It's a tactic that I deplore because it is an attempt to shut down other viewpoints, opinions, and it attempts to stifle the forum for honest thoughtful debate. I can say this from personal experience because I didn't vote for Obama. Because of that there have been a few times that I have been accused of being a racist. Never-mind the fact the reason I didn't vote for him was because I didn't buy into his hope and change edict. Never-mind the fact that I didn't vote for him because I don't agree with most of his polices and political philosophy
On a related perspective the Arizona law goes beyond what race the individual is. It tackles a problem, illegal aliens, and the problems associated with it. But the people who are against this law are playing the race card because they think in their mind's eye that it is about race and not about the problems that illegal aliens bring with them. Problems such as drug trafficking, illegal labor and the exploitation of said labor by businesses, child sex trafficking, etc., are real problems that are part of the illegal immigration issue. But it seems that the people who are throwing out the race card are conveniently ignoring the problems associated with illegal immigration, naive about it, or are ignorant themselves of the whole issue.
I think I know what you're saying but it's not in the Constitution. The document you're referring to is the Declaration of Independence, which says that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
And it's not that I don't understand that illegal immigration is a serious problem, because I do. It's just the method is racist because of the actual procedure which is to be carried out by police under the law's guidelines. I haven't heard anybody refute the point that singling out a certain ethnicity under rule of law is inherently racist. It doesn't matter if left wingers (:rolleyes:) have said the shit before about other things; it applies here and makes up a considerable portion of the issue.
You admit illegals are a problem. How do you suggest we deal with them in a way that isnt seen as racist? Its not our fault and america isnt raist just because most illegals are from south of the border.
and yea, just solve it by putting stricter limitations on the employers, obviously. Deportation for illegals should go without saying, but if someone hires em, why not give that person 4-6 years to think about how they're hurting America? That's not racist, and would work.
Btw checking everyone's status at workplaces periodically would not be considered racist at all. Even if they were random checks, it's still fair game.
You idiot, once more you prove you have not even read AZ SB 1070. Had you read it you would know that there are severe penalties in the language for those who knowingly hire illegal aliens. :facepalm:
How can you be against something you have never read?
You have not read one single word of it so drop the BS.
READ THE BILL
READ THE BILL
READ THE BILL
lol
No arguement there.
I believe it doesn't because like I said before illegal aliens do not make up an ethnicity, therefore there is no connection to race or it being inherently racist when a law targets them. While I do agree that singling out a certain ethnicity could have racial issues attached to it; it doesn't apply here because the law has no language that specifies ethnicity, nationality, or the color of someone's skin be singled out. All it targets is illegal aliens. The law is pretty explicit when it prohibits racial profiling. Governor Brewer signed an executive order for the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board to create the training material the day she signed the law.
Like I said before the whole race thing that people are stirring up is quite frankly an argument of convenience given Arizona's location. It is also an appeal to emotion fallacy because the groups who are opposed to this law are using race as an emotional tool to make the claim that the law is racist When in fact it is not because illegal aliens do not make up an ethnicity.
The Declaration of Independence in not law the U.S. Constitution is! Just sayin'
Race is no part of the issue except in your feeble mind which can't even handle reading and comprehending 15 pages. In the original version signed into law there was only one reference to race. It was to spell out that racial profiling was not permitted under AZ SB 1070. After it was singed it was amended and passed to remove any reference to race whatsoever due to pressure from Hispanic advocacy groups. But again, if you had read the FUCKING bill you would know this.
As you refuse read the bill and insist on fabricating what you think AZ SB 1070 entails you have proven yourself to either be a colossal idiot or a total troll.
Good cuz I was worried that it's historical significance would be lost on you.
Since when did it have nothing to do with race. Which argument that it is are you contesting? You can't just say it isn't a matter of race and leave it there. You can say anything about prohibiting profiling, doesn't mean shit coming from the people who actually drafted this law. It's explicitly targeting all brown mexicanos, forcing em to comply with avoidable profiling which is inherent to the act of following the law, and nothing you say will change that. Fucking cretin, how many times can I make you spin in a circle. Too fuckin' many :mad: I'm tired of commanding you, go find a new owner mutt.
The only circle is is the circle jerk you are the center of. I have given you every opportunity to back your claims about this law by citing the language in AZ SB 1070 that supports your claims. You can not or will not do it. "The people who actually drafted this law" can you name even one of the authors of this bill? Can you tell me 3 facts about that persons political record in terms of what they have voted for or against? No to both questions and we all know it.
In other words now you have resorted to 3rd party absentee accusations against persons who you do not even know that name of. Your last post was nothing more than a poorly crafted attempt to hide your stupidity within an argumentum ad hominem. Since you know nothing of this bill, nothing of the people who drafted this bill, and even less about me why don't you take that leash wich you falsely believe you have lead me around by, ball it up real tight, soak it in tabasco and hot salt, and cram it up your ass.
Unless you have a change of heart and read this bill or STFU about it I will continue to mock your ignorance child.
And this post definantly addresses the relavent concerns:rolleyes: Sorry if I doubt a canandians grasp of my countrys laws.
Also the supreme court is the only court that hast he power to overturn this according to the constitution.
Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…
To TheDarkRodent and whoever else is trying to say they know better than him please try to read and understand the 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It's really as simple as that.
"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."
It's so fucking simple.
Yeah it is fucking simple. The amendment applies TO CITIZENS.:facepalm:
Please show me exactly where in the constitution the power to govern immigration issues if given solely to congress or denied to the states.