T1B

88 wrote:smackaholic:

The tissues were for you to cry into. But you can use them for any purpose you deem appropriate.

You said that "scumbag lawyers" run everything, and that they are a "protected class with their bullshit bar associations."

You might be right on the scumbag lawyers running everything. But most bar associations don't do shit. I'm not a member of any of them. I think you are confused. I can't speak to every State in the Union, but in every State I am familiary with, the highest court in the State establishes minimum competency requirements (e.g., passing a bar examination) that must be demonstrated before a person is authorized to practice law on behalf of others within the State. Bar associations can make recommendations regarding the content of and form of the exam. But it is ultimately a decision made by the highest court.

I'm as Libertarian as they come (except when it comes to the notion of selling our National Parks etc.), but I also recognize that government has some obligations. Professional licenses are fine with me because the ordinary consumer does not have the ability to ascertain whether the "professional" has the competency to provide the needed services.

Toddowen wrote:And congradulations, T1B. So far, you're the only media source I've seen with voices offering agreeable veiws to Az's new law.

Wolfman wrote:Of course, I suppose cops could ask someone for proof that they have health insurance first, and then ask if they're in the country legally.

pickkkle wrote:auf der vereinigten Staten"

Jsc810 wrote:Does something have to be unconstitutional in order for it to be a bad law?


An Arizona sheriff said today that he has "no intention of complying" with the state's controversial new immigration law, calling it "abominable" and a "national embarrassment."

88 wrote:perhaps we should empower every law enforcement officer in the country to decide which laws he/she deems to good and which laws he/she deems to be bad, and then let them enforce the good laws and ignore the bad laws as they see fit.

Smackie Chan wrote:

88 wrote:perhaps we should empower every law enforcement officer in the country to decide which laws he/she deems to good and which laws he/she deems to be bad, and then let them enforce the good laws and ignore the bad laws as they see fit.

That's pretty much how it's already done. It's just that most sheriffs aren't stupid enough to publicly proclaim it.

88 wrote:The people of the State of Arizona, through their elected legislature, have not enacted a law giving a private citizen a right to go to court to seek enforcement of traffic laws. But they did do that with respect to these new immigration laws. Cops have no discretion whether to strictly enforce this law.

Toddowen wrote:

88 wrote:
Turn this one over in your head for a second. If you sneaked across the border into any other country on Earth, would you think you have a right NOT to be stopped by that country's law enforcement personnel and, if you could not provide some proof of citizenship, then be escorted the fuck out of the country? Would you think you were entitled to receive benefits and protections afforded to that country's citizens notwithstanding your illegal entry and status? Why is that different for Mexicans/Central Americans who sneak into the United States? Aren't the citizens of Arizona entitled to enact laws attempting to discourage and stem the flow of illegal immigrants into their state?

We have legal immigration. People who want to immigrate to this country can do so, and we can check out their backgrounds and make a decision on granting them entry and citizenship according to law. The Arizona laws do not attack or affect legal immigration in any way. They simply attempt to prohibit and criminalize that which is alreadly illegal. What is the problem?

RACk 88.

This is the kind of wording that needs to be used in addressing this issue. In fact, I'd like to see 88's above quote appear for discussion in my local newspaers opinions page.

The word "fuck" would have to be omitted, of course. But bottom line- I think the above quote is what should be carved in stone and followed to a T.

88 wrote: I was listening to Thom Hartmann tonight. As usual, he was talking out his ass about what this law supposedly says.

Does anyone opposed to this law mind point out the part that is so offensive?

Notice how Karl doesn't identify any constitutional issues?

Martyred wrote:Glad you singled out the weakest, most defenceless element to scapegoat.

Toddowen wrote: You beat me.

Need a towel?

Dinsdale wrote:No shit. At least the Lower Canadians are smart enough to attempt to move where shit actually grows, and resources are plentiful year round.


Canatard -- how does it feel to live in such a frozen shithole that even the Mexicans won't live there?

88 wrote: Pick up any of his books that have been in print for more than ten years and read what he predicted. Then, when you get done laughing, you can debate his current rants.

He says the current law empowers Arizona law enforcement officials to kick in the doors of any dwelling in the State of Arizona (wearing Jack Boots, no doubt), and unless "papers" can be found on their possession that establishg their citizenship, they can be deposited over the border into Mexico.

He lies 99.9% of the time. His callers are the most uneducated dunderheads on the planet.

It is like someone gave a stuttering communist an honorary professorship with instructions to teach the insipidly stupid how to lose arguments.

This is your typical, only, and pathetic game (which is an insult to the word "game"). Rather than expose the weakness of your (three? see below) arguments, you simply argue that the arguments have been presented and need not be presented again. That is powerful, dog. Not.

And "somethings" is a word that you appear to have difficulty using properly in a sentence.

{Illegal} Immigrant Families Leave Arizona, Fearing Law
At Least 100,000 Illegal Immigrants Flee the State Fearing Legislation; Some Citizens Angered by Financial Impact

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/ ... 7212.shtml

mvscal wrote:Seems to be working already. Good job, AZ. Now maybe the rest the Union can get in on the act and get these goddamn bums the fuck out of our country.

{Illegal} Immigrant Families Leave Arizona, Fearing Law
At Least 100,000 Illegal Immigrants Flee the State Fearing Legislation; Some Citizens Angered by Financial Impact

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/ ... 7212.shtml

Dinsdale wrote:And as far as Q's silly cartoon -- guess what? If Mexico had the abilility to take the US by force, we'd all be speaking Spanish right now. Losing in military conflicts has repercussions. Whine about it to your heart's content, but it's a universal truth in human history, and that's not changing any time soon.

Dinsdale wrote:I keep hearing this "do you have your papers" argument.

WTF?

I'm pretty sure that if I were pulled over or had any other police contact in Arizona, or any other state, I'm pretty fucking sure my pasty-white ass would have to produce some sort of ID as well.

mvscal wrote:Seems to be working already.

You are an idiot because you are stupier than this guy...

Goober McTuber wrote:It doesn't sound like they're leaving the country, just the state of Arizona. Many will undoubtedly head to California. Cheers.

Moving Sale wrote:Your first clue was what? That neither person said they were going back to Mexico?

Moving Sale wrote:Dins,
Please tell me you know why they ask for your papers when you are pulled over. Please.

Goober McTuber wrote: I didn't realize there were Mexicans in the original colonies.

Dinsdale wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote: I didn't realize there were Mexicans in the original colonies.

Me either.

There were Native Americans, though -- and they lost their land by force.

Seeing how that very simple analogy works, douchetwat?