Lucky...

I have all kinds of points to respond to, yet again, zero from you. Show you have a point to make or counter.

If only that were true http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000 Turd in Chief: 50,456,002 Gore: 50,999,897 Wrong is wrong and you and yours s/b real proud that such a disaster was elected with < 50% of teh popular vote.

Did you read 1070? It's not PC, what you've illustrated, it's Reasonable Suspicion, something formulated by teh officer. PC must be generated by the subject; cause. RS is within the discretion of teh officer, so just being at any place and looking brown is sufficient. BTW, RS is the lowest of all standards pf proof.

I agree that it would not be simple or inexpensive but...... Just because it is not simple or expensive should not be a valid reason to not enforce laws, regardless of what you may think. Where did I write that it would be? Do pay attention, dear boy. Where did timmyfitz write that it would be, before you posed the question to him? Do pay attention, dear boy. Hillarious, a guy w/o education addressing a tenured proff as, "Dear Boy." Thx, Mike, ya made my day

The issue is not how the illegals are affected by laws like Arizona's. The issue is how legal residents and citizens are affected. The gun registration issue is a good parallel. Having a gun does not mean you broke the law, but being of Mexican descent does not mean you broke the law either. The Arizona law essentially requires all citizens, whether they broke the law or not, to carry proof of citizenship documents and present them upon command. It is very similar to requiring all guns, not matter who owns them, to be registered. You mean legal residents being affected by things like, less murders, less abuse of emergency rooms, less rapes, less kidnappings, things that I am sure are not high on the legal peoples lists of important things. Illegals commit these and are victims to these. We don't want to support illegal immigration, we want to ensure legal Latinos aren't victimized by the law.

They must have mistakenly omitted 'brown' from the statute as you claim - maybe you should contact the state legislature and have them clear that up. Yes and they'll be looking for French illegals here, perhaps illegals from Iceland. When the courts sort this Nazi law out, the Reasonable Suspicion, formerly PC, now reduced for some people will be reflected by the officer saying, "I saw he was Mexican-looking, he looked at me and tghen looked away real quick, I thought he was avoiding me so I pulled him over." And if this is a legal Mexican-American, whatever found will be admissable under teh new law. So this puts LEGAL MEXICAN-AMERICANS at rsik, not that you care.

Fixed it for ya A little difference here, the constitution doesn't give the illegals the right to free health and welfare and a job, but it does give us the right to bear arms. No, but the COnstitution does give us all EQUAL PROTECTION and this law circumvents that .... try reading the 14th if you have time.

No, by your love of Utilitarianism, hence Communism you seem to be more of a Communist. Well then stand up and wear it like a badge. And the masses at some point were against things like: - 1964 Civil Rts Act - Woman Suffrage - Emancipation Proclamation - Etc, etc, etc -

Sure, cause you're white. So your fellow Mexican-American born Americans s/b subject to constant harrassment w/o giving any PC? So that constitutional thing is just not important? 4th, 14th. I see, the conservatives selectively wave the US COnst around. Sorry, you stepped directly in it this time. What you've definded is Utilitarianism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism Utilitarian has been assigned to Bentham http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham an English jurist, philosopher, and legal and social reformer. He was a basic old school liberal socialist and you've just aligned with him, welcome on board. See, America was allegedly, reportedly founded upon teh principles of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS, whereas Utilutarianism doesn't care about that, they care about the whole and a few losing rights so teh masses can emmerge is just fine with Utilitarianism. In the American model, the system was designed so that individuals are guaranteed rights, thus the whole are collectively guaranteed rights. In systems that subscribe to Utilitarianism, the indivuals aren't really worried about so much, it's about the survival of the mass; if a few get dropped along the way, that's ok, the whole needs to survive and you've just agreed with that and with Bentham the Socialist. Here's a real good encyclopedic-type definition: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Utilitarianism A collectivist moral philosophy which states that the moral worth of an action is directly dependant upon how much pleasure or good that action brings upon others. It is the belief in the most good for the most people. Under this moral philosophy the person exists solely to serve the community. According to Utilitarianism the person has no value, only the people do. Communism is the philosophy of Utilitarianism put into practice as a socio-economic means of organizing society. So guess what? You've aligned yourself with Bentham the liberal Socialist as well COMMUNIST thinking, as general Communism follows Utilitarianism. Congratulations. So, is the new AZ Law, 1070 a communist-based law? Yes of course, you said so yourself w/o knowing.

I've read it. Ridiculous. ARS 11-1051 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY 21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS 22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS 23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, 24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE 25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). Challenge over, you lose. If I thought you understood to the slightest what the 4 standards of proof were, I get further into it. OK, and when legal Mexican-Americans, esp born Mexican-Americans, not the good white people like you and me, not the bad brown people get harrassed constantly due this lowest Reasonable Suspicion, or as you errantly call it, probable cause, is that ok with you too? Oh and here's this so you can read and understand it: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf Also, you can even stop a brown person in a car, lowering the SOP (standard of proof) from Probable cause to reasonable suspicion in traffic violation cases. IOW's, brown people have their requirement for traffic stops at Reasonable Suspicion, whitey still at Probable Cause. Yea, nothing violative of that . E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP 21 ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE 22 SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND 23 THIS SECTION. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf Who said that "Illegal Immigrants" were all BROWN....They come in all colors and from other countries than just MEXICO.... I don't see anything wrong with asking ANYONE for there Identification. If you're not breaking the law it shouldn't matter if you have to show your ID/CITIZENSHIP. How many people from the middle east are stopped and patted down for bombs?????????? This reminds me of the people that oppose public cameras being used by a city. They say that there privacy is being threatened and the only ones opposing are the ones breaking the law,,,,,,HEY PEOPLE You're in PUBLIC not PRIVATE,,,, and in PUBLIC any citizen can be made by the LAW to produce Identification... >>>> Who said that "Illegal Immigrants" were all BROWN....They come in all colors and from other countries than just MEXICO.... If u wanna pretend this is for Canadian and European illegals, then go right ahead. And as the right says, over 1/2 of the illegals come thru Arizona; are they talking aboutthe French illegals coming thru? Don't insult my intelligence and I won't yours. >>>> I don't see anything wrong with asking ANYONE for there Identification. If you're not breaking the law it shouldn't matter if you have to show your ID/CITIZENSHIP. There's a little thing called the Constitution and its interperetations; there must be reasonable suspicion to stop a person on the street and PC to stop a car. Apparently you don;t agree, a cop s/b able to stop anyone, anywhere and any time per you. >>>> How many people from the middle east are stopped and patted down for bombs?????????? Your point? Under the new law a pedestrian or motorist can be stopped by the cops with just reasonable suspicion, meaning they wouldn't have to have given the cop cany reason. >>>> This reminds me of the people that oppose public cameras being used by a city. They say that there privacy is being threatened and the only ones opposing are the ones breaking the law This reminds me of a person who doesn't understand the law, whatsoever. EVERYONE has no expectation of privacy in the streets, white Arizonans can still expect not to be pulled over absent PC, brown Americans can expect to be pulled over constantly w/o giving cause. >>>> and in PUBLIC any citizen can be made by the LAW to produce Identification... No you don't, unless you are driving or need ID for an ativity. So, is it ok for the appearance of being an illegal Mexican good enough to establish a reason topull people over? Wait, I know your answer.

I've read it. Ridiculous. ARS 11-1051 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY 21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS 22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS 23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, 24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE 25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). Challenge over, you lose. If I thought you understood to the slightest what the 4 standards of proof were, I get further into it. OK, and when legal Mexican-Americans, esp born Mexican-Americans, not the good white people like you and me, not the bad brown people get harrassed constantly due this lowest Reasonable Suspicion, or as you errantly call it, probable cause, is that ok with you too? Oh and here's this so you can read and understand it: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf Also, you can even stop a brown person in a car, lowering the SOP (standard of proof) from Probable cause to reasonable suspicion in traffic violation cases. IOW's, brown people have their requirement for traffic stops at Reasonable Suspicion, whitey still at Probable Cause. Yea, nothing violative of that . E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP 21 ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE 22 SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND 23 THIS SECTION. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

It's rather simple, cheap labor for the the right, and a clean social conscience for the left. Now, that's closer to the truth. In state and national politics, 99% of the Right exists to serve the Corporate Owners of America. (Whereas for the Dems, that's only about, eh, 87%.) And illegal workers who work well below minimum wage, w/o bennies, and know how to STFU are good for business. And as Silent Cal said, what's good for business is good for America. Only the Right won't be (indeed, cannot be) intellectually honest about it in public. Rather, it creates and funds "news" outlets like FoxNews and the Wall Street Journal to program conservative people (and not a few bigots) into thinking that their social outrage (and bigotry) makes a goddamn bit of difference. It's all sleight-of-hand: "Look at the birdie (while I f*** you up the ass)." The Left, on the other hand, is more honest about it: "Look, guys: they're here; they give us cheap goods at the store; deal with it." If that's truly the case, why is Arizona doing something about it? Surely they have corporations there that would rather not see this succeed. Neither the left nor right are honest with people and while they may employ separate tactics to accomplish nothing, they are both "f***(ing) you(us) up the ass" Becuase this is a backwards, redneck state. We were the last state to adopt MLK day and that was only due to getting the Superbowl. Voters rejected it on the first vote, not sure if it was an executive deal or what to get it done.

How did you know, while driving by, that these men were being arrested for being illegal immigrants? First, their profile of a bunch of Mexicans in a long window van with 5 squad cars drew me to that conclusion; Yes, it was racial profiling by me. Once I parked and joined the others I was informed that one of the cops mentioned it, this confirmed my profiling suspicions. Furthermore, I recalled hearing a news release the night before where a similar van was stopped and some of the suspected illegals bailed. The ones they caught were confirmed illegals. Racial profiling IS a form of racism.

How did you know, while driving by, that these men were being arrested for being illegal immigrants? They were brown, weren't they?

This kinda explains it all. And when legal Mexican-Americans get stopped, keeep getting stopped I think that's ok for you too, right?

It's rather simple, cheap labor for the the right, and a clean social conscience for the left. ( plus the left is sucking up for votes) Exactly, which is why both sides privately love it and overtly pretend to hate illegals.

Nobody takes tired cliches like that seriously. Hey, I never got a job from a poor guy so we need to protect our borders. Better fought there than here, so let's guard the borders. What do think the Brittish thought of the minutemen?

The gov has spent billions, what do you want, turrents positioned? Wanna jack the debt another trillion like GWB did with Iraq / AFG and get no result? Or just put Legal Mexican-Americans at risk with AZ's ideas? And when ATlanta decided in 2000 to remove from it's book laws that make marriage between white women and other raced men illegal, 40% thought it was a bad idea. Redneckdom is everywhere, hell, people thought the Iraq war was a good idea at one point. Do you think the Emancipation Proclamation was real popular at its conception? Yes, but the boycotts will linger on....... This is gonna cost millions of not billions for AZ in time.

USAF 1980-1984

Well, at least you have come to accept the FACT that RR did have poor eyesight. GWB served stateside. GHWB flew in the Pacific. GHWB was the only ho0norable serviceman in a long time, I never brought that in. I'm sure he personally and privately disowns his drug addicted draft-dodging kid. Yea, FR had poor eyesight, but it was good enough to enlist in the guard/reserve in 1937, wasn't an issue until the pussy was called to WWII to fight. Oh and GWB played around with fighters stateside, he never even almost went to Nam. I think you are dead wrong about GHW's opinion of his son. But we'll never know for certain, will we? RR held down a desk. It doesn't take very good eyesight to do that. It's my opinion vs yours, but GHWBnever brags him up, so the silence is deafening - acquiescence. No, doing a desk job or making movies requires little eyesight, but whne he was guard/reserve for 5 years before, gotta wonder how he slid past that. Quite obvious his eyesight was sufficent, when it came to going to war to perhaps die, the men go, the cowards flee. And this wasn't VN, this was where the greatest generation saved our asses. With all the proxy wars over ideological disputes, this one was actually over freedom and these were really tough guys stepping up. My dad's brother died in Germany in WWII, my dad served in Korea, well, in that period in N Africa. Reagan's a cunt, even if you like his failed politics and failed economic policies, he's a cunt.

I'm assuming you didn't enlist. No, I didn't. But it wasn't for lack of trying. The military tends to avoid people with chronic back problems. What does that have to do with anything? If Reagan had an eye problem, youcan have your back problem. Why? Well because you are a world reknowned acft engineer celebrity, that's why.

Wow ...and I thought the others were light weights because I had 10 years .. RESPECT He doesn't look that old.

We're all a part of this society, we can't ignore some parts an recognoze others. Baseball doesn't ignore any race color or creed. Baseball hires blacks, whites, orientals, hispanics, jews, catholics, protestants, irish, methodists and so-on and so-on. Why should they have to 'pay'? Politics has absolutely no business in baseball or any other sport. The new law in Arizona has nothing to do with baseball. Some elements of our society just take things too damned far. Chuck They aren't paying, they are showing social repsonsibility.

Yep and so do I, but they, as I also oppose random harrassment with the lowest standard of all 4 standards; Reasonable Suspicion. Yes and hurt by the redneck groups out to shake all brown people by the ankles to weed out the illegals. By making legally born citizens dime out their parents who immigrated here to birth them, nowthey have to repay that by diming them out or being felons themselves. The only act the feds will take is to strike this racist law. Also, the Feds spend billion per year on this, how are tehy not taking action? Most or all of it will be.

well then...how bout we settle this with a poker match instead...I'm all in. But you've got a pair of 2's, that's the problem, that side has nothing to back their position with so they decide they want to subject all brown people random searches.