Lucky...

Are you F'N kidding? Cops have sooooooo much lattitude it's sick. If they kill someone, they at most lose their badge in most cases. That's a prosecutorial issue, not LEO. And again, the courts, esp the trial courts in neck states are really right-leaning. As well, you kinda support my fascist argument in that the gov doesn't wanna charge business, esp large business = fascism / corporatism. It'snot their job, just as I have no duty to report unless a special relationship exists. That doesn't go as far as making it legal to give aid to illegals. Do you want to pass laws requiring people to turn other sin? Me thinks you don't. Apparently you're not reading well, let me make this perfectly clear: THE ISSUE IS THAT PEOPLE OF COLOR WHO ARE ALOS LEGAL US CITIZENS VIA BIRTH OR NATURALIZATION WILL BE TARGETED, STOPPED W/O PC/RS, AND HARRASSED. Did that clear it up for you? No one that I give credit to is defending the illegals, I'm sure some fnatical groups are, I just don't agree with them. So is your answer to state that brown = PC/RS? Please answer, is it your notion / assertion that if cops get a free-brown card, that is, anyone brown can be stopped whether on foot or in a car w/o any cause whatsoever and asked for papers? Please answer.

Finally, a little common sense from the right. I say employer sanctions are part of the answer. The problem is, here in the US, we're fascist/corporatist and we don't hold employers accountable nearly enough. If no jobs, many willleave.

The process that local cops will use is one of, "looks brown, that is RS to stop and check papers." Aside from intent, that will never be fully known anyway, the way this plays out will be that of, "looks brown, that's RS." Nazizona has gone back to the 1700-1800's in 2 bills. First, we passed the concealed carry w/o a permit, so it will be a little more like the old days of the west. Now we've passed this mess with legal racial profiling; no one rolls the clock back like Nazizona. Speaking of Nazizona, even tho this was an old American Indian monker, it is ironic how thinsg go full circle: http://rwarn17588.wordpress.com/2006/10/26/swastikas-on-old-arizona-road-maps/ Then there's this proposition; I like it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8205221 Maybe if the legal ones start working towards helping fix the problem and start speaking out against illegals the problem would fix it self faster. It's not the duty of any citizen, white, brown, black or green to fix the system. It is, however, the right of the gov to put in place and guarantee protections against government intrusion and this law in Nazizona paves the way for legal Mexican-Americans to have their civil and const rights intruded upon. Thsi basically removes the need for Reasonable Suspicion to ask a person for their papers. Cops will use this against white people too, if they want to stop and introgate a person on foot and that peson is white, they can say they thought they they heard that person talking about being here illegally from Canada or Europe. All this does is to give cops waaaay more power than they need, basically killing the rest of the 4th. If the federal government had done something other than let the system tie the hands of the propper officials this law wouldn't be needed. I feel for the victims of the illegal assult on arizona and they deserve this law. Now, maybe the state can start to actually protect their citizens from violent illegal aliens. And then you applaude your hero, Fascist Ronnie who gave them all immunity, now let's round up all brown people and let the courts sort them out. Do you feel for the wrongly arrested, the wrongly harrassed? Or is that justr collateral damage like the OK City Bomber referenced? I would ask, but I see you don't give a rat's ass about Mexican-Americans, as well as others who get harrassed by the piggies.

The process that local cops will use is one of, "looks brown, that is RS to stop and check papers." Aside from intent, that will never be fully known anyway, the way this plays out will be that of, "looks brown, that's RS." Nazizona has gone back to the 1700-1800's in 2 bills. First, we passed the concealed carry w/o a permit, so it will be a little more like the old days of the west. Now we've passed this mess with legal racial profiling; no one rolls the clock back like Nazizona. Speaking of Nazizona, even tho this was an old American Indian monker, it is ironic how thinsg go full circle: http://rwarn17588.wordpress.com/2006/10/26/swastikas-on-old-arizona-road-maps/ Then there's this proposition; I like it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8205221 Maybe if the legal ones start working towards helping fix the problem and start speaking out against illegals the problem would fix it self faster. It's not the duty of any citizen, white, brown, black or green to fix the system. It is, however, the right of the gov to put in place and guarantee protections against government intrusion and this law in Nazizona paves the way for legal Mexican-Americans to have their civil and const rights intruded upon. Thsi basically removes the need for Reasonable Suspicion to ask a person for their papers. Cops will use this against white people too, if they want to stop and introgate a person on foot and that peson is white, they can say they thought they they heard that person talking about being here illegally from Canada or Europe. All this does is to give cops waaaay more power than they need, basically killing the rest of the 4th.

(A) That's your guess. (B) From a peson like you waving around the Constitution, I see it is selective and that now, at your discretion, a few exceptions are ok. The living part, you know the one that just passed a decision like DC v Heller? Ya, there we go again, let's be selective; it I agree with the living Constitution, it's good, if not, it's not about the strict writing of the US Const so it's irrelevant. Actually if you go from the intent of the original Const, there was slavery 85 years after the signing of it, so maybe racial atrocities are a part of the US Const; good point. But I guess you're right, a few cases here or there wouldn't be a big deal: http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/220/njshootings.shtml So to answer your question: - Batson (juror racial profiling): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batson_v._Kentucky - Chavez v. Illinois State Police Notwithstanding the disposition of this case, we recognize the destructive effects of racial and ethnic profiling by any police agency. Not to mention the 14th that requires equal protection, racial profiling, on its face, targets certain people.

The process that local cops will use is one of, "looks brown, that is RS to stop and check papers." Aside from intent, that will never be fully known anyway, the way this plays out will be that of, "looks brown, that's RS." Nazizona has gone back to the 1700-1800's in 2 bills. First, we passed the concealed carry w/o a permit, so it will be a little more like the old days of the west. Now we've passed this mess with legal racial profiling; no one rolls the clock back like Nazizona. Speaking of Nazizona, even tho this was an old American Indian monker, it is ironic how thinsg go full circle: http://rwarn17588.wordpress.com/2006/10/26/swastikas-on-old-arizona-road-maps/ Then there's this proposition; I like it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8205221

Are you saying that GM executives received pay increases after the bailout/loans? Furthermore, regardless of that, these were loans that were just partially paid back and the rest is subject to stock ownership, so the US Gov invested, rather than being a typical fascist Republican and just giving the rich money in the hopes they would invest.

As a metaphor, Obama is a commie. As a metaphor, Reagan and GWB are Nazis. Now, let's be realistic; Obama is doing and advocating things that are lightly socialist, getting shot down on most. Reagan and GWB did some things that were fascist/corporatist, I can list several, but that doesn't make them full on Nazis. The sky isn't falling, we don't have a kingdom w/o a parlaiment, it takes far more than a president to get things done. The best way to look at politics that you disagree with is to realize that your party was so bad that the other side looked better. Complain about the other or fix your own.

He should. Clinton did and how did that work out? It also keep the rich-lovers from whining so much.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9F7EC3O2.htm Yea, that was a bad idea and the US / Canadian govs still own 61% and 12% respectively. All those jobs saved, an industry paramount to both counties; what a waste to have saved them. To think of the tax cuts that could have gone to the rich and subsequent jobs that the very rich would have created. Is anyone dumb enough to believe the rich would have gone and reinvested in new ventures in a wholesale fashion in these times if the gov gave them tax cut gifts? So GM still owes 53M to the US/Canadian gov, so now come the trolls to say this payoff is too little, hence meaningless. To those I would say that I wish McHoover was elected and we could see what tax cuts, my frieds looks like. Hell, the intelligent set can just read history bokks, but we had teh chance to live thru to-be historic times and we blew it by electing Obama; our grandkids will be ashamed. The banks and GM have been paying back, will all be recovered? Highly doubtful, but these measures saved us. It's obvious now and history will look back on the GWB bank bailout and Obama stimulus as brilliant moves. Of course I would rather have socialized teh banks, but since that would never happen, we had to avoid letting them fail.

People bitch about safety issues like that asshole that droped the commuter on NY last year; they like the cheap tickets but if they knew the crew makes 18k to 25k / yr and are therefore often incompetent / inexperienced they *should* open their wallets and agree with gov regulation requiring more experience. That would be like having a TI with 100 jumps so you can jump for $10 lesss per tandem. Capitalism bites out asses here over market control.

On the whole the wealthy do have money, and the poor don't. The top 20% hold 93% of all cash; WTF do you mean the poor have no money?

Mite as swell, I herd Obomers a Communist, so he'll be right at home with the Ruskies.

Why, they are taking it at a lower rate than they have most of the time since WWI, so what's the 'sky is falling' claim about? Unless it's on the military or other neato things.

There's a semi-tea bagger at work, he has his own business and I give him shit for accepting Medicare while denouncing Socialism. If you accept it, it is socialism, it's hard to denounce it while you grab it w/o being a hypocrite.

Here's a graph from your own rag, the Heritage Foundation. http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue I did state "graph" not analysis, but I don't expect you to be honest. Their analysis is skewed, their data, in this case, is at least close if not exact. Yep, from GHWB's tax incr in 90-91 to Clinton's in 93: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html The growth had already been established in 93-94 and on as the graph clearly states. It's not as if it took off in 95, it was already surging as the R's took office in Jan 95, only you can retroactively assign credit. I see you avoid the tax receipts drop in late 97-98 as the cap gains tax reduction cuts into the great recovery. And you can try to bring the entire 51 T market in all you want - that doesn't address the issue to bring in the entire economy, what % of all receipts come from what kinds of taxes, income, cap gains, etc? Also, lower cap gains tax might tend to incentivize people to sell investments, causing a drop in long-term investment, hence not good for the economy. Cap gains are only accounted when investment profits are realized anyway, so it's not as exacting as income tax from jobs or businesses. YET THE US GOV RECEIPTS SHADED OFF AND YOU CALL THAT SUCCESS. SO what your point is is that the cap gains cuts helped teh private sector and reduced gov tax receipts; I agree. I just wish the money kept flowng to the treasury to pay down the debt rather than to pad the pockets of the billionaires. Right, while fed tax receipts shaded off. See, Mike, we are on the same page here, cap gains cuts made the ultra-rich even more rich and cut into the fed's receipts, so let's quit arguing the same side of the same issue and get to the real point; why should we keep shoveling massive bucks to those who use it for score? Again, this is analysis for which I don't agree with, I posted the graph as it was first I found and it appears accurate. I believe that the jobs growth and debt / defict benefits were due to higher income taxes. So just beause you can cut-n-paste doesn't make it law. And as for what Clinton wanted or thought would be good, he never wanted the cap gains tax cut, it was a concession for min wage increase. No, as you see in late 97-98, revenues shaded off. A site that represents your own party illustrates this. How sad, you don't know the difference between income tax and capital gains tax. Cap gains can play a component of income tax, but it has its own schedule and is tax differently and seperately. CLINTON'S INCOME TAX INCR AS EST IN 93 WAS IN EFFECT FOR HIS ENTIRE TERM, REGARDLESS OF THE 97 CAP GAINS CUT FROM 28% TO 20%. So the top brkt of 40% was in effect, that is a fact no matter what the cap gains tax was. Really? The graph even shows that in early 2009 it dips substantially and receipts go from a massive downward mess to a slight upward movement. Is this your way of running from the point? Yes, the graph shows in early 2009 that spending drops and receipts go from vertically down to a slight incr. Only if you confuse cap gains from income tax and conveniently interchange them. Fed tax receipts shaded off after the cap gains tax was enacted, you can't run from that. I bet that the wealth of the very rich proportionatley rose, I think we can agree with that assumption. So again, we are arguing the same point, we differ in that you are ok with gov debt and a rich private sector, I'm ok with a baknced budget and reasonable debt with a well-off private sector. I see you avoided these: - Spending incr only modestly throughout the Clinton years, about the rate of inflation and population growth. Of course the US dollar made huge gains during this time and the GDP was record-setting. So Mike, what's your point? Receipts were heavily increased by Jan 95 and shaded off a tad as the Cap Gains cuts were made, which caused a hiccup in receipts. And I say Heritage as for their editorial, I like more objective sources like: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html Look at the graph and you see as GHWB's tax incr was implemented, exacerbated by Clinton's tax incr, the deficit IMMEDIATLEY fell to an eventual surplus. As your hero chopped taxes it turned to a deficit once again. This isn't a partisan issue in that GHWB and Clinton both raised taxes with like results, Reagan and GWB cut them with like results. The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton's fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while. Yea, until the genius electorate voted in Mike's hero; that was the 'if only for a while.'

Here's a graph from your own rag, the Heritage Foundation. http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue - In 1991 you can see the receipts graph go from a down trend to a neutral one as GHWB's tax incr is applied to law. - As it starts to incr as Clinton takes office, it really shoots upward as the R's take control of congress in Jan 95. It already has its direction. - It remains shooting upward as receipts are high. Then as Clinton is leveraged into the 97 Cap Gains cuts that you cite, you see the receipts shade off a bit late 97-98. The tax code remained unchanged from 93 to 97 and the result of Republican leveraging is that the receipts shade off with a MINOR tweeking such as Cap Gains. - It resumes in 99 till 2000, then the recessions and receipts drop. - Spending incr only modestly throughout the Clinton years, about the rate of inflation and population growth. Of course the US dollar made huge gains during this time and the GDP was record-setting. So Mike, what's your point? Receipts were heavily increased by Jan 95 and shaded off a tad as the Cap Gains cuts were made, which caused a hiccup in receipts. No, as you see in late 97-98, revenues shaded off. A site that represents your own party illustrates this. Really? The graph even shows that in early 2009 it dips substantially and receipts go from a massive downward mess to a slight upward movement. Mike, your arguments are just too easy, pls try again and this time come correct.

Right, you state, for the record, the 1st is limited, then you advocate unlimited protections with it; it's called talking out of the side of your face. I learned that term long before you were building trailers, pretending they were aircraft. I'm just showing a part of the process of any idiots screaming, "I HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS" as they get hauled off for inciting a riot. Ad hominem for lack of any real argument aginst the state stute I posted. Opions are meaningless, supported arguments with state statute as I have presented have value. You keep refusing to address it. Why do you keep running from it? Cite this perceived progress. And as they say, the law usually asks more questions than it answers. An overview of how I see the free speech law application is that you can get away with whatever you can, if it intrudes on another's civil rights, your 1st protection is junior to that. If you're looking for an absolute in teh law, you really don't understand it, this is why justices will have what they call, "Bright line rules" as they issue decisions. Brown v Board of Education: Seperate but eqqual. Terry v Ohio: Pat and frisk Miranda: a bit longer, but the Miranda rts came out on a card Etc, Etc..... That doesn't mean that in Terry you can only pat and frisk the outer garments, you start with that and if you discover an item that could be a weapon, you go further. Of course that is all challengeable from several angles, so there is no absolute law, just a general direction. I don't thinkmost peopel understand these renderings and most infringements never get challenged, so they become moot anyway. I"ve known for a long time that you should stick with non-motorized boxes on wheels and leave teh law alone Basically there is no absolute law, no absolute protection, it comes down to justices deciding who they will side with on the court and then tehy use other rationale to justify it. If you go around running the mouth and trying to hide behind the 1st, you will probably find yourself in trouble and rambling pissed about the US Const protections you thought you had. I considered myself a constitutionalist as I entered college and found that virtually all my JUS teachers, who were lawyers usually, would just roll their eyes. It is so vague and reallyh unenforceable; if you think cops give a fuck about it, theink again. They just do what they want and let the judge sort it out an apply the const to it.

I find it funny that anyone responds to him. After he called the Onion an RW rag and the video from the Onion "real and legit", I just skip by his post. Actually I asked; IS THIS FUCKING LEGIT? Hey, I never had seen the Onion before. It happened to your conservative boy hwt with CNNBC in the same light. Of course you won't cite that.

Yeah I think the Clinton years seemed pretty good economically, was congress more than 50% republican? During the first 2 years of the Clinton pres, congress was D controlled, taxes were raised to 40% top brkt and spending cut. Then it switched to all R-controlled the remainder of the Clinton years and then it became a pissing contest and Clinton had to shut down the gov once for a short time to get them to send him an annual finance bill. But the tax increase was done early and that started the fiscal ball rolling, small cuts were made later as concessions for things like min wage increase. The 40% top brkt remained in effect until GWB lowerd it and we know what happened.

Well that explains volumes, all these years I've been attending college and university and you've been watching cartoons; now I get it. There's a reason why the term is "signed into law" and not 'signed into effect'. You're trying to argue that enforcement = existence and that is not the case. Maybe you should take a few more classes, you might catch up to the cartoon crowd. Ok, conjunction, junction, WTF is your function? Regardless of whether it is signed, it's effect is the paramount consideration. The law is unenforceable and uneffective, call it what you want.

But the least fiscally responsible party spends more and taxes less. Just because Repubs tax less doesn't mean they spend less, they are just stupid with the credit card.

Here's another way to look at it. Obama was elected early Nov 08, he wasn't president until Jan 20 at/after inauguration. He was the presedent elect as he was elected in early Nov 08, not the president. Concealed carry w/o a CCW is NOT the law ofthe land in Nazizona, it will be pending no interference that matters (appellate court, etc) in 4 months or so.

Well that explains volumes, all these years I've been attending college and university and you've been watching cartoons; now I get it.

Huh? Messages? Did I miss something? Yea, you missd John thinking the concealed carry was a law today and not in a little over 90 days. So not really, nothing to see here. It is law as of the time the governor signs it - the effective date makes no difference in that respect, Mr. Legal Expert. But a law that is not in efffect or unenforceable is nill. It's a law that will take effect in the future, I can't conceal carry and tell the cop it's ok, it will be law soon. The BK law is the best example, it ook effect 6 months after signing, so it meant nothing until then.