davjohns

Katrina was not President Bush's fault. The response was not the overwhelming fix-all that idealists would have liked. But we aren't willing to pay what it would take to have that kind of response on stand by 'just in case'. This oil spill is not President Obama's fault. The response not being perfect will similarly not be his fault. Expecting government to be prepared for anything and laying that at the feet of the president invites governmental power over our lives like nothing else. No government can prevent or make these things right. We just have to do the best we can. Be careful going down this road. Only those who hunger for power will like the destination. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

It's not that difficult. I stopped two hispanic males one night for driving without lights. No license. No ID. No English. No SSN. I had reasonable suspicion. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

You are my hero today. Both for missing all those obstacles and for the company you were keeping. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

The question wasn't about tax laws. The underlying question was - Are you willing to give more than you have to? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

If anyone bothers to read the law - Arizona is happy with nothing so complicated as an Arizona ID card to prove citizenship. And that's only after the officer has some reason to think you are an illegal. This law is really not an issue. It is being distorted in order to attack people who want to see that immigration is properly regulated. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

This piece blatantly lies about what the AZ law says. The AZ law authorizes cops to ask for proof of citizenship only if there is reasonable suspicion to believe the person is an illegal alien. That is: if there is reasonable suspicion the person is a criminal, you get to ask for some evidence that they are not. This has been the law since the constitution was enacted. It is very clear that the cops can not just ask someone for documentation for no reason. The piece quoted above lies. In my mind, that makes their arguments suspect even when they may appear valid. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

The law makes perfect sense. If they have reason to believe you are committing a crime, they get to ask. If they have reason to think you stole the car, they get to ask for proof of registration. If they have reason to think you just stabbed someone, they ask if you have a knife. If they have reason to think you are an illegal alien, they get to ask for paperwork. It makes clear that being brown does not create reasonable suspicion. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I looked up the actual text and found a good synopsis. Here is the meat of the synopsis. Prohibits law enforcement officials and law enforcement agencies of this state or counties, municipalities and political subdivisions from restricting or limiting the enforcement of the federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Stipulates that if the person is arrested, the person’s immigration status must be determined before the person is released and must be verified with the federal government. Stipulates that a law enforcement official or agency cannot solely consider race, color or national origin when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution. Specifies that a person is presumed to be lawfully present if the person provides any of the following: Ø A valid Arizona driver license. Ø A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license. Ø A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification. Ø A valid federal, state or local government issued identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance. Requires that if a person is convicted of any state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or on the assessment of any monetary obligation imposed, ICE or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) must be immediately notified. Authorizes a law enforcement agency to securely transport an unlawfully present alien to a federal facility. Requires a law enforcement agency to obtain judicial authorization before securely transporting an unlawfully present alien to a point of transfer that is outside of Arizona. Prohibits, except as provided in federal law, officials and agencies of counties, cities, towns or other political subdivisions from being prevented or restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, of any individual or exchanging that information with another governmental entity for the following official purposes: Ø Determination of eligibility for any public benefit, service or license. Ø Verification of any claim of legal domicile if legal domicile is required by law or judicial order. Ø If the person is an alien, determination of the person’s compliance with federal registration laws. Ø Pursuant to federal laws regarding communication between government agencies and federal immigration agencies. Stipulates that these provisions does not implement, authorize or establish and cannot be construed to implement authorize or establish the REAL ID Act of 2005, including the use of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID). Allows a person who is a legal resident of this state to bring an action in superior court to challenge officials and agencies of the state, counties, cities, towns or other political subdivisions that adopt or implement a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. Requires the court to order any that a violating entity pays a civil penalty of at least $1,000 and not to exceed $5,000 for each day that the policy has remained in effect after it has been found to be violating these provisions. States that the court will collect the penalty and transmit the collected monies to the state Treasurer for deposit in the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GIITEM) Fund. Authorizes the court to award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person or any official or agency that prevails in a case brought under these provisions. Indemnifies officers against actions brought under these provisions, except if the officer has been adjudged to have acted in bad faith. Stipulates that these provisions are to be implemented consistent with federal immigration law protecting the civil right of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of US citizens. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Maybe this will help. I found the actual text and a good synopsis. I find nothing objectionable in the law; only in the lies people have attributed to it. Here is the important part of the synopsis. Prohibits law enforcement officials and law enforcement agencies of this state or counties, municipalities and political subdivisions from restricting or limiting the enforcement of the federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Stipulates that if the person is arrested, the person’s immigration status must be determined before the person is released and must be verified with the federal government. Stipulates that a law enforcement official or agency cannot solely consider race, color or national origin when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution. Specifies that a person is presumed to be lawfully present if the person provides any of the following: Ø A valid Arizona driver license. Ø A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license. Ø A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification. Ø A valid federal, state or local government issued identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance. Requires that if a person is convicted of any state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or on the assessment of any monetary obligation imposed, ICE or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) must be immediately notified. Authorizes a law enforcement agency to securely transport an unlawfully present alien to a federal facility. Requires a law enforcement agency to obtain judicial authorization before securely transporting an unlawfully present alien to a point of transfer that is outside of Arizona. Prohibits, except as provided in federal law, officials and agencies of counties, cities, towns or other political subdivisions from being prevented or restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, of any individual or exchanging that information with another governmental entity for the following official purposes: Ø Determination of eligibility for any public benefit, service or license. Ø Verification of any claim of legal domicile if legal domicile is required by law or judicial order. Ø If the person is an alien, determination of the person’s compliance with federal registration laws. Ø Pursuant to federal laws regarding communication between government agencies and federal immigration agencies. Stipulates that these provisions does not implement, authorize or establish and cannot be construed to implement authorize or establish the REAL ID Act of 2005, including the use of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID). Allows a person who is a legal resident of this state to bring an action in superior court to challenge officials and agencies of the state, counties, cities, towns or other political subdivisions that adopt or implement a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. Requires the court to order any that a violating entity pays a civil penalty of at least $1,000 and not to exceed $5,000 for each day that the policy has remained in effect after it has been found to be violating these provisions. States that the court will collect the penalty and transmit the collected monies to the state Treasurer for deposit in the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GIITEM) Fund. Authorizes the court to award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person or any official or agency that prevails in a case brought under these provisions. Indemnifies officers against actions brought under these provisions, except if the officer has been adjudged to have acted in bad faith. Stipulates that these provisions are to be implemented consistent with federal immigration law protecting the civil right of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of US citizens. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Occam's razor would indicate otherwise. I understand it is somewhat more complex than, "They are here illegaly. Send them back." But not much. A national cable company recently put underground cable in my new subdivision. There were fifteen guys digging holes all down the street. I asked one a question. Then another. We finally agreed that none of these guys spoke English; only Spanish. Our unemployment rate is at a remarkable high. Something seems wrong here. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

You missed the point - big time. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I put myself through school as a cop. Whenever you deal with someone, you identify them. You do it to ensure they are not wanted. You do it so dispatch knows who you are dealing with in case you get shot. You do it because you might need to contact them again later. You just do it. Illegal aliens lie about who they are. They are, by definition, criminals. Criminals lie to cops. It's the way things work. Verifying citizenship is just part of identifying the person in some cases. Done properly, it will only offend people who are up to no good. Obviously, there is the potential for abuse. There always is. Departments will develop policies and courts will provide rulings that will clarify things. This is hardly the doom that some people are making it out to be. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I look at this from a different angle. I am giving two million to the government. I will not personally receive anyting like two million in services from the government in my lifetime. Why in the world would I give more? I do not buy into the argument that I owe everyone else something. That is a form of slavery. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'm conservative and libertarian. Really wish we had a viable party. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I hear lots of people saying what this law does and they all say it is evil. I heard some experts on television who said that is not the case and everyone is getting hysterical. Has anyone on here actually read it? I think the spin on this thing has far exceeded the thing itself. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Whenever I see something that looks very blatant like this story, I get suspicious. I can find the same story over and over on the internt. I also found some oblique comments that indicate facts have been withheld. It appears the guy's CDL was from California. Although the stories repeatedly refer to him as an Arizona driver, he is listed as being from Fresno. Fresno is in California. California does not require that you identify yourself as a legal resident before they issue you a DL. The story indicates that he was taken into custody after giving his SSN. When I was a cop, this usually indicated the SSN had been used for illegal purposes and you had to make sure you could identify this person to ensure they were not the criminal. My guess would be that this guy let someone use his SSN, it was in the system, and agents held him to make sure he was who he said. Legal residents allowing family and friends to use their SSN is common in the Mexican community. Feel free to argue that the actions are still wrong, but I submit that we are not in possession of all facts. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I think you rounded some. I got 23.376% (repeating of course). To the OP - DAMN! I hate to hear that story. Keep in mind that Islam considers itself the perfection of the Judeo-Christian movement. Even if she becomes more religious as she gets older, she could just as easily slip into Christianity in the US. Hopefully that wouldn't be as abhorent to your maternal ancestors. However, you are trying to make decisions (your reason for asking advice) without really good facts. You say your mother has hinted. That tells me you have yet to sit down and talk clearly and unambiguously about this issue. I strongly suggest you man up and do just that. I recognize it is a difficult thing, but you need some frank discussion time with all involved (individually and corporately) before you can go forward. I would also suggest that you and your beloved talk about this issue and all the others that go along with marriage and family. She has the answer that we are only guessing at here. That answer may change over time, but if you start communicating well now, you will know as changes come and in what direction they are going. Best I can do for you my friend. dwj I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I like your attitude. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I usually have a protein shake on waking to stop any catabolic action. I have a breakfast of a serving of fruit, half a dozen egg whites and skim milk. Mid morning is another protein shake. Lunch is lean meat and veggies or salad. Mid afternoon is another protein shake. Dinner is like lunch. A protein shake preceeds sleep to stave off catabolic action. I drink roughly a gallon of water per day and work out most every day. Let me know if you think this has caused poor results. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Now you got me thinking! Early Gay Way World Record formation skydive attempts (in 2006, and 2009), did not have any definition as long as you claimed to be LGBT - meaning, bisexuals are included into the Gay Way. I'll have to begin asking for the "Gay Card"* for verification. We've never had a straight person demand in person to be put on the Gay Way World Record -- but we do have the mixed big way planned after the Gay Way, so I doubt we'll run into this problem... And I would never demand to be allowed to join either. As I said, if they want to discriminate against me for my sexual orientation; no worries. I'll go elsewehere. I think, however, that events that proclaim themselves for LGBT make a bit of a mockery of the claim that attendees are open minded. They are impliedly excluding people due to sexual orientation. Why do people have to be gay skydivers or straight skydivers? Why can't we just jump and have fun? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Mmmm....gonna have to disagree with your definition of conservative. I live my life conservatively, but am libertarian. I noted that conservatives have their own issues as a group, but wanting to kill others surely isn't one. Trying to make others live their lives in conformance with their own values might be part of the definition from my perspective. As to the drunk waving a gun vs. serial rapist...I miss your point. The drunk is not a felon and can probably learn his lesson by having that gun confiscated and spending the night in jail. The serial rapist should not be allowed out of prison because he is demonstrably a threat to society. So your argument does not address my question, but rather reinforces it. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Two points - Someone called themselves a 'Live and Let Live" liberal. I suggest to you that Live and Let Live is actually a Libertarian. Liberals tend to want to take money from those who earned it and give it to those that the liberals think deserve it more. If you want to live and let live, you have to stay out of other people's pockets. Conservatives have their own problems. I am just mentioning liberals because that is what the individual claimed. As to ex-cons with firearms - if we can't trust the person with a firearm, why the heck did we let them out of prison? That's just a thought I had. I don't mean to base policy on it. But, really. If they are dangerous, why have we let them back into the population? Just something to ponder. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I didn't vote in the poll. I don't see why it matters how you like to have sex if you want to play softball. But, anyone can organize a league any way they want as far as I am concerned. If you want a league that has only people who like missionary position on Tuesdays while singing bluegrass songs, knock yourself out. I'll go elsewhere. I think too many are making too much of the issue. I don't want anyone telling me how to have sex, so I don't tell others how to have sex. Why should I care? Nor do I think your preference entitles you to anything special. Why would it? As long as you aren't hurting anyone else, I don't care. Now - when it comes to softball - if we are being competitive, I want the best players. If we are just having fun, I want the fun people. Unless there is a mandatory post-game orgy, sexual orientation or practices just doesn't seem relevant to me. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'm a single parent. But I've often fantasized about jumping my Jeep and heading south until I can't go anymore. Maybe Argentina. Once she's out of the house, who knows? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

There are three proven supplements. Protein is one. Whey protein is generally regarded as the best. I have it when I get up in the morning, between meals and before bed at night. You don't need that much because you don't want size, but it is an excellent 'small meal' when whole foods aren't convenient. Go for it. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.