The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
"Balls" can't be in his court because he doesn't HAVE any.
The SEIU and Trail lawyers have one each, in jars, at their headquarters.
Man, I got to say, I like the cut of the lady's jib. My new governor is decent, and my new AG is really pissing the libs off. It's nice to have someone in the government doing things I like.
Well played. Pokes the Obamateur squarely in a weak spot, and teases the mask loose.
Like it. I might have said, "Do your damned job..." instead, but maybe that's a bit coarse.
It would also help if they stopped this damned drug war. That makes it profitable to do these types of activities. And since drugs are illegal, being in the country illegally isn't a big deal.
It's still a problem. Until we complete The Grand Libertarian Revolution, in which the total dismantling of the welfare state is complete, I will continue to favor strict immigration policies. People who don't pay taxes collecting all the benefits of citizenship is not a good thing. You can't have an open bar and an open door.
Of course, the stress that illegals put on the system may hasten a collapse, which if you're a "The worse the better" type could be argued as making TGLR more likely.
That was me, not sure why it says Guest...oh yeah...Echo sucks.
There's only one problem with this, however...facts.
But FBI and U.S. Department of Justice data show that Arizona’s violent crime rate is lower than the U.S. average and has been declining more rapidly than the U.S. average, The Independent found.
Reports by the nonpartisan Immigration Policy Center and libertarian CATO Institute both indicate crime rates fell in Arizona over the past decade. Census data show that overall, immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than U.S.-born people, according to both institutes.
So, while the "ball may be in his court" there are no facts on the other side whatsoever. Nowhere in this video did I see any citations of data. And this is critical thinking? I'm trying to imagine what would happen if I linked to a video like this...hmm...
Not to mention the fact that the problems presented in this video are easily solved: legalize all drugs immediately. And for that, I will say the ball is in President Obama's court.
Yeqh, except that ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS have already committed a crime just by stepping over the border. And I'm probably on pretty safe ground when I say that the "nonpartisan" Immigration Policy Center didn't bother to include that little problem in their crime statistics.
There's only one problem with this, however...facts.
Well let's see, there are several assertions made:
- Dept. of Justice Dec. 2008 - Mexican gangs are "the biggest organized crime threat to US".
That one should be pretty easy to source, huh?
- In 2009, 316 kidnapping cases, making Phoenix the US kidnapping capital. Nearly all illegal aliens or connected to the drug trade.
That one should be easy to source as well.
- Until 2009, smugglers carrying under 500 lb. were often not prosecuted.
That one may be a little more difficult, I'll grant you.
- Narcotics prosecutions up 202% in 16 mos.
That could just as easily be used to "prove" the problem is being solved as to "prove" the problem is being ignored, but nonetheless it should be easy to show whether or not it is factual.
- 1,080 prosecutions will be refused this year in Tucson sector alone.
That one's more difficult, I always tend to be suspicious of anyone predicting the future. But still, it shouldn't be hard to find out where these assertions came from.
Nowhere in this video did I see any citations of data.
I presume you mean "citations of sources". Nor did I. Nonetheless, just because they don't cite sources doesn't mean those sources can't be found. These are no more likely to be in error than the ones claiming the Amazon rainforest, the Himalayan glaciers and the Arctic ice cap will have all vanished by such-and-such a date.
It's disturbing that someone who claims to teach for a living can't figure out how to do the sourcing the video failed to show. Or can't be bothered, one of the two. Either one is still pretty disturbing.
However, I note that while you imply that the video is fact free, you do nothing whatever to refute any of them.
You use overall crime rates and violent crime rates in an attempt to refute points made concerning kidnapping and the drug trade, and apparently expect no one to notice that you've allowed yourself the entire body of State and Federal law except those two as "wiggle room".
Personally, I'm having trouble figuring out precisely what claim you're trying to make.
Are you claiming that the makers of this video have their facts wrong? If so, why do you do nothing at all to show them to be in error?
Are you claiming that Arizona's border is, in fact, secure, and that cross-border crime in the state is not as urgent a problem as they are making it out to be?
Are you claiming that if all drugs were legalized, the gun-running and human smuggling would cease? Or that if the drugs are legal, the flow of guns and illegals across the border will be okay? That the border would still be porous but it would no longer matter?
And while we're grumbling about a shortage of facts, what about the "arresting people for being Mexican-looking" meme that has been pushed by both President Hussein and yourself? That one is not only not supported by the facts, it is in direct contravention of them, in other words it is a bald-faced deliberate lie. And yet that disconnect between assertion and fact doesn't seem to give you any heartburn. Why is that?
Damn, that was me. I cleared cache/history/etc. and forgot to put everything back.
I'm having trouble figuring out precisely what claim you're trying to make.
It's very simple: violent crime as gone down in Arizona and it's dropped more signficantly than the national average. The facts to support this are listed above. In fact, I will predict (this is an opinion) that it will go down even more if the new relaxed gun laws pass.
To your questions...
No, I'm claiming that I'd like to see citations and an analysis compared to the data that I have provided above. At the very least, the data from this video is a truth which tells a small part of the story. Where is the evaluation of this data and the synthesis of it with this other data? I should't have to tell you, GOF, that evaluation and synthesis are part of critical thinking. No, I submit this video is just another example of FUD.
Arizona's border is not secure but that's not the problem. The problem is that prohibition doesn't work. I think it's just fine if you call President Obama to the mat on the legalization of all drugs. By not legalizing drugs, he is responsible for this violence. The call to secure the border is ludicrous because it won't solve anything as long as the profit margin is there for illegal drugs.
Yes. Look at what happened during the prohibition era and what followed. As far as illegal immigration goes, again, you are not looking at the heart of the problem which is the businesses that hire the illegals in the first place to save money. People won't come across the border if there aren't any jobs to be had. And you seriously want to deport all the illegals here? Say hello to increased prices at the grocery store in a barely recovering economy.
The only workable solution I see that makes economic sense is to embrace the people that are already here, get them paying taxes, make it easier for Mexicans and other South Americans to work here and also pay taxes, legalize drugs (and use the insane amount of tax money to pay down our debt) which will, in turn, greatly diminish the violence, and focus on securing the borders in a way that highlights more criminal acitivity such as terrorism as opposed to wasting law enforcement officials on some people that just want a better life for themselves.
And your last paragraph is ludicrous. The law says suspicious activity. Well, how do you define that? I think each law enforcement official will define that differently and that's where the problems will begin. And your support (as well as others here) makes no sense whatsoever when you also scream about "fascist states." My friend Sylvia is a legal immigrant to this country living in Arizona. She now has to take her papers and her children's papers with her when she goes and buys ice cream down the block. All of her friends now live in fear of the state government and completely believe they will be stopped simply for being brown.So, the next time I hear anything about fascism and "tough history coming" you're going to get this "show me your papers, jew" example ad nauseam as a perfect illustration of titanic hypocrisy.
By all means, though, please keep towing this line. It just means less votes in the fall which is hilarious when you consider the very large gains that could be had. Two months ago the Right was riding high on anger, fear and hate over the health care bill. Now you've got purity tests against Bob Bennett and the Latino community up in arms calling for boycotss of the state of Arizona as well as anti-GOP votes. Well done, sir :*
My friend Sylvia is a legal immigrant to this country living in Arizona. She now has to take her papers and her children's papers with her when she goes and buys ice cream down the block.
And I call BULLSHIT!
Complete and utter BULLSHIT. Once again, you're lying Markadelphia, and this one's so fucking blatant it's not even amusing.
She has to have her ID and her children's ID? On what fucking planet? I think I'd find a different place to buy ice cream.
Her ID I can believe - if she's trying to buy it with a check or a credit card. Guess what? That happens to WHITE PEOPLE TOO.
I just stopped by the local drug store and purchased a 15-pack of Claritin-D 24 Hour antihistamine with decongestant. I paid cash. I had to buy it at the pharmacy counter, since Claritin-D contains pseudoephedrine. The checkout girl HAD TO RUN MY DRIVER'S LICENSE THROUGH THE CARD SCANNER AND I HAD TO SIGN MY NAME in order to pick up a FUCKING 15-PILL PACKAGE THAT ALLOWS ME TO BREATHE IN SPRINGTIME.
And I'm lilly-fucking white, Markadelphia. Where the fuck do I go protest? Obviously I'm being profiled as a manufacturer of methamphetamine since I'm white and drive a pickup truck!
I am so fucking tired of your strawman bullshit.
I'll let everyone else dismantle the rest of your "arguments."
I tell you what: Let "Sylvia" take her kids to the ice cream shoppe and refuse to show ID when paying - cash - for cones and a banana split. When she gets tased by the local cops for refusing to show her papers to the pimple-faced Nazi behind the counter - and it ENDS UP IN THE NEWSPAPERS - then maybe I'll believe you.
Jesus Christ on a bloody crutch, I didn't think you could demonstrate any greater density than you already have, but you're making black holes look positively fluffy by comparison.
P.S: It's TOE the line, "teacher," not TOW. You "toe the line" by coming right up against some imaginary limit or measure, as opposed to "crossing the line" and exceeding or violating that standard or measure.
No, he's right Kevin. She does.
So the ice cream shop can take the kids into custody.
That's child abuse. Trying to give them diabetes? Taking those obese kids to eat ice cream?
I've had 9 days to digest these two comments and have realized that you neither of you have any idea what it's like to not be white in this country. You have no empathy whatsoever for alternate perceptions on life. There is only one view: YOURS. Or in the case, the monolithic one shared by many here who views any discussion of racial issues or diversity as being a load of liberal bullshit geared toward further entitlements and the fascist state. Honestly, it's a terribly inhuman point of view and so incredibly myopic that you will never understand why people are upset about this new law.
Sadly, this will never change and there will be no real growth. Just more screaming and stomping your feet with same narrow minded theme. Barlett was right about the New Right...just like the left of the 60s...nothing grounded in the real world.
Oh, so you're not running away from this thread yet, Mark?
I'll get to most of the rest later, if GOF doesn't pick up the lower-hanging fruit.
But let me pick the one up off the ground:
By not legalizing drugs, he is responsible for this violence.
You know, before you lecture us on the government, you really need to sit down and LEARN what the roles and responsibilities of the President of the US are. Obama cannot "legalize drugs", and thus, his responsibility there is not absolute.
I should't have to tell you, GOF, that evaluation and synthesis are part of critical thinking. No, I submit this video is just another example of FUD.
I'm going to re-post my problem with your (and apparently Oxford's) definition of "critical thinking", since it's about to fall off the page and I really want you to address it.
Critical thinking employs not only logic but broad intellectual criteria such as clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance, and fariness. Generally, that's Oxford's defintion and I agree with it.
The fact that you agree with it is hardly surprising, but that doesn't change the fact that it's inherently and deeply flawed.
such as clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance, and fariness.
First off, "such as" translates to "including, but not limited to", in other words those words allow you to change the definition of the concept any time you please by adding criteria that weren't previously stated, only implied.
clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision
Those aren't too bad, although "credibility" is rather prone to subjective rather than objective judgment. However,
relevance, depth, breadth, significance, and fariness.
as you can see, the criteria get steadily less objective and more subjective as you continue through the sentence, until you reach "fairness", which has no objective definition at all.
You use that criterion often, either unaware what it means or hoping we are unaware what it means. Simply put, it means "personal preference" or "bias".
As I said, I'm hardly surprised to find that this is how you define "critical thinking".
Now, on to your post:
Arizona's border is not secure but that's not the problem. The problem is that prohibition doesn't work.
I'm pretty sure you'll find about a 50/50 split around here on whether The War On Drugs(tm) is/was successful/justified/ethical/worth the trouble/parent of more problems than it solved/etc., and you'd probably find me on the same side as you re: "prohibition doesn't work." However:
Arizona's border is not secure but that's not the problem.
True or False: Mexico's government is so corrupt it makes Chicago or New Orleans look clean by comparison.
True or False: The United States is a wealthy, somewhat decadent country with a porous border, whose culture and government does not naturally lend itself well to close surveillance of its residents, on the border or anywhere else.
True or False: We are currently involved in two wars. Whether you agree with the premise of those wars or not, the fact is that the majority of the people against whom we need to defend ourselves are not uniformed combatants openly serving any given nation. In short, "our side" is fighting a much more conventional war than they are, they are fighting a war of spies and assassins.
I count those statements as true. Given that, it seems insane to suggest that the border between those two countries will not continue to be a haven for gunrunning, human trafficking in one form or another, and conduits for information, material and personnel for the abovementioned spies and assassins.
Apparently either you don't, or you don't care about any of those things.
focus on securing the borders in a way that highlights more criminal acitivity such as terrorism as opposed to wasting law enforcement officials on some people that just want a better life for themselves.
How do you propose to tell the difference between the two, when you dare not ask them for ID even after you've arrested them for something else?
The law says suspicious activity.
No, it does not. The law quite specifically defines it that you already must have probable cause for something wholly unrelated to their immigration status. They have to have already stopped/arrested/detained/whatever the person for something else. And then, if you have reason to believe they are illegal in addition to what you already have them for, you must ask.
So far as I know, that's what it has said from the beginning. But that's not what President Hussein has claimed it as, even since before it was written.
Feel free to post a link to the bill itself and point out where I'm wrong. I can take it.
It just means less votes in the fall which is hilarious when you consider the very large gains that could be had. Two months ago the Right was riding high on anger, fear and hate over the health care bill. Now you've got purity tests against Bob Bennett and the Latino community up in arms calling for boycotss of the state of Arizona as well as anti-GOP votes. Well done, sir
Since when have I ever given a rat's ass about the GOP? Oh, I remember, I don't support Obama/Pelosi/Reid 100%, therefore I must have loved every little bitty thing Chimpy McHitler and Darth Cheney ever did. Sorry, I keep forgetting.
Ah, low hanging fruit..
No, I'm claiming that I'd like to see citations and an analysis compared to the data
We can't get that from you in this forum and this form, where it's easy, and you want it in a 30 second political ad?
Mark, you're cargo-culting again. We cite you for failing to cite, and we analyze that you can't analyze, and so you turn it around and try and use it to bolster your beliefs. Besides, they cited, Mark.
the data from this video is a truth which tells a small part of the story.
Yes. Here you come close, but miss. Ending up missing by a lot. The data is a truth, and it tells a part of the story that Obama is ignoring, but Arizona can't.
Futhermore, it proves that Obama isn't serious about doing the job he's sworn to do, with the duties required of him. Where you keep expecting him to do things that aren't in his job description, this one is. His tone-deafness on this point is something we tried to explain to you when he was barely in the running for the nomination - he's not that smart, or that good at *actually* listening to people.
No, I submit this video is just another example of FUD.
Fear, Uncertainly, Doubt? Where does any of that come into play there? It's making fun of Obama's lack of concern for the job he's sworn to do, and his attacking of people suffering due to his apathetic negligence.
Arizona's border is not secure but that's not the problem. The problem is that prohibition doesn't work.
Prohibition [of drugs] is only part of the problem. You're trying to tie everything to a strawman, but it doesn't fit. Girls are trafficked across the border for brothels - you might remember how accomodating ACORN was to the idea! - are you saying that should be legal?
There's always going to be something prohibited. Changing the drug equation doesn't fix everything else.
I see that makes economic sense is to embrace the people that are already here,
... Those who fail to remember history are doomed to be Markadelphia.
We've done that before. And both times, it was promised, that it was a 1 time only affair, never again. Of course, the south-of-the-borderians figure, once a dumb gringo, always a dumb gringo...
Why shouldn't they?
But what you're doing is showing massive bias towards criminals. Towards people who scoff at the required laws and regulations. You punish the law-abiding, the people who sit in lines for years trying to get into the country legally.
No, the economic answer is to crack down on their employment, press charges and enforce very strictly the laws on identity theft (One can tell you've never had yours stolen), and they'll go back home. Then, and only then, do we discuss bringing them into the country via a new system.
And you seriously want to deport all the illegals here? Say hello to increased prices at the grocery store in a barely recovering economy.
Spare us the histrionics, since you don't have a problem with anything else the Obama crew has done, which has been increasing prices, energy costs, uncertainly (raising prices), in our economy which isn't even at the bottom of the dip yet.
My friend Sylvia is a legal immigrant to this country living in Arizona. She now has to take her papers and her children's papers with her when she goes and buys ice cream down the block.
And I bolded the part where you were wrong/lied. She now has to do nothing differently. All the AZ law did was codify that federal requirement of law to state law. So the state officials can enforce it.
She always had to take her papers, legally.
She's just been a scofflaw until now.
It just means less votes in the fall which is hilarious when you consider the very large gains that could be had.
No it doesn't. Now you're in agreement with Karl Rove, and he's an idiot for thinking that. So are you.
There's a reason that the Democrats keep trying to import from south of the border, there's a reason that California hasn't been majority R since the last amnesty.
Hint: Check out the root word of "patronage". Oh, wait, you don't know how to use a dictionary.
And I bolded the part where you were wrong/lied. She now has to do nothing differently. All the AZ law did was codify that federal requirement of law to state law. So the state officials can enforce it.
She always had to take her papers, legally.
Dangit. UJ beat me to it. For those curious, the specific requirement in question is not all that hard to find:
A green card is issued to all permanent residents as proof that they are authorized to live and work in the United States. If you are a permanent resident age 18 or older, you are required to have a valid green card in your possession at all times. Current green cards are valid for 10 years, or 2 years in the case of a conditional resident, and must be renewed before the card expires.
And, just for the sake of clarity, that is a federal regulation, mandated by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and has already been in effect before Arizona's new law. Similar requirements are in place concerning legally visiting aliens and the like.
It amuses me, though it does not surprise me, how Markaphasia does not admit to his error in this particular case, does not return to the comments pointing out his glaring error, and instead repeatedly holds up "Sylvia" as a straw-shield later on in this comment thread... I really have to wonder if the woman in question actually exists, especially after LabRat's post. Arizona's new law does not change the requirements upon immigrants in this country, it simply allows the state and local police to uphold the pre-existing federal requirements - the fact that Markaphasia opposes this effort really says considerably more about him than it does 'us'.
Let's take the analysis further, shall we?
President Obamateur publicly opposes the new Arizona law. Given that it is now the same as what the corresponding federal law has been for 70 years, why does he not oppose the corresponding federal law, and why did he not publicly oppose that federal law prior to the Arizona law being passed?
Attorney General Eric Holder has stated that the Justice Department was considering filing suit against Arizona in opposition to the new Arizona law. Given that it is now the same as what the corresponding federal law has been for 70 years, why does he not discuss taking a similar action to overturn the corresponding federal law, and why did he not publicly oppose that federal law prior to the Arizona law being passed?
Apply Occam's Razor. The new Arizona law is just another opportunity for Obamateur and his administration to misprepresent and vilify their opposition. It's what they do.
Apply Occam's Razor again. Misrepresenting and vilifying his opposition is what Markaphasia does, too. It is his Standard Response #12, and he's doing it again.
I just can't quite help myself at the moment, so I'm going to throw a bit of red meat on the fire.
Go read this:
Here is the lede, so you'll see what the story is about:
"President Obama -- whose campaign was an online juggernaut and whose love of all things comic book, Star Trek and most recently Avatar is well-documented -- went on a tear against gadgets and gizmos over the weekend, telling a graduating class in Virginia to beware the vice of video games and portable music players."
But here's the set up (and note the added emphasis):
""You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter," Obama said during the commencement address at Hampton University on Sunday. "And with iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation."
And here's the red meat:
"The president has a known addiction to his BlackBerry (a.k.a. BOTUS -- Blackberry of the United States), which he could not and would not part with when he entered the White House, despite security concerns. He admitted "clinging" to it last year -- kind of like voters who "cling" to guns and religion.
"He also owns an iPod, meaning that he knows how to use one -- unless he depends on the Secret Service to hit the shuffle button while he's out jogging.
"He told The Associated Press after Michael Jackson died that "I still have all his stuff on my iPod." During the campaign, he revealed his playlist to Rolling Stone, which at the time included a lot of Jay-Z and Bob Dylan. And he once found the iPod a device befitting royalty. He gave one to Queen Elizabeth II as a gift when he visited London last spring."
Read the whole thing for full flavor, and then reflect on it. My take is, goddamn, what a lying hypocrite.
Y'see, it's not surprising at all that he lies about the Arizona law. Lying is what he does.
Wow, you're calling him out on his hypocrisy on his ipod? I guess I don't understand why you are seemingly so desperate. For the time being, the right has the Big Mo to take back some seats in the fall. There are so many areas you could criticize but you go for something superflous (ipods and blackberries) and then rip him for an issue that will LOSE you votes in the fall-immigration.
Fellas, it's real simple: figure out another talking point besides FINISH THE FENCE AND GET OUT/FUCK YOU SPICS. This issue is much more complex than that and if you want to actually gain votes this year and anytime in the future (see: fast growing Latino population), you best unfuck yourselves from this dogmatic impasse. This video and your comments here have no practical application in reality.
Here's a thought...Kevin? You are basically a journalist who lives in AZ. Go out and talk to the Mexican American population in the area. Ask them what they think and publish their responses here. I'm certain we'll here things that will surprise me, enrage many of you, and enlighten us all much more so than my small example of my friend Sylvia.
Wow, you're calling him out on his hypocrisy on his ipod?"
Ah, yes, we see again your Standard Response #6, your "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response. Yet again, you deliberately miss the point and lay on yet another straw man.
Or did you not even read the article?
In plain English, teacher boy, he is a hypocrite for this statement:
"You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter ..."
That, coming from a proven liar (which he is), is pure hypocrisy.
In plain English, teacher boy, he is a liar for stating that he doesn't know how to use an iPod, which he has admitted that he owns and uses.
You and he are much alike. The "retort of the moment", whether spoken or written, is a favorite tactic of those who treat others as if they know nothing, remember nothing, and can find out nothing. Neither he nor you have learned that it doesn't work with those of us who think. Neither he nor you have learned that credibility, once lost, is extremely difficult to recover.
He has very little credibility left. You have none, and you haven't had any for a long time.
Do you get it now, fuckwit?
Wow, you're calling him out on his hypocrisy on his ipod?
No, on his OBVIOUS LIES.
Do try and keep up.
I guess I don't understand why you are seemingly so desperate.
It's not desperate. It's an obvious lie. DJ (I presume) thought that it was so obvious EVEN YOU would see the point in demonstrating it. As we know, you don't understand the concept of proving that you're right, or how proof works.
It's proof that Obama will say something that's obviously false. It's proof that you'll lap it up, along with the media you insist is so critical of him, and NOT call him out on lying through his teeth.
Secondly, what was he doing? CLAIMING OTHERS WERE LYING. That's right, he lied not just that they lied, but WHILE HE WAS TRYING TO EMBELLISH.
A tertiary (That means third, Mark) issue is that he's trying to portray himself as a victim here.
Which is what you respond to, and you can't figure out why we stick to proof and facts and the like.
then rip him for an issue that will LOSE you votes in the fall-immigration.
No votes will be lost in the fall, much less for enforcing current law.
Fellas, it's real simple: figure out another talking point besides FINISH THE FENCE AND GET OUT/FUCK YOU SPICS.
That's your strawman, and it speaks volumes to how racist and bigoted you are that you project that onto others.
This issue is much more complex than that and if you want to actually gain votes this year and anytime in the future (see: fast growing Latino population), you best unfuck yourselves from this dogmatic impasse.
See, this is an insight to how you see politics. It's only about groups, and buying them off. Not about rules of law, not about true fairness, but about identity politics in totality.
This video and your comments here have no practical application in reality.
That video's gonna resound to Arizonians. You could disagree with it, but it's a powerful image. It shows the President of the United States laughing at his sworn duty, and sneering at those who would do the job he was sworn to do.
But just like the education thread that you're running away from, the obvious situation is one you will not admit to. (Stanford failed. Aspire didn't. You could not even accept or admit that. That's your failing, not ours.)
than my small example of my friend Sylvia.
Which you've done a Javier on. "Look at my friend Sylvia! I say she disagrees! I win!"
You never told us what Javier's problem was, what the situation was, but you expected it to be a powerful message. It's not. Not unless you can explain it.
Sylvia's situation is unchanged. I told you that. You ignored it, because it demolishes your victimology. But it doesn't change the facts. She is now required to carry those papers at all times. Due to Federal Law. Now. That's the law.
Obama's laughing at the law. Arizona isn't. They can't anymore. The more he laughs, the more you defend him failing to do his job, (and then insist he should be superPresident and do other things) the more these messages will come up, and the more people they'll resonate with.
"She is now required to carry those papers at all times. Due to Federal Law. Now. That's the law."
… In every state in this country. (Not just Arizona.) It. Is. FEDERAL. Law.
"No votes will be lost in the fall, much less for enforcing current law."
Remember this prediction, Unix, so I don't have to go back and find it in the fall. This issue could tear apart the GOP and could result in significant losses from one of the faster growing voting blocs in the country. By all means, I am begging you...PLEASE keep saying this stuff wide and far.
Me: "No votes will be lost in the fall, much less for enforcing current law."
Mark: "Remember this prediction, Unix, so I don't have to go back and find it in the fall. This issue could tear apart the GOP and could result in significant losses from one of the faster growing voting blocs in the country. By all means, I am begging you...PLEASE keep saying this stuff wide and far."
Unlike you, I don't have a track record of lying about what I've said, I'll proudly remember, remind you - who will run away - and claim ownership.
significant losses from one of the faster growing voting blocs
If they're a voting bloc, then you won't see "losses". You either get the bloc or not.
This is worthy of a facepalm, but sadly, it's normal for a conversation with you in it.
Please tell me you don't attempt to teach anything having to do with how the US government works. Please.
There won't be any votes lost over enforcing what is the current law. But what's funny, is the more the press, the more Obama, the more the "dominant media meme" is dishonest about what the law says, and why Arizona passed it, the more people are going to hear about it, and polls are showing that the more they hear about it.. the more they support it.
That is, they're pushing for a return to laws. Not feelings. Back to what the paper the law is written on says.
That's the basis of my prediction. (And I'm almost cheating, since I know what happened in the last 2 amnesties, and you didn't bother to read up on them.)
How much has Sylvia paid to Immigration lawyers so she can be here legally? She's good with just letting people just jump past her?
But as usual, you're ignoring the facts and trying to distract away from your failures.
Sylvia, per current federal law, must carry her ID with her away from her house.
Nothing. Changed. You won't address this, just like you wouldn't address the fact of Stanford's failure, or that 22 million is more than 15 million.
Other than Obama laughed over his apathy to do his job.
That won't attract any votes, Mark.
My friend Sylvia is a legal immigrant to this country living in Arizona. She now has to take her papers and her children's papers with her when she goes and buys ice cream down the block. All of her friends now live in fear of the state government and completely believe they will be stopped simply for being brown.
Jesus Mark, if your'e going to keep using brown people you know as human shields, at least don't plagiarize the fucking President when you do it. Just slapping a name on it doesn't make it any less of an instant credibility killer.
As a side note, I grew up in Arizona, and I live in another border state. All factual areas about the content of the law aside, I've spent my entire life in the Southwest. Not only would the police never have any time at all to do anything else if they used "brown" as a criteria for stopping people, a really huge chunk of the police forces themselves ARE BROWN. It's a good working-class job with good benefits, why wouldn't they be?
Granted my numbers are 15 years out of date, but I think in the mid 90s New Mexico was 62% either hispanic or one or another tribe. I would expect Arizona to be much the same, across the political and economic spectrum. So in all likelihood, not just a huge chunk. A solid majority of the police, the lawmakers, and the voters.
But of course, Mark knows more about it than people who merely live there, just like he knows more about Katrina than people who have lived in Hurricane Alley all their lives.
"Granted my numbers are 15 years out of date, but I think in the mid 90s New Mexico was 62% either hispanic or one or another tribe."
I moved from there to here in 2004, Grumpy. It was still brown when I left.
"Fellas, it's real simple: figure out another talking point besides FINISH THE FENCE AND GET OUT/FUCK YOU SPICS."
We have. But you're so stuck on your goddamned straw man that you blew right past it even when GrumpyOldFart asked you about it directly:
Marxy: "focus on securing the borders in a way that highlights more criminal acitivity such as terrorism as opposed to wasting law enforcement officials on some people that just want a better life for themselves."
GrumpyOldFart: "How do you propose to tell the difference between the two, when you dare not ask them for ID even after you've arrested them for something else?"
I REALLY want an answer to that question. I have NEVER seen anyone from your side even recognize the existence of that question. (Heck, I want your side to admit there is a difference between L.E.G.A.L. and I.L.L.E.G.A.L. immigration.) How do you keep thieves, murderers, drug runners, gang bangers and terrorists, and the like out when you actively REFUSE to check EVERYONE who crosses our border?
These comments remind me of something that was just written on my blog.
Most Republicans are tribalists and not racists. They will accept members of other ethnicities into the fold as long as they obey the norms of the tribe. But some Republicans are definitely racists, and there are many racists who think the Republicans are far too "liberal" because they let guys like Michael Steele into the party. We can see that the Republicans are far more tribalist than the Democrats. The Democrats tolerate opposing views within the party much more than the Republicans do. It's why it's nonsensical for people to say "the Democrats are in complete control." There is no monolithic central party diktat among the Democrats as there is with the Republicans. For example, there are many Democrats who oppose abortion and are full-fledged members of the party, like Bart Stupak (who is being drummed out of Congress not by fellow Democrats, but by abortion foes). There are many Blue Dog Democrats who cause party leaders no end of trouble.
Because Democrats are all over the map, you get a more centrist policy in the end because they work together to arrive at a reasonable compromise. Whereas with the Republicans, you get tribal dogma that ignores the realities of the situation. And that's why the Democrats have historically controlled Congress more often than the Republicans. They're more centrist and they appeal to a broader cross-section of the country.Republican numbers will go up and down, but because they constantly excommunicate heretics who violate their ever-tightening dogmas, they will ultimately cull their own numbers and condemn themselves to minority status again.
The issue of immigration is the one that could rip the right apart. On the one hand we have the tribalist view illustrated quite nicely here by all of your comments. On the other, we have the businesses who employ illegal immigrants so they can make more money. Which side will dominate the party? So far it seems the triablist side which may end up driving the business wing of the party over to the Democrats who, as we see in the above quote from a commenter on my site, will welcome them with open arms ;)
And orange bananas sunrise running blue.
The Democrats tolerate opposing views within the party much more than the Republicans do.
Excuse me. I've got to go fall over laughing now.
Oh, wait, they're not done. You're hurting me here.
There is no monolithic central party diktat among the Democrats as there is with the Republicans. ... There are many Blue Dog Democrats who cause party leaders no end of trouble.
Oh, my. The stupidity runs strong in this one. One of your students?
You didn't even notice he contradicted himself.
Oh, lemme stop laughing long enough to ask you something you can't answer:
By the way, who's in charge of the Republicans now? Who's leading them? What are their goals?
Two funnies. 1. To Markaphasia, anyone who disagrees with him is a Republican. 2. Apparently, all of us on this site are Republicans, and part of a monolithic front believingin in a consistent (and supposedly wrong) dogma.
On the one hand we have the tribalist view illustrated quite nicely here by all of your comments.
And not the comments giving people ethnic names that worry about being brown, and framing the issue as one of "brown people" versus the rest of Southwestern society they are implicitly not part of in the same way as the white people.
Another fun factoid: there are towns in the north of New Mexico that really are, culturally speaking, a group that views themselves as the ones who've been here for five hundred years while the anglos are fucking new guys... as are Mexican nationals, whom they see as even newer. Being a suspected illegal after dark in some of these areas will get you beaten or worse.
We ain't Michigan. "Brown" is a completely useless distinction down here.
GoF: It gets more interesting than that. Here's the recent data: Census Quickfacts. At first it looks like there's a heavy white majority- until you read the rest of the data, in which Latinos and hispanics are counted, and then white persons not hispanic are identified. So far as a lot of the "hispanic origins" are concerned, THEY ARE WHITE. It distinguishes them from the native Americans and the black people. "White" as defined by traditional identity politics in more gringo America is a minority in this state. In Arizona the anglo majority is there but relatively slender.
Go acquaint yourself with enough diversity that you can make cultural and political distinctions based on something other than skin color, then give lectures about tribalism.
This Cenus doesn't count Hispanics as a separate race. Read the form and talk to a Cenus worker, he will confirm it. They are being lumped into any other race on the form, if possible.
"See, this is an insight to how you see politics. It's only about groups, and buying them off. Not about rules of law, not about true fairness, but about identity politics in totality."
Indeed Unix. There are no individuals, just members of groups...and the only thing that matters is the next election.
Now, Arizona lawmakers have made some changes intended to clarify their intent and, perhaps, silence some of the critics. The changes were first reported by Phoenix television station KNXV, better known as ABC15.
The first concerns the phrase “lawful contact,” which is contained in this controversial portion of the bill: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…” Although drafters of the law said the intent of “lawful contact” was to specify situations in which police have stopped someone because he or she was suspected of violating some other law — like a traffic stop — critics said it would allow cops to pick anyone out of a crowd and “demand their papers.”
He is, of course, referring to people like you, Mark. And, as it happens, the President.
So now, in response to those critics, lawmakers have removed “lawful contact” from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”
Don't take my (or his) word for it, read the damn thing for yourself:
Are you actually not competent to do your own sourcing, or are you just too lazy?
By all means, though, please keep towing this line. It just means less votes in the fall which is hilarious when you consider the very large gains that could be had. Two months ago the Right was riding high on anger, fear and hate over the health care bill. Now you've got purity tests against Bob Bennett and the Latino community up in arms calling for boycotss of the state of Arizona as well as anti-GOP votes. Well done, sir.
This is probably the most telling thing of all about you Mark, and incidentally it's the one I find most personally insulting.
The above is a blanket admission that you personally are willing to trade any Republican for any Democrat, no matter how corrupt, dishonest or criminal, as long as he advances your agenda and not "theirs". Not only that, you blandly assume that the same is true of me, only in reverse. That I'm only in this as a game, that I don't actually care whether or not someone uses government to rape his fellow citizens so long as he's of "my" party.
Sorry, no sale. I don't care about their skin color, their gender, who or what they sleep with, their religion, or any of that. You know, all the things you and the Democrats believe someone has to be "not the Other" to qualify for treatment as a human being.
I care if they're honest.
I care if they have the work ethic to actually do the job I hired them for.
I care if they actually play by the rules they expect to impose on others.
I care if they have the ethical foundation to be responsible with ludicrous amounts of other people's money.
In short, It's the integrity, stupid.
It's depressing, but sadly not surprising, to find that you don't understand that.
In short, It's the integrity, stupid.
In all seriousness, Mark doesn't really know what "integrity" means, and you can see that continually in his arguments. It's a fluid concept to him, and it's all about power, the gaining and wielding of it. It's a word that to be used to hoax others who believe in it - he knows it's not what he uses it for, but he doesn't grok it enough to understand what it means, or how to really use it.
Two months ago the Right was riding high on anger, fear and hate over the health care bill.
Anger and fear? Yes. Anger because it was being rammed through despite record amounts of opposition, with obvious deceptions and lies. Fear, because if it's rammed through, what it will result in, or what will happen when people resist it. Hate? Only on your side, Mark.
Hate didn't factor into it. It's just a base libel that you use for anybody not agreeing with you.
The Klansman in the (D) caucus? How does that apply to him, by the way? The only Klansman in Congress, the one who uses racial epithets all the time?
Now you've got purity tests against Bob Bennett
It wasn't a "purity test". Bennet wasn't respecting his constituants, he wasn't following his promises, and he wasn't a small government conservative in one of the most conservative states in the Union.
That's why you have elections, Mark.
He wasn't doing the job, he was removed. Tada. But all you can see is power. Buying off groups, because you refuse to see them as individuals. We're only our skin color and sexual orientation to you, that's all that matters to you.
And then you've got the unmitigated gall to talk about "diversity."
Put that with Integrity in the ever-growing list of words you don't know the meanings of.
Here's a thought...Kevin? You are basically a journalist who lives in AZ. Go out and talk to the Mexican American population in the area. Ask them what they think
Why just the Mexican-American population? Why not the American and Arizona citizens?
But, per your request for some "on the scene" reporting:
64 police chases in Pinal County. Not a single citizen as a driver.
Care to discuss what the open border means to him?
Here's some more interesting information:
- %22 of the felonies committed in Arizona are committed by illegal aliens. (Remember Marxaphasia, by definition this does not include LEGAL immigrants.)
- The number of illegal immigrants in Arizona is estimated to be about 10% of the adult population.
For the math challenged, this means that illegal immigrants commit felonies (we're not talking jaywalking here!) at a rate of more than twice the rate of the rest of the population. (Note that LEGAL immigrants count as part of the rest of the population.)
I got this info from here.
BTW, this video includes a clip of Al Sharpton dodging a variation of the question Grumpy and I have both asked Marxy, and which he still appears to be dodging too: (You know, that one that represents our actual position instead of the goddamned straw man that Marxy is using…)
How can we keep murders, rapists, thieves, gang bangers, drug pushers, and terrorists out of our country without checking out everyone who wants to enter our country?
I'd be interested to see a further bit of math performed as to what percentage of the crimes committed by illegals is committed by the same individuals.
I suspect it's similar to the crime committed by legal citizens, i.e. disproportionately concentrated to a small group of dedicated criminals.
Not that that takes anything away from the final point, just noting.
Vanderleun reproduces an IBD editorial cartoon that I think is apropos to the discussion. Scroll to the bottom of this post.
Were you thinking of this one?
I think it might be a little early to call that for this thread. But not for this one.
Figure out how to put an audio dub on top of that, and you might just have yourself a gem ;) .
I'm afraid that kind of audio dubbing is a little beyond my skill. But if someone else can accomplish that in a sound file, I can easily replace the sound.
I was also thinking of replacing "danger" in "When danger reared its ugly head" with "logic". What do you think?
Or maybe, this would be better… "When logic got inside his head". Opinions?
Here's another idea:
"When logic showed his claims were dead"
"When logic bounced right off his head…"
What -- a swallow carrying a head?
It could grip it by the hair!
It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a 5 pound head!
Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your cult that Mark from the Cut & Paste Institute is here and has point proven, verbatim, with some macho allusions?
Listen, in order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings 43 times every second, right?
Am I right?
I'm not interested!
It could be completely empty, like a schoolteachers!
Oh, yeah, an schoolteacher maybe, but not a engineer, that's my point.
Oh, yeah, I agree with that...
Will you ask your cult if they understand they're just like Al-Queda, who are breaking Islamic law, and who also behead homosexuals and deny them the right to marry??!!!!
But then of course schoolteachers create their own reality via critical pedagogy, thus ensuring that no matter how much they learn, they still know nothing.
Or maybe this:
"When logic soared high overhead…"
The title of his most recent post on his own blog suggests that no, it's not too early:
You really shouldn't risk your sanity over there.
But yes, he's running away, and his butt is hurting badly. Even he knows it, which is why he's attacking with such venom.
I'm actually surprised he came back this quickly after he ran away from the Education thread.
I thought of something as we were pointing out to him how much he didn't seem to know about the state of Education in this country.
What if we school him, and kick his ass so badly even he knows it? After all, he's mortgaged in his own mind to his expertise, how much more he knows there, because we've - as that post demonstrates - regularly "owned" him.
What happens when we demonstrate that we (the supposed ignoramuses) are actually far better informed, and can make our cases far better than he can?
I think he, consciously or not, realized that he was in danger of getting his ass kicked in the only area he could hope to claim expertise (and be credible). So he ran away, and he's not had _much_ involved or put much effort into the threads since, you'll note.
I think Mark knows who's owning who here.
By the way, Mark? When are you going to admit that critical pedagogy failed? At least in this case? (Other than it opens up the obvious "So where *does* it work? question.)
Running away, coming back like MacArthur...make up your mind, Unix. Actually, I know that you say the things you do just to get a rise out of me and continue your bizzare obsession with me. For someone who has his "butt burned badly" it seems odd that you must devote so many words to me. If "you've won" why are you repeating yourself and in such large quantities? ;)
I don't think you are an ignoramus. I think you (and many other here) suffer from epistemic closure.
Once again, Jim Manzi (thanks again, juris) tells it like it is. The only thing shocking is that I missed all of the hullabaloo. Too busy...
A classic example of your epistemic closure would be critical pedagogy...now brought up again in another thread. I don't have to admit that it failed because it's not being as widely used as Kevin's appeal to fear fallacy says that it is. Others here agreed with me in that thread and if you were intellectually honest, you would admit it. If you want to seriously examine the problem with instructors today, start here.
In Wayzata, a teacher kept his job despite extensive allegations that he spent most of his class time surfing the Internet.
This is more prevalent than one teacher in Wayzata. In my schooling, nearly all of my instructors told me that one of the biggest problems in education was the inability to fire bad teachers. The reason why children aren't learning what they should is not because of a socialist plot. It's because teachers, like many other people in this country, are lazy.
And, as to why I haven't been posting much of late on here, simply put, I have been enjoying my life. Contrary to what you may think, my world doesn't revolve around the comment threads here at TSM. If the mood stirkes me (and I have time), I post. There's really not anything more to than that. Sorry to disappoint you, dude.
Since this is a thread in immigration, what do all of you think of this idea?
Fourth, we should reconceptualize immigration as recruiting. Assimilating immigrants is a demonstrated core capability of America's political economy — and it is one we should take advantage of. A robust-yet-reasonable amount of immigration is healthy for America. It is a continuing source of vitality — and, in combination with birth rates around the replacement level, creates a sustainable rate of overall population growth and age-demographic balance. But unfortunately, the manner in which we have actually handled immigration since the 1970s has yielded large-scale legal and illegal immigration of a low-skilled population from Latin America. It is hard to imagine a more damaging way to expose the fault lines of America's political economy: We have chosen a strategy that provides low-wage gardeners and nannies for the elite, low-cost home improvement and fresh produce for the middle class, and fierce wage competition for the working class.
Instead, we should think of immigration as an opportunity to improve our stock of human capital. Once we have re-established control of our southern border, and as we preserve our commitment to political asylum, we should also set up recruiting offices looking for the best possible talent everywhere: from Mexico City to Beijing to Helsinki to Calcutta. Australia and Canada have demonstrated the practicality of skills-based immigration policies for many years. We should improve upon their example by using testing and other methods to apply a basic tenet of all human capital-intensive organizations managing for the long term: Always pick talent over skill. It would be great for America as a whole to have, say, 500,000 smart, motivated people move here each year with the intention of becoming citizens.
This is Jim Manzi from his great article, Keeping America's Edge. I have to say, once again, I completely agree with him.
"Since this is a thread in [sic] immigration," why can't you answer this question?
"How can we keep murders, rapists, thieves, gang bangers, drug pushers, and terrorists out of our country without checking out everyone who wants to enter our country?"
I got this one!
His.. Life called!
Javier? Sylvia? Javier is crying because Sylvia won't buy him ice cream?
Ed, did you read the above paragraph? That's your answer although you question has clearly been Hannitized. I'll add on the simple fact that if drugs were made legal, many of these folks wouldn't be doing those things.
We need to embrace the people we have here, take more steps to protect the border, and make immigration easier than it is right now. The federal government has failed on this one, no doubt. But why have they? The GOP doesn't want to bring up immigration because it is an issue that will, in all probability, tear apart their party. The Dems seem to be dragging their feet as usual on this and other issues although it looks like Harry Reid sees the opportunity I do and may introduce something. Increased border security cost money, though, Ed and right now any time they spend it, they are accused of being Hitler or enslaving our children.
The point is that you need to start looking at this issue as Manzi does above. Until then, I'm afraid we won't have much to discuss. The implications are for this far more broad and complex than keeping bad guys out.
Running away, coming back like MacArthur...make up your mind, Unix.
I've already told you. Those aren't contradictory. You're historically idiotic and illiterate. You didn't even manage to bother to read that and realize that you "got your butt burned".
Actually, I know that you say the things you do just to get a rise out of me and continue your bizzare obsession with me.
As usual, you've built a strawman, and failed to set it on fire. Bizzare? Obsession? Hardly. Don't flatter yourself.
You're the one who comes in here, dumps intellectual dung, and then runs off when he gets his "butt burned", then comes back and claims victory later.
You. Will. Not. Win. By. Default. Not here. This is too valuable of a place.
I will not let you Cargo Cult here, in a place of consideration, reason, and liberty, and allow you to demean science and rational thought by aping it, and hiding amongst people who are thinking, instead of just reacting.
For someone who has his "butt burned badly" it seems odd that you must devote so many words to me.
Not really, I'm usually only referencing the last 2 or 3 really ignorant things you've done, or threads you've run away from. I've only got 5000 characters, and you've run away from so many arguments, you've said so many obviously stupid things, that I can't compact that into the English Language - unless I do like you do, and make up definitions for words.
If "you've won" why are you repeating yourself and in such large quantities?
Because you keep coming here and spreading your lies, your stupidity, the memes you are pushing - the ones that are failed, that are against everything that the Constitution says the Government is limited to.
Because you can't even admit or concede obvious points, much less your deliberate lies and distortions when they're caught out. At this point, you're a interesting exercise and proof of how Leftist thought happens.
I don't have to admit that it failed because it's not being as widely used as Kevin's appeal to fear fallacy says that it is.
THAT WASN'T THE POINT. Stanford was using it, and they failed.
Even if it's not "widely used" it was being used by Stanford, and they failed. The "Widely used" is your invention to avoid admitting you were wrong.
Which, by the way, I note you also fail to define HOW widely it's spread. It's certainly widespread in my research. You learned it. It's required for education majors here. And in Florida. And South Carolina. And ...
The burden of proof is on you to prove your assertation.
See, this is how it goes.
Kevin posts something, and says "See, Critical pedagogy failed"
Your rebuttal was "Did not! It's not widespread"
So you didn't address his contention and you introduced another claim that you've not substantiated.
And you wonder why we laugh at you.
And, as to why I haven't been posting much of late on here, simply put, I have been enjoying my life.
Right. That's why you leave arguments you're getting embarrassed about.
You can comment on them for months. Come back when you want.
We're not stupid, you know. We *are* out of high school, and we're not buying bad excuses.
Contrary to what you may think, my world doesn't revolve around the comment threads here at TSM. If the mood stirkes me (and I have time), I post. There's really not anything more to than that. Sorry to disappoint you, dude.
You don't disappoint me. But again, IF THIS WAS TRUE, you'd be behaving differently. You're just trying to justify and lay in advance excuses for "comment shitting" again.
Which won't surprise, or disappoint anybody here. We're used to it from you. You just can't admit to your failings.
You'd grow as a person if you did. And you might learn something.
Now that you're back, are you ready to point out where in the AZ immigration law it gives anyone the right to pull anyone over "for being Mexican looking"? I gave you a link to the actual bill.
And when are you going to get back to the Concealed Carry Thread, where you ran away from numerous assertations, including:
Guns don't cause violence and he knows this. It's common sense which is what he has been saying all along.
You, you know, kind of left off the proof of how you know what he thinks, or the fact that if it's such common sense, why his activities were so antigun, for so long, and when he changed his mind.
That's not "life" getting in the way, Mark, that's an immature debating tactic where you realize you "got your butt burned". Because of things you said.
How about you go back, and deal with them. Hell, how about you finish a debate and at least support your contentions to the finish, rather than getting less specific as you go along?
Just in case you "lost" it:
Hey, "my dog ate my homework" works for Phil Jones, why shouldn' it work for Markadelphia?
Hey, I had a comment here...did Echo eat it?
Climate change as well now in this thread? Fine by me. Chew on this one:
"Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment."
"Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration. While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world. In addition, extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for defense support to civil authorities for humanitarian assistance or disaster response both within the United States and overseas."
I guess the DoD is off their rocker too now.
No, the DoD is a POLITICAL ENTITY and thus must behave as one. If the powers-that-be declare that "climate change" IS OCCURRING, and will have consequences X, Y, and Z then the DoD must do its planning and reporting as though this is undisputed fact. The more importance the administration places on a topic, the more the DoD must concentrate on that subject in order to get funding.
There are nineteen uses of the words "climate change" in the report. There are 24 uses of the phrase "Al Qaeda." There are zero uses of the word "muslim," "islam," or "islamic," though there are 34 instances of the word "terrorist" (including "counterterrorist" and "narcoterrorist"). There are three uses of the word "terrorism." No mention is made of Osama Bin Laden.
There are 49 uses of the word "energy," sixty instances of the word "nuclear," but only twelve references to the word "Korea" and five for "Iran." Apparently "climate change" is a larger concern than either North Korea or Iran.
Want an historical example? Prior to Persia's invasion of Greece in 480BC, the city-state of Athens didn't have much of a navy. However Themistocles, veteran of the previous battle of Marathon during the first Persian invasion of Greece, knew that the Persians would be coming back and that Athens would need a navy to defeat them. He also understood, though, that simply saying that "The Persians are coming! The Persians are coming!" would get him ridiculed at best, ignored at worst. So instead he riled up his fellow politicians and the public with tales of the dangers of neighboring Aegina. He managed to convince the Athenian public that, instead of "spreading the wealth" from a massive new silver mine among the public, they ought to build a navy against the (mostly imaginary) threat of Aegina. They did. And when Persia invaded, Athens was ready.
Today, Themistocles would be tried and convicted as an Enemy of The People, and for being in the pocket of the Military-Industrial Complex.
I don't know what Gates really believes, but I believe he knows which side his bread is buttered on, and if he wants funding to keep operating the four branches of the military he is responsible for he has to keep his boss happy.
Unix, I answered your question above regarding CP and.....you say nothing? And then switch the topic to conceal and carry? Hmm....
Unix, I answered your question above regarding CP and.....you say nothing?
Nothing? I quite obviously said something and rebutted your assertation.
Your "answer" was "Nah nah, I've moved the goalposts and won't address the actual topic, because I'll define the topic to something else ... and you guys don't kick my ass intellectually all the time?"
" I don't have to admit that it failed because it's not being as widely used as Kevin's appeal to fear fallacy says that it is."
Oh, I said something all right. And now I'll say this: This demonstrates that you are _intentionally dishonest_. You know I said something, (and it's pretty obvious I was right), and so you repeat something that's _already been rebutted_, but without any admission of that and THEN claim that you've "answered" it.
And then switch the topic to conceal and carry? Hmm....
No, the topic was you running away from getting "your butt burned".
You swapped the topic, dumbass, not me.
Intentionally. So maybe you're not a dumbass. Just a liar.
As GoF noted, you've got *no* problem ignoring everybody, changing the topic, moving goalposts.
And by the way, that was formatted correcetly and nicely when I pressed "post".
See what happens when you try and make something with your worldview, Mark?
And now you've run away. Again.
Since what you said was trivially dismissed as pap with no *thought* behind it.
Now you're on to something else, quick, run away, run away, Brave Sir Marx.
You get faced with a lot of rebuttals, not addressing some of them would be somewhat plausible. But you refer back to opposing comments later, ones you haven't addressed.
For instance. MacArthur? I've told you twice that's not a contradiction, and you've breezed past that. I've said that in rebuttal to your references to it. Which, would make you just like MacArthur, actually. I'm sure there's a picture of you next to "Irony" in new dictionaries.
But you do your best not to get to substance, not to get to clarity, but to get as muddled and value-based, while talking about facts, logic, "Obviously".....
You still won't address the Stanford post point, deliberately changing the point so you can dismiss the facts, which are uncomfortable to you.
Wait, who's worldview would expect that? Then you've got no hesitation in after saying things incredibly outrageous, making claims without any backing, talking about how "diversity" is important in the classroom (Which is part of critical pedagogy theory) getting outraged that we dare, DARE to make claims about the educational system... even ones that you're in the process of substantiating.
This is where I can say that I know that you're not _that_ dumb. Which leaves as a motivating factor....
And yet you've thoroughly ignored mine. You know, the one about Arizona immigration law.
"Ed, did you read the above paragraph?"
Do you mean the two paragraphs you quoted from Jim Manzi?
It's not a trick question, Mark. I just want to make sure I'm responding to the right thing.
"Yes" is simple. "No, it's … paragraph" is only slightly less simple.
Yes, and I would add as answer to your question that you many on your list out by legalizing all drugs immediately.
"Yes, and I would add as answer to your question that you many on your list out by legalizing all drugs immediately."
Goddamn, teacher boy, did you even read this before posting it? For cryin' out loud, do you actually think in terms of such incomprehensible gibberish?
Sorry, GOF. I put up a comment and it vanished into Echo's netherworld. Let's see if this works again.
With the signing of Arizona House Bill 2162, there has been some improvement on the bill, quoting
"prosecutors would not investigate complaints based on race, color or national origin."
and immigraton arrests wil be limited to
"lawful stop, detention, or arrest."
But, GOF, do you trust that the police will be able to limit themselves to these standards? Some will but some won't and that's the real issue I have with this bill. It's a pathetic attempt to make something black and white that is clearly very gray. Not surprising, considering the minds from which it came. The very nature of the lines "lawful contact" , "reasonable attempt" and "reasonable suspicion" (Sec 2b) are incredibly subjective and, depending upon the person, could mean stopping a Mexican looking woman for getting ice cream with her kids. What if she jay walked with her kids? That is lawful enough reason to stop her. And if she didn't have her papers with her...then what?
"But, GOF, do you trust that the police will be able to limit themselves to these standards? Some will but some won't and that's the real issue I have with this bill. It's a pathetic attempt to make something black and white that is clearly very gray."
This is the most bizarre and hypocritical thing you've posted in days, fuckwit.
Your statement is an indictment of more gubmint. It is a prime reason why I don't like more gubmint. Gubmint acts through people, y'see, and people who are handed authority over others tend often abuse it. And yet, quite hypocritically, you have long been a champion of more gubmint.
You don't think through just what you claim to believe, do you? Can you really not see it?
Actually, you're right, DJ. Which is why I can't figure out why many of you support this law. You bemoan more government but are willing to give them more power in..ehem...certain circumstances. So, nice Rove there, dude, but I think you need to explain why volumes have been written on how the state will always fuck stuff up but not this time.
Which is why I can't figure out why many of you support this law.
Because you've not learned how to think logically, so you cannot understand where we've made assumptions (and told you where they were), and drawn conclusions (and told you about them).
It's more of a hypocrisy to ask why you rave and rant about "diversity" and "inclusiveness" and "you don't understand if you haven't had my experiences", but you're willing to sit and condemn people living in a (near) war zone, who are being killed in cross-border raids, and who's goverment is refusing to act.
You bemoan more government but are willing to give them more power in..ehem...certain circumstances.
What power has been increased with the AZ law?
"Actually, you're right, DJ. Which is why I can't figure out why many of you support this law."
Ah, yes, once again, we see your typical fuckheadedness.
You would have us believe, when it suits you, that you are a genius, that you know it all, by golly, and have only to ask yourself the right questions to know what's what, and you're right because it's obvious.
Or, you would have us believe, when it suits you, that you are as dumb as a post, and so you can't understand why we believe what we believe, no matter how many times and in how many ways we explain it to you.
Your M O (that's short for Modus Operandi, i.e. your method of operating or functioning) is evasion. You pick one of these two methods of evasion, always. It's what you do, and it's what you are doing here.
I'll explain again. Pull your head out of your ass and pay attention.
You complain thus:
"You bemoan more government but are willing to give them more power in..ehem...certain circumstances."
I support immigration provided it happens in accord with the laws which govern it. As we have explained to you time and again, the new law in Arizona matches long-existing federal law. What the new Arizona law does is give Arizona law enforcement officers the authority to enforce the same rules that federal law enforcement officers have had for the past seventy years. It does not give Arizona law enforcement officers any authority that federal law enforcement officers don't already have, and have had for seven decades.
Now, let's look at your fuckheadedness again.
You quoted Jim Manzi:
"Once we have re-established control of our southern border ..."
and then you stated [emphasis added]:
"This is Jim Manzi from his great article, Keeping America's Edge. I have to say, once again, I completely agree with him."
Now, just how the hell do we "re-establish control of our southern border"? We do it by enforcing our immigration laws. You have unequivocally admitted that we need to control our southern border, but you moan and groan about Arizona law matching federal law such that Arizona law enforcement officers can enforce our immigration laws, thereby helping to secure our southern border.
Yet again, you just don't think this stuff through, do you?
Honestly, I don't think you've thought it through at all, DJ. I have. Tell you what, though. Why don't you go down to AZ and tell all the small businesses down there that you are turning in all the illegals they have working for them? Bring Sheriff Joe while you are at it...another ass hat who acts purely out of buffoonish fear and rage. The problem is much larger than that and much more complex. Why does everything have to be so simple with you? If you re-read the quote from Manzi it's about much more than securing our borders. When he says recruiting, he honestly means amnesty.
You'll get no argument from me that the federal government has failed. But why have they? For the most part it's been because the GOP is ultra reluctant to tackle an issue that will rip them apart. And the Dems just spent a year getting beat up by the Cult for death panels. The other thing is it will cost money to enforce the border and haven't you been bitching about spending of late? Have you ever figured out how much it would cost to do a better job of securing our borders? I haven't but I'm certain it won't be cheap.
Honestly, I don't think you've thought it through at all, DJ. I have.
You've thought it through, but can't give us any change in the law other than the ability for the state to enforce violations. You have. Really.
Mark, you beclown yourself more than we possibly could embarrass you.
Why don't you go down to AZ and tell all the small businesses down there that you are turning in all the illegals they have working for them?
So now you're in favor of breaking the law.
Mark, I have NO PROBLEM with that. See, there are the rules. Now you're OK with breaking them - somewhat - as long as it gives you political power.
That's not a sustainable system, and you've been hypercritical of those you thought were "breaking the law" in the mortgage arena, in the finance arena...
But I'm good with that. Because if they're hiring illegals, they're making a mockery of that entire social welfare net that you want and you want extended.
Why does everything have to be so simple with you?
Because if you cannot understand the rules, you can't follow them, and it becomes who you know to what you can get away with, and corruption follows. What you're doing is suggesting we model ourselves on failed systems, ignoring their failures.
You'll get no argument from me that the federal government has failed. But why have they? For the most part it's been because the GOP is ultra reluctant to tackle an issue that will rip them apart.
I've seen many analysis of the border issues.
That, by far, is the most laughable. By an order of magnitude.
"Honestly, I don't think you've thought it through at all, DJ. I have."
Yet again, we see your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply assert that I am what you don't like being accused of.
You fool no one, little boy.
You've continued this comment below, so read on for my response to the rest of it there.
Some will but some won't and that's the real issue I have with this bill.
The same issues apply to all laws of any kind wherever found. So what? You're saying that anything short of a perfection that can never be achieved is unacceptable, but a border porous to gunrunners and slavers (and anyone and everyone else) is not that big a deal?
That's a mighty courageous decision to make from 2000+ miles away.
stopping a Mexican looking woman for getting ice cream with her kids. What if she jay walked with her kids? That is lawful enough reason to stop her. And if she didn't have her papers with her...then what?
The exact same thing that would happen with a white woman who jaywalked getting ice cream with her kids, that's what. They'd ask her if she knew her DL number or her social security number, or any of a hundred bits of personal data Americans are routinely identified by, and run her through the system.
So why it something practically every white person in the US does many times a day as a matter of routine when going to the bank, or cashing a check, or etc. etc. etc ad nauseum... why is that such a horrible infringement of liberties on anyone who is "mexican looking"? Why is it so terrible that any number of smugglers, or organized crime members, or who knows what all, can be let through rather than even chance inflicting such a horrible injustice on one person who is "mexican looking"?
And that still dodges the fact that your statements (and President Obama's, and Eric Holder's and etc. etc.'s) to the effect of "a free pass to arrest anyone mexican looking" and "show me your papers, Jew" are either a) casual slander based on assumptions made in total ignorance of the actual bill, or b) deliberate lies.
So which is it for you? I think I know which way to bet on Obama, Holder et al.
No, it wouldn't, GOF....because the white woman doesn't look like an illegal immigrant (not brown) and so she wouldn't be stopped. It opens the door for profiling which is something I would think you would be against if you aren't a racist. I don't think you are but your lack of perception on what it's like not being white in this country is ridiculous.
Hell, how many words have been written on here about the government profiling right wingers? Zillions. So, it's ok to distrust them in that situation but not this one? I would think you would affinity with anyone who is being categorized by the state. And that's just what is happening here.
because the white woman doesn't look like an illegal immigrant (not brown) and so she wouldn't be stopped.
Mark, this is a failure of your example.
In your example, you postulated a woman breaking the law, and then insisted the AZ law made a change.
But that's not the case, and I know plenty of lily-white people who have gotten tickets for jaywalking.
It opens the door for profiling which is something I would think you would be against if you aren't a racist.
Only if you're either an idiot, or you don't know what profiling means.
I don't mean what you sorts who redefine words to mean the opposite of what they mean to other people call it, but quite simply, "profiling" is a good word and system that's used as a buzzword incorrectly.
Somehow, I'm not surprised you did that.
Hell, how many words have been written on here about the government profiling right wingers? Zillions.
Too bad you couldn't understand any of those zillions.
The issue isn't "profiling", you dunderhead. It's politically motivated harassment.
I would think you would affinity with anyone who is being categorized by the state. And that's just what is happening here.
The law changed NOTHING, NOTHING, MARK.
Just for once, just to surprise me, FOLLOW UP A CLAIM YOU MAKE WITH AN ATTEMPT TO PROVE IT.
I won't hold my breath waiting for you to do it, though.
You've mischaracterized the law. That's building a strawman. And then you want to know why we're not agreeing with you, because you think your strawman has something to do with the concerns we have.
Because you cannot understand how to think.
So, just so we're really clear what you're running away from:
WHAT does that AZ law change about the behavior of immigrants, legal or illegal?
...the white woman doesn't look like an illegal immigrant (not brown) and so she wouldn't be stopped.
By policeman with names like Ruiz and Mondragon... and yet someone who is "Mexican looking" would be... ewkay...
Let's take a hypothetical, at least as likely as the "taking the kids to get ice cream" you proposed:
Let's say that I am a balding, middle aged white male with brown hair (what there is of it) and blue eyes. I am vacationing in Arizona, going to see the Grand Canyon, and stayed last night in Page. I drive a blue Ford Taurus, it's parked in the lot of my motel.
Last night, unbeknownst to me, a store in St. George, UT was burgled by a middle aged white guy, balding, with brown hair and blue eyes, "rather German looking". He fled south in a blue Ford Taurus.
Note that the act he committed is a crime under Federal law.
At breakfast this morning I ask the waiter about maps. He recommends a store about 3 blocks away. After breakfast I hop in my car and go over there, and on the way I roll through a stop sign. A cop pulls me over.
Now using the logic you have applied to immigration law, the cop should perhaps ticket me for the stop sign, but shouldn't even expect to see my Driver's License, because that would be "racist profiling of German looking people". If I happened to forget everything except cash and keys in my motel room, it would be unacceptable and racist for Officer Ruiz to detain me until my story can be verified.
I call bullshit. Go ahead and tell me that's ridiculous, and I'll heartily agree. But the reason it's ridiculous is because it perfectly parallels your position.
And of course there's this:
Not surprising, considering the minds from which it came.
An assumption that you can look into people's hearts and minds and divine their evil intentions, solely by virtue of the fact that their faces are white and/or their politics are conservative.
By the standards you espouse, that's "hate speech" when directed against anyone but a white conservative, isn't it?
I think life just called, after you pointed that out.
Not that he's running away from something obvious and easily pointed out. No, that's not what he's doing, stop SAYING THAT. STOP IT. He's not running away AGAIN, just like the literally HUNDREDS of times before, stop SAYING THAT.
But, GOF, do you trust that the police will be able to limit themselves to these standards?
Holy hell. You certainly don't know the definition of "Irony".
To answer you more seriously than you deserve, yes, I trust that, as much as I trust anything else.
You've got to have some trust, because the police have had authority vested in them. What's Ironic, is that you normally trust anybody in government, no matter how badly they've acted in the past, and want to give them MORE power. Now, suddenly, you're a small government conservative. Which is really odd in this instance, because...
. It's a pathetic attempt to make something black and white that is clearly very gray.
It doesn't make anything. You have been told this. Explained this. It was repeated over, and over, and over. There's no way you can claim to be a reasonably honest debater, when you have failed to address that it "makes" nothing.
It codifies existing FEDERAL law to the STATE level. That's it. It's not inventing any terms, conditions or requirements. NOT ONE. Not. A. Single. One.
That "very gray" area is already "black and white" in law. What it does is allow the state authorities to act on violators. (As opposed to waiting for the federal, who obviously are apathetic to their jobs and responsibilities. But they have those standards, and have failed our trust by not acting on them.
Not surprising, considering the minds from which it came.
As I said, this was explained to you before. Your insistence on bigotry is clearly exposed here.
The very nature of the lines "lawful contact" , "reasonable attempt" and "reasonable suspicion" (Sec 2b) are incredibly subjective
To some degree, they are, Mark.
But you don't have a iota of a problem with that subjectivity in any other fields. The hypocrisy is on your side. We're not happy with a lot of the subjectivity, we are against it, and we'd like to see there be a lot less of it. But that said, it exists, and it to some degree always will. The alternative is "zero tolerance" policies. There will always be some subjectivity, and it's something we live with on a daily basis.
Whatever you do, don't try and look up what a "Terry stop" is. You won't bother to learn anything, but if you did, it would make you apologize for that line of argument and your bigoted attack.
and, depending upon the person, could mean stopping a Mexican looking woman
for getting ice cream with her kids. What if she jay walked with her kids? That is lawful enough reason to stop her.
Well, yes, because she broke the law! That's a lawful reason to stop her and cite her and as with any transgression, you have a legal obligation to produce identification.
That's unchanged from the prior law, it's unchanged from Federal law.
And if she didn't have her papers with her...then what?
Then she is in further violation of Federal law that exists on the books today. Now she'd also be in violation of state law, and the state could deal with her crime spree, including showing her children how to break the law.
Just. Like. Yesterday.
Nothing was created, except in your mind.
Unix, in reality (as opposed to Bizarro World where you live), some police wouldn't stop the white woman. This whole thing reminds me of the Gates affair. Of course the police were in the right to detain him!!! Never mind the fact that we bitch about the State all the time. In...ehem...certain circumstances, it's just fine!!
Just remember, there may come a day when Cletus McYokel is going to be asked for papers or proof that he is not a right wing terrorist. And you will scream about government interference, fascism, and have Nazi Tourettes like Glenn Beck. The sad little secret is that for all your cries this statement defines you.
Perhaps the real reason that the right is more suspicious of government is that they have a completely different view of its purpose than moderates and liberals. Could it be that the right doesn't trust government because they ascribe their own motives to it? ---blk in comments on my blog
Unix, in reality (as opposed to Bizarro World where you live), some police wouldn't stop the white woman.
Really. So your presumption is that the police will allow the white folk to break the law, but not the darkies.
So we've got to base our assumptions on this - wait, why do you want to give them more power?
Some police might not. Some would. But your example was of someone breaking the law.
And then - most importantly - you claimed that the law required something.
But it turns out that that requirement was unchanged. The scofflaw hauling her kids illegally across the street is required to have that ID now.
This whole thing reminds me of the Gates affair. Of course the police were in the right to detain him!!!
As usual, it reminds me of your examples, where you make statements, and don't explain or back them up.
Never mind the fact that we bitch about the State all the time. In...ehem...certain circumstances, it's just fine!!
Actually, YES. YES. LISTEN TO ME.
I'll repeat what you just said:
certain circumstances, it's just fine!!
The government investigates crimes. I have never called for vigilante or other non-governmental bodies to investigate and stop crimes. Neither has anyone here to my knowledge.
YES. There are certain circumstances when the government is the appropriate and correct entity to act. Like a Breaking and Entering. I don't want someone seeing it to follow the "burglar" into the house and apprehend them. I want the cops to be called, and find out what's going on.
Just remember, there may come a day when Cletus McYokel is going to be asked for papers or proof that he is not a right wing terrorist.
I was asked for my ID 3 times this weekend.
I am required to carry my picture ID with me most places that I go. It's a misdemeanor for me not to have my picture ID. Most of my leisure activities have requirements that I have one, or in some cases two, forms of ID that must be presented on demand of any government agent.
And I'm not in Arizona. Nor do I look that hispanic. IT'S THE CURRENT LAW.
The fact is I know what the law is and says (for at least this), and you're totally ignorant and reacting our of emotion, bigotry and projection.
Yes, even your projection comment is projection.
And you will scream about government interference, fascism, and have Nazi Tourettes like Glenn Beck. The sad little secret is that for all your cries this statement defines you.
See above. You're wrong. Speaking of "definition", which you suck at, ......
Oh, and once? I set off an alarm and the police responded to check it out.
Very similar to the Gates situation. I presented my ID to the officers, explained the problem, demonstrated I was allowed to be there, and they.. left.
I guess it was 'cause I was white. Couldn't be any other reasons. Bet they had a hispanic to cite for jaywalking trying to get to some ice cream.
Yes, there is that.
A fact that you (and Obama, and Holder, and etc. etc.) keep conveniently ignoring in your quest for something to hang your racist fearmongering from, Mark. Well over half of the voters supporting the law, well over half of the politicians enacting the law, and well over half of the police enforcing the law are themselves "Mexican looking". I'd be willing to bet you that somewhere on the close order of 50% of those groups are actually of Hispanic ancestry themselves.
Those are the people you are slandering with your presumption of racism, Mark.
Yes, over half of the voters in this country support the law. How many people in this country supported segregation at the time of Brown?
I think you're going to find out just what the Hispanic groups think in November, dude. You're already finding out now with the financial boycott. At the end of the day, that's what's really going to change this law and/or get the federal government to act. Money talks and if it isn't coming in to the state of Arizona, I think you are going to see a lot of pissed off business owners. Best of luck dealing with them!
I think you're going to find out just what the Hispanic groups think in November, dude.
How many votes are there *to lose*?
I've said this to you before, and you've ignored it. Historically, how many votes could they POSSIBLY *LOSE*?
(We're not talking Florida, where the majority of Cubans vote Republican.)
What's the demographic breakdown of the last elections in AZ?
You're already finding out now with the financial boycott.
At the end of the day, that's what's really going to change this law and/or get the federal government to act.
I'll remind you of this later. So you admit that the government is not dealing with the problem, and won't because of the money involved.
Money talks and if it isn't coming in to the state of Arizona, I think you are going to see a lot of pissed off business owners. Best of luck dealing with them!
Yep. Money talks. Just ask San Diego as they try and backpedal from their condemnation and try and twist semantics into "It wasn't a _boycott_".
Again, it comes down to who's getting paid off. That's it, that's all you care about.
Well, sometimes people take stands for other reasons, and if you were dealing with what they were...
Why does your diversity not extend to their life experiences?
Why aren't you giving them moral authority, for the life they've lived? Why is it that white Christians are the only ones you'll say are wrong?
Yes, over half of the voters in this country support the law. How many people in this country supported segregation at the time of Brown?
I know you can't do sourcing, but I thought you could at least read.
"Well over half of the voters supporting the law, well over half of the politicians enacting the law, and well over half of the police enforcing the law are themselves "Mexican looking".
That's not a statement about the country, that's a statement about the State of Arizona. You're saying policemen with names like Ruiz and Mondragon are going to be racist against people who are "Mexican looking". It's depressing that I even have to explain to a teacher how idiotic that premise is.
You are absolutely correct, money talks. And because it does, this may turn out to be one of the most expensive shovelfuls of horseshit in the history of mankind. But that doesn't change what it is.
Besides, I thought in most cases you were in favor of sloppy law enforcement, no?
You consider it a feature in tax law.
You consider it a feature in immigration law at the Federal level.
So far as I can tell, you consider it a feature more often than not. What's different this time?
And just to be on record, I want to address this:
...your lack of perception on what it's like not being white in this country is ridiculous.
1. When I was 12, my family moved from one of the nicer parts of Los Angeles (Palos Verdes Peninsula) to what was at the time the largest all-white town in the US, Vidor, TX. I seriously doubt you could find a more stark case of culture shock without taking an anthropolgy internship. And because of that, I suspect I have a much more realistic view of what is and is not racism than you do. I've seen it at the sharp end.
About 10 years ago the local KKK staged a march down Main Street. I'm proud to say they got something like 200 supporters, while the counterprotest numbered somewhere around 4,000. These weren't imports either, imports don't come here. They don't want any part of Vidor, and mostly I don't blame them. These were corn fed white rednecks from back in the woods around this town of under 25,000. People from yet smaller towns, places like Jasper, just north of here. If that doesn't ring any bells, go google Jasper TX, I'll wait.
2. No, I don't know what it's like to not be white, but I have seen the other side. You're a history teacher, what would you expect the experiences of a young woman in a small town in flyover country to be like... born in 1931, maiden name Steussy? That was my mother.
Pilgrim, you have no earthly idea.
P.S. The other side of my family is largely Irish. You know, as in "No Irish Need Apply"? That and Scots, who often are mistaken for Irish (which they often consider insulting.) If you seriously think being white is protection against racism, you have no room to accuse anyone else of wearing blinders. It also suggests you have no idea of the conditions in any berthing compartment of any ship in the US Navy during the last 30 years or more. A sad and depressing thing in a history teacher.
An ex girlfriend of mine is 1/4 black, 1/4 hispanic and 1/2 Japanese, and she is making a lot better headway understanding this issue than you are. Go figure.
And Brave Sir Marky's life called again...
But don't DARE try and say he RUNS AWAY.
There's certainly NO EVIDENCE in the last three years that he can't sustain his own side in an argument! NONE!
GOF, you make some good points as always but I don't think you are looking at this issue with the width of vision that is needed to solve it. I certainly don't have all the answers but I know that it doesn't start yet another right wing edict that will only make matters worse. The illegal immigrants that are already here are a part of our economy. You honestly want them all deported? I'm not certain that our already fragile economy can take the hit.
As far as securing the border goes, as I asked DJ above, how much is that going to cost? And will it actually do any good? Much of the crime on the border is drug related, correct? My solution remains the same: legalize all drugs. Take away the profit motive and watch the crime go down. Embrace the immigrants as human capital and seek out the highest skilled workers. This law is basically a giant "Fuck you, Spic" and "Get Out!" to people who are coming here seeking a better life. Rather than "Papers please, Jew" how about "Here is a one page form to fill out. Take it to the table over here for approval and you have a working permit here. Keep your nose clean for 6 months and we will make it more permanent." That's just a start but I think you get the idea.
"I certainly don't have all the answers but I know that it doesn't start yet another right wing edict that will only make matters worse."
Yet another right wing edict, is it, you pathetic fuckwit?
It is not "new"; it is seventy years old.
It is not "right wing"; it was passed during the Roosevelt administration.
You not only don't have all the answers, you cannot admit to facts that are demonstrated to you to be true. Yet again, we see your Standard Response #7, the "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response.
"As far as securing the border goes, as I asked DJ above, how much is that going to cost?"
Since when did you start worrying about what it costs the gubmint to do something? Just tax some more rich folks, 'cause they don't need it anyway, right?
"My solution remains the same: legalize all drugs. Take away the profit motive and watch the crime go down."
I have supported the legalization of drugs my whole adult life, and I've stated here in Kevin's parlor why. No, I don't use recreational drugs and never have. You are correct, in my unhumble opinion; if you take away the profit motive, then you take away the cause of much of the crime.
Oh, and some of us disagree on this. All of one view, are we? Your reading comprehension is still that low, is it?
Moreover, making drugs legal does not address any other kind of crime, does it?
In fact, it does not address enforcing the immigration laws, does it?
So, how is that "your solution"? Thought it through, have you?
"Embrace the immigrants as human capital and seek out the highest skilled workers."
That seems reasonable to me. You got a problem with not doing that illegally?
"This law is basically a giant "Fuck you, Spic" and "Get Out!" to people who are coming here seeking a better life."
Ah, yes, they're "seeking a better life", are they?
That's a mantra you've posted numerous times here. It is the excuse of a bank robber.
So, that's what you support, is it? Anarchy? No rule of law? No enforcement of law?
Oh, I forgot. That is the principle of the liberal left (and you explicitly admitted, long ago, that you are a liberal, remember?): It's not the act that matters, it's the motive for it. They mean well, y'see.
Oh, I forgot. The laws are s'posed to be enforced against anyone who opposes the liberal left, right? (Pun intended. Do you get it?)
But, exactly what are the laws? Why, the Attorney General of the United States voices opposition to laws without reading what they say. Golly. It must not really matter what they are, huh?
Let's continue, shall we?
"Rather than "Papers please, Jew" how about "Here is a one page form to fill out. Take it to the table over here for approval and you have a working permit here. Keep your nose clean for 6 months and we will make it more permanent." That's just a start but I think you get the idea."
That method is known as enforcing the immigration iaws, you blithering jackass. That is exactly what I have stated to you that I support, and you claim that I haven't thought it through. Now, you think I get the idea, do you?
Yet again, it's just another Retort of the Moment for you, isn't it? Yet again, you demonstrate that you haven't thought it through, have you?
You're dealing with grownups here, little boy, and you aren't up to it. Do you really not see what a jackass you make of yourself?
I've had 9 days to digest these two comments and have realized that you neither of you have any idea what it's like to not be white in this country.
You've stalled for 9 days, you mean. You haven't digested anything. This is the same pap you peddled 9 days, and 6 weeks and 3 years ago.
You've got a special understanding, nevermind you don't understand the facts, the logic, or the science behind any stance, you "just know the right questions to ask". You know the right people, and ignore any problems with your stances, hypocrisy, or the fact that your "solutions" are what got us to the problem.
You have no idea what my "ideas" are, or even what color I am.
You've got no idea what my background is.
You've called me (and Kevin) Christians multiple times - even thought we'd told you we weren't.
You just have your bigotry and hypocrisy (my "diversity" doesn't matter.)
You have no empathy whatsoever for alternate perceptions on life.
Not even remotely true.
There is only one view: YOURS.
Projecting much? Several of us here have disagreed strongly with each other on more than one occasion.
Or in the case, the monolithic one shared by many here who views any discussion of racial issues or diversity as being a load of liberal bullshit geared toward further entitlements and the fascist state.
No,not even close.
OF course, since you're advocating an amnesty and extension of redistributed wealth to the amnestied illegal immigrants.... you might want to reconsider... Well, hell. We all know you don't consider, you can't reconsider, and even if you did, you'd implode if you admitted you were the "w" word.
Honestly, it's a terribly inhuman point of view and so incredibly myopic that you will never understand why people are upset about this new law.
You keep avoiding that question. Why? Is it because you know you're wrong? You're lecturing us on being myopic, and you can't even bother to handle the facts that include that the law changed nothing?
You want to talk about "sadly?"
How about how sad is it you can't admit basic facts in front of your face?
Stanford and your vaunted "diversity" and critical pedagogy failed.
This law didn't change anything other than who was empowered to enforce the law.
Nothing. If they're upset they're idiots and were unaware of the law.
And I include the President and Attorney General in that. They're idiots, and they're ignorant of the law. (Some scholars. It's a 17 page law, and they can't be bothered to read it.)
Barlett was right about the New Right...just like the left of the 60s...nothing grounded in the real world.
So says the man who can't admit that Stanford failed, and this law changed nothing.
And it tok you "9 days" to fail to answer any of the questions put to you (different rules!), ignore the facts (different rules), and call us names (different rules!).
GOF, you make some good points as always but I don't think you are looking at this issue with the width of vision that is needed to solve it.
Width of vision. What was that about critical pedagogy "not being widespread?"
Not only is he, it's a known solution. It's a done deal.
But what you are saying, if the "right" people are breaking the law, let them break it, if they'll vote for Democrats.
I certainly don't have all the answers but I know that it doesn't start yet another right wing edict that will only make matters worse.
Start? It's been the law since the 1950s. It's been a "edict" since before you were born. And if you don't have the answers, it won't stop you.
The illegal immigrants that are already here are a part of our economy. You honestly want them all deported? I'm not certain that our already fragile economy can take the hit.
Gee, it's too bad you just now are worried about the economy. While Obama and the Democratic Congress has been savaging it and future growth, you didn't care.
But yes, our "fragile economy" can more than take "the hit". We'll be better off for it. And - nothing says you can't allow in that many immigrants to take their places. Nothing.
As far as securing the border goes, as I asked DJ above, how much is that going to cost? And will it actually do any good? Much of the crime on the border is drug related, correct? My solution remains the same: legalize all drugs.
Oh, save us from Mark thinking.
Let's just take the most obvious points here. Sneaking across the border was illegal. Yet many people were doing it. Possibly 20 million people currently here now.
Yet people did it.
And you think you can "solve" it by legalizing drugs. Tada.
Even though the very lawbreaking you want to reward was illegal.
That - might - stop the drug wars. Not the human capital. Not the trafficing and slavery that you're good with. (After all, the sex slaves don't have MORTGAGES!)
Take away the profit motive and watch the crime go down.
This is true only insofar as you're willing to legalize everything. I'm not. Most people aren't. And until the border is secure, the things that are illegal will continue to come across the border. Even if you somehow were magically right, the fact that taxes are about to skyrocket means there's going to be a very thriving black market soon.
Embrace the immigrants as human capital and seek out the highest skilled workers.
You want to talk about a "fuck you?" Go talk to the PhD's in India who can't get in. Or the doctors in England. Or the engineers from Germany. Nurses from Africa. Political and religious refugees from China.
That's the giant "fuck you" you're sending. "Follow the rules, you're a chump. Break 'em, and get all the rewards."
This law is basically a giant "Fuck you, Spic" and "Get Out!" to people who are coming here seeking a better life.
"coming here illegally", you keep leaving that word out.
The ones who broke the laws. Who steal identities and defy minimum-wage laws that you seem to support. Who live illegally, drive illegally who.... BREAK THE LAW.
I have no problem telling criminals to get out, they're not wanted here. That's not in any way to say I don't understand their desires and their attempts. But amnesty was a failure before, and it's worse now. Additionally, the new law changes nothing. Nothing. If you want to keep saying it "says" something, man up, have the sack to tell us, Verbatim Boy what changed in the Arizona law that wasn't in federal law before.
Rather than "Papers please, Jew" how about "Here is a one page form to fill out. Take it to the table over here for approval and you have a working permit here. Keep your nose clean for 6 months and we will make it more permanent." That's just a start but I think you get the idea.
The "idea" is you're totally rewriting all the immigration laws. Which Arizona didn't do.
So your proposal isn't a discussion of Arizona's law, but instead an unworkable plan requiring magic and miracles, and you moving the goalposts again, trying to stay on a Elementary-school level of discussion of political realities.
...how much is that going to cost? And will it actually do any good? Much of the crime on the border is drug related, correct? My solution remains the same: legalize all drugs. Take away the profit motive and watch the crime go down.
So let's see, in short:
Actual border security? Hell with it, it'll cost too much and won't do enough good.
Any kinds of crime other than drugs? Hell with it, the child prostitution, the gunrunning, nobody cares about that stuff.
Porous border, easy crossing for terrorists or anyone else who wants to be invisible to the legal system? No problem, nobody cares. Besides, people from the Middle East are "Mexican looking" so if you even mention the possibility of terrorists using illegal alien conduits, you're a racist.
And of course, a law in Arizona that perfectly mirrors the Federal law is "Fuck you, Spic!"
As usual, you're willing to ignore, or even actively work to overthrow, the rule of law so long as it serves your political agenda. And you wonder why people blandly assume that any Democrat is lying through his teeth when he makes claims about what any given law will do. They don't read them, and they make it plain from the beginning that they have no intention of enforcing them as written.
Didn't I just say exactly that in, uh, like, many times more words?
Dammit, GOF, you're making me look bad.
Uh oh, looks like we've got some RACISM...
President and Mrs. Obama are hosting his second State Dinner tonight in honor of Mexican President Felipe Calderón and wife, Margarita Zavala, but there were no gatecrashers this time:
“Some of them were still clutching their embossed invitations, proof that they belonged. They had already been asked their names once, twice, three times to make sure they were actually on the list.
How did they manage it? By refusing people who did not have their identification papers:
“Kathryne Mudge, right, and her husband, Arturo A. Valenzuela, assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs, leave a checkpoint after discovering Mudge did not have her identification for the State Dinner at the White House in Washington, Wednesday, May 19, 2010. They returned about an hour later with the ID and were allowed into the affair that President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama held for their Mexican counterparts, Felipe Calderon and his wife, Margarita Zavala.”
Questioning and turning away Mexicans/Americans because they don’t have papers?
I'm sure Mark will be denouncing the reign of terror on those "spics" [sic] from his Anointed One in .. three... two.... hey, where'd Mark go?
Ya know Mark, you might actually be able to get immigration reform done if the Democrats didn't always demand that the border remain porous as a condition of it.
Hey folks, check it out!
I vote for a TSM field trip with Unix, DJ, Kevin, and a few others sitting down with this young student and explaining your position to her. I'd be more than happy to record it for posteriety.
Oh, and Mark? I know you don't think about these things.
But if we take this system you're devising here, and extend it, it means anyone with a young child cannot be punished for any crime.
Because that would punish the child, as well.
Unless you're going to introduce some levels, at which point you, or someone illogical like you, will scream at the "arbitrary crimes" that are allowed to go unpunished - as long as you have a young one.
So if you want to stake out that position, stake it out. Detail what crime you'll allow for parents, and define how old the child is before the parent.
Yes, we'll poke holes in the logic and theory and....
Because there's none of that in your thought. It's all about power, tugging at heartstrings, and "never mind behind that curtain, don't look."
"I vote for a TSM field trip with Unix, DJ, Kevin, and a few others sitting down with this young student and explaining your position to her. I'd be more than happy to record it for posteriety."
Oh, right, it's for the children, ain't it?
As I stated yesterday:
"Oh, I forgot. That is the principle of the liberal left (and you explicitly admitted, long ago, that you are a liberal, remember?): It's not the act that matters, it's the motive for it. They mean well, y'see.
"Oh, I forgot. The laws are s'posed to be enforced against anyone who opposes the liberal left, right? (Pun intended. Do you get it?)
"But, exactly what are the laws? Why, the Attorney General of the United States voices opposition to laws without reading what they say. Golly. It must not really matter what they are, huh?"
You have validated that statement quite well.
I also wrote:
"Yet again, it's just another Retort of the Moment for you, isn't it? Yet again, you demonstrate that you haven't thought it through, have you?"
You have validated that statement quite well, also.
A simple principle applies here, one even your tiny mind can understand, even if you don't accept it (and you have demonstrated that you don't accept it): Having a child does not make it acceptable to commit a crime, not even the crime of violating our immigration laws.
I'd be more than happy to record it for posteriety.
For you, I'm sure it would be a poster.
Sure, set it up. In the spirit of reciprocation, I can set you up with some people who's IDs were stolen by illegal immigrants (one of which committed a number of crimes) and you can explain to them why they have to suffer so those criminals can prosper.
And I can get you in touch with a couple of people who've lost loved ones to repeat DUI offenders from South of the Border, who weren't deported after their first, second, or third DUIs...
I've got no problem telling that young lady that her mother is sadly, a criminal, raising her in a criminal lifestyle, and leaving her with little option later, like that girl in CA who's whining that as an illegal, she can't get into the premier University of Cal she wants, having to settle for the local campus (on us.)
Just like the MacArthur comment, that displays how ignorant and stupid you are, it's not a "gotcha" towards us.
Oh, and let's not forget the union workers you can explain why illegals under the table are better, and to students why illegals at less than the minimum wage means they don't have jobs, and heck, you can explain to all of us why our insurance premiums are so high to cover illegals health care...
I think we can make this a very, very fun week.
If you're picking up the tab, Thimblewit, I'm in.
Afterwards, we could have one heck of a range trip. I'm busy the week of July 4th, going scalloping in FL, but other than that, I'm pretty open.
And I can get you in touch with a couple of people who've lost loved ones to repeat DUI offenders from South of the Border, who weren't deported after their first, second, or third DUIs...
Or we can go to L.A. and Mark can explain to the families of murder victims why it's a good thing that 95% of all warrants for murder are for illegals.
GoF. You and your insistance on BLACK AND WHITE rules. Don't you know if we got rid of all those laws and regulations and rules, we'd HAVE NO CRIME?!?!?
And if we legalized those who broke that silly law, then there wouldn't be any illegals doing the murders we won't!
Doubly so if they have kids!
Hey, I have kids and I want a better lifestyle. Think Marxy will object if I help myself to a better lifestyle by taking his stuff? It's for the children!
I can't imagine that he would, as long as you just take the stuff that's a result of his greed and made under "bad capitalism", like his car, computer, electronics and stuff like that.
Do we have lists of what comes from Bad Capitalism and what comes from Good Capitalism?
Or do we just ask ourselves the right questions and then we'll know?
If you have to ask, Russell, you're not Enlightened enough yet to know.
So until you have Enlightenment and know The Questions to ask, stick to buying Michael Moore and Bill Maher, and follow their instructions.
Don't worry, we'll all get our Enlightenment meds once ObamaCare fully kicks in.
Ooh, hey, this'll surprise people:
In 2001, the district [Hopkins] conducted a technology referendum, in which voters approved a fixed levy of $2 million per year for 10 years. Yet, for 2010's property taxes, the board certified a $3,545,759 levy.
Stupid voters! They didn't know what they SHOULD do, let's just ignore 'em!
So apparently Mark, your basic position on all issues is that laws should be enforced to their fullest possible extent, and even extra stuff made up if necessary, to punish anyone who disagrees with your politics. But for anyone who agrees with you and/or can be used to advance your agenda, refusal to obey the law should be rewarded with head of line privileges.
Or in short, "justice" = "a decision in my favor" in the mind of Markadelphia.
Got it. That explains much about your usage of the word "justice" in all its forms.
Critical Thinkin' Dontchaknow.
Union members...families of DUI victims...families of murder victims...there's going to be all kinds of people on this field trip!
I have a serious question for you.
Based on what you've said about illegal immigrants and their children, on what (if anything) would you be critical of this guy: