Wingnuts fail again.
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: {BS} Here's a "Personal Comment" that won't get displayed!
Next: Douchebag "john" posts recall alerts, obtains attention he missed out on as child.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 29 Jul 2010 23:16 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:50:42 -0700, Anyone wrote: > Hachiroku ハチロク wrote on 29-Jul-10 13:22 ... >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:01:25 +0000, Jeff The Drunk wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:12:40 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>> >>>> SB1070 gutted on constitutional grounds. >>> So a temporary hold on some aspects of SB1070 constitutes >>> being "gutted"? In what universe? >> >> There is an easy way around this: >> >> ANY person arrested may be required to provide proof of citizenship or >> legal residence. The easy way around all this is to just arrest everyone >> who runs afoul of any law ("You spit on the sidewalk. You're coming with >> me.") > > Technically that is possible, if such a law were to exist, if someone > were to be observed violating that law, if said observer were empowered > to enforce and inclined to do so. (so much for a straman) So sorry. Spitting on sidewalks is illegal in Massachusetts. > > There are more than a few ways to 'break' a society's infrastructure of > rules and law. Is that what you really want? You'd prefer that things > fail, rather than work? You prefer 'arrest first, ask questions later'? Hmm...did I say I 'prefer" it? I think not. > >> It will put a hell of a load on the legal system, but this way cannot be >> removed by a Liberal thinking judge anywhere. > > Indeed, that is the key issue isn't it -- laws did not exist, at least > in Arizona, so AZ political hacks wrote some. Unfortunately, they > either never bothered to consider a conflict with Federal law, or simply > chose to ignore the possibility, and ran afoul of the rights of all > legal residents. Hence the judge's decision to stay enforcement. What part of anyone arrested can be questioned about residency/citizenship did you miss? > > No one can argue that we don't need better management of immigration, > but this dumbfucking Arizona-sTOOOpid approach is not the answer. The Feds are doing such a great job of it, aren't they?
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 29 Jul 2010 23:16 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:21:52 -0500, pandora wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:50:42 -0700, Anyone wrote: > >> Hachiroku ハチロク wrote on 29-Jul-10 13:22 ... >>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:01:25 +0000, Jeff The Drunk wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:12:40 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>>> >>>>> SB1070 gutted on constitutional grounds. >>>> So a temporary hold on some aspects of SB1070 constitutes being >>>> "gutted"? In what universe? >>> >>> There is an easy way around this: >>> >>> ANY person arrested may be required to provide proof of citizenship or >>> legal residence. The easy way around all this is to just arrest >>> everyone who runs afoul of any law ("You spit on the sidewalk. You're >>> coming with me.") >> >> Technically that is possible, if such a law were to exist, if someone >> were to be observed violating that law, if said observer were empowered >> to enforce and inclined to do so. (so much for a straman) >> >> There are more than a few ways to 'break' a society's infrastructure of >> rules and law. Is that what you really want? You'd prefer that things >> fail, rather than work? You prefer 'arrest first, ask questions later'? >> >>> It will put a hell of a load on the legal system, but this way cannot >>> be removed by a Liberal thinking judge anywhere. >> >> Indeed, that is the key issue isn't it -- laws did not exist, at least >> in Arizona, so AZ political hacks wrote some. Unfortunately, they >> either never bothered to consider a conflict with Federal law, or simply >> chose to ignore the possibility, and ran afoul of the rights of all >> legal residents. Hence the judge's decision to stay enforcement. >> >> No one can argue that we don't need better management of immigration, >> but this dumbfucking Arizona-sTOOOpid approach is not the answer. > > Completely agreed. Why would anyone expect anything different from you?
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 29 Jul 2010 23:18 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:18:02 -0500, pandora wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:07:37 +0000, Meat Plow wrote: > >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:57:03 -0700, miguel wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:25:54 +0000 (UTC), Meat Plow <mhywatt(a)yahoo.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:15:24 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:01:43 -0400, Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:36:28 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> <YAWN> Here we go with the straw man of "infringing on the rights >>>>>>>> of US citizens." The law wasn't written about US citizens or Legal >>>>>>>> Aliens. Why did you have a Green Card? You have to produce it if >>>>>>>> asked for it. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about >>>>>>>> that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not a citizen. And yes, the law, as written, would do exactly >>>>>>> that. >>>>>> >>>>>> How so? If you have a Green Card, you have to produce it to any LEA >>>>>> asking to see it. You know that. You could just be walking down the >>>>>> street, and if a cop comes up to you and asks you for ID, are you >>>>>> going to refuse? >>>>> >>>>> Of course not. But then, I'm not a US citizen and I'm *required* to >>>>> carry my Green Card on me at all times. US citizens are not required >>>>> to do that. As well, it was an agreement that I made in order to be >>>>> allowed to live and work here. No such agreement is given by those >>>>> born here. >>>>> >>>>> We've been through this before and all I can conclude is that you >>>>> just don't wish to admit that the Arizona law impinged on the rights >>>>> of legal US citizens and residents. >>>> >>>>Not being too well informed on that law but trusting your knowledge on >>>>it, what rights of US citizens are being impinged upon? >>> >>> Among other things, it required the police to arrest and detain any >>> immigrant, legal or illegal, until immigration status was determined. >> >> Ah ok. And you can cite that precisely? Also cite the guidelines for >> determining who is an immigrant and who isn't. > > Indeed. "MEEEEE TOOOO!!!!" Don't you ever tire of nodding your head like an old cow?
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 29 Jul 2010 23:19 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:17:01 -0500, pandora wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:55:54 +0000, Meat Plow wrote: > >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:47:06 -0500, pandora wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:25:54 +0000, Meat Plow wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:15:24 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:01:43 -0400, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:36:28 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> <YAWN> Here we go with the straw man of "infringing on the rights >>>>>>>> of US citizens." The law wasn't written about US citizens or Legal >>>>>>>> Aliens. Why did you have a Green Card? You have to produce it if >>>>>>>> asked for it. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about >>>>>>>> that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not a citizen. And yes, the law, as written, would do exactly >>>>>>> that. >>>>>> >>>>>> How so? If you have a Green Card, you have to produce it to any LEA >>>>>> asking to see it. You know that. You could just be walking down the >>>>>> street, and if a cop comes up to you and asks you for ID, are you >>>>>> going to refuse? >>>>> >>>>> Of course not. But then, I'm not a US citizen and I'm *required* to >>>>> carry my Green Card on me at all times. US citizens are not required >>>>> to do that. As well, it was an agreement that I made in order to be >>>>> allowed to live and work here. No such agreement is given by those >>>>> born here. >>>>> >>>>> We've been through this before and all I can conclude is that you >>>>> just don't wish to admit that the Arizona law impinged on the rights >>>>> of legal US citizens and residents. >>>> >>>> Not being too well informed on that law but trusting your knowledge on >>>> it, what rights of US citizens are being impinged upon? >>> >>> The right to travel freely between states as well as to NOT be asked >>> for papers proving citizenship or resident status. You, (presuming you >>> are a US citizen) are not required to show *papers* ala Nazi Germany. >> >> So I understand that there are checkpoints set up along the roadways ala >> Nazi Germany and everyone is forced to show their "papers" ? If not >> please correct me. > > It's a slippery slope that could lead to that, yes. Bullshit. Perhaps along the border, but like a k00k, you believe it will go that far.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 29 Jul 2010 23:20
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:13:36 +0000, Meat Plow wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:49:59 -0700, Aratzio wrote: > >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:21:46 +0000 (UTC), in the land of alt.aratzio, >> Meat Plow <mhywatt(a)yahoo.com> got double secret probation for writing: >> >>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:17:19 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:55:54 +0000 (UTC), in the land of >>>> alt.impeach.bush, Meat Plow <mhywatt(a)yahoo.com> got double secret >>>> probation for writing: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:47:06 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:25:54 +0000, Meat Plow wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:15:24 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:01:43 -0400, Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:36:28 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <YAWN> Here we go with the straw man of "infringing on the >>>>>>>>>>> rights of US citizens." The law wasn't written about US >>>>>>>>>>> citizens or Legal Aliens. Why did you have a Green Card? You >>>>>>>>>>> have to produce it if asked for it. There is nothing illegal or >>>>>>>>>>> unconstitutional about that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm not a citizen. And yes, the law, as written, would do >>>>>>>>>> exactly that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How so? If you have a Green Card, you have to produce it to any >>>>>>>>> LEA asking to see it. You know that. You could just be walking >>>>>>>>> down the street, and if a cop comes up to you and asks you for >>>>>>>>> ID, are you going to refuse? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course not. But then, I'm not a US citizen and I'm *required* >>>>>>>> to carry my Green Card on me at all times. US citizens are not >>>>>>>> required to do that. As well, it was an agreement that I made in >>>>>>>> order to be allowed to live and work here. No such agreement is >>>>>>>> given by those born here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We've been through this before and all I can conclude is that you >>>>>>>> just don't wish to admit that the Arizona law impinged on the >>>>>>>> rights of legal US citizens and residents. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not being too well informed on that law but trusting your knowledge >>>>>>> on it, what rights of US citizens are being impinged upon? >>>>>> >>>>>> The right to travel freely between states as well as to NOT be asked >>>>>> for papers proving citizenship or resident status. You, (presuming >>>>>> you are a US citizen) are not required to show *papers* ala Nazi >>>>>> Germany. >>>>> >>>>>So I understand that there are checkpoints set up along the roadways >>>>>ala Nazi Germany and everyone is forced to show their "papers" ? If >>>>>not please correct me. >>>> >>>> The law allowed the police to detain anyone that did not have papers. >>>> A clear violation of the 4th amendment. The need to carry >>>> identification is well settled law in the USA and the citizens are not >>>> required to carry identification. >>> >>>Sorry to snip but you are wrong. Be detained by the police in any state >>>and fail to produce identification....you know the rest. >> >> "lawfully detained" is what you meant to write. You have to provide >> legal cause before there can be detention. >> >> And no, it is not *any* state. Only 24 states have "stop and identiffy" >> laws. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes >> >> Keep digging. > > No digging needed. Get pulled for a simple traffic violation and fail to > produce ID then tell me what happened. This point seems to go over their heads... |