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: pandora on 29 Jul 2010 18:47 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.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 29 Jul 2010 18:49 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:41:55 -0500, pandora wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:37:46 -0500, CharlesGrozny wrote: > >> "Hachiroku ハチロク" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >> news:l8l4o.37749$lS1.27601(a)newsfe12.iad... >>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:49:33 -0500, pandora wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:47:15 -0400, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:03:11 -0700, larry moe 'n curly wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:54:19 -0700, larry moe 'n curly wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:12:40 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > SB1070 gutted on constitutional grounds. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bullshit. Derailed by Vox Populus. Nothing to do with >>>>>>> "constitutional grounds". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > You'd have a point if most Arizonans were against SB1070, but in >>>>>>> > reality about 60% of the people here are in favor of it, >>>>>>> > according to this July 25 poll: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/07/25/20100725immigration- > poll- >>>> demographic.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then they are just ignoring the voice of the people. >>>>>> >>>>>> But you said the court overturned the law because it HAD heeded the >>>>>> voice of the people -- "derailed by vox populus". You need to keep >>>>>> better track of your lies, Mr. convicted con artist. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It heeded the voice of the media, not the people. >>>> >>>> Back pedaler. Hehehehehehehe. >>> >>> >>> "The people" have no say in this administration, as has been >>> demonstrated time and time again. The Media controls the voice of the >>> people. If you don't see that, you should open your eyes. >>> >>> Being a Liberal, you can't. You can only do what you're programmed to >>> do. >>> >>> Perhaps one of these days you'll start thinking for yourself. >>> >>> But I doubt it. >>> >>> >>> >> The more I see this administration, the more I wonder if this is what >> Dietrich Bonhoffer must have felt like watching Hitler destroy Germany. >> >> Charles Grozny > > Nah. That would be *your* guys in the brown shirts. Boy, are you out of touch. Keep believing that, though. They need all the mind numb robots they can get, and you're the poster child.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 29 Jul 2010 18:50 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:42:20 -0700, Aratzio wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:04:04 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, > Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> got double secret probation for > writing: > >>On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:50:09 -0400, Hachiroku ???? wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 18:36:44 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:13:21 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, >>>> Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> got double secret probation for >>>> writing: >>>> >>>>>What would she have to say about US Immigration laws, then? >>>> >>>> That they are constitutional since the Federal Government by the >>>> Constitution is tasked with Foreign Policy. Care to guess what >>>> Immigration policy is considered a part of? >>>> >>>> Really, do you know anything about the constitution? >>> >>> Yup. Plenty. I also know a bit about Immigration law, too. >>> >>> If you're here illegally, you've comitted a crime. If you've committed a >>> crime, you are subject to inquisition by Law Enforcement. >>> >>> Let's say you're a drug dealer, and are breaking a Federal law. You get >>> stopped by an AZ State patrolman. Is he going to say, "Aw, shucks, you >>> broke a Federal law. I'll have to let you go and hope the Feds catch you." >>> >>> Really, are you that stupid? >> >> >>Apparently so: >> >>Three Chandler police officers were shot last night, one fatally, during >>an undercover drug bust, which, as described by police, sounds like a >>scene out of Miami Vice. > > So do you imagine that drug enforcement will be altered by enforcement > of SB1070? In what way will the drug gangs in Mexico be adversely > affected by SB1070? Might help to stop them from pouring over the border.
From: Meat Plow on 29 Jul 2010 18:55 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.
From: Meat Plow on 29 Jul 2010 19:07
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. |