quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Everyone else seems to get the concept of quoting other people and adding your own thoughts to said quote. Perhaps the knowledge for you to do such just isnt there. That would explain why you dont believe the way you quote, mixing yours in with others, isnt lazy. And i would have to agree... its not lazy... you just cant help what you dont understand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Whoa... HUGE difference here, thompson. Blacks werent sneaking across a border, they were dragged here in chains. They had NO choice in coming, unlike the illegals we are speaking of. No one is sicking the dogs on anyone. What we are saying is... be legal or be gone. This isnt the 60's, as much as you seem to want to forget that.

quote:


Hitler led the largest known genocide in history (or one of them?), which he outlined in Mein Kampf- this is why people read the Mein Kampf, for socio-historical reasons. We read him not *despite* what he did, but *because of* what he did. Why else *would* you read a virulently angry anti-Semite?

Perhaps to find out what was on his mine.

quote:

Therefore, why would I bother listening to some random street racist if not for the shock factor/sensationalism. I doubt this would make your *or* my point.

Because this particular bigot discusses the concept of aztlan which contradicts your opinion that all mexican illegals cross the border for economic reasons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight


You are not following my point at all.
So far the only point you have made is that you are a "pc bigot"

I *highly* doubt that.

You are making an argument from emotion, because you are angry over something that happened over a century ago- under different circumstances and different people and a different time.
No emoton here just a factual statement of history

Deny it all you want, but my entire point is that you are bringing irrelevant facts into the discussion. The only logical reason I would surmise would be that you are pissed off about the past and not dealing with the way things are now. What is this factual statement of history again?

I don't give a crap about Poland or that it happened. What exactly are you arguing?

I am sorry I was not clear. The relationship between russia and poland were not significantly different than the relationship between the u.s. and mexico.

I dont know the history, but I am almost positive that it is entirely different. This analogy has only to do with the past, therefore, AGAIN, is a non sequitur.

You want us to give Texas back?

If someone stole your car would you want them to give it back?

You sound like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum over not getting a toy he wants.

quote:

ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight

quote:


Hitler led the largest known genocide in history (or one of them?), which he outlined in Mein Kampf- this is why people read the Mein Kampf, for socio-historical reasons. We read him not *despite* what he did, but *because of* what he did. Why else *would* you read a virulently angry anti-Semite?

Perhaps to find out what was on his mine.

WHY was my question.

Are you just paranoid?

quote:

Therefore, why would I bother listening to some random street racist if not for the shock factor/sensationalism. I doubt this would make your *or* my point.

Because this particular bigot discusses the concept of aztlan which contradicts your opinion that all mexican illegals cross the border for economic reasons.

Well now you're explaining it....can you try to explain more? I really have no interest in hearing what some random idiot/racist has to say, I'd rather not click their links/read their books/give them attention unless there was a reason.

quote:

One of our laws is based upon how you are allowed to be here to begin with. Cant follow that law? why should we assume you will follow any other law?

quote:


That is pretty much what "they" said to martin luther king concernig his approach to civil disobediance.

quote:


Who are "they" and show me a source where "they" said that.

quote:


Perhaps you might peruse the musings of orville faubus, ross barnett or george wallace.

quote:

at it

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight


You are not following my point at all.
So far the only point you have made is that you are a "pc bigot"

I *highly* doubt that.

You are making an argument from emotion, because you are angry over something that happened over a century ago- under different circumstances and different people and a different time.
No emoton here just a factual statement of history

Deny it all you want, but my entire point is that you are bringing irrelevant facts into the discussion. The only logical reason I would surmise would be that you are pissed off about the past and not dealing with the way things are now. What is this factual statement of history again?

I don't give a crap about Poland or that it happened. What exactly are you arguing?

I am sorry I was not clear. The relationship between russia and poland were not significantly different than the relationship between the u.s. and mexico.

I dont know the history, but I am almost positive that it is entirely different. This analogy has only to do with the past, therefore, AGAIN, is a non sequitur.

You want us to give Texas back?

If someone stole your car would you want them to give it back?

You sound like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum over not getting a toy he wants.

You sound like someone who chooses to be intentionally ignorant.
I pointed out similarities between two historical events of which you have addmited your ignorance, yet you continue to try to rebut them with with your uninformed opinion.

quote:

quote:


Perhaps you might peruse the musings of orville faubus, ross barnett or george wallace.


These are NOT sources- just proof you arent reasoning or using logic in your arguments. You make wild accusations and deductions that aren't supported by anything other than, 3 different authors' "musings"? You cant even mention a book title?

quote:

You sound like someone who chooses to be intentionally ignorant.
I pointed out similarities between two historical events of which you have addmited your ignorance, yet you continue to try to rebut them with with your uninformed opinion.


I don't agree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Its not my problem that you are lazy.

Perhaps you could just ignore me[8|]
Then you could justify your laziness

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight

quote:


Hitler led the largest known genocide in history (or one of them?), which he outlined in Mein Kampf- this is why people read the Mein Kampf, for socio-historical reasons. We read him not *despite* what he did, but *because of* what he did. Why else *would* you read a virulently angry anti-Semite?

Perhaps to find out what was on his mine.

WHY was my question.

Are you just paranoid?

quote:

Therefore, why would I bother listening to some random street racist if not for the shock factor/sensationalism. I doubt this would make your *or* my point.

Because this particular bigot discusses the concept of aztlan which contradicts your opinion that all mexican illegals cross the border for economic reasons.

Well now you're explaining it....can you try to explain more? I really have no interest in hearing what some random idiot/racist has to say, I'd rather not click their links/read their books/give them attention unless there was a reason.

I usually charge for teaching school.
If you are unwilling or unable to follow the links and do your own research then there is little more that I am willing to do to disabuse you of your ignorance

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

quote:


Perhaps you might peruse the musings of orville faubus, ross barnett or george wallace.


These are NOT sources- just proof you arent reasoning or using logic in your arguments. You make wild accusations and deductions that aren't supported by anything other than, 3 different authors' "musings"? You cant even mention a book title?

They are not actually "authors".
They are three southern govonors who opposed integration.
It is difficult for me to comprehed anyone who had graduated from high school in the u.s. would not know of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

You sound like someone who chooses to be intentionally ignorant.
I pointed out similarities between two historical events of which you have addmited your ignorance, yet you continue to try to rebut them with with your uninformed opinion.


I don't agree.

Opinions vary

quote:

They're NOT authors, and yet you want to peruse their 'musings'? So someone *else* basically wrote down their musings. Hm ok, so where would those musings be found exactly which mention the argument against integration? Two people so far are waiting for this.

You might consider google

And for the record, I went to a private prep school as well as a college degree and I can not for the life of me remember these guys' names. It's a shame, really, that I'm just *not* as well-versed on paranoia and racism as you... I guess that's just the negative side effect of not being obsessed with it, huh? I'd prefer to learn about better things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

They're NOT authors, and yet you want to peruse their 'musings'? So someone *else* basically wrote down their musings. Hm ok, so where would those musings be found exactly which mention the argument against integration? Two people so far are waiting for this.

You might consider google

And for the record, I went to a private prep school as well as a college degree and I can not for the life of me remember these guys' names. It's a shame, really, that I'm just *not* as well-versed on paranoia and racism as you... I guess that's just the negative side effect of not being obsessed with it, huh? I'd prefer to learn about better things.

It is only the history of my country. If you are not interested then why are you posting in an area which requires at least a modicum of knowledge in that area?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Thursday, today, the hearings began. Sitting on the bench is Judge Susan Bolton. She asked some interesting questions, and made some interesting statements.

quote:

Bolton, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, repeatedly questioned Justice Department attorney Edwin Kneedler to explain how specific provisions of the law intruded on federal authority as he had argued.

"Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered the United States illegally?" she said.

Without prodding from attorneys, the judge also pointed out to lawyers the everyday realities of Arizona's immigration woes, such as signs that the federal government erected in a wilderness area south of Phoenix that warns visitors about drug and immigrant traffickers passing through public lands.

She also noted the immigrant smuggling stash houses that are a fixture on the news in Arizona. "You can barely go a day without a location being found in Phoenix where there are numerous people being harbored," Bolton said.

Kneedler said the law's requirements that law enforcement check on people's immigration status set a mandatory policy that goes beyond what the federal government requires and would burden the federal agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.

Attorney John Bouma, who represents Brewer, said the federal government wants to keep its authority while turning a blind eye to illegal immigrants.

"You can't catch them if you don't know about them. They don't want to know about them," he said.

Brewer said she's confident the state will prevail, adding that Bolton "certainly understands the dangers that Arizonans face in regards to harboring illegals."

During the morning hearing, Bolton told lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union that she's required to consider blocking only parts of the law, not the entire statute as they had requested.

ACLU attorney Omar Jadwat said the law's provisions are supposed to work together to achieve a goal of prodding illegal immigrants to leave the state. He called it unconstitutional and dangerous.

Most of the controversy about the law centers on provisions related to stops and arrests of people, new crimes related to illegal immigrants, and a requirement that immigrants carry and produce their immigration papers.

Other parts of the law getting little attention deal with impoundment of vehicles and sanctions against employment of illegal immigrants.

Bouma told Bolton that those challenging the law haven't demonstrated that anyone would suffer actual harm if it takes effect, and that facts — not conjecture — must be shown.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/22/politics/main6701831.shtml

Am i reading this wrong or does it sound like Bolton already has her mind made up?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: AsmodaisSin

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

I have to applaud Arizona for taking on the government. If the federal government isn't going after these people and is ignoring the sanctuary cities, then someone needs to take a stand. If the US government won't stand up and look out for its people, then the people will do it.

All arizona has to do is enforce the existing federal law( yes, arizona cops can enforce federal law...you know like the one against robbing banks).

Sure.  That's all they have to do.  But is it enough?  If the federal government isn't doing its job, then what do we do?  We force its hand, and that's what AZ did.  Bush didn't do squat, Clinton didn't do squat, Bush Sr. didn't do squat, and Obama's administration is suing the one state that's making a stand.  Interesting...

Had you taken the time to actually acquaint yourself with the two laws in question you would see that the federal law is far more draconian than the state law concerning the employer.
You bemoan the fact that a succession of administrations have not enforced the law. The same is true with the state of arizona it has continually refused to enforce the law.
Why are you against the state of arizona enforcing the existing law? Is it because you know that the federal law has very stiff penalities on employers and the new state law does not?

quote:

Enforcing the existing law would target employers and solve the problem.