McCain Counsels Wrong Sheriff

Politics • Views: 3,635

That John McCain campaign advertisement about the border fence is even more ridiculous than we thought: McCain Counsels the Wrong Sheriff.

The TV ad – shot in the border town of Nogales, Arizona – shows McCain talking with Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu about the need for tougher border security. Nogales is on the Mexican border, but it’s in Santa Cruz County – not Pinal County, which is 115 miles north in central Arizona. Meanwhile, the Santa Cruz County Sheriff who’s job would be to enforce the law in and around Nogales has been quite critical of Arizona’s race-baiting policies, such as the recently passed SB 1070. “Local law enforcement has a great relationship with the Hispanic community,” said Sheriff Antonio Estrada about the new law. “Something like this is really going to scare these people.” McCain strongly supports SB 1070.

The Sheriff of neighboring Pima County (which covers a large swath of Arizona’s border with Mexico) was even more blunt. Calling the law “racist,” “disgusting” and “stupid,” Sheriff Clarence Dupnik has gone so far as to say he will order his deputies not to enforce SB 1070 – even though it subjects such law enforcement to liability if they don’t start racial profiling. Somehow, I doubt Sheriffs Dupnik or Estrada will appear in a McCain campaign ad soon – even if the Senator insists on using Nogales as a backdrop.

(Hat tip: wrenchwench.)

Jump to bottom

469 comments
1 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:12:16am

Whoops!

2 jamesfirecat  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:12:42am

So the guy who McCain talked to had no experience at all at maintaining law and order while living along the boarder?

Clearly John McCain is indeed “One of us!”

3 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:13:01am

McCain unveils new campaign theme music

Youtube Video

4 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:13:40am

McCain is such a sellsoul.

5 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:13:51am

Youtube Video

6 Haole  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:13:56am

Dang!

7 jamesfirecat  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:13:58am

re: #3 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

McCain unveils new campaign theme music


[Video]

No go put it to some clips of McCain getting on and off of the straight talk express and posing with Palin…

8 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:14:46am

For anyone who thinks that more local government is better, this law is terrible. That it opens up local law enforcement to lawsuits if its felt their insufficiently fervent about applying the law is just idiotic.

I do not understand how people can simultaneously say, “if you’re not from Arizona, then butt out!” about this law and simultaneously ignore that many of the law enforcement personnel effected by this think the law is terribly flawed.

9 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:15:31am

Fact-Checking = Lame Political Ad PWNed

How’s that “perfect plan” working for you, Senator?

10 teleskiguy  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:15:31am

Not surprising. McCain never even properly vetted dim-bulb “Africa is a country” Palin.

I’m glad the front line sheriffs along the border have cooler heads than the AZ legislature. Their new law is pretty ridiculous and will result in blatant racial profiling and injustice.

11 wrenchwench  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:18:10am

I think “one of us” means something like “desperate political climber”:

Babeu is the only Republican ever elected to countywide office in Pinal since it was formed in 1875. The Angel* thinks he’s a shoo-in for a climb up the GOP’s Golden Stairs but he vows he’s not interested -- just yet anyway. “I love this job,” he says. “I fought hard to get this opportunity and I enjoy every minute of it, even the difficult minutes.”

That’s from Babeu’s website, but the link he gives goes to a subscription page. *I suspect it was a blog post by “the Angel” at that site.

12 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:20:43am

This seems like a pretty easy mistake to avoid.

What the hell are these people thinking?

13 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:21:35am

re: #12 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

This seems like a pretty easy mistake to avoid.

What the hell are these people thinking?

That they can get away with the same kind of crap they did before the internet came around.

14 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:21:48am

re: #12 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

This seems like a pretty easy mistake to avoid.

What the hell are these people thinking?

That everybody is as stupid as the flacks who advise them, and that the internet doesn’t exist.

15 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:22:26am

re: #12 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

This seems like a pretty easy mistake to avoid.

What the hell are these people thinking?

They weren’t thinking.

16 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:22:58am

re: #13 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

re: #14 Cato the Elder

re: #15 Walter L. Newton

But… But… oh, hell.

17 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:23:21am

Oy.

18 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:23:52am

At this rate, I expect Miner 49er to show up and start attacking the McCain Campaign, and McCain’s concession speech to blame those meddling kids on the internet.

19 Lidane  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:23:55am

A typical McCain campaign staff meeting:

Youtube Video

20 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:24:39am

re: #8 Obdicut

For anyone who thinks that more local government is better, this law is terrible. That it opens up local law enforcement to lawsuits if its felt their insufficiently fervent about applying the law is just idiotic.

I do not understand how people can simultaneously say, “if you’re not from Arizona, then butt out!” about this law and simultaneously ignore that many of the law enforcement personnel effected by this think the law is terribly flawed.

I’ve been saying all along, I think it’s going to be really, really hard on cops.

21 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:25:53am

re: #12 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

This seems like a pretty easy mistake to avoid.

What the hell are these people thinking?

They wanted an Arizona sheriff who would play along, this guy would, plus he looks like a sheriff.

Most people won’t care one way or the other.

22 Jack Burton  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:26:17am

re: #18 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

At this rate, I expect Miner 49er to show up and start attacking the McCain Campaign, and McCain’s concession speech to blame those meddling kids on the internet.

Unfortunately, the meddling kids on the internet wont get a centrist or even center-left Senator in that seat. It’s going to put Nirther Kook Hayworth in it IMO.

23 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:27:31am

re: #22 ArchangelMichael

I don’t see it. But, we’ll see.

24 jamesfirecat  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:27:39am

re: #22 ArchangelMichael

Unfortunately, the meddling kids on the internet wont get a centrist or even center-left Senator in that seat. It’s going to put Nirther Kook Hayworth in it IMO.

Would it be wrong of me to hope that the Nirther kook does something so outrageous that the people of Arizona elect a democratic senator next chance they get/first chance to replace this guy they get?

25 Jadespring  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:28:07am

re: #12 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

This seems like a pretty easy mistake to avoid.

What the hell are these people thinking?

Maybe it went like this.

“I have a great idea for an ad.”

“Yeah awesome lets do it, we need a real sheriff. ”

People go and talk to the actual sheriffs involved. People find out actual sheriffs aren’t super supportive. People move north until they find a sheriff who will play ball properly. People wonder whether people will notice. Other people say no ‘this is a great ad we have to do it.’

Some people say ‘well what if people notice?’ Other people say well if they do I doubt it will make much difference anyways. This is a great ad we HAVE to do it.

The ‘it’s a great ad’ people win!

People notice.

Now we wait and see whether it will make a whole lot of difference and which people were right.

26 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:29:00am

I do have a funny image going through my mind right now.

John McCain wandering back and forth across the Arizona desert, wearing pajamas, telling all the illegals to get the hell off his lawn!

27 Jack Burton  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:29:10am

re: #23 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I don’t see it. But, we’ll see.

If McCain loses in the primary because he doesn’t turn the kook up to 11, can you actually see the democrat candidate winning the general? I don’t even know if there is one even running at this point.

28 wrenchwench  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:31:18am

re: #20 SanFranciscoZionist

I’ve been saying all along, I think it’s going to be really, really hard on cops.

The sheriff of the county to the south of Babeu’s county, Pima, which is on the border, unlike Babeu’s county, agrees with you.

On the other hand, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who I am assuming is something of a master of the “complex and demanding craft of policing” seeing as how he’s been a policeman for over five decades, begs to differ. Per Amanda Terkel, Dupnik called the law “racist” and “disgusting” and “stupid” and, in his “nuanced judgment” could not be enforced without mandatory racial profiling. Dupnik’s reckoning of the legal issue is that he’s just as likely to be sued for racial profiling as he is for not doing enough racial profiling, so he’s standing pat, and will not enforce the new law.

Asked by local news station KGUN9 what he thought the solution to the law was, Dupnik replied, “The November election.”

29 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:31:20am

re: #26 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I do have a funny image going through my mind right now.

John McCain wandering back and forth across the Arizona desert, wearing pajamas, telling all the illegals to get the hell off his lawn!

“I found another one of those flaming bags again!”

30 darthstar  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:34:15am

John McCain wants to protect Arizona from the Mexican invasion, but he doesn’t want to get within 100 miles of it himself.

31 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:34:42am

For every minute you are angry, you lose sixty seconds of happiness.

Just saw that, slow thread… thought I’d share.

32 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:35:53am

re: #29 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I see a touching ending where he’s rescued from dehydration after chasing a mirage of his lost integrity down into a canyon. He’s rescued, of course, by a family of illegal aliens who turn out to be his long-lost cousins, and learns valuable lessons about life, laughter— and love.

33 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:36:13am

re: #31 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

For every minute you are angry, you lose sixty seconds of happiness.

Just saw that, slow thread… thought I’d share.

But some people enjoy the feel of the red rage overtaking them.

34 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:37:16am

re: #33 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I had just responded to that facebook post with, “But some people aren’t happy unless they are angry.”

35 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:37:56am

re: #32 Obdicut

I see a touching ending where he’s rescued from dehydration after chasing a mirage of his lost integrity down into a canyon. He’s rescued, of course, by a family of illegal aliens who turn out to be his long-lost cousins, and learns valuable lessons about life, laughter— and love.

The musical rap off between him and the evil coyote played by George Lopez will be a family fun moment for years to come.

36 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:38:23am

re: #32 Obdicut

I see a touching ending where he’s rescued from dehydration after chasing a mirage of his lost integrity down into a canyon. He’s rescued, of course, by a family of illegal aliens who turn out to be his long-lost cousins, and learns valuable lessons about life, laughter— and love.

Is he still wearing his pajamas at this point?

37 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:38:28am

McCain is trying to get himself re-elected in a very politically conservative state. He feels that he has no choice, just as he felt he had no choice but to take on Sarah Palin as his running mate.

I

38 lostlakehiker  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:39:26am

re: #8 Obdicut

For anyone who thinks that more local government is better, this law is terrible. That it opens up local law enforcement to lawsuits if its felt their insufficiently fervent about applying the law is just idiotic.

I do not understand how people can simultaneously say, “if you’re not from Arizona, then butt out!” about this law and simultaneously ignore that many of the law enforcement personnel effected by this think the law is terribly flawed.

Local law enforcement has to answer to federal law. Why should it not have to answer to state law? A thinly populated county right down on the border may find that it’s much easier to just look aside and let the traffic through.

And what is that traffic like? It’s a mix of people with hope of a better future, coming here to do jobs Americans would also take (the recession has not gone away), of people coming here with hopes of selling drugs, and of people working to help the first two categories get past state and federal law enforcement. Categories II and III are often armed and dangerous. Category III is largely responsible for the wave of kidnappings; they mean to be paid for their work in getting Category I in, and if the migrant cannot make good on his installment payments, Cat III has its ways to remind him of his debt.

Category II fights it out with the law whenever it thinks fighting stands a chance.

We don’t actually need a fresh infusion of Cat I illegal immigrants, and if we did, we could increase the legal immigration quotas and meet that need through channels. As to Cat II and Cat III, they’re bad actors and they’re responsible for all manner of felonies on top of the criminal purpose that brings them here.

Almost every nation in the world has borders and controls immigration. In most of the world, enforcement is strict. Mexico has an illegal immigration problem and their answer is unprintable. The rules of the blog forbid spelling out how they treat Guatemalans caught trespassing.

It isn’t wicked to have borders and set limits on how many new citizens we’ll take and which ones. The people who say this law is wrong-headed aren’t faced with the consequences of wide-open borders right across from a region of Mexico where disputes are settled with guns, the police are sometimes just another gang, and honest politicians and journalists are marked men.

39 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:39:44am

MMMM, left over Prime rib with au jus and some wild rice. Brought in some fresh horseradish too. Yum

40 MrSilverDragon  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:39:55am

re: #31 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

For every minute you are angry, you lose sixty seconds of happiness.

Just saw that, slow thread… thought I’d share.

But, for every minute you prevent yourself from feeling anger (when it’s wholly appropriate), you build up tension to the point of exploding with rage and end up throwing your remote into your new flat screen and toss a chair out the window in abject frustration… or maybe that’s just me.

(sleep deprivation, it’s… zzzz…..)

41 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:40:07am

re: #36 SanFranciscoZionist

Is he still wearing his pajamas at this point?

A serape over pajamas. There may or may not be mescaline involved depending on whether this is made-for-TV, HBO, or a full production movie. David Morse is said* to be interested in the role.

*by me.

42 Stanley Sea  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:40:15am

Awesome this is posted! I saw wrenchwench’s link this a.m.

What a crock!

43 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:40:55am

Maybe if we put up signs that simply said, “Canada” on them, it would foil some of the illegals. Who wants to live there.
/

44 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:40:57am

re: #38 lostlakehiker

Local law enforcement has to answer to federal law. Why should it not have to answer to state law?

You missed the point of my post.

I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of those who insist that local government is better and more responsive, and then ignore the input of local law enforcement about this law.

45 Jadespring  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:41:20am

re: #43 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Maybe if we put up signs that simply said, “Canada” on them, it would foil some of the illegals. Who wants to live there.
/

Oy! :)

46 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:41:44am

re: #14 Cato the Elder

That everybody is as stupid as the flacks who advise them, and that the internet doesn’t exist.

That’s the hell of the thing: John McCain is actually one of the more technically astute senators. He understands a good bit about the internet, but has apparently forgotten the need to can campaign staff when they propose lame stunts liable to backfire.

47 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:41:51am

re: #45 Jadespring

*snicker*

48 SpaceJesus  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:42:55am

i kind of wish mccain’s daughter would run against him

49 Political Atheist  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:43:04am

re: #46 Dark_Falcon

That’s the hell of the thing: John McCain is actually one of the more technically astute senators. He understands a good bit about the internet, but has apparently forgotten the need to can campaign staff when they propose lame stunts liable to backfire.

He was. Honestly his mind is slipping. It’s past time to retire.

50 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:43:06am

re: #41 Obdicut

A serape over pajamas. There may or may not be mescaline involved depending on whether this is made-for-TV, HBO, or a full production movie. David Morse is said* to be interested in the role.

*by me.

They can get Sarah Palin to play the Militia member to be searching the desert looking for him, who gets into even more wacky hijinks on her own.

51 Summer Seale  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:44:00am

I’m just disappointed that McCain didn’t tell the tea partiers where to stick it, come what may in the election. If he loses - fine. He’s got hundreds of millions in his bank account. He doesn’t need the office. He can serve in many other ways if that’s what he wants. He’s been a Senator for donkey’s years and if he can’t deal with the fact that the GOP has turned on him ages ago, and has gone completely insane, then that’s too bad. He’s thrown away everything he used to stand for since years before. It started with Palin and he’s gone downhill ever since.

Now he’ll only be remembered as the guy who lost it all and threw everything away - including his principles, which is what he was best known for. Even if he wins this election, he’ll have lost everything. He of all people should have realized that he could have lost with honor to a madman when that election is being overtaken by insane people. That isn’t his fault. But throwing it away is his fault.

52 Randy W. Weeks  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:44:26am

Does being a Senator mean so much to this guy that he’s quit caring about his integrity?

(I don’t believe for a second that this was any kind of a mistake.)

Sad.

53 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:45:04am

re: #50 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

They can get Sarah Palin to play the Militia member to be searching the desert looking for him, who gets into even more wacky hijinks on her own.

Brilliant! Spit-shake on a 50/50 share of all writers proceeds, and I’ll get on the horn to the President of Entertainment so we can make this a reality.

54 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:45:12am

re: #52 LoneStarSpur

Oh, not a mistake at all.

They just didn’t think we’d notice.

55 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:46:34am

A typical day in the life of an Arizona police officer

Youtube Video

56 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:46:42am

re: #53 Obdicut

Brilliant! Spit-shake on a 50/50 share of all writers proceeds, and I’ll get on the horn to the President of Entertainment so we can make this a reality.

Play this right and we can get a spin off series!

57 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:47:44am

It saddens me to see McCain go out in a blaze of shameful pandering like this.

Then again, I was considering a vote for him in 2008 - until he picked Palin.

Question is, has he always been this big of an opportunistic slug, or was there once something more than a label like “maverick” to back his rep for integrity?

58 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:48:12am

Out like a fat kid at dodgeball.

59 Guanxi88  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:48:38am

Afternoon, honcos and colleagues!

Glad to see Senator McCain’s on the case, ready to do whatever it is he seems to think he needs to be seen doing to keep his current gig.

60 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:50:14am

re: #43 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Maybe if we put up signs that simply said, “Canada” on them, it would foil some of the illegals. Who wants to live there.
/

What are you talking aboot?

61 Jadespring  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:50:16am

re: #57 Cato the Elder

It saddens me to see McCain go out in a blaze of shameful pandering like this.

Then again, I was considering a vote for him in 2008 - until he picked Palin.

Question is, has he always been this big of an opportunistic slug, or was there once something more than a label like “maverick” to back his rep for integrity?

I would like to think he wasn’t always like this but that may be more my own wishful bias playing into it because if he was that means I was naive enough not to have seen through the act before.

62 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:51:09am

re: #53 Obdicut

Brilliant! Spit-shake on a 50/50 share of all writers proceeds, and I’ll get on the horn to the President of Entertainment so we can make this a reality.

i don’t like writing but i can act. i’d like to audition for the role of wacky desperado #2…

63 Guanxi88  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:51:17am

re: #57 Cato the Elder

It saddens me to see McCain go out in a blaze of shameful pandering like this.

Then again, I was considering a vote for him in 2008 - until he picked Palin.

Question is, has he always been this big of an opportunistic slug, or was there once something more than a label like “maverick” to back his rep for integrity?

Hell, even heroes have feet of clay, it would seem. Nothing sadder than to see the decline of an otherwise good man in so public a way.

64 Guanxi88  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:51:47am

re: #62 Aceofwhat?

i don’t like writing but i can act. i’d like to audition for the role of wacky desperado #2…

Jefe, what is a plethora?

65 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:51:48am

Time to join Bob Dole in his quest to keep WWII veterans standing at attention.

Youtube Video

66 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:51:51am

re: #63 Guanxi88

Hell, even heroes have feet of clay, it would seem. Nothing sadder than to see the decline of an otherwise good man in so public a way.

I hear John Wayne was kind’ve a wus in real life.

67 Guanxi88  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:52:10am

re: #66 cliffster

I hear John Wayne was kind’ve a wus in real life.

Now you take that back!

68 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:52:37am

re: #60 Mad Al-Jaffee

What are you talking aboot?


Catch that hoser and throw ‘em back over to his side of the moose ‘eh?.

69 Guanxi88  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:52:54am

re: #66 cliffster

I hear John Wayne was kind’ve a wus in real life.

re: #67 Guanxi88

Now you take that back!

Man overcame stuttering, about as difficult and painful a speech handicap as can be imagined, and din’t make a big deal of it. Hell, my kid brother still struggles with it, even though he adopted the Duke’s trick to get around it.

70 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:52:56am

re: #67 Guanxi88

Now you take that back!

Don’t you mean.. Now you take that back, pilgrim?

71 ausador  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:53:04am

re: #1 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Whoops!

No whoops involved, they shopped for the one who would agree with him quite obviously. You really think the Sheriff didn’t ask them why he had to appear in another county to do the commercial?

I would imagine it was because the producer of the commercial wanted that section of the uncompleted “fence” to be in the commercial. Nothing more or less than that…

72 Stanley Sea  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:53:29am

re: #57 Cato the Elder

It saddens me to see McCain go out in a blaze of shameful pandering like this.

Then again, I was considering a vote for him in 2008 - until he picked Palin.

Question is, has he always been this big of an opportunistic slug, or was there once something more than a label like “maverick” to back his rep for integrity?

I always think of the concession speech he gave on election night, I thought it was so good. Finding out later that he was booed a little by the people there wasn’t cool. But it kind of took me back to what I thought he was before 2008.

73 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:54:00am

re: #69 Guanxi88

Man overcame stuttering, about as difficult and painful a speech handicap as can be imagined, and din’t make a big deal of it. Hell, my kid brother still struggles with it, even though he adopted the Duke’s trick to get around it.

Really? Well that’s certainly a big deal.

74 Jack Burton  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:54:33am

re: #66 cliffster

I hear John Wayne was kind’ve a wus in real life.

“Fuck it! Do it all I say! Do you think Duke Wayne spent all of his time talking about his feelings with a fuckin’ therapist? There’s no fucking way he did! John Wayne died with five pounds of undigested red meat in his ass. Now that’s a man!”

/

75 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:54:44am

re: #50 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

They can get Sarah Palin to play the Militia member to be searching the desert looking for him, who gets into even more wacky hijinks on her own.

Good idea but we need to find a way to get Palin down to a bikini for part of the movie to boost the appeal to young males. And if we can get Senator McCain’s daughter “comforted” by a hot girl while waiting on the outcome of the search, that’s even better.

/

76 badger1970  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:55:32am

re: #74 ArchangelMichael

Boondock Saints?

77 Jack Burton  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:55:54am

re: #76 badger1970

Boondock Saints?

BS 2

78 Political Atheist  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:56:23am

OT
Ojoe has his Mt Wilson cam. I would add one more sanity / beauty break. Live from the ISS, our beautiful blue marble we call home.

79 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:56:41am

re: #66 cliffster

I hear John Wayne was kind’ve a wus in real life.

“John Wayne was a fag…He was too, you boys. I installed two way mirrors in his pad in Brentwood, and he’d come to the door in a dress.”

-Miller, Repo Man

80 MrSilverDragon  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:58:01am

Well folks, short day for me. Off to an Irish pub for a few Guinesses (Guinii?) and then to see Iron Man 2. Hope y’all have a fantastic evening!

81 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:58:22am

I’m not as worried about Mexicans as I am LSU fans. Do you have any idea how many of “those people” surged over the Louisiana border after Katrina. They took up residence in the Weekly Stay Lodge downtown and never left. Hell they even got the Piggly Wiggly to stock anduille sausage in the freezer section. It was a cajun diaspora, I tell you what. //

82 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:58:23am

re: #64 Guanxi88

Jefe, what is a plethora?

Forgive me, El Guapo. I know that I, Jefe, do not have your superior intellect and education…

83 tradewind  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:58:28am

Sorry to see that McCain got it wrong. But it’s good to know that San Francisco’s premier alternative website is on location in AZ. Things must be pretty calm in CA.

84 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:59:08am

re: #75 Dark_Falcon

Good idea but we need to find a way to get Palin down to a bikini for part of the movie to boost the appeal to young males. And if we can get Senator McCain’s daughter “comforted” by a hot girl while waiting on the outcome of the search, that’s even better.

/

I’m thinking someone asking if she can give them a ride, to which she anwsers “You betcha!” and gives a knowing wink! (cue laugh track) She then proceeds to take a wrong turn, fails to read a sign written in Spanish and ends up driving into a swimming pool. Wackiness ensues at the wet t-shirt contest which follows.

85 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:59:14am

re: #74 ArchangelMichael

“Fuck it! Do it all I say! Do you think Duke Wayne spent all of his time talking about his feelings with a fuckin’ therapist? There’s no fucking way he did! John Wayne died with five pounds of undigested red meat in his ass. Now that’s a man!”

/


“Here he comes. Here comes John Wayne. I’m not gonna cry about my pa. I’m gonna buy an airport, put my name on it. Why, Michael? So you can fly away from your feelings?”

-Tobias Funke

86 Guanxi88  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:59:20am

re: #82 Aceofwhat?

Forgive me, El Guapo. I know that I, Jefe, do not have your superior intellect and education…

…but could it be that something else is bothering you, and you are looking to take it out on me?

87 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:59:29am

re: #81 DaddyG

I’m not as worried about Mexicans as I am LSU fans. Do you have any idea how many of “those people” surged over the Louisiana border after Katrina. They took up residence in the Weekly Stay Lodge downtown and never left. Hell they even got the Piggly Wiggly to stock anduille sausage in the freezer section. It was a cajun diaspora, I tell you what. //

And that was after JaMarcus Russel got there. You should’ve seen it before.

88 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:00:05pm

re: #84 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Wackiness ensues at the wet t-shirt contest which follows.

At their heart all threads are boob threads.

89 ausador  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:01:12pm

re: #57 Cato the Elder

It saddens me to see McCain go out in a blaze of shameful pandering like this.

Then again, I was considering a vote for him in 2008 - until he picked Palin.

Question is, has he always been this big of an opportunistic slug, or was there once something more than a label like “maverick” to back his rep for integrity?

McCain is NOT a maverick, never called himself a maverick, never even heard of the word maverick!

That is all just the liebural media making things up to damage him in his chances for re-election. Shame on the lieburals for denigrating such a selfless patriot who has never ever agreed or worked with the evil commie democrats on anything ever!

90 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:02:30pm

re: #82 Aceofwhat?

Forgive me, El Guapo. I know that I, Jefe, do not have your superior intellect and education…

You son of a motherless goat!

91 dugmartsch  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:02:36pm

re: #26 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I do have a funny image going through my mind right now.

John McCain wandering back and forth across the Arizona desert, wearing pajamas, telling all the illegals to get the hell off his lawn!

Lol at lawns in arizona. Someone forgot to tell them that we won the revolutionary war and lawns in a climate like theirs are just fucking dumb.

92 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:03:01pm

re: #84 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I’m thinking someone asking if she can give them a ride, to which she anwsers “You betcha!” and gives a knowing wink! (cue laugh track) She then proceeds to take a wrong turn, fails to read a sign written in Spanish and ends up driving into a swimming pool. Wackiness ensues at the wet t-shirt contest which follows.

Works for me.

93 dugmartsch  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:03:12pm

re: #57 Cato the Elder

It saddens me to see McCain go out in a blaze of shameful pandering like this.

Then again, I was considering a vote for him in 2008 - until he picked Palin.

Question is, has he always been this big of an opportunistic slug, or was there once something more than a label like “maverick” to back his rep for integrity?

Keating 5 was no fluke.

94 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:03:58pm

re: #85 Mad Al-Jaffee

“Here he comes. Here comes John Wayne. I’m not gonna cry about my pa. I’m gonna buy an airport, put my name on it. Why, Michael? So you can fly away from your feelings?”

-Tobias Funke

Excuse me, do these effectively hide my thunder?

95 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:04:32pm

re: #90 Mad Al-Jaffee

You son of a motherless goat!

are gringos falling from the sky?

96 wrenchwench  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:05:05pm

I haven’t found a connection between Babeu and the Oathkeepers. I found an Oathkeeper fan site that is also a Babeu fan site. They show a Fox News bit in which Babeu is interviewed before Brewer signed SB 1070. While he’s talking, they show footage of people coming over the fence, then they show footage of violence in Mexico, some of which is from Culiacan—not a border state. And the site I linked says “almost one in five illegal aliens have criminal records.” Using their own figure, it’s exactly one in six. Why say “almost one in five”? Fits the narative better. Same reason McCain spoke with Babeu and not Sheriff Dupnik.

97 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:05:32pm

re: #91 dugmartsch

Lol at lawns in arizona. Someone forgot to tell them that we won the revolutionary war and lawns in a climate like theirs are just fucking dumb.

If ten percent of the useless lawns in America were converted to rock gardens, we could stop AGW right in its tracks!

98 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:06:12pm

“almost one in five illegal aliens have criminal records.”

…the other 4.7 haven’t been caught yet.

/couldn’t resist

99 dugmartsch  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:06:28pm

re: #20 SanFranciscoZionist

I’ve been saying all along, I think it’s going to be really, really hard on cops.

I could understand if they were simply trying to make things like this not happen:
en.wikipedia.org

If you’ve got a felony charge/conviction and you’re in the country illegally, then you shouldn’t be in the country anymore. If you’re up for charges of a violent crime, same.

If a cop spots you walking down the street a little funny and thinks he needs to figure out if you’re a legal resident or not, that’s too far.

Put me in the camp that is always in favor of giving the cops less work to do.

100 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:06:35pm

re: #44 Obdicut

You missed the point of my post.

I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of those who insist that local government is better and more responsive, and then ignore the input of local law enforcement about this law.

Not to mention those who keep insisting that no one outside the state can understand, but overlook the input of sheriffs working on the border, who probably know best what the impact of this will be on their day to day operations.

101 Guanxi88  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:06:44pm

re: #95 Aceofwhat?

are gringos falling from the sky?

Si, El Guapo.

102 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:06:54pm

re: #97 Cato the Elder

If ten percent of the useless lawns in America were converted to rock gardens, we could stop AGW right in its tracks!


I keep telling my wife that. She keeps telling me “nice try, now go mow the grass.”

103 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:07:58pm

re: #95 Aceofwhat?

are gringos falling from the sky?

I think thats a mail plane.

104 lawhawk  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:08:06pm

re: #78 Rightwingconspirator

Nice. How about Old Faithful.

105 tradewind  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:08:12pm

re: #98 DaddyG
The jaw dropper was the crawl under a newscast ’ trying to criminalize being an illegal alien ‘…. or words to that effect.

106 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:08:16pm

re: #99 dugmartsch

If a cop spots you walking down the street a little funny and thinks he needs to figure out if you’re a legal resident or not, that’s too far.

The Arizona law doesn’t do that, so you should be quite happy.

107 wrenchwench  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:08:22pm

re: #38 lostlakehiker

… The people who say this law is wrong-headed aren’t faced with the consequences of wide-open borders right across from a region of Mexico where disputes are settled with guns, the police are sometimes just another gang, and honest politicians and journalists are marked men.

Some of them are. Sheriffs Estrada and Dupnik, quoted at the top, for two. The two whose jurisdictions ARE on the border, unlike Babeu’s.

108 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:09:08pm

re: #96 wrenchwench

And the site I linked says “almost one in five illegal aliens have criminal records.” Using their own figure, it’s exactly one in six. Why say “almost one in five”? Fits the narative better. Same reason McCain spoke with Babeu and not Sheriff Dupnik.

A criminal record can be almost anything. Given the things most people get up to before the age of 25, I doubt the numbers are much lower for Reel Merkins.

109 Slap  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:09:09pm

re: #57 Cato the Elder
John McCain Family Album

110 dugmartsch  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:09:56pm

re: #106 cliffster

The Arizona law doesn’t do that, so you should be quite happy.

After a huge backlash.

111 Guanxi88  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:10:18pm

re: #103 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I think thats a mail plane.

How can you tell?

112 Jadespring  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:10:23pm

re: #102 DaddyG

I keep telling my wife that. She keeps telling me “nice try, now go mow the grass.”

In my area, converting lawn into ‘no mow’ something or other landscapes is becoming quite the thing. So much so, that it’s actually becoming a selling point in real estate ads. I had a agent tell me that I’d likely get my house to a higher value if I get rid of a large part of my lawn.

113 pingjockey  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:11:04pm

All I know is, that if we let the illegals in and give them amnesty, what does that say to the thousands from other countries who are waiting in line and going through all the hoops legally? Sorry, you played by the rules, you lose?

114 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:11:22pm

re: #91 dugmartsch

Lol at lawns in arizona. Someone forgot to tell them that we won the revolutionary war and lawns in a climate like theirs are just fucking dumb.

Xeriscaping is the way to go.

115 pingjockey  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:12:01pm

re: #114 SanFranciscoZionist
Starting to more of that here in eastern WA.

116 Slap  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:12:03pm

re: #114 SanFranciscoZionist

True for anywhere.

117 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:12:10pm

re: #110 dugmartsch

After a huge backlash.

Ah, so you agree that you were just spouting misinformation. Nice. And no, from day one, the law did not do that. You probably knew that too.

118 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:12:19pm

re: #111 Guanxi88

How can you tell?

The 2 little balls.

119 tradewind  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:12:24pm

re: #93 dugmartsch
John McCain’s involvement in Keating is comparable to Barack Obama’s involvement in Tony Rezko’s money laundering….. they both met with the convicted crook (s) in question .
Doesn’t make either one of them a crook.

120 Guanxi88  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:12:38pm

re: #102 DaddyG

I keep telling my wife that. She keeps telling me “nice try, now go mow the grass.”

Ha! Pa, my hard-boiled maternal grandfather, was xeriscaping in freakin’ Ohio back in the ‘60’s.

“I am sick to death of this goddamned lawn,” he said one day. Next day, he’s got a masonry company delivering several tons of fine sand and an equal volume of crushed slag aggregate; covered the lawn a good 6 inches deep in the stuff.

Sold his lawnmower and never had a single regret.

121 dugmartsch  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:12:42pm

re: #106 cliffster

The Arizona law doesn’t do that, so you should be quite happy.

122 Guanxi88  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:13:14pm

re: #118 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

The 2 little balls.

What’s tequila?

It’s like beer.

123 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:13:14pm

We have an interesting case here in Georgia where a university President stepped in an lobbied for an honor student to be allowed to stay and complete her degree even though she was caught here illegally and under an false address. She had been here since she was 7 years old.

ICE made the call to allow her to finish her degree. (I think that was compassionate and correct) but a state Senator and Gubernatorial candidate is being castigated in the press for expressing the opinion that the Board of Regents should insist on proof of citizenship for admissions.

Compared to Mexico requiring students from the US have proof that they will be receiving at least $300 US per month for their support in order to get a visa I’m not sure that’s unreasonable.

That requirement should be paired with a generous student visa policy as long as students are qualified. They should also be required to pay out of state tuition.

124 lawhawk  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:13:17pm

re: #112 Jadespring

Xeriscaping is a big deal no matter where you are, but especially in drought-prone areas. Switching from lawns to natural settings is appropriate, cost effective, and makes good sense. It can even look good. It starts with picking plants that are native to your location, rather than foreign plants that are usually far more thirsty. I’ve taken to reducing my lawn size and expanding my planting beds because of shade and it reduces the amount of fertilizer and water it needs once the plants are settled in.

125 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:13:41pm

re: #99 dugmartsch

I could understand if they were simply trying to make things like this not happen:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

If you’ve got a felony charge/conviction and you’re in the country illegally, then you shouldn’t be in the country anymore. If you’re up for charges of a violent crime, same.

Now, what happens when someone is charged with an armed robbery, say, and we deport him? Now we’ve got a guy who does armed robbery, and he’s probably coming across the border again.

I hate to warehouse criminals for Mexico, but it may be in our best interest.

126 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:14:08pm

re: #106 cliffster

The Arizona law doesn’t do that, so you should be quite happy.

Agreed. It originally would have done that, but it has been amended so it now does not.

127 Mark Pennington  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:14:17pm

re: #11 wrenchwench

I think “one of us” means something like “desperate political climber”:

That’s from Babeu’s website, but the link he gives goes to a subscription page. *I suspect it was a blog post by “the Angel” at that site.

Have no fear, wrenchwench is on the case!

128 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:14:24pm

re: #125 SanFranciscoZionist

oh, that pesky law of unintended consequences.

129 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:14:55pm

re: #126 Dark_Falcon

Agreed. It originally would have done that, but it has been amended so it now does not.

No, it would not have done that. It’s been clarified perhaps, but it would not have done that.

130 tradewind  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:15:29pm

re: #125 SanFranciscoZionist
Not if he’s sent straight to a Mexican jail.
That ought to be part of the deal.

131 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:15:46pm

re: #124 lawhawk

Xeriscaping is a big deal no matter where you are, but especially in drought-prone areas. Switching from lawns to natural settings is appropriate, cost effective, and makes good sense. It can even look good. It starts with picking plants that are native to your location, rather than foreign plants that are usually far more thirsty. I’ve taken to reducing my lawn size and expanding my planting beds because of shade and it reduces the amount of fertilizer and water it needs once the plants are settled in.

I moved to Arizona from the Midwest, but I never felt the urge to move the Midwest to Arizona. But lots of folks who go there want 300 days of sunshine a year and lush lawns.

132 Guanxi88  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:16:34pm

re: #124 lawhawk

Xeriscaping is a big deal no matter where you are, but especially in drought-prone areas. Switching from lawns to natural settings is appropriate, cost effective, and makes good sense. It can even look good. It starts with picking plants that are native to your location, rather than foreign plants that are usually far more thirsty. I’ve taken to reducing my lawn size and expanding my planting beds because of shade and it reduces the amount of fertilizer and water it needs once the plants are settled in.

If I could just get SWMBO to see it my way, I’d convert the massive acreage of our current estate (0.064 acres, per the survey) over to tobacco, and the damned thing would pay for itself in no time.

133 Political Atheist  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:16:48pm

re: #104 lawhawk

I like it. If I can just have it up at THE moment…

134 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:16:56pm

re: #128 cliffster

oh, that pesky law of unintended consequences.

Exactly what does that mean in this context?

135 Stanley Sea  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:16:59pm

Breaking news from twitter

Update: Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, son of the vice president, suffered a ‘mild stroke’ - White House

damn. He’s 41 I think.

136 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:17:10pm

This is a lawn.

This is a pain in the balls.

137 Jack Burton  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:17:13pm

re: #122 Guanxi88

What’s tequila?

It’s like beer.

El Guapo, I know that I, Jefe, do not have your superior intellect and education, but could it be that once again, you are angry at something else, and are looking to take it out on me?

138 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:17:41pm

re: #130 tradewind

Not if he’s sent straight to a Mexican jail.
That ought to be part of the deal.

You have more faith in the Mexican penal system than I do, but OK. I assume we still need to try here.

139 Nimed  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:18:22pm

re: #51 Summer
re: #57 Cato the Elder

Question is, has he always been this big of an opportunistic slug, or was there once something more than a label like “maverick” to back his rep for integrity?

You should watch this Daily Show 2006 clip.
Comedy Central Video

Senator John McCain began his week by embracing the Rev. Jerry Falwell, the conservative religious leader he once denounced as polarizing. He ended it by joining Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the liberal Massachusetts icon, in a fight for an immigration bill opposed by many conservatives.(…)
“You’re killing me here,” Jon Stewart, host of “The Daily Show” on Comedy Central, said after introducing Mr. McCain as one of his favorite guests earlier this week. “You’re not freaking out on us — are you going into crazy-base world?”
After the reference to his appeal to the party’s conservative base, a laughing Mr. McCain responded, “I’m afraid so.”

This is not a recent change of heart. McCain learned his lesson back in 2000.

140 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:18:45pm

re: #134 SanFranciscoZionist

Exactly what does that mean in this context?

It means, we’ve got this rascally criminal here in shackles, let’s ship his ass to Mexico. Oops, he’s back here. And not in shackles. And we don’t know he’s here.

141 dugmartsch  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:18:56pm

re: #117 cliffster

Ah, so you agree that you were just spouting misinformation. Nice. And no, from day one, the law did not do that. You probably knew that too.

Laws are subject to interpretation and are implemented by human beings. What the law will or won’t do is a matter open to interpretation where reasonable people can disagree. Assuming that neither of us is omniscient, this is one of those areas.

But what’s up with the tone, buddy?

142 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:19:11pm

In a way, each of us has an El Guapo to face. For some, shyness might be their El Guapo. For others, a lack of education might be their El Guapo. For us, El Guapo is a big, dangerous man who wants to kill us.

143 Guanxi88  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:19:24pm

re: #135 Stanley Sea

Breaking news from twitter

damn. He’s 41 I think.

Guy in my office, late 30’s, had a stroke about a week ago. When I heard he was in the hospital, I thought he fell off a bar stool or something. Every guy here went in to have his BP, etc., checked that same week.

144 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:19:41pm

re: #114 SanFranciscoZionist

Xeriscaping is the way to go.

I allow anything to grow that doesn’t require watering after the first year and doesn’t have large thorns. A few roses are the exception on the thorn rule. Fortunately in most years North Georgia sustains some really nice hardwoods, shrubs and flowers. As they grow I extend their rock walled beds to incorporate their roots. They love mulch.

We placed a few small rock waterfalls in a drainage creek and it holds enough water for me to lower a watering can for our vegitable garden.

All in all I’m not a real environmentalist as much as I love gardens but I’m also cheap. If I can avoid watering beyond establishing root systems I’m very happy.

145 Jadespring  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:20:03pm

re: #124 lawhawk

Xeriscaping is a big deal no matter where you are, but especially in drought-prone areas. Switching from lawns to natural settings is appropriate, cost effective, and makes good sense. It can even look good. It starts with picking plants that are native to your location, rather than foreign plants that are usually far more thirsty. I’ve taken to reducing my lawn size and expanding my planting beds because of shade and it reduces the amount of fertilizer and water it needs once the plants are settled in.

Yeah I agree. I’m slowly converting anyway for many of those same reasons. I even have a couple of nursery beds where I’m growing plants and shrubs from plants I already have in order to save some money. My front lawn is half and acre!

What I find interesting and neat is that this trend is finally hitting the marketplace in the ads around here. I like to see things changing this way. From a purely selfish perspective since there’s now a strong possibility I will be selling this place within the next couple of years having the time and money spent on something I’m doing anyway, see a return on the investment is also quite pleasing.

146 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:20:08pm

re: #140 cliffster

It means, we’ve got this rascally criminal here in shackles, let’s ship his ass to Mexico. Oops, he’s back here. And not in shackles. And we don’t know he’s here.

One of the many reasons we’ve tried to try and incarcerate here—leading, of course, to people bitching about how many illegally-here dudes there are in California prisons.

147 pingjockey  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:20:11pm

re: #138 SanFranciscoZionist
The navy housed a bunch of illegals who were convicted in California courts at the Miramar Naval Air station brig. They had a huge riot and damn near burned the place down. IIRC, the brig doesn’t house any criminals now except military ones.

148 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:20:37pm

re: #112 Jadespring

In my area, converting lawn into ‘no mow’ something or other landscapes is becoming quite the thing. So much so, that it’s actually becoming a selling point in real estate ads. I had a agent tell me that I’d likely get my house to a higher value if I get rid of a large part of my lawn.

wait - how is that not awesome again? (other than spending less time on the new riding lawnmower;)

149 Jack Burton  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:20:55pm

re: #142 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

In a way, each of us has an El Guapo to face. For some, shyness might be their El Guapo. For others, a lack of education might be their El Guapo. For us, El Guapo is a big, dangerous man who wants to kill us.

But as sure as my name is Lucky Day, the people of Santa Poco can conquer their own personal El Guapo, who also happens to be the actual El Guapo!

150 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:21:27pm

re: #142 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

In a way, each of us has an El Guapo to face. For some, shyness might be their El Guapo. For others, a lack of education might be their El Guapo. For us, El Guapo is a big, dangerous man who wants to kill us.

“Which one do you like?”

“I like the one who’s not so smart.”

“…Which one is that?”

151 lawhawk  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:21:36pm

re: #133 Rightwingconspirator

Well, it does provide a timing for the next eruption of the geyer, +/- 10 minutes, so there is that (provided you translate the time to your local time).

152 Jadespring  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:21:42pm

re: #148 Aceofwhat?

wait - how is that not awesome again? (other than spending less time on the new riding lawnmower;)

It is awesome!

153 Guanxi88  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:22:00pm

re: #149 ArchangelMichael

re: #150 Aceofwhat?

“lips would be fine.”
(One of the 10 best lines in a film that is nothing but great lines.)

154 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:22:34pm

re: #120 Guanxi88

Harry Crews said something like, “Two things I will never do is wash a car or mow a lawn.”

155 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:22:41pm

Most misleading online advertising campaign ever: Evony

Ah, I miss the boobs sometimes.

156 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:22:42pm

re: #146 SanFranciscoZionist

One of the many reasons we’ve tried to try and incarcerate here—leading, of course, to people bitching about how many illegally-here dudes there are in California prisons.

FINALLY a good occasion to start microchipping in some no-no-happy-places!!

157 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:22:58pm

re: #146 SanFranciscoZionist

One of the many reasons we’ve tried to try and incarcerate here—leading, of course, to people bitching about how many illegally-here dudes there are in California prisons.

Perhaps if we left it at three squares a day, and got rid of the weight rooms, law libraries, and flat-panel tv’s, then that would keep the cost low enough to stop the bitching ;)

158 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:23:15pm

re: #154 Mad Al-Jaffee

Harry Crews said something like, “Two things I will never do is wash a car or mow a lawn.”

That’s what illegals are for, after all.

159 pingjockey  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:24:08pm

re: #158 Cato the Elder

Teenagers!

160 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:24:16pm

re: #143 Guanxi88

Guy in my office, late 30’s, had a stroke about a week ago. When I heard he was in the hospital, I thought he fell off a bar stool or something. Every guy here went in to have his BP, etc., checked that same week.


As much as it is a pain it is a good idea. I’ve had an annual due to my boys Scout Camp each year and my doc takes the occasion to really go for it. Appearantly I have a healthy smooth prostate. Yippee!

161 Guanxi88  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:24:23pm

re: #158 Cato the Elder

That’s what illegals are for, after all.

Damned helot class in our midst; we should be ashamed, but are long since past all shame.

162 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:25:16pm

re: #141 dugmartsch

Laws are subject to interpretation and are implemented by human beings. What the law will or won’t do is a matter open to interpretation where reasonable people can disagree. Assuming that neither of us is omniscient, this is one of those areas.

But what’s up with the tone, buddy?

Tone? Spreading of lies is annoying. For example, when Obama said in a speech earlier today that mothers and their kids will get stopped and harrassed on their way to the grocery store in Arizona because of the new law. That is a complete lie, and he knows it, and definitely higher on shamelessness scale than this McCain stuff.

163 pingjockey  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:26:00pm

Lunch, BBIAB.

164 dugmartsch  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:26:13pm

re: #138 SanFranciscoZionist

You have more faith in the Mexican penal system than I do, but OK. I assume we still need to try here.

I don’t think there are any great choices when you’re dealing with violent people who came to America in a attempt to find a softer market for their violence.

That’s the kind of thing you can only hope to fix with systemic change and even then, well, it’s probably a pipe dream.

I know I’m always looking to make deals but I would absolutely trade a state-of-the-art, thousand foot high fence on the border for an immediate cessation of the drug war.

165 Locker  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:26:25pm

OT: When I click POST A LINK on the LGF Pages page, there isn’t line for the URL any more, just title and comments. Can anyone clue me?

Thanks!

166 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:26:28pm

re: #159 pingjockey

Teenagers!

Not these days. Their parents don’t want them wasting their time with menial work.

/not really kidding

167 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:26:47pm

re: #159 pingjockey

Teenagers!

You must be jesting.

re: #161 Guanxi88

Damned helot class in our midst; we should be ashamed, but are long since past all shame.

Yes, we are.

168 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:28:03pm

What is the easiset way to post a photo on line and share it? I have a recent shot of my roses.

The best part about gardening is the joy of biting into a home grown tomato (that when figuring in the cost of land, seeds, water, fertilizer and labor only amounts to about $50 a lb.)

169 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:28:17pm

re: #162 cliffster

Tone? Spreading of lies is annoying. For example, when Obama said in a speech earlier today that mothers and their kids will get stopped and harrassed on their way to the grocery store in Arizona because of the new law. That is a complete lie, and he knows it, and definitely higher on shamelessness scale than this McCain stuff.

What the hell gives you any confidence that this won’t happen?

170 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:28:29pm

Ken Griffey, Jr fell asleep in the clubhouse after the 5th inning of a game last week.

Hey, the guy’s 40.. he needs his rest.

171 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:29:02pm

re: #170 cliffster

Ken Griffey, Jr fell asleep in the clubhouse after the 5th inning of a game last week.

Hey, the guy’s 40.. he needs his rest.

one of the all-time sweetest swings. and i don’t even like baseball.

172 HappyWarrior  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:30:04pm

re: #170 cliffster

Ken Griffey, Jr fell asleep in the clubhouse after the 5th inning of a game last week.

Hey, the guy’s 40.. he needs his rest.

It’s sad. I’ve heard from older people that this is what it was like when Mays was on his last legs. Wasn’t a kid I knew growing up who didn’t love Junior. Such a beautiful swing and he had that love of the game.

173 ausador  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:30:19pm

re: #165 Locker

OT: When I click POST A LINK on the LGF Pages page, there isn’t line for the URL any more, just title and comments. Can anyone clue me?

Thanks!

Read this, will help explain it for you. It is in the process of being converted from a link page to a “personal diary/blog/blog” page for the members here.

littlegreenfootballs.com

174 darthstar  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:30:30pm

re: #165 Locker

OT: When I click POST A LINK on the LGF Pages page, there isn’t line for the URL any more, just title and comments. Can anyone clue me?

Thanks!

I think you just need to put it in the title. Will test and report back.

175 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:31:55pm

re: #169 Cato the Elder

What the hell gives you any confidence that this won’t happen?

It won’t happen systematically. However, it will probably happen on occasion, which is still too often. It’s a clumsy law, not a jackboot law.

176 ausador  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:31:57pm

re: #173 ausador

Read this, will help explain it for you. It is in the process of being converted from a link page to a “personal diary/blog/blog” page for the members here.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

PIMF

personal “diary/journal/blog page”

177 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:32:19pm

re: #169 Cato the Elder

What the hell gives you any confidence that this won’t happen?

I’m sure it has been happening, and will continue to. But that has nothing to do with the new law; the law doesn’t enable it. If anything it’ll probably cut back on it by bringing the issue to the surface.

178 darthstar  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:33:41pm

Ooh…I have time to hit the gym before our next candidate arrives…back in a while.

179 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:34:39pm

re: #172 HappyWarrior

It’s sad. I’ve heard from older people that this is what it was like when Mays was on his last legs. Wasn’t a kid I knew growing up who didn’t love Junior. Such a beautiful swing and he had that love of the game.

Well, most people who I know who are 40, I wouldn’t exactly call them on “their last legs”. And they can pretty much get through a workday without taking a 2 hour snoozer. But Griffey is 100% class, and I’m sure he’ll get ribbed for this at his Hall of Fame induction that will happen exactly 5 years after he retires.

180 ausador  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:35:22pm

re: #168 DaddyG

What is the easiset way to post a photo on line and share it? I have a recent shot of my roses.

The best part about gardening is the joy of biting into a home grown tomato (that when figuring in the cost of land, seeds, water, fertilizer and labor only amounts to about $50 a lb.)

Open a photobucket account and upload your pictures there then just post the http link to the image. Completely free and dead easy to figure out how to use.

181 HappyWarrior  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:35:38pm

re: #179 cliffster

Well, most people who I know who are 40, I wouldn’t exactly call them on “their last legs”. And they can pretty much get through a workday without taking a 2 hour snoozer. But Griffey is 100% class, and I’m sure he’ll get ribbed for this at his Hall of Fame induction that will happen exactly 5 years after he retires.

Well last legs of baseball I meant. I am sure he will too. He’s a great guy. Game won’t be the same without him when he retires.

182 webevintage  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:36:21pm

So David Cameron is the new PM.
Just left the Queen and on his way to #10 Downing St.

183 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:37:19pm

re: #175 Aceofwhat?

It won’t happen systematically. However, it will probably happen on occasion, which is still too often. It’s a clumsy law, not a jackboot law.

It’s a jackboot law. It mandates that cops enforce it. It does not give them the option. And it opens the way to them being sued if they do not.

How is that not jackbooty enough?

184 Four More Tears  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:39:49pm

re: #182 webevintage

So David Cameron is the new PM.
Just left the Queen and on his way to #10 Downing St.

Amazing how they don’t waste any time.

185 Locker  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:40:00pm

re: #173 ausador

Thanks man.

186 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:40:07pm

re: #182 webevintage

I don’t know much about UK politics, but I’ve heard him called a true moderate. Do you happen to have any views on him?

187 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:40:44pm

re: #183 Obdicut

It’s a jackboot law. It mandates that cops enforce it. It does not give them the option. And it opens the way to them being sued if they do not.

How is that not jackbooty enough?

jackbooty = show me your papers, cur.

not jackbooty = you have to actually be mixed up in something before you can be questioned about your citizenship.

that’s what i meant. it’s clumsy, not evil. but it’s bad clumsy and i don’t support it at all.

188 Mark Pennington  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:41:50pm

From the beginning, McCain should have told AZ voters that he’s going to work with the other side like it or not, because America can’t afford having one party as completely obstructionist. If he gets voted out, fine, but at least he’d have some dignity left.

189 tradewind  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:42:22pm

re: #182 webevintage

Just left the Queen and on his way to # 10 Downing St. hell.


FTFY.
He’s in for a bumpy ride.

190 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:42:30pm

re: #186 Obdicut

I don’t know much about UK politics, but I’ve heard him called a true moderate. Do you happen to have any views on him?

A British guy I know went off on the situation yesterday. He said this: “it is frankly laughable that the cons try to fob off the LDs with the smoke-and-mirrors of the AV system rather than the PR system. As I said the other day the LDs need to demand PR as a precondition for throwing their lot in with whoever because a lot will be forgiven to the leader that delivers PR. At least the outcome of the vote isn’t in question, even if the outcome of the election is.”

I was like, “hell yeah! wait.. what?”

191 [deleted]  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:42:53pm
192 tradewind  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:43:38pm

re: #191 MandyManners
Bless his heart.

193 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:43:39pm

re: #187 Aceofwhat?

Evil vs. clumsy is going to be a subjective evaluation. But no, you do not actually have to be mixed up in anything to be questioned about your citizenship on this law. You have to be thought, however briefly, by a cop, to be mixed up in something. You do not actually have to have done jack shit. That is why, to me, this is far worse than ‘clumsy’.

194 wrenchwench  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:43:59pm

re: #187 Aceofwhat?

jackbooty = show me your papers, cur.

not jackbooty = you have to actually be mixed up in something before you can be questioned about your citizenship.

that’s what i meant. it’s clumsy, not evil. but it’s bad clumsy and i don’t support it at all.

Citizen suing you under the new law for not being jackbooty enough = jackbooty.

195 lostlakehiker  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:44:20pm

re: #123 DaddyG

We have an interesting case here in Georgia where a university President stepped in an lobbied for an honor student to be allowed to stay and complete her degree even though she was caught here illegally and under an false address. She had been here since she was 7 years old.

ICE made the call to allow her to finish her degree. (I think that was compassionate and correct) but a state Senator and Gubernatorial candidate is being castigated in the press for expressing the opinion that the Board of Regents should insist on proof of citizenship for admissions.

Compared to Mexico requiring students from the US have proof that they will be receiving at least $300 US per month for their support in order to get a visa I’m not sure that’s unreasonable.

That requirement should be paired with a generous student visa policy as long as students are qualified. They should also be required to pay out of state tuition.

I’m going to surprise everyone and go further with this compassion business. Here since age 7? Good student? Cut her a pardon already and put her on the fast track to citizenship. And give her in state tuition. There’s a time and a place for standing on the letter of the law. But this girl is already to all intents and purposes a citizen—-she grew up among us, imbibing our values (for better or for worse), speaking our language, and now she’s all set to contribute. Welcome her.

196 bagua  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:44:23pm

re: #189 tradewind

FTFY.
He’s in for a bumpy ride.

Likely we’ll see a GE by the October. The Cleggerons will be a farce.

197 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:44:25pm

re: #175 Aceofwhat?

It won’t happen systematically. However, it will probably happen on occasion, which is still too often. It’s a clumsy law, not a jackboot law.

It’s a whiny law.

198 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:44:38pm

re: #191 MandyManners

Cameron’s at No. 10 Downing Street!

What I’ve found in a brief search on him is that the arch-conservatives don’t like him much, and the British nativists are attacking him over this:

He believes that British Muslims have a duty to integrate into British culture, but notes that they find aspects such as high family breakdown and high drug use uninspiring, and notes that “Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.”

199 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:45:33pm

re: #180 ausador

Open a photobucket account and upload your pictures there then just post the http link to the image. Completely free and dead easy to figure out how to use.


Let’s try it here:

s1034.photobucket.com>s1034.photobucket.com>

200 rwdflynavy  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:45:42pm

re: #192 tradewind

Bless his heart.

“Bless your heart.” An ancient Southern curse, used in cases of extreme censure. Rough translation: “Fuck you, Yankee.” Sample usage: “You’re supporting Obama? Why, bless your heart.”

201 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:45:59pm

re: #187 Aceofwhat?

jackbooty = show me your papers, cur.

not jackbooty = you have to actually be mixed up in something before you can be questioned about your citizenship.

that’s what i meant. it’s clumsy, not evil. but it’s bad clumsy and i don’t support it at all.

Problem is, does ‘mixed up in something’ include being a witness to or victim of a crime?

202 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:46:59pm

re: #192 tradewind

Bless his heart.

I hope he does well, but I won’t bet the bank on it.

203 wrenchwench  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:47:09pm

re: #195 lostlakehiker

I’m going to surprise everyone and go further with this compassion business. Here since age 7? Good student? Cut her a pardon already and put her on the fast track to citizenship. And give her in state tuition. There’s a time and a place for standing on the letter of the law. But this girl is already to all intents and purposes a citizen—-she grew up among us, imbibing our values (for better or for worse), speaking our language, and now she’s all set to contribute. Welcome her.

That compassion, using those qualities in the individual, could apply to a huge percentage of current illegal aliens. 40% of illegals came legally and overstayed their visas. Another large percentage came as children and fit the description DaddyG gave.

204 HappyWarrior  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:47:15pm

From what I understand Cameron has been as critical of the BNP as he has hardline Muslims. I probably wouldn’t agree with many of his fiscal policies but he seems reasonable enough. Need to get my cousins who live in the UK and their opinions on Brit politics.

205 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:47:27pm

re: #195 lostlakehiker

I’m going to surprise everyone and go further with this compassion business. Here since age 7? Good student? Cut her a pardon already and put her on the fast track to citizenship. And give her in state tuition. There’s a time and a place for standing on the letter of the law. But this girl is already to all intents and purposes a citizen—-she grew up among us, imbibing our values (for better or for worse), speaking our language, and now she’s all set to contribute. Welcome her.

I’m torn. Won’t this encourage more parents to try to lay low just to get their kids a fast track to citizenship. Qualified students should be allowed to get a visa easily but I’d have to see college fast tracked like milliatary service. It’s just not the same sacrifice or commitment.

206 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:47:39pm

re: #201 SanFranciscoZionist

Problem is, does ‘mixed up in something’ include being a witness to or victim of a crime?

Does a police checkpoint such as for drunk driving count?

207 Stanley Sea  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:47:52pm

re: #194 wrenchwench

Citizen suing you under the new law for not being jackbooty enough = jackbooty.

You cops never do anything about those damn “illegals” over there in that apt. complex! I can see that happening. (they aren’t illegal, the neighbor just assumes it because, well, they’re of Mexican descent)

208 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:48:03pm

re: #204 HappyWarrior

Note the quote I cited above. He’s certainly no nativist.

209 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:48:04pm

re: #194 wrenchwench

Citizen suing you under the new law for not being jackbooty enough = jackbooty.

oh, come on. it was a flippant term, but the last thing it means are citizens in jackboots frogmarching cops…come ooon;)

210 KingKenrod  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:49:35pm

re: #188 beekiller

From the beginning, McCain should have told AZ voters that he’s going to work with the other side like it or not, because America can’t afford having one party as completely obstructionist. If he gets voted out, fine, but at least he’d have some dignity left.

No, not fine. I could care less about McCain’s dignity if the alternative is Hayworth becoming a senator.

211 gamark  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:49:38pm

re: #193 Obdicut

But no, you do not actually have to be mixed up in anything to be questioned about your citizenship on this law. You have to be thought, however briefly, by a cop, to be mixed up in something. You do not actually have to have done jack shit. That is why, to me, this is far worse than ‘clumsy’.

How is this law different than any other law surrounding criminal investigations by police? If a cop thought, however briefly, that you were mixed up in $CRIME, he can detain you, establish your identity, etc while deciding what to do with you (release or arrest). Are those jackbooty actions?

212 Guanxi88  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:49:48pm

re: #201 SanFranciscoZionist

Problem is, does ‘mixed up in something’ include being a witness to or victim of a crime?

Those are categories already protected under federal immigration regulations; the whole damned thing’s a mess, and it’s enough to make one despair for the future of a nation that simultaneously requires and yet cannot endure, cheap labor, and yet cannot bring itself to admit that it’s at least as reprehensible as slavery.

Going rate for day labor for landscaping - and that is HARD, brutal labor - here in Texas runs from about $80 to $100 dollars a day, and by “day” they mean sun-up to sundown. That rate of pay is exactly enough to sustain a worker’s bare existence and maybe, if he lives poorly enough, leave a bit over to send back home. The worker gets sick, gets injured, and who’s on the hook? The taxpayer, or the guy’s just plain SOL. Cheap labor is expensive, both morally and financially. The folk exploiting this misery need to be held to account, but no one dares do it.

213 Decatur Deb  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:49:56pm

Cookbooks arrived—very professional. Great work, all.

214 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:50:00pm

re: #209 Aceofwhat?

I think you’re missing the point. This law is jackbooty in that it attempts to heavy-handedly force cops to enforce this law no matter what their own judgement on it is, even to the extent of empowering citizens to sue the cops if they feel this particular law isn’t being enforced well enough.

It’s jackbooty to the cops, which is kind of surreal. I’m glad the level-headed sheriff is saying that he won’t enforce the law because he feels he’ll get sued either way, so he’d rather do what’s right.

215 rwdflynavy  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:50:15pm

re: #195 lostlakehiker

I’m going to surprise everyone and go further with this compassion business. Here since age 7? Good student? Cut her a pardon already and put her on the fast track to citizenship. And give her in state tuition. There’s a time and a place for standing on the letter of the law. But this girl is already to all intents and purposes a citizen—-she grew up among us, imbibing our values (for better or for worse), speaking our language, and now she’s all set to contribute. Welcome her.


I have a real problem with the in-state tuition part. My parents had to pay out of state tuition for me to go to school because my dad was in the Military and didn’t meet the requirements for in-state. Don’t bend (break?) the rules for illegals and not citizens.

216 PT Barnum  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:50:29pm

re: #200 rwdflynavy

“Bless your heart.” An ancient Southern curse, used in cases of extreme censure. Rough translation: “Fuck you, Yankee.” Sample usage: “You’re supporting Obama? Why, bless your heart.”

Reminds me of a story about two southern ladies who are sitting on the front porch, and one says

“My husband is just a sweetheart, why just last month he bought me a new Cadillac car. I just love that man.” she said.

The other lady replies” That’s so nice.”

The first lady continued “and two weeks ago, he bought me a mink coat, and I just love to wear it when I’m out driving my new Cadillac car. I just love that man”

The other lady replies “That’s so nice.”

Finally, the first lady fans herself and says “And just last week he bought me a big ol’ diamond ring to wear with my mink coat when I’m driving around in my Cadillac car. I just lo-ove that man!”

The second lady says “That’s so nice.”

The first lady asks the second lady “So what have you been up to?”
The second lady replies “I’ve been taking an etiquette class where they taught me that when you want to tell someone to fuck off and die, you should just say ‘That’s so nice.”

217 webevintage  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:50:33pm

BIG DAY!
My son just went and voted for the first time with his dad.
We have early voting in Arkansas and next Tuesday he has “plans”* and will be unavailable to come with me to our local polling place.

*That would be playing some new game that is coming out. I guess a dude needs to have his priorities in order.

218 Bagua  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:50:36pm

re: #202 Dark_Falcon

I hope he does well, but I won’t bet the bank on it.

He can’t possibly “do well” allied with the Lib Dims, the alliance is a joke and reflects more the two men’s desire for the trappings of power than the will of the electorate.

Having gained a pathetic 23.5 percent of the popular vote, despite full media backing and the unpopularity of his opponent, Cameron’s government will be unstable and short lived.

219 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:50:45pm

re: #206 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Does a police checkpoint such as for drunk driving count?

It’s a legitimate police contact.

220 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:50:50pm

Image: summergarden063.jpg

I think I’ve got it. Here’s the rose garden as of a few days ago.

221 HappyWarrior  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:50:55pm

re: #208 Obdicut

Note the quote I cited above. He’s certainly no nativist.

Yep, I like seeing that. As I said my fiscally left wing views would probably have me voting Labour or for the Lib Dems if I lived in the UK but Cameron seems like a reasonable enough guy.

222 webevintage  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:51:22pm

re: #220 DaddyG

Image: summergarden063.jpg

I think I’ve got it. Here’s the rose garden as of a few days ago.

wow.

223 Bagua  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:51:22pm

re: #204 HappyWarrior

From what I understand Cameron has been as critical of the BNP as he has hardline Muslims. I probably wouldn’t agree with many of his fiscal policies but he seems reasonable enough. Need to get my cousins who live in the UK and their opinions on Brit politics.

Everyone is critical of the BNP.

224 lostlakehiker  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:51:40pm

re: #201 SanFranciscoZionist

Problem is, does ‘mixed up in something’ include being a witness to or victim of a crime?

I would think not. The police have no cause in the ordinary course of events to demand papers of persons who may have been victims of a crime or witnesses to it. It’s different from a traffic stop, where you will be required to produce a DL even if you’re Tom Cruise and your identity and citizenship are in no doubt at all.

Besides, it’s madness to scare off witnesses. Any effort to reduce crime has to be nice to witnesses. Any effort to reduce the impact of crime has to be nice to victims.

You may be aware of the fact that the crimes AZ is trying to cope with are overwhelmingly crimes against immigrants. If not, think about that.

225 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:51:52pm

re: #211 gamark

How is this law different than any other law surrounding criminal investigations by police? If a cop thought, however briefly, that you were mixed up in $CRIME, he can detain you, establish your identity, etc while deciding what to do with you (release or arrest). Are those jackbooty actions?

I’m sorry, that’s not true. There are very strict controls on how and where a cop can detain you. Previously, detention for the sake if establishing immigration status was held by the supreme court to be a 4th amendment violation, as an unreasonable search and seizure.

The people saying this law is going to be shot down in the court aren’t just spouting off.

226 KingKenrod  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:51:56pm

I’d rename this post “McCain Counsels Right Sheriff.

Pinal County is between Phoenix and Tucson and has been described as a key transit point for illegal immigrants and drug traffickers. Sheriff Paul Babeu said an estimated 80 percent of illegal immigrants pass through his county along the way to other locations.

cnn.com

227 HappyWarrior  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:52:20pm

re: #223 Bagua

Everyone is critical of the BNP.

True, true I just really like seeing him go after the hardcore xenophobes as much as he does radical Islam. It’s refreshing.

228 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:53:08pm

re: #222 webevintage It’s been a good year for the roses. I hope the vegitables (out of picture) do as well.

229 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:53:26pm

re: #201 SanFranciscoZionist

Problem is, does ‘mixed up in something’ include being a witness to or victim of a crime?

It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out in court. As newly defined, it is intended to only target accessories to crimes, no?

230 tradewind  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:53:36pm

re: #196 bagua
S’allright. We should all have that warm wonderful feeling that we’ve just sent megabucks off to the Euro banks, with a guarantee that it won’t do a damn bit of good.

“Markets realized quickly that this crisis won’t be cured by adding liquidity, no matter how big it is,” said Toshihiko Sakai, head of trading for currencies and financial products at Mitsubishi UFJ Trust & Banking Corp. in Tokyo. “The structural problems of the euro zone will persist.

businessweek.com
So Cameron will have a front row seat at the spectacle of the Euro’s crash and burn. At least he doesn’t have to claim it as his national currency.

231 Stanley Sea  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:53:40pm

re: #220 DaddyG

Image: summergarden063.jpg

I think I’ve got it. Here’s the rose garden as of a few days ago.

Beautiful Mr. Green Thumb!!

232 Bagua  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:54:10pm

re: #227 HappyWarrior

True, true I just really like seeing him go after the hardcore xenophobes as much as he does radical Islam. It’s refreshing.

Rather, he is just taking cheap shots at the boogie-man and avoiding talk about substantive issues.

233 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:54:34pm

re: #229 Aceofwhat?

It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out in court. As newly defined, it is intended to only target accessories to crimes, no?

We all know how the best intentions end up.

234 Bagua  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:55:04pm

re: #230 tradewind

You got that right.

235 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:55:05pm

re: #231 Stanley Sea

Beautiful Mr. Green Thumb!!

Mr digs holes and prunes married to Mrs. Green Thumb - but thank you.

236 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:55:05pm

re: #206 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Does a police checkpoint such as for drunk driving count?

Sure, although those random checkpoints, in my view, are so insanely wrong it’s ridiculous. But yes, they could get caught and found out there.

The question is, why the obsession with finding “illegals” and sending them home? It’s hardly a fringe group idea. I’m pretty sure the vast majority of people you talk to would say Yes to the question, “If a person is known to be here illegally, should they be sent back to their home country”. Why that is, I really don’t know.

237 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:55:13pm

re: #232 Bagua

Rather, he is just taking cheap shots at the boogie-man and avoiding talk about substantive issues.

BNP is far more than the boogie-man.

238 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:55:45pm

re: #214 Obdicut

I think you’re missing the point. This law is jackbooty in that it attempts to heavy-handedly force cops to enforce this law no matter what their own judgement on it is, even to the extent of empowering citizens to sue the cops if they feel this particular law isn’t being enforced well enough.

It’s jackbooty to the cops, which is kind of surreal. I’m glad the level-headed sheriff is saying that he won’t enforce the law because he feels he’ll get sued either way, so he’d rather do what’s right.

i agree with that.

but i’d never use “jackbooty” as a reference to some law which seems unfair to the police. sure, i made the term up…but that’s the last thing it could mean.

239 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:56:01pm

re: #224 lostlakehiker

I would think not. The police have no cause in the ordinary course of events to demand papers of persons who may have been victims of a crime or witnesses to it. It’s different from a traffic stop, where you will be required to produce a DL even if you’re Tom Cruise and your identity and citizenship are in no doubt at all.

Besides, it’s madness to scare off witnesses. Any effort to reduce crime has to be nice to witnesses. Any effort to reduce the impact of crime has to be nice to victims.

You may be aware of the fact that the crimes AZ is trying to cope with are overwhelmingly crimes against immigrants. If not, think about that.

I think you’re being overly optimistic about this law and how it’s going to work.

Yes, it’s madness to scare off witnesses, which, you will note, is one of the reasons Sheriff Estrada is not happy about this law. It is a poorly made law, the goal of which is NOT primarily to reduce crime in Arizona.

Think about that.

240 wrenchwench  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:56:03pm

re: #201 SanFranciscoZionist

Problem is, does ‘mixed up in something’ include being a witness to or victim of a crime?

Supposedly that’s why they amended “any lawful contact” to “any lawful stop, detention, or arrest.” To give the impression that they didn’t mean witnesses or victims. However, the law still intends to intimidate:

The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make
6 attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local
7 government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to
8 work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of
9 aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United
10 States.
241 tradewind  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:56:30pm

re: #198 Obdicut
What a revolting development.//
Good luck to him with that.
True, we all despair at the sight of a rotting culture at the mercy of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Well, one outta three.
But Sharia is not the answer./

242 Bagua  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:57:06pm

re: #237 Obdicut

BNP is far more than the boogie-man.

What is your point?

243 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:57:47pm

re: #229 Aceofwhat?

It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out in court. As newly defined, it is intended to only target accessories to crimes, no?

No. It still includes ‘stop’. So an officer who stopped someone and quickly concluded they were not involved in any crime would still be required, if there was any reason to doubt the persons’ immigration status, to detain them and verify it.

244 tradewind  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:59:16pm

re: #236 cliffster

Why that is, I really don’t know.


Just ask anyone trying to fund social services, a school system, hospitals, or the prison system in TX, AZ, CA, or AZ.
They could tell you.

245 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:59:16pm

re: #229 Aceofwhat?

It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out in court. As newly defined, it is intended to only target accessories to crimes, no?

What’s the current wording?

246 wrenchwench  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:59:16pm

re: #224 lostlakehiker

You may be aware of the fact that the crimes AZ is trying to cope with are overwhelmingly crimes against immigrants. If not, think about that.

That’s not what the law says:

Section 1. Intent
3 The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the
4 cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of
5 Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make
6 attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local
7 government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to
8 work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of
9 aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United
10 States.

(emphasis added.)

247 PT Barnum  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:59:26pm

re: #241 tradewind

What a revolting development.//
Good luck to him with that.
True, we all despair at the sight of a rotting culture at the mercy of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Well, one outta three.
But Sharia is not the answer./

I think the problem is that we have allowed ethics and morals to be relegated to the religious instead of identifying a secular set of rules that are necessary for good order in any society and identifying them as such.

Most of this boils down to three things:

Security of one’s person
Security of one’s property
Security of one’s relationships.

248 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:59:37pm

re: #238 Aceofwhat?

I have no idea why a law forcing the police to be more invasive and jackbooty at the penalty of lawsuits wouldn’t be jackbooty to you. It has the effect of raising the jackboot level, and it does so by a coercive threat to law enforcement.

249 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:59:46pm

re: #236 cliffster

Sure, although those random checkpoints, in my view, are so insanely wrong it’s ridiculous. But yes, they could get caught and found out there.

The question is, why the obsession with finding “illegals” and sending them home? It’s hardly a fringe group idea. I’m pretty sure the vast majority of people you talk to would say Yes to the question, “If a person is known to be here illegally, should they be sent back to their home country”. Why that is, I really don’t know.

Personally, I’m on the “residency, not citizenship” boat. The majority of them are decent people, but they did break the law. Get them documented, work out an arrangement of some kind of fine or fee to paid out over X amount of time and the stipulation they will never be eligible for US citizenship, then get to work finding the real criminals, drug dealers, gang members, etc.

250 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:59:55pm

re: #243 Obdicut

No. It still includes ‘stop’. So an officer who stopped someone and quickly concluded they were not involved in any crime would still be required, if there was any reason to doubt the persons’ immigration status, to detain them and verify it.

How is this different from any other illegal activity? You get stopped for whatever, and the cop smells weed, he can search your car.

251 dugmartsch  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:00:48pm

re: #239 SanFranciscoZionist

I think you’re being overly optimistic about this law and how it’s going to work.

Yes, it’s madness to scare off witnesses, which, you will note, is one of the reasons Sheriff Estrada is not happy about this law. It is a poorly made law, the goal of which is NOT primarily to reduce crime in Arizona.

Think about that.


No its not a good idea to scare off witnesses. But when you’re required to hit a certain number of illegal immigrants or get fired because your boss is worried about getting sued, you do what you gotta do.

252 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:01:12pm

re: #240 wrenchwench

Where can I find the amendments online? The version I’m finding still uses ‘lawful contact’.

253 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:01:15pm

re: #239 SanFranciscoZionist

It is a poorly made law, the goal of which is NOT primarily to reduce crime in Arizona.

I know the local constabulary is loathe to turn a miner traffic stop into an immigration issue. They have more serious issues to handle. In fact I was called by a woman from church to drive her home after the police confiscated her keys. She was not liscensed although her husband was (and is legal). She is doing her best to get her papers and citizenship straight but it does take time. I wasn’t thrilled with her for driving but the police took care of that without making it an immigration case.

It is one thing to make a blanket pronouncement about illegals but each case gets tougher when it is about your neighbors and friends.

Coyotes and drug dealers notwithstanding (those we should aggressively persecute).

254 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:01:36pm

re: #245 SanFranciscoZionist

Law enforcement must verify the citizenship status of anyone they “stop, detain or arrest,” in the course of their duties that they have reasonable belief may be an illegal immigrant.

The revision also changed that race cannot be used as the sole reason for such suspicion.

255 lostlakehiker  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:01:37pm

re: #203 wrenchwench

That compassion, using those qualities in the individual, could apply to a huge percentage of current illegal aliens. 40% of illegals came legally and overstayed their visas. Another large percentage came as children and fit the description DaddyG gave.

If the circumstances fit, so be it. I’ve got no problem with regularizing everyone in circumstances roughly similar to those that this story reports. But there has to be a line where compassion includes compassion for the invisible and numerous victims of a glut on the market in low skilled jobs and of the straining of social resources.

Compassion has to have a head as well as a heart. The person in the spotlight is not the only party affected by the decision that must be made. Surely there are illegal immigrants with long petty rap sheets, who haven’t gotten around to learning English, who entered illegally and never had a visa. AZ’s law will sweep these up far more efficiently than it will those who have already met every standard we ask of legal immigrants before they get sworn in as citizens.

256 PT Barnum  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:01:42pm

re: #250 cliffster

How is this different from any other illegal activity? You get stopped for whatever, and the cop smells weed, he can search your car.

Except that it almost requires the officer to check your status even if he pulled you over to tell you you left your coffee cup on top of your car.

257 Locker  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:01:52pm

re: #250 cliffster

How is this different from any other illegal activity? You get stopped for whatever, and the cop smells weed, he can search your car.

Right be he can’t search my car because I “look like a stoner”.

258 ShaunP  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:02:59pm

re: #257 Locker

Right be he can’t search my car because I “look like a stoner”.

They can’t?!?!?

////

259 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:03:09pm

re: #257 Locker

Right be he can’t search my car because I “look like a stoner”.


Get a haricut hippie and you won’t be stopped. /

260 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:03:14pm

re: #233 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

We all know how the best intentions end up.

again, i didn’t say i supported it. it’s just not “evil”.

261 Guanxi88  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:03:21pm

The underlying problem is, as others have noted, that the Mexican government and ruling class have no incentive to correct the problems at home, since they can always “encourage” people to go North. Unemployment’s not a problem when you can “export” your unemployed, and revolutionary fervor is greatly dampened when the potential footsoldiers of a revolt can always find work and bread elsewhere, and still send remittances back to the homeland that serve to prop up their economy. Meantime, folk here in the States get cheap, as they think, laborers, about whom they do not care, for whom they do not care, and about which they think very little until they become a “problem.”

There’s no incentive in Mexico to alter the arrangement, and there’s no incentive here in the States to alter it either, since it works out quite well for the monied and political interests served by an abundant supply of helots, cheap labor, and a more-or-less permanent and unassimilated underclass.

262 PT Barnum  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:03:31pm

re: #257 Locker

Right be he can’t search my car because I “look like a stoner”.

This is a stretch, but is there any they could tie this to the 5th against self incrimination?

263 tradewind  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:03:37pm

re: #257 Locker
Depends. If your eyes are bloodshot and you give him a blank stare as you chow down on your Cheetos, bet’cha you get searched.

264 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:03:44pm

re: #250 cliffster

How is this different from any other illegal activity? You get stopped for whatever, and the cop smells weed, he can search your car.

And..? What does that have to do with this current law?

If a cop stops you and smells weed, he searches your car to find evidence of a crime. He doesn’t require you to prove that you’ve never owned any weed, and that there’s never been any in the car.

265 dugmartsch  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:03:48pm

re: #249 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Personally, I’m on the “residency, not citizenship” boat. The majority of them are decent people, but they did break the law. Get them documented, work out an arrangement of some kind of fine or fee to paid out over X amount of time and the stipulation they will never be eligible for US citizenship, then get to work finding the real criminals, drug dealers, gang members, etc.

Amnesty for people under a certain age or who’ve been here long enough. If you’ve lived here for 20 years I think you’re more American than anything else.

Also, kids of permanent residents should be automatic citizens. And a lot of these guys have already paid a ton of money into social security that they’re never going to see.

266 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:03:58pm

re: #251 dugmartsch

No its not a good idea to scare off witnesses. But when you’re required to hit a certain number of illegal immigrants or get fired because your boss is worried about getting sued, you do what you gotta do.

You are suggesting that there are mandatory quotas for arrests of illegal immigrants, and that the punishment for not meeting these quotas is firing. Does even one fraction of you believe this is true?

267 Locker  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:04:30pm

re: #263 tradewind

Depends. If your eyes are bloodshot and you give him a blank stare as you chow down on your Cheetos, bet’cha you get searched.

Yea and I bet’cha it would get thrown out of court if he/she did search based on the Cheetos theory.

268 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:04:33pm

re: #243 Obdicut

No. It still includes ‘stop’. So an officer who stopped someone and quickly concluded they were not involved in any crime would still be required, if there was any reason to doubt the persons’ immigration status, to detain them and verify it.

fine. that is still miles from walking up to brown people at asking for papers at will and at random, despite heated rhetoric to the contrary.

269 gamark  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:05:10pm

re: #225 Obdicut

You’re dodging. Which SC ruling are you referring to?
Are you really saying that the police cannot detain someone they suspect of having committed a crime? That’s a quite odd take on reality.

270 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:05:16pm

re: #254 Obdicut

Law enforcement must verify the citizenship status of anyone they “stop, detain or arrest,” in the course of their duties that they have reasonable belief may be an illegal immigrant.

The revision also changed that race cannot be used as the sole reason for such suspicion.

Does anyone know the legal definition of ‘stop or detain’ in this case?

271 PT Barnum  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:05:16pm

re: #266 cliffster

You are suggesting that there are mandatory quotas for arrests of illegal immigrants, and that the punishment for not meeting these quotas is firing. Does even one fraction of you believe this is true?

But it’s certainly an unintended consequence. In my line of work “what gets measured gets done”. I wouldn’t be surprised at all that there are some municipalities trying to figure out what is a minimum number of arrests to demonstrate enforcement.

272 Jadespring  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:05:23pm

re: #191 MandyManners

Cameron’s at No. 10 Downing Street!

I’m pissing my drawers with excitement.

273 tradewind  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:05:28pm

re: #262 PT Barnum
I believe the fifth amendment protection is extended only under sworn testimony, either in court or at a deposition.

274 Bagua  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:05:59pm

re: #270 SanFranciscoZionist

Does anyone know the legal definition of ‘stop or detain’ in this case?

Threshold inquiry.

275 lostlakehiker  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:06:12pm

re: #239 SanFranciscoZionist

I think you’re being overly optimistic about this law and how it’s going to work.

Yes, it’s madness to scare off witnesses, which, you will note, is one of the reasons Sheriff Estrada is not happy about this law. It is a poorly made law, the goal of which is NOT primarily to reduce crime in Arizona.

Think about that.

I have. I try to discern motive by looking at what I think the likely consequences of the measure will be. We disagree on the likely consequences, and if you judge motive by the same logical method as I do, you will come to a different conclusion about motive.

When the law goes into effect, we will find out what the actual consequences are. If we both grant that the people who wrote the law are better placed to estimate the likely effects than either of us is, then we will agree that their motive was to bring about the effects that actually are seen. Whatever those may be. If it’s a civil rights nightmare and crime goes up, I’ll have to grant that you were right all along.

276 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:06:54pm

re: #265 dugmartsch

Amnesty for people under a certain age or who’ve been here long enough. If you’ve lived here for 20 years I think you’re more American than anything else.

Also, kids of permanent residents should be automatic citizens. And a lot of these guys have already paid a ton of money into social security that they’re never going to see.

Plenty of room for differenet ways to apply this, but no one in charge seems to seriously talk about it.

I’m an easy going guy most of the time, but when the only options peope want to talk about are Full Amnesty or Deport Them All, I’m pretty much going to tell both sides to fuck right off.

277 Bagua  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:07:08pm

re: #274 Bagua

Threshold inquiry.

Reasonable Grounds in layman terms.

278 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:07:19pm

re: #271 PT Barnum

But it’s certainly an unintended consequence. In my line of work “what gets measured gets done”. I wouldn’t be surprised at all that there are some municipalities trying to figure out what is a minimum number of arrests to demonstrate enforcement.

These sorts of mental streams of outrage are really starting to sound a lot like the Death Panelz type things that Republicans idiotically threw out about the Health Care bill.

279 tradewind  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:07:28pm

re: #267 Locker
” Reason to suspect ” is pretty broad when it comes to drugs in a car.
He can say he saw a seed, and it’s enough.

280 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:07:39pm

re: #269 gamark

You’re dodging. Which SC ruling are you referring to?
Are you really saying that the police cannot detain someone they suspect of having committed a crime? That’s a quite odd take on reality.

Yes, a cop can’t simply detain someone they suspect. have you ever heard of habeas corpus?

Give me a minute to find the relevant Supreme Court ruling; it held that questioning of immigration status was permissible only because it did not extend detention— this law clearly extends detention.

281 Stanley Sea  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:07:47pm

re: #271 PT Barnum

But it’s certainly an unintended consequence. In my line of work “what gets measured gets done”. I wouldn’t be surprised at all that there are some municipalities trying to figure out what is a minimum number of arrests to demonstrate enforcement.

I’m sure there’s people (citizen watchdog groups) who are monitoring and yelling if the numbers aren’t satisfactory.

Then there are the private detention places who ICE contracts with etc.etc.etc.

282 dugmartsch  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:08:03pm

re: #266 cliffster

You are suggesting that there are mandatory quotas for arrests of illegal immigrants, and that the punishment for not meeting these quotas is firing. Does even one fraction of you believe this is true?

More than a fraction. We have plenty of examples of exactly this kind of thing happening as a result of laws that don’t have any mechanism for ensuring their enforcement. Now that you’ve got a law where if it’s not enforced the municipality is liable to any resident, what do you think will happen?

283 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:08:13pm

re: #279 tradewind

” Reason to suspect ” is pretty broad when it comes to drugs in a car.
He can say he saw a seed, and it’s enough.

“possible gang related activity”

284 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:08:38pm

re: #270 SanFranciscoZionist

Does anyone know the legal definition of ‘stop or detain’ in this case?

Stop can mean such things as a Terry Stop.

en.wikipedia.org

Which means the officer doesn’t have to have probably cause to arrest.

285 Decatur Deb  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:08:46pm

re: #266 cliffster

You are suggesting that there are mandatory quotas for arrests of illegal immigrants, and that the punishment for not meeting these quotas is firing. Does even one fraction of you believe this is true?

If a deputy fails to show enough busts, and helps get the sheriff sued, he’s not going to be “Officer of the Month”.

286 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:08:59pm

re: #245 SanFranciscoZionist

What’s the current wording?

“It was the intent of the legislature for ‘lawful contact’ to mean arrests and stops, but people on the left mischaracterized it,” says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped draft the law. “So that term is now defined.”

To be fair to the left (we can wax prosaic about my evenhandedness later;), it was mischaracterized because it was written so damn poorly…but there it is.

Again, i repeat, i think this is clumsy, ineffective, and the wrong idea.

But it’s not an excuse for out-of-control, jackbooty rhetoric.

heh. booty.

287 tradewind  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:09:42pm

re: #280 Obdicut
Detain and arrest are not synonymous. There are parameters under which a person can be detained and still be considered not arrested.

288 Bagua  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:09:53pm

re: #280 Obdicut

Yes, a cop can’t simply detain someone they suspect. have you ever heard of habeas corpus?

Give me a minute to find the relevant Supreme Court ruling; it held that questioning of immigration status was permissible only because it did not extend detention— this law clearly extends detention.

You are incorrect, police stop and detain people they suspect all the time to perform what is called a threshold inquiry.

289 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:10:32pm

re: #249 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Personally, I’m on the “residency, not citizenship” boat. The majority of them are decent people, but they did break the law. Get them documented, work out an arrangement of some kind of fine or fee to paid out over X amount of time and the stipulation they will never be eligible for US citizenship, then get to work finding the real criminals, drug dealers, gang members, etc.

Again, why the hard line? You’ll never, ever, ever be a citizen here. Ever. But you can still stay and work for cheap. (well, a little less cheap, until we take out for taxes)

290 tradewind  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:11:33pm

re: #285 Decatur Deb
There are going to be test suits, take it to the bank. Probably on day one.
I bet that the sight of overzealous law enforcement is going to be very, very rare indeed. The undocumented people may actually see less hassle.

291 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:11:44pm

re: #289 cliffster

Again, why the hard line? You’ll never, ever, ever be a citizen here. Ever. But you can still stay and work for cheap. (well, a little less cheap, until we take out for taxes)

Plenty of legal resident aliens work in the US every day.

292 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:11:45pm

re: #288 Bagua

You are incorrect, police stop and detain people they suspect all the time to perform what is called a threshold inquiry.

I experienced one of those in High School. A few buddies and I decided to trick or treat and the local police found occasion to search our car. He found candy. We were told we were a bit old for Trick or Treat and sent on our way.

293 Stanley Sea  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:11:56pm

re: #286 Aceofwhat?

Kris Kobach - the guy with ties to the hate group listed on SPLC.

Bottom line, that’s where this law started. I have a hard time going much further than that.

294 darthstar  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:12:36pm

re: #279 tradewind

” Reason to suspect ” is pretty broad when it comes to drugs in a car.
He can say he saw a seed, and it’s enough.

There’s also the “I smelled something suspicious” excuse. If they want to search, they will.

295 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:13:07pm

re: #291 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Plenty of legal resident aliens work in the US every day.

Well, sure, but why this Never will you be a citizen!! thing? It seems like (and I’m not accusing you of this), the same obsession with “rooting out illegals”, with a different twist.

296 Decatur Deb  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:13:56pm

re: #290 tradewind

There are going to be test suits, take it to the bank. Probably on day one.
I bet that the sight of overzealous law enforcement is going to be very, very rare indeed. The undocumented people may actually see less hassle.

It’ll be like speeding tickets, some jurisdictions will be straight, some will be “Speedy” traps.

297 Bagua  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:14:25pm

A Police Officer observes a man who looks unsteady on his feet get into a car. He now suspects the man may be driving under-the-influence, but he has no probable cause yet to arrest him. The Police Officer makes a Threshold Inquiry, requesting license and registration, he smells alcohol and the man subsequently fails a field sobriety test. The Police Officer now has Probable Cause to make an arrest.

298 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:15:02pm

re: #293 Stanley Sea

Kris Kobach - the guy with ties to the hate group listed on SPLC.

Bottom line, that’s where this law started. I have a hard time going much further than that.

Oh, it pains me too. but if the dude pulls out a canvas and paints it green, will you hate the color green? will it be evil green? ;)

for me, it’s another strike against the law, because i can’t shed my emotional distaste for the dude either, but the language is what it is.

299 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:15:22pm

re: #295 cliffster

Well, sure, but why this Never will you be a citizen!! thing? It seems like (and I’m not accusing you of this), the same obsession with “rooting out illegals”, with a different twist.

Like I said before, I’m easy going on this. I’m sure a case can be made for granting amnesty in some cases and not in other cases. I’m just against a blanket amnesty across the board, just as I’m against deporting them all as well.

300 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:15:55pm

re: #295 cliffster

Well, sure, but why this Never will you be a citizen!! thing? It seems like (and I’m not accusing you of this), the same obsession with “rooting out illegals”, with a different twist.

How about this then: They have to wait 10 years before applying for citizenship and can only get it upon completion of classes or exams on America and the English language. Does that work?

301 gamark  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:16:12pm

re: #280 Obdicut

have you ever heard of habeas corpus?

I’m not assuming you’re an idiot.

I have indeed heard of habeas corpus. Doesn’t it have something to do with unlawful detentions? I thought we were talking about lawful detentions. If you want to fight unlawful actions by the police, I’m with you whole-heartedly.

No need to find the SC cite. I think I know what it’d actually say.

302 Bagua  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:16:14pm

re: #294 darthstar

There’s also the “I smelled something suspicious” excuse. If they want to search, they will.

Smelling the marijuana is generally considered Probable Cause and sufficient for a search, looking like a stoner is not.

303 darthstar  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:16:31pm

re: #295 cliffster

Well, sure, but why this Never will you be a citizen!! thing? It seems like (and I’m not accusing you of this), the same obsession with “rooting out illegals”, with a different twist.

It’s Never a citizen will you be…The Yoda school of immigration reform

304 ExCamelJockey  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:16:38pm

“The TV ad – shot in the border town of Nogales, Arizona – shows McCain talking with Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu about the need for tougher border security. Nogales is on the Mexican border, but it’s in Santa Cruz County – not Pinal County, which is 115 miles north in central Arizona. “

Regardless of the fact that Pinal County is not directly on the border, it garnered national attention two weeks ago when a deputy was was shot there by suspected illegal immigrants. If you live in Arizona you ‘d probably think this was pretty relevant in the fight against illegal immigration wouldn’t you think?
Deputy shot in Pinal County

305 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:16:45pm

re: #287 tradewind

Detain and arrest are not synonymous. There are parameters under which a person can be detained and still be considered not arrested.

Okay. They can very, very briefly detain them, as for a Terry STop, which I cited above. However, it is very hard for them to legally detain anyone for reasons other than a protective search or to verify whether they’re connected to a crime.

Do you not understand that detaining someone until they can prove they’re innocent of a crime is dramatically fucking different?

306 lawhawk  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:16:51pm

Thoughts and prayers to the Biden family as VP Biden’s son suffered a minor stroke earlier today. He’s expected to recover.

Vice President Joe Biden’s oldest son had a mild stroke Tuesday but is expected to recover, the White House said.

Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, 41, was admitted to Christiana Hospital on Tuesday morning.

“He is in good spirits and talking with his family at the hospital,” Dr. Timothy Gardner said in a statement issued through the White House later in the day. “He is fully alert, in stable condition and has full motor and speech skills.”

307 Guanxi88  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:17:21pm

Problem with any “reform” is that it will just shift the problem from one group to another. Since there are already legal immigrants and permanent residents and guest workers here, getting paid fair (presumably) wages for their efforts, and since we already know that there exists an entire class of persons not subject to these same protections (illegal immigrants), what’s to prevent the regularization of the current crop of illegal aliens from just triggering yet another cycle of demand for the cheaper illegal laborers?

I repeat, only by coming down with both feet on the people who exploit illegal immigrant laborers can we start to get a grip on the problem on our side of the border. Rounding up alien criminals is one thing, and should be done with all deliberate speed, but this raiding of day labor sites for undocumented laborers is foolish. Go after the ones doing the unlawful hiring, not the people who are trying to feed themselves and maybe send a little cash home.

308 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:17:44pm

re: #304 ExCamelJockey

“The TV ad – shot in the border town of Nogales, Arizona – shows McCain talking with Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu about the need for tougher border security. Nogales is on the Mexican border, but it’s in Santa Cruz County – not Pinal County, which is 115 miles north in central Arizona. “

Regardless of the fact that Pinal County is not directly on the border, it garnered national attention two weeks ago when a deputy was was shot there by suspected illegal immigrants. If you live in Arizona you ‘d probably think this was pretty relevant in the fight against illegal immigration wouldn’t you think?
Deputy shot in Pinal County

I’d think that the opinion of the Pinal County sheriff would be even more relevant, in that case…or is that inconveniently logical?

309 tradewind  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:18:15pm

re: #297 Bagua
Right. And habeus only kicks in after the arrest , and then only after a period of time in which the accused is not brought on charges.

310 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:18:34pm

re: #306 lawhawk

Thoughts and prayers to the Biden family as VP Biden’s son suffered a minor stroke earlier today. He’s expected to recover.

…not the kind of thing you want to worry about when you are trying to lead the free world. Prayers (or well wishes in the manner of your tradition) for the Bidens.

311 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:18:40pm

re: #300 Dark_Falcon

How about this then: They have to wait 10 years before applying for citizenship and can only get it upon completion of classes or exams on America and the English language. Does that work?

Plus a criminal background check. No felonies, no string of multiple misdemeanours. Not expecting a squeaky clean sweep across the board, but not a serial delinquent either.

312 Bagua  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:18:48pm

re: #309 tradewind

Right. And habeus only kicks in after the arrest , and then only after a period of time in which the accused is not brought on charges.

Of course.

313 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:19:18pm

re: #300 Dark_Falcon

How about this then: They have to wait 10 years before applying for citizenship and can only get it upon completion of classes or exams on America and the English language. Does that work?

Fair enough - that or something else. I’m just puzzled by the animosity Americans feel towards people that happen to be born somewhere else.

314 Stanley Sea  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:20:00pm

re: #298 Aceofwhat?

Oh, it pains me too. but if the dude pulls out a canvas and paints it green, will you hate the color green? will it be evil green? ;)

for me, it’s another strike against the law, because i can’t shed my emotional distaste for the dude either, but the language is what it is.

I guess it’s like the oil companies having a hand in writing laws that affect their industry favorably. Unfortunately this dude’s industry is civil rights of people.

315 darthstar  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:20:02pm

re: #302 Bagua

Smelling the marijuana is generally considered Probable Cause and sufficient for a search, looking like a stoner is not.

It’s also something that can never be proved or disproved. You (assuming you’re the officer for the sake of argument) either smell it, or you don’t. If you find it, then you win. If you don’t, then you apologize and say, “My bad.” If all you find is an old roach under the floor mat and you still bust the person for possession, then they have an illegal search argument.

316 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:20:59pm

re: #305 Obdicut

Okay. They can very, very briefly detain them, as for a Terry STop, which I cited above. However, it is very hard for them to legally detain anyone for reasons other than a protective search or to verify whether they’re connected to a crime.

Do you not understand that detaining someone until they can prove they’re innocent of a crime is dramatically fucking different?

Easy, dude. Whether the initial stop was lawful can still be challenged just as it could in any other case, IIRC.

I still don’t understand why AZ wouldn’t rather get tighter/more biometric with their state ID’s. Being able to flash a DL which is automatic proof of citizenship would sorta make all of this go away, wouldn’t it?

317 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:21:29pm

re: #314 Stanley Sea

I guess it’s like the oil companies having a hand in writing laws that affect their industry favorably. Unfortunately this dude’s industry is civil rights of people.

*chortle*

318 tradewind  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:21:49pm

re: #305 Obdicut
There’s no need for that kind of language in this context.

319 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:22:04pm

re: #315 darthstar

It’s also something that can never be proved or disproved. You (assuming you’re the officer for the sake of argument) either smell it, or you don’t. If you find it, then you win. If you don’t, then you apologize and say, “My bad.” If all you find is an old roach under the floor mat and you still bust the person for possession, then they have an illegal search argument.

Republicans for legalization! Let’s march!

320 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:22:30pm

re: #316 Aceofwhat?

Easy, dude. Whether the initial stop was lawful can still be challenged just as it could in any other case, IIRC.

I still don’t understand why AZ wouldn’t rather get tighter/more biometric with their state ID’s. Being able to flash a DL which is automatic proof of citizenship would sorta make all of this go away, wouldn’t it?

Georgia had serious challenges to their biometric IDs and requirement of citizenship to receive a liscense or vote. Its ongoing.

321 Guanxi88  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:22:57pm

re: #319 Aceofwhat?

Republicans for legalization! Let’s march!

Whataburger’s open 24 hours, dude!

322 Bagua  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:23:00pm

re: #315 darthstar

It’s also something that can never be proved or disproved. You (assuming you’re the officer for the sake of argument) either smell it, or you don’t. If you find it, then you win. If you don’t, then you apologize and say, “My bad.” If all you find is an old roach under the floor mat and you still bust the person for possession, then they have an illegal search argument.

Correct, though a defense attorney may try to suppress the evidence if he can find an excuse. Even the Threshold Inquiry can be challenged, if, for example, the attorney would allege that his client was stopped merely for being black.

323 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:23:01pm

re: #319 Aceofwhat?

Republicans for legalization! Let’s march!


Immigrants or Pot? I’m getting a little lost in the thread.

324 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:23:12pm

re: #278 cliffster

These sorts of mental streams of outrage are really starting to sound a lot like the Death Panelz type things that Republicans idiotically threw out about the Health Care bill.

Not really. Plenty of police departments keep stats and have targets for stops and arrests for things like speeding, traffic pull-overs.

325 reine.de.tout  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:23:27pm

re: #306 lawhawk

Thoughts and prayers to the Biden family as VP Biden’s son suffered a minor stroke earlier today. He’s expected to recover.

Oh, I’m sorry to hear that.
Whatever political differences I have with Biden, he and his wife and family seem like very nice folks. This is a bit young for a stroke. I hope it’s just that and not an indication of some further problems.

326 wrenchwench  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:24:20pm

re: #252 SanFranciscoZionist

Where can I find the amendments online? The version I’m finding still uses ‘lawful contact’.

Try this one. I saw it before in an azstarnet article, but I can’t find that now. That link should be better anyway. I found it here.

327 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:24:25pm

re: #318 tradewind

eh, he curses a lot. it’s not meant as an insult.

328 wrenchwench  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:25:01pm

re: #255 lostlakehiker

AZ’s law will sweep these up far more efficiently than it will those who have already met every standard we ask of legal immigrants before they get sworn in as citizens.

There’s nothing in the law to indicate that.

329 Bagua  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:25:05pm

re: #324 SanFranciscoZionist

Not really. Plenty of police departments keep stats and have targets for stops and arrests for things like speeding, traffic pull-overs.

Of course they do, and they are subject for scrutiny for bias if they are in the habit of pulling over Black people in certain neighborhoods merely based upon the colour of their skin.

330 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:26:02pm

re: #316 Aceofwhat?

Easy, dude. Whether the initial stop was lawful can still be challenged just as it could in any other case, IIRC.

You do realize when you say things like “Easy, dude” it comes across as massively patronizing, right?

What relevance does the initial stop’s legality being reviewable matter, especially given that things like Terry Stops exist?

331 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:26:05pm

re: #321 Guanxi88

Whataburger’s open 24 hours, dude!

Mmmmm, Whataburger. Actually Jack in the Box is better for such occasions.. 2/$1.00 tacos. May I please have 60 tacos and a Jumbo Jack?

332 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:26:19pm

re: #321 Guanxi88

Whataburger’s open 24 hours, dude!

oh, i don’t smoke. i just hate the waste of tax dollars and the crime that it generates.

tax the bejesus out of it and let’s pay down some deficit without raising other taxes…come on, republicans…if this fruit were hanging any lower, it’d be Larry King’s balls//

333 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:26:23pm

re: #324 SanFranciscoZionist

Not really. Plenty of police departments keep stats and have targets for stops and arrests for things like speeding, traffic pull-overs.

Better get that tail light fixed boy. /

334 Decatur Deb  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:26:24pm

re: #319 Aceofwhat?

Republicans for legalization! Let’s march!

Former Republican governor was on Colbert last night, trying to get it organized.

colbertnation.com

335 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:26:33pm

re: #318 tradewind

There’s no need for that kind of language in this context.

What-the-fuck-ever.

336 Guanxi88  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:26:59pm

re: #331 cliffster

Mmmm, Whataburger. Actually Jack in the Box is better for such occasions.. 2/$1.00 tacos. May I please have 60 tacos and a Jumbo Jack?

I think that’d be probable cause right there.

337 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:27:09pm

re: #330 Obdicut

You do realize when you say things like “Easy, dude” it comes across as massively patronizing, right?

“Lighten Up Francis!” /

338 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:27:12pm

re: #323 DaddyG

Immigrants or Pot? I’m getting a little lost in the thread.

pot.

i mean, i want a much wider throughput for immigration, too, but illegal pot is a republican slam dunk if ever there was one…

339 tradewind  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:27:40pm

re: #311 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
This would work:

a) Finish the dang fence and seal the border. No mas.
b) Anyone who has been here with a work history and a clean background check for five years, …..with those who have family members here legally given precedence…. gets a green card and a path to naturalization.
c) Less than five years, pay a fine, pay back taxes, and get green card at the end of year five if no criminal history.

340 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:28:03pm

re: #304 ExCamelJockey

“The TV ad – shot in the border town of Nogales, Arizona – shows McCain talking with Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu about the need for tougher border security. Nogales is on the Mexican border, but it’s in Santa Cruz County – not Pinal County, which is 115 miles north in central Arizona. “

Regardless of the fact that Pinal County is not directly on the border, it garnered national attention two weeks ago when a deputy was was shot there by suspected illegal immigrants. If you live in Arizona you ‘d probably think this was pretty relevant in the fight against illegal immigration wouldn’t you think?
Deputy shot in Pinal County

You might indeed.

Now, let me ask something. For those of you who think this is not big deal at all, what do you make of the two gentlemen Sheriffing on the border who don’t like this law? What’s up there?

341 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:28:05pm

re: #330 Obdicut

You do realize when you say things like “Easy, dude” it comes across as massively patronizing, right?

not in response to an f-bomb. just trying to keep it relaxed. thanks for assuming the best of me…

342 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:28:17pm

re: #337 DaddyG

“Lighten Up Francis!” /

I’m not threatening to kill anyone over it. I just don’t think Ace means to be patronizing.

343 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:28:40pm

re: #341 Aceofwhat?

See my 342. I am assuming the best of you.

344 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:28:45pm

re: #334 Decatur Deb

If Republicans could get organized around legalization, they wouldn’t lose an election for 20 years. Abortion, gay rights, forgetabout it. Legalize it, win elections.

345 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:28:55pm

re: #313 cliffster

Fair enough - that or something else. I’m just puzzled by the animosity Americans feel towards people that happen to be born somewhere else.

Sadly, nativism is a long-standing impulse in this country. It rarely is dominant, but its always extant.

346 tradewind  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:29:11pm

re: #325 reine.de.tout
Hope he recovers quickly. I wonder if there is some hereditary thing there? The vice president had a brain aneurysm at a fairly young age.

347 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:29:23pm

re: #330 Obdicut

You do realize when you say things like “Easy, dude” it comes across as massively patronizing, right?

and while i took your side at #327, too. you’re welcome…i guess…?

348 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:29:37pm

re: #338 Aceofwhat?

pot.

i mean, i want a much wider throughput for immigration, too, but illegal pot is a republican slam dunk if ever there was one…


You know that’s why the Libertarians have trouble organizing…

Dude, I got a great idea for a political slogan.

Yeah?

Dude, it’s… wait… um…

Yeah?

Dude, I got a great idea. Pass the cheetos.

349 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:29:46pm

re: #343 Obdicut

See my 342. I am assuming the best of you.

cool. then i’ll take it that way. thanks.

350 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:30:21pm

re: #329 Bagua

Of course they do, and they are subject for scrutiny for bias if they are in the habit of pulling over Black people in certain neighborhoods merely based upon the colour of their skin.

So saying that there would be targets to meet on this is not exactly the equivalent of death panels.

351 tradewind  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:30:27pm

re: #335 Obdicut
At a loss for words?
Okay. Not a problem.

352 Decatur Deb  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:30:29pm

re: #344 cliffster

If Republicans could get organized around legalization, they wouldn’t lose an election for 20 years. Abortion, gay rights, forgetabout it. Legalize it, win elections.

It’s going to happen, just like alcohol repeal. We’re not getting smarter, the pain level is just going to get too high.

353 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:31:26pm

re: #342 Obdicut

I’m not threatening to kill anyone over it. I just don’t think Ace means to be patronizing.

I was trying to be funny - that comment wasn’t about you. Your comment reminded me of the most patronizing thing anyone ever said to me on a blog. (Pissed me off!!)

354 Bagua  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:31:30pm

re: #350 SanFranciscoZionist

So saying that there would be targets to meet on this is not exactly the equivalent of death panels.

Not sure I understand your meaning.

355 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:32:02pm

re: #351 tradewind

That is one charge that can never be made against me.

356 ShaunP  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:32:07pm

re: #344 cliffster

If Republicans could get organized around legalization, they wouldn’t lose an election for 20 years. Abortion, gay rights, forgetabout it. Legalize it, win elections.

I dunno. The family values types would probably not look to kindly on legalization…

357 Bagua  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:32:41pm

re: #355 Obdicut

That is one charge that can never be made against me.

Quoted for truth. :)

358 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:33:02pm

re: #353 DaddyG

I was trying to be funny - that comment wasn’t about you. Your comment reminded me of the most patronizing thing anyone ever said to me on a blog. (Pissed me off!!)

Ah, yeah. I’ve seen that said a lot. But it gave me a chance to clarify what I meant, anyway.

359 The 1SG  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:33:45pm

So just so I got it right, everyone is up in arms about the “reasonable suspicion” part of AB1070, correct?

Currently the Federal ICE border agents stop you on a roadway (usually a border state) and randomly ask you immigration status as in previous mentioned you tube videos. All without a warrant or probably cause, just a stop in the middle of the road and not the border.

So how is AB1070 more than what the ICE Agents are currently doing? I think I am missing something here. This after reading AB 1070 via GOOGLE on a PDF. The AZ Police still need cause to stop you and then reasonable suspicion, which is a greater huddle (albeit small one) than the FEDS.

360 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:33:51pm

re: #356 ShaunP

I dunno. The family values types would probably not look to kindly on legalization…

I said, “if”

361 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:33:52pm

re: #358 Obdicut

Ah, yeah. I’ve seen that said a lot. But it gave me a chance to clarify what I meant, anyway.


Good deal - I’m headed upstairs to the next thread where I can peddle my puns and brag about my garden some more.

362 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:33:54pm

re: #354 Bagua

Not sure I understand your meaning.

#271, #278

363 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:35:48pm

re: #339 tradewind

This would work:

a) Finish the dang fence and seal the border. No mas.
b) Anyone who has been here with a work history and a clean background check for five years, …with those who have family members here legally given precedence… gets a green card and a path to naturalization.
c) Less than five years, pay a fine, pay back taxes, and get green card at the end of year five if no criminal history.

Workable, but no one in a position to do anything about it will listen to it.

364 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:36:51pm

McCain

365 tradewind  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:37:17pm

re: #363 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Which is exactly the attitude that birthed 1070.
Opinion polls show that people want to see how it works before they jump ugly over it. We should probably sit back and let AZ be AZ.

366 The 1SG  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:37:46pm

re: #324 SanFranciscoZionist

Can you expand on what you mean there with “targets”?

367 Decatur Deb  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:38:16pm

re: #359 The 1SG

So just so I got it right, everyone is up in arms about the “reasonable suspicion” part of AB1070, correct?

Currently the Federal ICE border agents stop you on a roadway (usually a border state) and randomly ask you immigration status as in previous mentioned you tube videos. All without a warrant or probably cause, just a stop in the middle of the road and not the border.

So how is AB1070 more than what the ICE Agents are currently doing? I think I am missing something here. This after reading AB 1070 via GOOGLE on a PDF. The AZ Police still need cause to stop you and then reasonable suspicion, which is a greater huddle (albeit small one) than the FEDS.

I don’t know how the Border Patrol thing works. If they stopped me, I would need a day or so to prove I’m a citizen—even though I know who won the Series in ‘63.

368 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:39:44pm

re: #359 The 1SG

Well, you could read the thread.

369 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:39:54pm

re: #359 The 1SG

Dude, i don’t think that ICE sets up checkpoints to ascertain citizenship status.

Folks don’t drive around with their nirth certifikates. Or did you mean something else?

370 tradewind  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:40:05pm

re: #359 The 1SG

So how is AB1070 more than what the ICE Agents are currently supposed to be doing per federal law?


FTFY/

371 wrenchwench  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:40:17pm

re: #359 The 1SG

So just so I got it right, everyone is up in arms about the “reasonable suspicion” part of AB1070, correct?

Currently the Federal ICE border agents stop you on a roadway (usually a border state) and randomly ask you immigration status as in previous mentioned you tube videos. All without a warrant or probably cause, just a stop in the middle of the road and not the border.

So how is AB1070 more than what the ICE Agents are currently doing? I think I am missing something here. This after reading AB 1070 via GOOGLE on a PDF. The AZ Police still need cause to stop you and then reasonable suspicion, which is a greater huddle (albeit small one) than the FEDS.

The difference is that when local law enforcement do it, instead of Federal law enforcement, it can play havoc with keeping the peace. Suddenly crime does not get reported, witnesses won’t testify, people run from cops instead of to them when there’s trouble. Stuff like that.

372 Stanley Sea  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:41:06pm

re: #359 The 1SG

So just so I got it right, everyone is up in arms about the “reasonable suspicion” part of AB1070, correct?

Currently the Federal ICE border agents stop you on a roadway (usually a border state) and randomly ask you immigration status as in previous mentioned you tube videos. All without a warrant or probably cause, just a stop in the middle of the road and not the border.

So how is AB1070 more than what the ICE Agents are currently doing? I think I am missing something here. This after reading AB 1070 via GOOGLE on a PDF. The AZ Police still need cause to stop you and then reasonable suspicion, which is a greater huddle (albeit small one) than the FEDS.

I think it’s more that the request for proof of citizenship is now also placed in the hands of local law enforcement, not just ICE.

373 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:41:45pm

re: #356 ShaunP

I dunno. The family values types would probably not look to kindly on legalization…

That’s the genius of it. If republicans could get it passed anyway, the family values types are not gonna start voting for democrats as a result of this one issue…especially because it’s a fiscally conservative win.

374 wrenchwench  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:42:00pm

re: #369 Aceofwhat?

Dude, i don’t think that ICE sets up checkpoints to ascertain citizenship status.

Folks don’t drive around with their nirth certifikates. Or did you mean something else?

ICE does set up checkpoints, and can ask for proof of citizenship. There are permanent checkpoints on I-10, and temporary ones where ever they want.

375 The 1SG  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:42:07pm

re: #367 Decatur Deb

Hey, there is a good point. What if I am driving there with no license that has a requirement for citizenship. Do they ask me question like who won the world series (and I am taking the whole race thing out to be equal across the board). With out my pass port, I am not sure I could on the spot prove citizenship. Cause I would lose the baseball questions.

376 Stanley Sea  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:42:13pm

re: #373 Aceofwhat?

That’s the genius of it. If republicans could get it passed anyway, the family values types are not gonna start voting for democrats as a result of this one issue…especially because it’s a fiscally conservative win.

Theocrat party all the way.

377 The 1SG  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:43:12pm

re: #369 Aceofwhat?

I youtubed and asked (border ICE checkpoints quite a few). Youtube Video

378 wrenchwench  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:43:33pm

re: #375 The 1SG

Hey, there is a good point. What if I am driving there with no license that has a requirement for citizenship. Do they ask me question like who won the world series (and I am taking the whole race thing out to be equal across the board). With out my pass port, I am not sure I could on the spot prove citizenship. Cause I would lose the baseball questions.

An AZ license is acceptable, a New Mexico license is not. I carry my passport and my license.

379 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:45:05pm

re: #374 wrenchwench

ICE does set up checkpoints, and can ask for proof of citizenship. There are permanent checkpoints on I-10, and temporary ones where ever they want.

Aren’t those drug checkpoints first and immigration checkpoints second?

380 Bagua  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:45:13pm

re: #362 SanFranciscoZionist

#271, #278

I see, thanks. You are correct, that would be hyperbole. Also note, that while the department may have some sort of quota system or other metrics for evaluating their effectiveness, they still must do their work legally. Thus, they must have some-sort of reasonable suspicion prior to conducting their Threshold Inquiries, and the existence of a quota system will often be problematic for the department.

381 Decatur Deb  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:45:29pm

re: #374 wrenchwench

re: #375 The 1SG

Wrenchwench, what do the Border Patrol do to the Sarge and me, supposing we look like 2nd generation Sicilian-Americans?

382 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:45:37pm

re: #376 Stanley Sea

Theocrat party all the way.

when they pry it from my cold, dead hands…;)

383 wrenchwench  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:46:31pm

re: #379 Aceofwhat?

Aren’t those drug checkpoints first and immigration checkpoints second?

They are enforcement of whatever needs to be enforced checkpoints. You’d have to ask ICE how they prioritize.

384 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:47:03pm

re: #375 The 1SG

Hey, there is a good point. What if I am driving there with no license that has a requirement for citizenship. Do they ask me question like who won the world series (and I am taking the whole race thing out to be equal across the board). With out my pass port, I am not sure I could on the spot prove citizenship. Cause I would lose the baseball questions.

if you’re driving without a license, they get to hit you on the head with a tackhammer for being a dimwit.

do you have a more reasonable scenario that we can all mull over together?

385 Bagua  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:47:52pm

re: #374 wrenchwench

ICE does set up checkpoints, and can ask for proof of citizenship. There are permanent checkpoints on I-10, and temporary ones where ever they want.

Another example are drink driving roadblocks. There is no reasonable suspicion involved, they are quite draconian in nature.

386 Decatur Deb  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:48:23pm

re: #384 Aceofwhat?

if you’re driving without a license, they get to hit you on the head with a tackhammer for being a dimwit.

do you have a more reasonable scenario that we can all mull over together?

No Go, Ace. I carry an Alabama license, but no proof of citizenship.

387 The 1SG  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:48:33pm

re: #378 wrenchwench

Really, huh.

It would seem that in the hands of local law enforcement (immigration checks) it gives the people more control (elected officials on home turf sort of thing) than in the hands of some group living in D.C.

Again the ICE agents appear to have more power than the AZ Police with AB 1070 (at least so it would appear on paper) and maybe we should see how that goes. But everyone is on AZ’s back when the FEDS have and use more power.

388 Guanxi88  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:48:57pm

re: #381 Decatur Deb

re: #375 The 1SG

Wrenchwench, what do the Border Patrol do to the Sarge and me, supposing we look like 2nd generation Sicilian-Americans?

They see if you can make scungilli. You can, thenyour story checks out.

389 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:49:28pm

re: #383 wrenchwench

They are enforcement of whatever needs to be enforced checkpoints. You’d have to ask ICE how they prioritize.

azbiz.com

looks like immigration and drug-smuggling.

390 wrenchwench  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:49:43pm

re: #381 Decatur Deb

re: #375 The 1SG

Wrenchwench, what do the Border Patrol do to the Sarge and me, supposing we look like 2nd generation Sicilian-Americans?

If your state issues RealID compliant driver’s licenses, just carry that. If not, get a passport. Chances are that you will be waived through after saying “Howdy, officer”. I’ve only been searched once, and that was after a woman who fit my description was caught smuggling some people.

391 Bagua  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:50:07pm

Off to the bank, no ATM in The Secret Bat Cave where Bagua resides.™

392 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:50:56pm

re: #386 Decatur Deb

No Go, Ace. I carry an Alabama license, but no proof of citizenship.

Well, that’s what i mean. At least you drive with a license. Homeboy said “what if i’m driving without a license” and that’s where i stopped reading his post.

But a license is good enough, right? Otherwise these “checkpoints” would be rounding up citizens by the thousands. We’d likely have heard of it by now…just sayin’…

393 Decatur Deb  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:51:14pm

re: #390 wrenchwench

Alabama will even issue a license without a photo, if you renew from overseas.

394 gamark  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:51:22pm

re: #240 wrenchwench

However, the law still intends to intimidate

Is that such a bad thing, generally? Aren’t all laws intended to intimidate?

395 wrenchwench  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:52:11pm

re: #387 The 1SG

Really, huh.

It would seem that in the hands of local law enforcement (immigration checks) it gives the people more control (elected officials on home turf sort of thing) than in the hands of some group living in D.C.

Again the ICE agents appear to have more power than the AZ Police with AB 1070 (at least so it would appear on paper) and maybe we should see how that goes. But everyone is on AZ’s back when the FEDS have and use more power.

Citizenship is a Federal thing. AZ’s law says “It is now against our law to break Federal law”. They can do that (or so it looks so far.) The question is “should they”? My opinion is “no.”

396 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:52:58pm

re: #385 Bagua

Another example are drink driving roadblocks. There is no reasonable suspicion involved, they are quite draconian in nature.

heh. i’m fine with those. they’re non-discriminatory, and i have tremendous disgust for folks who drink and drive.

397 wrenchwench  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:53:43pm

re: #394 gamark

Is that such a bad thing, generally? Aren’t all laws intended to intimidate?

Pretty cynical view of the law. But perhaps not incorrect. Mucks things up if the ones intimidated are those abiding by the law and not the criminals.

398 The 1SG  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:53:47pm

re: #384 Aceofwhat?

Please check again; a license (Driver’s License) that has no requirement for a citizenship check prior to issue. I have a license but it doesn’t say it is good for citizenship, only the enhanced version does that. So they wouldn’t hit me for being a dimwit, cause I would have my DL. Your point?

399 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:54:43pm

re: #396 Aceofwhat?

heh. i’m fine with those. they’re non-discriminatory, and i have tremendous disgust for folks who drink and drive.

I got caught in a roadblock with a liscense that has expired. The kind officer said “happy birthday sir, now go renew your liscense.”

400 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:55:18pm

liscense lincense licence

oh never mind.

401 Guanxi88  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:55:22pm

re: #381 Decatur Deb

re: #375 The 1SG

Wrenchwench, what do the Border Patrol do to the Sarge and me, supposing we look like 2nd generation Sicilian-Americans?

Quick funny before I go:

I’m at logan airport with my professor, of blessed memory. He’s pulling the whole “vaguely central european with diplomatic credentials” thing to get a free upgrade to first class.

Anywho, he’s caused enough of a disturbance that the law comes over to take a look. He says to me, in demotic german/russian: “Don’t say anything; and only speak russian.”

I do, and the charade ends up with Mass State troopers threatening to get a freakin’ slovak interpreter over to get some answers outta the young man with no ID, wearing a sports coat with a Bombay tailor’s tag, Danish shoes, Italian pants, an english shirt, and with a pocket full of shekels and drachmae whose boss says he’s a Slovak diplomat on official business.

402 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:57:21pm

re: #401 Guanxi88
So how are the overnight accomidations at Logan? /

403 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:59:43pm

re: #398 The 1SG

Please check again; a license (Driver’s License) that has no requirement for a citizenship check prior to issue. I have a license but it doesn’t say it is good for citizenship, only the enhanced version does that. So they wouldn’t hit me for being a dimwit, cause I would have my DL. Your point?

Oh, now i see. You wrote

What if I am driving there with no license that has a requirement for citizenship.

and while i’m not the official local pedant, that sentence needs more reconstruction than the Iraqi infrastructure. have mercy.

so on to what you intended to say.

there have to be a lot of folks passing through who aren’t from AZ. are you saying that hundreds of citizens with DL’s from another state are detained each day at these checkpoints?

404 Cheechako  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:04:05pm

re: #398 The 1SG

Please check again; a license (Driver’s License) that has no requirement for a citizenship check prior to issue. I have a license but it doesn’t say it is good for citizenship, only the enhanced version does that. So they wouldn’t hit me for being a dimwit, cause I would have my DL. Your point?


Here’s the requirements to obtain an Arizona DL and ID card. Seems to me that you need strong evidence that you must be a legal resident of the US and/or AZ to obtain either one. And, if you can’t afford the $12 for the ID card, you can get one for free.

AZ DL & ID Card Requirements


BUT, BE AWARE! If you’re from Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico, Utah, and Washington, your Drivers License does not count as a valid identification as being legally in the US. These states do not verify your lawful presence in the United States to obtain a drivers license.

405 Stanley Sea  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:04:07pm

re: #403 Aceofwhat?

Oh, now i see. You wrote

What if I am driving there with no license that has a requirement for citizenship.

and while i’m not the official local pedant, that sentence needs more reconstruction than the Iraqi infrastructure. have mercy.

so on to what you intended to say.

there have to be a lot of folks passing through who aren’t from AZ. are you saying that hundreds of citizens with DL’s from another state are detained each day at these checkpoints?

They have a profile, tourist-types get through.

406 ausador  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:05:19pm

re: #294 darthstar

There’s also the “I smelled something suspicious” excuse. If they want to search, they will.

Around 1980 I had just bought a 1/4 pound of pot (only $80.00 back then) and my buddy and his girlfriend and I were parked behind the school near my house trying the very first joint out of it.

Suddenly we were lit up from behind with a floodlight and rotating red and blue lights. I had the whole quart baggy sitting on the seat next to me and immediately started futilely looking for a place to stash it. I realized that all the windows were rolled up and that the officer would certainly have probably cause to search the car just from the trapped smell so I furtively stuffed it into the front of my pants.

I figured I was busted for sure, but I would rather have it on me than get my buddie in trouble if they found it in the car. I was kinda small for my age then and weighed about 125lbs soaking wet, that damn baggie made me look like I had suddenly gained about 10lbs below my waistline, it was ridiculous to think I was going to get away with it.

Up front my buddy and his girlfriend rapidly rolled down the windows and the slight breeze present pushed a literal cloud of smoke out of the car. The officer who was by this time walking up to the car quite purposefully altered his course and veered away from the car to walk right through the center of the cloud of pot smoke.

When he reached the passenger side window he said “That was probable cause to search your vehicle, I want you all to get out one at a time and then go back and stand in front of my vehicle.”

My buddie got out, then his girlfriend, then me, and we all went back in front of his headlights while he cautiously watched. Apparently he decided that we weren’t crazed and dangerous drug runners or anything because he then started rooting around in the car. I kept looking down at my pregnant waistline while the litany “I’m fucked, I’m fucked, I’m fucked” kept running through my head.

The officer found the roach from the joint still attached to a roach clip in the front ashtray and I silently cursed both my buddie and his girlfriend for not having sense enough to pitch it into the darkness when they lowered the windows. “So whose is this?” the officer asked loudly. “Miin…urggh…cough…Mine sir” I immediately quavered.
“So where is the rest of it?” the cop demanded now walking up to me with his flashlight directly in my face.
“That is all there is, I only bought the one joint” I replied suddenly inspired by desperation.
“Really? And where can you buy one joint around here?” he asked sounding both sarcastic and doubtful at the same time.
“Up there on Fourth street at the game room…

I proceeded to spin probably the best lie I have ever told, all about a poor young man being influenced by unsavory characters at the seedy local game room and pressured by peer influence into buying a single joint from them so that I would find out that all the horrible things I heard about marijuana were actually false.

Further inspired I then doubled over and retched loudly several times as if I were getting nauseous and told the officer that the pot was making me both dizzy and sick to my stomach. The officer went back and rooted around the car a little more and then came back to us and told us he had probable cause to “pat us down.” My heart must have been going about 140 beats a minute by then and I was running with sweat between that and the hot Florida night.

I was the last one patted down and as his hands came up my thighs I again doubled over halfway while making now very realistic (I really was almost nervous enough to puke about then) retching noises. He swiped his hand around my waistband to make sure I didn’t have a gun or anything and then backed off.

To end the long tale we received a lecture on the evils of drugs and not to ever let him again catch any of us around here with them and were allowed to drive away.

407 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:07:45pm

re: #402 DaddyG

So how are the overnight accomidations at Logan? /

[snicker]

408 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:08:05pm

re: #406 ausador

sweet

409 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:09:30pm

re: #404 Cheechako

Here’s the requirements to obtain an Arizona DL and ID card. Seems to me that you need strong evidence that you must be a legal resident of the US and/or AZ to obtain either one. And, if you can’t afford the $12 for the ID card, you can get one for free.

AZ DL & ID Card Requirements

BUT, BE AWARE! If you’re from Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico, Utah, and Washington, your Drivers License does not count as a valid identification as being legally in the US. These states do not verify your lawful presence in the United States to obtain a drivers license.

Given that I live in Illinois, that’s important to know.

410 Cheechako  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:11:33pm

re: #409 Dark_Falcon

Given that I live in Illinois, that’s important to know.


I guess you’ll never get to visit the Grand Canyon.

411 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:11:52pm

re: #406 ausador

Remind me to tell my Belgian Halloween/Satanic Chippendale story some time.

412 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:12:26pm

re: #411 Obdicut

Remind me to tell my Belgian Halloween/Satanic Chippendale story some time.

Remind me not to be around when you tell that story.

413 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:15:20pm

re: #412 cliffster

If it makes it any better, I was the Satanic Chippendale.

414 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:15:51pm

re: #412 cliffster

Remind me not to be around when you tell that story.

are you kidding? loincloth, trappist undertones, satanic halloween references, and Obdicut’s unusually flexible joints?

i need a drink or two first, but after that, i’m rapt…

415 wrenchwench  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:15:53pm

Thanks for the hat tip, Charles, but, as another said recently, it’s not ever necessary.

416 wrenchwench  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:16:18pm

re: #413 Obdicut

If it makes it any better, I was the Satanic Chippendale.

The tale may require illustrations.

417 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:16:36pm

bbl

418 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:18:15pm

re: #410 Cheechako

I guess you’ll never get to visit the Grand Canyon.

I could always get a passport then visit.

419 cliffster  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:19:57pm

re: #413 Obdicut

If it makes it any better, I was the Satanic Chippendale.

oh, well in that case… RUN!!!

420 Cheechako  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:25:34pm

re: #418 Dark_Falcon

I could always get a passport then visit.


That will work.

P.S. The Grand Canyon is just a great big hole in the ground.

421 ausador  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:31:29pm

re: #420 Cheechako

That will work.

P.S. The Grand Canyon is just a great big hole in the ground.

I was really very utterly unimpressed both times I have been there, I guess I like imagination or something. Yep, fine, “wow, look at the very large ugly ditch”…

422 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:31:56pm

re: #366 The 1SG

Can you expand on what you mean there with “targets”?

Make X number of speeding collars a month.

423 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:33:59pm

re: #381 Decatur Deb

re: #375 The 1SG

Wrenchwench, what do the Border Patrol do to the Sarge and me, supposing we look like 2nd generation Sicilian-Americans?

My experience, as a 4th-generation Jewish American, has been that they want hear me talk.

424 gamark  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:39:16pm

re: #397 wrenchwench

Pretty cynical view of the law. But perhaps not incorrect. Mucks things up if the ones intimidated are those abiding by the law and not the criminals.

I must admit to possessing a good bit of cynicism, but its not directed at the law in particular.
I didn’t have an ominous definition of “intimidate” in mind when I asked that question. Its not a good choice of words because it is somewhat morally ambiguous. I have the same problem with the use of “attrition” in the AZ law. My point was that laws are used to influence behaviour. That includes the law abiding as well as law-breakers. Do you consider someone that walked across the border and took up residence in AZ to be among “those abiding by the law?” Do you think we should have an open border immigration policy?

I would answer no to those two questions, but I’m no rabid nativist. I’m second generation American from my maternal side. My grandparents came from Italy in the early 1900s and I hold dual US-Italian citizenship. I’m not opposed to anyone of good moral character coming to the US, but we no longer have a seemingly unlimited frontier to welcome everyone who just wants to walk in like we used to. And while I’m no flag-waving supporter of the AZ law, I think the response to the law’s passage has been overwrought to say the least.

425 The 1SG  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:39:28pm

re: #423 SanFranciscoZionist

Probably not the time to imitate Woody Allen, I would guess.

426 Stanley Sea  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:39:33pm

re: #421 ausador

I was really very utterly unimpressed both times I have been there, I guess I like imagination or something. Yep, fine, “wow, look at the very large ugly ditch”…

The photos are better!

427 The 1SG  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:40:54pm

Ciao!

428 jvic  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:48:21pm

re: #11 wrenchwench

I think “one of us” means something like “desperate political climber”:

Babeu is the only Republican ever elected to countywide office in Pinal since it was formed in 1875. The Angel* thinks he’s a shoo-in for a climb up the GOP’s Golden Stairs but he vows he’s not interested — just yet anyway. “I love this job,” he says. “I fought hard to get this opportunity and I enjoy every minute of it, even the difficult minutes.”

That’s from Babeu’s website, but the link he gives goes to a subscription page. *I suspect it was a blog post by “the Angel” at that site.

I’m too pressed for time to read most of the comments, sorry.

1. I have no problem when a police official critically assesses the practical effects of a law. I presume that police officials use their discretion in how they allocate enforcement resources. However, I see little good coming of it when police officials publicly announce that they will not enforce a law that they disapprove of. If a police official insists on making his refusal public, on the face of it the appropriate action is to resign in protest.

2. Fwiw, outspoken Sheriffs Dupnik and Estrada are both Democrats.

429 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:48:56pm

re: #425 The 1SG

Probably not the time to imitate Woody Allen, I would guess.

No.

430 wrenchwench  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:51:46pm

re: #424 gamark

Do you consider someone that walked across the border and took up residence in AZ to be among “those abiding by the law?” Do you think we should have an open border immigration policy?

No, and no. I still think this law is bad.

431 wrenchwench  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:53:25pm

re: #428 jvic

2. Fwiw, outspoken Sheriffs Dupnik and Estrada are both Democrats.

I’m about to become one of those myself in the near future. Maybe.

432 jvic  Tue, May 11, 2010 3:04:40pm

re: #431 wrenchwench

I’m about to become one of those myself in the near future. Maybe.

You pointed out the political affiliation of one of the sheriffs so I pointed out the other two, that’s all.

Btw, I have supported Democrats Bill Clinton, Jim Webb, and Barack Obama. I have concerns about Obama but no regrets about backing Clinton and Webb.

433 gamark  Tue, May 11, 2010 3:06:39pm

re: #430 wrenchwench

I still think this law is bad.

That’s a perfectly reasonable view as stated. Its all the ridiculous hyperbole about the law being the worst thing since nazi germany, etc, etc that is unreasonable. People who use such hyperbole should not be taken seriously. If the law is as bad as that, no hyperbole is needed to make the case against it. The level of the hyperbole sends me the signal that its all a nontroversy.

434 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 3:08:35pm

re: #433 gamark

Nobody is using that level of hyperbole.

435 gamark  Tue, May 11, 2010 3:10:22pm

re: #434 Obdicut

puhlease!

436 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 3:11:30pm

re: #435 gamark

puhlease!

Find me someone using that level of hyperbole, then.

437 jvic  Tue, May 11, 2010 3:20:42pm

re: #436 Obdicut

Find me someone using that level of hyperbole, then.

For example:

I think the kristallnacht is a step or two away, yet. I think a necessary intervening step is the establishment of an equivalent to the Nuremberg laws. The Arizona law and its equivalents in other states are close, but they have to get past a few hurdles before they’re established.

Okay, a step or two away from that level of hyperbole, if you insist on speaking strictly…

The Maine thread has a number of comments with a similar tone.

I’ve greatly overstayed the time I intended to spend here. Later.

438 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 3:22:53pm

re: #437 jvic

Okay, a step or two away from that level of hyperbole, if you insist on speaking strictly…

So in other words, it’d actually be hyperbolic to say that anyone was using that level of hyperbole.

439 ausador  Tue, May 11, 2010 3:23:46pm

re: #433 gamark

Right, we should all just completely ignore each little bite that removes just a tiny bit of our rights. After all you absolutely trust the government to always use these new powers for good right? You have no fears whatsoever that if we expand the government search and seaizure powers that they might ever use it against “real” citizens or perhaps just people who disagree with some government bearucrats to intimidate or silence them right?

You think you are making us safer, instead your expanding the government power to control us, I thought that most people on both sides of the argument were against that?

440 gamark  Tue, May 11, 2010 3:25:55pm

re: #436 Obdicut

politico.com
rttnews.com
nydailynews.com
politicususa.com
cbs2.com

441 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 3:27:30pm

re: #440 gamark

None of those say that the law is the worst thing since Nazi Germany. And the law is reminiscent of the initial stages of how the Nazis attained power.

In criticizing hyperbole, you’re using hyperbole. Doesn’t that strike you as silly?

442 jvic  Tue, May 11, 2010 3:28:17pm

re: #438 Obdicut

So in other words, it’d actually be hyperbolic to say that anyone was using that level of hyperbole.

expletive deleted

expletive deleted

expletive deleted

expletive deleted

sigh Just when I think I’m out, I get pulled back in, but your remark made me go ballistic, i.e. parabolic.

443 gamark  Tue, May 11, 2010 3:34:19pm

re: #441 Obdicut

In criticizing hyperbole, you’re using hyperbole. Doesn’t that strike you as silly?

I said ridiculous hyperbole. Hyperbole is not in and of itself a bad thing.

444 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 3:39:00pm

re: #443 gamark

I said ridiculous hyperbole. Hyperbole is not in and of itself a bad thing.

Heh. So it’s okay when you do it. Got it.

445 gamark  Tue, May 11, 2010 3:45:25pm

re: #439 ausador

Right, we should all just completely ignore each little bite that removes just a tiny bit of our rights.

*sigh*

After all you absolutely trust the government to always use these new powers for good right?

What did I say that gave you that impression?

You have no fears whatsoever that if we expand the government search and seaizure powers that they might ever use it against “real” citizens

Do you think people who walk across the border and take up residence in the US are “real” citizens? Do you think the US should have an open border immigration policy?

446 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 3:48:35pm

re: #445 gamark

Why do you think this law will only affect illegal immigrants?

Given that the law mandates people be stopped until they can prove their citizenship, doesn’t that obviously imply that citizens will be stopped as well?

447 gamark  Tue, May 11, 2010 3:52:35pm

re: #444 Obdicut

Heh. So it’s okay when you do it. Got it.

I’ll take that as kneejerk sarcasm and that you don’t actually believe that is what I said.

448 gamark  Tue, May 11, 2010 3:56:57pm

re: #446 Obdicut

Why do you think this law will only affect illegal immigrants?

I don’t. I’m quite sure there will be legal immigrants (as well as native born americans) affected by it.

Given that the law mandates people be stopped until they can prove their citizenship, doesn’t that obviously imply that citizens will be stopped as well?

I can’t discuss the law that “mandates people be stopped until they can prove their citizenship” without seeing it. Can you give me a link so I can check it out?

Oh wait, I get it. You’re just pulling my chain and not really interested in an honest discussion of the AZ law. Nevermind.

449 ausador  Tue, May 11, 2010 4:02:46pm

re: #445 gamark

I noticed that you replied to several points of my post. However you utterly failed to answer or even try to rebut a single point, you just acted as if nothing I said deserved an actual answer and instead replied sarcastically.

You don’t actually have any answer do you, you really are willing to give up your constitutional rights for a government “promise” that they will only use their new powers against the “bad” people, aren’t you?

Your an idiot, and a coward, a sheep who is being stampeded into giving away your own rights for some undefined promise that things will be “better” once you do. You don’t deserve to have to have all the rights that protect you since you don’t understand them and will not defend them.

F/U

450 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 4:04:42pm

re: #447 gamark

I’ll take that as kneejerk sarcasm and that you don’t actually believe that is what I said.

No, that’s pretty much what you said, to me. You claimed something was said— specifically, a particular form of hyperbole. You’ve been unable to substantiated this. So, your claim was hyperbolic. When I called you on it, your only response was that it’s only certain kinds of hyperbole that are bad. Wimpy.

re: #448 gamark

Oh geez. Mr. Hyperbole is now Mr. Literal. The law mandates that, during any stop, arrest, etc., a LEO has to verify the citizenship of the person if they have any reasonable doubt about the person’s legal immigration status. The only way to escape that, obviously, is to prove your citizenship— since in this case, the cops aren’t looking for a crime, but the absence of a crime.

451 ausador  Tue, May 11, 2010 4:06:43pm

re: #445 gamark

So then you are all for a Federal National Identification card program that includes biometric and medical identification data?

Just sayin…

452 gamark  Tue, May 11, 2010 4:14:42pm

re: #449 ausador

I noticed that you replied to several points of my post.

In my defence, I did actually answer several of your points. You answered none of mine.

You don’t actually have any answer do you, you really are willing to give up your constitutional rights for a government “promise” that they will only use their new powers against the “bad” people, aren’t you?

The government has been quilty in the past of planting contraband to incriminate innocent people. Should we fight against laws that make such contraband illegal? What is the “new power” in the AZ law that would compromise my constitutional rights?

Your an idiot, and a coward, a sheep who is being stampeded into giving away your own rights for some undefined promise that things will be “better” once you do. You don’t deserve to have to have all the rights that protect you since you don’t understand them and will not defend them.

F/U

So that’s it then? I really wish you’d tell me what I wrote to give you that impression. Otherwise, I’m just going to catagorize you as “wingnut” and move along.

453 ausador  Tue, May 11, 2010 4:20:28pm

re: #452 gamark

That would be a “moonbat” you see moonbats are left wing crazies and “wingnuts” are right wing crazies. You need to know the what the words actually mean before you try to label someone with one of them.

/and no you didn’t answer anything I said unless you count “sigh” as a deep and meaningfully answer somehow.

454 gamark  Tue, May 11, 2010 4:33:00pm

re: #450 Obdicut

No, that’s pretty much what you said, to me. You claimed something was said— specifically, a particular form of hyperbole. You’ve been unable to substantiated this. So, your claim was hyperbolic. When I called you on it, your only response was that it’s only certain kinds of hyperbole that are bad. Wimpy.

I said “Its all the ridiculous hyperbole about the law being the worst thing since nazi germany, etc, etc that is unreasonable.”

I provided a number of links comparing the AZ law to nazi germany. In my opinion, that substantiates what I said. In your view, there’s enough difference between what I said and what others said comparing the law to nazi germany that you act like you’ve caught me in some illogical thinking. You call what I wrote “hyperbole”, then make statements indicating that you took it literally.
Weird.

455 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 4:37:03pm

re: #454 gamark

I said “Its all the ridiculous hyperbole about the law being the worst thing since nazi germany, etc, etc that is unreasonable.”

I provided a number of links comparing the AZ law to nazi germany. In my opinion, that substantiates what I said.
Weird.

Of course it does. Even though it’s not true, you feel substantiated. Even though what you claimed is not true, you feel like you were right to say it. I do understand that.

People are comparing these laws to ones enacted in Nazi Germany because they are similar. The reasons are similar, the appeal is similar, the unworkability is similar, the obvious racism is similar.

That is nothing at all like your claim, which is that people are saying this law is the worst thing since Nazi Germany. Not at all.

In your view, there’s enough difference between what I said and what others said comparing the law to nazi germany that you act like you’ve caught me in some illogical thinking. You call what I wrote “hyperbole”, then make statements indicating that you took it literally.

You literally used hyperbole in complaining about hyperbole— which turned out not to actually exist in the manner you described it.

You also appear to not understand that this is moronic. I don’t know what else to tell you.

456 gamark  Tue, May 11, 2010 4:40:29pm

re: #453 ausador

That would be a “moonbat” you see moonbats are left wing crazies and “wingnuts” are right wing crazies.

I make no such left/right distinction to crazy. Some of my views coincide with the democratic party platform and some with the gop and some with libertarians, and some with socialism and some with…

/and no you didn’t answer anything I said unless you count “sigh” as a deep and meaningfully answer somehow.

The sigh was in response to a statement. The only question in that post was of the “have you stopped beating your wife” variety. And no I didn’t answer it, but I will ask for the third and final time, with genuine interest, what was it that I said that made you think I was the strawmen you erected?

457 Bagua  Tue, May 11, 2010 4:41:26pm

re: #396 Aceofwhat?

heh. i’m fine with those. they’re non-discriminatory, and i have tremendous disgust for folks who drink and drive.

Agreed, and it is a good case in point because it demonstrates that the populous is willing to tolerate such aggressive policing, as long as it is tied to a popular enforcement objective.

458 ausador  Tue, May 11, 2010 4:43:43pm

re: #454 gamark

I said “Its all the ridiculous hyperbole about the law being the worst thing since nazi germany, etc, etc that is unreasonable.”

I provided a number of links comparing the AZ law to nazi germany. In my opinion, that substantiates what I said. In your view, there’s enough difference between what I said and what others said comparing the law to nazi germany that you act like you’ve caught me in some illogical thinking. You call what I wrote “hyperbole”, then make statements indicating that you took it literally.
Weird.

And how about all the completely reasonable complaints made about the gradual but ultimately telling erosion of every citizens rights? Your still fine with that in the name of “safety” or of what exactly? What is it exactly that you think can be accomplished under this law that cannot be accomplished under existing laws if they were enforced properly?

What is it that makes you think after gaining your support by passing this ridiculous law that they will do any better at enforceing it than the others already on the books?

Your being played, you are very much being pandered and catered to, but they have no intention of actually changing the status quo much at all. You will give up your own personal rights because of a law that wont be enforced that you believe might be used against “others?”

Ergo, you are an idiot. ;)

459 Bagua  Tue, May 11, 2010 4:47:00pm

re: #385 Bagua

Another example are drink driving roadblocks. There is no reasonable suspicion involved, they are quite draconian in nature.

And note that while I use the word “draconian”, that does not indicate it is a bad thing. Most of us are willing to tolerate severe policing to combat such things as drunk driving, airplane terrorism and border control. With the caveat that draconian measures should be justifiable based upon the threats being addressed.

460 gamark  Tue, May 11, 2010 4:57:48pm

re: #455 Obdicut

I don’t know what else to tell you.

You said my statement was hyperbole and that it was literal. Both cannot be true. I don’t know what to make of what you told me.

I am honestly trying to have a reasonable discussion about some of your views on the AZ law. A law which I don’t really like, but one which doesn’t make me lose my sense of perspective. I’m just trying to understand if there’s really something to consider in opponents views of the law or if its all just hand-wavy nonsense. Instead of trying to support your views, you attack me personally. I’m not impressed.

And btw, Nazi laws on citizenship that I’ve seen quoted here and other places look very similar to the citizenship laws of a lot of countries. Well maybe except for the creepy part about citizens “belonging” to the german union.

Anyway, its time to head upstairs and get the polenta going…

461 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 4:59:21pm

re: #460 gamark

You said my statement was hyperbole and that it was literal. Both cannot be true. I don’t know what to make of what you told me.
.

No, I didn’t. If you make up things that I’ve said, of course you’ll have a problem with them.

And btw, Nazi laws on citizenship that I’ve seen quoted here and other places look very similar to the citizenship laws of a lot of countries. Well maybe except for the creepy part about citizens “belonging” to the german union.

Then you’re massively ignorant about the Nazi citizenship laws. Why not go educate yourself a bit about it? It’d help your perspective.

462 gamark  Tue, May 11, 2010 5:23:13pm

re: #461 Obdicut

re: #441 Obdicut

Your first statement is rebutting the strict literal interpretation of what I said.

Your next to last statement called it hyperbole.

And ever since then, all you’ve done is rinse and repeat.

I admit ignorance on the details of Nazi citizenship. But I fail to see what possible difference it makes in evaluating the AZ law. Are there any other laws that you oppose based on their likeness to nazi law? Should lawmakers do due diligence in making sure there is no similarity to nazi laws when they craft new laws? Sounds meaningless to me. There are those who attack gun control laws on the same basis. Those are meaningless points as well.

My initial interest here was your view that police detaining suspects and asking questions to investigate a suspected crime was “jackbooty”. You haven’t answered my question about that. I suspect that you are well and fine with this sort of police activity when investigating some crimes, but not immigration crimes. But that’s just an assumption, since you haven’t answered.

463 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 5:44:16pm

re: #462 gamark

Your first statement is rebutting the strict literal interpretation of what I said.

Your next to last statement called it hyperbole.

Wow. Okay. My first statement noted that what you said wasn’t literally true, and was therefore hyperbole.

My next to last statement called it, again, hyperbole.

I am not sure why this challenges you so much.

And yes, if you’re objecting strenuously to laws being compared to Nazi laws,you should probably figure out what the Nazi laws actually said. Otherwise you’re arguing from a completely ignorant position. You appear to be fine with that. I’m not sure why.

464 gamark  Tue, May 11, 2010 6:35:21pm

re: #463 Obdicut

Wow. Okay. My first statement noted that what you said wasn’t literally true, and was therefore hyperbole.

My next to last statement called it, again, hyperbole.

Let me ask this. Why do you feel I have to come up with a literal quote to substantiate hyperbole? The links I provided adequately validate the essence of my hyperbolic statement. The only reason to require an actual exact quote is if you thought I was being literal. Can you help a challenged fellow out and clear that up for me?

465 ausador  Tue, May 11, 2010 6:46:49pm

re: #464 gamark

If you are smart you’ll give it up Obdicut, why argue with someone who only regurtitates the talking points he has heard and cannot think for himself?

The only reason he is here is to troll, and your doing him a favor by giving him an audience. I think everything that can be said has been already, the rest is just helping him to gain an audience.

/let him (brain) rot in peace…

466 gamark  Tue, May 11, 2010 6:49:41pm

re: #458 ausador

And how about all the completely reasonable complaints made about the gradual but ultimately telling erosion of every citizens rights? Your still fine with that in the name of “safety” or of what exactly? What is it exactly that you think can be accomplished under this law that cannot be accomplished under existing laws if they were enforced properly?

All the completely reasonable complaints are, well, reasonable. I believe strongly the adage about boiling a frog. I started complaining about abridgements to constitutional rights back in ‘89 with Blanton vs N. Las Vegas and haven’t stopped since then.

What is it that makes you think after gaining your support by passing this ridiculous law that they will do any better at enforceing it than the others already on the books?

Who said I supported the law? They are liars. You shouldn’t listen to them.
Do you think the feds should enforce the US immigration laws? Have you done anything to protest their apathy toward seeing the laws faithfully executed? Do you agree with the federal laws that require non-citizens to carry identification papers and citizens-to-be to carry documentation of their immigration status?

Your being played, you are very much being pandered and catered to, but they have no intention of actually changing the status quo much at all. You will give up your own personal rights because of a law that wont be enforced that you believe might be used against “others?”

Ergo, you are an idiot. ;)

Dude, I don’t know who you’re talking about, but it ain’t me. I don’t even know why I bother.

467 ausador  Tue, May 11, 2010 6:51:19pm

re: #466 gamark

GAZE

468 gamark  Tue, May 11, 2010 6:56:53pm

re: #467 ausador

GAZE

I guess that’s better than all the personal attacks directed at the strawman you constructed in your fever dreams.

469 Dr. Shalit  Tue, May 11, 2010 7:05:52pm

Senator McCain -

If all’y’all are talking to Sheriffs, talk to Joe Arpayo. That is all. -S-


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 69 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 169 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1