Show Us Your Papers

[nutzbuster 7]

Gotta love Obama whipping up the frenzy today with stupid misinformed irresponsible comments. His first order of business as presidnet should be to preserve civil order, not spew the kind of rhetoric that might incite some to possibly act out.People are pissed off enough out here. If things blow up here I hope folks don't forget to set some of the blame in his lap.Calm down folks... think before you speak.And like I said, this bill is far from ever happening and may now go to a vote in September.CALM THE FUCK DOWN!!!

[hblask 1]

So George Bush was right, we did have a moral imperative to invade Iraq to depose a Dictator and impose our definition of rights into their society? Thanks for clearing that up.

Uh, Iraq isn't in the United States. It's across the Atlantic.People who come here are, by definition, in the United States. So if any Iraqi's came here looking for a new life, and they have no criminal past, let them in.If Hussein were to come here to harass them, then we need to defend against that.So to clarify, I think we have a moral imperative to respect the rights of honest people who come here seeking a better life. I do not think we have a moral imperative or the resources to correct every wrong in every country. Perhaps if the big government types on both sides of the aisle would get out of the way, we could resume our economic ascension, and then we'd be rich enough to solve the world's problems, and at that point we could assess the point at which that ability becomes a moral imperative.

[hblask 1]

Gotta love Obama whipping up the frenzy today with stupid misinformed irresponsible comments. His first order of business as presidnet should be to preserve civil order, not spew the kind of rhetoric that might incite some to possibly act out.People are pissed off enough out here. If things blow up here I hope folks don't forget to set some of the blame in his lap.Calm down folks... think before you speak.And like I said, this bill is far from ever happening and may now go to a vote in September.CALM THE FUCK DOWN!!!

So when the Democrats push economically harmful policies, we should fight to make sure it never takes effect, but when the Republicans pass economically harmful (not to mention morally questionable) policies, we should just calm down and take it?Um, let me think about that. OK, no.

[SweetDee 0]

Gotta love Obama whipping up the frenzy today with stupid misinformed irresponsible comments. His first order of business as presidnet should be to preserve civil order, not spew the kind of rhetoric that might incite some to possibly act out.People are pissed off enough out here. If things blow up here I hope folks don't forget to set some of the blame in his lap.Calm down folks... think before you speak.And like I said, this bill is far from ever happening and may now go to a vote in September.CALM THE FUCK DOWN!!!

I made a point to my liberal friends how happy they were that the healthcare bill was passed based on the perception that someone was doing "something, and something is a start." This works both ways, how does something look like now?Still waiting for an answer.That being said, after reading through it I'm sort of at the point that it's much ado about nothing, it's not clear that one could be stopped with no probable cause, at least not to me. What's interesting to me is that the day this was passed, I got a text from a buddy of mine that said that people were throwing rocks at police and shit, and so I turn on CNN thinking I might see some coverage of the violence.None. Zip. Zilch.You can bet if that was a tea-partier throwing some rocks that's all we would hear about.

[Balloon guy 158]

Uh, Iraq isn't in the United States. It's across the Atlantic.People who come here are, by definition, in the United States. So if any Iraqi's came here looking for a new life, and they have no criminal past, let them in.If Hussein were to come here to harass them, then we need to defend against that.So to clarify, I think we have a moral imperative to respect the rights of honest people who come here seeking a better life. I do not think we have a moral imperative or the resources to correct every wrong in every country. Perhaps if the big government types on both sides of the aisle would get out of the way, we could resume our economic ascension, and then we'd be rich enough to solve the world's problems, and at that point we could assess the point at which that ability becomes a moral imperative.

So you are all for checking every single person's record who comes to this country, but not for checking them out once they get here and give a cop probable cause.You do see how irrational this line is don't you?

[SweetDee 0]

So when the Democrats push economically harmful policies, we should fight to make sure it never takes effect, but when the Republicans pass economically harmful (not to mention morally questionable) policies, we should just calm down and take it?Um, let me think about that. OK, no.

Lol at economically harmful. I think you're pretty ****ing smart and love most of your posts but seriously, take a drive with me through El Mirage and we'll talk about economically harmful.

[Balloon guy 158]

So when the Democrats push economically harmful policies, we should fight to make sure it never takes effect, but when the Republicans pass economically harmful (not to mention morally questionable) policies, we should just calm down and take it?Um, let me think about that. OK, no.

For the recordRepublicans > Democrats

[hblask 1]

So you are all for checking every single person's record who comes to this country, but not for checking them out once they get here and give a cop probable cause.You do see how irrational this line is don't you?

This isn't about probable cause, this is about harassing Hispanics for whatever the hell reason any racist cops wants to harass them. I know the right likes to pretend that cops are all good and honest and stuff, but even here in lefty MN, blacks cannot drive home after 10PM without being pulled over for DWB. Do you really think that a law that gives cops the right to harass anyone they want, without any probable cause, will NOT lead to racial profiling and thousands of innocent people being harassed?Certainly, if someone is arrested for an actual crime, and they do their routine checks on them and find out they have a criminal background, then charge them for that, too. The whole notion of "living here without permission from every small-minded person in the country" somehow being a crime is appalling to me.Also, the R's are supposed to be opposed to national ID cards, yet none have explained how you prove you belong here unless you have one. R's need to get over that little bit of schizophrenia before they pursue this any further.

[dapokerbum 0]

Uh, Iraq isn't in the United States. It's across the Atlantic.People who come here are, by definition, in the United States. So if any Iraqi's came here looking for a new life, and they have no criminal past, let them in.If Hussein were to come here to harass them, then we need to defend against that.So to clarify, I think we have a moral imperative to respect the rights of honest people who come here seeking a better life. I do not think we have a moral imperative or the resources to correct every wrong in every country. Perhaps if the big government types on both sides of the aisle would get out of the way, we could resume our economic ascension, and then we'd be rich enough to solve the world's problems, and at that point we could assess the point at which that ability becomes a moral imperative.

So we should stop the IWOD and open the borders? Is that the position that you are defending? I really don't understand it. The Federal Government made immigration laws (as do ALL other countries) and there are those that are getting around these laws and you say since they are helping the economy then we should just let it be. Well by that token then cops should just let drug dealers do what they want as it does help the economy to an extent when they start buying all their fancy cars and airplanes and going to expensive dinners. Hell maybe we shouldn't even have cops anymore because maybe someone else's sense of what is right for them will interfere with the laws of the country that they are CHOOSING to live in.Honestly I am not sure what you are advocating, but it seems to be a slippery slope somewhere.

[hblask 1]

Lol at economically harmful. I think you're pretty ****ing smart and love most of your posts but seriously, take a drive with me through El Mirage and we'll talk about economically harmful.

You need to separate the effects of immigration from the effects of prohibition on immigration.And you need to separate local effects due to the War on Drugs from the overall effect of honest hard-working people coming here to contribute.

[Balloon guy 158]

This isn't about probable cause, this is about harassing Hispanics for whatever the hell reason any racist cops wants to harass them. I know the right likes to pretend that cops are all good and honest and stuff, but even here in lefty MN, blacks cannot drive home after 10PM without being pulled over for DWB. Do you really think that a law that gives cops the right to harass anyone they want, without any probable cause, will NOT lead to racial profiling and thousands of innocent people being harassed?Certainly, if someone is arrested for an actual crime, and they do their routine checks on them and find out they have a criminal background, then charge them for that, too. The whole notion of "living here without permission from every small-minded person in the country" somehow being a crime is appalling to me.Also, the R's are supposed to be opposed to national ID cards, yet none have explained how you prove you belong here unless you have one. R's need to get over that little bit of schizophrenia before they pursue this any further.

Of course bad cops will abuse power, regardless of the law.Using this as an excuse not to allow the authorities to try to reduce the number of people who are here illegally isn't rational.If someone breaks the law, they should not have the protection of the law to prevent the law enforcers to discover that they are in violation of the law.Do you think having a radar detector should be legal? Cause they are illegal in California.

[hblask 1]

So we should stop the IWOD and open the borders? Is that the position that you are defending? I really don't understand it. The Federal Government made immigration laws (as do ALL other countries) and there are those that are getting around these laws and you say since they are helping the economy then we should just let it be. Well by that token then cops should just let drug dealers do what they want as it does help the economy to an extent when they start buying all their fancy cars and airplanes and going to expensive dinners. Hell maybe we shouldn't even have cops anymore because maybe someone else's sense of what is right for them will interfere with the laws of the country that they are CHOOSING to live in.Honestly I am not sure what you are advocating, but it seems to be a slippery slope somewhere.

I am advocating that voluntary consensual behavior be legal, and argue that the prohibition is worse than that being prohibited.By "open the borders", I think we can do background checks, but we need a way to let honest people be here and contribute.And if by drug dealers, you mean pharmaceutical companies or local pot growers, and if by "do what they want", you mean peacefully sell products to willing adult customers, then yes, that is what I want.I'm not sure what that has to do with getting rid of cops. It just means cops have time to pursue crimes that matter, such as robbery and murder and rape, and will not be harassing a harmless college get for smoking a joint.Ooooooh, scary world that would be, huh?

[Balloon guy 158]

I am advocating that voluntary consensual behavior be legal, and argue that the prohibition is worse than that being prohibited.By "open the borders", I think we can do background checks, but we need a way to let honest people be here and contribute.And if by drug dealers, you mean pharmaceutical companies or local pot growers, and if by "do what they want", you mean peacefully sell products to willing adult customers, then yes, that is what I want.I'm not sure what that has to do with getting rid of cops. It just means cops have time to pursue crimes that matter, such as robbery and murder and rape, and will not be harassing a harmless meth head for smoking a pipe.Ooooooh, scary world that would be, huh?

Getting scarier...

[dapokerbum 0]

I am advocating that voluntary consensual behavior be legal, and argue that the prohibition is worse than that being prohibited.So would you then be against Statutory Rape. If a 16 year old female engages in voluntary consensual relations with a 20 year old male. Again, I think that starts us on a slippery slope somewhere.By "open the borders", I think we can do background checks, but we need a way to let honest people be here and contribute.As has been said we let the honest people over here through citizenship and work visasAnd if by drug dealers, you mean pharmaceutical companies or local pot growers, and if by "do what they want", you mean peacefully sell products to willing adult customers, then yes, that is what I want.I am also referring to Cocaine, Heroin, and Meth dealers ... not all drug dealers happen to be peaceful pot smoking hippies who are just out to spread love joy and happiness.I'm not sure what that has to do with getting rid of cops. It just means cops have time to pursue crimes that matter, such as robbery and murder and rape, and will not be harassing a harmless college get for smoking a joint.If we ignore one illegal act, then we can ignore all illegal acts?Ooooooh, scary world that would be, huh?It could be ...

[hblask 1]

So would you then be against Statutory Rape. If a 16 year old female engages in voluntary consensual relations with a 20 year old male. Again, I think that starts us on a slippery slope somewhere.

I shouldn't really have to explain this, but obviously the rules are different for children, since they are presumed to not be capable of rational decisions.

As has been said we let the honest people over here through citizenship and work visas

If that were actually possible in any meaningful sense, you might have a case.

I am also referring to Cocaine, Heroin, and Meth dealers ... not all drug dealers happen to be peaceful pot smoking hippies who are just out to spread love joy and happiness.

Cocaine and meth would be legal in the exact same sense that a car that explodes upon turning the ignition key would be legal. It's not explicitly illegal, but product liability laws would have a lot to say about whether such a product remains on the market or whether manufacturers would be forced to create safer products.

If we ignore one illegal act, then we can ignore all illegal acts?

I'm not talking about ignoring illegal acts, I'm talking about restoring morality and common sense to the legal system so that honest, harmless people do not have their behaviors declared illegal just because someone, somewhere decides that they don't like that behavior.

[hblask 1]

Of course bad cops will abuse power, regardless of the law.Using this as an excuse not to allow the authorities to try to reduce the number of people who are here illegally isn't rational.If someone breaks the law, they should not have the protection of the law to prevent the law enforcers to discover that they are in violation of the law.Do you think having a radar detector should be legal? Cause they are illegal in California.

The Arizona law isn't about someone breaking the law and then getting checked. It's about harassing innocent people in a fishing expedition where they hope to find a few guilty while only harassing those without the means to make a big deal out of the harassment. If the law encouraged police to harass every other rich McMansion owner, it wouldn't be quite so popular, because the rich can hire lawyers and get press coverage.Not sure on radar detectors; they seem like a fair enough device. But cops are onto the next thing, so radar detectors are pretty much useless now.

[strategy 4]

Not sure on radar detectors; they seem like a fair enough device. But cops are onto the next thing, so radar detectors are pretty much useless now.

next thing?Smart cops can hold back the beam until they are relatively certain someone is speeding, thus negating whatever edge a detector would provide for the speeder. I'm all for busting punk kids who won't stay off my lawn, but I don't see the harm in radar detectors.This is possibly an example of how to slip falsehoods into wikipedia. The article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_detector#Legalityclaims this source:http://driverstechnology.co.uk/Morisurvey.pdfsays "radar detector users posed a 28% less risk of accident." I'm not seeing the evidence for that claim in the survey results, but it stands because its got a citation attached.

[nutzbuster 7]

The Arizona law isn't about someone breaking the law and then getting checked. It's about harassing innocent people in a fishing expedition where they hope to find a few guilty while only harassing those without the means to make a big deal out of the harassment.

You are out of your mind Henry. And dead wrong.edit: as I was writting this a story came on about Sherrif joe and a illegal sweep that just finished.They targeted an area notorious for coyote drop houses and high crime.They rounded up 100 people.... 75 were illegal, and they found almost 1000 pounds of pot.Go Sherriff Joe, GO!!!

[Southern Buddhist 1]

I am anti ID Requirements for citizens, pro ID Requirements for Visitors.

You do realize this makes no sense, right? That it's impossible?Cop: "Prove you are a citizen."Suspect: "I'm not carrying an ID, therefore I must be a citizen."Cop: "Ha, that's proof you are not a citizen!"

Also, the R's are supposed to be opposed to national ID cards, yet none have explained how you prove you belong here unless you have one. R's need to get over that little bit of schizophrenia before they pursue this any further.

This is exactly what I'm wondering about. It seems people are willing to insist that "others" (to be polite; non-whites, to be blunt) carry ID cards, but ask them to carry one and it's the end times.

[Ninjafoo 0]

The Arizona law isn't about someone breaking the law and then getting checked. It's about harassing innocent people in a fishing expedition where they hope to find a few guilty while only harassing those without the means to make a big deal out of the harassment. If the law encouraged police to harass every other rich McMansion owner, it wouldn't be quite so popular, because the rich can hire lawyers and get press coverage.Not sure on radar detectors; they seem like a fair enough device. But cops are onto the next thing, so radar detectors are pretty much useless now.

I'm just curious, have you ever been to Arizona? According to the census bureau (05 to 07) 59% of Az is white, this does not count illegals. Trust me white people by no means hold a monopoly over others. Since you're not into pretending things, how about you stop pretending for a second that there is enough time or resources to stop every single brown guy they see just for a good ole harrasing. It's simply not possible. Also this should go wtihout saying but.....there are more than a significant amount of Arizona Police officers who are Hispanic. You seem to be under the assumption that all Az police are hillbilly rednecks with one goal of harassing brown people. So you are also assuming that any Hispanic person who becomes a cop, instantly hates their own race.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

People who come here are, by definition, in the United States.

...and people who come here illegally are, by definition, here illegally and criminals.Thanks for clearing that up.

[jmkiser 0]

...and people who come here illegally are, by definition, here illegally and criminals.Thanks for clearing that up.

You just made his point.He's saying that it's ethically wrong that people are suddenly made criminals for travelling into the US

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

You just made his point.He's saying that it's ethically wrong that people are suddenly made criminals for travelling into the US

Ummm. How does that make his point? My statement doesn't in anyway validate the morality of his position on immigration laws.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

So you think that interfering in the voluntary consensual transactions of others is moral? Can I apply that rule to you? Let me follow you around for a month, and for anything you do that I don't approve of, whether it harms me or not, I get to harass you for a half an hour and take some of your money. Deal? What? Oh, it's only OK if it applies to others? OK, just wanted to be clear.

No. It is about stopping illegal behavior. Hope that clears it up for you.Frankly, if I've done something that qualifies as "reasonable cause" then I'm going to have to live with being more closely investigated. If some dumb cop decides to overstep the boundary of "reasonable cause" then I'll react accordingly. I'd expect the same with the AZ Law.

So it's OK, as long as the number of Hispanics being harassed is less than 100%? Or is it, say, 95%? How many times is it OK for them to handcuff my son without him having ever done anything wrong? Please, give me a number.

I couldn't care less if we are talking about your son or my father or someone else. Quit trying to be a demagogue. Seriously.Has anyone ever been pulled over for "speeding" or some other excuse when a cop was wrong or trying to fish for something else? Yes. Who is wrong in that case, the cop or the law? Some bad cops will do bad things. This law, like ANY law, can be abused.

Uh, Iraq isn't in the United States. It's across the Atlantic.

...but you said the Government must protect inalienable rights......I guess they're only inalienable on this side of the Atlantic.

So to clarify, I think we have a moral imperative to respect the rights of honest people who come here seeking a better life.

Oh gee, then it is a matter of just seeking a better life. So the guy who doesn't have the resources or ability to stagger across our border should be ignored. But if some random creep who lives a mile from our border manages to evade border patrol long enough to cross illegally into our country, we need to wrap him in our flag and assume he came here to help.Got it.

So when the Democrats push economically harmful policies, we should fight to make sure it never takes effect, but when the Republicans pass economically harmful (not to mention morally questionable) policies, we should just calm down and take it?Um, let me think about that. OK, no.

Again, we need to assume that every illegal coming here is going to contribute. Even though they don't pay any taxes and are just taking jobs that we as Americans are "too lazy" to do ourselves. I mean you already stated that EVERYONE contributes more economically than they consume. Nice world you live in.

...this is about harassing Hispanics for whatever the hell reason any racist cops wants to harass them.

No. It isn't.

You need to separate the effects of immigration from the effects of prohibition on immigration.

Oh gee. Now you want to separate. I thought this was all the same issue.

I shouldn't really have to explain this, but obviously the rules are different for children, since they are presumed to not be capable of rational decisions.

Oh. OK. Now you want to pick and choose. I guess we'll just let you decide which laws are OK to enforce and which ones aren't. Come back and let me know what you've decided.

I'm not talking about ignoring illegal acts...

Umm... Yeah, actually you are.

The Arizona law isn't about someone breaking the law and then getting checked. It's about harassing innocent people in a fishing expedition where they hope to find a few guilty while only harassing those without the means to make a big deal out of the harassment.

No. It isn't. Again have you paid attention to the actual law and subsequent governor requirement for training BEFORE the law takes place? The Police will need to have a reason to ask for ID and Immigration Papers. You're assuming harassment. If Harassment occurs then it should be addressed. Like with ANY law.

[jmkiser 0]

Ummm. How does that make his point? My statement doesn't in anyway validate the morality of his position on immigration laws.

I didn't say you validated him.You mentioned something (the fact that they're criminals) that is already a part of his point.HB is saying that it's unethical that a person becomes a criminal for this.If everyone wants to argue against HB, try explaining why you think the current law IS moral/ethical. He already knows the current law and doesn't need to be reminded, I'm assuming.Personally, I don't know how I feel. I know that the "illegals use all our monies" argument is bogus. Those with fake SS #'s pay social taxes and don't receive refunds. Then there's the sales tax paid on all purchases and lower prices on items made with cheap, illegal labor. I'm not saying that's how it should be, but to say that USA is hemorrhaging money over illegals is short-sighted.The reasonable side of me agrees with HB where it doesn't make sense that honest people are made criminals. The solution to make it much easier for immigrants to be here legally instead of the impossible system we have now makes sense, too.I haven't heard the argument as to why USA needs limited immigration. For all the anti-illegal immigrant people, are you actually more "pro-enforcing our laws" or more "limit the amount of immigrants coming to this country"? Meaning, if we opened up our borders and created a reasonable system for those to be on our lands legally (maybe not citizenship, but something that would at least make it legal for them to be here), would the anti-illegal immigrant crowd disapprove of this since they wouldn't be illegal anymore? Now, I'm NOT talking about amnesty for those that are illegal right now and then keeping the law the same. I understand why that is hypocritical and stupid. I'm talking about a 100% change in the law.