LORDS OF APATHY

May 1, 2010

BY THE TIME I GET TO ARIZONA...

I just threw this logo together. Beyond blogging it, I have no immediate plans to do anything with it so if anyone out there wants to use it for printing t-shirts or anything like that, hit me up in the comments and I'll email you the vector art for it.  All I ask is that if you use it,  send me a couple of them and credit Lords of Apathy (small) if possible.  If anyone wants to print signs or anything send photos so I can post them on the blog. Also feel free to repost this.
Thanks, enjoy!

-Snickerdoodles





(We see you John McCain)

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

by boycotting arizona your on the side of drug runners, human smugglers, mexican gangs, and big buisness. just cuz the bush-obama administration is afraid to do anything about the war happening on arizonas borders because theyr afraid of offending latinos (brown voters), doesnt mean arizona has to sit back and watch theyr state get overrunned. read the law first before you make a judgment, and not just what the hispanic caucus is telling you. and as for the martin luther king day, was it really his dream to have a day named after him where kids don't have to go to school and fat lazy state workers get a (paid day) off while everyone else has to work so theyr taxes can pay for that day off. i went to the dmv the other day and it was closed because of ceaser chavez day

Anonymous said...

Why stop there?
Maybe we should just stop all "American" holidays in general, i.e.,
Presidents Day, Veterans Day, Memorial Day, Columbus Day,
Thanksgiving, Labor Day, etc.

Maybe then you can show up to the DMV without the inconvenience of being closed for some stupid holiday! :'(


VIVA Cesar Chavez, y VIVA Martin Luther King!

Fuck ArizonA!!!!!

Anonymous said...

In retrospect, it's pretty comical to think about Professor Griff running a legitimate military operation. I could see him gettnig busy on that Randy Jackson dance show on MTV, but not really handling weapons.

Snickerdoodles McPoppycock said...

"overrunned"?

Anonymous said...

"ceaser"?

-sorry. i know it's annoying and it's just a comment on the www, but if you're trying to be sincere about something you'll be taken more seriously if it's conveyed appropriately...

Rex Goliath said...

first time coming to this blog and I already don't like it (which means I'll probably be back for more).

here's the scenario: illegal mexican immigrants are fleeing their circumstances in mexico and coming to the U.S. because their govt is disintegrating around them and drug cartels are buying off police and slaughtering people who get in their way. I'd get the fuck outta there too, if I were them. however, their problems back home follow a lot of them over here, as evidenced by a good portion of the southwestern U.S. becoming like the wild wild west (kidnappings, murders, etc.). on top of that, many illegals are paid for work in the U.S. by cash off the books, and therefore do not pay taxes. taxes which help support local school systems, hospitals, and countless other public goods and utilities that illegals USE BUT DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TAXES TOWARDS. to further compound the problem, much of the income they earn here is sent back to their families in Mexico, to the point that remittances comprise the 2nd largest source of wealth in the mexican economy (behind only petroleum); in other words, much of the money illegals earn isn't being spent where they're earning it, which would help the local (American) economy. lastly, since illegals are often times afraid to go to the authorities for fear of being deported, they will take certain matters of law and retribution into their own hands, thus exacerbating the lawlessness in the communities they infect.

so, bearing all that in mind, imagine this scenario:

you are a police officer on patrol. you observe a vehicle (ignore a traffic sign, have expired tags, make an illegal U-turn, speeding, having a broken tail light, etc. you get the idea, just pick one). you pull this vehicle over and approach the car. inside are four hispanic males. three speak no english and one speaks it rather poorly. the driver hands you what you suspect, based on your training, is a false driver's license. you run his information through dispatch and the ID is, in fact, fake.

at this point, what should you do? if you don't think this meets the legal standard of "reasonable suspicion", you are certifiably out of your mind. the Arizona law now says that the officer MUST attempt to determine if these individuals are in the country legally or not. at no point does race play into this.

Arizona has decided to do what is in ITS best interest. illegals and those who sympathize with them do not have a legal or moral leg to stand on in this case. the fact that a blind eye was turned to the illegal problem for so many years doesn't mean that it was ever okay, which is basically the beef whiney, liberal assholes have with the law now: "we've become spoiled by the law not being inforced, and now we feel as though we have a RIGHT to be here! boo hoo hoo!!"

fuck off. I stand WITH Arizona voters and AGAINST you.

fuck Arizona? no no. fuck YOU.

Snickerdoodles McPoppycock said...

You make some valid points specific to taxes. I'd go as far as to agree with you on those points within our current context. However you have failed to address the overwhelming flaw with this new legislation. There are already procedures in place to deport "illegals" as you call them, once they are detained for committing a crime. But the new law MANDATES that police go on these racially based dragnets, specifically targeting anyone loosely fitting the 'Mexican' profile.

As we've already seen, legitimate AMERICAN CITIZENS of Mexican descent have been unnecessarily hassled based on this excessively broad law. This is patently UNAMERICAN. You would understand that if you could ever fathom being targeted or profiled by law enforcement based on your perceived ethnicity, or your appearance. My guess is that this has never happened to you in your life. I bet it has never even crossed your mind that something like that could happen to you in this country. So what happens to the rest of the population who don't keep a copy of their birth certificate on them at all times? 85% of red-state Republicans who "Just want 'their' country back", don't even believe our own president is a legitimate US citizen. I'm sure even if Latinos in Arizona walked around with license, I.D., birth certificate, DNA sample etc. this still would not be enough to satisfy their 'Birther' movement sensibilities.

Like everything else political, the poor, the middle class, and especially minorities, are always the scapegoats for institutional problems. I agree with you on the huge tax vacuum caused by 'off the books' labor etc., but why isn't the focus of this legislation on big businesses who knowingly employ illegal immigrants at slave wages? If lost tax revenue is truly the concern, infinitely more tax dollars are lost by American corporations who move their factories to Mexico, or rent a P.O. box in the Cayman Islands so that they can avoid paying taxes. OR -here's my favorite one, -What about Dick Cheney's Favorite corporation, Halliburton, -the one he made sure got all the no-bid govt. contracts (I.E. billions of our tax dollars), moving it's war profiteeting headquarters to Iran. Which is kindof like a tax drain 2-for-1.

How much tax money is wasted incarcerating people in our theoretical 'drug war'? The same drug war that keeps the Mexican drug cartels thriving and it's violence spilling over our borders. If there was an actual 'war on drugs' they could start with all of the legal prescription drugs that are advertised constantly on television. Or they could tax the shit out of them... OR they could legalize marijuana and tax it. There's a million ways to tackle illegal immigration and the problems attached to it, but the fact is, like everything else, this is primarily a political wedge issue to unite or divide people along racial lines.

I am not backing illegal immigration. There needs to be reasonable system in place to allow people to apply for LEGAL citizenship. There needs to be a more effective way to secure the borders, and there needs to be a reasonable wa y to determine if someone is a legal resident or not without racially profiling a huge segment of our population.

With that I say Fuck You too. Unless your name is Running Wolf, or John Redcorn, chances are your family tree is entirely made up of 'illegals' as well. But as is often the case with irrational hate-filled xenophobes, your sense of morality and justice is completely devoid of any historical perspective.

Anonymous said...

Hells Yeah!

Right on Mr. McPoppycock!

-Pysano-Msk-Lts-

FUCK ARIZONA!!!! 2x

Rex Goliath said...

@Snickerdoodles:
yyyaaaaaawn. well now. that certainly was...haha...words.

I failed to address the overwhelming flaw with this new legislation? on the contrary, I specifically addressed it. I guess you weren't paying attention when I gave you the "you're a cop on patrol" scenario (you certainly didn't have an answer for it). I'm guessing you haven't read the Arizona law in question. I have. here, edify yourself:

this link is the full text of the law: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

"illegals as I call them"?? what else should we call them? perhaps "Shiney, Happy Immigrants Toiling as Slaves" (SHITS) would make you happier? fine, we'll call them SHITS.

now that I'm assuming you've actually read the law, you'll notice that NOWHERE in there does it say that "police go on these racially based dragnets, specifically targeting anyone loosely fitting the 'Mexican' profile." this is pure nonsense and is nothing more than your leftist fantasy about how evil, racist right wingers are simply out to get the poor brown people. in fact, the law specifically says that, for example, if someone files a complaint based solely on race or color against an EMPLOYER for hiring illegals, law enforcement shall not act on that complaint. so here, we kill two of your fallacious accusations in one fell swoop: the law specifically goes after employers, and the law specifically excludes pursuing "leads" provided to law enforcement based on race.

next time, you can make yourself look less stupid by actually reading the law before you babble on with your fantasies about racist right wingers and what the law does and doesn't say.

I've not yet heard reports of "legitimate AMERICAN CITIZENS of Mexican descent" being hassled by law enforcement specifically because of this brand new law. I suspect that this is more of your wishful thinking. however, I will admit that that COULD very easily happen if law enforcement officers (LEOs) are not performing their duties IN GOOD FAITH. to prevent this, they will have to undergo training about racial profiling (which they already have) and WANT to do the right thing. LEOs who are simply out to get anyone who has brown skin are NOT operating within the confines of the law or the oath they have sworn, and should be removed from their position of trust. this does concern me. however, the overwhelming majority of LEOs will do the job in good faith, and that means not racially profiling people. it is easy enough to identify illegals based on reasonable suspicion WITHOUT having to racially profile.

Rex Goliath said...

that said, let's discuss another one of your leftist clap-trap talking points/fantasies: this notion of victimhood and how only people who have been victimized are capable of understanding particular situations and how only they are entitled to have opinions on them. Ann Coulter wrote a book on this (I believe called "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America"). the book's main argument was that the left (i.e. people like you) love to trot out these "victims", which serve as a means to end an argument based on emotion from anecdotal occurances, rather than from vigorous, intellectual debate. you, being a leftist moonbat, have just attempted to do the same thing by saying: "You would understand that if you could ever fathom being targeted or profiled by law enforcement based on your perceived ethnicity, or your appearance. My guess is that this has never happened to you in your life. I bet it has never even crossed your mind that something like that could happen to you in this country."

see what I mean? in reality, of course, it is quite easy to imagine what it would be like to be targeted based on race. I've considered this and determined that the good I expect to come from this law far outweighs the bad that I suspect may come from a few instances of LEOs not acting in good faith and not following the law by actually racially profiling people. it may well happen A FEW TIMES. but I expect the LEOs in question to be hammered and/or fired for it, as they should be.

"85% of red-state Republicans who "Just want 'their' country back", don't even believe our own president is a legitimate US citizen."
uh huh. and 75% of statistics are made up on the spot. kinda like your 85% number. please cite your source.

"I'm sure even if Latinos in Arizona walked around with license, I.D., birth certificate, DNA sample etc. this still would not be enough to satisfy their 'Birther' movement sensibilities."
more of your lefty fantasy. who's writing your material? Bill Maher?

"...but why isn't the focus of this legislation on big businesses who knowingly employ illegal immigrants at slave wages?"
now that you've read the link to the text of the law I provided you, I'm guessing it's now safe to assume you feel stupid for saying that, since the law does, afterall, overwhelming talk about employer sanctions. the problem your little bleeding heart hasn't considered is that it's actually VERY DIFFICULT to nail an employer for hiring illegals because the prosecutor must PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT (the highest burden of proof in American jurisprudence) that the employer KNEW the employee was an illegal alien. you should intuitively know this to be true when you consider the fact that the overwhelming majority of illegals in the U.S. have false ID (driver's licenses, SS cards, passports, etc. It's big biz in the "migrant communities"). so, if an employer unknowingly hires an illegal based on false identification run through the e-verify program (I'm assuming you now know what that is since you've now read the law via the link I provided you, right?), there's no case to be made against the employer. the prosecutor won't even bother bringing those charges.

the easiest employers to nail would be people who, for example, are looking to have a fence built on their property and save money on the job, so they go down to the local Home Depot and pick up a truck full of illegals to come to their house and build it. clearly, those employers know exactly what they're doing and don't have an e-verify system at their disposal. but guess what? the law SPECIFICALLY addresses those employers, too. so, bottom line on this point is that your notion of the law not going after employers couldn't be further from the truth. it is, per the norm, more of your leftist fantasy about racist right wingers.

Rex Goliath said...

"If lost tax revenue is truly the concern, infinitely more tax dollars are lost by American corporations who move their factories to Mexico"
not true. moving a FACTORY to Mexico is a good way to save on WAGES, not taxes, if the company is still incorporated in the United States. and frankly, I'm surprised you don't consider that a good thing, bringing jobs to the poor, oppressed brown people of Mexico. doesn't your heart bleed for them? not on this point, I guess.

"or rent a P.O. box in the Cayman Islands so that they can avoid paying taxes."
I agree with you here. this IS bullshit and something ought to be done. but this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. you're attempting to deflect and reframe the argument. not gonna work.

"OR -here's my favorite one, -What about Dick Cheney's Favorite corporation, Halliburton..."

yawn, this tired old nonsense? Dick Cheney sold all of his stake in Halliburton before taking office. he IN NO WAY benefitted from any contracts Halliburton was awarded during the Bush presidency. I could rebut all your nonsensical "points" on this issue, but again, it's not the topic at hand so I won't waste my time.

"How much tax money is wasted incarcerating people in our theoretical 'drug war'? The same drug war that keeps the Mexican drug cartels thriving and it's violence spilling over our borders."

here you actually have something approaching a point and I might even agree with you on CERTAIN aspects of it, but look at the last four words of your sentence there: "spilling over our borders." if we lock the border down, that problem goes away, doesn't it? thank you for making the case for me for increased border security.

"If there was an actual 'war on drugs' they could start with all of the legal prescription drugs that are advertised constantly on television. Or they could tax the shit out of them."

well that's just brilliant. yes, let's "tax the shit out of" the drugs that legitimately sick people need in order to live and/or maintain some modicum of quality of life. that's fucking brilliant. the empathy of the left, ladies and gentlemen, on full display right here! come get your tickets!

btw, did you notice the word "prescription"? that means that a qualified physician has determined that a patient NEEDS that drug. what's the problem here? I guess you're pissed we actually have the medical technology to improve people's lives?

".. OR they could legalize marijuana and tax it."
here I agree with you completely. but this would do nothing for the problem of illegals in the U.S. it's ANOTHER attempted deflection by you.

"but the fact is, like everything else, this isprimarily a political wedge issue to unite or divide people along racial lines."
right. tell that to the 70% of Arizonans who are sick to death of their towns and cities being run into the ground by illegals, you presumptuous prick. I love how you seem to know what's best for Arizona more than the actual Arizona voters do. what's the matter? pissed that prices for your weed are gonna go up? real nice. be an American and grow your own, dipshit.

Rex Goliath said...

"I am not backing illegal immigration."
clearly. far be it for me to assert that you were...

"There needs to be reasonable system in place to allow people to apply for LEGAL citizenship."

there already is, dumbass. the problem is that illegal immigrants are fucking it all up by skipping the line. people from all over the world want to come here, but illegals break the law by cutting to the front of the line and you want to REWARD THEM for that? eat a dick.

"There needs to be a more effective way to secure the borders"
I agree. put the national guard on the border with orders to shoot anyone who crosses illegally (to do less would defeat the purpose of putting the guard on the border). but, short of that step, enacting a law like this one that will DISSUADE PEOPLE FROM COMING TO ARIZONA IN THE FIRST PLACE is a great way to start.

"and there needs to be a reasonable wa y to determine if someone is a legal resident or not without racially profiling a huge segment of our population."
there is, and this law acts on it: it's called "reasonable suspicion developed during the course of a LAWFUL detention or observation" (see my "you're an officer on patrol" scenario from my previous post for an example of what I'm talking about here).

"...chances are your family tree is entirely made up of 'illegals' as well."
utter tripe.

"But as is often the case with irrational hate-filled xenophobes, your sense of morality and justice is completely devoid of any historical perspective."

lol. right. this makes me feel that there ought to be laws against people using words like "xenophobe" and "irrational" when they clearly don't know the meaning behind those words. (this is, of course, tongue-in-cheek. I wouldn't advocate crushing 1st Amendment rights like that. if you want to be loud and wrong, go ahead. I'll just laugh at you).

but tell me, what's "irrational" about protecting our borders? border security is national security. this Arizona law is a simple, effective way to crush the illegal immigration problem in affected areas without crushing citizens' civil rights. care must be taken to ensure those rights aren't violated, because I will admit the potential is there, but both the letter and spirit of this law do not violate anything. the whacko, leftist Obama Administration Justice Dept might rule otherwise, but that doesn't mean Eric Holder and his army of idiots is right.

and I must mention how funny I think it is that only AFTER a reasonable, proactive step is taken by the Arizona legislature (representing the voters of Arizona) to defeat illegal immigration do leftists such as yourself want to suddenly have a debate. yes, only AFTER something has been done that offends your leftist sensibilities do you consider the debate to have begun. you were apparently fine with doing NOTHING about the problem beforehand.

this whole situation reminds me of the famous William F. Buckley Jr. quote: "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." from his lips to God's ears.

Snickerdoodles McPoppycock said...

What color is the sky in the world that you live in?

I don't even know where to begin with this, considering the majority of the college term paper you just wrote didn't even address the main point I was making -protecting LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS from being harassed based on their race. There is no debating that premise.

It must feel great to sit up in your ivory tower, basking in the glow of white privilege, and not ever have to give a second thought to dealing with cops breathing down your neck questioning your very right to exist. I know us 'bleeding heart liberals' tend to get a little carried away with the idea that people should be able to go about their daily lives without being sited for 'driving while black' or 'breathing while Mexican' type of violations.

I didn't bother addressing "truck full 'o illegals" strawman argument, because it was crafted specifically to prove your argument. I could come up with hypothetical scenarios all day and be like "SEE; based on my bullshit, made up situation, I am 100% right.". But the reason I don't do that is because it's fucking stupid and pointless... Instead, I'd rather just point out stuff that has already happened. Things like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSzxjd3B8Ik&feature=player_embedded

This is the crux of what the fuck I'm talking about. You clearly don't give a shit because it would never effect you. But to the thousands of latino AMERICAN CITIZENS that this will effect every day of their lives; I'm sure it is a huge deal. What you most certainly see as a couple of random isolated incidents of a handful of bad cops abusing their authority; the rest of us living outside of your mental gated community, see as standard operating procedure.

If you ever got hassled for something like that you could easily chalk it up to chance, bad luck or whatever. You'd be slightly annoyed for a little bit and then go about your day.
For other people who weren't as fortunate to have been born with Arizona-approved skin color, giving cops the green light to assume you are an illegal or a "S.H.I.T." (as you so cleverly dubbed them) will be like living in a big fucking prison -Guilty until proven innocent.
These people pay the same taxes you do asshole and shouldn't be held to a different standard than you of your mentor Ann Coulter.

God... After reading you siting Ann Coulter's book to back up your point of view, the old "don't argue with fools" saying sprung to mind.. -As if she was some kind of authority on anything other than yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and charging people to leave.

I know it doesn't fit your naive scenario where these well-trained cops will not racially profile people, and not violate people's civil rights; but that is a dreamworld that will never exist outside of your painfully long responses to this post.

If your solution to border security is shooting people on sight, that speaks volumes to what a miserable, shitty soulless person you are. And I'd rather not waste my time debating Joe the Plumber online.

Rex Goliath said...

"I don't even know where to begin with this, considering the majority of the college term paper you just wrote didn't even address the main point I was making -protecting LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS from being harassed based on their race."

LOL, I responded to every point you made and even directly quoted most of what you wrote! LOL, I think the problem, is as much as there is one, is that your scatterbrained post was a disjointed, rambling morass of nonsense that had little to do with the topic at hand for the most part.

I've got Breaking Bad to catch up on, so I'll call it a night here. don't worry though, I'll be back to make you look like an idiot again soon.

thugs n kisses!

Snickerdoodles McPoppycock said...

You had me at referencing Ann Coulter.

That was the point where I knew having a rational conversation with you was out the window. From there it became an excuse to practice my typing; which I tired of rather quickly.
The 2 cornerstones of your argument are based on your '4 illegals in a truck' scenario, and your delusional notion that cops won't use this law to stage widespread immigration witch-hunts on anyone looking vaguely hispanic.

You do know that regardless of how the laws are written or intended to be applied, it wont take much for these asshole cops to start taking liberties...-ironically, by shitting on other peoples' liberties.

You're clinging to this notion that the laws will be carried out in a strictly by-the book fashion. -And only a small handful of people will be unreasonably
fucked with. The law hasn't even officially gone into effect and already they're chomping at the bit to have it be open season on hispanics in Arizona.

I noticed you had nothing cute to say about the guy who got thrown in jail for not carrying his birth certificate around with him while at his job. Why was that? Has Anne Coulter not written a book addressing those topics yet? Take your time, no rush...

Enjoy watching Breaking Bad. That's about the only thing I've agreed with you on so far, -that show rules. Although, I must warn you, there are some 'illegals' in last nights episode. That might bum you out. Don't say I didn't warn you...

Goodnight angry guy.

Anonymous said...

Snickerdoodles is 100% correct. "Papers!" on the side of the Arizona highway in 2010 is exactly the same as "Papers!" in Europe in the late 30's.

No fence or draconian let's make mexican's/latino's second class citizens law even begins to get to the roof of the problem beause we don't have an illegal immigrant problem in the US, we have an illegal employer problem. If we crack down on people who employee illegal immigrants, they'll stop coming here plane and simple, problem fixed. The day laborer's who stand outside the Home Depot down the street from my house all day would stop standing there if no one stopped to pick them up for cheap work.

gernsh said...

fuck reading all that, but i read something about taxes. Mexican immigrants and other illegal immigrants are paying double taxes you are you fuck. Especially if they are working illegally. You think they are filing tax returns or getting social security? NOPE!

Seph Smith said...

how the fuck are illegals paying twice the taxes citizens are paying?

john redcorn said...

dont bring me and running wolf into this

Snickerdoodles McPoppycock said...

My bad dude... Sorry.

Rex Goliath said...

yo yo yo, time to shit your pants Snickerdouche, cause I'm back!!!

real quick, to the Anonymous nitwit who trotted out the old "we need to crack down on employers" line again: I specifically addressed this and explained why it's an ineffective way to defeat the problem. why don't you try reading the answer before assuming the Arizona people are as stupid as you think they are? only going after employers--or even making the employers the primary target, rather than the illegals themselves--simply will not work. the explanation is on this page. read up, dipshit.

now, to hand ole McLickurcock his ass:

"...in your ivory tower. basking in the glow of white privilege, and not ever have to give a second thought to dealing with cops breathing down your neck questioning your very right to exist."

oh the agony! the travails of the poor and brown! this is a bunch of overblown, melodramatic bullshit. I'm not gonna waste any more time on this assertion than that. pure, unadulterated, hyperbolic whining.

"I know us 'bleeding heart liberals' tend to get a little carried away with the idea that people should be able to go about their daily lives without being sited for 'driving while black' or 'breathing while Mexican' type of violations."

more inane drivel, describing a world that exists only in your mind. any asshole cops who racially discriminate will eventually be caught, fired, and possibly jailed or at the very least find themselves facing a serious civil lawsuit. in this day and age of new media, where everyone is armed with a video camera (i.e. cell phone), and with the level of public distrust directed at law enforcement, LEOs are more careful than ever not to step on people's civil rights. your worry would've been valid 30-40 years ago, but today is a relic of a by-gone era. I'm not saying there aren't bad seeds out there, but they can't survive for long in our current milieu.

"I didn't bother addressing "truck full 'o illegals" strawman argument, because it was crafted specifically to prove your argument."

I think you need to look up the definition of "strawman argument", for two reasons: first, because an example describing the EXACT conditions LEOs on the street will be facing is pretty much the antithesis of a strawman; and second, simply because my example inconveniently leaves your whole thesis broken and bleeding in the moonlight doesn't make it a strawman. my advice to you here would be to refrain from using sophisticated sounding terms when you don't know what they mean.

"I could come up with hypothetical scenarios all day and be like "SEE; based on my bullshit, made up situation, I am 100% right.". But the reason I don't do that is because it's fucking stupid and pointless... "

bring it on. the only scenarios you could come up with would involve LEOs wantonly disregarding the law. any idiot can fantasize about this happening all day long (kinda like you're doing). my scenarios, on the other hand, are based on real-world examples of what will be happening--all within the confines of the law.
"Instead, I'd rather just point out stuff that has already happened. Things like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSzxjd3B8Ik&feature=player_embedded"

like I said in my previous posts:
1. I AM concerned that a few bad apples might attempt to abuse civil liberties based on this law, so we must give LEOs extensive training on what they can and cannot do under the 4th Amendment (something all LEOs get anyway)
2. acknowledging that concern, I still feel that FAR more good will come from this law than harm.
3. any LEOs who want to trample your civil liberties DO NOT NEED THIS LAW IN ORDER TO DO IT. it's key you understand this point. if a LEO is operating under the COLOR of law but OUTSIDE the bounds of the law, he doesn't need any particular law on the books to facilitate his ILLEGAL actions.

Rex Goliath said...

now, those things aside, let's address your video:
1. yes, going off of only what's in THAT video, it SEEMS this gentleman's rights were violated. this is WRONG.
2. however, this video presents only ONE side of the story here. we should refrain from passing judgment on the situation until all the facts are known. we don't know what the customs agents saw/heard/were told. often times you'll find that situations that seem utterly outrageous aren't quite so outrageous once the other side has a chance to present its case.
3. since this new law hasn't gone into effect yet, you can hardly blame this incident on the new law. this simply reinforces my point about how any LEOs intent on crushing your civil rights don't need this law to do it. thank you for proving my point.
4. if you want to play the anecdotal incident game, I'll play too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShkpO9Rf1bo

"This is the crux of what the fuck I'm talking about. You clearly don't give a shit because it would never effect you."
oh? you ever heard of "reverse discrimination"? minorities get away with shit ALL THE TIME simply because they're minorities. there are a zillion examples, but take, for instance, UFC fighter Cain Velasquez's "Brown Pride" tattoo. you think a white figther could enter the octagon with a "White Pride" tattoo across his chest? personally, I have NO PROBLEM with Velasquez's pride in his ethnicity. on one hand, I admire it and think it's healthy; on the other hand, it seems silly to pride yourself on your race when you had no control over which race you were born into...so it's not exactly an achievement. why pride yourself on something you didn't accomplish? but whatevs, it's not that big an issue to me. point being if someone who is a non-ethnic minority wanted to do the same thing Velasquez is doing, I wouldn't have a problem with that, either. but whites can't get away with that shit. this is a double-standard, and double-standards create divisiveness and resentment in a society. Diversity in a society is great, but ultimately utterly pointless without UNITY. Unity, not diversity, is what makes a society strong. Tacitly approving double standards like the left is oh so happy to do does nothing but tear at the fabric of our society. Remember the old adage: diversity + proximity = war. Ugly, but true.

"But to the thousands of latino AMERICAN CITIZENS that this will effect every day of their lives; I'm sure it is a huge deal."
not necessarily. the majority of LEGAL hispanics support this law, like Ms. Salcido from the above video.

"What you most certainly see as a couple of random isolated incidents of a handful of bad cops abusing their authority; the rest of us living outside of your mental gated community, see as standard operating procedure."
it's a free country, you're free to indulge in your fantasies about cops S.O.P.s all you want, but that doesn't make your fantasy a reality. any cop who makes racial profiling his S.O.P. will quickly find himself unemployed. it's as simple as that. but, if it makes you feel better, by all means, continue masturbating about all the brown people in Arizona running scared and feeling like they're living as Jews in Nazi Germany. knock yourself out. the Reality Train is leaving the station at high noon, you can get onboard or stay where you are.

Rex Goliath said...

"For other people who weren't as fortunate to have been born with Arizona-approved skin color, giving cops the green light to assume you are an illegal or a "S.H.I.T." (as you so cleverly dubbed them) will be like living in a big fucking prison -Guilty until proven innocent."
I see you've really gone all-in on this police-state fantasy of yours. I'd really like to know how a bill could be written that goes after illegals that meets your ridiculous standards. please provide details. and the whole SHITS thing was a joke. I thought liberals were the cool kids who could take a joke and we conservatives were the stuffy squares?? what happened to you?

"These people pay the same taxes you do asshole and shouldn't be held to a different standard than you of your mentor Ann Coulter."

dipshit, cops aren't stopping random people on the street and demanding documents. only after being LEGALLY DETAINED IN THE FIRST PLACE can they ask you for ID. this is as American as apple pie. do you throw a hissy fit when the doorman at your local bar cards you before you come in the establishment? or when the bartender asks to see your ID so he can make sure it matches the name on your credit card before he lets you open a tab? I imagine not. all that's okay, but for LAW ENFORCEMENT to do it, that's where you draw the line, huh? moron!

"God... After reading you siting Ann Coulter's book..."
siting? oh you mean "citing"? normally I don't resort to being the grammar police (you also confused "effect" with "affect" earlier), but I remember you trying to beat up on a previous poster for it, so I guess all's fair. anyway, Ann Coulter was exactly right in her point about liberal victimology, and you’ve provided no shortage of examples as to what she was talking about.

"I know it doesn't fit your naive scenario where these well-trained cops will not racially profile people, and not violate people's civil rights; but that is a dreamworld that will never exist..."
and you have a mountain of empirical evidence to support this claim...somewhere...I'll wait while you find it...no, no, it's cool I'll wait...

"If your solution to border security is shooting people on sight, that speaks volumes to what a miserable, shitty soulless person you are."
I guess that makes two of us. lemme ask you...what's worse: shooting one or two illegals who ignore more-than-ample warnings that the national guard is on the border and will shoot if the illegals advance across the border (it's not like we'd implement this plan without TONS of warning, including officially to the Mexican govt); or letting this illegal alien cancer continue to spread throughout the country, systemically undercut unskilled workers and take their jobs, operate substantially in the underground economy, and bankrupt our public services? which is worse? 'cause I'm guessing after a couple illegals get shot (or shot AT) on the border, the flood of illegals would stop once they see we actually mean business (for a change). so yeah, a couple unfortunate "benign criminals" would get shot, but the nation would be saved and the nation's poor and unskilled workers would be able to find work again at something other than below-minimum wage. you claimed to be the champion of the poor, but the illegals victimize the poor by taking their jobs. guys like me won't be affected. seems to me I'M the champion of the poor, and you're facilitating their demise.

bottom line: assuming your claims of fearing for Arizonans' civil liberties is true, it seems to me your heart is in the right place, but your concerns are overwrought to the point of paranoia.

Rex Goliath said...

"You do know that regardless of how the laws are written or intended to be applied, it wont take much for these asshole cops to start taking liberties...-ironically, by shitting on other peoples' liberties."

first of all, no, I don't know that. this is something you are just assuming is a fait accompli once the law goes into effect. and listen to you: "these asshole cops". spoken like someone who is willing to give law enforcement a fair chance. fuck off. it might interest you to know that you're arguing with someone who just went through the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and I can speak from personal experience about the degree of concern law enforcement has for civil liberties. we have HOURS UPON HOURS of constitutional law classes and training on racial profiling. we read countless case laws and SCOTUS opinions. law enforcement isn't as stupid and ogre-ish as you think it is.

"You're clinging to this notion that the laws will be carried out in a strictly by-the book fashion. -And only a small handful of people will be unreasonably
fucked with. The law hasn't even officially gone into effect and already they're chomping at the bit to have it be open season on hispanics in Arizona."
uh huh. add "in my mind" to the beginning of the sentence starting with "The law hasn't even..." and then you could have a case for it being a factual statement. otherwise, you have nothing going other than mere presumption, which is the only thing on which your argument has ever been predecated.

the sad thing is that at this point, you've become so invested in LEOs crushing everyone's civil liberties in Arizona that I am quite certain you are actually HOPING that they do simply so you can say, "See, I was right!" how sad that you don't want to see Arizona law enforcement play it by the book and solve this illegal immigration cancer that is destroying that state and infuriating Arizona voters. shame on you. seriously, ask yourself: IF Arizona law enforcement were to execute the law entirely legally--i.e. as it is written--would this be a good thing? because if you answer "no" to that question, then you are FOR illegal immigration, contrary to your previous claims about concern only for civil liberties.

"I noticed you had nothing cute to say about the guy who got thrown in jail for not carrying his birth certificate around with him while at his job. Why was that?"
because I didn't address any of your arguments in that post, dummy. all I said was I had given you enough of a beating for the day and I was signing off to watch TV. I've since given it its due beat-down. now bend your ass over the couch and spank it yourself for ever being so foolish as to think you could stump me in an argument.

kisses!

Rex Goliath said...

this guy gets it:

http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/05/03/offering-up-a-zona-defense/

boozin sarandon said...

Alright (against my better judgment), i thought i would jump into the debate for a moment. now, i want to preface this by saying that i'm not taking sides, nor am i making any sweeping arguments for either position (i still havent made up my mind about the new law). i dont think im quite on the same level with either of you (Snick or Rex) as far as knowledge of the law and rights and police procedure and all that, but i do have a couple concerns and a couple questions that i was hoping someone could clarify/answer. the first is this:
"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

...what im confused about, in this section of the law, is the definition of two phrases: "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion". does "lawful contact" mean that the individual stopped by law enforcement had to have committed a crime of some kind before they are questioned about their immigration status? is that what "lawful contact" means? it seems to me that that would be a critical point to make clear, because if law enforcement can have "lawful contact" with a citizen that has done nothing wrong and then ask them to verify their immigration status, it becomes very difficult to clearly solidify the term "reasonable suspicion". If anyone can clarify, i would appreciate it.

boozin sarandon said...

another point of clarification: in your anecdote, rex, you finished by saying that the police officer "MUST attempt to determine if these individuals are in the country legally or not", based on the driver's presentation of a fake license. In this case, because it is only the driver who has committed a crime, why are all the individuals immediately suspected? Does the law say anything about this? Clearly, in the scenario you described, it would seem likely that the other individuals in the car may also be illegals, but is there a standard? If you are in the car with someone who runs a traffic light, you arent given a ticket. If you are in the car with a person who is in possession of drugs, you arent arrested for their drugs. So why would the other three be questioned? Is being in the car "reasonable suspicion"? (p.s. im not being sarcastic...im actually asking) I worry about these small, seemingly ambiguous (at least to me) portions of the law that could easily be misconstrued and lead to unnecessary harassment of legal citizens.

"any LEOs who want to trample your civil liberties DO NOT NEED THIS LAW IN ORDER TO DO IT. it's key you understand this point. if a LEO is operating under the COLOR of law but OUTSIDE the bounds of the law, he doesn't need any particular law on the books to facilitate his ILLEGAL actions."

i also wanted to address this statement. yes, it is true that an "LEO" does not need this law (or any law for that matter) in order to trample a person's civil liberties. but the fear (or at least MY fear) is not that the government will legalize the trampling of civil liberties, but that the law with allow for loopholes through which law enforcement can justify trampling on rights, and hence avoid any serious consequences. i gotta go, but let me know what you think...

boozin sarandon said...

oh, and on a completely impersonal, unrelated-to-the-particular-argument-at-hand level: fuck ann coulter...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuo36aNORJo&feature=related

for real homie, you are clearly WAAAAy too smart to be reading this bitches "inane drivel"

Snickerdoodles McPoppycock said...

Listen dipshit (not you Boozin Sarandon)... I hear you on all your theories rooted in your devout belief that people in power do not abuse their power except in small isolated incidents. I understand that you have wrapped yourself in that warm blanket that insulates you from anything that upsets that very contrived view of reality. It must be a wondrous blissful thing to be a conservative white male and think that injustices are not built into these institutions you hold so sacred. I get the sense that you can't help but to make these assumptions because reality, from your narrow perspective, has done nothing but reaffirm these beliefs you are clinging so closely to.

Thanks for acknowledging / glossing over at lighting speed, the guy who got thrown into jail for working while hispanic. I know you spent at least 1/4 of a sentence adamantly insisting that this was "WRONG", -right before you launched back into your other 16 pages of glowing commentary on law enforcement's high level of professionalism and commitment to people's civil rights... I know that's clearly the parameters of reality that you like to focus on, so I'll concede this:
I believe that there are many law enforcement officers who do an outstanding job at upholding the laws, and not treading on our civil rights. For the sake of this argument, let's just say that I agree with your assessment that the vast majority of them are fine officers and doing their job by the book without racial profiling etc. To clarify, lets say "vast majority" means 9 out of 10 or 19 out of 20. I think that's a reasonably fair assumption for the sake of this discussion. -(Although personally, I suspect that ratio is being a bit generous).

Over the course of an average day, driving around, to and from work, eating lunch etc., I probably see 5-10 police officers. If I am a LEGAL Hispanic citizen of the United States, and I live in Arizona; How many times per week, per month, per year am I going to cross paths with the 1 in 20 cop who's got a hard-on about illegal immigrants? Should I even have to worry about getting harassed or possibly thrown in jail every time I see a cop in my rear view mirror? As a conservative white male, I'm sure that's a totally alien concept to you. But thats not being melodramatic or a "crazy liberal moonbat"; -that is reality for many people not endowed with white skin. Its not a guilt trip, and it's not playing victim -it is what it is: -fact.

I live in a very lily-white part of Orange County California. I live within a few blocks of my job and sometimes work at odd hours, depending on what the workload is. About a year ago, my car was in the shop being repaired. I had assignments needing to be completed, so after eating dinner (10:00-11:00 at night) I'd walk from my house, to my job (roughly 4 blocks away). Over a span of 14 days I got stopped and searched by police on 3 separate occasions. -Twice while walking to work and once while jogging along a walk/ bike path. I had no warrants, no arrests, not doing anything suspicious... Just walking to work, and getting some exercise...-and not being white.

Snickerdoodles McPoppycock said...

I'm a reasonable person, I know being a police officer is probably a very difficult job. But seriously, leave me the fuck alone. -Yes, I am aware of what time it is. -Yes I live 3 blocks from here, -No I am not a criminal. -No I am not doing a fucking thing that's remotely suspicious. I am an American citizen and I don't need to explain to you or any of your donut-eating racist colleagues why I'm going to work at 10pm, nor why I'm going for a jog while my waiting for my clothes to go through the wash cycle.

So without a lot more grandstanding, fanfare and referring to your Law Enforcement Officer's training manual, this law and that law... You've made your point dude. I get it. You know the law inside and out... You are great at correcting my infrequent spelling errors. By most accounts you seem like a reasonably intelligent person.
-But that's not what we're talking about here. IT'S THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW -in reality -by humans, not robots. Humans; -people who's kneejerk emotional reactions to things sometimes override their common sense, knowledge, or the guidelines of their profession. That same 'emotion' that you feel clouds the judgement of liberals and causes them to act accordingly, also exists in conservatives, such as yourself, and causes them to act accordingly. By you glossing over or drastically diminishing how prevalent racism is in our society -institutionalized and other, does not make it so. It does not make the people who point this out or experience it firsthand delusional or paranoid. Being dismissive about people getting undeservedly hassled and incarcerated because of their skin color or the perception that they don't belong here, makes you look retarded. Even if you wrap all that up in endless well crafted quips and jabs supporting your inherently ignorant viewpoint.

Lets start at the beginning.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"
I'm sure you're familiar with that sentence right? One of the primary ideas this country was founded on. Declaring independence from England, to start this new country based on freedom, justice and equality...
Meanwhile, half of the motherfuckers who signed the declaration owned slaves... And let's not forget that the original 'American citizens' were not the White-skinned European (illegal) immigrants, but the 'Native Americans' and Mexicans they killed killed off in order to steal their land.
Responding to the inherent hypocrisy in the Declaration, abolitionist Thomas Day wrote: "If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves."

"Well that was then this is now" (-you're thinking this).

My point is; wether then or now, there is the rose-colored glasses, idealized view of the declaration, the constitution, the laws; and then there is the APPLICATION of them. POWER CORRUPTS. Giving cops more power to employ their SUSPICION of wrongdoing will only lead to more corruption and more innocent people getting hassled and fucked with unnecessarily.

Wether or not you give a shit about these people and their rights is not the point. It matters to them, and it would matter to you if you were in their shoes.


One final thing. Your "reverse discrimination" thing was probably the weakest most retarded argument I've ever heard. That was truly,monumentally, heinously stupid. Seriously dude, -you're referring to UFC fighter Cain Velasquez's "Brown Pride" tattoo in the same context as you're talking about shooting illegals on sight for crossing the border? That's mindboggling. I'd explain the flaws in your 'reverse discrimination' claim if I thought that you were capable of understanding it, but I don't, so I won't waste my time.

Rex Goliath said...

let me reply to Snickers, Boozer, and then I'll answer your questions, at least to the degree that I can.

as for "acknowledging/glossing over at lighting speed, the guy who got thrown into jail for working while hispanic."
Snickers, WE DON'T KNOW THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT STORY. ergo, AT THIS JUNCTURE, all we can say is that it SEEMS as though that man's rights were violated. if so, this is WRONG. but since WE DON'T KNOW all the deets, we should refrain from passing judgment until all the facts are known. let the LEOs state their side of the story before we assume they simply felt like trampling his rights. this is the only fair course of action; I can't see it any other way. this is what I said in my previous post. are you saying you disagree with this assessment?

now, as to crossing paths with the Arizona LEO who "has a hard on over illegal immigrants." let me first say that I would hope ALL LEOs have a "hard on" over any laws that are on the books. that's what they're SWORN--and paid--to do. unless you live a criminal lifestyle, I don't know why this would bother you.

now, specifically, your question: my answer is that you crossing paths with these individuals should happen with less and less frequency, because each time one of them steps outside the bounds of the law and racially profiles someone, that LEO will either be suspended and reprimanded, or fired. you must keep in mind that unless you match the description of a BOLO (Be On the Look Out), cops cannot LEGALLY stop you without reason. and that "reason" must meet some sort of established legal standard (for more on this, see my upcoming responses to Boozer).

so let me offer you some friendly advice, Snickers. if a cop approaches you and asks you to stop, and you feel you haven't done anything wrong and are being harrassed for no good reason, don't stop. just keep on going. if he persists, say "I've done nothing wrong and don't want to talk to you." he can't LEGALLY do shit. now, if the cop gives you some sort of warning that you need to stop or things will get physical, stop. at this point, the detainment is going to go in one of two directions: lawful, or illegal. if he is lawfully detaining you for some reason, then he's doing his job and you're going to just have to deal with it, even if it inconveniences you. if he is illegally detaining you, get his identifying info from him after complying with his orders, and report his ass. take pictures of him with your cell phone. you have recourse at your disposal.

further, if a cop ever asks you if he can search you or your belongings, SAY NO. (I somehow get the feeling you already know all this) always say no if asked for consent. this forces the cop's hand: either he has reasonable suspicion and is entitled to frisk you; or he doesn't, and he'll have to either let you go, or attempt to proceded at the risk of his job. this is not a risk most rational LEOs are willing to take.

bottom line: just because a cop approaches you doesn't mean you have to stop and play his game. it sounds to me like you had every right to tell them to fuck off and keep going about your business in the incidents you described. then again, I'm only hearing your side of the story. maybe the cops were part of a task force assigned to increased patrols in that area because of a certain incident that had recently happened. or maybe you fit the description of a BOLO. I don't know.

if you are trying to assert that cops, anywhere in this country, pull people over for no reason other than skin color and then haul them off to jail, I'm telling you, you're crazy. no law enforcement organization can operate like that and get away with it for long, because sooner rather than later, they're going to fuck with the wrong citizen, a citizen who knows his/her rights, and that's going to be the end of a lot of people's jobs in that organization.

gotta run, back later.

Rex Goliath said...

how anyone can say my arguments are weak while in the same breath citing slavery and the Europeans settling North America hundreds of years ago as cogent arguments for your position on illegal immigration, is, honestly, a little bit rich.

so, to take you up on that argument: slaves, at the time, were lawful property. forget the morality of it, you must consider the political calculus. sure, the morality was the driving force behind the changes in law (i.e. emancipation), but the political problem at the time was how to tell voters that they were no longer allowed to own certain property. the political capital to simply tell a citizen "sorry, I'm liberating your slaves. I know you paid good money for them and have grown accustomed to the idea that owning them is morally excusable, but it's not, and you're just gonna have to take the loss and move on." at the time, most people would've said, "Fuck you" to that and probably blown your head off. and that's pretty much what happened: the Southern economy was mostly agrarian and was dependent on slave labor in order to function. that being the case, the South wasn't about to impoverish itself without a fight. result: the civil war.

I'm assuming you are saying what should've happened was that "the country" should've just snapped its fingers and done away with particular property rights (i.e. slaves). having done that would've been to swap one form of tyranny (slavery) for another (an all powerful state that crushes citizens' rights). this could not be done according to our Constitution.

yours is a tired old argument used by the "blame America first" crowd. it basically says, "for all the high-minded ideals your beloved Founders had, your country was built upon the pillars of racism and inequality, and, as such, is a shitty, immoral place that has no business ever lecturing anyone else on human rights." this is bullshit. the Founders knew slavery was wrong and knew that its days were numbered, but just like anything else, you must first accumulate the political capital to eradicate such a deeply ingrained institution that has existed, at some point and in some fashion, in every known culture. to snap your fingers and make it happen is a characteristic of tyrannical regimes, not liberal (in the classical sense of "liberal") Western democracies like the one the founders were attempting to create. the founders weren't stupid. they intentionally left the issue of slavery out of the Constitution bc they deemed that to insert it would cause the Union to lose the southern states right off the bat, which would ensure that those States would never do away with slavery.

as the famed abolitionist Frederick Douglass said in his famous "scaffolding" speech, "I hold that the Federal Government was never, in its essence, anything but an anti-slavery government. Abolish slavery tomorrow, and not a sentence or syllable of the Constitution need be altered...If in its origin slavery had any relation to the government, it was only as the scaffolding to the magnificent structure, to be removed as soon as the building was completed...."

the delay in action, and the travails our nation suffered, are testament to how GOOD our country is. we were already trampling the human rights of slaves. we weren't going to futher trample the rights of the slaveowners. we waited till we had the political power to lawfully abolish slavery. when the slaveowners refused to accept it, we made them by force. bloody as it may have been, wasn't this better than the govt simply taking people's property? Would you really have wanted to open that Pandora’s Box?

if you for a second think I'm defending slavery, you've utterly and completely missed the point.

Rex Goliath said...

now that we've debunked that mess, let's move on:
"Giving cops more power to employ their SUSPICION of wrongdoing will only lead to more corruption and more innocent people getting hassled and fucked with unnecessarily."

LOL, I think I have now officially heard "everything". so let me get this straight: you want to do away with giving the cops the ability to lawfully investigate based on suspicion? okay, congratulations, you have just completely rewritten American jurisprudence and have summarily discarded LEOs' most widely used--and most effective--means of preventing crimes and identifying criminals and criminal behavior.

you ever heard the term "Terry Frisk" or "Terry Stop"? you're familiar with the concept if not the title. this is where a LEO "pats you down for weapons" or searches the visible area of your car for weapons; or detains you for questioning based on suspicion. what I'm guessing you fail to understand is that cops aren't simply allowed to do any of these things willy-nilly or bc they feel like it. a LEO must have ARTICULABLE reasons for frisking/stopping you, and those reasons must be based on FACTS. they can't simply be conclusions, such as "I frisked him for officer safety" or "I felt endangered so I frisked him for weapons." those are conclusions, not facts. facts are things such as "I noticed a lump in his clothing around his waistline that I thought might've been a weapon" or "the suspect was acting jittery and refused to obey my commands. he kept attempting to turn away from me and reach into his pants pocket". those are FACTS that the "objectively reasonable" person reading this officer's police report would agree are valid reasons for a frisk.

furthermore, when an officer frisks you, he's only allowed to literally "pat" your clothing. he's not allowed to grab, twist, or otherwise manipulate your clothes.

this his how stringent our laws are. you seem to think they're much more free-wheeling than that, but, as I've always stated, reality and your mind's perceptions are two different things.

but anyway, you're apparently saying that this is simply an unacceptable standard to you? well, fortunately for the populace, most of our criminal law is written by sane people who live on planet earth and who appreciate what cops have to deal with day in and day out, on the job. you, on the other hand, seem to think that cops should have to gamble with their lives any time they have an interaction with an individual. "the Supreme Court has roundly rejected" this notion. (points for you if you know why I threw the quotes in that last sentence).

you fail to consider, or simply do not know, that if a cop detains someone based on a reasonable suspicion, and that suspicion leads to PC and thus an arrest, all of it, everything, must be documented in the officer's report. I'll get into this in greater detail in my responses to Boozer, but for now I'll just say if the officer's reasons for the intial stop do not pass muster, the suspect is going to WALK and the officer is going to get reprimanded. even if an unlawful stop leads to the finding of contraband/illegal weapons on the suspect, those charges will be thrown out under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine (look it up). in short, if a cop violates someone's 4th Amendment rights, even if that violation leads to real criminal evidence, the suspect is going to walk and the officer will have to face the music.

we live in anything but a police state.

"Wether or not you give a shit about these people and their rights is not the point."
I do. and I'm telling you, this law doesn't violate anyone's civil rights.

Rex Goliath said...

"referring to UFC fighter Cain Velasquez's "Brown Pride" tattoo in the same context as you're talking about shooting illegals on sight for crossing the border? That's mindboggling."

now THAT, my friend, is a straw-man.

"I'd explain the flaws in your 'reverse discrimination' claim if I thought that you were capable of understanding it, but I don't, so I won't waste my time."

just earlier you said I seem to be reasonable smart. which is it?

the Velasquez tattoo was an EXAMPLE. there are millions more. take affirmative action. AA is nothing more than state-sponsored racism with a happy face. if you care one iota about racial profiling, then this ought to bother you, too. fucking people out of jobs, admissions, awarding contracts, etc. based on the color of one's skin is just as arbitrary, stupid, and meaningless as basing it on the color of one's EYES. does this particular brand of racial profiling disturb you? I reckon not.

AA based on race is a disgrace to such an "enlightened" nation. base it on socioeconomic status, however, and I'd be 100% onboard with it. note that doing it this way would still come down largely on racial lines, but at least it wouldn't be based on race. Ask yourself, is it "just" when a poor, white trailer trash kid from the depths of Mississippi gets fucked out of admissions to a great school bc of skin color when his slot goes to a rich black kid whose dad is a banker and mother a lawyer in Manhattan? if you truly care one iota for civil rights, the answer to this question should be obvious.

Chris Rock once famously said "Black people hate white people." but he was wrong. poor people hate rich people. it just so happens that in this country, most of the rich are white and most of the poor are black. But go ahead, tell any white person who’s been fucked on college/grad school admissions bc of AA and tell him he’s never felt the sting of discrimination. Go ahead, waste your breath.

Rex Goliath said...

I think that has caught me up with everything Snickers wrote. but before I get to answering Boozer (which won't be today), I have a few questions for Snickers and those who agree with him.

this Arizona law aside...

what are y'alls thoughts on the people who say things such as:
"If you think we're illegal, you need to learn the true history of this land!"

or

ILLEGALS who say "We have a RIGHT to be here."

or

Mexican politicians who say "these migrant workers have a right to work in the States."

or

"You're only saying illegals should leave because you're racist."

what are your thoughts on the 200 (ostensibly) Mexican-American students who walked out of class and demanded that those 5 kids from California be reprimanded for wearing red, white, and blue colors to school on May 5th?

basically, what is your position on the millions of recalcitrant illegal aliens living in this country who act as though they have every right to be here?

just curious. please provide details. these issues have nothing to do with citizens' civil rights, which is what you purport to be up in arms about.

boozin sarandon said...

i dont know, i think affirmative action is more complicated than that. i agree that it is fucked up that we need something like AA, which is just another apparatus reinforcing an emphasis on RACE rather than individual talent/intelligence/accomplishments. but i would argue that the AA issue is very similar to your founders-getting-rid-of-slavery argument. im no history buff, but what you said about the process of abolishing slavery to makes reasonable enough sense to me. the founders recognized the need to consolidate political capital and unify the country before they could remove the unpleasant, but necessary "scaffolding". i think of affirmative action as a similar "scaffolding". it was created because people realized that they couldnt just snap their fingers, make the law equal, and expect the entire country to follow suit and ignore skin color, regardless of the deep seeded prejudices still harbored by a lot of people.
Though you are right, affirmative action is IDEOLOGICALLY wrong, because it promotes the categorization based on skin color (the very thing those who support AA hope to abolish), it is a NECESSARY scaffolding to help build up races who have historically been shit on in this country, to be removed when they have "magnificent structures" too. If a few poor white kids get shafted by not getting a job/into college because of AA (a necessary evil), think of it as being similar to nearly ALL black kids getting shafted with a life of slavery so that the founders wouldnt lose the southern states. Before we can change the form, we must at least change the content.
I gotta go to work..let me know what you think..

Rex Goliath said...

I think I pretty much completely agree with you, Booze. that's actually a really good way of putting it.

wasn't sure anyone was still reading this thread, so I hadn't checked back for several days. do you still want me to elaborate on the issues you raised previously?

Rex Goliath said...

I think I pretty much completely agree with you, Booze. that's actually a really good way of putting it.

wasn't sure anyone was still reading this thread, so I hadn't checked back for several days. do you still want me to elaborate on the issues you raised previously?

Snickerdoodles McPoppycock said...

Yes... I gotta give it up to you Rex. You showed me a little something over the course of this argument turned discussion. In the beginning, I wrote you off as another dumb closed-minded conservative (quoting Ann Coulter didn't really help). I didn't agree with a lot of what you said (or at least what I perceived the sentiment behind what you were saying to be). But, clearly you are an intelligent guy, and you argue your points well, without resorting to the regular conservative soundbites and catch-phrases.
Maybe this is the problem with political discussion in general. It's like most people have already chosen the team they're rooting for and they just spend a lot of time tailgating with other like-minded people who are rooting for the same team you are. You also am also impressed that you were able to be swayed by boozin sarandon's thoughtful response on the affirmative action. I'm sure you assume that I'm your stereotypical radical liberal incapable of seeing outside of those parameters. The fact is, I respect thoughtful well-reasoned political discussion, even if it challenges my own beliefs. I feel like everyone's political views should be a 'work-in progress', and should be able to change as your knowledge and understanding of the issues becomes greater...
Anyways, I just wanted to say, thanks for giving your input into the discussion. (Even the dickish snide comments were pretty well crafted... Game recognize game.)

So yeah...

boozin sarandon said...

sorry for the absence...yes, i am still checking this thread, and yes, i am interested in any thoughts that anyone has regarding any of the previous posts..thank you