Eric Holder is an idiot part 128504338563
Moderator: Metal Sludge
-
- Playing Decent Clubs in a Bus
- Posts: 1313
- Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 10:38 am
- Location: St Louis Mo
- Contact:
Eric Holder is an idiot part 128504338563
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOQt_mP6Pgg
Asked if he believed that Radical Islam MIGHT be a reason the Times Square bomber decided to plant the bombs.
Asked if he believed that Radical Islam MIGHT be a reason the Times Square bomber decided to plant the bombs.
Re: Eric Holder is an idiot part 128504338563
Holder hasn't read Arizona law he criticized
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been critical of Arizona's new immigration law, said Thursday he hasn't yet read the law and is going by what he's read in newspapers or seen on television. Mr. Holder is conducting a review of the law, at President Obama's request, to see if the federal government should challenge it in court. He said he expects he will read the law by the time his staff briefs him on their conclusions.
"I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is," Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee.
This weekend Mr. Holder told NBC's "Meet the Press" program that the Arizona law "has the possibility of leading to racial profiling." He had earlier called the law's passage "unfortunate," and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government.
Rep. Ted Poe, who had questioned Mr. Holder about the law, wondered how he could have those opinions if he hadn't yet read the legislation.
"It's hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven't even read the law," the Texas Republican told the attorney general.
The Arizona law's backers argue that it doesn't go beyond what federal law already allows, and they say press reports have distorted the legislation. They point to provisions in the law that specifically rule out racial profiling as proof that it can be implemented without conflicting with civil rights.
But critics said giving police the power to stop those they suspect are in the country illegally is bound to lead to profiling.
Mr. Holder said he expects the Justice and Homeland Security departments will finish their review of the Arizona law soon.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been critical of Arizona's new immigration law, said Thursday he hasn't yet read the law and is going by what he's read in newspapers or seen on television. Mr. Holder is conducting a review of the law, at President Obama's request, to see if the federal government should challenge it in court. He said he expects he will read the law by the time his staff briefs him on their conclusions.
"I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is," Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee.
This weekend Mr. Holder told NBC's "Meet the Press" program that the Arizona law "has the possibility of leading to racial profiling." He had earlier called the law's passage "unfortunate," and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government.
Rep. Ted Poe, who had questioned Mr. Holder about the law, wondered how he could have those opinions if he hadn't yet read the legislation.
"It's hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven't even read the law," the Texas Republican told the attorney general.
The Arizona law's backers argue that it doesn't go beyond what federal law already allows, and they say press reports have distorted the legislation. They point to provisions in the law that specifically rule out racial profiling as proof that it can be implemented without conflicting with civil rights.
But critics said giving police the power to stop those they suspect are in the country illegally is bound to lead to profiling.
Mr. Holder said he expects the Justice and Homeland Security departments will finish their review of the Arizona law soon.
- MasterOfMeatPuppets
- MSX Tour Support Act
- Posts: 4249
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:29 pm
Re: Eric Holder is an idiot part 128504338563
So, he was an idiot for being asked a question?VinnieKulick wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOQt_mP6Pgg
Asked if he believed that Radical Islam MIGHT be a reason the Times Square bomber decided to plant the bombs.
Have you read the law you support?Nevermind wrote:Holder hasn't read Arizona law he criticized
Re: Eric Holder is an idiot part 128504338563
As a matter of fact I have. All 10 pages of it. And you're full of shit if you say you have. Why can't you ever be man enough to admit when Obama and his cronies are full of shit, lying etc? It's not even about whether YOU agree with the law or not. Holder has been race baiting the last week or so, and when confronted admitted he hadn't even read the damn thing.MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:
No he was an idiot because a almost a decade after 9/11, the Obama regime is still too scared to identify the enemy.So, he was an idiot for being asked a question?
Have you read the law you support?Nevermind wrote:Holder hasn't read Arizona law he criticized
- MasterOfMeatPuppets
- MSX Tour Support Act
- Posts: 4249
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:29 pm
Re: Eric Holder is an idiot part 128504338563
Maybe you should have read the other seven pages, pendejo. They're right here: Arizona SB1070Nevermind wrote:As a matter of fact I have. All 10 pages of it. And you're full of shit if you say you have. Why can't you ever be man enough to admit when Obama and his cronies are full of shit, lying etc? It's not even about whether YOU agree with the law or not. Holder has been race baiting the last week or so, and when confronted admitted he hadn't even read the damn thing.MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:
No he was an idiot because a almost a decade after 9/11, the Obama regime is still too scared to identify the enemy.So, he was an idiot for being asked a question?
Have you read the law you support?Nevermind wrote:Holder hasn't read Arizona law he criticized
Holder expressed his personal opinion of the law, just the same as you have. DOJ attorneys are reviewing the law to determine what position the US government should take on the issue. Unlike you, Holder didn't resort to a transparent, easily disproven lie. Let's see you man up now.
Re: Eric Holder is an idiot part 128504338563
No thanks, I already read it though my version was shrunken into a 10 page pdf file.MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:
Maybe you should have read the other seven pages, pendejo. They're right here: Arizona SB1070
Holder expressed his personal opinion of the law, just the same as you have. DOJ attorneys are reviewing the law to determine what position the US government should take on the issue. Unlike you, Holder didn't resort to a transparent, easily disproven lie. Let's see you man up now.
No Holder admitted he hadn't even read the law. Those are the words that came out of his mouth. He should have NO opinion on a law he hasn't read.
He could have just said, "Senator, I'm sorry I haven't read the law, I've been busy playing golf with the president, or even having a circle jerk with the Metal Sludge liberals. Instead he made the rounds all week on the press shows talking about the law being racist (my words) and then when confronted was made to look like an ass.
Something I haven't even asked. Do you support the bill? Have you read the bill?
- MasterOfMeatPuppets
- MSX Tour Support Act
- Posts: 4249
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:29 pm
Re: Eric Holder is an idiot part 128504338563
Where is this shrunken version, not that I don't believe you.Nevermind wrote:No thanks, I already read it though my version was shrunken into a 10 page pdf file.MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:
Maybe you should have read the other seven pages, pendejo. They're right here: Arizona SB1070
Holder expressed his personal opinion of the law, just the same as you have. DOJ attorneys are reviewing the law to determine what position the US government should take on the issue. Unlike you, Holder didn't resort to a transparent, easily disproven lie. Let's see you man up now.
No Holder admitted he hadn't even read the law. Those are the words that came out of his mouth. He should have NO opinion on a law he hasn't read.
He could have just said, "Senator, I'm sorry I haven't read the law, I've been busy playing golf with the president, or even having a circle jerk with the Metal Sludge liberals. Instead he made the rounds all week on the press shows talking about the law being racist (my words) and then when confronted was made to look like an ass.
Something I haven't even asked. Do you support the bill?
It's a stupid law. What is reasonable suspicion of being an illegal immigrant? Looking foreign? Talking with a foreign accent? Having a foreign name? It's going to piss off a bunch of legal Latinos when they get tired of being stopped for being too Mexican and someone will sue and win. Even Stevie Wonder can see this will bite AZ in the ass. I'm just glad my tax dollars won't be spent to pull some Barney Fife's ass out of the fire.
Re: Eric Holder is an idiot part 128504338563
MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:Where is this shrunken version, not that I don't believe you.Nevermind wrote:No thanks, I already read it though my version was shrunken into a 10 page pdf file.MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:
Maybe you should have read the other seven pages, pendejo. They're right here: Arizona SB1070
Holder expressed his personal opinion of the law, just the same as you have. DOJ attorneys are reviewing the law to determine what position the US government should take on the issue. Unlike you, Holder didn't resort to a transparent, easily disproven lie. Let's see you man up now.
No Holder admitted he hadn't even read the law. Those are the words that came out of his mouth. He should have NO opinion on a law he hasn't read.
He could have just said, "Senator, I'm sorry I haven't read the law, I've been busy playing golf with the president, or even having a circle jerk with the Metal Sludge liberals. Instead he made the rounds all week on the press shows talking about the law being racist (my words) and then when confronted was made to look like an ass.
Something I haven't even asked. Do you support the bill?
It's a stupid law. What is reasonable suspicion of being an illegal immigrant? Looking foreign? Talking with a foreign accent? Having a foreign name? It's going to piss off a bunch of legal Latinos when they get tired of being stopped for being too Mexican and someone will sue and win. Even Stevie Wonder can see this will bite AZ in the ass. I'm just glad my tax dollars won't be spent to pull some Barney Fife's ass out of the fire.
What can any Arizona law enforcement official do under the Arizona immigration law that a federal law enforcement official cannot already do?
What requirement does the Arizona law place on any non-citizen living in Arizona that federal law does already not place on any non-citizen living elsewhere in the United States?
Until someone can explain those differences your protests and others like it are nothing but meaningless rantings and ravings from people who have an agenda that goes far beyond idiotic concerns over racial or ethnic profiling.
- MasterOfMeatPuppets
- MSX Tour Support Act
- Posts: 4249
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:29 pm
Re: Eric Holder is an idiot part 128504338563
Where is that 'shrunken law' pdf file? Why don't you just man up and come clean.
A Federal law enforcement officer can't pull you over for state and/or local traffic violations.Nevermind wrote:
What can any Arizona law enforcement official do under the Arizona immigration law that a federal law enforcement official cannot already do?
It puts this requirement on all people in Arizona, not just non-citizens. I'm not required to provide proof of my citizenship at the whim of my local constable under Federal law. If in Arizona, I am. My agenda is that I don't want to give cops the power to hassle me simply because I don't look American enough to them.Nevermind wrote:What requirement does the Arizona law place on any non-citizen living in Arizona that federal law does already not place on any non-citizen living elsewhere in the United States?
Until someone can explain those differences your protests and others like it are nothing but meaningless rantings and ravings from people who have an agenda that goes far beyond idiotic concerns over racial or ethnic profiling.
- KneelandBobDylan
- Playing Decent Clubs in a Bus
- Posts: 1365
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:37 pm
- Location: 3rd stone from the sun
Re: Eric Holder is an idiot part 128504338563
I wanna see this "shrunken" .pdf file also.
Re: Eric Holder is an idiot part 128504338563
I can't believe you're hung up on this. Just because the law is a 17 page document in it's original form, doesn't mean someone can't adjust the font and make the text smaller and gasp.......use less pages. Since you never said you did, even after I asked, I'll go ahead and assume you've never read it.MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:Where is that 'shrunken law' pdf file? Why don't you just man up and come clean.
You should laugh at yourself because you're wrong again. They can can stop and detain you, but they cannot charge you.A Federal law enforcement officer can't pull you over for state and/or local traffic violations.
And if you had actually read the bill, you would see that it prohibits just that.It puts this requirement on all people in Arizona, not just non-citizens. I'm not required to provide proof of my citizenship at the whim of my local constable under Federal law. If in Arizona, I am. My agenda is that I don't want to give cops the power to hassle me simply because I don't look American enough to them.
- MasterOfMeatPuppets
- MSX Tour Support Act
- Posts: 4249
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:29 pm
Re: Eric Holder is an idiot part 128504338563
What you can't believe is that you were caught in a lie. I really did read it, fifteen minutes I'll never get back. That's why I have a real link to the text, actual evidence I've even seen it.Nevermind wrote:I can't believe you're hung up on this. Just because the law is a 17 page document in it's original form, doesn't mean someone can't adjust the font and make the text smaller and gasp.......use less pages. Since you never said you did, even after I asked, I'll go ahead and assume you've never read it.MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:Where is that 'shrunken law' pdf file? Why don't you just man up and come clean.
No, they cannot. Federal authority is constrained by the US Constitution. They only have authority to enforce any applicable laws on federal land and can only enforce federal laws elsewhere.Nevermind wrote:You should laugh at yourself because you're wrong again. They can can stop and detain you, but they cannot charge you.A Federal law enforcement officer can't pull you over for state and/or local traffic violations.
What section? Put up the pdf you read and show me where.Nevermind wrote:And if you had actually read the bill, you would see that it prohibits just that.It puts this requirement on all people in Arizona, not just non-citizens. I'm not required to provide proof of my citizenship at the whim of my local constable under Federal law. If in Arizona, I am. My agenda is that I don't want to give cops the power to hassle me simply because I don't look American enough to them.
-
- Playing Decent Clubs in a Bus
- Posts: 1313
- Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 10:38 am
- Location: St Louis Mo
- Contact:
Re: Eric Holder is an idiot part 128504338563
No, he's an idiot because he thinks tap dancing around a pretty straightforward question will do anything to disprove what the facts are. That the guy is a muslim. That the guy trained with Islamic terrorists. That the guy IS an Islamic Terrorist.MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote: So, he was an idiot for being asked a question?
Have you read the law you support?
It puts this requirement on all people in Arizona, not just non-citizens. I'm not required to provide proof of my citizenship at the whim of my local constable under Federal law. If in Arizona, I am. My agenda is that I don't want to give cops the power to hassle me simply because I don't look American enough to them.
I have, and it's pretty cut and dry in that it prohibits racial profiling.
If you've read the bill, as you have claimed to do, you'd know that they CAN'T pull you over for not looking American enough to them.
Not having Identification or a drivers license, on a state that borders another country where it is KNOWN that people cross illegally is "suspicious". Citizens in the state (adults at least) are required to have Identification on them to show proof of identity. So, if you DONT have that, and you DONT have a license, and you maybe, oh I don't know, lack the ability to speak English, maybe, just MAYBE you might not be a citizen.What is reasonable suspicion of being an illegal immigrant? Looking foreign? Talking with a foreign accent? Having a foreign name?
The law doesn't give the police in Arizona ANY power to do ANYTHING. What it does is require the officer to verify your legal status where citizenship is concerned, IF they suspect you might not be a citizen.
The burden for proving that a person is or is not here legally still falls with the Federal government.
- MasterOfMeatPuppets
- MSX Tour Support Act
- Posts: 4249
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:29 pm
Re: Eric Holder is an idiot part 128504338563
It's one politician trying to bait another into talking shit about a major religion. He was not going to let himself or his boss be drawn into that minefield.VinnieKulick wrote:No, he's an idiot because he thinks tap dancing around a pretty straightforward question will do anything to disprove what the facts are. That the guy is a muslim. That the guy trained with Islamic terrorists. That the guy IS an Islamic Terrorist.MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote: So, he was an idiot for being asked a question?
It outlawed pretext stops? I didn't see that.VinnieKulick wrote:Have you read the law you support?
It puts this requirement on all people in Arizona, not just non-citizens. I'm not required to provide proof of my citizenship at the whim of my local constable under Federal law. If in Arizona, I am. My agenda is that I don't want to give cops the power to hassle me simply because I don't look American enough to them.
I have, and it's pretty cut and dry in that it prohibits racial profiling.
If you've read the bill, as you have claimed to do, you'd know that they CAN'T pull you over for not looking American enough to them.
In other words, ethnic profiling. Thanks, Vinnie.VinnieKulick wrote:Not having Identification or a drivers license, on a state that borders another country where it is KNOWN that people cross illegally is "suspicious". Citizens in the state (adults at least) are required to have Identification on them to show proof of identity. So, if you DONT have that, and you DONT have a license, and you maybe, oh I don't know, lack the ability to speak English, maybe, just MAYBE you might not be a citizen.What is reasonable suspicion of being an illegal immigrant? Looking foreign? Talking with a foreign accent? Having a foreign name?
Re: Eric Holder is an idiot part 128504338563
I did a quick google search and found a 10 page, 17 page, and 19 page version. Find it yourself.MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:Where is that 'shrunken law' pdf file? Why don't you just man up and come clean.
Liar! You didn't read it. If you had, you would have seen this:What you can't believe is that you were caught in a lie. I really did read it, fifteen minutes I'll never get back. That's why I have a real link to the text, actual evidence I've even seen it.
For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.
Just what in the wide, wide world of invading Mexicans is wrong with this?
You're wrong. I already said they couldn't charge you with anything. They can detain you until a local law enforcement official arrives.No, they cannot. Federal authority is constrained by the US Constitution. They only have authority to enforce any applicable laws on federal land and can only enforce federal laws elsewhere.
What it all comes down to is Obama's failure to do one of his primary jobs which is to secure this nations borders. It's his failure that has a state copying federal law, in order to protect it's citizens.
Cue some asinine Bush comment..........
- MasterOfMeatPuppets
- MSX Tour Support Act
- Posts: 4249
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:29 pm
Re: Eric Holder is an idiot part 128504338563
I belived you lied about reading the law before you opined upon it and challenged you to produce the document you claimed to read. What does that have to do with what you posted? This is the real exchange, unlike your deceptively edited lie:Nevermind wrote:I did a quick google search and found a 10 page, 17 page, and 19 page version. Find it yourself.MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:Where is that 'shrunken law' pdf file? Why don't you just man up and come clean.
Liar! You didn't read it. If you had, you would have seen this:What you can't believe is that you were caught in a lie. I really did read it, fifteen minutes I'll never get back. That's why I have a real link to the text, actual evidence I've even seen it.
For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.
What is sad is your pathetic attemts at deception by altering my statements like no one could go back and read the original exchange and you still refuse to produce the pdf you allegedly read. Put up the goods and this is over right now.What you can't believe is that you were caught in a lie. I really did read it, fifteen minutes I'll never get back. That's why I have a real link to the text, actual evidence I've even seen it.Nevermind wrote:I can't believe you're hung up on this. Just because the law is a 17 page document in it's original form, doesn't mean someone can't adjust the font and make the text smaller and gasp.......use less pages. Since you never said you did, even after I asked, I'll go ahead and assume you've never read it.MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:Where is that 'shrunken law' pdf file? Why don't you just man up and come clean.
No, they can't. Federal law enforcement officials can't make traffic stops outside federal land. The FBI can't bust you for speeding and the ICE can't pull you over for a broken tail light because they can't operate outside their jurisdiction.You're wrong. I already said they couldn't charge you with anything. They can detain you until a local law enforcement official arrives.No, they cannot. Federal authority is constrained by the US Constitution. They only have authority to enforce any applicable laws on federal land and can only enforce federal laws elsewhere.
http://www.squarestate.net/diary/337/wh ... ly-be-likeNevermind wrote:What it all comes down to is Obama's failure to do one of his primary jobs which is to secure this nations borders. It's his failure that has a state copying federal law, in order to protect it's citizens.
Cue some asinine Bush comment..........
Are you ready to expand the government's power even more and spend an assload more cash, Nevermind? This is what it will take to secure the border. Do you want to give the army law enforcement authority and spend tens of billions a year mobilizing them?One of the canards we hear about immigration reform is that before we can work on the issues of the 12 million or so informal immigrants inside the United States we have to secure the border. This seems imminently reasonable, as long as one does not dig too deeply into what that means. It is a nice, simple and clearly intelligible idea, "Secure Our Borders". Let's talk a little bit about what that would actually mean.
The southern border of the United States is 1,969 miles long. The northern border is 1,538 miles long. These are just the land borders of course, the shoreline on the East and West coasts are bigger still. If we are to "secure the border!" then we have to guard, just on land more than 3,400 miles. These miles, both North and South snake through some very rough country, but they also cut through ranches and Native American nation reservations. The line includes cities and towns which have grown up on the border to take advantage of the fact of the line between nations.
The task is Herculean before we even get to the concept of what a secure border is. Lately I have seen several guests on various MSNBC news shows talk about how the South Koreans have a secure border or that Israel does a good job in securing its borders. To be fair this is true, those borders, compared to ours, are locked down very tight. They are also completely militarized.
The border between North and South Korea is 160 miles long, less than a tenth of our southern border. To secure it, there are an estimated 3 million landmines (according to Ban Mines U.S.A) and more than half a million troops along that patch of land.
Israel is a similar situation. The Golan Heights, Israel's border with Syria, has over 2,000 mine fields along the border and around military installations. There are also tanks and gun emplacements, there are artillery and lots and lots of soldiers stationed along this border.
The question becomes is this the level of security we are talking about when we so cavalierly throw around the term "secure the border"? There is no doubt that tens of millions of landmines scattered along our northern and southern border would make the already difficult trek deadly enough to deter almost all informal immigrants. People take a chance of dying in the dessert, 189 died trying to cross into the Arizona last year, but knowing you have to cross a minefield is an order of magnitude higher danger.
Do we also want to actually station large numbers of our military on the border? As a general rule the American people don't like the idea of tanks and armored personnel carriers stationed and armed inside our nation. We have always been of the mind that our military should not be used for law enforcement. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1877 was put in place to prevent the use of the military in a law enforcement role inside the states. It would take an act of Congress to authorize the militarization of our borders, but it would be legal.
There would be an extreme cost to all of this, of course. It is hard to say with any kind of certainty what it would take to truly close our borders, but given that the Border Patrol has 20,000 agents, it is reasonable to assume it might take as many as 150,000 troops to lock down the borders. For comparison, that is about the number that currently occupy Iraq.
By stationing that many of our troops along our borders, we would be faced with a choice, either drastically increase the size of our military or face a vastly reduced ability to respond to military threats world wide. Right now between our war in Afghanistan and our occupation of Iraq there are only about 30,000 troops available for a military emergency somewhere else in the world.
There is also a psychological cost of building fortress like borders. Armed borders tend to make a nation feel that it is it against the world. For a nuclear armed superpower this is not a good mental stance to have. We have seen first hand the damage the United States can do when it is run with a "with us or against us" mentality. Highly militarized borders would only increase the likelihood of that attitude coming to prominence again.
We would also lose something that is at the core of the American mind. The Statue of Liberty reads:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
This is what one of the faces of the United States. To militarize our borders would be a full repudiation of this aspect of the United States and would be a grave mistake for our place in the world now and in the future.
There is no doubt that we must do more to control our enormous borders. It is important that we have some kind of check on the smuggling trade in and out of the Untied States. However we must face reality. There is almost no chance that we will take the draconian measures required to actually lock down our borders. The cost to our nation in dollars, mentality, civil society and world standing is just too high. Even if we were to take this disastrous course it would fail. Fully half of all the informal immigrants in this nation came in with visas and then did not go home when they expired. They crossed the existing borders legally, and that would not change even with the installation of 10 million landmines.
We must also resist the Lucy and the football situation that Republicans will put us in by their insistence that we "secure the borders". They either know this is something that is not feasible or want the kind of changes that a fully militarized border would bring to the U.S.
The real way to control the border is to rationalize our immigration system. To allow workers to come here legally instead of having to risk their lives crossing a hostile border. As long as we insight that hard work in fields and meat packing plants, in hotel rooms and gardens be paid extremely low wages with no benefits Americans will continue to look for other work. There will also be those who see doing that kind of hard work here as a step up from what they have in their homes and risk their lives to get it.
This is where we should be focusing our efforts not on some quixotic quest to seal the border like a Tupperware container.
The floor is yours.
-
- Playing Decent Clubs in a Bus
- Posts: 1313
- Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 10:38 am
- Location: St Louis Mo
- Contact:
Re: Eric Holder is an idiot part 128504338563
If he wasn't "being a politician" and he was actually vigilant in prosecuting offenders of the law, he wouldn't worry about singling out the basis for the guy's actions. Playing nice as the AG isn't doing anybody any favors.MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote: It's one politician trying to bait another into talking shit about a major religion. He was not going to let himself or his boss be drawn into that minefield.
I wonder if his reluctance to actually come out and say what is regarded as know fact has any relationship to his last job before he came to the Justice Department.
Yes, yes it did actually.It outlawed pretext stops? I didn't see that.
Have you ever heard the term "mitigated statistics"? The same way you are "profiled" as being a worse driver when you're a teen, the same way you are "profiled" as an insurance risk if you smoke, is the same way you're "profiled" as being a non citizen if you can't produce ID, speak English and live on a border state. Because the statistics are that while not EVERY Hispanic in Arizona are illegals, the majority of the Illegals in Arizona ARE Hispanic.In other words, ethnic profiling. Thanks, Vinnie.
- MasterOfMeatPuppets
- MSX Tour Support Act
- Posts: 4249
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:29 pm
Re: Eric Holder is an idiot part 128504338563
Vinnie, do you actually believe the AG personally prosecutes anyone? It's a political position. This is a tempest in a teapot.VinnieKulick wrote:If he wasn't "being a politician" and he was actually vigilant in prosecuting offenders of the law, he wouldn't worry about singling out the basis for the guy's actions. Playing nice as the AG isn't doing anybody any favors.MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote: It's one politician trying to bait another into talking shit about a major religion. He was not going to let himself or his boss be drawn into that minefield.
I wonder if his reluctance to actually come out and say what is regarded as know fact has any relationship to his last job before he came to the Justice Department.
You have no idea what a pretext stop is, do you, Vinnie? Otherwise you wouldn't be claiming the AZ legislature overturned a US Supreme Court decision.VinnieKulick wrote:Yes, yes it did actually.It outlawed pretext stops? I didn't see that.
A link on pretext stops: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2007/07/21 ... truth.aspx
Link on Whren vs. United States: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_95_5841
Since they are forbidden by the law to use race/ethnicity as a factor, isn't this irrelevant?VinnieKulick wrote:Have you ever heard the term "mitigated statistics"? The same way you are "profiled" as being a worse driver when you're a teen, the same way you are "profiled" as an insurance risk if you smoke, is the same way you're "profiled" as being a non citizen if you can't produce ID, speak English and live on a border state. Because the statistics are that while not EVERY Hispanic in Arizona are illegals, the majority of the Illegals in Arizona ARE Hispanic.In other words, ethnic profiling. Thanks, Vinnie.
-
- Playing Decent Clubs in a Bus
- Posts: 1313
- Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 10:38 am
- Location: St Louis Mo
- Contact:
Re: Eric Holder is an idiot part 128504338563
Yes, I know what pretext stops are. I also know that the law states the officer must be engaged in a LAWFUL contact with a suspected criminal to initiate the request for verification of immigration/citizenship status.
- HeavyMetalZombie666
- Angry Wyoming Rain Man
- Posts: 34410
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:55 pm
- Location: Casper, Wyoming, USA
- Contact:
Re: Eric Holder is an idiot part 128504338563
Holder is a piece of shit who is responsible for fast and furious. He pardoned terrorists and is a marxist scumbag.
- Danzig in the Dark
- Signed to a Major Label Multi-Album Deal
- Posts: 21612
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:39 pm
- Luminiferous
- Playing First Stage at SludgeFest
- Posts: 29049
- Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 3:47 pm
- Location: OI! Down here mate!
Re: Eric Holder is an idiot part 128504338563
Why is Z13 bumping threads from 2010?