ParanoiA

Do you practice skepticism by boycotting and holding protests and claiming wrongdoing as a foregone conclusion? I realize you are skeptical, and I'm personally on hightened alert as I want to see how this is going to play out - but to follow through and punish Arizona and rail against their law is not skepticism, that's premature activism based on emotional components. It's not that their fears are invalid, it's that their accusations are. It's not that skepticism isn't warranted - we had better have skeptic americans in this republic - it's that boycotting and protesting their state is senseless activism against innocent people. Unless I'm not following the thread exchange here, this started with justifying the protests and anger aimed at Arizona. Do I have you wrong here?

bascule, you have great taste in music. I think you said sometime back that you don't like Radiohead, but I don't hold it against you. I adore The Lady Gaga. When she stated she loved David Bowie and Freddie Mercury, I already wanted to like her. Then when I saw her hang herself at the music awards with theater blood, I totally fell in love. Although I relate with ecoli's statement about her pop sound not really quite living up to her image and stage awesomeness. The pop tunes, almost sound dated, with soundblaster MIDI instruments or something. But that's not how I measure a musician. She does her own writing and that just earns so much respect from me, particularly when most pop dolls are processed and artless. And the stuff she writes is catchy. And she's just freaky as hell. Now, bascule is saying she's a talented pianist, and I had no idea. So, I'm going to have to actually go find some of her music then. Should be interesting... By the way.. has anyone heard this 12 year old kid, Greyson Chance, play Paparazzi by Lady Gaga, on piano? Look for it on Youtube, it's gone viral so it shouldn't be hard. Lady Gaga called into the Ellen DeGeneres show (one of my favorite people) while she had Greyson there and he was just smitten with his pop hero.

Not that you can imagine anyway. I'm really not impressed with this line of reasoning. Limitations on your own imagination should not apply to others. Innocent until proven guilty, my friend. Let's stick with that. And this law is written with clear letters they must follow. As I heard someone on the radio say today - the first victim of racial profiling in Arizona is going to hit it big. The law is too clear and forward about it for anyone to get away with it. The position of there being no racial profiling is a statement of intent not an act of presience. There will be just as many bad cops and rotten treatment as before this law, more than likely. That says nothing about the law itself, nor Arizona for passing it. Intimating the dangers and fears of illegitimate police officers is an entirely different subject, and by definition, is not protected by this law. There is nothing about this law that has earned a speck of the negativity and protest it has endured. Every appeal has to do with something not in the law. Arizona is being chastised for things that are not in the law. What in the hell are they supposed to do when everyone's complaints are based on fears and aversions that are not in the law? Can someone tell me a problem with the law itself, that doesn't rely on a paranoid, emotional appeal with no textual support?

Yes, those are laws. If you break them, then police officers have a duty to stop you, which includes identifying who the hell you are. Really simple. This kind of reminds me of the people who get all pissy about police using cameras everywhere and how we'll all receive tickets in the mail for various frivolous crimes. And my response is I can't wait. I love the idea that you will all have to pay for the stupid laws we pass day after day, generation after generation. It will fill my heart with joy to watch you all bitch and moan about having to be held accountable for your nitpicking micro behavioral legislative whims. You don't like being stopped and processed for jay walking? Then stop making it a law that people can't jay walk. You don't like being stopped and processed over loud music, then stop making laws about loud music. I love it. 1) The law doesn't say what a "law enforcement official" is, nor what a "political subdivision" is, nor any other of the hundreds of terms and phrases contained in the text - what exactly is your point? That all laws ever created over the 220 years of our existence are all suspect if their phrases aren't defined within the laws as well? Get real. This is not an argument, it's a complaint about the inherent flexibility in language, contained in every law ever passed. And this is the wrong class to bitch about it. 2) Again...for the umpteeth time...because you can't imagine a valid scenario of how they'd determine reasonable suspicion for being an illegal immigrant during detention for another crime, does not give you license to fabricate racist ones of your own (that you do this, says more about you than them). The burden of proof is on you to prove there is any racial profiling in this law, or allowed by this law and it is not and you've failed to prove it. You and anyone else still leaning on this argument despite the evidence to the contrary are proving that there are scientists who don't change their minds with the facts at all. This is the equivalent of following a religion: blind faith with out any supporting evidence at all - not one crumb. Are you conservative? I thought only conservatives did that. Your final statement there is spot on and that would solve much of the problems. However, I and everyone in here should be insulted by the implication that illegal immigrants are somehow beneath consideration to actual citizens. They're all people. They may be guilty of immigrating illegally, but they are still valuable as humans. Show some respect, please. Now if you want to keep being a dick when you post, I'll keep being a dick as well. Or, you could drop the flaming and bring this back to an honorable discussion. Doesn't matter to me as I enjoy being a dick to those who deserve it.

Correct. We had disagreed on the verbiage in that thread, and then CharonY jumped in and pulled us apart to reveal this update. I can only guess we weren't the only ones confused by the muddy language. This also demonstrates Arizona's willingness to prove and address concerns over racial profiling - not just dismissing people as "wrong", but rather trying to remedy their concerns. It may still not go far enough, but I think it's a good concession on the part of Arizona.

Ha! Damn, that's a great point. The one time the federal government actually has clear constitutional authority and duty and they ignore it. Just like with handling immigration to begin with - a clear constitutional authority and duty and they ignore it too. I'm not sure how they can be any more clear, other than omitting the necessary legalease. Are you sure you're just not seeing the clarity because of the legal jargon? Hopefully I'll get to a point today where I can start my thread on the Judiciary and Constitutional interpretation. Watched part of a really great debate/discussion between Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer on Youtube. I think it's called "A Conversation on the Constitution". It's really interesting how they parse words, and the various theories on proper interpretation of the text. Scalia is the textualist whereas Breyer falls more in line with the Living Constitution. In light of our disagreement here - interpretation - it could compliment this theme.

The only problem with that argument jryan, is that it seems to carry the premise that if things are bad enough, canceling the constitution is justified. It doesn't really matter how bad things are in Arizona, it matters how we deal with them. This law is good because it deals with those problems in Arizona fairly and constitutionally. I think if you try to use the drama of the horror of Arizona's issues, you will unwittingly give the impression that things are so bad that we just don't have time for civil rights and constitutional protection. The constitution is most needed during times of struggle. Thanks for the stat though.

Yeah, I can understand people taking issue with Ron Paul on this. Honestly, I'm not sure what I'd do in his place. On the one hand, you have earmarks poisoning the system. On the other hand, if you don't participate, then your constituents' money goes to other people's earmarks - their money leaves the district altogether. Participating seems to be the only way to recoup some of their money. I think I could stand behind his rationale better if he actually went to some trouble to organize and mobilize against it. For instance, if he were to try to gain support for rejecting earmarks by convincing other legislators not to participate as well - or perhaps draft a bill for it. Something. Something other than playing the game and then crying foul once somebody notices. All in all, I acknowledge and accept this imperfection. Rand Paul is a peculiar candidate to me. He has more politician in him than his father, which could be useful for bringing libertarian ideas to the mainstream. But, more politician means more slivery methodology and salesmanship, which is a big turn off for me. I guess we'll see...

I'm sorry too. Hopefully you'll wade through them and learn more about the issue. You'll notice in the very beginning of that thread, that I too, believed the AP reports on the law and proceeded to Godwin the shit out of the thread, with iNow and others. Then I read the law. I was shocked at how nothing was in there that the AP and protesters said was in there. I still don't know what they're reading. Further, I do believe this says more about those protesting this law than the lawmakers and supporters. Because the lawmakers and supporters are aimed at illegal immigrants, but protesters have decided to drop the word "illegal" and have decided it's about immigration in general - to imagine how people live life immersed in racism; paranoid at every turn that someone is out to get them, is just pathetically sad. It addresses all concerns, and specifically spells out racial profiling as not allowed. It clearly demands a violation of some other law before any illegal immigration suspicion can begin. And it's part of the due process of identification anyway. The person is already having to share documents right on the spot in cooperation with law enforcement to identify themselves due to being suspected of a crime - that's already happening before any of Arizona's new law is initiated. Arizona's law doesn't create any new rationale for pulling people over and asking for their papers. It's not there. Instead, Arizona's law is simply adding the immigration status check to the due process phase of processing a suspected criminal. To have an issue with this, is to have an issue with forcing suspects to identify themselves at all. To have an issue with this is to have an issue with policing citizens in general. At what point is a citizen required to share documents to prove who they are? Now, I've already expressed my discontent about carrying papers at all. I don't believe any citizen should have to carry identification, in addition no citizen should have to give private information to anyone, including the government (like income taxes, thank you very much) without due process. It's the due process initiation that begins the legitimate query for identification, immigration status, and etc. That's the proper negotiation for a system of laws in a free society. That's what the Arizona law does. It's just that simple. The only part of the Arizona law that bothers me, though again I'm listening to the AP as I haven't actually read this...is that they have mirrored the federal government in requiring the documentation to be carried with them, rather than simply providing for a length of reasonable time for the citizen to provide documentation. That bothers me, because while it doesn't enable the government to randomly demand "your papers", it does try to resemble it, and I'm not comfortable with that. All in all though, it's consistent with federal law, so I'm not about to aim guns at Arizona while letting the federal government off the hook.

No. They cannot. Please read through the other thread, we've already been through this. CharonY provided an updated version of the actual law - with new verbiage about this specific part and you clearly need to read it. You're dead wrong here. Then how about you acknowledge the federal law that disagrees with you? Democrats are in power, have been in power, and have had plenty of time to remove that and they haven't. Immigrants are still required to carry documentation with them at all times. That's before the Arizona law. So..again...how long are you going to fight phantom enemies and start moving forces to the actual battle front? Your federal government is the problem here. Seriously, they are. It's their freaking job to secure the borders and protect the citizenry - that's basic government 101. And they won't do it. And they won't protect exploited immigrant workers nor innocent American citizens on their property. See, this is part of the problem with the federal government taking on so many responsibilities and expanding into every facet of our lives. They can no longer manage the really super duper basic stuff. Actually, I think they forgot all about it...

Now there's a statement I can get behind. It seems quite clear to me they are being rhetorical about the condition of amnesia as they claim he "can't even recall what Obamacare does" and that "seems he's completely forgotten who he works for" - that's two different applications of the amnesia dig. And that's just from your post. I haven't read the original email either so there could be more.

You mean, after detaining them for violation, or reasonable suspicion, of another crime? I have no issue with it. To have an issue with it, is to have an issue with identifying any suspect for any crime. It's part of the process of due process. Arizona police cannot stop you and demand paperwork on sole suspicion of being an illegal alien. The law does not provide for this at all. And that was what my initial objection was based on. And my objection will make a quick return if that part of the law was to actually exist or be added. The subject of paperwork and documents certainly gets muddied, and I think it should be no different than you or I being stopped by the police in our jogging outfit for suspected rape. They are going to identify us, whether we left our wallet home or not. No, we're not required to carry docs, but we will eventually have to prove who we are, with some kind of document. I will say that I'm prepared to talk about alternatives to the proverbial Green Card, since I strongly believe in the right to anonymity. That only gets trumped by reasonable, respectful law enforcement inquiry. For right now though, the federal law requires legal immigrants to carry, so Arizona is not doing anything remotely new. The federal government has less restriction than Arizona law enforcement. The feds can just suspect illegal immigration activity alone, and act on it. Arizona has to produce reasonable suspicion of some other crime before they can suspect anything about immigration. There is no issue here. Phantom enemies for the liberals to fight.

Sure. (Why does it feel like I just agreed to be waterboarded?)

Ultimately, Yes. Ill advised, more like it. Because I reject the notion of unquestionable disposition. MJ Fox is a good guy, rarely got involved in politics and clearly had a singular personal purpose, so accusing him of this was too much. But I don't believe the handicapped, diseased, or whatnot earn a free pass because it's super sad that they're a victim. They always get my sympathy, but they never get unconditional trust.

Well I'm certainly not siding with those that can't even mount a counter argument. There is no "totalitarian" in the law. Where is it? Can you get something off of the ground here, or are you stuck without facts? No need for you to wonder how people manage to maintain the same view despite contrary evidence. You do understand this, first hand. In terms of the OP, I can only hope the Grand Canyon is being boycotted enough that I can enjoy our vacation there in two weeks. Might be nice, actually. I'll be sure to report any mistreatment I witness in Arizona.

Can I call strawman then? Because I didn't make that argument. I pointed out that Rush made the claim directly, not some exercise in subtle symbology. I never said I agree with him, or argued in his favor - you're arguing against someone who's not even here. Are you kidding? This is so freaking see-through it's almost a fact. No different than disagreeing with Obama and then being accused of being a racist. They poked at his clear lack of understanding of Obamacare, which speaks directly to democrats passing laws they don't even understand. At least, that's their point anyway. Nothing of note for campaign tactics. Spratt is playing the victim card. Also nothing of note for campaign tactics. I still think he should be kicked out for using weasle victim games. I do wonder when the general public will tire of unconditional surrender to all "victims" and "children" such that anyone who opposes them is an asshole. That's the campaign atmosphere. I don't like it, but then, I don't vote for those kind of people. Who does? Go bitch to them. I don't feed trolls. But I do feed weirdos...

Which legislation is that? The one we've spent pages and pages talking about the actual words in the law and how NONE of them say what certain media outlets stated it said? The one the AP has continued to misrepresent over and over again to create sensationalist headlines and manufacture contention by disinformation distribution? That law? From Obama cabinet members, to media to common citizens, they're making glorious asses out of themselves as they protest phantom verbiage and phantom laws - all because they won't read it for themselves. Yes, I'll shed all the libertarian points that relate to lies and dishonesty. I have no need for those. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I'll take Victim Logic for 500, Alex.

No, because Rush Limbaugh didn't cower behind a symbolic ruse, but rather came right out and accused MJF of exploitation for political points. The republicans don't have anybody with the spine to do that. On the other hand, this is quite obviously, and pathetically, the democrat's victim card play. Kick him out of office for being an asshat. Makes all the other Parkinson's patients look bad....

Hell Yes!! It is absolutely about time. In other terms, this is essentially how Arizona is being treated:

Yes. The hilarious part is that the same party did both. They voted on their own health care bill, without reading it, and then shot down and mischaracterized Arizona's bill, without reading it. It seems like they have a reading problem. Surely they didn't go to government schools...? Being as that's a basic skill expected of a lawmaker, I'm highly concerned about it. How do I know they can write laws, if I'm not even sure they can read them? The really insulting part about Arizona's bill, is they are being ignored by the federal executive in terms of the problems, the violence, they're experiencing in relation to illegal immigration and the drug war. Yet are being ridiculed by the same branch that hasn't even read their bill! Wow.

Sure. My direct implication is that democratic politicians are dropping the ball and moving from mere suspicion of incompetence, to outright proof of it. Passing a bill to find out what's in it? Lame excuses to justify not reading their bills? This is astoundingly egregious. No ideological tent should provide cover for this. In addition, they are falling for the media's bait just like most of the public has. If they had read these things for themselves, instead of being lazy and depending on the AP to do it for them and report it truthfully, then they would be more careful with their words and not gloriously make idiots of themselves, day after day. Are the republicans doing it? Is that your question? Do you have anything other than competition psychology to offer here? Maybe there's some republicans in here you can swing that out with, I'm primarily interested in the current crop of scam artists and slithery salesmen you put in office, and they're all democrats.

There seems to be a problem with democrat law makers reading laws, even their own. There was outcry over the democrats not reading their healthcare bill, with Nancy Pelosi even quoted as saying "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy". Now, we have Eric Holder, Attorney General, scolding Arizona about their law that he also hasn't read yet. Wow. Then, yesterday, Janet Napolitano did it too! What is it with Democrats and reading? For a party that claims the intellectual high ground they sure seem to have problems with the most basic of information skills. What do we have to do, draw pictures and create pop-up paper imagery to keep their attention on the text of law? Maybe read it for them? Like an audio book?

I agree with this, though the whole notion of the government labeling a citizen as an imminent threat and then institutionalizing them is offensive. After all, we know how they've handled eminent domain. I'm not sure "imminent", nor "eminent" are words the government can use responsibly. But I think it has to be done that way. We can't allow the state to unilaterally increase sentences at their whim because they've got a "feeling" some guy is going to be a threat. I've got a feeling this fella here at work is a part-time serial killer, but that's not enough to incarcerate him, so I hardly see how extending incarceration is any more justifiable.

Your best line, yet. Wish I'd said it.