Thursday, April 29, 2010

Politics

As I predicted, the reaction to Arizona's attempt to enforce federal immigration laws is over the top, and getting higher.

And Barrack Obama is the leading pole vaulter, as the post-racial president goes wildly racial.
What a dick.

And some court is still going to throw it out.

27 comments:

my name is Amanda said...

Two questions:

What is "post-racial?"

How are you defining "over the top?"

K-Rod said...

I also saw it coming and posted as such on G.O.M. and SRS.

Hahahahahaha

Vanesa Littlecrow W. said...

And while the libs are bellyaching about racism and mean cultures in Arizona, they are actually destroying my homeland's culture for political gain and ignoring the Puerto Rican people's votes supporting the Commonwealth.

Unbe-fucking-leivable.

RW said...

What did he say?

Brian said...

How the hell is criticizing a policy, one easily predictable (and frankly likely) consequence of which is giving legal cover for racial profiling, going "wildly racial"?

1) It's a shitty policy, apart from the whole racial profiling thing, for reasons I mentioned a couple of posts down; 2) it is arguably unconstitutional on both jurisdictional and equal protection grounds; and 3) since it impinges significantly on federal jurisdiction, it is entirely appropriate (indeed, necessary) for the president and Justice Dept. to respond to it.

Gino said...

RW: he said that a somebody who's grandfather came from mexico has fear of getting arrested if he takes a walk with his own grandkids to buy them ice cream.

so, first off, its preposterous.
second, he assumes that even after 5 generations, mexicans are incapable of assimilating.

brian: based upon further reporting, it appears to me this law is not different than what the border patrol does closer to the border.
the original article i commented on two weeks ago was poorly written, and didnt tell the whole story.

but, its still theater, and it will still get tossed. not because its wrong, but because too many interests want the illegals here.

RW said...

Well, the law gives the police the authority to question anyone on the basis of their appearance alone. But, of course, the police state is the one coming from liberals so it can't be there's something wrong with the law or anything. Meh.

Gino said...

the law gives the police the authority to question anyone on the basis of their appearance alone.

from what i'm reading, this is not true.

RW said...

Pretty sure this is the part that is causing most of the fuss. It can be read narrowly or broadly and leaves a lot up to the officer. If nothing else it is at the very least poorly written...

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).26

The whole bill is here
www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Before my manhood gets challenged and I'm asked to put up my dukes or whatever the fuck else shut they do to you here when the readers don't like what you're saying... let me repeat... this section can be read narrowly or broadly and in that interpretation, specifically, it would allow any officer seeing a Mexican grandfather driving his grandson to get an ice cream pulled over for speeding to possibly be subject to it. If the car is late model and anything about the get-up is untidy any officer, by the leeway given in this provision, can reasonably ask for papers. It's just not okay. If nothing else the language needs to be tightened up. But there are even Republicraps, like Jeb Bush, who wonder about the ambiguity of that section.

And if, Gino as you say, it's going to be thrown out anyway, who the fuck gives a shit if somebody in the White House says something about it. Why get all wanked about Obama speaking out about a bill that's going to get tossed anyway?

Seems like a stretch of one point just to make another to me.

Brian said...

Basically, that section (broadly read) is giving legal cover to what the Maricopa Sheriff's Department has been doing for years.

Gino said...

And if, Gino as you say, it's going to be thrown out anyway, who the fuck gives a shit if somebody in the White House says something about it.

because the rhetoric from both sides is ramped up to crazy levels, and i would expect the potus to speak a bit more responsibly instead of pouring more gasoline on the fire.

brian: is that the sheriff joe 'pink underwear' guy?
i may be off cause i dont follow his press, but hasnt everything he's done been upheld by courts?

RW said...

why should this jamoke be the first Presidential jamoke since Washington to be that way? Please... he was just making sure the Latino voters heard his message, just like Joe Billy Bob Bukka heard the message from the other side. It's ALL political posturing. Remember Barry's from Chicago. Politics ain't bean bag.

But anyway, what part of the bill you read led you to believe it was the other way?

Gino said...

i never said i read the bill, just some articles about it from both sides.
and then some commentary on the radio this am. (this guy's generally a center/left populist)

and then my local paper, which is officially libertarian in their editorial.

my name is Amanda said...

I feel a little resentful that when I speak out about it on that other blog, a bunch of men take turns verbally beating the crap of me, but when two dudes discuss something wrong with it, PEOPLE ACTUALLY LISTEN TO THEM.

Gino said...

i'm sorry amanda.

i hope i'm not treating you poorly here,though.

Night Writer said...

Sheesh, Amanda. Project much?

The responses you get on "that other blog" dismantle your arguments because the arguments are wrong and your charges are spurious, NOT because you're a woman. I don't think anyone there has, or would, disparage you for being a woman. In fact, they'd likely rally on your behalf if someone did.

Yet you would come on here and claim victim status and slanderously accuse men of abusing you up because of your sex! And then Gino (because he's a gentleman) reflexively bows and says "Sorry, ma'am". Such a charge, in another age, would be met with steel at dawn. Now, however, I simply say, "Good day to you, sir!"

Night Writer said...

To be clear, my last two sentences above were directed to Amanda, not Gino.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

"Racist" and "Sexist,"
When flippantly said,
Turn into parrots
Then roll over dead.


Mr. Praline:...I wish to complain about this parrot what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.

Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue... What's,uh... What's wrong with it?

Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!

Bike Bubba said...

Update is that there's been a revision to the law that clarifies the "lawful contact" to terms that actually appear in Arizona law. Specifically, it makes very clear that one will not be questioned for buying ice cream, but rather that the officer only gets to ask when there is a reasonable suspicion of a person having committed a crime.

Regarding who gets "beaten upon," it has nothing to do with one's sex, and everything to do with whether one heeds contrary evidence. If one continues the racism meme long after that idea has been discredited, for example, people will start to lose their patience with that person.

K-Rod said...

Hey , RW, will you be protesting on behalf of those with a ruddier complexions over the .08 BAC DUI laws?

From my G.O.M. link above:

"One of the many patrons in downtown St. Paul feared being pulled over since he has not only a "Luck of the Irish" bumper sticker but also a "Notre Dame" static window decal.
The patron said, "They are targeting us based on our Celtic appearance. I don't even like Irish Whiskey; and for the record, I prefer Summit EPA to Guinness!"

Jessy Ventura has not commented yet on how this issue correlates to the names of the streets in St. Paul."


Well RW? Amanda? Brian?

my name is Amanda said...

Huh, I didn't check this comment thread again until now.

Gino - Thank you for saying that. I know you don't automatically agree with (most) of what *I* think.

Night Writer - Bullshit. I could have written your response to my comment for you.

My charges were not spurious. They would have been simply ignored if I didn't have a point.

I come on this blog because I still like Gino, not because of...whatever you are trying to say about me coming to this blog.

WBP - Clever. (And superior!)

Bike Bubba - I understand that you have started to lose patience for being called a racist for supporting a racist law, even though nobody called you a racist. Sorry about that!

K-Rod said...

"Bullshit."

Prove it or take your racist and misogynistic comments and stick them...

Amanda, just because you repeat your lies over and over does not mean they become true.

My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

K-Rod said...

"...for being called a racist for supporting a racist law,..."

Say what?

Amanda, do you really claim the .08 DUI laws are racist against those with a ruddier complexion?

Seriously?

*facepalm*

Wait, maybe this might help you, Amanda.

Another human rights violation?

or here!


One of the many patrons in downtown St. Paul feared being pulled over since he has not only a "Luck of the Irish" bumper sticker but also a "Notre Dame" static window decal.
The patron said, "They are targeting us based on our Celtic appearance. I don't even like Irish Whiskey; and for the record, I prefer Summit EPA to Guinness!"



Amanda, it is quite amusing how you can claim the .08 DUI law is a racist law.

my name is Amanda said...

I meant to comment on this part, too -

And then Gino (because he's a gentleman) reflexively bows and says "Sorry, ma'am". Such a charge, in another age, would be met with steel at dawn.

I don't think he was apologizing for anything. It was a friendly "I'm sorry you felt that way." And you know, I wasn't even asking for that. I was just upset. But it was nice that he said it anyway. As to "such a charge" - such a charge as what?

Gino, if you felt I called you a racist, I'm sorry.

(Doesn't change my opinion about the law, but I don't think anyone would expect that.)

Mr. D said...

NW,

Thanks for the support, sir.

Amanda,

Hope you are well. We just are going to have to agree to disagree about the issue at hand.

K-Rod said...

Opinion about the law? Say what you want, but talking points don't mean shit.


Back up those opinions with actual logic and reasoning why the .08 DUI laws are racist.

Since when are LEOs forbidden to enforce laws?

Night Writer said...

Amanda, I hardly think you could have written my response for me, because that implies a level of self-awareness and critical thinking that you have yet to demonstrate.

I made it a rule years ago when I first came "on-line" that when it came to rhetoric I would attack only the argument, not the person. Name calling does not resolve or illuminate anything. I have clearly departed from this self-imposed policy in this instance because your comment earlier was so personal and hateful. In short, in my reading, you claimed that you were being abused because of your sex. That is a serious slander and dangerous words to toss around, and if you don't understand that then I truly despair.

Perhaps that was not your intent, and the comment was merely an attempt to be humorous and not sardonic. Nevertheless, it was over the line, and I called you on it. (Oh, and another little rule I have: the first one to use profanity, loses).

Now, as I said earlier, "Good day to you, sir!"