How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Protesting.....Lefty-style.   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ]
 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Protesting.....Lefty-style.

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


150 posted 05-10-2010 07:54 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Heck, Grinch, that's why I'm your Uncle.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


151 posted 05-10-2010 08:02 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thanks, grinch...you, too, Bob.

Remember, I'm the guy who didn't realize things could be changed on Wikipedia. There are things I'm not very sharp on....too many of them sometimes.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


152 posted 05-11-2010 01:52 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Join the club.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


153 posted 05-11-2010 02:32 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday urged Catholic leaders to "instruct" their parishioners to support immigration reforms, saying clerics should "play a very major role" in supporting Democratic policies.
"The cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops that come to me and say, 'We want you to pass immigration reform,' and I said, 'I want you to speak about it from the pulpit. I want you to instruct your' -- whatever the communication
is," said Pelosi, who is Catholic, speaking at the Nation's Catholic Community conference sponsored by Trinity Washington University and the National Catholic Reporter.
"The people, some (who) oppose immigration reform, are sitting in those pews, and you have to tell them that this is a manifestation of our living the gospels," she said.
While it's not unusual for clergy to speak about politics from the pulpit, it is uncommon for a lawmaker to openly encourage them to preach a specific policy.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/06/pelosi-urges-catholic- church-play-major-role-immigration-overhaul/


Bob, I believe you have asked how the administration is stirring up the public? Here is a prime example....also doesn't it bring up a church and state situation which you are strongly against?

The police chief of Phoenix was speaking today of how Obama has made it so much tougher by deliberating planting the possibility, and even probability, that racial harassment will ensue by his "ice cream" comments.....and he is exactly right. Obama knew exactly what he was doing by that comment, even when tossing in his little escape clause at the end.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


154 posted 05-11-2010 06:30 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


quote:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday urged Catholic leaders to "instruct" their parishioners to support immigration reforms, saying clerics should "play a very major role" in supporting Democratic policies.
"The cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops that come to me and say, 'We want you to pass immigration reform,' and I said, 'I want you to speak about it from the pulpit. I want you to instruct your' -- whatever the communication
is," said Pelosi, who is Catholic, speaking at the Nation's Catholic Community conference sponsored by Trinity Washington University and the National Catholic Reporter.
"The people, some (who) oppose immigration reform, are sitting in those pews, and you have to tell them that this is a manifestation of our living the gospels," she said.
While it's not unusual for clergy to speak about politics from the pulpit, it is uncommon for a lawmaker to openly encourage them to preach a specific policy.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/06/pelosi-urges-catholic- church-play-major-role-immigration-overhaul/




quote:

Bob, I believe you have asked how the administration is stirring up the public? Here is a prime example....also doesn't it bring up a church and state situation which you are strongly against?



     Do you know of any non-Fox  News sourcing on this story?  I don't know that it's wrong, it's simply that I have gotten less and less trusting of Fox the more experience I have with them, and certainly much more so recently.

     I do tend to be upset with such crossing of boundaries between church and state, though I confess more by the church's attempt's to act as a state religion and to exclude other religions or no religion at all from free and robust practice and by the attempts of religion to exercise State powers than by The State to mobilize the power of religion as one force among many, and a single religion as one example of a religion among a single religion among all religions or choices of ethical motivation.  

     I am against religion being employed by government as well as government being used by religion, simply not as strongly

     It's a pretty unusual government that is saying that it is against the expansion of governmental powers over the lives of those it governs, don't you think?  And the number of Republicans that are requesting, nay, demanding that the government take away freedom of movement and freedom from being subject to limits on the right to equal protection?
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con13.htm

     In this case, what the Catholic Church regards as part of its pastoral Duties, that is the duty to supply help to the needy and oppressed, has actually come in conflict with the Arizona State Law, which requires citizens not to harbor illegal Aliens and which may, on occasion, require the church to do exactly the opposite.  Many other religious ministries may require their pastoral caregivers to do exactly the same thing, creating a sort of Render-unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God, that which is God's sort of conundrum.

     This is one more reason why this law should not be permitted to stand.

     If you are not yet aware of the fact, you should be aware that the Friendly Folks at FAIR, the people who helped write this bill, have a history of anti-Catholicism that can be tracked.  Rachel Maddow, about whom you have had unflattering things to say, conducted an interview with the President of that organization, and did somer fact-checking on his statements and replies.  He was not a truthful man, including his statements about his interview with Tucker Carlson, the conservative Journalist, which Carlson later confirmed that the FAIR official was lying about.

     You might check some of that stuff out on Ms. Maddow's web Site, which posts some of these interviews in their entirety.


quote:


The police chief of Phoenix was speaking today of how Obama has made it so much tougher by deliberating planting the possibility, and even probability, that racial harassment will ensue by his "ice cream" comments.....and he is exactly right. Obama knew exactly what he was doing by that comment, even when tossing in his little escape clause at the end.




     I'd be interested in having a look at that article, Mike.  Where might I find it?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


155 posted 05-11-2010 08:25 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, you can find it here, along with a video..
http://catholicvoteaction.org/blog/cva/index.php?p=1500

Actually, if you had simply typed in Pelosi + religion + immigration in your search engine instead of automatically distrusting because it came from FOX, you could have found many other sites that carried it.. http://www.ask.com/web?l=dis&o=10148&qsrc=2873&q=pelosi+religion+immigration

The other? I watched it - where else? - on FOX. It was not a reporting that he said it - it was a video of him saying it. You had once cautioned against disregarding the message because of the messenger but it appears you yourself are unable to do that.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


156 posted 05-11-2010 09:02 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     I still feel the same way, which is why I asked for more information about the facts.  I didn't automatically assume wrongness of their information because of the source; nor did I assume their conclusions had to be incorrect because of the history of distortion I have seen from them.  I asked for more information, which you have been kind enough to offer.

     Fox may indeed be correct, and it would be silly of me to dismiss them out of hand.  Their information needs to be evaluated with as much objectivity as I can muster and I need to think through their reasoning process.

     Thanks for asking about this sort of stuff, since it's a value I find important, and it's one I like to be consistent about, at least for me.  While I tend to discount Fox, I'd hate to think that I'd tossed the possibility that Fox could be right and I might be wrong on any particular point simply because I don't trust them, and I find their approach to truth to be more self-serving than objective.  On any particular subject, the prejudice could be more on my own side, and it'd be pretty difficult for me to really know that, wouldn't it?

     I need well meaning friends who disagree with me at exactly those times to keep me from vanishing up my own nose.  Or whatever the orifice you may have noted on any particular occasion.  It's always a not so distant possibility, much as I like to think not.  But don't tell Mike, for heaven's sake; it might encourage him in his occasional bad habits.  Never a good idea.

     And simply because it's a video from Fox doesn't mean the video is complete or unedited in strategic places to give the wrong impressions, such as the videos that gained such popularity of the Pimp and Hooker getting Loans from ACORN that proved to be strategically edited pieces that didn't have much connection to actual events at all.  Pieces that The Republicans have not yet issued any apology for that I'm aware of, and which Fox has not apologized for puffing so widely either, to their own disgrace and to the damage of ACORN.  Nor, for that matter, has The New York Times, which was complicit as well, to be fair, and perhaps even more so because it is in so many ways the Newspaper of Record in this country.

     Simply because Fox has video doesn't mean that the video itself is high quality information.  The video needs to be examined and evaluated as intelligence as well, in the same way that the CIA has to evaluate the reliability of its sources as well when it presents its data for examination to The President, so he can get some notion of how solid the data actually is.  

     Knowing that Fox has video wouldn't tend to push data to the top of the high reliability pile all by itself, I wouldn't think, considering some of the video it has aired in the past and the spin it's placed on that video.  Having Fox commentators publicize Tea Party demonstrations and encouraging their viewers and listeners to be there, for example, as was the case occasionally last year, would make the Fox coverage of The Tea Party events highly suspect in any sort of evaluation of the accuracy of that coverage, for example.  It would downgrade the intelligence value of that data quite a bit.

     That wouldn't make the data wrong, mind you; but it's value as intelligence would be better, probably, about the media relationships between The Tea Party and media outlets than the actual impact of the Tea Party itself.  You see the problem here?  In such situations the phrase "Film at 11:00" doesn't have quite the same impact.

[This message has been edited by Bob K (05-11-2010 09:34 PM).]

threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


157 posted 05-12-2010 06:10 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Protesting Mexican Immigrant style: http://kron.com/News/ArticleView/tabid/298/smid/1126/ArticleID/5910/reftab/536/Defa ult.aspx
The background on this story: http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/2509938/posts?page=45

Nobody but FOX carried network footage of this.
Make of it what you will.  I think we're in for a major civil rights breakout again, only this time with Mexicans.  Oh, there's only 16 million illegals of them....nothing to see here...move on...
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


158 posted 05-13-2010 07:21 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     And exactly how did you get this number of 16 million Mexican illegals?  

     Not that I find it impossible, but I do find it pretty unlikely.  The most even-handed estimate and discussion on the issue is the one I've referenced as follows from "The Christian Science Monitor."  Tell me what you think, please.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0516/p01s02-ussc.html
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


159 posted 05-13-2010 08:04 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

It's a conundrum, isn't it?  Your article was right on the money detailing the difficulties in pinning down an exact number.  Picture this:  you have X amount of people being sent back that will recross, sometimes within the same year.  The US doesn't even keep individual track of those slated to 'go back.'  

I would go with the US Border patrol estimates because they contain the more accurate numbers of net illegal immigrants plus/minus the ones they've caught and turned back.  The government numbers will always be low estimates, so I don't think they are too accurate for political reasons.  Pew says 12 mill: us border says 16 and Bear Stearns says 20.  I'd go with the middle estimate.

In any case, 16 million is a huge number:
so large in fact the illegals ALONE would fill equal the populations of all these cities COMBINED!... just to house them:
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
Philadelphia
San Antonio
Dallas
San Diego
& Detroit
basically our 3 thru 10th largest cities.

That's how many of them there are.  Something has to change.

16 million illegals vs USA's largest Cities Comparison
1 New York New York 8,363,710
2 Los Angeles California  3,833,995
3 Chicago Illinois 2,853,114
4 Houston Texas  2,242,193
5 Phoenix Arizona  1,567,924
6 Philadelphia  1,540,351
7 San Antonio Texas  1,351,305
8 Dallas Texas  1,279,910
9 San Diego California  1,279,329
10 San Jose California  948,279
11 Detroit Michigan  912,062

12 San Francisco California  808,976
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


160 posted 05-13-2010 08:31 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




     And exactly how did you get this number of 16 million Mexican illegals?  

     Not that I find it impossible, but I do find it pretty unlikely.  The most even-handed estimate and discussion on the issue is the one I've referenced as follows from "The Christian Science Monitor."  Tell me what you think, please.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0516/p01s02-ussc.html
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


161 posted 05-13-2010 08:33 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Oops!

     Phoenix is out of the running for The Republican Presidential Convention.  Go figure.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


162 posted 05-13-2010 08:49 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Does that mean you love the situation of the girl's basketball team, too, Bob?

It's really interesting that in a country where one of the rights, which you believe in so strongly, is innocent until proven guilty...and yet here we have a situation where punishment is applauded BEFORE any act is committed which warrants it. IS that the democrat version of the constitution then?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


163 posted 05-14-2010 03:13 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

quote:


Does that mean you love the situation of the girl's basketball team, too, Bob?



     "[T]oo?"  Which thing have you given my affections to this time without my permission, Mike?  I told you, no more Biker Bimbos without clearing them with my wife first, and she's pretty darn tough to convince.  Last time I think it was you tried to give my heart away to a bunch of Washington Bureaucrats, and the time before that it was to a group of sexually ambiguous Terrorists from — was it Tunesia or Iran or Saudi Arabia?  

     You've got to stop doing this, Mike.  I'm a happily married man.  Much as I like to watch the occasional well turned out Women's College Basketball team, I'm no chicken hawk, and you'll have to keep your wishes for the Women's High School Basketball Champions to yourself.  You're a well known dirty old man, and I love you anyway, but leave me out of your more complex fantasies that way.  There may well be Federal Laws involved here.

     On a slightly more serious note, it seems to me that the school authorities have a responsibility to act in loco parentis for the kids in this situation, and they must make the judgement that reflects the most adult judgement that they can make.  If they see the situation in Arizona as potentially difficult either because they believe the law itself is bad, or they believe the President has made a correct judgement call, or they believe that the situation down there is fluid enough that there may be civil unrest that may affect their kids simply because their kids would not be respecting a boycott and folks on the left might be upset or any other reason, then they have a responsibility, first and foremost to protect the kids.  

     They may like that decision or they may dislike that decision, but the amount of upset the parents may feel about the kids having to stay home is nothing compared to the upset the parents would feel if there was anything like an incident involving their kids in Arizona, and the administrators are acting like administrators are supposed to act.  They're being protective of the kids and of their own hindquarters, the interests of which in this case may have some significant overlap.

     Do I love this?

     I neither love nor hate this.  It is bureaucratic normality and I accept it.  As is said of pilots, so may it be said of administrators:  There are old pilots and bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.

quote:

It's really interesting that in a country where one of the rights, which you believe in so strongly, is innocent until proven guilty...and yet here we have a situation where punishment is applauded BEFORE any act is committed which warrants it. IS that the democrat version of the constitution then?



     You might want to complete the sentence before I comment on it.  I can give you better and more coherent a response that way, which I think you probably deserve here.

     I do believe in the presumption of innocence in matters of law, but I don't believe that we're actually talking about law here, are we?  There have been no charges filed by anybody that I am aware of.  The notion of punishment, therefore, doesn't seem to come to bear.  There is much of the country that is horrified by the law passed by the State of Arizona.  The country is horrified enough by that law that it is boycotting many events and activities that help the Arizona Economy run.  This is what much of the world did in terms of South Africa twenty years ago, when much of the world felt that South Africa was pursuing racist policies in their treatment of their minorities.  It imposed voluntary economic sanctions.  Most people joined that boycott on their own.

     To what am I supposed to apply the presumption of innocence here, Mike?  Do you intend to force me to spend money in Arizona?  Do you suggest that people who do not have confidence in Arizona to act constitutionally act as though they do?  This law has seriously damaged the confidence that much of the rest of the country has in that state to act in a lawful and cooperative fashion and to be a partner with the rest of the country in the compact of laws that the country runs upon.  Should I pretend that this is not true for me?  Should I pretend that I feel the State of Ariza provides a level of safety for those traveling inside its borders that it does not, in my opinion, provide?

     I am breaking no law be avoiding Arizona and its products.  The passage of the law, by the way, was the act which, as far as I'm concerned, provided reason for the rest of the country to become cautious about their interactions with that state.  And yes, I do believe it is a racist law.  The State felt that it could pass the law, and it could.  It could not pass the law, however, without provoking a reaction from me, and there are other people who agree with me in this matter.

     I would suggest to you that as long as you talk about this in the terms that you are using here, you probably do not understand what the Democratic and civil libertarian response to this sort of thing is about.

     I don't say that you actually have to know or understand it, because that would be wrong.  You don't.  But it would keep you from being quite so puzzled about why folks actually become concerned about this sort of thing, and the discussion wouldn't seem so strange to you.

     Whether that's a valuable outcome or not for you, I don't know.  It may be.
    

      
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


164 posted 05-14-2010 07:42 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

  I do believe in the presumption of innocence in matters of law, but I don't believe that we're actually talking about law here, are we?

Exactly my point, Bob....and now Arizona is compared by you as representative of South Africa's genocidal policies of 20 years ago. How can one even hope for a reasonable discussion with someone who would think that?

So you do agree with the school's decision to not allow the team to go to Arizona. I have to confess I am more than a little shocked by that...I should have expected it but didn't. It does, however, fit right in with Obama's scare tactics. Now, all of a sudden, from a bill that hasn't even gone into effect and certainly hasn't had the opportunity to do the dastardly things Obama declares grandly "could happen", a school - a supposedly academic place - decides that Arizona could be too unsafe for travel. China, where students were recently killed in a massacre, was safe enough. Other trouble spots in Europe were safe enough. Arizona is not. The team of a school with an opportunity to go to the national championships for the first time in 26 years cannot go because Arizona is not safe. I would have thought that even you could have seen the absolute ridiculousness of that...and I would have been wrong. That is really disheartening, sir.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


165 posted 05-14-2010 07:32 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Why?

     You are not responsible for the safety of the students;  it's no skin off your nose.  And since the straw men you hold up for a comparison weren't on offer, we have no way of knowing what the reaction would have been by the school to those offers, either.  You're simply trying another excuse to go harumph and to call me, "Sir."

     I think I like the ring of that, by the way.  Had you considered doing that more often?  Not, I mean only when you're going Harumph, but as a mark of singular respect for my awsome talent at sleeping and at being a liberal scapegoat for your spleen.  Perhaps you might make a point of calling me Sir on a regular basis, you know, as a mark of incredible deference and respect.

     The more I think about this, the more I like the thought.  Mr. Bob, Sir.  Might I have some more, Mr, Bob, Sir?

     Why, yes, Michael, after you've finished tormenting today's puppies and kittens of course.  Have you finished all of today's tormenting yet, or have the teachers given you extra again for not being ruthless enough?

     You have?

      Well then run along, Michael, and enjoy yourself.

     I'll have to think about that at some length, "Mr. Bob, Sir," does have an interesting, solid ring to it, don't you think?  Harumph!  Harumph!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


166 posted 05-14-2010 10:17 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ah, yes, the safety of the student...taking care of the tykes who could chance entering into that evil, untamed land of genocide, murder, and everything South Africa was famous for....Arizona!!! Hmmm...wait a minute. Arizona IS known as the kidnapping capital of the country....kids might NOT be safe there! All those kidnappings, all that drug trafficking and all conducted by illegal aliens...why doesn't Arizona do something about them??? You're right, Bob. It ISN'T safe there!!!

I'll be happy to continue using the word "sir". After all, it does rhyme with slur, doesn't it?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


167 posted 05-14-2010 10:38 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Given the economic damage inflicted on us by the current administration and many state governments, most readers of this column would probably be quite happy to live in a state where:

    • The official unemployment rate in March was 6.6%.

    • The average unemployment rate in 2009 using the most comprehensive definition was 10.5%, the fourth-lowest in the nation (behind three much smaller states), and far lower than the national average of 16.2%.

    • The number of people either working or looking for work has actually grown during the past twelve months (in most states, the labor force has contracted significantly).

    • The economy grew in 2008, and probably did so again in 2009.

Unless you live in Oklahoma, you’re not in that state.

It “just so happens” that the Sooner State passed a strict immigration enforcement measure in May 2007, which went into effect six months later. Specifically:

    House Bill 1804 was passed by overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate of the Oklahoma legislature. The measure’s sponsor, State Representative Randy Terrill, says the bill has four main topical areas: it deals with identity theft; it terminates public assistance benefits to illegals; it empowers state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws; and it punishes employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens.

    Oklahoma is no longer “O.K.” for illegal aliens, Terrill observes. “When you put everything together in context,” he contends, “the bottom line is illegal aliens will not come here if there are no jobs waiting for them, they will not stay here if there is no government subsidy, and they certainly won’t stay here if they know that if they ever encounter our state and local law enforcement officers, they will be physically detained until they’re deported. And that’s exactly what House Bill 1804 does.”

An amazing animated graphic (still available at The Mess That Greenspan Made) shows what happened in the immediate wake of 1804’s passage. It shows month-by-month changes in the unemployment rate for each state in the lower 48 states. From March 2007 to March 2008, alone among all states, Oklahoma’s unemployment rate fell significantly, especially in the final few months of the 12-month period presented — the first few months after 1804 went into effect.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/two-years-after-strict-immigration-reform-oklahoma-is-more-than-ok/


Now, what would be the difference between Oklahoma and Arizona?? Ah, I have it! In 2007 there wasn't a president who came out and blasted the passage of the bill and created scenarios designed to enrage the public, cause businesses to punish the state and schools to prevent their students from traveling there, based on their inability to insure their safety. It was just a law that passed, without fanfare, and has shown good results.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


168 posted 05-15-2010 02:04 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     How constitutional was the OK. Bill in comparison to the AR. Bill, Mike?  If the OK. Bill was constitutional,  there shouldn't be any problem with it and you're simply making loud noises for no particular reason other than the pleasure of being annoying.  If it offers significant challenges to the constitution, then what are they?  You've made no mention of them.

     Should you wish me to spend time and effort getting upset about the OK. Bill. you're going to have to put more effort into it than that.  You're going to have to convince me that it's racist in some way or that it breaches the equal protections clause or something on that order, otherwise, my problem is with Arizona at this point, where I'm reasonably convinced that these issues are valid.

     Of course, if you believe that OK. has constitutional issues with its Bill, you should be complaining about that bill yourself, shouldn't you?  I mean, if you're actually the sort of guy who takes his citizenship seriously, that would have to be your position, wouldn't it?  Just as you'd be in the same position if you thought that Arizona was violating the rights of its citizens.  Unless you felt that the rights of the police were more important than the rights of the everyday folk; and that, my friend, would be very un-American indeed.

     Wouldn't it be?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


169 posted 05-15-2010 07:30 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

How constitutional was the OK. Bill in comparison to the AR. Bill, Mike?  If the OK. Bill was constitutional,  there shouldn't be any problem with it and you're simply making loud noises for no particular reason other than the pleasure of being annoying.

Bob, how can you possibly miss a point by such a wide margin? The OK bill WAS constitutional and it is the same as the AZ bill, which makes the AZ bill constitutional, as well...and you are right. There shouldn't be any problem with it.

So why is there a problem with it? The answer is as plain as the nose on your face you don't want to see. The OK bill was introduced, passed and implemented. The AZ bill was introduced, blasted by Obama painting scenarios of mass racial profiling, blasted by Holder as being (possibly!) unconstitutional, even though he admits he hasn't taken the time to read it, acts causing Latins to revolt, hold mass demonstrations, states to claim they will not do business with Arizona, boycotting the baseball team, demanding the All-Star team be moved from Phoenix, idiotic school administrators refusing to let their team play for the national title for the first time in 26 years, and the list goes on and on.

Have you heard of any accusations of mass racial profiling in Oklahoma over the past three years? No, you haven't. Why not? Their bill hits the exact same points the Arizona bill does....and yet you will claim that the AZ bill will do that.

Sorry, Bob, but you are all puppets and Obama holds the strings. He screams the sky is falling and you feel the pain of asteroids bouncing off your face. He is willing to set the wheels in motion to trash an entire state, a state that he took an oath to protect, and you applaud it. I don't know who to feel sorry for the most - Arizona or you. Mainly I feel sorry for the country, who suffers under the tactics of a man who has little interest in what best for the country, but only what is best for him and his ilk.

Oklahoma - Arizona. Same law, different results - one peaceful and effective, one chaotic, by executive decree.

It's simply another chapter in the book that will show future generations that Obama was the worst president the country has ever seen, That will be his legacy...
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


170 posted 05-15-2010 08:33 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


I’ve read both and the Oklahoma legislation and the Arizona legislation are not the same Mike.

There’s a fundamental but simple difference in the two, one demands a check on citizenship for all persons charged with an offence, the other allows a check before charges are made.

It’s a subtle difference but it turns what could be seen as discrimination of a section of law abiding citizens into a common sense screening of potentially unlawful citizens. Even with that distinction there are two injunctions that have been put in place by federal courts restricting the implementation of two sections of the Oklahoma law, which I believe are still in force.

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


171 posted 05-15-2010 05:09 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     If Grinch is correct, then your facts are wrong, Mike.  Two injunctions on the OK Law which you haven't mentioned?  Could it be possible that Grinch is correct in this matter?  If I had a nickle to bet here, who would I put my five cents down on?  Hmm?

     Is it possible that there are injunctions against the enforcement of the OK law, Mike?  Inquiring minds want to know!
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


172 posted 05-15-2010 05:33 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Bob,

It may be worth adding that the injunctions didn’t relate to the proof of citizenship after being charged clause, which I believe is fair and reasonable if exercised to the letter of the law.

I’m not sure if there’s an update to the injunctions, but here’s the last thing I read about it:
http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/tenth-circuit-criticizes-controversial-oklahoma-immigration-law

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


173 posted 05-15-2010 05:33 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

It’s a subtle difference but it turns what could be seen as discrimination of a section of law abiding citizens into a common sense screening of potentially unlawful citizens

could be seen? You're taking evasive speech lessons from Obama? The screening would still be only for people stopped for other offences and not for racial profiling or discrimination. That's the way the law reads. if you don't care to believe them, then that's another matter. If Oklahoma were not have introduced that bill until now, do you believe it would go by unmentioned or do you believe Obama would have something to say about it, too? Just curious...

Bob, you don't do Barney Fife to grinch's Andy Griffith very well. Work on it....
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


174 posted 05-15-2010 05:57 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
The screening would still be only for people stopped for other offences


No Mike, one is for people charged with a felony and the other is for people with whom law enforcement officers come into contact with during Terry stops.

Chalk and cheese Mike.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Protesting.....Lefty-style.   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors