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
 Still think the Republican led AZ legisl   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  ]
 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

Still think the Republican led AZ legislature isn't racist?

 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 05-19-2010 03:05 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I understand what you're saying about both China and Mexico.

     But the apology is not to the Chinese because we believe we do better than the Chinese do over-all in terms of human rights.  The apology is to the chinese because we are not doing as well as we say we should be doing in terms of human rights, given the standards we have set for ourselves.  They have every right to criticize us for falling short of those ideas.  They don't pretend to be trying to reach them, and we act as though they should.

     I think we should and they should too, by the way, and that both we and the chinese are falling far short.  We can do something about our own lapses.  If we do, that puts enormous pressure on others, even if we say nothing.

     The same might be said about Mexico.

     Yeah, they have every right to criticize us for failing to live up to our ideals, especially if the criticism is accurate.
We certainly have been free enough with our criticism of them.  Among other things, how much of the drug violence in Mexico is a result of our refusing to come to grips with our drug problem in the United States.  If we legalized the stuff and stabilized the price and regularized the markets, how much of that violence would go away down there and in this country too?

     Not that they don't have the issues that you say they have.  They do.  But pretending the issues aren't intimately connected and pretending that putting up a fence would solve them is simply not thinking about the problems as a system.  And I don't think that's the sort of thinking that will actually help solve the problems; it'll only make them more complicated and quite possibly worse.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


151 posted 05-19-2010 07:36 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

They have every right to criticize us (China)

Yeah, they have every right to criticize us for failing to live up to our ideals (Mexico)


Wow, Bob, well, if that's the way you feel, ok then. If that's liberal thought, I am even more happy not to be one. AN interesting side-note is that China did not bring up the Arizona law. Posner declared that he brought it up himself, several times. I think it would take a non-liberal to be able to understand why..
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


152 posted 05-19-2010 04:19 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Obama ramps up criticism of Ariz. immigration law
AP

WASHINGTON President Barack Obama stepped up his criticism of Arizona's controversial immigration law Wednesday, calling it "misdirected" and warning that it has the potential to be applied in a discriminatory fashion.


Ah, the "potential" doubltalk again, since he can not claim anything as definite. Is there anything in this world that could not be referred to as "potentially" dangerous?

Both leaders oppose the law, with Obama directing the Justice Department to review it for possible civil rights violations, and Calderon's government issuing a travel warning for Arizona, out of concern that Mexicans face an adverse political environment there.

"Possible" civil rights violations? Can't Obama recognize a civil rights violation when he sees one...or has he not yet read the bill, along with the rest of the administration? Yes, Calderon, Mexicans DO face and adverse political environment in Arizona....the illegal ones.

Calderon made good on his pledge to take up the immigration issue during his meetings with Obama. He said the Arizona law criminalized migration and could encourage discrimination.

Yes, Calderon, it criminalizes criminal migration. YOU are one to speak of discrimination?? Clean up your own country and people might stop dying to leave it.

Almost twice as many people support the Arizona law as those who oppose it, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll this month. It found that 42 percent favored it, 24 percent opposed it and another 29 percent said they were neutral.

Ho-hum....just another incident where the administration could care less about public opinion. How many times now have they shown that they could care less what the poeple think?

Obama said the U.S. has an obligation to deal with the demand for drugs in this country that has helped fuel the drug violence, a stance that has won Obama praise from the Mexican government. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100519/ap_on_bi_ge/us_us_mexico

But, of course, Obama. Keep apologizing for the United States. You are getting very good at it.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


153 posted 05-19-2010 04:22 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

An Arizona state official has threatened to shut off Los Angeles' Arizona-based electricity supply in retaliation for the city's decision to boycott the state. Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce told L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa  in a letter that 25 percent of L.A.'s electricity comes from Arizona, and he'd "be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements."

"I am confident that Arizona's utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands," Pierce wrote to Villaraigosa (PDF). "If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona's economy."


Y   E   S   !!!
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


154 posted 05-19-2010 06:42 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     And I'm sure that they could find other places to sell it, as well.

     With electricity prices going up that way, and oil prices being so uncertain. thgis would be a wonderful time to push for alternative local power sources from sun and wind, don't you thinkl, once people see how undependable the so called dependable oil, gas and hydo power actually are?  It would be a short term difficulty, but a long range ecological gain, don't you think?

     Of course President Obama is not making definite statements about the Arizona Law.  That's the job of another branch of government.  He's not a private citizen, and as head of the Administrative branch he is obligated to be somewhat circumspect.

    He is not in the popularity contest branch of government.  That is the House.  It is supposed to paradoxically keep its nose to the wind and its ear to the ground and its head on straight.  No wonder it seerms so confused most times.

     You keep suggesting the whole government should be run by polls and popularity.  That's why we got rid of the Articles of Confederation and adopted the constitution, so that the entire country wasn't one big popularity contest, runb by the Congress.  It didn't work well.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


155 posted 05-19-2010 10:16 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Of course President Obama is not making definite statements about the Arizona Law.  That's the job of another branch of government.  He's not a private citizen, and as head of the Administrative branch he is obligated to be somewhat circumspect.

I see. Obama is part of the branch that just makes innuendos and paints doomsday scenarios based on suppositions. No, Bob, he should be part of the administration that turns over things like that to departments that deal with it and not make statements until he has something to say based on fact.  It's not the first time. He called the police actions stupid with regards to the black professor situation, while admitting he didn't have the facts. His actions are not presidential at all.

He is not in the popularity contest branch of government.

Tell him that!!! He's still campaigning a year and a half after being elected.

You keep suggesting the whole government should be run by polls and popularity.

No, Bob, but I think that they should carry some weight. Obama has shown that he could care less. He only likes polls in his favor and disregards the others. There is a paper fairly important in our history that begins with WE THE PEOPLE... yes, we elect them to do represent our will. Many of them are now finding out the price of not doing so...and thee will be more.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


156 posted 05-20-2010 02:13 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


quote:


Of course President Obama is not making definite statements about the Arizona Law.  That's the job of another branch of government.  He's not a private citizen, and as head of the Administrative branch he is obligated to be somewhat circumspect.

I see. Obama is part of the branch that just makes innuendos and paints doomsday scenarios based on suppositions.



     Perhaps you might point out to me where I said that, Mike.

     It seems that you are making statements and trying to attribute them to me.  Had I wished to make those statements, you'd be able to find them and put quotation marks around them, wouldn't you?  Should the Justice Department wish to make allegations of that sort, the situation might be different because they would be rendering a legal opinion.  Had the courts rendered an opinion, they would have the right to make a more definitive statement still.  For you to criticize The President for NOT having made a statement beyond his purview seems a bit silly to me.  What would that be, Over-reaching his authority if he does what you want and wimpy if he doesn't.  Gee Mike, you've really constructed a really fine set of choices there.

     Which choice would you advise him to take?  Which would a really smart Republican President take in that situation, would he over-reach or be seen as weak?  Hmm, I do wonder about that.  And how would you then defend him?

quote:

No, Bob, he should be part of the administration that turns over things like that to departments that deal with it and not make statements until he has something to say based on fact.



     Iraq has weapons of Mass destruction.  Statements of fact like that one?  Statements saying that the CIA confirms it when the opinion in the CIA was at best mixed?  Statements like Iraq is responsible for 9/11, and then statements like saying he never said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

     Seems to me that The President, that would be Mr. Obama in this case, was very clear not to pretend he was making statements of fact unlike the lies that President Bush pretended were statements of fact.  President Obama was clear he was offering qualified statements of opinion.  I'm very sorry that you can't tolerate nuance and that you'd apparently rather hear lies phrased as certainties as was the habit of Mr. Bush.  You didn't complain about his statements in the same way, at least.
[/quote]

quote:

He is not in the popularity contest branch of government.

Tell him that!!! He's still campaigning a year and a half after being elected.



     Tsk, task, Mike.  You seem to want it both ways.  Either he's not paying enough attention to the polls for you or he's still campaigning (and apparently paying too much attention to what people want, if I understand you point correctly).  Your overall dislike for the man doesn't seem to care which position he takes, there's something you'll find to dislike in anything he does.


quote:

You keep suggesting the whole government should be run by polls and popularity.

No, Bob, but I think that they should carry some weight. Obama has shown that he could care less. He only likes polls in his favor and disregards the others. There is a paper fairly important in our history that begins with WE THE PEOPLE... yes, we elect them to do represent our will. Many of them are now finding out the price of not doing so...and thee will be more.



     The President is elected to a four year term precisely to insulate him or her from quick turnings of public opinion and from the sort of quick burning rages and enthusiasms that are apt to sway The House, which is elected every two years.  The Senate is elected on a rotating basis, so that at least a third of the folks there are up for election every two years, so they must keep some weather eye out for the politics of the situation, but on the whole they can remain insulated from the sort of passions you speak about as the sort of thing you think the government out to respond to.

     Yeah, We the People was important, but you forget exactly how nervous the framers were about the people as well.  They were by and large a fairly well educated bunch of folks, and the understood Roman history and its lessons better than you do.  They understood the true horror of the phrase Vox Populii, Vox Dei, and they knew enough to want to put a lot of distance between themselves and the mob.  This is one of the reasons why the qualifications for voting were so restrictive in the constitution.  Only male property owners of a certain age.  The founders may have been willing to do away with the nobility, but they wanted the power concentrated in the hands of people they felt would use it wisely.  This did not include most of the folks that we now think of as "We the people."  This is why there was no direct election of the President and why there were electors and an electoral college who did the actual for real voting, and why, even today, it's a bit of a struggle to shift from an electoral college to a system of direct elections instead of the voters electing electors who even today are sometimes free to vote the way they see fit (at least in some cases).

     It's nice to pay lip service to We The People, but it's better to understand that the way we think of it now and the way it started out may well have been two different brands of animal.  Especially for those of us who claim we're conservatives and claim to be strict constructionists.
  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


157 posted 05-20-2010 07:37 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

University of Minnesota political scientist Lawrence Jacobs called it "almost unheard of" for a foreign leader to criticize a state law while visiting the U.S. "The common practice and courtesy is not to interfere in another country's internal affairs," he said.

Common practice and courtesy is not as important to Obama as criticizing the country to other countries. He's made a habit of that ever since taking office....and, yes, it has always been unheard of.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


158 posted 05-20-2010 07:44 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

    Of course President Obama is not making definite statements about the Arizona Law.  That's the job of another branch of government.  He's not a private citizen, and as head of the Administrative branch he is obligated to be somewhat circumspect.

    I see. Obama is part of the branch that just makes innuendos and paints doomsday scenarios based on suppositions.
     Perhaps you might point out to me where I said that, Mike.


Bob, you may want to recheck your computer. Words in bold reflect what you said. Not bold are my comments. On my computer the first section is in bold...your words. Apparently your computer also show the last sentence in bold...you may want to call the Geek squad to check that out.

Referring to Bush and WMD's is silly. You can do better than that, I'm sure.

"representative" - one who represents. That is supposed to be the people who are represented, not the Democratic Party. Congress is obviously not aware of that. They soon will be.

For you to criticize The President for NOT having made a statement beyond his purview seems a bit silly to me.

As the saying goes, Bob, sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut, even at the point of looking stupid, than opening it and proving that you are. Obama should heed that advice and start acting in a manner befitting the office he occupies.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


159 posted 05-20-2010 08:26 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRB-R71uQgo
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


160 posted 05-20-2010 09:58 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

quote:


   Of course President Obama is not making definite statements about the Arizona Law.  That's the job of another branch of government.  He's not a private citizen, and as head of the Administrative branch he is obligated to be somewhat circumspect.

    I see. Obama is part of the branch that just makes innuendos and paints doomsday scenarios based on suppositions.
     Perhaps you might point out to me where I said that, Mike.


Bob, you may want to recheck your computer. Words in bold reflect what you said. Not bold are my comments. On my computer the first section is in bold...your words. Apparently your computer also show the last sentence in bold...you may want to call the Geek squad to check that out.



     You might check your own functions there, Mike.  It looks at though none of that is in bold-face to me.

     It certainly seems that you are suggesting that I said the rude comments about Obama being part of the branch that you suggested when I made no such suggestion, and you certainly made no such attempt to differentiate me from any such assumption.  My  reading that you were including me in your own innuendo was certainly one that seems appropriate to me, especially given your difficulty in distinguishing between boldface and plain type in your follow-up comments, above.


quote:


Referring to Bush and WMD's is silly. You can do better than that, I'm sure.



     I'm looking for an example of what you hold up as an example of presidents waiting for for facts before they make statements, Mike, and this is one of the examples that you've defended in the past.  You defended President Bush before he actually made jokes about looking for weapons of mass destructions under tables and podiums, and you defended him about not torturing prisoners before he actually confessed to doing so.  Perhaps you can explain to me how I could do better as an example of how somebody making a hash of things and still managing to get your support while we have here a president who actually qualifies his remarks to say exactly what he means, that the law may be unconstitutional and that he doesn't approve of it and you're treating it as though he made some sort of wild accusation.

     The fact is that the law may well be unconstitutional and that there are good grounds for suspecting that, both on the matter of the equal protections clause and on the possible matter of the issue of Probable Cause, and you are well aware of both issues.  You may or may not agree with the President's thinking, but you do know that the issues are there, and that a legal test could go either direction, with a good possibility that it could go against the law.  If you don't know that, then you haven't read the law and you haven't thought about it as deeply as I know you have.

     Your opinion about the law, whether it's a good law or a poor law, is a different issue than your judgement of its potential constitutionality, and you should be able to keep your understanding of the two issues separate.  In fact almost all your discussion here has been about whether the law is a good law or not, or whether it's a just law or not, and I haven't actually heard you venture into a discussion into a discussion of the law's constitutionality.  That may be because I've missed the times you've done so, but it may also be because you're preoccupied with the other issues.

     I am almost entirely preoccupied with the constitutionality of the thing, myself.

quote:



For you to criticize The President for NOT having made a statement beyond his purview seems a bit silly to me.

As the saying goes, Bob, sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut, even at the point of looking stupid, than opening it and proving that you are. Obama should heed that advice and start acting in a manner befitting the office he occupies.



     So why are you criticizing The President for keeping within those bounds, then?  As I said, It's a bit silly to do so, and it sure looks to me like you just agreed.

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


161 posted 05-20-2010 10:28 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I repeat, you should check your computer. In the future I'll use quotation marks instead in case you actually do have a computer that doesn't recognize bold.

As far as the rest of your reply....whatever. You win. You've worn me down and I'm not beating this dead horse any longer. You want to think Obama was right in calling the Cambridge police stupid without even knowing facts? Whatever. You want to believe it was right for Obama to condemn the Arizona law with innuendos and "possibles" while painting doomsday scenarios? Whatever. You believe these are presidential actions? Go ahead. You want to believe schoolchildren are now not safe in Arizona? Be my guest. You want to think his sleazy tactics are those of a president instead of a Chicago politician with a racial chip on his shoulder? Be my guest. He's all yours and you can have him. Even when he goes down as the worst president in our lifetime he will be able to count on you defending him. Fine with me. Whatever.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


162 posted 05-20-2010 11:32 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


163 posted 05-20-2010 11:34 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438712/index.html
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


164 posted 05-21-2010 03:21 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Actually, you're presenting a distorted picture of what I've said about the President.  I'm not clear why you keep doing that, but either you don't read what I write or you're unable to keep what I say in your head in a straight fashion.  My perception of the President is Mixed.  You characterize it as being completely laudatory.

     Why is that, Mike?

     You want to characterize my comments about the Cambridge police as negative.  I said things that were both positive and negative about the Cambridge police.  I have a great deal of sympathy for the Cambridge police, having known some of them over the years and knowing some of the difficulties they have in enforcement with the mixed populations they have.  The enforcement difficulties they have had with Harvard and Harvard faculty have been very difficult from time to time.  Harvard/Cambridge difficulty might well be said to be the template from which all other American Town/gown difficulties have sprung.  

     I also know that it is unlikely that the difficulty was single sided.

     I am also certain that there are positive and negative things to be said about Professor Gates.  He has had a long reputation as a touchy guy for many different reasons.  There are things to be said for and against both sides in that encounter simply from the scant information we have available.  More information may tip my judgement in one direction or another or it may just confuse my understanding more.  I have no idea.  Can you say the same?

quote:

Even when he goes down as the worst president in our lifetime he will be able to count on you defending him.



     Actually, I will only defend those actions I approve of.  No matter how many times I say that, you don't hear it.  

     What you hear seems to be pretty much what you say and not much beyond.

     It may be possible for him to go down as the worst President in my lifetime, but I don't think so.  At this point at least he has an incredible distance to go before he passes Our last President Bush, for example, or President Nixon with Watergate, both to my mind low points in the Democratic process.  President Bush seems to me the  go-for-broke-hands-down-winner of a candidate for the Worst President in the history of the nation.  I figure that if you can feel free to offer a nominee, then the least I can do is offer one of my own to put in the running.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


165 posted 05-21-2010 08:29 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, it's not whether the Cambridge police were right or wrong. it was Obama jumping into it, which presidents worth their salt don't do. We had health care debates, high unemployment rising, cap and trade negotiations, bailout money flowing, Middle East conferences going, Iran sanctions being discussed....and Obama takes the time to jump in to a small police matter to comment on how he thought the police acted stupidly, drawing national attention to it. Why? Because the person involved was black and a friend of his. A competent president would have had the incident investigated for possible wrongdoing and, if any was found, then possibly issue a statement. That's not Obama's style. Bring up anything with racial overtones or possible minority discrimination and he jumps in with both feet, not with facts but with innuendos, possibilities, maybe-type scenarios, knowing that his thoughts and words will be taken to heart by his listeners. Is this a man with the welfare of the country at heart? No, he would rather trash a state and provoke hardships on them, based on the his maybe assumptions that something could be construed as being discriminatory and possibly unconstitutional. A decent president would have it checked out first before issuing a call to arms and even bringing in another country's leader to condemn it. The chip on Obama's shoulder is becoming a timber.

Maybe he should trade places with Calderon. He would make a good Mexican president and Calderon would bring the Mexican immigration laws to the US and things would be resolved very quickly!
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


166 posted 05-21-2010 11:05 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I think President Obama was incorrect to have gotten involved there.  I expressed my thoughts on the matter quite fully in the thread devoted to that issue.  My understanding is that this thread, however, is devoted to a different issue.  We have traveled some distance from that topic.  It might be useful to get back to that topic.  Perhaps you think that the quality of President Obama's treatment of the Cambridge police department has some direct bearing on whether the Arizona Legislature is acting in a racist fashion.  If that's the case, I'd like to see your chain of reasoning establishing that connection.  

     If not, perhaps we might find our way back to the topic in a more direct fashion.

     As I recall, I'd asked if you'd done any looking into the background of FAIR, the organization that Helped Mr. Pearce, the sponsor of the bill in question, come up with the text.  I suggested that you have a look at the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that helps keep tabs on the Ku Klux Klan and similar racist organizations.  They have been following FAIR with some interest for a number of years and they have a great deal to say about that organization.  The President of FAIR is very angry with the SPLC, but when you look at FAIR's website, you find that at least some of what the SPLC says is confirmed.

     I suggested that you might check out FAIR.  You said you would and yet I've heard nothing about this.  The connection between FAIR and some Eugenics organizations is fairly clear.  The present President of FAIR is an editor for one magazine that features Eugenics publications.

     You might also check out the interview Rachel Maddow did with the President of FAIR.  It should be available in its entirety on her web site.  The President of FAIR lied about an interview he had with Tucker Carlson, the well known conservative journalist, and said that Carlson had retracted some of his statements.  Carlson, when contacted by Rachel Maddow denied this.  Any extra research you would be interested in doing would of course be of interest to me, but overall, the information that I've seen is that the source of the law was racist, the intention of the law was racist, the spirit of the law was in line with the agenda of FAIR, which included Eugenics and white favoritism, and there was pretty much a racist agenda throughout.

     Do I believe you're a racist?

     No, I do not.

     Do I believe that most Arizonans are racists?

     No, I do not.

     That doesn't mean that racists can't ride a panicked populist stampede as skillfully as the next guy, and that is what I believe they have done in this case.  Xenophobia is something that goes back forever, and people have been exploiting it for as long as it's been around.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


167 posted 05-22-2010 08:26 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Perhaps you think that the quality of President Obama's treatment of the Cambridge police department has some direct bearing on whether the Arizona Legislature is acting in a racist fashion

Yes, Bob, I see a similarity. That's why I brought it up. In both cases Obama interfered with accusations and innuendos not based on fact and in both cases were race-related. Do you think Obama would have gotten involved in that situation if it had not been a black being asked for ID? Of course not. In the Arizona case,Obama simply jumped out immediately with another press conference with more accusations and innuendos not based on fact, since he admitted that he hadn't yet read the bill. Once again, it is race-related. His accusations consisted of maybes and couldbes and mightbes, all geared to rouse up the populace, which it has done. He invites the President of Mexico to speak and guides him to the topic, which Obama misquotes, whereas the Mexican president criticizes state internal policy (which those who know say has never been done before) and his criticism received a standing ovation from the democratic congressmen (something certainly never done before).

With regards to FAIR, which you keep bringing up out of desperation, I suppose, I will give the same answer I've given multiple times.....I think it is a fair bill. I don't care if the Marquis de Sade wrote it. The bill is almost an exact copy of the federal law that has been on the books for over a decade, you know, the one which has not been enforced. Arizona has decided to enforce it. if you think that shooting the messenger will somehow make the bill a horror, go ahead. I also suggested that, if FAIR was such an issue with you, begine a thread on it to invite discussion.

a panicked populist stampede ?

I would hardly call Arizonians that but, if they were, one has to ask why they are panicked? Panic must have roots in something. People don't wake up in the morning and say, "Today is a good day to be panicked", do they? I've posted several videos of situations there, which you have not commented on, and that's ok. That doesn't make them any less real.

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


168 posted 05-22-2010 09:03 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

As far as Maddow is concerned...

The following is the text of a letter sent to the president of MSNBC by FAIR, May 7th, 2010:

May 6, 2010
Mr. Phil Griffin
President, MSNBC
30 Rockefeller Plaza
3rd Floor
New York, New York 10112

Unfortunately, partisan politics on both the right and left often blemish the integrity of network news programming but rarely has a specific program demonstrated such reckless regard for the truth as was the case last week during Rachel Maddow's three-day smear campaign against the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). This smear campaign subjected FAIR, which for over 30 years has built a reputation for accuracy and credibility, its staff and Board of Directors to a litany of baseless allegations and unprofessional journalistic conduct.


Ms. Maddow's network position allows her the latitude to present and disagree with FAIR's position. It does not however give her license to engage in shabby information gathering, inflammatory attacks, and the right to distort and smear individual or organizational reputations. Given that Ms. Maddow repeatedly accused Mr. Stein of lying on April 30th, 2010, we respectfully request that Ms. Maddow issue Mr. Stein and FAIR an apology.

Sincerely,



Julie Kirchner

Executive Director

Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)

http://www.fairus.org/site/News2/1119481994?page=NewsArticle&id=22921&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1741

The article goes into detail where Maddow got her facts wrong. I've seen more than one of Rhodes Scholar Rachel's smear campaigns with completely distorted facts rearanged to support whatever view she is trying to champion. This is nothing new. Just type "Rachel Maddow Lies" into your search engine and you will find many....or don't.

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


169 posted 05-22-2010 09:21 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4208055/big-chill-hits-arizona/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a46:g2:r3:c0.014977:b34235960:z7
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


170 posted 05-22-2010 10:52 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=156981
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


171 posted 05-22-2010 04:29 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Thanks for getting back to me with FAIR's response to Rachel Maddow.  I was, however, already aware of this document.

     I'd asked you if you'd read The SPLC's assessment of FAIR.  I suggested you might have a look at the interview for yourself.  You'd already told we you would have a look at the SPLC's write up, and I thought that was pretty even-handed of you.  

     Have you in fact done that yet?

     The reply above reads as though you have and are trying to cover up the facts that you've learned about FAIR with a rhetorical pavane that attempts to avoid dealing with the information that you have and would rather not deal with.  Is this in fact the case?

     And have you had a look at the interviews posted on Rachel Maddow's web site.  I saw them live.  The interviews were very tough, but very direct, and the President of FAIR was lying his head off.  Reference to the FAIR web site showed that at the time.  His references to Tucker Carlson were denied by Mr. Carlson as being inaccurate.  The fact that you have checked with the FAIR web-site and not with the Sites of other parties involved suggests that you have either not completed your research, or have not chosen to share the full results of the research you did do.    Not good, Mike.

quote:

... whereas the Mexican president criticizes state internal policy (which those who know say has never been done before



     Whatever are you talking about here, Mike?  Are you suggesting that leaders aren't supposed to criticize internal policy of of other countries?  "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall?"  The rhetoric that President Bush sent toward Saddam about his various activities inside Iraq, and the various things that were going on inside Iran when Iran became an issue?  Comments about the internal policy iran and the treatment of women there?  The treatment of women  under the Taliban?

     All these things were probably valid comments, were made by our president, and you'll find examples made by almost any president that you can think of.  That's one of the reasons that TR called the Presidency a Bully Pulpit.  It wasn't simply for internal issues, like racism, which our current President was addressing in Arizona in the form of this new state law, and in terms of what he may have felt to have been racism with his friend Gates in Massachusetts (I disagreed with him there).  The Bully Pulpit is one of the Presidential prerogatives; you don't have to love it, but, well, there it is, and for you to act shocked and surprised at its appearance is a bit on the overly naive side side for my taste, sort of like being shocked at seeing a sudden display of gravity and pretending it's some sudden new phenomenon.  

     Really, Mike, it's not.  Presidents have done this even before TR gave it a name.  That's why we pay attention to phrases like "No entangling alliances" that harken back to Washington.  He used the Bully Pulpit.  And to have a president say that the state may be trespassing on Federal ground and that the State may be doing some unconstitutional stuff should and does carry some weight.  In this case, I happen to agree with him.  The law seems racist to me and needs to be challenged on any number of grounds to clarify the issue.

     There are some places here where I agree with you.  I think that the Federal law needs to be both clarified and enforced.  And that failure to do so has put Arizona and other border states in a difficult place.  And that it's understandable why Arizona would want to take take steps to control its own fate in this regard.  

    

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


172 posted 05-22-2010 06:49 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, I have no idea how many times I have to say this to make it sink in so this will be my last.....I THINK IT IS A FAIR LAW - I DON'T CARE WHO WROTE IT!!If that needs to be translated into a foreign language you can understand (Spanish, perhaps?) let me know.

You are going to compare rhetoric concerning tearing down the Berlin wall with Arizona passing an immigration bill, almost identical to the federal one? Obama invites Mexico to speak about it. The ass't secretary of state volunteers it to China to discuss it. WHo's next? Maybe the tribal pigmy leaders of Borneo? These actions are pathetic. Instead of waiting for courts to rule on it's constitutionality, Obama is enlisting other countries to bring their own opinions. Xenophobia is a hatred of foreigners. What is the term for hatred of one's own citizens? That's the one that would fit Obama.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


173 posted 05-22-2010 08:01 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

McClintock for President!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldx8gZDwZWs&feature=player_embedded

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


174 posted 05-23-2010 01:49 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Maybe it's already been noted,
but Arizona's law is attempting
to enforce federal laws which have
been on the books since the 40's.


.
 
 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 >> Still think the Republican led AZ legisl   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  ] 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