Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 14222324
Results 231 to 238 of 238
  1. #231
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,492

    Re:Jackson has 'wanted change' but not now

    tarkenton10 wrote:
    C Mac D wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    C Mac D wrote:
    tarkenton10 wrote:
    What is that sentence suppose to mean? And it is very condescending, much of the reason for people finging you arrogant and distastful! Waht does Arizona have todo with being a racist?
    It was in response to this comment:

    tarkenton10 wrote:
    I do agree with one point that officers follow protocol and it is a step by step process, they do not look at anyone's age, creed or color. You follow their directions or they go to the next step in protocol; that's it.
    Then I said:

    C Mac D wrote:
    lol... don't pay attention to the news much? Arizona ring a bell?
    Because the recently passed laws in Arizona prove that police are doing everything you claim they are not. That is all.
    I'm sorry, when did it become the Police who pass laws?

    They don't. They are charged with ENFORCING them.

    Here is my first, and hopefully last, comment on the Arizona situation on PPO.

    The law clearly states that if the Police have REASONABLE SUSPICION, they are to ascertain the citizenship status of the individual in question. There's that damn term, Reasonable Suspicion. Defined, that means that a REASONABLE person under the SAME CIRCUMSTANCES would suspect the SAME THING. This isn't blind witch hunting or racial profiling (As some like to charge).

    Now, is this new law really going to improve the situation in Arizona? I doubt it. It is already against the law to be in this country illegally - we simply can't enforce it. Criminalizing it won't really have a positive effect because it STILL comes down to FUNDING. It costs MONEY to deport Illegals, money that tax payers DON'T want to spend. Further, businesses that hire those same illegals will be forced to pay a higher wage (and taxes, FICA, etc) to replace those workers - which drives UP their prices.

    The TRUTH is, C Mac, you haven't the foggiest notion about what you're talking about - not an uncommon position for you. You are so busy trying to persecute me, or the Police, that you blindly ignore the facts around you.

    I think the law in Arizona is not going to work - SURPRISE!!! You likely believed I was going to be all for it, lining up with my baton to club the next "suspicious person"...nope.

    At the same time, what do you know about the problems Arizona is facing, and WHY they passed this law? Are you aware of the American civilians who have been killed or run off their land by drug cartels who are trafficking BLATANTLY across the borders? National Geographic did an excellent story about it almost 3 years ago...and it's only getting worse. Are you aware of the FACT that the local police and the Border Patrol are woefully undermanned and under funded to deal with this issue? Are you aware of the FACT that the Marines were requested to assist with Border operations but due to certain bylaws were not allowed by congress to do so?

    It is my guess that you really aren't all that familiar with what is actually happening in Arizona, but you're "offended" by the law passed there regardless. Right? Did you know that according to almost every poll taken, the majority of people are FOR the new law? That's nationwide, not just in Arizona.

    Ironically, as I stated above, I am not. I don't feel it will adequately address the true problem, and will instead "criminalize" the wrong people. But that's not what you expected to hear, is it.

    The truth is, you jumped on a line of thought and refused to budge, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In a post previously I showed how you were completely off the mark in 5 1/2 of 7 points you posted about me. Now, I've shown that you took a popular "hot button" topic at face value without any understanding of the actual issue. Maybe it's time you reassessed your positions here.

    Caine
    lol... spoken like a true "tea partier"

    I'm guessing you think lynch mobs should be brought back too.
    C Mac You absolutely amaze me! you cry how we should be tolerant and the Arizona law is discriminatory. You blast the police and make blanket stements against them BASED ON MAINSTREAM MEDIA! NO EVIDENCE!! It doesn't sound like you have done any investigation on your own but you just listen to rumors and your nughtly news. Make a condescending remark about people involved with the tea party movement all the while acting like you want everyone else to get together and sing CUMBIAH MY LORD. Although IMO you sound like the type who thinks they should take my lord out of that song.

    What is wrong with the tennats of the tea party movement, Do you knwo what they aspouse?
    Where to I quote mainstream media? lol... keep watching Fox news bud.

    There is a reason Seattle and LA (among others) are boycotting Arizona. Honestly, I can't be held liable for your ignorance. Don't attack me because you and some bigot don't understand the law.
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

  2. #232
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,139

    Re:Jackson has 'wanted change' but not now

    C Mac D wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    C Mac D wrote:
    LOL... I definitely read it. Of course you wouldn't come right out and support it, that law is the definition of racism ... yet you go on to justify the law and say you think it will work. I wonder what your opinion behind closed door.

    (and yes I understand the law, ive ha many conversations with a California highway patrol officer about it... my uncle... and he said its blatant racism and goes against evrything this country is founded on. Caries, sorry if I take his opinion over yours.... LOL.)
    No, I said I do NOT think it will work. See, operative word here is "NOT".

    But hey, feel free to continue to misquote me and attribute things to me that are neither written nor implied.

    Caine
    So, you're against blatant racism, but can justify it? Odd.
    It's should be obvious to anyone but you that no matter what I say you will try to twist it to be something bad...and fail miserably in the process.

    I clearly stated that I don't think the law will work...i.e. I am AGAINST it.

    However, since the law CLEARLY reads that "It requires police, in the context of enforcing other laws, to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they are in the country illegally." it is also clearly NOT a racist law...not in and of itself. See, nowhere does the law say that the Police can randomly ask "suspicious" people for papers...they have to already be in contact for some other reason. In other words, if they arrest someone for distributing drugs, they can ask for proof of citizenship if they have reason to believe that the person is here illegally.

    A Racist law would simply target a person based upon race, and for no other reason.

    Regardless, I do NOT agree with the law - despite the FACT that the MAJORITY of American's DO. I think it is a waste of time, and is essentially a copy of laws already on the books that are unenforced for financial reasons.

    And you want to twist that to mean I'm racist? You are so blind it's laughable.

    Caine

  3. #233
    Mr Anderson's Avatar
    Mr Anderson is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,692

    Re:Jackson has 'wanted change' but not now

    Caine wrote:
    C Mac D wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    C Mac D wrote:
    LOL... I definitely read it. Of course you wouldn't come right out and support it, that law is the definition of racism ... yet you go on to justify the law and say you think it will work. I wonder what your opinion behind closed door.

    (and yes I understand the law, ive ha many conversations with a California highway patrol officer about it... my uncle... and he said its blatant racism and goes against evrything this country is founded on. Caries, sorry if I take his opinion over yours.... LOL.)
    No, I said I do NOT think it will work. See, operative word here is "NOT".

    But hey, feel free to continue to misquote me and attribute things to me that are neither written nor implied.

    Caine
    So, you're against blatant racism, but can justify it? Odd.
    It's should be obvious to anyone but you that no matter what I say you will try to twist it to be something bad...and fail miserably in the process.

    I clearly stated that I don't think the law will work...i.e. I am AGAINST it.

    However, since the law CLEARLY reads that "It requires police, in the context of enforcing other laws, to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they are in the country illegally." it is also clearly NOT a racist law...not in and of itself. See, nowhere does the law say that the Police can randomly ask "suspicious" people for papers...they have to already be in contact for some other reason. In other words, if they arrest someone for distributing drugs, they can ask for proof of citizenship if they have reason to believe that the person is here illegally.

    A Racist law would simply target a person based upon race, and for no other reason.

    Regardless, I do NOT agree with the law - despite the FACT that the MAJORITY of American's DO. I think it is a waste of time, and is essentially a copy of laws already on the books that are unenforced for financial reasons.

    And you want to twist that to mean I'm racist? You are so blind it's laughable.

    Caine
    I've never heard that Caine.

    Thanks for the info. I thought the law justified stops based on suspicion of illegal immigration alone.


    So what does this law even do? If you can't identify yourself to a cop it doesn't matter if you're a citizen or not, you can be arrested. And that's probably not so easy if you're illegal.

  4. #234
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,139

    Re:Jackson has 'wanted change' but not now

    C Mac D wrote:
    tarkenton10 wrote:
    C Mac D wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    C Mac D wrote:
    tarkenton10 wrote:
    What is that sentence suppose to mean? And it is very condescending, much of the reason for people finging you arrogant and distastful! Waht does Arizona have todo with being a racist?
    It was in response to this comment:

    tarkenton10 wrote:
    I do agree with one point that officers follow protocol and it is a step by step process, they do not look at anyone's age, creed or color. You follow their directions or they go to the next step in protocol; that's it.
    Then I said:

    C Mac D wrote:
    lol... don't pay attention to the news much? Arizona ring a bell?
    Because the recently passed laws in Arizona prove that police are doing everything you claim they are not. That is all.
    I'm sorry, when did it become the Police who pass laws?

    They don't. They are charged with ENFORCING them.

    Here is my first, and hopefully last, comment on the Arizona situation on PPO.

    The law clearly states that if the Police have REASONABLE SUSPICION, they are to ascertain the citizenship status of the individual in question. There's that damn term, Reasonable Suspicion. Defined, that means that a REASONABLE person under the SAME CIRCUMSTANCES would suspect the SAME THING. This isn't blind witch hunting or racial profiling (As some like to charge).

    Now, is this new law really going to improve the situation in Arizona? I doubt it. It is already against the law to be in this country illegally - we simply can't enforce it. Criminalizing it won't really have a positive effect because it STILL comes down to FUNDING. It costs MONEY to deport Illegals, money that tax payers DON'T want to spend. Further, businesses that hire those same illegals will be forced to pay a higher wage (and taxes, FICA, etc) to replace those workers - which drives UP their prices.

    The TRUTH is, C Mac, you haven't the foggiest notion about what you're talking about - not an uncommon position for you. You are so busy trying to persecute me, or the Police, that you blindly ignore the facts around you.

    I think the law in Arizona is not going to work - SURPRISE!!! You likely believed I was going to be all for it, lining up with my baton to club the next "suspicious person"...nope.

    At the same time, what do you know about the problems Arizona is facing, and WHY they passed this law? Are you aware of the American civilians who have been killed or run off their land by drug cartels who are trafficking BLATANTLY across the borders? National Geographic did an excellent story about it almost 3 years ago...and it's only getting worse. Are you aware of the FACT that the local police and the Border Patrol are woefully undermanned and under funded to deal with this issue? Are you aware of the FACT that the Marines were requested to assist with Border operations but due to certain bylaws were not allowed by congress to do so?

    It is my guess that you really aren't all that familiar with what is actually happening in Arizona, but you're "offended" by the law passed there regardless. Right? Did you know that according to almost every poll taken, the majority of people are FOR the new law? That's nationwide, not just in Arizona.

    Ironically, as I stated above, I am not. I don't feel it will adequately address the true problem, and will instead "criminalize" the wrong people. But that's not what you expected to hear, is it.

    The truth is, you jumped on a line of thought and refused to budge, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In a post previously I showed how you were completely off the mark in 5 1/2 of 7 points you posted about me. Now, I've shown that you took a popular "hot button" topic at face value without any understanding of the actual issue. Maybe it's time you reassessed your positions here.

    Caine
    lol... spoken like a true "tea partier"

    I'm guessing you think lynch mobs should be brought back too.
    C Mac You absolutely amaze me! you cry how we should be tolerant and the Arizona law is discriminatory. You blast the police and make blanket stements against them BASED ON MAINSTREAM MEDIA! NO EVIDENCE!! It doesn't sound like you have done any investigation on your own but you just listen to rumors and your nughtly news. Make a condescending remark about people involved with the tea party movement all the while acting like you want everyone else to get together and sing CUMBIAH MY LORD. Although IMO you sound like the type who thinks they should take my lord out of that song.

    What is wrong with the tennats of the tea party movement, Do you knwo what they aspouse?
    Where to I quote mainstream media? lol... keep watching Fox news bud.

    There is a reason Seattle and LA (among others) are boycotting Arizona. Honestly, I can't be held liable for your ignorance. Don't attack me because you and some bigot don't understand the law.
    Now you're blatantly calling me a bigot?

    And you claim "I" don't understand the law?

    I have cited not only the law, but the scenarios under which it may be applied, as well as the reasons and motivations for it...all while stating VERY CLEARLY that I DISAGREE with it.

    And all YOU have done is name call.

    You really are a piece of work.

    Caine

  5. #235
    V4L's Avatar
    V4L
    V4L is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    20,612

    Re:Jackson has 'wanted change' but not now

    If they have nothing to hide coming over the border then they should have no problem being stopped at the border

  6. #236
    NDVikingFan66's Avatar
    NDVikingFan66 is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,831

    Re:Jackson has 'wanted change' but not now

    OK....everyone here knows the rules, but allow me to reiterate just a couple.

    1. NO POLITICS
    2. NO NAME CALLING

    This thread has clearly been hijacked by both. Clean it up, or the thread goes away.

    Thank you.

  7. #237
    Prophet's Avatar
    Prophet is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    17,388

    Re:Jackson has 'wanted change' but not now

    http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html

    http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438712/index.html

    As long as you're talking about AZ and it's law, wouldn't hurt to watch these videos.
    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  8. #238
    ultravikingfan's Avatar
    ultravikingfan is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    24,514

    Re:Jackson has 'wanted change' but not now

    Ok...I do believe we have to policies at stake here:

    1. No politics
    2. No personal attcks

    It is a long offseason and I am sure some are at wits end.

    Let's play nicely.

Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 14222324

Similar Threads

  1. Just wanted to say.......
    By BRANflakes69 in forum Free Beer!
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-06-2009, 04:14 PM
  2. I just wanted to let you all know
    By thepeoplesfrontofjudea in forum Free Beer!
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 05-08-2009, 09:38 AM
  3. Wanted to say hello.
    By G Killette in forum Free Beer!
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-23-2008, 01:20 PM
  4. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 03-15-2006, 01:57 AM
  5. Just wanted to let you all know,.........
    By NordicNed in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-28-2005, 09:55 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •