-
Unit_D said...
Here in a nutshell is how the looney tunes right justify profiling:
First, gin up a perceived "enemy." This is the easy part - you can do it on a purely physical component. Blacks were always an easy target - hell, all one had to do was find one black person who "commited' a crime against a white and voila! ALL blacks needed to be scrutinized, then demonized, then marginalized.
Well, that lost its luster over time (damn you Rosa Parks!) but never fear - here come the gays! I'll bet if we look hard enough we can find an effeminate looking gay guy who molested a child (don't worry -we'll make one up if we can't) and then voila! gays are one step away from getting Fido drunk and clearing off the dining room table.
Now, wouldn't ya just know it that the damn gays are getting all uppity - now what? Hey, how about Muslims? We know the damn Iraquis crashed planes into buildings (no, they were mostly Saudis - you know, the guys that Bush was best buddies with) and they loves them some Muslim religion over there, so why not? Hell, we can even TELL what they look like, what with them wearing all that get-up and everything.
Besides, they hate up for our freedoms, and our cheeseburgers, and for the fact that while we sit here and moan over the war on religion that our buddies at Fox tell us we're in we take the same hatred we think is being directed at us good 'ol god-fearing sumbitches and we use it against somebody else!
Damn, how the f#%k stupid ARE we????
You can come up with as many jack-ass "pond" analogies as you want. It's common practice for the bigoted or the fearful to define their prejudices in said terms. By doing so, they are then all able to (collectively) bob heads together with a resounding chorus of "yep, that's right!", as if in some alternate world two idiots make one thinking person.
P.S. I'll bet Tim McVeigh would have passed your terrorist test, wouldn't he? Especially if he was wearing a cross.
Every time the thinking portion of America thinks you dolts can't get any dumber you prove us wrong.
-
bradysmanboobs said...
Unit D, the D in your name must be for Dunce! Racial profiling is EFFECTIVE and the MAJORITY of americans believe in it! Public safety takes priority over the butthurt feelings of brainwashed libs like you.
If people like you were in charge, no one would ever be arrested. There would be no law and order.
-
Buckeye Warrior said...
There was a lot more than me calling him out. Also, no matter what side of the isle you are on, what Dave posted was in fact bigoted and racist. It says a lot about you that you not only refuse to call him out like you do to Conservatives, but you actually choose to DEFEND Dave and his racist remarks.
-
pazbuc said...
Apr. 25, 2012 12:30 PM ET Supreme Court takes up Arizona immigration law By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press
Apr. 23, 20123:39 PM WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court justices strongly suggested Wednesday that they are ready to allow Arizona to enforce part of a controversial state law requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they think are in the country illegally.
Liberal and conservative justices reacted skeptically to the Obama administration's argument that the state exceeded its authority when it made the records check, and another provision allowing suspected illegal immigrants to be arrested without a warrant, part of Arizona law aimed at driving illegal immigrants elsewhere.
"You can see it's not selling very well," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.
It was unclear what the court would do with other aspects of the law that have been put on hold by lower federal courts. The other blocked provisions make it a state crime for immigrants not to have immigration registration papers and for illegal immigrants to seek work or hold a job.
Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law two years ago, was on hand for the final argument of the court's term.
The latest high court clash between the administration and states turns on the extent of states' role in immigration policy, which is essentially under the federal government's control.
Verrilli tried to persuade the justices that they should view the law in its entirety and inconsistent with federal immigration policy. He said the records check would allow the state to "engage effectively in mass incarceration" of undocumented immigrants.
But Chief Justice John Roberts was among those on the court who took issue with Verrilli's characterization of the check of immigration status, saying the state merely wants to notify federal authorities it has someone in custody who may be in the U.S. illegally. "It seems to me that the federal government just doesn't want to know who's here illegally and who's not," Roberts said.
The administration challenged the law in federal court. Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah passed similar laws, parts of which also are on hold pending the high court's decision.
The court hearing comes as presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney is trying to find a way to cut President Barack Obama's strong support among Latino voters. Romney was drawn to the right on issues like immigration as he fought off other Republicans in state GOP primary elections. On Monday, Romney signaled he was considering a wide range of immigration policies, including a proposal from Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., that would allow some of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants a chance at visas to stay in the U.S.
A decision in the high-profile immigration case is expected in late June as both camps will be gearing up for the general election.
Arizona argues that with its 370-mile border with Mexico, it has paid a disproportionate price for illegal immigration. It says its 2010 law is consistent with federal immigration policy.
The administration says the law, and Arizona's approach of maximum enforcement, conflict with a more nuanced federal immigration policy that seeks to balance national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, human rights and the rights of law-abiding citizens and immigrants.
Civil rights groups that back the administration say Arizona's and the other states' measures encourage racial profiling and ethnic stereotyping. California, New York and nine other states with significant immigrant populations support the Obama administration.
Florida, Michigan and 14 other states, many of which also are challenging Obama's health care overhaul, argue that Arizona's law does not conflict with federal law.
Justice Elena Kagan, who was Obama's first solicitor general, is not taking part in the case, presumably because she worked on it while in the Justice Department.
The case is Arizona v. U.S., 11-182.
Though often asked, God does not take sides in politics or college football.
-
dave1954 said...
Why did the police commissioner in Sanford quit? Because he was doing his job and he just wanted to do something else? I like how you continue to say I am a racist. It just proves one of my best theories, Cons blame the oppostion for what they do all the time. Cons make jaywalking seem like the same crime as murder. "You do it too" is a standard argument. BS!!!
www.miamiproject.miami.edu/
Buckeye Warrior
- 4 stars Rating: 78
14565 votes total - (13899)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
kurtkevin said...
If your illegal, YOUR illegal. Do it legally. Arizona is trying to do something that the Federal government doesn't do , police immigration! Call me a bigot, but where I work, in the last ten years, I think all of Albania has moved here with all there relatives. What is this nation's immigration policy? Do we have one? More power to Arizona!!!!
This post was edited by McCague on 4/26/2012 at 2:29 PM
-
bradysmanboobs said...
Unit D, the D in your name must be for Dunce! Racial profiling is EFFECTIVE and the MAJORITY of americans believe in it! Public safety takes priority over the butthurt feelings of brainwashed libs like you.
If people like you were in charge, no one would ever be arrested. There would be no law and order.
Badger Alumni, Lifelong Buckeye.
Frozen Buckeye
- 5 stars Rating: 83
643 votes total - (840)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
Buckeye Warrior
- 4 stars Rating: 78
14565 votes total - (13899)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
minsterbuckeye
- 4 stars Rating: 62
5752 votes total - (4048)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
NUTTYBAR said...
What kills me about this is that Arizona is willing to do what the Feds are arguing they can not . Lol . And people are making this out to be something else.. For god sakes the feds profile. It's in the federal law. Lol . I mean Damn don't the cop ask for ID when they pull you over , and what happens when you don't have that id lol . This is the biggest crock of shit story , lol its already fed law .
minsterbuckeye
- 4 stars Rating: 62
5752 votes total - (4048)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
minsterbuckeye
- 4 stars Rating: 62
5752 votes total - (4048)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
- Post a New Topic
- Back to Topics
- « Previous Topic
- Next Topic »
- Boards ▾
- Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
SCOUS Seems To Like AZ Immigration Law