3
   

9 States to back Arizona in legal brief

 
 
ABE5177
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 07:05 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:


Yup, you're one fine patriotic, Constitution supporting Republican.

So what are you?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 08:01 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Ever ask yourself why the U.S. didn't simply take Mexico in 1870?

I mean, the U.S. was 25 years ahead of the rest of the world militarily at the end of the civil war and there really wasn't anything anybody could have done about it.


Real dumb question, Gunga.

The US knew that it was counterproductive to the economic bottom line to take on the responsibility of running those countries when all that had to be done was install a brutal dictator who would let American business interest pillage a country's wealth at their leisure.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 10:06 pm
@JTT,
In 1870 we took a third of Mexico, isn't that enough? If we had taken all of Mexico, we wouldn't have had any place to put the Mexicans.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 10:09 pm
@ebrown p,
That chunk of land may well end up in the "rightful" owners hands yet. That is exactly what scares the **** out of the gungas.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 10:47 pm
@JTT,
The American Southwest and California were never owned or controlled by Mexico which was never able to prevail militarily against the Apaches to have any real path across that territory. Mexico had only had three centuries to try to settle California when the Anglos got there in the mid 1800s and if they'd ever succeeded at it the Anglos would not have been able to just walk into the place.

Similarly if Santa Anna's pathetic little army of 5000 guys was the closest Mexico could come to controlling Texas, then you can see why they never had any real shot at owning Texas.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 11:00 am
@gungasnake,
Is that a defence for what the United States has done to so many Central and South American countries, the test being, you can rape and pillage a country, torture, rape and murder its citizens, as long as you have the military might.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 11:15 am
@ABE5177,
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/12/nation/la-na-ethnic-studies-20100512

Quote:
A bill that aims to ban ethnic studies in Arizona schools was signed into law Tuesday by Gov. Jan Brewer

The bill can be found here and says nothing about just banning taxpayer subsidies. It prohibits the class.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2281s.pdf



You might want to be careful about calling people 'liars" when google works so well.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 11:36 am
@JTT,
Quote:
Is that a defence for what the United States has done to so many Central and South American countries, the test being, you can rape and pillage a country, torture, rape and murder its citizens, as long as you have the military might.


I assume you're including in that our building the Panama Canal with American treasure, technical knowhow, blood and sweat and then handing it over to the locals so they can hire Chinese companies to operate it?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 02:02 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
I assume you're including in that our building the Panama Canal with American treasure, ...


I'm quite certain that you've just tried what you think is a sneaky diversionary tactic.

So,

Is that a defence for what the United States has done to so many Central and South American countries, the test being, you can rape and pillage a country, torture, rape and murder its citizens, as long as you have the military might?

Quote:
then handing it over to the locals so they can hire Chinese companies to operate it?


Do you have some particular problem with countries being able to exercise their sovereign rights?
ABE5177
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:53 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/12/nation/la-na-ethnic-studies-20100512

Quote:
A bill that aims to ban ethnic studies in Arizona schools was signed into law Tuesday by Gov. Jan Brewer

The bill can be found here and says nothing about just banning taxpayer subsidies. It prohibits the class. ./.
You might want to be careful about calling people 'liars" when google works so well.

the bill says PUBLIC SCHOOLS, public, who pays for them do you thingk? public subsidies that'a who, taxpayers, the PUBLIC, go get a private tutor or go to a fee-paying school, take all the classes you like

classes aren't banned, subsidized classes are, subsidized by the PUBLIC
what's your problem not understanding this?
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:56 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Is that a defence for what the United States has done to so many Central and South American countries, the test being, you can rape and pillage a country, torture, rape and murder its citizens, as long as you have the military might?


If you were anything other than the bullshit artist you clearly are, then the US military would have torture and rape units and, in fact, torture and rape would be part of basic training for American soldiers.

There would be women and girls who earned their livings practicing as rape victims at Ft. Leonard Wood, Ft. Sill, Ft. Knox, Ft. Jackson etc. etc. Certainly such women and girls would be easy enough to find and conduct interviews with and such interviews would be easy enough to find on the internet.

Care to provide a few such sites for us?

http://hornbillunleashed.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/bullshit.jpg


ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:56 pm
@ABE5177,
Quote:
the bill says PUBLIC SCHOOLS, public, who pays for them do you thingk? public subsidies that'a who, taxpayers, the PUBLIC

go get a private tutor or go to a fee-paying school, take all the classes you like, classes aren't banned, subsidized classes are


You are making the assumption that Hispanics don't pay taxes (which is completely incorrect).
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:58 pm
@gungasnake,
The question is,

Is that a defence for what the United States has done to so many Central and South American countries, the test being, you can rape and pillage a country, torture, rape and murder its citizens, as long as you have the military might?
ABE5177
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 03:01 pm
@JTT,
did Arizona's new law do any of this? did any of thw other 9 states backing that law? I don't think so, start another thread about rape in Lating america , nobody's stopping you
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 03:06 pm
@ABE5177,
Another sneaky diversionary tactic. How do you live with yourself, trying to cover up war crimes, rape, torture and murder, done to innocents of all ages?

I've always wondered, what does pond scum do when the pond dries up?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 03:16 pm
http://leadercall.com/opinion/x1300295049/U-S-wages-legal-war-against-Arizona

Quote:

LAUREL — Despite domestic and international uncertainty, an unsure economy and a disapproving electorate, the White House has found time to issue a legal declaration of war against the State of Arizona, aligning itself with a foreign country against a proud and determined American state.

In May, ignoring the draconian manner in which his own country cracks down on immigration along its southern border, Mexican President Felipe Calderon lectured the American people against “such laws as the Arizona law that is forcing our people to face discrimination.” It wasn’t his first statement on the controversial issue; he had previously scolded Arizona for opening the door “to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement.”

Shortly after his comments at the White House Rose Garden, el Presidente de México was then marched by administration officials to the marbled halls of Congress where he also intoned on the subject, further criticizing the new law designed to alleviate Arizona’s illegal immigration crises.

During his speech to lawmakers, he was met with warm reception from Democrats in the chamber. In fact, Attorney General Eric Holder was among the liberal policymakers and administration officials who rose to their feet to cheer Calderon’s ill-advised remarks deriding Arizona.

But despite Holder’s show of enthusiasm, he later admitted - in embarrassing fashion - that he had not actually reviewed Arizona’s new law.

Nevertheless, with his profound support of the corrupt government in Mexico more evident than ever before, President Obama demanded the Justice Department take legal action against Arizona, an embattled state illegally occupied by an estimated 425,000 citizens of foreign nations.

On July 6, 2010, Attorney General Holder filed the administration’s lawsuit seeking to block the new legislation.

Though the new law only attempts to help, not hinder, the federal government’s lackadaisical enforcement efforts, Holder has maintained that the Justice Department decided to file the suit because the law is “inconsistent” with federal policy and the Constitution, even though the Constitution doesn’t prohibit states from passing legislation regarding illegal immigration.

The lawsuit also adopts Calderon’s empty words, as originally expressed to an eager White House. It seeks to invalidate the new law by arguing that it will lead to racial discrimination and police harassment, ignoring the numerous and very specific safeguards found in the legislation.

However, not only has there been no evidence of an intent to commit racial or ethnic profiling on the part of Arizona authorities, the new law - contrary to Holder’s arguments - doesn’t preempt federal law in any way. Unlike a number of “progressive” municipalities across the country that consider themselves so-called “sanctuary” cities by stubbornly refusing to cooperate with immigration authorities, Arizona hasn’t usurped or ignored existing regulations.

Conflicting with the leftist rhetoric echoed by Calderon and Holder, Arizona’s law isn’t a hate-inspired piece of legislation.

To the contrary, it simply requires that state law enforcement “make a reasonable attempt” to determine the immigration status of anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant, provided an officer is already in “lawful contact” with that individual.

In fact, an officer may only request immigration documentation if he has a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the State of Arizona illegally. It doesn’t allow law enforcement to randomly stop suspected illegal immigrants to demand documents, though federal law has required immigrants to carry documentation of their status for the past seventy years.

It also specifically prohibits racial profiling, clearly mandating that an officer “may not consider race, color or national origin” in making stops or determining an individual’s immigration status.

Far from encouraging discriminatory conduct on the part of state police officers, it simply makes illegal immigration a misdemeanor in Arizona, mirroring existing federal law.

And yet, irrespective of the state’s colorblind attempt to solve a distressing issue, the White House has taken the side of a foreign nation in an attempt to render Arizona defenseless against an illegal invasion.

Declaring hostilities against Arizona while the nation’s economy teeters dangerously near a double-dip recession is not the type of leadership we deserve.

The American people want action on the economy, not a legal war waged against a sister state in our Union.

Representing a sorrowful squandering of taxpayer resources, Holder’s lawsuit is a disservice to a constitutional republic that was founded on respect for the law. Our government’s money and time would be better spent combating violent Mexican drug cartels and securing the dangerous southern border rather than obstructing efforts by the people of Arizona to protect their struggling state.

After years of frustration over federal inaction, the people of Arizona had no choice but to take matters into their own hands.

President Obama should respect their decision, instead of playing crass political games designed to bolster his upcoming campaign for reelection.

ABE5177
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 03:27 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Mexican President Felipe Calderon lectured the American people against “such laws as the Arizona law that is forcing our people to face discrimination.

that's funny

0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 03:31 pm
@gungasnake,
Still formulating a response to the issue you raised, Gunga. In case you've forgotten, here's the question,

Is that a defence for what the United States has done to so many Central and South American countries, the test being, you can rape and pillage a country, torture, rape and murder its citizens, as long as you have the military might?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 03:40 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
If you were anything other than the bullshit artist you clearly are, then the US military would have torture and rape units and, in fact, torture and rape would be part of basic training for American soldiers.


Speaking of bullshit artists, your diversionary tactics are well known, Gunga. And yet another diversionary tactic, trying to make me the target when we know where the information comes not from me.

Surely you are not suggesting that a 13 year veteran of the CIA, one of their top people, a man who received one of those phony medals the US likes to hand out, is not telling the truth?

That's a pretty tough row to hoe even for a renowned liar like you. That information is straight from US government sources, from US citizens who witnessed the carnage, from a former CIA who grew disgusted with the war crimes, the brutality, the murder and mayhem that US governments have, in a steady stream, perpetrated against innocents of poor third world countries.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 03:45 pm
@ABE5177,
Quote:
the bill says PUBLIC SCHOOLS, public, who pays for them do you thingk? public subsidies that'a who, taxpayers, the PUBLIC, go get a private tutor or go to a fee-paying school, take all the classes you like


Yet you have no problems with taxpayers footing the bill for classes which inaccurately, terribly inaccurately, represent US foreign policy and US policies towards third world countries.

You evidently don't have any problems with taxpayers funding terrorist organizations like the CIA and its offspring; that is when they can't raise enough funds themselves by dealing drugs to the USA.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/17/2021 at 03:52:02