President Obama

[kylejack]

In the post to which you responded, Ricco was talking about high-profile terrorists, like Al-Awlaki...not American jihadists, per se. Specifically targeting a high-profile military objective like him is a very logical component of a war on Al Qaeda, and should not require the involvement of the judicial branch.

He denies allegations that he is an Al Qaeda commander. He should be apprehended and charged so that a court can determine if the allegations hold water, not assassinated because the President's anonymous source says he's a terrorist commander. If he's killed during the attempt to apprehend, very well, but we should at least try.

[TheNiche]

He denies allegations that he is an Al Qaeda commander. He should be apprehended and charged so that a court can determine if the allegations hold water, not assassinated because the President's anonymous source says he's a terrorist commander. If he's killed during the attempt to apprehend, very well, but we should at least try.

What I'm saying is that this case is a military matter, not a civil one. If the military (under the authority of the President) determines that he is a key member of Al Qaeda and is actively involved in terrorist plots against the United States or our allies, then that is legally sufficient to apprehend, imprison, interrogate, try, and punish him...or to simply eliminate him outright if capture is not reasonably possible. If a court is involved, it needs to be one governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), not a civil court.

[RedScare]

What a crap piece of reporting..."could lead to a major oil spill" - its not leaking. Coast Guard has confirmed its not leaking, and the Robots have successfully closed the sea bed valve. That is just more MSNBC crap reporting, trying to get everyone all fired up about the devastating effects of oil and the environment.

The rig was burning natural gas, and onboard fuel, minor amounts of oil spilled during the blowout - its a capped well now, and its not leaking at all.

The environmental impact will be marginal unless something else goes wrong.

Turns out that the "crap piece of reporting" may have come from Fox News itself.

A slow-motion environmental disaster may be in the making with the discovery Saturday that 42,000 gallons a day of crude oil is spewing from a well on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico near where a huge drilling rig sank last week — and it could be months before it's stopped.

The spill, which a day earlier Coast Guard officials believed was contained within a 16-square-mile area on the surface, now covers some 400 square miles — slightly bigger than the city of Dallas — and could grow as the well continues to leak, Rear Adm. Mary Landry, commander of Coast Guard District 8, said Saturday.

“This is a very serious spill,” she said at a press conference, adding that governments of Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida had been warned about the threat of oil coming ashore and invited to participate in the response.

Oil May Spew For Months

[ricco67]

Turns out that the "crap piece of reporting" may have come from Fox News itself.

Oil May Spew For Months

Which, assuming they don't get their act together and don't fix it for 5 months would equate to 150k barrels.

I have serious doubts that they would wait that long.

[TheNiche]

Which, assuming they don't get their act together and don't fix it for 5 months would equate to 150k barrels.

I have serious doubts that they would wait that long.

Not to mention that when most oil spill disasters occur, they tend to happen all at once, releasing a huge slick before any kind of marine environmental response crews can get there to contain it. If they know where the oil is coming up, containing it on an ongoing basis it should be relatively easy.

Even if this does turn into a legitimately "major" spill, I can't imagine the actual damage approaching many other "major" spills.

[AtticaFlinch]

Even if this does turn into a legitimately "major" spill, I can't imagine the actual damage approaching many other "major" spills.

Something like 80% of all the bird species in the US pass through the Gulf Coast along southern Louisiana during their annual migrations. And time is ripe for going north and passing through there right about... oh, I don't know... now.

[TheNiche]

Something like 80% of all the bird species in the US pass through the Gulf Coast along southern Louisiana during their annual migrations. And time is ripe for going north and passing through there right about... oh, I don't know... now.

The kinds of bird species that migrate over open water (many fewer than 80% of species) do not sleep (they instead shut down one half of their brain at a time), and do not feed from the water (they instead burn off body fat that they had accumulated prior to the migration).

If contained away from littoral areas, this oil spill should not have a significant impact on migrating birds.

Even if there were an impact, large bird die-offs occur on a fairly frequent basis from meteorological phenomena. The reason you don't hear about them, however, is that nobody who is ever going to buy products advertised in the media really cares about birds. Mostly, they just want to be entertained. So unless bird deaths can be linked to some other controversy, to celebrities, or to whack-jobs that take themselves too seriously to realize that they've become accidental clowns...it doesn't matter. ____ birds. :shrug:

[AtticaFlinch]

The kinds of bird species that migrate over open water (many fewer than 80% of species) do not sleep (they instead shut down one half of their brain at a time), and do not feed from the water (they instead burn off body fat that they had accumulated prior to the migration).

If contained away from littoral areas, this oil spill should not have a significant impact on migrating birds.

Even if there were an impact, large bird die-offs occur on a fairly frequent basis from meteorological phenomena. The reason you don't hear about them, however, is that nobody who is ever going to buy products advertised in the media really cares about birds. Mostly, they just want to be entertained. So unless bird deaths can be linked to some other controversy, to celebrities, or to whack-jobs that take themselves too seriously to realize that they've become accidental clowns...it doesn't matter. ____ birds. :shrug:

Tough to argue against apathy.

Edit: If otters were affected, people would give a crap.

[RedScare]

Even if there were an impact, large bird die-offs occur on a fairly frequent basis from meteorological phenomena. The reason you don't hear about them, however, is that nobody who is ever going to buy products advertised in the media really cares about birds. Mostly, they just want to be entertained. So unless bird deaths can be linked to some other controversy, to celebrities, or to whack-jobs that take themselves too seriously to realize that they've become accidental clowns...it doesn't matter. ____ birds. :shrug:

Thus explaining why your opinion is an outlier. To nearly everyone who does have even a passing interest in nature, this has the potential to be a major spill. And the fear of those that oppose drilling off of their shores is twofold...that these blowouts may occur, and that those in the drilling industry think as you do. Having grown up in North Carolina and living in Texas, I wouldn't want Texans drilling off the North Carolina shores, either. Texans just flat don't care about the environment, at least not to any appreciable degree. Your statements and opinions, along with those of Marksmu and Ricco, are fairly typical of Texas attitudes toward the environment, and it shows. Our beaches are butt ugly, our landscape is butt ugly, and we are forced to find 'beauty' in the rubbish that man creates. Only a Texan would find a 400 square mile oil slick to be no big deal.

[TheNiche]

Thus explaining why your opinion is an outlier. To nearly everyone who does have even a passing interest in nature, this has the potential to be a major spill. And the fear of those that oppose drilling off of their shores is twofold...that these blowouts may occur, and that those in the drilling industry think as you do. Having grown up in North Carolina and living in Texas, I wouldn't want Texans drilling off the North Carolina shores, either. Texans just flat don't care about the environment, at least not to any appreciable degree. Your statements and opinions, along with those of Marksmu and Ricco, are fairly typical of Texas attitudes toward the environment, and it shows. Our beaches are butt ugly, our landscape is butt ugly, and we are forced to find 'beauty' in the rubbish that man creates.

On the contrary, consider the astounding progress that has been made bringing back populations of huntable and fishable animals in Texas. Texans care about the environment and have a soft spot for the kinds of places that people like you would write off as being ugly. It's just that we care about preserving it for our own sustainable recreational use, whereas an attitude of environmental aestheticism prevails in many other places.

To put that into the context of your whining about how ugly our beaches and landscapes are...Texans would tend to argue that since ANWR is basically a sparsely-populated arctic version of Matagorda County (which you have established is "butt-ugly", even though many Texans including myself would disagree), extracting oil there isn't going to do any harm. It'll create jobs and make life easier for the rest of us. In fact, that the heat generated by new facilities there would act to increase the population of huntable animals is a very good thing. Folks like you would argue that it is relatively pristine, mountainous (even though the oil isn't located under the mountains), and that even though you and the vast majority of other aestheticists will never lay eyes on it (because your preferred kind of vacation is to a place you think is not "butt ugly"), it makes you feel bad that humans are inducing a change to the way it previously was for reasons that can only possibly fall under a broad "aesthetic" umbrella.

Only a Texan would find a 400 square mile oil slick to be no big deal.

Really? The Chronicle got a quote from a New York-based expert on oil spill analysis, who pointed out that, "Far greater spills had not had devastating impacts on the environment, including the 1990 Mega Borg tanker accident, which disgorged 119,000 barrels of oil into the Gulf about 60 miles southeast of Galveston." They've had numerous experts convey similar points in articles from over the past several days. And I'm inclined to believe them over the likes of an aestheticist.

[RedScare]

I might point out that I am speaking of North Carolina, not ANWR. North Carolinians are not known for their liberalism. They hunt, they fish, and they love their land. And they do not want people with your mindset running drilling rigs off their shores for precisely the reasons that you state in your posts. They do not mind that you find beauty in Texas, and they do not mind that Texans drill and endure oil slicks and all those other things. They simply do not want to endure it themselves. As a states rights guy, you should respect the Carolinians preference not to live by the rules of those who say "f__k birds" and think 400 square mile slicks are no big deal.

[TheNiche]

I might point out that I am speaking of North Carolina, not ANWR. North Carolinians are not known for their liberalism. They hunt, they fish, and they love their land. And they do not want people with your mindset running drilling rigs off their shores for precisely the reasons that you state in your posts. They do not mind that you find beauty in Texas, and they do not mind that Texans drill and endure oil slicks and all those other things. They simply do not want to endure it themselves. As a states rights guy, you should respect the Carolinians preference not to live by the rules of those who say "f__k birds" and think 400 square mile slicks are no big deal.

I did find it odd that you were using North Carolina as a contrast to Texas. What rig-induced oil slicks do we endure that they might also have to endure? Point to the environmental damage. And don't get me wrong, if the prospect of offshore oil rigs near the Texas coast was a new one, I'd fully anticipate a paranoid environmentalist backlash here from people that didn't know any better; that's not just a Texas thing, as evidenced by farmers who claim that a new freeway or railroad will cause their cows to stop producing milk (or some such bologna).

[AtticaFlinch]

Oil still leaking from sunken Gulf rig

But analysts have said the spill could have political fallout, especially if it reaches shore.

Several lawmakers and interest groups have led a charge over the last several years to open up more parts of the U.S. coast for oil drilling, efforts that are generally supported by the public.

But that support could erode if crude oil starts washing up on the Louisiana or Mississippi coasts.

And now the politicians are interested in getting this handled. What would we do without political fallout?

[dbigtex56]

I'd fully anticipate a paranoid environmentalist backlash here from people that didn't know any better; that's not just a Texas thing, as evidenced by farmers who claim that a new freeway or railroad will cause their cows to stop producing milk (or some such bologna).

ARTICLE Behavior Mary Beth de Ondarza, Ph.D

(from milkproduction.com)

Environment, people, and other cows can all affect how a cow behaves, eats, and milks. Most people who have worked with cows all of their lives know that it is best to keep cows calm, but they don’t necessarily know and appreciate all of the factors that cause cows to be stressed and the economical importance of cow behavior on their farm.

Fear of People by Cows and Effects on Milk Yield

Just a couple of examples.

However, I suspect that the links provided will remain unclicked. Anything that rebukes your ideology is, to use your word, 'bologna'.

Good thing Ayn Rand wasn't a dairy farmer, or we'd all have rickets.

[AtticaFlinch]

ARTICLE behavior Mary Beth de Ondarza, Ph.D

(from milkproduction.com)

Environment, people, and other cows can all affect how a cow behaves, eats, and milks. Most people who have worked with cows all of their lives know that it is best to keep cows calm, but they don’t necessarily know and appreciate all of the factors that cause cows to be stressed and the economical importance of cow behavior on their farm.

Fear of People by Cows and Effects on Milk Yield

Just a couple of examples.

However, I suspect that the links provided will remain unclicked. Anything that rebukes your ideology is, to use your word, 'bologna'.

Good thing Ayn Rand wasn't a dairy farmer, or we'd all have rickets.

I remember one time, while driving back to Houston from Nacogdoches, seeing a big bull plowing a heifer alongside a heavily trafficked US 59. I don't think either of them were stressed out by the traffic. I can't be certain, but they both looked like they were enjoying themselves.

Then again, I have no idea whether or not they were dairy cattle. I'm preeeetty sure the bull wasn't, but I'm not sure about the heifer.

[TheNiche]

Good thing Ayn Rand wasn't a dairy farmer, or we'd all have rickets.

For us all to have rickets, she'd have had to have been a dairy monopolist, and dairy isn't an industry that is susceptible to natural monopoly. So, she'd have had to have made special deals with the government, which goes against her own philosophy.

The analogy kind of sucked anyways, though, because Ayn Rand didn't approve of eminent domain for transportation projects. She probably would've been on the other side of the issue.

[Marksmu]

I might point out that I am speaking of North Carolina, not ANWR. North Carolinians are not known for their liberalism. They hunt, they fish, and they love their land. And they do not want people with your mindset running drilling rigs off their shores for precisely the reasons that you state in your posts. They do not mind that you find beauty in Texas, and they do not mind that Texans drill and endure oil slicks and all those other things. They simply do not want to endure it themselves. As a states rights guy, you should respect the Carolinians preference not to live by the rules of those who say "___ birds" and think 400 square mile slicks are no big deal.

Red - again you dont even know what your talking about. Texans care about the environment....Alot, of people in Texas hunt and fish. The people who hunt and fish care even more than the noisy liberal who does nothing more than complain about what they see. The reason North Carolina does not have the drilling currently is not because those people have the ability to keep it out, its because the Texas/Louisiana coast has more oil, and more infrastructure already set up to sustain it. When the Texas/Louisiana fields begin to decline you will see drilling in North Carolina.

Also, maybe you have missed my stance on the environment. I hunt and I fish....I enjoy both tremendously. It makes no sense at all for me to destroy the environment that provides my recreation. So I dont destroy it, I preserve, and create more of it, maybe you forgot about my previous threads where I mentioned a time or two of my involvement with the Texas Prairie Wetlands Project....that I took 120 acres of my own land, and restored natural wetlands. I did so at a huge cost to myself, and it now sits more pristine than it was when I got it. I also run cattle to pay for all my improvements, another thing that gives me immense enjoyment...but I run cattle in a sustainable way. I do not run more cattle than I can feed, I do not plant non-native grass species....I have planted riparian buffer zones that prevent the cattle from trampling my waterways, that causes erosion, and pollutes the fresh water that runs to my wetlands. I also have gone out of my way to plant crops with no value at all to anything other than birds....I plant these crops to help bring back the native populations of birds that have been seriously destroyed by the hurricane and uncontrolled predators....I spray to kill the fire ants and non-native invasive plants/bugs that are major detractors to the wild bird populations. I actively kill every wild pig I can find, to help bring back the mottled duck, and the quail, that have been on massive declines in our area....I do more than almost anyone I know. All the do-gooders who delicate flower and moan about the environment 9 times out of 10 do nothing but delicate flower and moan....they see things they dont like, so they do the only thing they know how to do...they delicate flower, they are worthless. They never bother to do anything at all to make it better....they want to ban hunting and fishing b/c they perceive it as cruel and destroying our environment, but they dont realize that almost all, not just a little bit, but almost all of the funding that goes to clean up bays, preserve wetlands, preserve parks, and improve nature comes from one of two places....1) hunters/fisherman directly, 2) The companies who profit from hunting and fishing. To say that most Texans dont care about the environment just shows that you don't know anything at all about what your talking about.

There are lots of of folks who do hunt/fish that dont give a darn about the environment and I will bet using my vast experience in this arena that 9/10 of those people are either here illegally, or are legal immigrants where not caring is the norm in their country. I would say Texans saying "f__K" the birds is the exception, not the norm, and unless you spend every weekend of your life on the water, in the country, or in the parks, I would say I am speaking from more experience here.

Because I am for drilling, does not mean I am against the environment. The two are not mutually exclusive. A large spill is the exception not the rule....Its extremely uncommon for this type of thing to happen, which is why its been such a big deal.

Conclusion - dont lump me in with the F the environment super minority....I do more for the environment than 99.9% of the people in this country, including yourself, and all the super green whiny libs....Simply because I am not a blind follower of global warming does not make me anti-environment.

[AtticaFlinch]

There are lots of of folks who do hunt/fish that dont give a darn about the environment and I will bet using my vast experience in this arena that 9/10 of those people are either here illegally, or are legal immigrants where not caring is the norm in their country.

I can usually connect the dots on my own with your logical leaps, Marksmu, but this time you've stumped me. Please fill in the gaps here:

anti-environment hunters --> _______ --> _______ --> _______ --> _______ --> illegal immigrants.

Thanks in advance.

Simply because I am not a blind follower of global warming does not make me anti-environment.

It just makes you uninformed.

And, you should follow global warming... on its Twitter page! If you have the text-to-talk feature set up on your computer, you can even be a blind follower.

Otherwise, I have no idea how you could blindly follow global warming.

[Marksmu]

I can usually connect the dots on my own with your logical leaps, Marksmu, but this time you've stumped me. Please fill in the gaps here:

anti-environment hunters --> _______ --> _______ --> _______ --> _______ --> illegal immigrants.

Its real easy - go to almost any public places where people are hunting and fishing....watch for the ones who are NOT following the laws...no fishing license, fishing by illegal means, leaving trash on the beach, keeping undersized fish, keeping oversized fish, over their limits, etc, etc....

9 times out of 10 those people are illegal or a legal immigrant from any asian country where their use of resources is very different than our own.

You should spend some time talking to game wardens about this. They are very frustrated. They write a ticket and the illegal does not show, there is no further recourse because they dont even know who the heck they just wrote a ticket to.

It just makes you uninformed.

And, you should follow global warming... on its Twitter page! If you have the text-to-talk feature set up on your computer, you can even be a blind follower.

Otherwise, I have no idea how you could blindly follow global warming.

I am informed, I read alot. I am unconvinced. I believe that the global warming believers have made it all up and manipulated statistics and charts in order to make money for themselves. I think the people who are convinced that global warming is real are just naive, and many genuinely are concerned, but that does not change the fact that man made global warming is not occurring. All global warming is a result of natural processes. That is what I believe.

[AtticaFlinch]

Its real easy - go to almost any public places where people are hunting and fishing....watch for the ones who are NOT following the laws...no fishing license, fishing by illegal means, leaving trash on the beach, keeping undersized fish, keeping oversized fish, over their limits, etc, etc....

Ah, ok. While I don't hunt, I've definitely witnessed this while fishing.

Well... I've witnessed hispanic people fishing anyhow, and I've made the assumption that they were here illegally and keeping small fish. I also always assume every hispanic person I see is here illegally and doing something else illegal. I think I've just met the basic requirement to become an Arizona cop.

That is what I believe.

It's a belief negated by substantiated scientific fact. But, there's a thread already about this, and I already got too frustrated with the conversation to continue with it over there, so I'll leave you to your belief in peace. Have fun fixing your piece of land, for what it's worth. When the Gulf of Mexico's shoreline reaches Dubuque it really won't make much of a difference what you've done, so I hope you at least get some enjoyment out of it.

[Marksmu]

Ah, ok. While I don't hunt, I've definitely witnessed this while fishing.

Well... I've witnessed hispanic people fishing anyhow, and I've made the assumption that they were here illegally and keeping small fish. I also always assume every hispanic person I see is here illegally and doing something else illegal. I think I've just met the basic requirement to become an Arizona cop.

Lets take your example and run with it.....so a Texas Game Warden watches a guy fishing with a throw net (illegal) keeping undersized trout from that throw net (illegal) without a license (illegal) and dumping his trash on the beach (illegal). When he approaches the guy he says, let me see your fishing license so I can write you a ticket for breaking the law. Guy replies, I dont have one. Ok, let me see your drivers license or id card, so I can write you a ticket. Guy replies - I dont have one. Why the heck, should the game warden not be allowed to arrest him on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant in addition to his other infractions?

If he writes the guy a ticket and releases him he will just move places and continue...he has nothing to lose, there are no repercussions for breaking the law. I personally think that the game warden should arrest the guy. ICE should come get him, verify his status, and if he is here illegally he should be deported back to _________and the _________ government should reimburse us for every penny it costs us to get him back to __________. If they do not reimburse us for this, then we should slap a 20% "fee" on all wire transfers originating in the United States and going to ___________. That money can then be used to further continue to deport the _____________ people back to ___________.

The Arizona law is not perfect, but I have no problem at all letting a cop verify citizenship once someone is already caught breaking the law. All the Arizona law did was make it a State crime to break a Federal law. I have no problem with it at all.

It's a belief negated by substantiated scientific fact. But, there's a thread already about this, and I already got too frustrated with the conversation to continue with it over there, so I'll leave you to your belief in peace. Have fun fixing your piece of land, for what it's worth. When the Gulf of Mexico's shoreline reaches Dubuque it really won't make much of a difference what you've done, so I hope you at least get some enjoyment out of it.

No need for us to hash it out again - I believe your data that you base your belief upon is faulty....you dont. Those who make a living off of that belief swear they are correct, those that make their living in other ways disagree.

[AtticaFlinch]

Lets take your example and run with it.....so a Texas Game Warden watches a guy fishing with a throw net (illegal) keeping undersized trout from that throw net (illegal) without a license (illegal) and dumping his trash on the beach (illegal). When he approaches the guy he says, let me see your fishing license so I can write you a ticket for breaking the law. Guy replies, I dont have one. Ok, let me see your drivers license or id card, so I can write you a ticket. Guy replies - I dont have one. Why the heck, should the game warden not be allowed to arrest him on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant in addition to his other infractions?

If he writes the guy a ticket and releases him he will just move places and continue...he has nothing to lose, there are no repercussions for breaking the law. I personally think that the game warden should arrest the guy. ICE should come get him, verify his status, and if he is here illegally he should be deported back to _________and the _________ government should reimburse us for every penny it costs us to get him back to __________. If they do not reimburse us for this, then we should slap a 20% "fee" on all wire transfers originating in the United States and going to ___________. That money can then be used to further continue to deport the _____________ people back to ___________.

Once this country is majority Hispanic, and the dirty border hoppers are coming from the frozen tundra to the north, and a similar law is put in place to allow for illegal searches of all Canadian-looking gueros, then I'm sure you'll change your tune. Of course, then you'll justify your outrage by wrapping yourself in an American flag and complaining about how your tax dollars shouldn't be spent on such an inefficient waste of the police's time.

The Arizona law is not perfect, but I have no problem at all letting a cop verify citizenship once someone is already caught breaking the law. All the Arizona law did was make it a State crime to break a Federal law. I have no problem with it at all.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but cops already do check IDs once they've caught someone doing something illegal. If someone doesn't have an ID, there already is a process in place to verify their identity.

No need for us to hash it out again - I believe your data that you base your belief upon is faulty....you dont. Those who make a living off of that belief swear they are correct, those that make their living in other ways disagree.

Ok, whatever.

[Marksmu]

Once this country is majority Hispanic, and the dirty border hoppers are coming from the frozen tundra to the north, and a similar law is put in place to allow for illegal searches of all Canadian-looking gueros, then I'm sure you'll change your tune. Of course, then you'll justify your outrage by wrapping yourself in an American flag and complaining about how your tax dollars shouldn't be spent on such an inefficient waste of the police's time.

Thats just a BS statement.....Your just saying that we should not be able to do a dang thing when a person breaks our laws and then flaunts it in our face. I 100% disagree. I dont care where the immigrant comes from....Canada, Mexico, China, Vietnam, it does not matter to me. If they are here illegally they should be deported, and the bill sent to their home country. It just so happens that the Mexicans come here in much greater numbers, and know exactly how to work our systems to their own advantage. Their own country punishes illegal entrance severely, and then they act like what tiny pathetic steps we take are so terrible.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but cops already do check IDs once they've caught someone doing something illegal. If someone doesn't have an ID, there already is a process in place to verify their identity.

If the crime is not a serious one, the cop writes a BS ticket that the immigrant will completely ignore, and lets them go. They dont have a real ID so they never answer for anything. There is a process to verify citizenship and its seldom used....It needs to be used 100% of the time. Every single time an illegal who is caught breaking a law, should be deported. There should be no exceptions. Entry into this country without permission is a crime, and it should be enforced. We are a nation of laws, our country has been the greatest in the world because there has been ample opportunity, and order which is maintained by our laws. We dont get to pick and choose which ones we want to obey.

Being illegal in this country should not give a person a pass to do whatever they want to do and not face the consequences. Kick em all out, and let their own country foot the bill.

[AtticaFlinch]

Thats just a BS statement..... Their own country punishes illegal entrance severely, and then they act like what tiny pathetic steps we take are so terrible.

Ellipsis overload! Whoa, slow down!

You can deport all the illegals you can catch. I don't care. What I do care about is that it tramples on the constitutional rights of American citizens who happen to share phenotypically genetic similarities with the average illegal immigrant - which, in the case of Arizona, ain't the white guy. If you were to be pulled over just because you were white, you'd be the first person to moan about the reverse racism and the war on whitey.

You complain on HAIF about the war on white men when a black dude looks at you funny. I'd hate to see how far you go if you were actually antagonized by the authorities because of your paleness.

We are a nation of laws, our country has been the greatest in the world because there has been ample opportunity, and order which is maintained by our laws. We dont get to pick and choose which ones we want to obey.

Yeah we do. Laws change all the time. If they didn't, and if there was no need for such, we wouldn't have a common law system and there'd be no need for the legislative branches in both the state and federal governments.

Being illegal in this country should not give a person a pass to do whatever they want to do and not face the consequences.

Yeah, that's exactly what's happening. They're all like that evil South African guy from Lethal Weapon raping and murdering innocent doe-eyed American women (or whatever other fun law they're breaking at the moment), and when they get caught, they always say, "Diplomat... er, illegal immigrant immunity."

Kick em all out, and let their own country foot the bill.

Giddyap, cowboy! Reholster both those six-shooters after you're done shooting them skyward. I'll round up a posse if you can get a noose ready.

[gto250us]

It is idiotic to believe that anyone who does something illegal should get away with it.

I guess that I will stop of at Bank of America tonight and ask them to fill up a shopping bag with money. After all, I am working hard and just need a little more to provide my family with a better life.

[AtticaFlinch]

It is idiotic to believe that anyone who does something illegal should get away with it.

Violating the constitution is illegal. In fact, as the constitution is the highest law of the land, violating it is more illegal than border-jumping - unless you can't point out where the illegality of border-jumping is expressly enumerated in the constitution.

Oh wait, you can't. Because it's not there.

I guess that I will stop of at Bank of America tonight and ask them to fill up a shopping bag with money. After all, I am working hard and just need a little more to provide my family with a better life.

I suggest you give it a try.

[Marksmu]

Violating the constitution is illegal. In fact, as the constitution is the highest law of the land, violating it is more illegal than border-jumping - unless you can't point out where the illegality of border-jumping is expressly enumerated in the constitution.

Oh wait, you can't. Because it's not there.

I suggest you give it a try.

Show me in the constitution where it states that a person who has been caught breaking a crime, cannot be forced to prove they have a right to be in the country. OH WAIT, you cant, because it is not there.

It is absolutely constitutional to require proof of citizenship....we do it for voting, we do it for a drivers license, we do it for all kinds of things. To think the police cannot ask for it is absolutely absurd.

[AtticaFlinch]

Show me in the constitution where it states that a person who has been caught breaking a crime, cannot be forced to prove they have a right to be in the country. OH WAIT, you cant, because it is not there.

Considering Arizona's law is actually requiring cops to go beyond the scope of the above statement, expecting them to profile people based on race, I think the fourth amendment to the constitution sums up nicely why this new law is illegal:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It is absolutely constitutional to require proof of citizenship....we do it for voting, we do it for a drivers license, we do it for all kinds of things. To think the police cannot ask for it is absolutely absurd.

A crime has to be committed, not invented. I don't understand how someone with such libertarian viewpoints as yourself can stomach such police actions.

Oh wait, the only people affected will be "darkies", not us gueros. Now I get why you're ok with it.

[RedScare]

Lets take your example and run with it.....so a Texas Game Warden watches a guy fishing with a throw net (illegal) keeping undersized trout from that throw net (illegal) without a license (illegal) and dumping his trash on the beach (illegal). When he approaches the guy he says, let me see your fishing license so I can write you a ticket for breaking the law. Guy replies, I dont have one. Ok, let me see your drivers license or id card, so I can write you a ticket. Guy replies - I dont have one. Why the heck, should the game warden not be allowed to arrest him on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant in addition to his other infractions?

If he writes the guy a ticket and releases him he will just move places and continue...he has nothing to lose, there are no repercussions for breaking the law. I personally think that the game warden should arrest the guy. ICE should come get him, verify his status, and if he is here illegally he should be deported back to _________and the _________ government should reimburse us for every penny it costs us to get him back to __________. If they do not reimburse us for this, then we should slap a 20% "fee" on all wire transfers originating in the United States and going to ___________. That money can then be used to further continue to deport the _____________ people back to ___________.

The Arizona law is not perfect, but I have no problem at all letting a cop verify citizenship once someone is already caught breaking the law. All the Arizona law did was make it a State crime to break a Federal law. I have no problem with it at all.

Because state and local law enforcement agents do not have the authority to enforce federal law. HOWEVER, there is no reason that the game warden cannot arrest the fisherman on the fishing infractions. Once at the jail, the jailers may notify ICE that the arrestee may not be legal. Once ICE confirms same, a hold is placed on the illegal fisherman.

For a lawyer, you sure have a weak understanding of law...especially the Constitution.

[Jeebus]

Considering Arizona's law is actually requiring cops to go beyond the scope of the above statement, expecting them to profile people based on race,

Can you cite in the new bill where it states that?

I think the fourth amendment to the constitution sums up nicely why this new law is illegal:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A crime has to be committed, not invented. I don't understand how someone with such libertarian viewpoints as yourself can stomach such police actions.

Oh wait, the only people affected will be "darkies", not us gueros. Now I get why you're ok with it.

I guess that's the eternal loop-hole, in that how can you determine one's rights until you have determined their eligibility to fall under the law that protects said rights?

As for the "darkie" comment, people of all color will be affected by this. Turn the tongue-in-cheek racism down a notch, huh?