The Big Tent contributors are followers of Alfred Thayer Mahan.
Yeah, it does. If I get stopped for speeding with my wife in the car that implies "reasonable suspicion" for the police to ask my wife -- who does not drive -- for proof of citizenship that she does not carry on her because who among us does? It adds an extra burden of proof on my wife that you don't have. And while I appreciate the depth of political engagement of CBS Sports, his entire argument is a red herring -- some untold number of illegal immigrants are being attacked, kidnapped, what have you and so my wife has to show her "papers" if some cop decides to get on a power trip? My friend Jaime, an American citizen who lives in Mesa, now has to prove his citizenship if he has one beer too many at a ballgame? dcat
Clearly, the solution here is to cater to countries who clearly have the moral high ground over us. Like apologizing to China and allowing the President of Mexico to criticize the law on U.S. soil.
Or maybe, just maybe, the idiots who are criticizing this law should read it before they shoot their stupid mouths off. Just a suggestion.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/98907-calderon-condemns-ariz-immigration-law-in-joint-session-speech-to-congressAnd the Dems stand and applaud...
Paul -- I have no idea what your first comment has to do with anything. What do you mean by "allow" the President of Mexico to criticize American policies on US soil? American presidents have long criticized leaders on their soil when necessary. What were we to do? As for your second deeply insightful comment, what idiots are you talking about? Me? Because I'll go a few rounds with you over reading comprehension. The law is ofensive -- moderately less so after its revision -- hint: why did it need revision? -- but still it gives the police the authority to question my wife about her citizenship for any reason they deem fit.dcat
Derek,Are you stupid, blind, or do you just not follow this stuff very closely?Holder, Napolitano, and Obama all admitted that they hadn't read the bill that they went out and criticized. Now they are going to challenge it in court. (Funny how the New Black Panthers didn't get prosecuted for voter intimidation under Obama's justice department, but somehow Arizonans are racist.)As for Calderon criticizing our laws on our soil, maybe he should take care of business in his own country and all those illegal immigrants would stop coming here. His country's laws are draconian compared to Arizona's and he has the nerve to criticize?Your wife is perfectly safe. As is any American who carries any form of ID. Straw man.
I'll respond to Paul in the usual way. I'll quote him and I'll preface my words with ***:"Are you stupid, blind, or do you just not follow this stuff very closely?"*** Really, Paul? Is this gonna be a test of intelligence, you versus me? Because I'm pretty cozy with that idea. Let's always assume that I'm smarter than you, I know the facts better than do you, and I can articulate the arguments better than you. Have you ever noticed that on this conservative blog when you spew your vitriol no one actually weighs in to defend you? Tom, Tootle, Greg? They leave you alone? I email these guys regularly. You are the clown they wish would disappear."Holder, Napolitano, and Obama all admitted that they hadn't read the bill that they went out and criticized."*** Citation please? Oh: And you are not arguing with them. You are arguing with me. Pay attention. It's not that fucking hard. "Now they are going to challenge it in court."*** Not sure that's an argument in your favor, but ok. "(Funny how the New Black Panthers didn't get prosecuted for voter intimidation under Obama's justice department, but somehow Arizonans are racist.)"*** Relevance? The "New Black Panthers" have done what with the imprimatur of the state, exactly? "As for Calderon criticizing our laws on our soil, maybe he should take care of business in his own country and all those illegal immigrants would stop coming here."*** So you're making a different argument now, eh? Mexico has its own problems. I suspect I can articulate those better than you can, which is admittedly not a very high bar to jump. But that doesn't really change the fact that if he shows up on American soil and criticizes American policy you have not really laid out a plan of international censorship. Shall we throw a head of state in jail? I'm curious what your solution is."His country's laws are draconian compared to Arizona's and he has the nerve to criticize?"*** Again: relevance? "Your wife is perfectly safe. As is any American who carries any form of ID."*** What ID? I'm just curious. My wife does not drive. So she does not carry a license. And of course a license is not sufficient according to the law as it is written, a law that you seem quite quick to be defending despite the fact that -- oh gosh, what a surprise -- you seem not to have read yourself."Straw man."*** Not quite. I'm thinking you don't actually know what a straw man is. Then again, that's just the tip of the iceberg of what you do not know. Again, Paul -- note how none of the contributors to this blog, all conservatives, ever rise to your defense. And yet every single one of the contributors to this blog is much, much, much, much, much smarter than you. Sorry, fella. If I get stopped for speeding, my wife may have to prove her citizenship in the face of some overaggressive cop. The fact that you don't recognize that as a problem makes you a bad conservative, and a bad libertarian. It might, however, confirm that you are a racist. Yeah. It might just. dcat
Well, if what Derek said is true, then the other contributors to this blog should come out and confirm it. If I'm a clown who needs to disappear, just tell me and I'll disappear. But if Derek is just blowing smoke then that needs to be confirmed as well.
Paul is not a clown and he should not disappear.
I'm fine with adults handling their own debates (although I prefer that they do not hide behind anonymity).Although I am quite shy, I will jump in if I have something to add.
I didn't jump in on this because the debate seemed to be about the first version of the Arizona law, not the version that finally passed.
The second version of the law is the version of the law I have been discussing. If I were to be stopped for a crime in Arizona, whether I committed it or not, my wife, whose family has been in this country for as long or longer than anyone at Big Tent, would be subject to questions that no American citizen should have to be asked. I'm not "blowing smoke". I am responding to a pernicious law as written now, though the earlier version is still relevant to the discussion of the motives of those who wrote it. Racism it was, and racism it is. And most everyone here weighed in, and no one rose to Paul's defense. dcat
Derek, When I accused you of blowing smoke, I was referring to your comment that the other contributors to this blog think I'm a clown and should disappear Get a clue.
Post a Comment