Obama stops Sheriff Joe Arpaio from arresting illegal aliens!

[Joseph & Ana 0]

If you honestly believe that the ends justify the means as it pertains to things like infringements on the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens, then there isn't much left to discuss.

Its a strange way to promote "democracy" by endorsing totalitarianism in law enforcement.

As Benjamin Franklin famously said: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

But you're leaving out one important point. Liberals only agree with this quote when a Republican is president.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you honestly believe that the ends justify the means as it pertains to things like infringements on the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens, then there isn't much left to discuss.

Its a strange way to promote "democracy" by endorsing totalitarianism in law enforcement.

As Benjamin Franklin famously said: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

But you're leaving out one important point. Liberals only agree with this quote when a Republican is president.

That's not an important point Joe. Its your usual brand of dishonest sh!t.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't get the OP's thread title. Surely Obama isn't selling out so much as sticking with his liberal agenda. Not that clipping Sheriff Joe's personal agenda wings should be so horrifying for anyone that believes in the rule of law. The end does not justify the means if the means is subverting that rule of law.

I thought that was the conservatives latest biggest fear, the march of the brown shirts - Sheriff Joe type actions are pretty much grist for that particular mill.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If you honestly believe that the ends justify the means as it pertains to things like infringements on the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens, then there isn't much left to discuss.

Its a strange way to promote "democracy" by endorsing totalitarianism in law enforcement.

As Benjamin Franklin famously said: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

But you're leaving out one important point. Liberals only agree with this quote when a Republican is president.

How so?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If you honestly believe that the ends justify the means as it pertains to things like infringements on the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens, then there isn't much left to discuss.

Its a strange way to promote "democracy" by endorsing totalitarianism in law enforcement.

As Benjamin Franklin famously said: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

But you're leaving out one important point. Liberals only agree with this quote when a Republican is president.

How so?

That's what you libruls do when cornered. You ask questions meant to confuse. You bastards!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If you honestly believe that the ends justify the means as it pertains to things like infringements on the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens, then there isn't much left to discuss.

Its a strange way to promote "democracy" by endorsing totalitarianism in law enforcement.

As Benjamin Franklin famously said: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

But you're leaving out one important point. Liberals only agree with this quote when a Republican is president.

How so?

That's what you libruls do when cornered. You ask questions meant to confuse. You bastards!

What's confusing about the question?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If you honestly believe that the ends justify the means as it pertains to things like infringements on the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens, then there isn't much left to discuss.

Its a strange way to promote "democracy" by endorsing totalitarianism in law enforcement.

As Benjamin Franklin famously said: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

But you're leaving out one important point. Liberals only agree with this quote when a Republican is president.

How so?

That's what you libruls do when cornered. You ask questions meant to confuse. You bastards!

What's confusing about the question?

There ya go again.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

If you honestly believe that the ends justify the means as it pertains to things like infringements on the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens, then there isn't much left to discuss.

Its a strange way to promote "democracy" by endorsing totalitarianism in law enforcement.

As Benjamin Franklin famously said: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

But you're leaving out one important point. Liberals only agree with this quote when a Republican is president.

How so?

That's what you libruls do when cornered. You ask questions meant to confuse. You bastards!

What's confusing about the question?

There ya go again.

u guyz are awesomely entertaining.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The jail-screening effort helped officials catch nearly 30,000 illegal immigrants since the program began in February 2007, but it was the street-level enforcement that caused the most controversy and produced less substantial results, capturing about 264 illegal-immigration suspects.

The sentence you put in bold, and more importantly, the subsequent one that you failed to bold completely invalidates the sheriff's position. Furthermore, the sheriff has no authority to patrol for illegal immigrants on the street. That is the jurisdiction of ICE.

ouch

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If you honestly believe that the ends justify the means as it pertains to things like infringements on the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens, then there isn't much left to discuss.

Its a strange way to promote "democracy" by endorsing totalitarianism in law enforcement.

As Benjamin Franklin famously said: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

But you're leaving out one important point. Liberals only agree with this quote when a Republican is president.

How so?

That's what you libruls do when cornered. You ask questions meant to confuse. You bastards!

What's confusing about the question?

There ya go again.

Where?

[Heracles 417]

The jail-screening effort helped officials catch nearly 30,000 illegal immigrants since the program began in February 2007, but it was the street-level enforcement that caused the most controversy and produced less substantial results, capturing about 264 illegal-immigration suspects.

The sentence you put in bold, and more importantly, the subsequent one that you failed to bold completely invalidates the sheriff's position. Furthermore, the sheriff has no authority to patrol for illegal immigrants on the street. That is the jurisdiction of ICE.

ICE is cannot be expect to be everywhere. Common sense and clearly something that eludes you. The Sheriff should have the right to arrest these individuals and then send them to ICE. Sounds like you're proposing that illegal aliens should basically be above the law, all in the name of not discriminating.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Sounds like you're proposing that illegal aliens should basically be above the law ...

Sounds to me like they don't teach ya to read down under.

[Heracles 417]

If you honestly believe that the ends justify the means as it pertains to things like infringements on the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens, then there isn't much left to discuss.

Its a strange way to promote "democracy" by endorsing totalitarianism in law enforcement.

As Benjamin Franklin famously said: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

You guys are full of it considering how strict European laws are against illegal aliens. They cannot even burp without being being deported.

[Peikko 1,575]

The jail-screening effort helped officials catch nearly 30,000 illegal immigrants since the program began in February 2007, but it was the street-level enforcement that caused the most controversy and produced less substantial results, capturing about 264 illegal-immigration suspects.

The sentence you put in bold, and more importantly, the subsequent one that you failed to bold completely invalidates the sheriff's position. Furthermore, the sheriff has no authority to patrol for illegal immigrants on the street. That is the jurisdiction of ICE.

ICE is cannot be expect to be everywhere. Common sense and clearly something that eludes you. The Sheriff should have the right to arrest these individuals and then send them to ICE. Sounds like you're proposing that illegal aliens should basically be above the law, all in the name of not discriminating.

Should have? Maybe, maybe not but currently he does not. It isn't the illegal aliens that are/want to be 'above' the law

[Heracles 417]

Sounds like you're proposing that illegal aliens should basically be above the law ...

Sounds to me like they don't teach ya to read down under.

No I just read through the bullshit.

Yes, the same way it's quite clear over the years that you are racist against Caucasians might I add. Yet cover it up with a it's those rednecks you don't like.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Booyah!