60% think AZ law "ok"... or not strong enough

[Peikko 1,575]

maybe you should watch a little news or read others posts & not fixate on the exceptionality of your own.

oh okay, its only chestbeating & grandstanding when others do it...i got it now.

Ah, it's suggestions for better uses for Cleo's time day is it? Carry on, I'm all eyes.

[SMOKE 1,426]

did i miss something someone else said?

Edited May 4, 2010 by SMOKE

[Peikko 1,575]

did i miss something someone else said?

I guess so. You are the second person today to suggest that my time could be better spent elsewhere.

It's a trend, you might be right at that

[SMR 368]

One in two Americans say it is "very likely" that the law "will lead to police officers detaining people of certain racial or ethnic groups more frequently than other racial or ethnic groups." Another 32 percent say that prospect is "somewhat likely." Just 15 percent do not expect some racial or ethnic groups to be affected more than others.

This doesn't mean that these Americans think the law is racist or even profiling. The fact is, the illegal population is disproportionately made up of people from certain racial and ethnic groups. Most Americans are aware of that and don't live in some sort of illusion. That is, if a disproportionate number of illegals were white, it wouldn't be surprising, racist, or require profiling, to expect that a disproportionate number of illegals detained are white. It's just common sense.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

oh okay, its only chestbeating & grandstanding when others do it...i got it now.

Nothing about what you've written below is factual - it's some garish caricature you've cooked up of the "left" and anyone you've decided fits into that little box must therefore subscribe to all of it:

'The Nazi, Racist angle failed!'

no Danno i think it worked. it has galvanized support for the law.

if you oppose cap & tax - you're a racist.

if you oppose healthcare take over - you're a racist.

if you oppose sweetie deals for hedge funds - you're a racist.

if you support immigration enforcement - you're a racist.

if you play the race card w/o warrant - you're screwed, you lose.

people are sick & tired of this old hack & smear sh!t from the left.

At least when I berate BY, its based on things that he has unambiguously, unequivocally stated.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Nothing about what you've written below is factual - it's some garish caricature you've cooked up of the "left" and anyone you've decided fits into that little box must therefore subscribe to all of it:

At least when I berate BY, its based on things that he has unambiguously, unequivocally stated.

everything in that box is factual. every single word. it happened here & it happened in the media.

since you took offense, does that mean you finally admit to being a little more than left of center?

its good to see you finally admit you DO berate others here...you're making progress.

[Peikko 1,575]

This doesn't mean that these Americans think the law is racist or even profiling. The fact is, the illegal population is disproportionately made up of people from certain racial and ethnic groups. Most Americans are aware of that and don't live in some sort of illusion. That is, if a disproportionate number of illegals were white, it wouldn't be surprising, racist, or require profiling, to expect that a disproportionate number of illegals detained are white. It's just common sense.

Common sense? Wrapping prejudice up as common sense is not new, nor is it acceptable. It is not acceptable to target people because they look as though they belong to an ethnic or demographic group just because there is X% of undocumented/unauthorized migrants from that ethnic or demographic group. Being aware of the numbers is one thing, but using the numbers to promote prejudicial behaviour is quite another.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

everything in that box is factual. every single word. it happened here & it happened in the media.

Which only has relevance if you're applying some cookie cutter standard to everyone you associate with "the left".

since you took offense, does that mean you finally admit to being a little more than left of center?

Most people are to the left on some issues and to the right on others. It's only extremists who take the all or nothing approach to claim the wings as being their exclusive, god-given territory.

its good to see you finally admit you DO berate others here...you're making progress.

I thought you had made some progress a while back - but here you are pushing disingenuous garbage to get your jollies.

[Peikko 1,575]

Let's try an example that has no racial context to try to break though.

In this hypothetical example, a traffic cop notices that out of 100 arrests he has made for driving under the influence, more than 75 drivers were driving a white car. He also notices that approximately 1/4 of the cars on the road are white. Using that information he decides to target drivers of white cars in order to make best use of his time, from now on he will only ever stop white cars. Is this applying the law in a fair and rational way? Can it be justified if it saves the department money?

[SMOKE 1,426]

1.Which only has relevance if you're applying some cookie cutter standard to everyone you associate with "the left".

2.Most people are to the left on some issues and to the right on others. It's only extremists who take the all or nothing approach to claim the wings as being their exclusive, god-given territory.

3.I thought you had made some progress a while back - but here you are pushing disingenuous garbage to get your jollies.

1. as if it wasn't common to do so in VJ's OT. double standards???

2. so a no response. but, still take a swipe at christians...classy like always.

3. i've busy at work, so i didn't have much time to respond to your verbal diarrhea. unlike sUme, my opinions usually doesn't change w/ the direction of the PC wind here on VJ.

remember - i posted my view w/o singling out anyone...except the left. you quoted it & started w/ your usual....so back to the non response.

do you admit to being a little more than left of center?

[SMOKE 1,426]

Let's try an example that has no racial context to try to break though.

yes lets do it. start now, because that last 'hypothetical example' was loaded w/ racial innuendo.

[Peikko 1,575]

yes lets do it. start now, because that last 'hypothetical example' was loaded w/ racial innuendo.

It was? Explain?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

1. as if it wasn't common to do so in VJ's OT. double standards???

Let me get this straight: Because you've read others make lazy cookie cutter arguments, it is your opinion that it is therefore OK to make lazy cookie-cutter arguments. What kind of standards are these?

At your job do you work just hard enough not to get fired?

3. i've busy at work, so i didn't have much time to respond to your verbal diarrhea. unlike sUme, my opinions usually doesn't change w/ the direction of the PC wind here on VJ.

Not that I really care, but I do wonder why you want me to be aware that you don't have time to respond to my "verbal diarrhea"; but can still find time to type out a multiple paragraph post.

remember - i posted my view w/o singling out anyone...except the left. you quoted it & started w/ your usual....so back to the non response.

If you think my taking a "swipe" at Christians (if that's what you believe it to be) is "classy", then why would you do the same thing to "the left". Isn't that a contradiction?

Again, what kind of standards are you trying to promote here?

do you admit to being a little more than left of center?

Sure, why not.

[sachinky 465]

Let's try an example that has no racial context to try to break though.

In this hypothetical example, a traffic cop notices that out of 100 arrests he has made for driving under the influence, more than 75 drivers were driving a white car. He also notices that approximately 1/4 of the cars on the road are white. Using that information he decides to target drivers of white cars in order to make best use of his time, from now on he will only ever stop white cars. Is this applying the law in a fair and rational way? Can it be justified if it saves the department money?

I see what you're saying here but I guess the problem with this analogy is that it can be turned right around--how about we try this another way? The police get word that the suspect in a kidnapping case is driving a red car. Should the cops stop every single car on the roads (white, blue, green) just to be politically correct and fair to the criminal? Or should they pin-point the red cars in order to apprehend the kidnapper as quickly as possible?

[Dan J 277]

There are people who accept the erosion of civil liberties as long as it doesn't affect them. Of course once it does affect them, its likely too late to do anything about it.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."