Breaking: Judge grants injunction on most vehemently opposed parts of AZ law!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You can always tell when someone is losing an argument...they resort to personal insults.

There's no personal insult in there. I'm commenting on how your political positions are incongruous to your claim to love the Constitution and what this country stands for. It is not off topic nor against the TOS to comment on advocacy positions or to make observations about posters positions and ideologies. If I had made derogatory comments about your personality, lifestyle, intelligence or appearance, that would be insulting.

However, may also you need guidance re when someone is arguing with you. At this time, I am not since I am taking time to review (not just read) the ruling before I offer my opinion, so I have lost nothing.

BTW, despite the gloating, this ruling did not preclude police from questioning and investigating a suspect's immigration status. They simply can't be required to investigate every suspect's status. Also, Title 8, Sec. 1304 requires legal immigrants to carry their status papers and to present them upon request. That is a federal statute, so it is incorrect to advice LPR's not to carry them. It is also sloppy for the judge to rule that immigration papers are not required. She doesn't have the authority to forbid that requirement under this lawsuit.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I don't recall ever reading what your background in law is, so please to state it, unless you are talking about your self-educational reading up on the constitution and legal matters. In that case, that is not a background in law any more than me driving too fast on the freeway will qualify me for the Nascar circuit. But I would wager that your education and experience in the legal field is significantly less than that of a federal judge.

:rofl: This is hilarious. Two self-styled legal know-nothings challenging someone else on what they know about Constitutional law.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

There's no law requiring immigrants to carry and present status papers.

There's a law that says permanent residents or those on a valid visa must be able to document themselves.

Did you read that before you posted it?

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

There's no personal insult in there. I'm commenting on how your political positions are incongruous to your claim to love the Constitution and what this country stands for. It is not off topic nor against the TOS to comment on advocacy positions or to make observations about posters positions and ideologies. If I had made derogatory comments about your personality, lifestyle, intelligence or appearance, that would be insulting.

I could say that you are a fascist based on your posts but that would be inflammatory and against TOS. If you continue to make such inflammatory remarks designed to deliberately mischaracterize my position(s) or what I've said, I'll call you on it and take further action. You're teetering on being libelous.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I could say that you are a fascist based on your posts but that would be inflammatory and against TOS. If you continue to make such inflammatory remarks designed to deliberately mischaracterize my position(s) or what I've said, I'll call you on it and take further action. You're teetering on being libelous.

Oh, so now you're a judge. You're not even a mod. But, you are awfully defensive, and for no reason I can tell, since I have mischaracterized nothing, nor overstepped my bounds to express a legitimate opinion about your positions and claims. Is it getting a bit arduous defending indefensible positions? Is that what's really eating at you, Stevie?

[Peikko 1,575]

I could say that you are a fascist based on your posts but that would be inflammatory and against TOS. If you continue to make such inflammatory remarks designed to deliberately mischaracterize my position(s) or what I've said, I'll call you on it and take further action. You're teetering on being libelous.

Would it be inflammatory and against TOS because it is a false accusation, or because calling someone a facist is name calling, regardless of whether it is true ?

Edited July 29, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Would it be inflammatory and against TOS because it is a false accusation, or because calling someone a facist is name calling, regardless of whether it is true ?

IMO the term facist is neutral. History has painted it in a negative light, but on the surface its neutral.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Sousuke

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Would it be inflammatory and against TOS because it is a false accusation, or because calling someone a facist is name calling, regardless of whether it is true ?

What's the substantive difference between fascist and right wingnut, teabagger, and the other perjoratives used against conservatives?

I did not indulge in name calling with Stevie anyway, so the comparison is incorrect.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

What's the substantive difference between fascist and right wingnut, teabagger, and the other perjoratives used against conservatives?

I did not indulge in name calling with Stevie anyway, so the comparison is incorrect.

Stop trolling.

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

Oh, so now you're a judge. You're not even a mod. But, you are awfully defensive, and for no reason I can tell, since I have mischaracterized nothing, nor overstepped my bounds to express a legitimate opinion about your positions and claims. Is it getting a bit arduous defending indefensible positions? Is that what's really eating at you, Stevie?

Stick to arguing the subject at hand or don't post if all you are going to make personal swipes with someone you disagree with. It's really that simple.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

What's the substantive difference between fascist and right wingnut, teabagger, and the other perjoratives used against conservatives?

I did not indulge in name calling with Stevie anyway, so the comparison is incorrect.

Well the term fascist does not imply you are mentally unstable, or like putting your ####### (if you were a man) on people's faces.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Sousuke

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Stick to arguing the subject at hand or don't post if all you are going to make personal swipes with someone you disagree with. It's really that simple.

You're not the boss of me. I haven't done anything more than hit a nerve with you by speaking the truth in a way that annoys you, but that doesn't constitute a violation of the TOS.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Peikko 1,575]

Well the term fascist does not imply you are mentally unstable, or like putting your ####### (if you were a man) on people's faces.

I have to agree, facist is legitimate terminology so if one can give adequate proof of adherence to facist idelogy when applying it, then using it is acurate and neither insulting nor derogatory.

[justashooter 430]

There's no law requiring immigrants to carry and present status papers.

There's a law that says permanent residents or those on a valid visa must be able to document themselves.

the law specifically states that they must be in posession of the docs at all times.

[Peikko 1,575]

What's the substantive difference between fascist and right wingnut, teabagger, and the other perjoratives used against conservatives?

I did not indulge in name calling with Stevie anyway, so the comparison is incorrect.

What has that got to do with it? Either facist is a legitimage term for someone who is of a particular ideological persuasion, or it is not. Whether or not you hurl insults is neither here nor there.