Completely Lost Their Minds

[sonnyp]

this was the response from the democratic congress of the united states to a foreign leader on our soil criticizing the actions of a soverign state attempting to protect it's border :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVQwZFDq6ic

[boxcar]

this was the response from the democratic congress of the united states to a foreign leader on our soil criticizing the actions of a soverign state attempting to protect it's border :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVQwZFDq6ic

Of course, they would applaud another leftist. They all believe America, and all that she stands for, is what's wrong with the entire planet.

When this country falls (and I believe it will be soon) the noise will be heard around the globe as the last bastion to Individual Liberties dies an agonizing death. Virtually the whole world is waiting for us to fall in line with all the other regimes.

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

in many ways I think we will look back on this week as a real turning point, a watershed week in which all masks have slipped, all cards are now on the table, and everyone can now see which side people are on.

There can be no doubt after this week that the modern democratic party led by chairmen Obama is not on the side of America nor it allies. They're on the side of dictators, lawbreakers, and those who hate America domestically or abroad.

this spectacle of hauling in Calderone to read from Obama's teleprompter and to use a foreign leader to slam americans, well I said it earlier and I'll say it again, it's treasonous.

and that is the icing on the cake after earlier in the week when they revealed that this administration apologized repeatedly to China for the AZ law.

[sonnyp]

i never served in the military (im not running for office like that fraud blumenthaul so i have no problem revealing that). usually i don't think in terms of a G I's reaction to anything. but i've got to say, if i was in some godforsaken place with my butt out there on the line, supposedly fighting for the rights and freedom we enjoy back home...i would feel like a complete sucker after watching this.

here's an outsider criticizing one of our states for exercizing it's rights that im on the line to protect and this is the reaction of the democratic lawmakers making the decisions in this country ?

who the hell is zoomin who here ?

[ArlJim78]

watching the leader of a run down corrupt country like Mexico get a standing ovation from Democrats for trashing America's handling of HIS citizens who are here illegally by the millions is more than I can stand.

[JustRalph]

I was walking past the TV today and saw this...... I literally stopped in my tracks and felt great sadness for what I was observing.

I hope the Arizona Government responds to this. God knows our pinheads in Washington won't.............

[mostpost]

I was walking past the TV today and saw this...... I literally stopped in my tracks and felt great sadness for what I was observing.

I hope the Arizona Government responds to this. God knows our pinheads in Washington won't.............
You were walking by the TV; which means you did not see what came before or what came after. Someone posts a thirty second sound bite on YouTube and you think you know what was said.
Both before and after the videoed remarks, Calderone endorsed a comprehensive immigration plan. He defended the right of a sovereign nation to make its own laws. He decried the loss of valued Mexicans through illegal immigration. You can find the full speech at C-Span. Org. Just look for the video on Calderone's speech. The pertinent part starts at the 28 minute mark.

Democrats applauded because Calderone said he disagreed with the Arizona law. They disagree with it too. It is a stupid law. It is a racist law. It is an unconstitutional law. Apparently you think only Americans are entitled to an opinion.

[bigmack]

It is a stupid law. It is a racist law. It is an unconstitutional law. Apparently you think only Americans are entitled to an opinion.
:lol: You really are precious.

Have you heard anything about 1070 mirroring the Federal law?

[acorn54]

You were walking by the TV; which means you did not see what came before or what came after. Someone posts a thirty second sound bite on YouTube and you think you know what was said.
Both before and after the videoed remarks, Calderone endorsed a comprehensive immigration plan. He defended the right of a sovereign nation to make its own laws. He decried the loss of valued Mexicans through illegal immigration. You can find the full speech at C-Span. Org. Just look for the video on Calderone's speech. The pertinent part starts at the 28 minute mark.

Democrats applauded because Calderone said he disagreed with the Arizona law. They disagree with it too. It is a stupid law. It is a racist law. It is an unconstitutional law. Apparently you think only Americans are entitled to an opinion.
i don't think the republicans disagree with immigration reform AFTER our southern border is secured. otherwise you give amnesty to twelve million or more people to become u.s. citizens and then you have the rest of latin america saying "hey jorge we can get amnesty in america if we get there illegally."

[BlueShoe]

I refused to watch the charade, because I knew what was going to happen. From comments here and elsewhere, glad that I did not. Had I been an elected official that was in attendence, when Calderon started his tirade, I would have gotten up and walked out. Did anyone have the balls to do that, walk out? Have not heard about any person doing this, or did I miss it?

[sonnyp]

I would have gotten up and walked out. Did anyone have the balls to do that, walk out? Have not heard about any person doing this, or did I miss it?


BALLS ? are you old enough to remember a book JFK wrote, "profiles in courage" ? (im not opening a debate here whether JFK was a profile in courage or not) the book chronicled individuals in the government who planted their feet and took a stand despite knowing their stance meant political doom.

we have NO PROFILES IN COURAGE in government today.

you get elected, you check your balls at the door.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost/
It is a stupid law. It is a racist law. It is an unconstitutional law. Apparently you think only Americans are entitled to an opinion.


Specifically, what clauses are stupid, which are racist, and which are unconstitutional? Have you read it? :D

Only Americans are entitled on opinion in America. He can have all he wants on his side of the border.

The government, who works for us, and was elected by us, do NOT invite foreigners to OUR capital and give them a stage from which to criticize us. It is unacceptable. Everyone who applauded today needs to be dealt with. Especially that POS Ovomit.

This is Exactly the same as if FDR had invited Hitler to speak at the WH and criticize our lend/lease program. Exactly the same.

We need to replay the video over and over and over while we remove every single incumbent from office for sitting there and doing nothing. Every single one of them. Not a one them is an American. Not a one.

[sonnyp]

tom,

i don't necessarily agree with everything you say, but you have stated what i assumed would be obvious to anyone with any standard of what is right and wrong.

it takes a lot to shock me.....but what i witnessed today was absoultely appalling.

the people who participated in this display today have professed they no longer have an allegence to this country or its people.

[Tom]

Amen to that.
We can disagree on stuff....as long we agree on the important stuff.
That what Americans do.

We agree on congress.......the scumbags.

[BenDiesel26]

Mostpost, it's actually not unconstitutional. The law requires that suspects be stopped for a different crime before being questioned. This is actually much less lax than the federal law, which doesn't require a crime to be questioned about immigration status. And the US Supreme Court already ruled in 2005 that questioning a suspect whether alleged to have committed another crime or not about their immigration status does not violate their 4th Amendment Rights, so that argument is out the window. See Muehler, Darin v. Mena, Iris (3/22/2005).

In addition, it's not just Mexicans coming across the border. Check out these videos from a news station in Atlanta:

Video 1 (http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html)

Video 2 (http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438712/index.html)

[bigmack]

Mostpost, it's actually not unconstitutional.
Realize you're dealing with someone who just paid close attention to R.Maddow getting jiggy with a tuning fork.

That was as rich as I've ever seen. :lol:

Gather round kids, let me school you.

[JustRalph]

You were walking by the TV; which means you did not see what came before or what came after. Someone posts a thirty second sound bite on YouTube and you think you know what was said.
Both before and after the videoed remarks, Calderone endorsed a comprehensive immigration plan. He defended the right of a sovereign nation to make its own laws. He decried the loss of valued Mexicans through illegal immigration. You can find the full speech at C-Span. Org. Just look for the video on Calderone's speech. The pertinent part starts at the 28 minute mark.

Democrats applauded because Calderone said he disagreed with the Arizona law. They disagree with it too. It is a stupid law. It is a racist law. It is an unconstitutional law. Apparently you think only Americans are entitled to an opinion.

no, what I think (and btw I did watch the whole thing tonight online) is that the Mexican President is a disingenuous lying bastard. He doesn't' want any of the shit that he proclaimed today. He wants things to remain the same so he and his countrymen can continue to profit on the labor of the millions of illeg. aliens that send money home every week.

He was participating in a play today. He was a central character in a farce of great proportions. He and Obama and the complicit Dems/Left acted out their parts to perfection. The Left/Dems see voters and not illeg. aliens. They want to add 15 million new Dems to the rolls. They don't give a shit about the country or those who work for a living and they never have. They care not for the State budgets that are being busted everywhere by illeg. aliens. They care not for the small business persons who are competing with illeg. businesses all over the country. They care about one thing. 15 million new Dem voters.

The Mexican President is a piece of crap with a penchant for lying. He consorts with the most corrupt government in the world and then comes to Washington expecting to be treated like a king and Obama and the left oblige him. They treat him like royalty and allow him to traipse into the seat of our government and denigrate a state that legally, with forethought and allegiance to their own principals and needs, passed a law that is no different than the laws that the Federal Government have refused to enforce. In fact it is less stringent than the Federal law. But knowing that the State may take it serious, the left springs up in arms to cackle and caterwaul because it may infringe on their ability to maintain power in the future. This is tantamount to casting the State adrift and insulting every citizen of Arizona.

It is inflammatory, deceptive and wholly against what the citizens of the country believe. The latest polls show that over 80 percent of the country is for the Arizona law. How can Obama and the left be more wrong headed ?

This is going to get more and more nasty. When Arizona starts asking for Volunteers to help their State, and the country rally's behind them.....think of the Mexican President and his speech today. This insult will not be forgotten.

The law is not racist, it is not unconstitutional and it is not stupid when 70 percent of the State in which it is passed supports it. You can't get 70 percent of people in any State to agree on anything, but they did on this issue. It is a transformational moment in Arizona history. Yet you belittle it without just cause. Your motives are obvious.

[boxcar]

no, what I think (and btw I did watch the whole thing tonight online) is that the Mexican President is a disingenuous lying bastard. He doesn't' want any of the shit that he proclaimed today. He wants things to remain the same so he and his countrymen can continue to profit on the labor of the millions of illeg. aliens that send money home every week.

He was participating in a play today. He was a central character in a farce of great proportions. He and Obama and the complicit Dems/Left acted out their parts to perfection. The Left/Dems see voters and not illeg. aliens. They want to add 15 million new Dems to the rolls. They don't give a shit about the country or those who work for a living and they never have. They care not for the State budgets that are being busted everywhere by illeg. aliens. They care not for the small business persons who are competing with illeg. businesses all over the country. They care about one thing. 15 million new Dem voters.

The Mexican President is a piece of crap with a penchant for lying. He consorts with the most corrupt government in the world and then comes to Washington expecting to be treated like a king and Obama and the left oblige him. They treat him like royalty and allow him to traipse into the seat of our government and denigrate a state that legally, with forethought and allegiance to their own principals and needs, passed a law that is no different than the laws that the Federal Government have refused to enforce. In fact it is less stringent than the Federal law. But knowing that the State may take it serious, the left springs up in arms to cackle and caterwaul because it may infringe on their ability to maintain power in the future. This is tantamount to casting the State adrift and insulting every citizen of Arizona.

It is inflammatory, deceptive and wholly against what the citizens of the country believe. The latest polls show that over 80 percent of the country is for the Arizona law. How can Obama and the left be more wrong headed ?

This is going to get more and more nasty. When Arizona starts asking for Volunteers to help their State, and the country rally's behind them.....think of the Mexican President and his speech today. This insult will not be forgotten.

The law is not racist, it is not unconstitutional and it is not stupid when 70 percent of the State in which it is passed supports it. You can't get 70 percent of people in any State to agree on anything, but they did on this issue. It is a transformational moment in Arizona history. Yet you belittle it without just cause. Your motives are obvious.

Good post, JR. Sadly, wasted on Mosty, who is not only the resident champion of Evil on this forum (with HCAP being only a nostril or a head behind at most), but astoundingly naive.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

You were walking by the TV; which means you did not see what came before or what came after. Someone posts a thirty second sound bite on YouTube and you think you know what was said.
Both before and after the videoed remarks, Calderone endorsed a comprehensive immigration plan. He defended the right of a sovereign nation to make its own laws. He decried the loss of valued Mexicans through illegal immigration. You can find the full speech at C-Span. Org. Just look for the video on Calderone's speech. The pertinent part starts at the 28 minute mark.

Democrats applauded because Calderone said he disagreed with the Arizona law. They disagree with it too. It is a stupid law. It is a racist law. It is an unconstitutional law. Apparently you think only Americans are entitled to an opinion.

Tell us, Mosty -- enlighten those of us who you think sit in darkness in the valley of death. Tell us how the AZ law differs from Federal immigration law materially that would make the former racist, but the latter not. Take your time with this. Think it through. Answer carefully.

Boxcar

[newtothegame]

spin away mosty...we await!!!
maybe you should round up your posse like cap...dogg...nj...hazzard....etc etc and between all of you all, you should be able to answer these simple questions for the great state of arizona and its residents as well as us!

[johnhannibalsmith]

Specifically, what clauses are stupid, which are racist, and which are unconstitutional? Have you read it? :D
...

Tom, you clearly are not a Rhodes Scholar. A certain Rhodes Scholar that by definition cannot be a dolt has likely helped shaped Mr. Ostpost's sentiments.

[PaceAdvantage]

no, what I think (and btw I did watch the whole thing tonight online) is that the Mexican President is a disingenuous lying bastard. He doesn't' want any of the shit that he proclaimed today. He wants things to remain the same so he and his countrymen can continue to profit on the labor of the millions of illeg. aliens that send money home every week.

He was participating in a play today. He was a central character in a farce of great proportions. He and Obama and the complicit Dems/Left acted out their parts to perfection. The Left/Dems see voters and not illeg. aliens. They want to add 15 million new Dems to the rolls. They don't give a shit about the country or those who work for a living and they never have. They care not for the State budgets that are being busted everywhere by illeg. aliens. They care not for the small business persons who are competing with illeg. businesses all over the country. They care about one thing. 15 million new Dem voters.

The Mexican President is a piece of crap with a penchant for lying. He consorts with the most corrupt government in the world and then comes to Washington expecting to be treated like a king and Obama and the left oblige him. They treat him like royalty and allow him to traipse into the seat of our government and denigrate a state that legally, with forethought and allegiance to their own principals and needs, passed a law that is no different than the laws that the Federal Government have refused to enforce. In fact it is less stringent than the Federal law. But knowing that the State may take it serious, the left springs up in arms to cackle and caterwaul because it may infringe on their ability to maintain power in the future. This is tantamount to casting the State adrift and insulting every citizen of Arizona.

It is inflammatory, deceptive and wholly against what the citizens of the country believe. The latest polls show that over 80 percent of the country is for the Arizona law. How can Obama and the left be more wrong headed ?

This is going to get more and more nasty. When Arizona starts asking for Volunteers to help their State, and the country rally's behind them.....think of the Mexican President and his speech today. This insult will not be forgotten.

The law is not racist, it is not unconstitutional and it is not stupid when 70 percent of the State in which it is passed supports it. You can't get 70 percent of people in any State to agree on anything, but they did on this issue. It is a transformational moment in Arizona history. Yet you belittle it without just cause. Your motives are obvious.Bravo Ralph. Nothing more need be stated.

[hazzardm]

spin away mosty...we await!!!
maybe you should round up your posse like cap...dogg...nj...hazzard....etc etc and between all of you all, you should be able to answer these simple questions for the great state of arizona and its residents as well as us!

Two hundred people in Louisiana have a maroon for a manager. Let the record show I am the first forum poster in favor of this new AZ law. Get a clue.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=68950

[Tom]

A maroon?
What is that, half red, half blue? :lol:

[hazzardm]

A maroon?
What is that, half red, half blue? :lol:

Politeness ;)

[BlueShoe]

BALLS ? are you old enough to remember a book JFK wrote, "profiles in courage" ? the book chronicled individuals in the government who planted their feet and took a stand despite knowing their stance meant political doom.

we have NO PROFILES IN COURAGE in government today.

you get elected, you check your balls at the door.
It would seem that on this issue the person with the largest balls is Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.

[boxcar]

It would seem that on this issue the person with the largest balls is Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.

If Margaret Thatcher is following these events, she must be proud of this gal. Probably thinks of her as a soul sister. :D

Boxcar

[Tom]

The NY Times……what a rag.

When we hit 1,000 fatalities in Iraq (Bush) is was plastered over Page 1 above the fold. Last week, when we hit 1,000 if Afghanistan (Ovomit) is was a mention on page 11.

This week, covering Michelle and the Mexican Garbage’s wife meeting an illegal alien’s child in a school, they lamented that the child, who was upset because “Mommy doesn’t have any papers” portrayed her as the poster child of the immigration problem.

Rush suggested that a better poster child might be one of the children of a murdered border patrol agent, or one whose father was murdered on American streets by an illegal.

I agree.
GD Michelle, the bitch.
GD the Mexican bitch as well
GD Ovomit

[mostpost]

Tell us, Mosty -- enlighten those of us who you think sit in darkness in the valley of death. Tell us how the AZ law differs from Federal immigration law materially that would make the former racist, but the latter not. Take your time with this. Think it through. Answer carefully.

Boxcar
I confess that I cannot answer the question as you posed it. (BTW I fully expect you to take that sentence out of context.) I am not expert on Federal immigration law, as I am sure you are. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The problem with the Arizona law lies in the phrase "Reasonable suspicion." How does one determine if "reasonable suspicion" exists that a person is in this country illegally. Is the criterion that the person "appears" to be Hispanic. There are 47 million american citizens of Hispanic descent. Estimates are that there are between 11 and 12 million illegal hispanic aliens. This is in addition to the 47 million. Therefore there is an 80% chance that an Hispanic "appearing person is here legally. How then can "reasonable suspicion" be based on appearance.
If not appearance than what would "reasonable suspicion" be based upon?

Do you expect that an Arizona law enforcement officer who stops a blue eyed, blonde haired woman will ask for ID on the suspicion that she he is a member of the Swedish bikini team in the country illegally?
The law targets one class of persons. It assumes that that class is guilty because they belong to that class. It opens the way to too many possibilities for abuse.

[bigmack]

The problem with the Arizona law lies in the phrase "Reasonable suspicion." How does one determine if "reasonable suspicion" exists that a person is in this country illegally.
Careful of sucking on that MSNBC pipe.

Only after contact with law enforcement & they ask for ID, such as DL, Passport, SS Card... If they don't have such documents THEN there is reasonable suspicion that the person is undocumented. GET IT????

Not reasonable suspicion of someone in an ice cream shop like some moron told an imbecilic story about.

Shit, get your head out of your can, or in the least get your head out of MSNBC. :bang:

[JustRalph]

Mosty, you prove how uninformed you are of the ways of Law Enforcement

That's not how it works. You are just plain wrong. Btw, Megyn Kelly covered the law pretty well on the Leprechauns show last night. And Btw, before you get your tits in an uproar.......she is a lawyer with a decent reputation, which is how she ended up on Fox.

5cDdXqz22v4

[Show Me the Wire]

.....The problem with the Arizona law lies in the phrase "Reasonable suspicion." How does one determine if "reasonable suspicion" exists that a person is in this country illegally. Is the criterion that the person "appears" to be Hispanic. There are 47 million american citizens of Hispanic descent. Estimates are that there are between 11 and 12 million illegal hispanic aliens. This is in addition to the 47 million. Therefore there is an 80% chance that an Hispanic "appearing person is here legally. How then can "reasonable suspicion" be based on appearance.
If not appearance than what would "reasonable suspicion" be based upon?....


The same standard all reasonable suspiscion clauses adhere too. What would a reasonable police officer believe under the circumstances.

For example, to answer your question if an officer stops a speeding car and the driver speaks the following phrase, "No hablo inglese" I believe the officer would have reasonable suspicion or probabale cause to believe the driver entered the country unlawfully, absent the driver producing a visa and the officer would be justified in checking the driver's immigration status.

[boxcar]

I confess that I cannot answer the question as you posed it. (BTW I fully expect you to take that sentence out of context.) I am not expert on Federal immigration law, as I am sure you are. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You "CAN'T" answer it. Okay...Try these. Maybe they'll be a little less taxing on the aging, creaking rotting wood floor of your cerebral attic :rolleyes: --
What has made you think all this time -- all these many years -- that Federal Immigration Law is non-discriminatory? Why haven't we heard about how Nazi-like the U.S. government is with its Federal Immigration Law? Why haven't we heard about how anti-American it is for a federal law enforcement officer to demand to see someone's "papers'? Where have all the outcries been when the ICE makes RAIDS upon places of business for the sole purpose of apprehending illegal aliens? In short, the Left has never complained about the unconstitutionality of any Federal Immigration Law. Why is that?

And by the way, I venture to say that I know more about both sets of laws than you ever will (since your own desire is to parrot the Party line in ignorance). If you doubt this, then answer the original question. I'll be happy to strut my stuff for you. ;)


The problem with the Arizona law lies in the phrase "Reasonable suspicion."

Then you must have a ton of problems with this phrase because it is used in untold numbers of laws across the land in order to prohibit unlawful search and seizures of all varieties. For example, a police officer cannot demand to search my vehicle unless he has good grounds. He must have a legitimate, LAWFUL reason that would justify that suspicion. But this is the first we're hearing from you on this matter. Where have your objections been to this phrase all these many years? :rolleyes: But daily people have their cars searched for one reason or another, as just one example. Yet, where are all the lawsuits in the federal courts about the unconstitutionality of this phrase? If this was such a problematic phrase, the courts should be overrun with them! :bang: :bang: Don't ya think? I mean we're dealing here with civil rights issues. :rolleyes: But we don't see this, do we? So, it's reasonable to conclude, therefore, that you're erecting an easily destroyed straw man.

Further, would not "reasonable suspicion" consist of something out of the ordinary -- something uncommon. For example, let's say I'm a cop on the beat in my shiny new patrol car. And there are a couple of schools in my assigned area that I patrol daily. One day I drive by and I notice an unkempt, gruffy-lookin' kinda guy standing at the chain link fence watching little kids play in the school yard. I drive by 20 minutes later and the guy is still there staring at the kids. I drive by 15 minutes later and he's still there -- staring motionless at the kids. I say to "self" -- Self, this is kinda unusual. It's out of the ordinary. This is something I haven't exactly witnessed every day. I reason: If it were a parent, he'd go in and get his kid. Or at the very least have something that resembles normal interaction with someone. Would I not have reasonable grounds to stop my car, get out and question this guy? Would I not be in my full rights to demand to see his I.D.? Would not his unusual behavior for that length of time constitute "reasonable suspicion", which would provide the lawful reason in the first place? :rolleyes:

You're going to have to erect a far better straw man than this, Mosty.

Boxcar

[BenDiesel26]

The same standard all reasonable suspiscion clauses adhere too.

Exactly. So far, I've yet to see anybody: mostpost, BO, Holder, etc. that has a problem with the actual law it self. They have a problem with the police officers, as is made clear by mostpost a few posts back.

[boxcar]

Mosty, you prove how uninformed you are of the ways of Law Enforcement

That's not how it works. You are just plain wrong. Btw, Megyn Kelly covered the law pretty well on the Leprechauns show last night. And Btw, before you get your tits in an uproar.......she is a lawyer with a decent reputation, which is how she ended up on Fox.

Geesh, JR, I ain't a happy camper with you. :mad: I knew about that SC decision and I knew that Federal Immigration Laws are actually a lot tougher than Arizona's, which is why I told Mosty I'd be happy to give him a lesson or two on both laws! I hate it when someone steals my thunder. ;)

But, Mosty, what sayest thou? Now that we have settled the issue with that suspicion clause, what other mindless, inane objections to the AZ law do you want to bring to our attention?

And one other thing: Since more than 8 out of 10 Americans are in favor of the AZ law, would you still favor this Administration bucking that strong of anti-amnesty sentiment? Should the Dem(on)s ram another law down our throats, as they did with BOCare? You'd be okay with that if they tried? You'd feel that the end justifies the means, would you?

Boxcar

[BlueShoe]

There are 47 million american citizens of Hispanic descent. Estimates are that there are between 11 and 12 million illegal hispanic aliens. This is in addition to the 47 million. Therefore there is an 80% chance that an Hispanic "appearing person is here legally. How then can "reasonable suspicion" be based on appearance.
How about a little friendly wager Mosty? I am going to give you a theoretical huge mathamatical edge, on paper all the best of it. You and I will stroll around the area in which I reside. After a brief observation, I will identify those that are here illegally from those that are US citizens or legal resident. Each time that I am correct you pay me $1. If I am wrong, you get $5. Bet?

[Tom]

The law doesn't go far enough.
Proof of citizenship should be mandatory for many things - using a credit card, getting welfare, food stamps, a library card, medical care, picking up your laundry (;)), you get the picture.

As a citizen, I have NO PROBLEM showing proof of my citizenship - as long as it is not that bio-crap UpChuck Schummer is trying to get passed.

I agree profiling would be bad....it might piss off the Notre Dame marching band if they were proofed! :rolleyes::lol:
gELfPvb06pE

[boxcar]

Where's Mosty? I betcha he bought a time share under Zilly's rock. What gutless wonders these libs are!

Boxcar

[Buckeye]

Tom,

I must respectfully disagree that citizenship means what you said. To me it means believe and support for our Constitution and the principles contained within, and in the Declaration of Independence. No secret handshakes. Obviously our current President does not. That much we agree upon.

[bigmack]

gELfPvb06pE
:lol:

You knocked me out buckaroo!
:lol:

[toetoe]

It is a stupid law. It is a racist law. It is an unconstitutional law.



Your mask has also slipped, Sir. Heretofore, whenever you opened your mouth, barackberry Kool-Aid sloshed out. Okay ... fine and dandy. Now, however, your hateful countenance having been exposed, only Toetoe's verbal aikido is severe enough to properly deal with you.

[I shall turn the brilliant rhetorical tactics of PostToasties back upon him. Watch now.]

Marxie Post, you are a stupid poster. You are a racist poster.

[Brilliant, wasn't it ? Not that hard, either.]

I pray that you will see how empty your party-line claptrap is, and how close to the Absolute Zero of nescience must be the flaccid mind whose ratiocination produces it. What happened to the tepid, tried and true "You neocons are overreacting," et cetera ... :confused: .

I don't suppose you'll post the bill with the especially "racist" and "stupid" and "unconstitutional" parts highlighted ... ? Believe it or not, I can't just take your word.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Believe it or not, I can't just take your word.

You may have missed the thread where we learned that Mz. Maddude is a Rhodes Scholar and therefore, you can blindly take its word for it as this title of Rhodes Scholar makes it beyond flaw. This is basically the exact same thing as taking Mr. Ostpost's word for it. Or vice versa.

[boxcar]

Your mask has also slipped, Sir. Heretofore, whenever you opened your mouth, barackberry Kool-Aid sloshed out. Okay ... fine and dandy. Now, however, your hateful countenance having been exposed, only Toetoe's verbal aikido is severe enough to properly deal with you.

[I shall turn the brilliant rhetorical tactics of PostToasties back upon him. Watch now.]

Marxie Post, you are a stupid poster. You are a racist poster.

[Brilliant, wasn't it ? Not that hard, either.]

I pray that you will see how empty your party-line claptrap is, and how close to the Absolute Zero of nescience must be the flaccid mind whose ratiocination produces it. What happened to the tepid, tried and true "You neocons are overreacting," et cetera ... :confused: .

I don't suppose you'll post the bill with the especially "racist" and "stupid" and "unconstitutional" parts highlighted ... ? Believe it or not, I can't just take your word.


:lol: :lol: :lol: And while you're waiting for Mosty to do that, I'm waiting for him to lambaste the Federal version of the Immigration Law. If he still thinks the AZ law is "racist", "stupid" and "unconstitutional", what must he be thinking about the Federal laws? :rolleyes: (Prediction: We'll never find out because he has sworn a sacred and solemn oath to his messiah to tow the party line until death swallows him up.)

Boxcar

[toetoe]

Mz. Maddude is a Rhodes Scholar



I am still boycotting all things Rhodesian, even Miss Madcow.



Sanctions, baby. By any means necessary. (:Raising fist skyward.)