And the hysterical part would be...?
Arizona Immigration Law = "Nazi" Cops Gone Wild
...
"Tonight, Arizona's controversial new immigration law. Police will now be able to make anyone they choose prove they're here illegally."
CBS's Katie Couric at the top of the April 23 Evening News.
...
"A question: If a stranger walking down the street or riding the bus does not seem to be a U.S. citizen, is it alright for the police to stop and question him? Well, today the Governor of Arizona signed a law that requires police to do just that."
Diane Sawyer leading off ABC's World News, April 23.
...
"With this new law, will you ramp it up? Will you, will you grab people on street corners? I mean, what will you do with this new law?"
ABC's Bill Weir to Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Good Morning America, April 25.
...
"I'm glad I've already seen the Grand Canyon. Because I'm not going back to Arizona as long as it remains a police state....Everyone remembers the wartime Danish king who drove through Copenhagen wearing a Star of David in support of his Jewish subjects. It's an apocryphal story, actually, but an inspiring one. Let the good people of Arizona, and anyone passing through, walk the streets of Tucson and Phoenix wearing buttons that say: 'I Could Be Illegal.'"
The New York Times's Linda Greenhouse, formerly the paper's Supreme Court reporter, in an April 27 op-ed.
if you can't see the hysterics in trying to compare enforcing our current immigration law, following a legal traffic stop or lawful detention, with that of Nazi Germany, and the SS demanding to see your papers, just because, and failure to do so, sending you to prison, or worse, then not sure how anyone can have a substantive debate with you, on this topic Prince.
Calling people, and law enforcment nazis & racists, merely for enforcing immigration law, is largely the definition of hysterical.
The only AMBE here is you not recognizing crap, as crap
Calling people, and law enforcment nazis & racists, merely for enforcing immigration law, is largely the definition of hysterical.
No it isn't. Not even close.
The only AMBE here is you not recognizing crap, as crap
Oh, I'm recognizing crap as crap alright. It just happens to be, ahem, your crap.
Hysteria: Behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic....irrational, from fear, emotion
Yea yea, you still don't "agree".
You're as bad as the fellow who insists that because I don't see racism in almost everything whitey does I'm enabling racism.
You're as bad as the fellow who insists that because I don't see racism in almost everything whitey does I'm enabling racism.
*sigh*...wrong, but what else is new, concerning this topic
Sure he is going to claim it is absolutely vital to define every single word.
But in my mind to have a basic honest flow of timely give and take sometimes
we must assume at least some "oh i know what you mean"...or we end up in
crazy..time-consuming endless off-topic tangents of questioning every single
word. Define "is"? Define "hysterical"? Who gives a shit?
I noticed Michael Tee commented on the crazy nit-picking a few weeks ago.
Instead of debating immigration...the entire focus becomes the definition of "hysterical".
The guy is bright...probably made/makes straight A's in school...hell
sometimes I even miss debating with him because he can be educational,
but jeeez he can be difficult to have a basic conversation with..."define conversation"....lol.
At least I have the law on my side of that arguement
It says everything about AZ law, to which the hysterical criticisms/condemnations are aimed at. You want a different adjective, fine, be my guest. How about acutely moronic? How about pathologically ignorant? Many an adjective that can be used. Hysterical fits just as nicely, given where its being applied.
Lemme guess, you want to simply refer to them as somewhat misguided? Perhaps "well intentioned"? Maybe we can come up with some other minimizing adjective to calling law enforcment nazis and racists for daring to enforce the law
So, didn't feel like addressing the question, regarding the appropriate adjective to be applied toignorant dolts...I mean well intentioned souls, who only have the love of their common earthly brother/sister at heart, yet are strangely compelled to call law enforcment racist and nazi for enforcing existing law? Just needed to rant a little?...or alot it appears. That's cool. Hope you feel better now
The simplest solution is to make Mexico wealthy .
Then they would build an enourmous fence to keep the Nortamericanos out.
So, didn't feel like addressing the question, regarding the appropriate adjective to be applied toignorant dolts...I mean well intentioned souls, who only have the love of their common earthly brother/sister at heart, yet are strangely compelled to call law enforcment racist and nazi for enforcing existing law? Just needed to rant a little?...or alot it appears. That's cool. Hope you feel better now
Let me go look at what you said... "Lemme guess, you want to simply refer to them as somewhat misguided? Perhaps 'well intentioned'?" Now let me see here, an answer must be buried somewhere in my reply... no wait... not buried. Huh. Right up front and in plain site. .
What is the diffrence between jokeing and thanking outside the box?
The simplest solution is to make Mexico wealthy .
Then they would build an enourmous fence to keep the Nortamericanos out.
Careful, Plane. You're joking, but skirting dangerously close to crazy man territory there. I've tried to explain that one of the solutions to lots of Mexicans and other Latin American folks "flooding" into the U.S. is to stop ag. subsidies that interfere with their farmers, and to open up trade with them so they can experience the economic growth that will raise their standard of living. I get told, basically, that's crazy talk and we need to look out for ourselves first. So you might want to issue a disclaimer, Plane, let people know you're not really saying something should be done that might actually benefit the people in Mexico. Maybe you could throw in a misuse of the word 'hysteria', oh, and put the word 'illegal' in all caps a time or two to make sure people know how serious you are.
Ummm....excuse me, but do you now have a new definition of "plain site", that I'm not aware of?
You may not believe this, but I went thru that entire rant looking for an answer to the "appropriate adjective" inquiry, and saw nothing but more ranting.
| Sirs: Lemme guess, you want to simply refer to them as somewhat misguided? Perhaps "well intentioned"? Universe Prince: No, Sirs. If I wanted to say any of that, I would have. |
I'll look forward to you clarifying the appropriate Prince-approved adjective that should be applied to folks calling law enforcement and legislators nazis & racists for actually enforcing the law
I'll look forward to you clarifying the appropriate Prince-approved adjective that should be applied to folks calling law enforcement and legislators nazis & racists for actually enforcing the law
What is the diffrence between jokeing and thanking outside the box?
For many of the immagrants the motive is economic , how much are we able to controll the economic circumstances that cause the problems?
My favoriate idea is a revamped guest worker program that made it safe and leagal to cross the border , recrossing with a sack of rightfully earned swag a month or two later.
What could be changed to change the basic situation and give the leagal immagrant advantage over the illeagal ?
Do we even owe our own workers any defense against competition?
You may not believe this, but I went thru that entire rant looking for an answer to the "appropriate adjective" inquiry, and saw nothing but more ranting.Actually, genius, I do believe it. I'll see if I can walk you through this.
Sirs: Lemme guess, you want to simply refer to them as somewhat misguided? Perhaps "well intentioned"?
Universe Prince: No, Sirs. If I wanted to say any of that, I would have.
Right there in plain sight, first two sentences of the post. Not really hard to find. But yes, I absolutely believe you went through the entire post and could not find it. I kinda figured that is what would happen. I knew I was wasting my time when I wrote the post. I believe even said so in the post. Even now, I'm not sure you're going to see it.
I'll look forward to you clarifying the appropriate Prince-approved adjective that should be applied to folks calling law enforcement and legislators nazis & racists for actually enforcing the law
I'm not the one arguing that not using the words 'hysteria' and 'hysterical' to refer to those people leaves one somehow outside the realm of substantive debate. So I'm not really the one trying to place a stamp of approval on an adjective to describe anyone.
I'll look forward to you clarifying the appropriate Prince-approved adjective that should be applied to folks calling law enforcement and legislators nazis & racists for actually enforcing the law
rant...rant....rant. How do you like them apples?
Ummm, Prince, sorry to inform you but that didn't answer the question with what the appropriate Prince-approved adjective is
I'm not demanding you use my term.
I'm asking you what you would call folks who cry out that AZ law enforcment, their legislature, and their Governor, are being racist & acting as nazis for enforcing existing Federal immigration law. This is largely the 3rd time I've specifically requested that, and you just keep throwing up more dren. If you want to plead the 5th, or don't want to answer the question, fine. It just reinforces what I've been assuming all this time, is all. You want to keep wasting time with irrelevent tantrums, be my guest
I'd like them far better if you'd actually have answered the question being posed
If the system for leagal working visits were improved in the way you just described , would you accept a taler tougher fence, additional patrolls and a lot more electronic monitoring devices?
If the changes you just listed were enacted to make leagal crossing much easyer to acheive for honest workers and visitors , perhaps this could be understood as a freindly workforce , not a threat.
But there would be an unfreindly element still
But there would be an unfreindly element still and makeing it harder for them at the same time as we made it easy for the honest would be ideal. Is it possible to make it so convienient for the honest to come in at proper gates that we could start assumeing that everyone cutting through the fence was malicious?
Yea, I see...you answered it by not answering it. I do appreciate you validing my whole supposed misassumption, this entire time.
But there would be an unfreindly element still
Yes, and that makes this different from any other time in our history, including the times we had much greater freedom of immigrant entry, exactly how?
There is more now than there was then , and the means exist now to watch the line 24/7 as never did before.
So e have a greater need to hold back the malicious and a greater ability also , if we are determined to use it.
I think that makeing the honest into honored guests who are welcomed at proper ports of entry might stop the dilution of the malicious with the harmless that clogs our enforcement with too many persons to hope to seaparate them , preventing us from treating the honest and malicious diffrently.
Yea, I see...you answered it by not answering it. I do appreciate you validing my whole supposed misassumption, this entire time.
There ya go. Any answer you don't like, just call it not answering and declare victory.
If the system for leagal working visits were improved in the way you just described , would you accept a taler tougher fence, additional patrolls and a lot more electronic monitoring devices?
Unlikely. I would question all the more why such devices would be needed.
Thats right Plane....many of the supporters of mass-immigration-of-poor-non-english speaking-immigrants claim they want "comprehensive immigration reform"....which usually means in large part...amnesty.
Ok fine....give amnesty to 10, 20, 30 million law breakers....but how does that solve or prevent another 10, 20, 30 million more lawbreakers from coming in illegally right after you give amnesty to the one's already here?
The ones that want to become American citizens should still need to learn English and civics and whatnot as we require now.
isn't the migrant farm worker pretty much a fairy-tale in the big-picture?
there are estimates of up to 30 million illegals in the US
how many of those 30 million are actually migrant farm workers out in the fields?
i dunno....but i doubt more than 5 million and probably not anywhere near that many
most of the illegals are not out on farms....they are living/working in American cities
i am not saying you Plane, but it appears to me the "poor migrant worker" is a way
to garner sympathy for the pro-mass-illegal immigration crowd.
what a hysterical position that must look like...sirs supporting the notion of immigration. ;)
I have no problem with that. Get in line, and let's hurry them along. *gasp*, what a hysterical position that must look like...sirs supporting the notion of immigration. ;)
Get in line, and let's hurry them along. *gasp*, what a hysterical position that must look like...sirs supporting the notion of immigration. ;)
The time an place at which the workers cross the border could be an oppurtinity to sort them. The ones that don't mind being recorded can present a record of all their past stays and should be expidited.
LOL...YOU DIDN'T GIVE AN ANSWER PRINCE. How can I not like it when you didn't even provide it??
If the obsticles to honest people seeking work were trivial , we would still want the obsticles to dishonest behaviors to be steep.
Workers seeking work would go to the proper port of entry ,fill out a form, present ID,have their luggage examined and board the bus.
Smugglers , Pimps , Counterfeiters , Kidnappers , Fugitives ,etc.. would still need to cut the fence in the back country , but would no longer be surrounded by hoards of relitively innocent persons who are only smuggling their ability to do work.
Thats right Plane....many of the supporters of mass-immigration-of-poor-non-english speaking-immigrants claim they want "comprehensive immigration reform"....which usually means in large part...amnesty.
LOL...YOU DIDN'T GIVE AN ANSWER PRINCE. How can I not like it when you didn't even provide it??
I not only gave you an answer, I repeated it for you. For you to claim I didn't answer you is to be willfully stupid.
You repeated a non-answer Prince.
I mean how hard can it be to highlight that which is supposedly so right there in "plain sight". Maybe you can get Ami or Plane to highight somewhere in "No, Sirs. If I wanted to say any of that, I would have", the Prince approved adjective to hurling racist & nazi insults at those supportive of the rule of law.
In the mean time, I've moved on, since its obvious you have no plans on addressing this.
i see that i may have hurt UP's feelings
that was really not my intention
sometimes at work and with people I know...we "joke-around" throwing jabs
we have a little fun....and release some steam
You repeated a non-answer Prince.
Sirs, calling it a non-answer because it is an answer you don't like is just stupid. And by stupid, I mean not in the least bit intelligent.
In the mean time, I've moved on, since its obvious you have no plans on addressing this.
And that's just a lie. Repeatedly, Sirs, your expressed concern about substantive debate is shown to be, in actuality, insubstantial.
No, calling a non answer a non answer is what it was. Asking you what WOULD you call them with the response of what you wouldn't call them, is NOT an answer "I don't like". It's a non-answer. Simple as that
| As for what other terms I might use, I believe I mentioned a couple way back when I first objected to the whole 'hysteria' bit. Actually, I think you used the phrase "in hysterics". Anyway, genius, I'll use whatever I feel is appropriate, though apparently unlike you I do try not to jump immediately to hyperbolic nonsense. Well, I don't have to try that hard, because I generally just don't do it anyway. I learned along time ago that jumping immediately to hyperbolic nonsense is stupid, willfully ignorant, irrational and not in the least bit useful in constructing a substantive argument. |
Now, if I were Tee, I'd be throwing a hissy fit about now. Alas, I have a tad more composure, plus can directly point to how it's not a lie. I specifically asked a direct question. You answered by not answering, then insist your non answer is an answer, that I simply "don't like"
That pretty much sums it up. To this point, at least. Any more derrogatories you wish to toss my way? Just curious
No, calling a non answer a non answer is what it was. Asking you what WOULD you call them with the response of what you wouldn't call them, is NOT an answer "I don't like". It's a non-answer. Simple as that
You just don't pay attention do you? Or you're just dumber than dirt. I've explained all of this already, at least twice. Against my better judgment, I'll try again.
To start with, "Lemme guess, you want to simply refer to them as somewhat misguided? Perhaps 'well intentioned'?" is, ahem, not a question asking me what would I call them. You asked if I would use those terms. To which I said no. Most folks with a general grasp of the English language will understand that my reply is a direct answer to what you asked. Later, and by 'later' I mean after I gave that answer to that question, you then said, "I'll look forward to you clarifying the appropriate Prince-approved adjective that should be applied to folks calling law enforcement and legislators nazis & racists for actually enforcing the law". In my reply to that I said (and now repeat for the second time):That is exactly an answer to what term would I use.
As for what other terms I might use, I believe I mentioned a couple way back when I first objected to the whole 'hysteria' bit. Actually, I think you used the phrase "in hysterics". Anyway, genius, I'll use whatever I feel is appropriate, though apparently unlike you I do try not to jump immediately to hyperbolic nonsense. Well, I don't have to try that hard, because I generally just don't do it anyway. I learned along time ago that jumping immediately to hyperbolic nonsense is stupid, willfully ignorant, irrational and not in the least bit useful in constructing a substantive argument.
And clearly is an answer you don't like, because if you liked it, you wouldn't be trying to tell me how it doesn't answer your question. Yes, my answer does not give you a list of words and terms, but that is not necessary to answer your question, and I feel no need for your approval.
Now, if I were Tee, I'd be throwing a hissy fit about now. Alas, I have a tad more composure, plus can directly point to how it's not a lie. I specifically asked a direct question. You answered by not answering, then insist your non answer is an answer, that I simply "don't like" That pretty much sums it up. To this point, at least. Any more derrogatories you wish to toss my way? Just curious
Yeah, I got one. Boldfaced liar. Not only did I answer your questions, I repeated and explained my answers to you. To claim that I had no plans to address what I have clearly addressed several times, even before this post, is to tell a lie. You lied.
NO TERM is a NON ANSWER.
That was what the repeated questions were all about. You didn't like the adjective I was using, so I kept asking you for one you would use (i.e. approve of), and you keep giving the same dren of what you wouldn't call them, and claim that's your answer.
Wow, and you want to keep calling me dumber than dirt.
Prince, just say, I refuse to call out anyone calling law enforcment, legislaters and supporters on the rule of law, as it relates to this AZ law, as fascists & racists.
Prince, just say, I refuse to call out anyone calling law enforcment, legislaters and supporters on the rule of law, as it relates to this AZ law, as fascists & racists. Like that sort of puts you "above the fray", when all it does is reinforce how institutionalized you apparently are on this topic, and that even folks making completely asanine ignorant remarks like calling law enforcment racists and nazis, gets a pass from you since I can only speculate that apparently their "cause" is your cause, that of condemning our current immigration law, and this AZ law in particular
No clearly it's an answer that doesn't answer the question. [...] I clearly demonstrated how it wasn't.
Your aim to avoid making judgements on ignorant morons who profess to claim how AZ law enforcment, their legisature, their Governor, and supporters of current federal immigration law are akin to racists & nazis is what is "clearly" demonstrated, for all to see.
And your repetition of that position in not passing judgement & claiming that's "your answer that I don't like" is specific to how you obviously had no plans to address this.
Not sure why you want to keep harping this point however, as its there for all to see.
Let's move on, shall we?
Or are you compelled to get the last word in, and/or call me some more names? *sigh*
NO TERM is a NON ANSWER.
Again with the yelling. Does your chest puff out a little more when you type in all caps? Anyway, I did not say, 'no term'. You're clearly not paying attention.
Prince, just say, I refuse to call out anyone calling law enforcment, legislaters and supporters on the rule of law, as it relates to this AZ law, as fascists & racists.
Once again, if I had meant to express that in some way, I would have said it. I did not say it. Can you guess why? I doubt you can. I did not say it because I do not refuse to call out people who label law enforcement, legislators and supporters of the rule of law fascists and racists. Not that I expect you to grasp that concept. But most other English speaking people who read it will.
No clearly it's an answer that doesn't answer the question. [...] I clearly demonstrated how it wasn't (a lie as you claim).
What you demonstrated, and continue to demonstrate, is a complete lack of reading comprehension and/or honesty.
Your aim to avoid making judgements on ignorant morons who profess to claim how AZ law enforcment, their legisature, their Governor, and supporters of current federal immigration law are akin to racists & nazis is what is "clearly" demonstrated, for all to see.
Sigh. Again with the stupid mind reading. Here is a clue: Ask me what my position is on those people. Assumption only makes an ass out of you and mption.
And your repetition of that position in not passing judgement & claiming that's "your answer that I don't like" is specific to how you obviously had no plans to address this.
Except, of course, for all the times I did address it.
Not sure why you want to keep harping this point however, as its there for all to see.
Well, see, you got me a little upset with the constant attempts to claim I mean something I've never said, and snide remarks indicating I'm some how being unreasonable and incapable of substantive debate because I dared to argue and support my argument that you were wrong to label certain folks who were not exhibiting hysteria as hysterical.
Let's move on, shall we? Or are you compelled to get the last word in, and/or call me some more names? *sigh*
You've grabbed enough rope, and I think you've got the noose around your neck. So I'm done. I'll say no more to you in this thread. You, Sirs, have the last word. Berate me to your heart's content. Though I think you'll only be kicking the box out from under you.
i think you guys should just "agree to disagree"
it has reached a point of debating the debating
reasonable people can just arrive at different conclusions