I dare you to find ANYWHERE where I claimed YOU were comparing supporters of this AZ law to Nazis. Good luck with that
Did I say you claimed I was comparing supporters of the new Arizona law to Nazis? No, I did not. I merely noted you brought up the Gestapo while talking to me and telling me not to make the comparison.
Yea, you noted it, as if this thread exists in a vacuum, when I've clearly made similar references to Mahoney & company in other threads, making such comparisons. Yet there you are inferring I'm the one bringing it up, with the added irritation of trying to claim I was referring to you, when I clearly wasn't
Yes, but I haven't made such comparisons, and yet you were telling me not to do it. Why would I assume you were talking about people you did not mention when you were talking to me about what I should not say?
a) because I have brought such comparisions up in other threads that you've been involved in, and everytime I brought them up, it was referring to the more hysterical faction, such as Cardinal Mahoney
b) it's more of a rhetorical recommendation. And if you note, you accurately reference what you
shouldn't say vs the implied
stop saying as if you had made such hysterical comments
And sure, I could go find you quotes of Mahoney & others, but I'm not going to do the work, if you're just going to defend them, and/or claim they have right to those "opinions". No one is claiming that they don't. The claim is the hysterical nature of those "opinions", when they do spew them
So you're not going to support your accusation because you've already decided how I'm going to respond to it. That's a pretty lousy excuse. Anyway, Sirs, stop trying to define for me what I think.
Don't need to. Just not going to do the added work, if its not going to accomplish anything
You HAVE made references that pointing out this law giving AZ law enforcement more authority, supported by the state, to enforce what the Fed should be, but hasn't been to any substantive extent, is supposedly an opinion.
That is not what I said was an opinion. I explained myself on this one already.
Yes, you have, on April 29th:
sirs: Prince the part you're not seeing, or more likely refusing to see, is that AZ is simply doing with the FED is supposed to do, but isn't.prince: That's your opinion.You clearly referenced how its an opinion to claim that AZ's law is doing what the Fed isn't. And that's exactly what I've said since the get go
You keep reinforcing my assumption as accurate, as you keep banging away on our current federal immigration law (which of course you've done on a number of occasions, not just during this AZ issue). Even making the reference "Ah, so no law is ever wrong because it's just the officer's fault if a law gets abused?" So why you keep trying to deny it, is beyond me. Don't want to concede the accuracy of my assessement?
my question about no law ever being wrong is specific to your assertion that the law being abused will only be sign of a bad cop and no more. I can discuss and have been discussing my objections to this law without discussing my overall objections to the state of immigration law.
Now that's interesting, since this law merely provides state support to enforcing existing FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW. It's not some new fangled immigration law, with a bunch more new rules to deal with immigrants, so how you can argue the one, but have little concern for the other (especially having critized it on a myriad of other occasions) is beyond me.
But go for it, how is this new law "bad", when Congress has already given authority to every state in helping to enforce existing federal immigration law?? ESPECIALLY given the fact that they've now tweaked the wording of "lawful contact" to appease those so focused on semantics