lawful contact

[Universe Prince]

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 Mahone & 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

When you talk to me about what you want me not to say, you also want me to assume you're not referring to me? And for a specific comment in this thread, I'm supposed to take as context selected comments you've made in other threads? And if you start talking about something I haven't mentioned, I am not supposed to view it as you bringing it up? Wow this rule system is kinda confusing. And ridiculous. I think I'll just ignore it.

Just not going to do the added work, if its not going to accomplish anything

Well, it might support your argument, but if you really think it won't, then I agree, don't bother.

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, and it was clearly referencing 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

Sigh. No, Sirs, you're wrong. I know what I called an opinion, and that wasn't it. I did explain what I called an opinion, but apparently that explanation was wasted. So why bother doing it again?

Now that's interesting, since this law merely provides state support to enforcing existing FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW.

Goddamnit, man, would you stop shouting? That is unnecessary. Putting words in all caps (shouting) does nothing whatever to make your point stronger, better or even merely good.

It's not some new immigration law,

Yes, it is.

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.

I never said I had little concern for the other. What I said was, I can discuss and have been discussing my objections to this law without discussing my overall objections to the state of immigration law.

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 focused on semantics

You say that as if a huge chunk of legal arguments are not grounded in semantics and discussions about the meaning of the words in laws. As for my objections to the law, surely those have been made abundantly clear by now. The "lawful contact" wording was a minor issue. The major issue is granting more authority to police. But we've been over that issue already. I should not need to explain it again.