This one is worth 2000 words

[Plane]

90% of all illegals in AZ are Mexicans. Most of the rest are Cenrtral and South Americans, who resemble Mexicans.
Many Mexicans look more Indian and dress in a manner uncommon to non-Mexican Arizonians.
They also tend to all speak Spanish and many speak very little English.

You are an Arizona cop. Your job is to identify the illegal aliens while disregarding the ethnicity, dress and language of all you see.

Sort of like telling Homeland Security that they are barred from picking on sweaty, shifty-eyed, nervous passengers.

I think it is very clear XO that you are a racist presently engaged in racial profileing.

If you were an Arizonan law enforcement person you would be in violation of present (recent) law.

[Universe Prince]

Yea, but they're largely identical, because Prince says so....because it just is

That is a lie. Sirs is a liar.

[Xavier_Onassis]

First of all, "Mexican" is not a race. Most people can distinguish Mexicans from Swedes, Chinese or Zulus.

The AZ Law tells the police to disregard the most distinguishing characteristics of the largest number of illegal immigrants in the state. This is so Arizonans, specifically the White ones who passed this law, will not be accused of racism. What will be the probable result is that some foundation will take the part of one or more illegals (or legals mistaken for illegals) and sue the police for false arrest. The trial will go through the courts until it costs the state (and thus the taxpayers) a lot of money. Then some smart judge will say that the law is unconstitutional because it tells the police to do two contradictory things at ones: stop suspected illegals and ignore the fact that they fit the profile of the average illegal.

[sirs]

Yea, but they're largely identical, because Prince says so....because it just is

That is a lie. Sirs is a liar.

Nice rebuttal.  Might need to put some ice on that knee, after that one.  I didn't realize you were lying, when you tried to claim the same for me, but if you say so...Prince is a liar     

I'd suggest you focus on the crux of how I demonstrated the fallicy of your "illustration" vs just throwing out slanderous insults, similar to when Tee or Xo are confronted with some hard truth 

[Universe Prince]

I'd suggest you focus on the crux of how I demonstrated the fallicy of your "illustration"

You didn't demonstrate that. You pointed out why eminent domain abuse and illegal immigration are different, but you did not demonstrate the fallacy of the illustration. Though you did once again apply a double standard. And then you lied.

I didn't realize you were lying, when you tried to claim the same for me, but if you say so...Prince is a liar

I did not make up something you did not say and then claim you said it. I did not lie about what you said.

[sirs]

I'd suggest you focus on the crux of how I demonstrated the fallicy of your "illustration"

You didn't demonstrate that.

More validation of those "blind spots" you have

You pointed out why eminent domain abuse and illegal immigration are different, but you did not demonstrate the fallacy of the illustration.

LOL...priceless.  I demonstrate the fallacy of your arguement, but I really didn't.  Because...........?  Oh yea, because Prince says so.... it just is

Though you did once again apply a double standard. And then you lied.

See above

Next

I didn't realize you were lying, when you tried to claim the same for me, but if you say so...Prince is a liar

I did not make up something you did not say and then claim you said it. I did not lie about what you said.

You were trying to compare eminent domain and its abuse to that of AZ law and it's supposed potential abuse, calling it a double standard to be against 1 while supporting the other.  I highlighted how twisted & irrational that was, and you go apesnot calling me a liar.  So, what's good for the goose

[Universe Prince]

You pointed out why eminent domain abuse and illegal immigration are different, but you did not demonstrate the fallacy of the illustration.

LOL...priceless.  I demonstrate the fallacy of your arguement, but I really didn't.  Because...........?  Oh yea, because Prince says so.... it just is

Sirs, I refuse to believe you are actually this stupid. Anyway, the illustration was never predicated on eminent domain abuse and illegal immigration being "largely identical". That was something you imagined, not something I ever said. So pointing out that eminent domain abuse and illegal immigration are different does not demonstrate a fallacy.

Illegal immigration and murder are also different, yet you felt there was good reason to use murder as an illustration regarding illegal immigration. Illegal immigration and burglary are different as well, yet I don't see you criticizing William's use of burglary in his weak use of burglary as an illustration. So either you're applying a double standard, or you think murder and illegal immigration are "largely identical". I doubt the latter is true (because that would be asinine), so I have to go with the former as my conclusion.

You were trying to compare eminent domain and its abuse to that of AZ law and it's supposed potential abuse, calling it a double standard to be against 1 while supporting the other.

You just can't stop making up stuff, can you? What I actually said about the comparison was that in both cases the government ignores the protections in the law when it suits the government to do so, and so claiming that the law makes racial profiling by the police illegal is meaningless.

I highlighted how twisted & irrational that was, and you go apesnot calling me a liar.

Apesnot? I'm not even sure what that means. Given the context, presumably you think I reacted in an angry manner. But I did not. (You really should give back your membership to the Telepathy Association. You suck at reading other people's minds.) I also did not call you a liar for criticizing the comparison. I simply pointed out that you lied about what I said.

[sirs]

You pointed out why eminent domain abuse and illegal immigration are different, but you did not demonstrate the fallacy of the illustration.

LOL...priceless.  I demonstrate the fallacy of your arguement, but I really didn't.  Because...........?  Oh yea, because Prince says so.... it just is

Sirs, I refuse to believe you are actually this stupid.

But you will, and say so.  Kinda comes with the territory when "debating" this issue with you.  I actually took a little time to demonstrate how it was more than simply "because it does", as it relates to the law actually meaning something.  But no, that simply got processed by yourself as simply sirs saying the same thing.....because it does/because sirs says so/because he's always right, and other sarcastic conclusions on your part.  I turn them on you, and suddenly I'm a supposed liar, for doing pretty much the same thing you pulled.    Riiiiiiiiiight.   Is there some Florida waterfront property you want to sell us as well?

Anyway, the illustration was never predicated on eminent domain abuse and illegal immigration being "largely identical".

Nearly identical is merely a reference in your effort in comparing the 2.  Nothing imagined about that, as you validated it with the double standard clause.  You want to nit-pic?...you'd have a leg to stand on if I said identical with no qualifiers.  I referenced largely, since it was YOU raising the double standard accusation, YOU presenting an illustration in the abuse by Government in the 2.  Now it's YOU trying to back pedal by jumping all over the word identical, when the context of how I applied it, couldn't be clearer.  For you though, we'll retract the words "largely indentical" and replace them with something largely identical, such as comparable

Nice 2nd deflection effort, though

You were trying to compare eminent domain and its abuse to that of AZ law and it's supposed potential abuse, calling it a double standard to be against 1 while supporting the other.

You just can't stop making up stuff, can you? What I actually said about the comparison was that in both cases the government ignores the protections in the law when it suits the government to do so, and so claiming that the law makes racial profiling by the police illegal is meaningless

Except for the fact that there is no concise wording that protects folks from eminent domain, outside of subsequent Courts making rulings on the Government's move.  There are concrete words that do so in the AZ law, and any misuse is NOT the government "abusing" the private individual, but a lone cop, that is acting outside of the law.  And again, ED is targeting an individual(s), who have broken no law.  AZ's law is targeting criminal(s), and only AFTER a lawful detention has been established, and only AFTER reasonable assessment can be made on a person's questionable status in this country

Your arguement is pretty much in trying to claim that in AZ the "abuse" will be in the Government ignoring the law they just wrote, and now under a Federal microscope, as well as the cop in question, while in ED, the Government is behind and supporting the abuse.  Your twisted effort to connect the 2 as comparable is the weakness in this tangent.  

Now go ahead, start calling me a liar now.  It's apparently the one thing you can do well, when this topic comes up

[Universe Prince]

Now go ahead, start calling me a liar now.  It's apparently the one thing you can do well, when this topic comes up

I will call you a liar when you lie about what I said. If you don't want to be called a liar, stop claiming I said things I did not say.

I acutally took a little time to demonstrate how it was more than simply "because it does", as it relates to the law actually meaning something.  But no, that simply got processed by yourself as simply sirs saying the same thing.....because it does/because sirs says so/because he's always right, and other sarcastic conclusions on your part.

Sirs, your concept of demonstration is really screwed up. But let's set that aside for now. You said:

Because it does.  If any cop doesn't abide by the law, the problem isn't the law, the problem is the cop.  and there are far more laws that abusive/rogue cops can use to employ some perverse bigoted agenda.  The fact is this law EXPRESSLY BARS SUCH.  If one actually would take time to read the law, not only does it bar racial profiling, making it illegal, ....it mandates that the officer contact ICE or other federal agency immediately to both confirm their suspicion and if necessary, have Federal agents arranged to pick the suspect up, if indeed they are in the country illegally.

Note first that I did not make this up. I did not claim you said something you did not say. I quoted you directly. Now then, your first sentence is "Because it does." In response to "People keep saying that like it's supposed to mean something," "Because it does," means that it means something because it does. So what do you say to "demonstrate" something more? "If any cop doesn't abide by the law, the problem isn't the law, the problem is the cop.  and there are far more laws that abusive/rogue cops can use to employ some perverse bigoted agenda.  The fact is this law EXPRESSLY BARS SUCH." Your "demonstration" that the law barring racial profiling means something is that, one, if a cop doesn't obey it then that is the cop's fault, and, two, the law has a phrase that bars racial profiling. One, it would be the cops fault with or without the phrase in the law. Two, that the phrase barring racial profiling exists does not mean that the phrase's existence is meaningful. I am not twisting your words. I am going exactly by your words. Saying the phrase's existence is meaningful because it exists fails to express or demonstrate anything beyond the notion of "Because it does."

I turn them on you, and suddenly I'm a supposed liar, for doing pretty much the same thing you pulled.    Riiiiiiiiiight.   Is there some Florida waterfront property you want to sell us as well?

I already corrected you on this. Pay attention. I repeat:  I did not call you a liar for criticizing the comparison. I simply pointed out that you lied about what I said.

Nearly identical is merely a reference in your effort in comparing the 2.  Nothing imagined about that, as you validated it with the double standard clause.  You want to nit-pic?...you'd have a leg to stand on if I said identical with no qualifiers.  I referenced largely, since it was YOU raising the double standard accusation, YOU presenting an illustration in the abuse by Government in the 2.  Now it's YOU trying to back pedal by jumping all over the word identical, when the context of how I applied it, couldn't be clearer.  For you though, we'll retract the words "largely indentical" and replace them with something largely identical, such as comparable

Nice 2nd deflection effort, though

I am not backpedaling at all. I am standing firm by exactly what I said. And your criticism here is the only deflection. You said, "Yea, but they're largely identical, because Prince says so....because it just is". Notice again, I am not making up anything. I am quoting you exactly. Anyway, I did not say they were largely identical. I never implied they were largely identical. The only one who used the term 'largely identical' or tried to claim I said racial profiling and eminent domain abuse were largely identical is you, Sirs. I called you on it, and now you're still trying to blame me for your choice of words. But you say here you meant it merely as a reference to my effort to compare the two. That hardly lets you off the hook. As I said before, either you're applying a double standard, or you think murder and illegal immigration are "largely identical".

And no, 'largely identical' and 'comparable' do not have the same meaning. 'Largely identical' means the same in almost every way. 'Comparable' means having some features in common that allow comparison.

Except for the fact that there is no concise wording that protects folks from eminent domain, outside of subsequent Courts making rulings on the Government's move.

Except for all the words about just compensation and limiting use to situations of blight and/or public use.

Your arguement is pretty much in trying to claim that in AZ the "abuse" will be in the Government ignoring the law and the cop in question, while in Eminent domain, the Government is behind and supporting the abuse.  Your twisted effort to connect the 2 as comparable is the weakness in this tangent.

You're the only one doing the twisting. My argument is that the people in the government, and that includes law enforcement, will only abide by these protections so long as doing so suits them, and will stop abiding by them when doing so does not suit them.

[BT]

You're the only one doing the twisting. My argument is that the people in the government, and that includes law enforcement, will only abide by these protections so long as doing so suits them, and will stop abiding by them when doing so does not suit them.

Except when that law has a built in safeguard and if that safeguard isn't met , what you have is a get out of jail free card.

So the first time this law is implemented some smart public defender claims his client was profiled and then it is up to the prosecutors to show they weren't.

In the meantime, some enterprising AZ folks should catalog the main reasons people are pulled over and start selling kits to eliminate those risks.

Tail light repair kits, tu8rn signal bulbs and brake lights, window tint remover whatever excuse the cops use for pulling someone over should be in the kit.

[Universe Prince]

Except when that law has a built in safeguard and if that safeguard isn't met , what you have is a get out of jail free card.

So the first time this law is implemented some smart public defender claims his client was profiled and then it is up to the prosecutors to show they weren't.

I wish it worked that way. I'm pretty sure it is the defendant who will have to prove it was racial profiling, and he will be up against things like internal police investigations that will likely claim the police officer was just doing his job, as they almost always do.

[BT]

I'm pretty sure it is the defendant who will have to prove it was racial profiling, and he will be up against things like internal police investigations that will likely claim the police officer was just doing his job, as they almost always do.

That is why jury trials are important. The police account of the arrest will have to be believable to the jury.

[Universe Prince]

That is why jury trials are important. The police account of the arrest will have to be believable to the jury.

Assuming it gets to trial. I'm sure someone will. But even having one's day in court is no guarantee.

[BT]

Assuming it gets to trial. I'm sure someone will. But even having one's day in court is no guarantee.

That is the illegals only shot. So if I were them i would demand a jury trial.
That is the only way they will have to show that discovery of their illegal status was the fruit of a poisonous tree.

And my guess is once the courts start clogging, police will be fastidious in documenting the arrests that led to discovery or they won't be enforcing the new law as well as the legislators would have liked.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The more cases that go to trial, the more police must be paid to sit and wait to be called as witnesses in court, and the fewer arrests that can be made. This has some of the features of a self-cleaning oven: when it is cleaning, it uses power, but cannot be used for ovenly purposes.