[Public_Domain]

[Pseudonym]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

Does any one here live in Arizona?

If not we should not speak for them.

Arizona sucks.

Your mom sucks. Zing!

[Trenacker]

Some additional remarks.

For the sake of disclosure, let me do point up the fact that I've got virtually all of my material from Wikipedia. Although I'd never endorse Wikipedia as a source appropriate for academic or professional work of any caliber, it can be a useful guide to potential further research. Insofar as law is concerned, the long discussions on constitutional law are quite remarkable, and provided the basis for my posts above.

With respect to e-Verify, Wikipedia has indicated that Arizona law requires all businesses to utilize the program for new hires. It also suggests that only 5% have complied. While the link to a citation is dead, this seems plausible. E-Verify laws appear to be unfunded mandates. Given the number of businesses in the United States, oversight and compliance assessment must necessarily be logistical nightmares. Fair and efficient implementation of the law seems nearly impossible.

I want to add some observations about our current political system that I think are appropriate at this juncture. A number of assumptions are discouraging effective political debate in this country. Many of them apply to the current debate over the Arizona immigration issue.

First, we're all of us rooting for the same team, whomever the head coach. When the offense wishes ill on the defense out of jealousy for more playing time, the result is not faster turn-over, but inferior performance -- and the score is shared by one and all.

Second, while the election of America's first black president has clearly inflamed racist sentiment, we aren't facing an unprecedented period of negative politics. The 24-hour news cycle preys on our cynicism and panders relentlessly to the lowest common denominator. It is theater with partial fact, not information and the tools for useful analysis. The degree to which it is broken ranges from FOX News' obvious and very damaging spin, to CNN's unselfconscious stoking of fears about this or that latest political, economic, or consumer crisis. On the other hand, in spite of tea parties and hurtful, divisive talk radio that propagates lies, we aren't slugging it out in the streets. To the best of my knowledge, our politicians do not compete for votes by handing out bribes, marshaling the party faithful to stuff ballot boxes, or having their political opponents murdered or thrown in prison. All of this was happening during our first few years -- nay, decades -- as a nation trying to practice a republican form of democratic government.

Third, it is not abundantly, convincingly clear that there are satisfactory, immediately transparent answers to the major political issues that we are confronting today. By this, I mean health care, strategic posture, immigration law, and welfare. Anybody who tries to shop the idea that they have found an answer, that the evidence is sterling, and that anybody who cannot see it is either too dishonest or too stupid to merit consideration is dangerously shortsighted.

Fourth, the tendency of some conservatives to paint liberals as traitors and fools, and of some liberals to portray conservatives as too stupid to be allowed to participate in politics is purely poison. Both sides shout these views, loud and proud. Worse, they seem unable to realize that they only stimulate ever more resentment. It says a great deal that while liberals spent the past eight years feeling trampled by a Republican administration, their views discounted, their rights abridged, religious conservatives similarly describe themselves as "under siege." Identity politics -- the idea that the hostility and ineffectiveness of long-standing Washington policy wonks and "career" legislators means that we should instead seek and elect affable personalities characterized by political naivete -- is the sad and unwelcome result.

Fifth, the single legitimate criteria for making public law is its impact on horizontal relationships -- those between individuals. As long as no harm is done to me and mine -- and here, I use harm as distinct from "inconvenience" -- then I can have no grounds to abridge the rights of others. If I wish to insist that public law should reflect what is found in a religious document, I must be able to prove the objective validity of that document, presumably by providing proof of its authenticity, and of the importance of obeying the presumptive Creator. Personally, I find a lot of merit in organized religion. There is certainly nothing wrong with ordering one's own life according to such precepts. However, forcing your neighbor to respect the same conventions when somebody's safety and security are not at risk is frankly unreasonable. (If you ask me, opposition to gay marriage on grounds of religious authority will be untenable until somebody proves both the divine provenance of the Bible and the merit of God as ultimate arbiter of human behavior. When other reasons are evoked, they are usually cover for "simple" bigotry -- attempts to endorse the public censure of behavior that some might find embarrassing or humiliating.)

Sixth, reification of the Founders. Without a clear, well-reasoned argument defending the Founders' logic as both applicable and useful in today's society, appeal to the Founders is simply bad argument.

[angler57]

Something has worried me since this open border things began
years ago and after 9/11.
All this security pretense is so much BS if Muslim nut cases may simply walk freely into our country.
These people want us destroyed. Not my words, THEIRS.
Canadian has the USA between them and the Illegal Aliens, no matter who they be.
So, displaying the BLOOD flag of Nazi Germany and calling names is easy with
hundreds or thousands of miles away. CRUEL and UNFAIR but easy.
And, our bleeding heart folks here are no help here.

Now, I would make a home in Canada if conditions permitted.

Difference in myself and Illegal Aliens. Am in the process of seeing what your government requires of the Lady and I if we do this. Am also self supporting and
willing to pay my own way without needing help from anyone.

[angler57]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

Does any one here live in Arizona?

If not we should not speak for them.

Arizona sucks.

Your mom sucks. Zing!

That statement is the rudest and childish I have ever seen on any forum. Anywhere any time. NOT necessary.

So Tasteless and Small.

[EyeBrock]

Stop policing the forum angler. It's getting tiresome.

[angler57]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Stop policing the forum angler. It's getting tiresome.

Your mom sucks. Zing!

Fine with me. If you consider insulting anothers mother honourable and reasonable behavior in Canada and England, if I recall properly.
Who are we to question your reasoning.

To us southern folks that ia a no, no.
Would not say something like that to a man facing you.

But, as I say it's fine with me. It' your honour and not mine.

A man is known by his word and his deeds. Or is that different among some people?

[Pseudonym]

I apologize for confusing you, angler. My comment was not intended as a serious opinion on Mr C.'s mother (who, I am sure, is a fine, upstanding lady) but rather as a joking retort to his similarly silly comment regarding Arizona. I hope my jokes don't cause you future distress, as I don't plan to stop commenting in the manner to which I am accustomed.

[BartSimpson]

Trenacker Trenacker:

Second, while the election of America's first black president has clearly inflamed racist sentiment

I vehemently disagree. The opposition to Obama has more to do with his policies than his race.

The "opposition to Obama is racist" card is bullsh*t.

In February 2007 it was Colin Powell who was leading in the polling race for the Republican nomination and he wasn't even running!

http://boards.mulatto.org/post?id=1718273

Republicans have also given serious consideration to Condoleeza Rice, who has refused to run. Prior to Powell's endorsement of Obama either he or Rice could've had the GOP nomination sewn up if all they did was let people vote for them.

No, the opposition to Obama is not about race, but policy and the only people playing the race card are his supporters.

[Public_Domain]

[BartSimpson]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

Are you denying outright that there has been any racist sentiment towards Barack Hussein Obama?

Nope, not at all. But it needs to be clarified just where that racism is originating and it is primarily with his supporters.

On the opposition side Andrew Breitbart has offered to donate $100,000 to the United Negro College Fund if anyone can produce video of any Tea Party activists shouting, displaying, or using racial commentary at any Tea Party event. And note that the reward is not limited to just anti-Obama epithets, but any epithets.

Despite the large number of mainstream media claims that such things are happening at Tea Party events this $100,000 has so far remained unclaimed.

[Public_Domain]

[BartSimpson]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

Lol, while what Pseudonym is indeed a very rude comment, I will stand by his right to say it because it made me laugh.

Good on you for a well-balanced sense of humour!


+1 - nice to give you a positive rep point!

[Public_Domain]

[Public_Domain]