Should be interesting...

si, senora hillary clinton confirmed a pending lawsuit against az's useless law on friday, while visiting ecuador.

Remember, the Berlin wall was built to keep 'em in, not out. Every nation on the earth has a right to defend it's borders and keep them secure. And by the way, if you ever travel in Mexico, you better be ready to produce YOUR papers when a police or governmental official says: "Papers!" (I seriously doubt that there will be any "please" attached to the demand.)

I guess that's why I don't live in Mexico.

The Berlin Wall was built by the East German government to keep the East Germans from "defecting" to the West

as more and more people in the Soviet-controlled East grew disillusioned with communism and the increasingly oppressive economic and political conditions, an increasing number began defecting to the West. By 1961 an estimated 1,500 people a day were fleeing to the West, damaging both the credibility and - more importantly - the workforce of the GDR. Soon rumours began to spread about a wall, and it wasn’t long after that those rumours were made a concrete reality.

http://www.berlin-life.com/berlin/wall

I lived in Germany for a number of years, and by law one must carry ID, the police there would ask politely to see your papers, including the please... I've never been to Mexico, so I don't know how they ask there, but from the perspective of someone who was asked to show my papers on occasion I always found the German Police to be very polite when doing so.

One of the reasons why people moved here was to live in a place that dosen't require "papers please" in an instant. Yes, we need documents to attain more documents ...but we don't need to carry our birth records or national records at all times.

And we certainly don't want our police pulling over, or stopping, anyone just to check those papers.

If I was an officer in AZ or Virgina, I'd pull anyone over and ask them to present papers of birth records or an immigration card, and if they didn't have it, jail time. I'd make sure I pulled over and asked whites just as much anyone else.

Racial profiling is wrong...law is law.

I'm still wanting to hear what will happen when people realize these immigration laws aren't giving them the ecconimic relief or tax relief that they were expecting...or even seeing any type of visual change for the good in their communities. Will we start adding onto these laws? We we start to see road ID check point going in and out of states and on certain highways?

Fascism is quite a slippery slope...

Facism is also a very ugly slope, whether nationalist or religious. Oklahoma is a breeding ground for wanna-be-Christian fascists like Tom Coburn and Sally Kern. Lord save us from the true believers.

interesting the pro "papers please" argument is since mexico and the east berlin communists require(d) papers, we should? is that the gold standard? joseph stalin's soviet union? let's get real, nobody in mexico walks around with a birth certificate to prove they belong. the mexican police don't ask for papers like the nazi's. what an ignorant pov.

sb 1070 is unconstitutional, and virginia put a graduate of pat robertson's christian college in the governors seat. just because idiot cranks are now mainstream doesn't make discrimination legal or change the constitiution.

I do not think that this law is a good thing, I was merely saying that in a country that has a requirement to show your papers when requested by the police, the police were polite about it on the two occasions where I was asked to show my papers, as an (at the time) 18 year old white woman. afaik the requirement in modern Germany to be able to prove who you are has very little to do with immigrants, especially as it was written at a time when more people were leaving Germany than were going there. It is part of the German Basic Law (Deutsches Grundgesetz) which was created in 1948 and became law in 1949 after it was agreed to by the Allied forces.

I'm not old enough to have been in Germany during the Third Reich so I'm not sure how you thought I was talking about Nazi's and whether or not they were polite. I also didn't say if I think the current German "Ausweispflicht" is a good or bad thing, just that it exists.

Please don't attribute opinions to me that I haven't stated, it's very unbecoming.

Just to point out, the requirement to show any ID to a police officer actually varies from state to state. Generally, you are not actually required to do so, this is just an assumption on the part of most people. The supreme court has actually struck down a number of state laws requiring that people show their ID when asked. Though some have managed to survive.

The most common exception to this being when you are driving, as your ID is required to prove you are a licensed driver. There are some other exceptions that vary as well, but I believe the other national one is when flying a commercial airline.

Of course, the officer may then decide to detain you if he has suspicion or probably cause to verify your identification. And again, some states actually do require it, regardless.

Oh, forgot to mention, another exception are things like roadblocks, or other instances where they are searching everyone. But, you still cannot be singled out without probable cause.

And just in case it needs to be clarified, this is because of the 4th Amendment.

You made good points here, right up until the part about who's going to mow your lawn for low wages. Using undocumented immigrants for virtual slave labor doesn't make for an effective argument against racism.

A good percentage of these people don't really want to "integrate" as you put it. They want to keep their language, their culture, their prejudices and their flag. If they actually wanted to integrate and respect our laws, our history and become Americans, not hyphen Americans, they would not cause such great resentment.

Either we are a Nation of Laws, or we are not. Which is it be?

"A good percentage of these people don't really want to "integrate" as you put it. They want to keep their language, their culture, their prejudices and their flag."

Legal or not, many immigrant communities like Chinatown, Little Italy, Little Korea, Little Havana, etc., etc., etc. in cities such as NYC, San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Miami, etc., etc., etc., keep their language, their culture, their prejudices, their flags, and they hyphenate. Should these communities all pack up and hit the road, too?

Exactly, Freedom Maid!

Most immigrants kept some heritage, or culture, and passed it down to multi-generations of Americans. The beauty of America is the diversity of cultures - some communities are more diverse then others, but America is the melting pot.

And languages are kept - and it's ok to do so.

I always hear the "speak English" complaint when talking about (illegal) immigrants.

Born Americans are required to take 12 years of English to graduate. Languages are not learned over night. And unless a person has known a certain individual for years, how would one know, one was not in the process of learning?

My 60-some year old father sounded like that one man and the comment of English. He claims how would he know if "those people" were speaking about him. I told him to learn Spanish and find out. He growled and quipped "it's America he didn't have to".

I want to learn Spanish and have slowly been teaching myself.

Communication is a 2 way street and anyone who wants to communicate from different languages, needs to put away fear and just reach...as frustrating as it can be, it's possible.

You also have to remember that America is not one monolithic "melting pot," it is a heterogenous stew of cultures. That's why it tastes so damn good! That's why America is so damn wonderful! We have the whole world in small within our borders and we the richer for it. Melt it down to homogeneity and it loses so much that is precious. Don't extirpate, incorporate!

Because they encourage civil discussion - doesn't play well on TV

Excuse me! How, exactly were they ILLEGAL ALIENS? As far as I am aware, the Native cultures that were on the North American Continent didn't have any laws, passed by a representative legislature, empowered by a sovereign people which were intended to control the influx of individuals so that the people here could assimilate them in an orderly way into the dominant culture.

Conquerors, yes, of the "vast, howling wilderness" as the first settlers described it; but surely not ILLEGAL ALIENS.

@sdg

Are you really arguing that because the Native American's didn't bother to write down a specific doctrine that included "Please don't come here and exterminate us", that alone makes it absurd to consider our founding fathers to be "illegal aliens" at the time of their arrival?

No, the Native Peoples here were all guilty of the crime of not slaughtering the lot of pasty faced starving sick invaders and nailing their heads to trees as a messege to any others who might follow. For that sin, they were nearly exterminated, decimated by disease, removed from their homes by force and made to relocate en mass into concentration camps, I mean reservations. Yeah they totally had it coming. U.S.A! U.S.A! U.S.A!

LOL.

I love you Don. :)

Mostly just how much Quixokie resembles "quixotic"

The name is even cooler then that. Say the full name aloud. It sounds like Donkey Okie, which is also entirely true. I'm an Okie Democrat. Genius!

Don:

Ha! Excellent post!!

Ha! I just happened to have a free minute today and thought I'd look in... and I get to see this sort of garbage again, yet it gives Don the opportunity to make me snerk. Nicely done mate =)

To comment though, if you're going to argue that there had to be a legal status to be an illegal alien, maybe we can explain it in far simpler terms? They were immigrants... who crossed without permission or documents into a new land... and could be said to have established themselves by squatting on and using the resources of territory held by another group.

Oh, I see it now, it's the exact opposite of what's happening now! =P Sheesh.

Good to see you comrade. Nice of you to stop by.

And exactly WHY should those that have shown contempt for and a willingness to break and disregard our laws and our borders deserve to be given a path to citizenship? What about all those individuals hungry to come to live here in the greatest land of opportunity that has ever existed on the face of the earth, but respected our laws and stood in line to legally come here; why are those people to be placed behind lawbreakers?

We are either a Nation of Laws, or we are not. Which is it to be?

You assume that those who have been here a long time- those who would be given a path to citizenship- have contempt for our country. Quite the contrary.

Don't blame those who have been here illegally for decades because the government failed to do anything about this issue during that time. It's not their fault that the government never did anything. It's not their fault businesses not only enthusiastically employed them, but also encouraged the whole situation.

It's also important to remember that there is a practical aspect to this too. How do you identify all these people? How do you round them up? How do you replace them in their jobs? What do you do with the children that were born here?

It's easy to make this a black and white issue; that we have laws or we don't. Unfortunately, life is rarely so simple.

@sgd

We are a nation of laws. Laws that when broken have punishments intended to fit the crime committed. Your black and white, all or nothing, no tolerance mentality is a huge part of the problem. You imagine these immigrants to have contempt for our laws, when the reality is that they are simply attempting to make the best of a crappy situation. That just so happens to involve risking their life to move to a place they're constantly reminded they aren't wanted, to work a crappy job in unregulated conditions for far less than minimum wage. It seems to me if there is contempt to be found, it's on your side of the argument.

If you didn't have access to water for instance, how long would you willingly wait in line at the legal water fountain before you gave up and sought a quicker means to getting what you needed? Some people wait through the proper immigration process because they can, because they're privileged enough to have what they need to get by while they wait. Many others don't, and thus can't; and yet you presume to judge them as having contempt for our laws, as if our way of life offends them and they come here merely to spit on our flag. It's just ridiculous.

Much of the immigration issue is a humanitarian one, and until you accept that component I just don't think we're going to see eye to eye on even what the problem is, let alone how we might hope to address it.

Sgd, you're also failing to consider the circumstances which bring many people here illegally. Many are recruited by companies or individuals to work here. Why so much anger toward those who just want a job and none toward those who facilitate an illegal transaction? If you're going to apply the law than please apply it unilaterally and charge the companies as well.

I like how we use this umbrella term, illegal, as justification.

Many fail to see past this term - and many fail to see any of these people as refugees.

I'd rather seek and pay for an investigation of why there is a mass migration here, so that we can better understand the complexity, so that we can work on fixing this "epidemic" at the source. There are so many untold stories of why one crosses illegally.

I'd rather seek to make a difference on both sides of this border, then end up paying for an overflooded jail system that is already overflowing.

Our jail system sucks! It's such a burden on our system as a tool for punishment - when it should be used as a tool to (re)educate.

It's not a crime to move to better your life...it's not a crime to move to find a job.

@Carrie-Anne -

Have to disagree with you on your statement, here. It actually IS a crime to cross into the United States without a visa; just as it is a crime in every other country in the world to do so. It just so happens that in the US we have an abhorrent record of enforcing our own laws. Do a little bit of research on the immigration policies and laws in place in other areas of the world; take a look at what happens to individuals that violate those countries' immigration laws.

As far as calling an illegal immigrant a refugee - words mean things & it is best to understand what the word means prior to using it. To qualify, under international and US law, as a refugee, a person must have been persecuted, or have a well-founded fear of future persecution ON ACCOUNT of race, religion, nationality or membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. INA section 101(a)(42). This definition does not include being a person from a economically depressed or backward country where jobs are scarce, wages low and public benefits are virtually non-existent.

The US has been greatly blessed, in large part, due to our representative, democratic political system and the job and wealth creating engine that is our economic system of private ownership of property and free-enterprise (capitalism). We don't need to "seek and pay for an investigation of why there is a mass migration here." Your own post proves that even you already know why people come here; they are drawn here because here, in the US, a person can be free to better themselves, no matter who they are. They come here to better their life and to find a job.

It is the great economic promise of America that draws the people of the world here. The countries that they are running from are horrid places to live - no doubt - but frequently that is due to the corruption of the governmental institutions in those countries. Rather than running away and crossing into the US in violation of our law, they should stay home and work to make their country a better place.

As far as making it a better place on both sides of this border, as you put it, the American people are a very generous people and we give billions and billions of dollars in aid to underdeveloped countries around the world every year. Short of taking over all these other countries in an imperial power grab so that we can make things better there, I don't know what more can be done to make things better in Mexico, or Guatemala, or El Salvador, or Eritrea, or Nepal, or Mongolia, or any of the other places in the world that people cannot economically better themselves.

Mexico has a national self interest in encouraging as many of its uneducated underclass to cross into the US as possible. Mexican government agencies prepare and distribute pamphlets on how to cross into the US illegally and how to live here undetected. Mexico's self interest is the 24 BILLION dollars in remittances that are sent back to Mexico by its nationals living and working here in the US. That huge amount of hard-currency is the second largest source of such to the Mexican economy behind oil production. They need that flow of dollars to continue.

Our prison system is overburdened, in great part by the massive number of illegal, CRIMINAL aliens (illegal aliens that have committed CRIMES in the US, other than crossing the border illegally) that are rightfully incarcerated therein. This is another huge reason that we need to get control of our borders. Too many violent, criminals are entering and preying upon citizens by robbing them or raping them, murdering them, or committing crimes against their property. There are a lot of illegal-alien drug traffickers in prison too; guys that are bringing poison into our country to destroy the young, and the not so young, of this country.

Control the borders. Arrest illegals and give them their day in immigration court and if they have a way, under law, to continue to live here, fine, they should be afforded every right that they are entitled to, under LAW. Prosecute those individuals and businesses that hire illegals to the fullest extent of the law- after all, they are no better than slavers, stealing the labor of illegal immigrants with impunity - I hate them for that. Change the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution so that citizenship derives from the status of the parents, not from the happenstance of having a baby on US soil (which would bring US law into line with most Western European countries).

I am confident that all three of these actions, pursued with determination, would solve our current immigration issues. IF, after these steps have been taken, and we actually need more "workers" in the US, then we can enact a "guest worker" program. However, I believe that such a program cannot be used to continue to get the unholy benefit of slave labor. I am confident that citizens WILL do the jobs that many say they won't, so long as they are being paid what their labor is worth in a market place not flooded with those willing to work for slave wages. I'm not calling for establishment of higher "minimum wages" but just would like to see our market work, as it will, when slaves are not available to skew the natural value of labor to an unnaturally low level.

@hatenomor - U R right, hadn't thought of that, but if the US is turned into a 3rd world country, then why would those currently living in a 3rd world country want to come here. Nice insight.

You fail to take into account that there is a drug war going on south of our border that occasionally spills over. It has been going on for so long that it has spawned its own religion Sacred Death, the narco-saint of Mexican gangsters. People are fleeing to the north to escape this ongoing meatgrinder of conflict. Unless you take that into account, you'll never understand what going on. When armed conflict intrudes on peoples' lives, they leave. Whether or not those crossing the border satisfy the legal qualification of refugee status is an open question that I don't think has been asked yet of the authorities, but many of these people are fleeing for their lives. Even Papers Please Arizona is safer than what they have to look forward to at home. That's why so many come.

"I am confident that citizens WILL do the jobs that many say they won't, so long as they are being paid what their labor is worth in a market place not flooded with those willing to work for slave wages."

The problem with this theory is that businesses do NOT want to pay what the labor is worth or they would be doing that already. And, do keep in mind that the GOBP are very good with the standard battle cry of "raising the minimum wage will put small business out of business!" and usually fight tooth and nail any efforts to raise the minimum wage. So what's a business to do? Pay as little as possible. Who will work for less than minimum wage? I don't think I need to answer that question ...

Connecticut has always set its minimum wage higher than the national standard, but, many states don't. Therefore, until Congress, specifically the GOBP, realize that raising the minimum wage is the RIGHT thing to do, in order to ensure that people can earn at LEAST a somewhat decent wage, businesses will continue hiring those who are willing to be paid significantly less than the minimum wage.

I really don't care what your perspective is, therefore, I will refrain from further comment.

Sunshine, you know better than that. For all I know, I'm descended from illegal immigrants. My great grandfather was a tamale vendor from Mexico. The problem with this law is that it is a back-door to the harassment of legal dark hair brown skin Americans. Who carries their pass-port and birth certificate? If I get enough sun, I could be harassed. And I know you talk a good game about how race relations are so much Better in the South than anywhere else, but the bastards here are racist. Tulsa ramains segregated with Northside being the black part of town. Many of the police officers and nearly all of the highway patrol are stone thugs. Didn't you see that clip where that white highway patrol officer and pulled over an AMBULANCE and tried to choke the EMT driver who was black? These bastards don't need another excuse and they don't need another tool. Welcome to Oklahoma.

We fought on the side of the Confederacy. We are not a Northern state any more than Arizona is. And tell me, do Senators Inhofe and Coburn look remotely Democratic or Liberal to you? Buckle of the Bible Belt? Sally Kern? Are you out of your mind? Do you even know where Oklahoma is?

Is your home a foreign land? Do you leave your house with your passport next to your driver's license when you go to work or the grocery store? That's what I'm talking about. That's the whole point of PAPERS PLEASE.

As to why police pulled you over, why did they? Are you are a dangerous driver? Are your license and insurance current? Any other reason why the police stopped you? It wasn't just because you were driving while black or brown was it? Maybe its not your experience, but that happens also, and that IS profiling. Maybe they don't hassle you because you know your place so well and don't get uppity. That's still a problem here.

Papers Please means that driver's license is not enough, they can be faked. In Arizona or anywhere else that adopts this law, if you are stopped you have to prove who you are, by passport, or birth certificate. Neither driver's license or even social security card are enough. PAPERS PLEASE! PAPERS PLEASE! I'm not talking about immigrants, I'm talking about American citizens. American citizens have been deported by ICE before. You think that won't happen now? Happen alot more often? Not to mention being jailed for not having the right paperwork until someone can get it to you.

Secondly, you don't live here. You don't know what law enforcement is like here. I've already told you about the rates of incarceration here, holding the most women behind bars of any state in the nation? And we aren't even that populous!

And where do you get that Oklahoma is a Democratic State? Provide links!

YOU DON'T TELL ME ABOUT WHERE I LIVE! I KNOW DAMN WELL WHERE I LIVE AND WHAT ITS LIKE! All you have is what you read somewhere!

Screw you Sunshine!

Don:

You are my hero ... "Sunshine" ... LOL

I'm really curious to see studies that state the North is waaaaaaaaay more racist than the South. Highly doubtful any such study exists. I won't hold my breath ... I'll suffocate :)

Yeah Sunshine, satisfy our curiousity on that count. I've been through Arkansas to Berryville and Eureka Springs and not seen one black person other than my wife. I wonder what their prisons look like? Has anyone ever been to a Walmart Supercenter and not seen one black person? When I realized what was looking at it creeped me the eff out and pissed me off. So tell us again how the South is so good to black folks?

Are you telling me Oklahoma is a Northern State? Like Arizona? Are you STUPID? Are you telling me that Oklahoma isn't racist? Did not fight in the civil war? We were on the side of the Confederates. Jim Crow was our first law in Tulsa. Because most of our state is rural, most of the state offices had been held by democrats. Until recently. Republicans now have the local state house and senate. One delegate is Sally Kern. Look her up. She's a real charmer. Look at who we keep sending to Washington. We are the only state that voted unanimously for John McCain in every district. Does that sound remotely Liberal or Democratic to you?

And no, statistics quoted by you are no more acceptable to us than they would be if we quoted them to you. Give us links, from sources other than Fox or Republican affiliations...because I know you would accept nothing from the Nation or Mother Jones.

How are supposed to believe that what you are describing is not a side effect of segregation? Are these intergrated communities that you are talking about, can you prove it - with the stipulations above? If these are segregated all black communities, then of course you would see successful banks headed by black folks and black owned businesses and corporations. It was segregation and Jim Crow that made the Greenwood district in Tulsa the Black Wall Street...until it was burned to ash in the 1921 Race riot. Can you prove this its not so?

Lastly, I repeat (and you know how I LOVE doing that.) Jim Crow was emblematic of the South and that was the first law on Tulsa's books. We fought the Union during the civil war. How are we not tied to the South? And if we are, then why are race relations so f---ed up here, and why does Tulsa remain segregated. Where is the black prosperity here that you talk about?

Don:

LOL - I knew all we would get would be unsubstantiated mumbo-jumbo!

You are right, of course, in pointing out the side affects of segregation. Some seem to live in a black & white world, no room for grey. I'm confident that segregation wasn't even a fleeting thought in Sunshine's "stats." I live in the NY metro area, where as we know, a large number of minority communities exist. Typically, businesses in these areas are owned and operated by the minorities who reside in these communities, thus, the number of minority owned businesses is higher and cannot be compared to a metro area in Des Moines, IA, or Tulsa, OK for that matter.

Also, Sunshine posted various OK state positions held by Democrats during various years as if that's proof that OK is a Democratic state. If that's his logic then, since my state is governed by the GOBP in both the governors and lieutenant governors seats, and our legislature is controlled by Democrats, that makes CT a GOBP state.

LMAO ... sadly, you can't make this sh*t up ...

Sadly.

Hey, Numbnuts. Do you live here? How many democrats have we sent to Washington in the past 30 years? I vote every chance I get biatch! We are racist because of the Conservatives A--hole! Can you prove the South isn't segregated? Prove it!

Its Conservatism dumbass! That's the goddamn connection! The last Republican Govenor we had was so corrupt he tried to sell prisoners for medical experiments! He dissolved the mental health system. Inhofe worked his way up from mayor of Tulsa, our 2nd to last mayor was a Republican as is our present one.

And where's your f---ing proof that the success of blacks in the South is not due to segregation?

Don:

Buyer beware when asking hatemoron for irrefutable proof on any given topic. Do keep the below in mind in the future:

"I posted the leaders of your state. All democrats, so stop the crap."

Yes, Sunshine lists three GOBPers, but, they're ALL Democrats! And, it doesn't make a difference that the leadership isn't within the same term, and all different positions, that there's no consistency whatsoever. I'm willing to bet that he cannot show that one, single party has held each of the above-listed positions consistently from term to term. Not on hatemoron's watch! Because if, for example, a Democrat held the State School Superintendent position in 1991, each subesequent SSS term was held by a Democrat, regardless of the facts. But, in his bizarro world, what he listed is proof! It's irrefutable because hatemoron says so!!

"I took a little survey regarding oklahoma being part of the south, and guess what? None identified it as such, regardless of its history."

This is Sunshine's "proof" that OK isn't considered a southern state, regardless of the facts, regardless of its history. His opinions, his asking his silly little questions to his silly little friends is a concise, scientific survey. Well! There you have it - irrefutable proof!

"racism is a democratic legacy, not a republican one"

Sunshine completely ignores the simple fact that many southern Democrats left the Democratic Party for the GOBP because of the civil rights movement. Thus, racism followed the southern Democrats to the GOBP. But, because hatemoron says differently, why, that's proof enough!

Sunshine also has yet to provide any proof that the black community has it so much better in the South than the North. Well, I take that back - he SAYS it's true, so it must be!

Sunshine talks of facts and proof as if he has the slightest notion of what either means. Sunshine is representative of what the GOBP is all about - lies, lack of evidence, misrepresentation of facts, hyperbole, fear, hate-mongering, and reigns supreme in displaying a very convoluted version of history. hatemoron is the only proof that I can believe in.

Ah, see, this is why the proper use of terms is very important. And why it's also important to be more specific.

Any racist who would advocate for a return to slave labor for example, could be defined as a conservative. As they would be advocating for a return to a previous era, which did include segregation. The term conservative is broad and so, such individuals would be covered by it.

It's also shows the limitation of labels, especially broad ones, as a means of classification. It's why when using those labels, it's best to use them in their base capacity, rather than having arbitrarily added meaning, as it opens the door for other arbitrary meaning... such as seems to be occurring in this case.

And I notice that he continues to avoid giving proof as to whether or not Southern black success was the result of continued racial segregation.

So Sunshine, I don't know about what goes on in my own state? In my own city? And you do? How does that s--- taste that your mouth is so full of? Have you ever LIVED in the South? Are you just going on what crap your Republican handlers see fit to feed you? The urine that Fox calls lemonade?

You want me to connect the dots? You need me to break out sock puppets? We did not repeal prohibition until the 1950s. Twenty years after the rest of the country. Until 10 years ago, you could go to cockfights here. How far behind the rest of the nation is that? How long ago was the civil rights act? And Tulsa REMAINS segregated! HOW FAR BEHIND THE TIMES IS THAT?

Conservatives talk a good game about Old Fashion Traditional Values. Oklahoma is so damn retrograde, we're travelling backward thru time! That's Conservatism in action. Don't tell me I don't know what I'm looking at. I don't have may head up any political party's ass that I have to look thru their eyes to see what time it is, or have to check with their talking points to see what the "facts" are. Now, I'm asking again - and problably for the last time...

What proof do you have that black success in the South is not the result of continued racial segregation? Prove it. Independent sources, nothing from the Black Republican Caucaus, Thomas Sowell, or Fox. We don't consider any of them reliable.

Well, I'd say the previous post has a lot of over simplification of a complex history and would seem to have a significant bias, but it seems generally accurate in my first reading. It does however, by omission try to make a number of points.

Here are just some things to consider for further reading when assessing the previous post (there are far too many for me to go through them all):

"War Democrats" and their role in the civil war, including cooperation with Republicans at the end of it. As well as the general divisions of factions within that party at the time.

The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was not significant in it's affects, though it did do some good and began the process towards the 1964 Act. Unsure how it could be classified as being landmark, considering how ineffective it was.

The 1960 Act established more government control to ensure proper voting processes. It's significance is also debatable.

The "Solid South/Southen Bloc" as it's considered. Consideration of the percentages without those numbers, which showed local inclination rather than a broad ideological point. It's role in the Filibuster of 1964, the inclusion of a republican in that, the divide in that area and events following the 1964 vote. That the 1964 Act was introduced by the Democratic party and was the landmark act. That a weakened version was required to receive swing votes from Republicans.

The 1965 Act was also from Democrats.

There's a significant amount of hedging and omission in the remainder as well, but I really don't think it's worthwhile to go through it all. There are many books on this subject.

As a commentary in general, I'd say it's very often that such significant changes can only occur through widespread cooperation. It is rare indeed where such changes can be attributed to a limited group.

There's a clear distinction to be made here in the arguments presented by Don Quixotic vs hatenomor. Don makes solid references to history, common sense, and geography, utilizing undisputed data points reaching quite far back.

hatenomor takes one data point - the historically very recent shift of local officials to the Democratic Party - and attempts to use it to somehow take a magic time machine trip back to establish that it's really the Democrats that are responsible for the rampant racism that has permeated the area since long before the very Democratic control he cites as a symptom ever existed. BTW, this is the same logic Republicans use today when they say Democrats should stop blaming problems on Bush because Obama has been POTUS for a whole 1.4 years now. Nevermind that problems don't magically become someone else's doing just because the White House changes hands. Hatenomor then goes on to cut and paste a large section from what I can only guess is one of the newly rewritten textbooks bound for Texas.

It's really quite fascinating. Much in the same way that watching the special kid eat glue in the corner is fascinating. We'll ask him to stop, explain to him countless reasons why what he's doing is wrong, but deep down we know that long after we get bored with watching him eat glue, he'll still be there.. in the corner... eating glue.

Good Luck with your glue hatenomor.

And aside from the additions of minority raced Republicans, nothing had really been added after the civil rights act - which is funny when you consider how Republicans had dominated politics since Richard Nixon. As I keep saying, race politics now are shaped far more by Reagan and Bush Elder and Younger's policies than by anything since the Nixon Administration. Reagan weakened enforcement of Civil Rights Laws and all but waged war on the under-classes. That was finally accomplished with the War on Drugs which introduced sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine and mandatory minimum sentences. It would be safe to say that since the Nixon Administration, Republican crimes AGAINST blacks had grown fairly extensive.

But dumbass refuses to admit, much less discuss that.

It is the epitome of historical revision to suggest that the Republican and Democratic parties of today bear any resemblance to the Republican and Democratic parties of almost 50 years ago, with the single exception being their respective names. Their myriad of convolutions and dynamic changes on as many fronts requires clearly more specificity than your giant brush allows you to paint with, and as a result anyone who sees history for the complex tapestry that it is, simply isn't going to allow you to claim civil rights as a victory of the modern Republican party.

As for your question about what the Republicans have done to justify the racist element that is associated with them, I feel like you may as well have asked me to point to the part of the sky that's blue, because somehow you just don't see it, and yet no matter where I point you will claim that particular point is an isolated spot of blue. Honestly, this is something you can research on your own, as there is plenty of material available at your fingertips. One starting place is Rush Limbaugh, undeniably a very influential Republican, who ran the song "Barack the magic Negro" countless times for a year or more leading up to the 2008 election. He still has a show, with an audience of Republicans at least as large as when he began airing that song. He, nor his audience, are isolated components; they are representative of the greater trend in their party. I'm not interested in doing the back and forth thing with you on this, so when you're done tossing that example out on whatever basis fits you for the moment, you're on your own to research this well documented phenomenon yourself. The only other bone I'll throw you on this is to consider that you're defending a party against charges of racist tendencies that has zero African-American elected officials in the House or Senate. According to an article published in April, (cached here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RE6dOMWi2uQJ:detnews.com/article/20100405/OPINION03/4050302/African-American-Republicans-face-long-odds-for-seats-in-Congress+republicans+of+color+in+congress&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a )33 African-Americans are running for Republican nominations for Congress, and of them, ZERO are considered to be a favorite to win. I don't know how much has changed in that specific regard since April; it's just a clear and obvious reality that there is a party that has this problem with race, and there's a party that doesn't.

Best of luck with your research.

I really don't need to respond any further to your nonsensical drivel, hatemoron, as I think Don and Brandon have slapped you silly enough. I will, however, add that your excusing Rush Limbaugh is rather pathetic for a man of color, which you claim you are. And you wonder why you are ridiculed on a daily basis ...

Could this be you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHFUH_frhBw&feature=related

Oh yeah that make's Limbaugh's use of that phrase perfectly apprpopriate. Because everyone knows Limbaugh love him some negros!

hatemoron - an angry white man trapped in a black man's body ... keep apologizing for Rush - it's nice to see one pig sticking up for another.

Hate, I know all about the history behind the term "magic negro", this after all isn't my first rodeo, regardless that you seem to constantly pat yourself on the back and claim you're the only one blessed with access to Wikipedia. The term itself isn't racist, nor is any discussion that utilizes it, such as David Ehrenstein's article. The parody song "Barack the Magic Negro" had absolutely nothing to do with contributing sensibly to the global dialog about race issues; it had everything to do with reducing Barack Obama to nothing more than his racial identity for his audience, and in the process completely delegitimize him as a presidential candidate. So ultimately what makes Rush's parody racist and David Ehrenstein's article not? Context, and intent.

'Cause everybody know, Limbaugh love him some negroes.

Damn! Look at all this racism just pouring out of the Democrat Party!

"We already got one raghead in the White House, we don’t need a raghead in the governor’s mansion."
Read more: http://radio.foxnews.com/2010/06/04/south-carolina-state-senator-we-have-a-raghead-in-the-white-house-don%E2%80%99t-need-one-as-governor-updated/#ixzz0rXM4qkpt

"The chairman of Tennessee's Democratic Party wants a Republican legislative aide fired for sending out a "reprehensible" e-mail depicting President Obama as two cartoonish white eyes peering from a black background.

Obama's image is in the last square of a collage containing portraits of the previous 43 U.S. presidents. Copies of the e-mail were posted on the Internet on Monday. Sherri Goforth, an administrative assistant to state Sen. Diane Black, R-Gallatin, has admitted she sent the e-mail May 28 with the title "Historical Keepsake Photo." She said, without elaborating, that she mistakenly sent it "to the wrong list of people."

According to The Tennessean, a Nashville newspaper, a note on the e-mail said it was paid for by the Tennessee Republican Party, but GOP officials denied that they produced it. Black chairs the Senate Republican Caucus.
http://allnurses-central.com/world-news-current/tn-republican-staffer-400850.html

"Diane Fedele, the president of Chaffey Community Republican Women Federated in inland Riverside County, sent an email blast that contained a graphic showing “Obama Bucks,” which depicted Barack Obama’s face on a food stamps certificate, along with a bucket of fried chicken, ribs, Kool-Aid and a slice of watermelon."

"Now Dean Grose, the Republican mayor of Los Alamitos in Orange County is under fire for sending an email that shows the White House lawn planted with watermelons, with the headline, “No Easter egg hunt this year”"http://www.pensitoreview.com/2009/02/26/oc-gop-mayor-caught-sending-racist-email-about-obama/

“Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”

“Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”

“The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.”

“They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?”

[To an African American female caller]: “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.”http://newsone.com/obama/casey-gane-mccalla/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/

"Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman apologized to one of the nation's largest black civil rights groups Thursday, saying Republicans had not done enough to court blacks in the past and had exploited racial strife to court white voters, particularly in the South." http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-GOP-racial-politics_x.htm

"In American politics, the Southern strategy is a Republican Party method of winning Southern states in the latter decades of the 20th century and first decade of the 21st century by exploiting opposition among the once segregationist South to the cultural upheaval of desegregation and the Civil Rights movement." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

"For the past year, far-right members of the Texas Board of Education have been overhauling the state’s textbook standards. The changes include “pushing for inclusion of more…Confederate glorification,” re-naming the Atlantic slave trade the “Atlantic Triangle Trade," http://www.hometalkentertainment.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2914401

"They have since resorted to a more subtle tack; while they concede that people like Martin Luther King Jr. deserve a place in history, they argue that they shouldn’t be given credit for advancing the rights of minorities. As Barton put it, “Only majorities can expand political rights in America’s constitutional society.” http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1001.blake.html

Damn! Those Democrats are some racist mo-fo's!!

The silence is deafening ...

Sure brown nose. That's why not a single district here voted for Obama, 'cause we're all liberal and big brother lovers. You are full of s---and have got s---for brains, that's why your eyes are brown. That is why every county voted for McCain dumbass. You are just a dutiful house negro to the Republican party. You can count on them to pat you on the head and tell you what a FINE Republican you are.

hatenomor:

I have not stated that republicans advocate a return to slavery. But, I assume you're referring to the statement regarding those wishing for a return to that time having the potential to be classified as conservatives. To answer that, a few points.

Often the terms conservative and republican are used interchangeably, this is part of what I think creates extensive confusion. Effectively (and this is of course a simplification), republicans are conservatives, but not all conservatives are republican. Even within the republican grouping there are a number of factions.

Now, going back to the definition of conservative I mentioned in the other reply thread, a conservative is simply defined as desiring minimal change or a return to a previous era. As slavery is from a previous era, those advocating for that are by definition, conservatives.

So, conservatives who advocate for a return to slavery may have an association with republicans because of some shared ideology in the broader sense of conservatism, but this does not mean that republicans advocate it.

Now, a conservative who advocates the return of slavery is more likely to join or proclaim to be a republican, because of that shared conservative ideology. As opposed to the Democratic party which is not considered conservative. This is likely a result of the limited choice available, rather than a true belief that republicans as a whole will support their desires.

Added to that, is that some republicans do oppose the expansion of civil rights to certain sections/classes (such as gay/lesbian). This may give the perception to the mentioned conservatives that they are therefore, more likely, to be able to persuade a republican to extend that ideology to repeal rights for the groups they are concerned with. Effectively, using the vague commonalities to attempt to create movement for their own desires. It may also be possible for these conservatives to move/be accepted within the republican grouping, because of the shared ideology and so attempt to steer from within or enact change in a more obscure manner.

Another reason, is that equality of rights on a national and local scale both, requires government intervention to enforce. Republicans in general support limited government, some more extreme factions advocate for near anarchism in that regard. So, in this way the conservatives desiring slavery may support republicans in the hopes that their removal of government control, will have the fringe benefit of allowing them to act without oversight and return to the previous era.

So, hopefully that answers that.

Just to pre-empt a potential question, the simple reason for why these conservatives would choose republican over democrat, when there is the historical evidence which might one to lead otherwise is simply a matter of the more recent movements of the groupings. (The major turning point likely being the 1964 Civil Rights Act) The democrat grouping in the present day, especially, displays next to none of the tendencies, associations or shared ideology that would be required to create the environment those conservatives wishing slavery want.

*shrugs a bit* Things do change over time, certainly as well. Republican now is likely not the same as republican then, and the same for the democrats. And it's not as if either grouping have extensive barriers or ideological testing for their respective representatives =P

The gay/lesbian rights issue certainly display that well, if the republicans of the past were present and their advocacy for universal equality as strong on that topic, it would perhaps not be an issue at all. A number of current republicans, however, do not follow that principle as is evidence by opposition to the creation of equality for that group/class. (Not that there aren't some democrats who do the same, but the majority would seem to adhere to that principle that the past republicans supported.).

So yes, I hope that answers your question =)

Black is white, water is dry, down is up, and fertilizer is caviar. The social and political views of Christ look good on paper, but don't work out so well in practice...isn't that what you said? Therefore, you tie yourself to the Judases and tha Mammonites and are just another one of the pharisees who agitated to the Romans to nail him to the cross. Because nobody likes a poverty pimp.

I'm done talking to you blind man. In calling me a racist and telling me that I don't know what goes on in my own state, you have forfeited any respect I might have for you as a human being. Rot in Hell Sunshine.

hatenomor, I'm afraid your ability to comprehend my posts seems to be lacking. I'd hoped that considering your blunder in asking the question itself, that you would at least take more care in reading the response. This requires personal responsibility on your part, it would be appreciated, please.

To respond though:

The dictionary definition is based off the historical definition, in others words is is -the- definition, if an individual claims to be that label, then they must follow that definition in some degree, or they are not what that is. Or they are simply wrong/ignorant and are using language incorrectly. In other words, they have not taken the personal responsibility to properly communicate or even define their beliefs correctly. That is of course, unfortunate for them, but it does not somehow invalidate the principle of my argument. Justifying that abuse of language and history surprises me, considering your condemnation of others changing the past to suit their needs.

Further, that definition is broad. It is the overall group. I mentioned this before that the proper understanding is important, because otherwise you fail to communicate. Do you understand the concept of a hierarchy? I pointed out the principle of it within the post itself. A conservative -must- fit that basic classical definition even in a limited way, or they are not a conservative. However, additional parameters can be included making them a sub-class/grouping of that definition. In the case I mentioned, republicans are a sub-section of conservative. This is a basic concept, please try to wrap your head around it.

As for it being only valid on paper, I also mentioned this before, but my origins are not academic. I have worked in a number of positions of direct advocacy that included minority groups, in a number of anti-discrimination organisations solely focused upon that, as well as having been active participant in a foreign country during a civil war based on race, and in fact have scars on my body as a reminder of that. My points are based as much on "street" experience as you might put it, as an researched perspective. Such was even included as one of my examples, members of an organisation advocating discrimination did in fact also advocate a conservative ideology under the belief that a return to minimal government restrictions would allow them to do as they desired. An attempt to belittle a logical argument by claiming it is too academic is childish at best and your assumption of it's real world application is incredibly naive.

The entire two last paragraphs of your post as well, simply show that you did not in fact bother reading my post, you even copied the pertinent section into your post. Specifically the sentence:

"This is likely a result of the limited choice available, rather than a true belief that republicans as a whole will support their desires."

And then go on to point out that indeed, you too believe they wouldn't find direct support... However, you've entirely ignored that there is evidence of their success in indirect methods (and I even cited one example) of such minded individuals managing to prevent or overturn "color blind" initiatives and law.

I have realized in the end of writing this though, I am making an assumption. So I'll add, if you are in fact, indeed trying to discuss things and making the effort to read these posts, but are simply unable to do so; please do not be afraid of simply asking for clarification, even just on the terms used. Myself, and I'm sure others, would be happy to walk you through and help you reach some understanding. Alternatively, there are usually reading comprehension and language courses offered in continuing education/night school which can support you very adequately, especially if you prefer a classroom/personal setting.

Be well.

"I would love to be able to dissect your post for full flavor, but I admit, they are a little daunting, and takes more than one reading to absorb all the nuances."

Meaning - I have comprehension issues, and I haven't a clue as to what you're saying.

And I'd sooner roast in hell than recognize you as a man, period.

hatenomor: I'm afraid even this response shows a clear lack of understanding regarding my post, as well as a lack of it regarding the number of posts I have made prior. This is not a matter of failing to understand nuances, but of failing to understand major and often basic points. And simply in the end, confirms that my assumption was correct.

Bluntly, it is your personal responsibility when engaging in a discussion to take the time to comprehend the meaning of others to the best of your ability. Or to seek additional information when unsure, to achieve that comprehension. That is a basic principle of discussion and indeed communication itself. If you do not, you have no acceptable reason to respond (or at the very least, can't expect proper treatment in return or for your views to be understood) . All it shows is a complete lack of respect for the other party as well as the process itself.

If you do not understand even that concept, please seek medical attention as it may be an indication of mental illness (e.g. Schizophrenia, ASPD, NPD, and such). Your constant assumptions of others intent even when corrected, potential memory/association problems, placing additional information/meaning in your perception of others, the aggressive and passive aggressive language, attributing individuals to "sides", the language indicating that you believe you are a victim only seeking to enlighten (martyrdom) when faced with any scale of disagreement, and the inability to understand the mentioned concept of respect/interaction, are all important points to bring up in an assessment.

I will seek to limit myself to posting factual corrections and additional data only (as was required in one of the previous posts) in response to anything you might choose to post and would ask that you limit yourself to the same. I will ignore any other comments. This being based on your indication that you are incapable, for whatever the true reason may be, of engaging in mature and respectful/equal discussion.

Be well.

His mistake was in thinking that you were a reasonable reasoning living being with at least some rudimentary form of intellect as opposed to the wind up right wing automaton that you clearly are. And its evident that everything he said just sailed by you dipsh--. He said that if you are for real about your positions and believe everything you write, then you need help. You may be mentally ill and may need medication or theraputic intervention. No response to that other than "you use too many words and I don't understand so its all your fault?"

I don't give you that much credit. I say you are just a wind up toy for the Republicans. Proof? You don't connect conservatism with racism. You are their idea of a joke. And you understand what I say just fine, don't you?

Kai, we have a simple mechanism here. Don't try so hard, it won't appreciate it.

"So, with that said, tell me, what have I failed to comprehend in your posts?"

LMAO - Boy, is THAT a loaded question!

That persecution complex is no joke. I bet he wears a tin foil hat to keep what's his name from corrupting his thoughts.

Well, one needs grey matter in order for one's thoughts to be corrupted :)

Seven out of eight voices are telling him not to go on a murderous rampage.

Actually, I only brought up (in this thread of discussion), the single issue of defining conservative and who would be included within. You asked an incorrect question regarding that, I answered it anyway. You then, brought up a number of other topics (many of which I had not even mentioned, but which you believed I had) and then proceeded to simultaneously answer them. Even when portions of my posts actually agreed with your assertions (you even cited one portion which did so, right before you began to argue it). And so in response to that, I brought up your personal responsibility in communication, etc.

My being specific in language is used to counteract the exact problem you mention most recently, as it allows for conveyance of my intent and meaning even when personal perspectives differ. I use it, in large part, because it has been extremely effectively in allowing communication with all manner of races, creeds and cultures (which was rather important in my work). It only works though, of course, if the other individual takes some responsibility in communication and acts with mutual respect (such as actually fully reading the message), rather than assuming intent and disregarding content. Again, this establishment of common ground or specifying meaning is a rather normal state of affairs between humans and it is odd that you struggle with it.

I had offered previously to walk you through any troubles you might have in comprehension, an offer you ignored. While that offer no longer stands, if you are genuinely struggling I would mention again that reading comprehension/language courses would benefit you greatly and they are seldom much of a burden. These skills should have been present by the end of middle school, and most certainly mastered by the completion of high school. Not having them is more detrimental to you than anyone else.

I am far more concerned, however, on another topic. Comprehension may be a portion of it, but it seems to extend significantly beyond that. In your most recent posts (both), you have yet again displayed paranoia, added additional intent/meaning without any reason, created an imagined division between yourself and another and attacked it, and potentially again altered or forgotten a flow of events. These are not minor issues and could be evidence of a serious threat to your health. If you are suffering from an illness, lack of support or preventative treatment may also begin to cause harm to those around you. Again, please consider contacting a professional for an assessment.

Good luck and be well.

Translation: Get help. Kai still thinks you might be human, maybe even a man. He means well. In case I'm wrong and you aren't some kind of Republican windup toy, then you might listen to him.

"Seven out of eight voices are telling him not to go on a murderous rampage."

This is usually the first sign that hatemoron's going to go postal ... get the popcorn ready, it's quite fun!

My apologies, they were so direct I thought they would be self evident. Please understand that these examples are in comparison to normal/non-aggressive interaction and language. I'll limit the examples to the mentioned two posts for simplicity:

Paranoia:

"your puppet master, Alynsky." (Assume meant Alinsky, should be self evident)

"Actually, I am beginning to believe that your posts are" (Perception of aggressive intention)

Division & attack:

"Excuse me, but maybe if you" (Disregard of joint requirement of communication, after having admitted to not attempting to fulfill personal responsibility in that relationship, in the previous post. This could be included in memory lapse as well)

"Seems to me your position is" (Creation of an imagined "side" which can then be attacked)

"ignoring the fact that most people" (Creation of a division between subject and humanity/society, when expressed in an aggressive way, rather than a comparative way, is a means of dehumanizing the indicated individual to negate any guilt from what follows)

Added intent/meaning:

'Seems to me your position is that "perfect verbiage is required for one to have a debate", and that all debate must be confined to the "literal meaning of any given work"' (Imagined addition and assertion of position without basis, relates to the numerous attempts of explanation)

Memory lapse:

"I believe I have addressed the issues you have posed." (Failure to understand that only a single issue was posed, that other issues were self manufactured)

"Maybe you can concisely, express the points that you seem to feel I have missed, or fail to comprehend." (Such occurred repeatedly. One such point was made immediately prior, with specific reference of the exact sentence you had cited, in two sentences, one before the citation and one after)

"Which is exactly?" (Position was simplistic, and was repeated numerous times, which, the position was almost entirely limited to the classification of conservative and how individuals would have associations based upon it)

I hope that advances your understanding. It should be noted, that the general belief that once you have spoken on a topic (even in the face of a response) you have "addressed the issue" highlights the above examples as potential mental instability (as it would mean that whoever speaks second, effectively establishes truth). Though such a perception may explain why you generate imagined issues to them immediately argue them.

I'm afraid I am stepping out of this conversation though. I am in all honestly, growing increasingly disturbed by your responses and their surreal nature. And I also believe that as I am not fully qualified as a professional in this field (relying only on my experience as an advocate/low level counselor) it is unlikely I will be able to provide proper/further assistance and may inadvertently cause damage.

Take care of yourself, good luck, be well.

Don't worry too much about it until people in camo start slaughtering Hispanics in their own homes. Az still has the market on that.

@hatenomor - you seem to have missed my point. You say: <Try crossing that imaginary line between china and N. Korea. Maybe you will only be "shot" in your imagination.> No, I don't doubt that you will be shot for real, but the point is that the soldiers on both sides are defending an IDEA concocted by human beings, NOT anything that REALLY exists apart from the minds of humanity. In reality, people on both sides of every border are just PEOPLE with the same needs and the same inalienable rights as you and I. Nation-states and their borders have been imposed on us by force and deceit — or do you really believe that the US government's authority is based on "the consent of the governed"? Did YOU ever consent to it? And most states do not waste time on such pretensions. They impose their authority by the use and threat of violent force, and by the monopolization of access to the necessities of life and the resources of nature that are the common heritage of all humanity.

What form of government should the world use? I believe the concept of "government" itself has outlasted its usefulness and must be discarded. Nation-states exist primarily to make war against each other and to maintain the unfair advantages of privileged ruling classes. The individual, not the nation-state, must be recognized as the fundamental basis of society. Every person born on Earth is an equal co-heir of Earth's resources and the civilization created by the labor of our ancestors. We must recognize the royal sovereignty of the individual. All "laws" should be based on voluntary cooperation, not coercion.

So, the narcissistic sociopath wants us all to pee on the border to mark our territory - GENIUS!

Evidence is emerging that much of the violence is coming from self-appointed vigilantes killing Latinos.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/border-violence-and-immigration-ariz

"Question: Why are you so intent on making U.S. citizens the bad guys?"

Strange question.

My take on the article was that there was a vigilante (woman) who invaded a home, killed a man and his daughter and wounded the mother.

Bad guys (or women) are as bad guys do. I'm not concerned about their nationality. Why are you?

In any crime, the goal should be to find and punish the perpetrator so as to protect the innocent. Your question (intended or not) makes it look as though you have another agenda. Is that true?

hate, these are the kinds of absurd questions you pose that result in your being ridiculed here. Here's a sampling of others you have asked just in comments on this page.. I hold this up as a mirror for you to consider that these may be less than effective in persuading anyone at anything.

Why do you dislike your fellow americans so much...?

Are all of you in favor of "slave labor"?

So, your in favor of slave labor in your state, is that what your saying?

Hey, I have an idea for you, lets adopt Mexico's immigration laws. Do you think mexicans would be happy if we did?

So, tell me, earth citizen, under what form of government does the world use?

By the way, have you not heard of animals "marking there territory"?

"Reasonable suspicion" is a long established legal standard that any police person worth their salt understands completely. The Supreme Court has had many opportunities to look at this standard, and actually had a direct hand in establishing its validity. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

The Arizona law does not allow a police officer to stop a person based upon reasonable suspicion of being an illegal alien. Read the law.

While Arizona vigilantes are shooting Hispanics under their own beds. Do you think they asked for their papers first to see whether or not they were legal?

Vigilantes performing acts of violence against minorities to keep them in their place. Gee, who does that sound like? Its right on the tip of my tongue...is it, III, no. JJJ, no. KKK, that's it. And the Nazis too come to think of it. And I'll know what you say dumb ass. "The KKK were all Democrats." Well dipsh--, I doubt its Democrats who are doing the home invasions in AZ, dressed in camo. The vigilantism is the Nationalistic response of a Nationalistic law. If it works so good for Mexicans, maybe they can use it drive out the blacks too? There is precedent that shows that its these things work. Save your denials, just watch.

Just watch dumbass.

Brandon: I gave an appropriate response to a ridiculous post.

Your "appropriate responses" are inflammatory and nonsensical. I had hoped maybe you would come to terms with that by looking at them.

Hey way: I agree. Just like McCarthy saw communists hiding under every bed, you see racists under every bed.

The person who wrote "is a @!$%#" on my door last month next to my Obama sticker was not an apparition, and nor was he a liberal. How many examples of crap like this do you need before you stop pretending these acts and the political affiliation of the people perpetrating them are completely isolated incidents? If you feel good with your head buried in the sand, great. The rest of us refuse to join you. Your arguments are a waste of time, yours and ours.

I guess that got censored. The thing that was written on my door was "is a [N-word]". Hope that makes it more clear.

I give odds that he will blame it on a democrats because "all members of the KKK are democrats" or some crap like that. He's adamant that all racists are democrats. Just watch.

He was arguing that the pervasive racism in Oklahoma had nothing to do with us being a Red State. He insists that there is no connection between conservatism and racism. I lost all ...well what little...respect I had for him when he continued to insist there was no connection and that I was deluded as to what I thought was going on in my state, that HE knew what was going on in my state better than I did. I repeat, a--hole, you side yourself with those who are destroying the planet and regard the actual hard work that Jesus did as just so much poverty pimpery. Good luck with that. And, oh yeah...ROT IN HELL!

"What happened to you and your doorway is not representative of the republican party. Or conservatives. Why can't you see that?"

I knew his answer would be one of the two - it was a racist Democrat, or it's not representative of the GOBP.

BUT, ask him about Muslims, and hatemoron will say that they are ALL jihadists ... hatemoron: tool supreme.

See Brandon? I called it. I should have bet you something. Okay a--hole, here's a little equation for you. If an Obama Sticker is slurred, then who did the vandal vote for? Answer: McCain. McCain=Republican. Racist = Republican. In Oklahoma, every county voted for McCain. Every county = Republican. Oklahoma is racist. And yes dipsh-- you just called me racist AGAIN. Republican = Racist. Its a reasonable hypothesis. I would not go broke betting on that.

Go on and deny that Oklahoma is Red state. Its funny.

Clearly he didn't vote for Obama, so what does that leave? Now go on and tell me about how Oklahoma is a Blue state. Back up your claim with links from the GOP. After all, they'd know better than anyone who is and isn't a Republican.

You must expend an awful lot of energy to be the large @!$%# you are. Really.

Because liberals and democrats go around doing exactly that kind of vandalism, yeah? Now where's your GOP approved proof that Oklahoma is a Blue state?

I rest my case.

"No, I rest mine. Which is: The left takes all of the glory, but none of the shame. Check mate."

Spoken like one suffering from a severe case of arrested development.

Whoever gets last word is a douchebag.

hate: In order to avoid being just a run of the mill troll, I think you should lay out your concept of a solution to the situation.

HAHAhahaha!!!!

I remember your solution, it was "close the borders". (I.E: you don't have a solution)

Not alot.

I don't know what the hell you are talking about. Is it more of the schizophrenia talking? What's this got to do with your your plan to fix immigration in Az?

Maybe it's one of his many personalities ... NAACPrep, perhaps. One of many of his personalities that was banned from AAR back in the day.