Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Roger Bacon on June 25, 2012, 03:05:05 PM
-
???
-
we won 1 of 4.
its a victorious day
-
we won 1 of 4.
its a victorious day
Who's "we"... lol
-
It was a hodge podge and a mess of a decision.
-
From what I understand, the proposed law could be abused terribly. I agree with the objective but I'm not sure if they would use it rightfully.
-
From what I understand, the proposed law could be abused terribly. I agree with the objective but I'm not sure if they would use it rightfully.
let's just remember that if they replaced "potential illegal mexicans" with "potential illegal europeans"...
I doubt most repubs would support the govt being about to round up ppl that looked like them, and lock em up for 6 hours because they don't have a birth cert with them.
-
let's just remember that if they replaced "potential illegal mexicans" with "potential illegal europeans"...
I doubt most repubs would support the govt being about to round up ppl that looked like them, and lock em up for 6 hours because they don't have a birth cert with them.
STFU you liar.
If millions of zips came here illegal from Italy - I would be the first one rounding those wops up and sending them on the fastest boat out of here.
-
let's just remember that if they replaced "potential illegal mexicans" with "potential illegal europeans"...
I doubt most repubs would support the govt being about to round up ppl that looked like them, and lock em up for 6 hours because they don't have a birth cert with them.
Not good, maybe were missing something here?
So did the Supreme Court uphold this part?
-
STFU you liar.
If millions of zips came here illegal from Italy - I would be the first one rounding those wops up and sending them on the fastest boat out of here.
obama may steal this election.
tea partiers will take to the street.
obama may choose to say "we have illegals disrupting american cities... bald white dudes with muscles from 'overseas'"
and the law used to round up people named jose in Phoenix will suddenly be used to lock up dudes named 333386 in NYC.
Maybe you trust obama not to abuse this law, and that is fine - But i do not!
-
STFU you liar.
If millions of zips came here illegal from Italy - I would be the first one rounding those wops up and sending them on the fastest boat out of here.
He was suggesting white europeans, not Italians lol...
-
:D
-
:)
What do you have against dagos?
He was suggesting white europeans, not Italians lol...
-
:D
Good post for once! 8)
-
What do you have against dagos?
You guys open the best little restaurants in this country.
-
-
Napolitano put it very well.
The constitution gives immigration to the federal government specifically.
The SC upheld that, saying the states have no right to usurp the constitution and step in to fill the federal governments shoes.
I can respect that.
-
:)
What do you have against dagos?
Nothing really... Most Italians are not white, just a fact. I'm guessing the "European" point of 240's post concerned European whites, not Italians or "other" lol...
-
let's just remember that if they replaced "potential illegal mexicans" with "potential illegal europeans"...
I doubt most repubs would support the govt being about to round up ppl that looked like them, and lock em up for 6 hours because they don't have a birth cert with them.
Can you substantiate that claim of yours? No? Shut the fuck up then.
-
What's a "Dago"?
-
Can you substantiate that claim of yours? No? Shut the fuck up then.
how can i substantiate a potential future abuse of this power by obama?
i dont like giving obama such power.
-
What's a "Dago"?
It's an insult to Italians.
-
how can i substantiate a potential future abuse of this power by obama?
i dont like giving obama such power.
The post I quoted had nothing to do with Obama. Your little attempt at deflection right there pretty much says it all.
-
how can i substantiate a potential future abuse of this power by obama?
i dont like giving obama such power.
Yet you have no issue at all giving him power to kill people w no oversight whatsoever w drones. Go figure.
-
Yet you have no issue at all giving him power to kill people w no oversight whatsoever w drones. Go figure.
i was the one who posted the link about the drone crashing 2 weeks ago, and i was VERY MUCH against the use of drones on US soil.
i've never bought into the 'if you have nothing to hide" bullshit argument that neochickenhawks tried selling on getbig for 8 years, and i sure as hell don't support it now.
-
i was the one who posted the link about the drone crashing 2 weeks ago, and i was VERY MUCH against the use of drones on US soil.
i've never bought into the 'if you have nothing to hide" bullshit argument that neochickenhawks tried selling on getbig for 8 years, and i sure as hell don't support it now.
Why are you ignoring Fury's question?
YOU made this claim:
let's just remember that if they replaced "potential illegal mexicans" with "potential illegal europeans"...
I doubt most repubs would support the govt being about to round up ppl that looked like them, and lock em up for 6 hours because they don't have a birth cert with them.
Fury asked this:
Can you substantiate that claim of yours? No? Shut the fuck up then.
So can you prove your statement or are you just repeating the same lie created by stupid liberals?
-
No response.
Such is the liberal tactic of making false accusations and then running away when asked for proof.
-
No response.
Such is the liberal tactic of making false accusations and then running away when asked for proof.
240 accused someone else yesterday of not caring about all the dead mexicans in fast n furious. When pressed to name the poster - he ran away.
-
Arizona Can't Do It; Washington Won't
Townhall.com ^ | June 26, 2012 | Debra J. Saunders
President Barack Obama hailed the Supreme Court's 5-3 decision Monday that struck down most of Arizona's 2010 immigration law. In a statement released by the White House, however, the president said that he remains "concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally."
All eight voting members of the Supreme Court upheld this provision, which requires that Arizona cops try to determine the immigration status of individuals who have been stopped for reasons not involving immigration.
Even though federal law requires legal immigrants to carry identification papers with them, open-border types have dubbed the Arizona provision "show me your papers." Even though the Arizona law requires that race not be a factor in any police actions conducted under the law, MSNBC's Chris Matthews calls that section of the law "the requirement that cops stop people because they look a certain way." Quoth the president, "No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like." No matter how much Arizonans improve the law, the left will maintain that it is about race and race alone.
The irony is that Obama has been a strong booster of the Secure Communities program, introduced by President George W. Bush, operated under U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and expanded under this administration. The program forwards fingerprints taken by local law enforcement to ICE, where officials check to see whether arrestees are in the United States legally. Obama is happy to have local law enforcement check on the immigration status of people it arrests, as long as only his feds make the decision over what to do -- or not do -- about it.
"A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system," Obama intoned in his statement. That's Phony, Part 2.
"The White House hasn't sued San Francisco," a self-proclaimed sanctuary city, noted Jon Feere, legal policy analyst for the pro-enforcement Center for Immigration Studies, "but it's going after states that are trying to uphold the law."
I asked the Department of Justice to explain the administration's scruples on Arizona-versus-sanctuary-cities to me in 2010. A spokeswoman replied: "There's a difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law. That's what Arizona did in this case, and we believe it is an unconstitutional interference with the federal government's prerogative to set and enforce immigration policy."
Or, in this case, not enforce immigration policy. Clearly, the president objects only when states seek to bolster immigration law, not flout it.
As dissenting justice Antonin Scalia reasoned, "the sale of illegal drugs, for example, ordinarily violates state law as well as federal law, and no one thinks that the state penalties cannot exceed the federal."
Now, there is a case to be made for the argument that letting states enforce federal law can, as Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, "undermine federal law." But it's a case best made by those able to ignore the administration's selective umbrage. What Obama is really saying: "Move over, Arizona. Only I have the right to undermine federal law."
-
I like the idea of this law, but there's just to much risk of legal citizens being harassed.
-
I like the idea of this law, but there's just to much risk of legal citizens being harassed.
I agree. But this is what you get when the Federal Government refuses to enforce its own laws and abdicates its position. Arizona feels the real effects of illegal immigration yet the Federal Govt. and this administration (and other Admins as well) refuse to do their duty and enforce the law of the land because they need votes and campaign contributions.
-
I agree. But this is what you get when the Federal Government refuses to enforce its own laws and abdicates its position. Arizona feels the real effects of illegal immigration yet the Federal Govt. and this administration (and other Admins as well) refuse to do their duty and enforce the law of the land because they need votes and campaign contributions.
Oh yeah, I understand. I've recently posted about my goofy communist uncle that's starting to worry me. He said the other day "Arizona is a gross state".... WTF? :-[
P.S. I misspelled Arizona in the title of this thread and no one noticed... ;D
-
I agree. But this is what you get when the Federal Government refuses to enforce its own laws and abdicates its position. Arizona feels the real effects of illegal immigration yet the Federal Govt. and this administration (and other Admins as well) refuse to do their duty and enforce the law of the land because they need votes and campaign contributions.
x2, I see this as simply attempting to buy votes (especially now, in a critical election year.)
-
x2, I see this as simply attempting to buy votes (especially now, in a critical election year.)
Its called HISPANDERING