Who else here likes pancakes?
|
Who else here likes pancakes?I love pankcakes with berries and syrup.
Nomnomnom
they are smurfy
You're pure evil...
PS I suggested that Arizona throw open its borders, divide up the rural Arizona into 2 acre blocks and bring the population up to 1 billion. Then charge Tax - 12 hours of labour per week, and 1 dollar per day per citizen. That results in 356 billion per year in tax (not including tax paid in labour).
Instant cure.
Faux News making a mountain out of a molehill again
At least she isn't crying like that prejean chick. That was a case of sour grapes.
She knew that it wasn't a politicaly correct answer but it was what she really thought and was willing to pay the price.To qoute on of those anoying motivational posters,"It's better to do your best than be the best" same principle here. If giving the answer they wanted to hear gave her the crown was it worth it, obviously not.
It is funny that we expect more truthful answers from beauty contestants than we do from supreme court nominees.
It is funny that we expect more truthful answers from beauty contestants than we do from supreme court nominees.
And that really is the sum of the whole matter.
Well-reasoned argument, to a point
I understood and agreed with some of this, but your end note simply throws too much of a loop for me. Despite it's rational tone, it's still carte blanche for racial profiling, not the the extent of there being no such thing as white people being in the country illegally, but close enough on the other end(there are so many hispanics in the country illegally).
Having lived in Arizona, and having called in to the anonymous tip reports line about employers using illegals to the INS, only to see nothing happen (other than getting a rock thrown through my window), I understand EXACTLY why this law got passed.
It is no more prone for abuse than any other traffic stop law is for racial profiling. The cops don't get to stop you for no reason and say 'papers please' in their best Stasi accents.
They have to have a reason to pull you over in the first place.
Even more telling is that the last chunk of text in the law is "Enforcing the Federal immigration laws already in the books" - this is nothing new. Any FBI or INS or Secret Service agent has the same authority. Now Arizona cops do.
My father has retired to Mexico. I've visited him there.
It's remarkable - I have to have my passport with me at all times. I can't find any ATM machines with English options outside of the American Consulate. There's a lot less government meddling in day to day life.
The cities are lovely, the people are friendly - but they expect you to speak and read Spanish. I know, it's rude, and racist of them to be prejudiced towards us Anglos...but hey, I go along. I figure it's their country, I play by their rules.
Plus, being caught by the National Police without your passport can get you put in jail for 2-6 years.
The place is awash in 'I'll look the other way for a small amount of money." It's also effectively dealing with a narcotrafficker civil war on the US border, and that's spilling over into Arizona and New Mexico and southwest Texas.
In a lot of ways, the narcotraffickers on the US/Mexico border treat the border as an opportunity - it gets too hot in Mexico, take a vacation in crazy land del Norte. The Feds coming after you? Head south again.
Phoenix and Tucson have had a huge increase in extortions and kidnappings because of this. I do not have any doubts whatsoever that that's driving this bill. It boils down to "The Feds won't enforce this law, so we will."
It is funny that we expect more truthful answers from beauty contestants than we do from supreme court nominees.And that really is the sum of the whole matter.
+1
|
|
+1It is funny that we expect more truthful answers from beauty contestants than we do from supreme court nominees.And that really is the sum of the whole matter.
"I am not 'not' above having an opinion on any matter that may or may not come before the court, that i do or do not have a vested interest in though I prefer to keep an opinion that in no way casts doubt on where my loyalties lie despite my desire to appear publically neutral in all matters."
How did this debate end up not being about pancakes anymore?
How did this debate end up not being about pancakes anymore?Ran out of Smurfsyrup...waiting for Smurfette to get back from Gargamel's with new supply.
Not the Smurfysyrup! Anything but the Smurfysyrup! She'd better get back quick!
Well-reasoned argument, to a pointI understood and agreed with some of this, but your end note simply throws too much of a loop for me. Despite it's rational tone, it's still carte blanche for racial profiling, not the the extent of there being no such thing as white people being in the country illegally, but close enough on the other end(there are so many hispanics in the country illegally).
I think I must take partial responsibility for not fully explaining my endnote. I was writing a number of posts with various previous posts in mind but did not bother to include them.
Maybe it will (or maybe it won't) make a difference if placed in such a context and explain what I was trying to say:
Seriously.
I think if they try to go thru with this, a crucial statistic to measure is the profile of people asked to show proof of citizenship and who do in fact provide it. If they are NOT racial profiling, the statistics of that group (the 'proven innocent after presumed guilty' group) should match arizona's over-all population. If they DO effectively use racial profiling, you would see the statistics skew away from the over-all population of arizona and towards the 'targetted ethnicities'.End Note:
Since a much larger portion of the "stereotypical" hispanic population is here illegally than the "stereotypical" white population it should be no surprise that a much larger portion of that hispanic population would display indicators of being illegal than the white population with a much lower percentage of illegals. So, not surprisingly, a much larger portion of one ethnicity would be investigated than the other because their is a much higher incidence rate of the illegal activity among one group than the other.
Note: By "stereotypical" I am simly referring to whatever is the image that a person is visualizing of a particular group when that person argues that said group will be harassed or given a pass based upon being a member of such a group.
I referenced the quote by Quandary from memory when addressing it and thus did not realize it was specifically referring to those who were investigated but turned out to be citizens. My memory told me the post was stating that the demographics of those chosen to be investigated should mirror that of the state demographics. That should only happen if the investigations was completely random.
I think that I must reiterate that indicators are not 100% proof. They are only indicators. It is perfectly possible to display them and not be an illegal immigrant. Otherwise, there would be no need to investigate.
Now, my questions:
If the police are doing their job correctly and using indicators of illegal status, would it be accurate to state that the presence of these indicators among those who are citizens (many of whom may be naturalized or second generation citizens) would have a demographic spread identical to that of the state at large?
Why or why not?
If not, would it not be surprising for the demographics of those investigated to not match that of the state?
What if an "indicator" is present in 75% of the illegal population, 10% of one ethnicity and 1% of another? Would that be an acceptable "indicator"? Would it not give a disproportionate number of false positives when compared to the demographics of the state? Would the comparison of correct to incorrect for even the heavier ethnicity be large enough to warrant its use as an "indicator"?
Specific example: use of English as a second language, above numbers arbitrarily chosen
|
|
That's not all Smurfette was getting at Gargamel's *nudge-nudge, wink-wink*How did this debate end up not being about pancakes anymore?Ran out of Smurfsyrup...waiting for Smurfette to get back from Gargamel's with new supply.
If it isnt coughed-up tuna from Azrael...you get to stand in the shunned persons cue.
|
I can't wait until Arizona turns off 25% of L.A.'s power.
And San Diego? Why are you crying about Arizonans canceling their hotel reservations in your city?
|
|
I can't wait until Arizona turns off 25% of L.A.'s power.
And San Diego? Why are you crying about Arizonans canceling their hotel reservations in your city?
I wonder if California will declare all Mexicans Citizens of the United States via citizneship of California?
I wonder if California will declare all Mexicans Citizens of the United States via citizneship of California?I can't wait until Arizona turns off 25% of L.A.'s power.
And San Diego? Why are you crying about Arizonans canceling their hotel reservations in your city?
I seriously doubt you do actually.
|
|
I wonder if California will declare all Mexicans Citizens of the United States via citizneship of California?I can't wait until Arizona turns off 25% of L.A.'s power.
And San Diego? Why are you crying about Arizonans canceling their hotel reservations in your city?
Does not work that way YD
I can't wait until Arizona turns off 25% of L.A.'s power.I seriously doubt you do actually.
Heck, won't bother me any. Might even bring our rates down due to the excess supply. With summer coming up I most certainly am looking forward to that possibility.
I'm 99% sure though that LA will back off due to the threat and everything will go on as it has before.
Heck, won't bother me any. Might even bring our rates down due to the excess supply. With summer coming up I most certainly am looking forward to that possibility.I'm 99% sure though that LA will back off due to the threat and everything will go on as it has before.
I think they'd just jack your rates up to recover the loss, and decrease output. Blame it on the "summer blend" of turpentine they have to switch to to run the generators.
*snerk* That is equally likely. But as I said, pretty sure the LA folks will back off and nothing will come of it.
Well-reasoned argument, to a pointI understood and agreed with some of this, but your end note simply throws too much of a loop for me. Despite it's rational tone, it's still carte blanche for racial profiling, not the the extent of there being no such thing as white people being in the country illegally, but close enough on the other end(there are so many hispanics in the country illegally).I think I must take partial responsibility for not fully explaining my endnote. I was writing a number of posts with various previous posts in mind but did not bother to include them.
Maybe it will (or maybe it won't) make a difference if placed in such a context and explain what I was trying to say:
Seriously.
I think if they try to go thru with this, a crucial statistic to measure is the profile of people asked to show proof of citizenship and who do in fact provide it. If they are NOT racial profiling, the statistics of that group (the 'proven innocent after presumed guilty' group) should match arizona's over-all population. If they DO effectively use racial profiling, you would see the statistics skew away from the over-all population of arizona and towards the 'targetted ethnicities'.End Note:
Since a much larger portion of the "stereotypical" hispanic population is here illegally than the "stereotypical" white population it should be no surprise that a much larger portion of that hispanic population would display indicators of being illegal than the white population with a much lower percentage of illegals. So, not surprisingly, a much larger portion of one ethnicity would be investigated than the other because their is a much higher incidence rate of the illegal activity among one group than the other.
Note: By "stereotypical" I am simly referring to whatever is the image that a person is visualizing of a particular group when that person
Now, my questions:
If the police are doing their job correctly and using indicators of illegal status, would it be accurate to state that the presence of these indicators among those who are citizens (many of whom may be naturalized or second generation citizens) would have a demographic spread identical to that of the state at large?
Why or why not?
If not, would it not be surprising for the demographics of those investigated to not match that of the state?
What if an "indicator" is present in 75% of the illegal population, 10% of one ethnicity and 1% of another? Would that be an acceptable "indicator"? Would it not give a disproportionate number of false positives when compared to the demographics of the state? Would the comparison of correct to incorrect for even the heavier ethnicity be large enough to warrant its use as an "indicator"?
Specific example: use of English as a second language, above numbers arbitrarily chosen
It makes more sense now. In fact, I'm the one who owes you an apology- I charged in at the very end of a statement/argument and drew my own conclusions. I apologize.
I can't wait until Arizona turns off 25% of L.A.'s power.
And San Diego? Why are you crying about Arizonans canceling their hotel reservations in your city?
Right, San Diego probably should go with Commissioner Gary Pierce's example and just respond with a threat to their economy by threating Arizona's economy!
Or how about law-makers (in this case Californian) stop trying to punish another state and Arizonians stop being pissy about people thinking their law is wrong.
Because right now, both sides are doing f#$$ing stupid s$&#.
LA, stop it. Arizonian canceling vacations in San Diego, stop it.
People, stop being jerks to one another over this.
Edit: While we are at it, stop being jerks to one another over their political affiliation, favorite sports team, welfare, health care, race, religion, nationality, preferred table-top RPG, Iraq, and so on.
|
|
Right, San Diego probably should go with Commissioner Gary Pierce's example and just respond with a threat to their economy by threating Arizona's economy!I can't wait until Arizona turns off 25% of L.A.'s power.
And San Diego? Why are you crying about Arizonans canceling their hotel reservations in your city?
I don't really think Arizonans give a hoot if people think their law is "wrong" (or whatever), I do think they are fine reminding California that Arizona needs them a lot less than California needs Arizona.
Also, Arizona's new law would probably win by at least 65% of the vote were it ever put on a referendum in Cali. Another thing California pols might want to think about before running their heads.
And, once again, 99% of the protest is coming from people who haven't read the law, probably. Hell, Eric Holder admitted he hadn't even read the law when asked in the congressional hearings over his desire to take Arizona to court. (hint: the law mirrors quite a bit of Fed law Holder is supposed to be enforcing anyway, with the exception that Arizona cops have more restrictions on engagement).
Le sigh.
Edit: Maybe if the Mayors of San Diego and Los Angeles feel really bad about it, they'll invite all of the illegals in Arizona to their municipalities. That should go over well with the voters in SoCal ;)
|
|
Blazej, I don't really care to be a jerk. On the other hand, I also don't think the people of Arizona should just sit by and take crap from the world, a world, mind you, that has nothing to offer as a solution to a very real problem.
The cities of San Diego and Los Angeles started this dust up, not Arizona. Arizona passed a law the citizens of Arizona, who live with the realities of an unsecure border, overwhelmingly support. San Diego and L.A., in order to score some cheap political points, threw the words "boycott" around like they meant something.
When Arizona's government responded to L.A. with an offer to withdraw their water and electic utilities (since obviously L.A. doesn't want to do business with AZ), and Arizona citizens responded to San Diego by deciding they can go to the beach in Florida and Texas instead, the Californians all of the sudden didn't feel so bold about being asshats.
You heard the one going around the interwebz?
If I'm pulled over in Arizona and asked "papers?" can I reply "scissors" and win?
You heard the one going around the interwebz?
If I'm pulled over in Arizona and asked "papers?" can I reply "scissors" and win?
Sadly, I laughed.
Sadly, I laughed.You heard the one going around the interwebz?
If I'm pulled over in Arizona and asked "papers?" can I reply "scissors" and win?
+1
reminding California that Arizona needs them a lot less than California needs Arizona.
A funny trait that many Californians tend to share with residents of New York City is that they and their home are the center of the universe, and as such their views and opinions should be treated as absolute truth. I think it is awesome whenever any place not named California or New York reminds either of them that the world would go on just fine if they disappeared tomorrow.
FWIW, the lead Republican/"Libertarian Lite" (I'm not sure he's made up his mind which he is yet) candidate for Florida governor is running on copying the Arizona law for here in FL.
|
|
FWIW, the lead Republican/"Libertarian Lite" (I'm not sure he's made up his mind which he is yet) candidate for Florida governor is running on copying the Arizona law for here in FL.
Seventeen other states are considering similar legislation. Nearly 60% of the voters in the country support the Arizona law.
reminding California that Arizona needs them a lot less than California needs Arizona.A funny trait that many Californians tend to share with residents of New York City is that they and their home are the center of the universe, and as such their views and opinions should be treated as absolute truth. I think it is awesome whenever any place not named California or New York reminds either of them that the world would go on just fine if they disappeared tomorrow.
Well, the nation would have to get a third of its food from somewhere else.
|
|
Well, the nation would have to get a third of its food from somewhere else.reminding California that Arizona needs them a lot less than California needs Arizona.A funny trait that many Californians tend to share with residents of New York City is that they and their home are the center of the universe, and as such their views and opinions should be treated as absolute truth. I think it is awesome whenever any place not named California or New York reminds either of them that the world would go on just fine if they disappeared tomorrow.
California? sorry, most of the country already has to get food from somewhere else. California isn't producing what you think these days, thanks to a minnow.
Texas doesn't get much from Cali anyway, mostly Mexico and homegrown here. Don't need ya.
Well, the nation would have to get a third of its food from somewhere else.reminding California that Arizona needs them a lot less than California needs Arizona.A funny trait that many Californians tend to share with residents of New York City is that they and their home are the center of the universe, and as such their views and opinions should be treated as absolute truth. I think it is awesome whenever any place not named California or New York reminds either of them that the world would go on just fine if they disappeared tomorrow.California? sorry, most of the country already has to get food from somewhere else. California isn't producing what you think these days, thanks to a minnow.
Texas doesn't get much from Cali anyway, mostly Mexico and homegrown here. Don't need ya.
*Shrugs* Never been much of one for caring what Texas needs.
Quiero unos panqueques.
*Shrugs* Never been much of one for caring what Texas needs.Well, the nation would have to get a third of its food from somewhere else.reminding California that Arizona needs them a lot less than California needs Arizona.A funny trait that many Californians tend to share with residents of New York City is that they and their home are the center of the universe, and as such their views and opinions should be treated as absolute truth. I think it is awesome whenever any place not named California or New York reminds either of them that the world would go on just fine if they disappeared tomorrow.California? sorry, most of the country already has to get food from somewhere else. California isn't producing what you think these days, thanks to a minnow.
Texas doesn't get much from Cali anyway, mostly Mexico and homegrown here. Don't need ya.
I say, this looks to be the beginnings of a little scuffle, wot? Jolly good. Well then lads, let's see them, on with it!
I have lived in both Cali and Texas. If I had to choose we could have that 10. on the Richter scale tonight.I would rather live in Cali than Texas any day of the week.
I suppose there has to be someone to balance out those of us who are the other way around ;)
I wish more people with California plates felt the same way.I have lived in both Cali and Texas. If I had to choose we could have that 10. on the Richter scale tonight.I would rather live in Cali than Texas any day of the week.
It ain't just texas bud, try going to colorado and seeing the number of colorado plates vs california plates. Then again the same can be said for the texans but you all just come up for the hunting and then go back the californians buy houses at ridiculous prices and stay. Then they realise the low wages and lack of amenities there used to suck so they don'y stay long. Mind you all this is on the western slope in the grand junction,fruta and loma side . Denver and the eastern slope are a whole diffrent animal.
|
|
More news on the subject.
I'd like to point out that victims of crimes are not to be asked for their 'papers'. Of course this doesn't stop oh so many elected and selected politicians (and yes, chief of police is very much a political position) from spreading FUD.