![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Dachande
63p67 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0
15 years ago @ Breitbart.com - Israel army not amused... · 0 replies · +1 points
I miss being in the Engineers.
15 years ago @ Breitbart.com - Israel army not amused... · 0 replies · +1 points
For example, Israel can do no right.
Every thing Israel does is condemned and complained about, right or wrong.
This is a case of some Soldiers acting like jackasses when there was no current threat to them.
They did not engage and kill people, then begin dancing around their bodies (like the enemy does).
It's hardly something to get into a huge debate about. If they were my Soldiers I'd smoke the crap out of them for being stupid and come up with some humiliating corrective actions.
But for the Jew haters, they'll find fault with any thing and every thing Israel does.
15 years ago @ Breitbart.tv - O'Reilly Debates Ariz.... · 0 replies · +1 points
I'm having hard time reading the dribble that you keep typing.
I'm sorry, but the obvious retardation you claim I have must be from over exposure to "noice."
The law states the police may ask if there is "reasonable suspicion" and that "any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released."
I've read the law and haven't found where the police officers "would/could be sued" if they do not ask for proof of legal residence.
Since you're so frakking smart, why not provide a reference?
You should work on your insult efforts since my parents are still married and I have brothers you douche.
I'd be more entertained if you at least had good insults/jokes. I'm actually offended at how substandard your insults are. I'm in the military, I've heard a lot over the years. I'm rooting for you to do better next time.
Try insulting me with some substance.
15 years ago @ Breitbart.tv - O'Reilly Debates Ariz.... · 2 replies · +1 points
The problem is you're clinging to a straw-man argument that simply if there's a noise violation by someone with brown skin that they're automatically going to be asked for papers.
What types of party situations would warrant a police officer asking for any identification???
Probably if there's alcohol consumption and the appears to be minors parking in the activity or drug consumption.
They're not going to automatically ask for papers over a noise violation if someone is brown.
Maybe you should use your head and think rationally or just tell us what your shoe tastes like.
15 years ago @ Breitbart.tv - O'Reilly Debates Ariz.... · 0 replies · +1 points
What it does is give the police officer the authority to use further judgment.
You seriously think people from the TEA Party would go out of their way to make sure papers were asked for?
That's one of the stupidest things I've heard about this topic. Considering all of the "crimes" that have been committed by the TEA Party. Though I could see a bigot like Taguba doing something like that and then claiming to be a TEA Party member for propaganda services.
So because you think cops hate brown people that by virtue of that, they can arrest any brown person they make legal contact with?
Then why isn't race mentioned in the DOJ lawsuit against Arizona?
15 years ago @ Breitbart.tv - O'Reilly Debates Ariz.... · 4 replies · +2 points
They're brown and having a party? That really warrants asking for documentation? Seriously?
Short and curlies hardly.
But you can try harder to make a "what if" scenario fit into your bigoted ideology, since these "fears" have no foundation in reality except to play on the fears of Hispanics.
15 years ago @ Breitbart.tv - O'Reilly Debates Ariz.... · 0 replies · +2 points
It's illegal for someone to be pulled over for being brown.
You're fishing for a scenario by labeling police officers as racists.
Do you think that there are no Hispanic police officers in Arizona or in Border Patrol?
They can decide to racially profile or not now, it's a matter of the burden of proof that the officer was motivated by racial profiling, so your argument is against it is even weaker because if the officer profiles there are harsher punishments for the officer.
15 years ago @ Breitbart.tv - O'Reilly Debates Ariz.... · 0 replies · +2 points
Can't forget the 5th paragraph of the 14th Amendment: 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
If there are federal laws restricting profiling, then it's not allowed.
Again, SB1070 is compliant.
15 years ago @ Breitbart.tv - O'Reilly Debates Ariz.... · 0 replies · +2 points
They are illegal aliens, alien is the legal term. Claiming everyone who is illegally entering the country is an immigrant is intellectually dishonest and not legally correct. Go to www.uscis.gov and check out immigration.
This is what you're not getting, the 14th and 10th Amendments compliment each other.
The only thing I could find in the Arizona Constitution that would pertain to equal protection comes from Article 2: Section 13. Equal privileges and immunities
Section 13. No law shall be enacted granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens or corporations.
I suppose the case could be made that profiling is niether authorized nor restricted from the Constitutions, therefor, the practice of authorizing or restricting profiling would then be subject to either Federal Laws written to ensure the 14th Amendment and/or local laws that do not conflict with either Constitutions.
15 years ago @ Breitbart.tv - O'Reilly Debates Ariz.... · 2 replies · +2 points
However, because it can be implied through the 14th Amendment that racial profiling would not be allowed, so then the Arizona SB1070 passes Constitutional muster because it strictly prohibits profiling by race, color or national origin and does not supercede the Constitution. Prohibiting the profiling is harmonious with the 14th Amendment because it ensures equal protection.
Brainchild