Persian, PanchoGun. Persian. From the 1st century B.C. Before Islam, before Christianity, even. That means it was named after a Zoroastrian, not a Muslim. If you are going to get all sideways, at least try to sound like you know what you're talking about. I'm sure you have some reason to be mad, but you sound like an ass. And the people of Iran don't hate us, nor are they "stone age," despite what you may believe. (Remember the recent attempted revolution that Twitter played such a large roll in? The attempt that indicates the people of Iran don't agree with their own government?) The government may have stone age ideals, being religious zealots, but the people are actually quite intelligent and fond of us Americans. Remember, at one time, they were flying Phantom jets that the U.S. sold them. Then, in 1979, the religious extremists of their country took over, and that's when everything went down the crapper. The funny thing about oligarchies is that you don't vote for them, and they still win the election somehow.

Great, now Iran is stealing ideas from Japan. What's next, Iranian sushi? It looks almost exactly like Asimo. Can't they at least use a different color? D- on originality, Persia.

Let's just ask the man he shot what he thinks. Oh, wait...

"I know blocking these sites is not a solution to the problem, but we have sent a message to the world not to hurt the feelings of Muslims." -- HA! Did he actually say that? So, Mr. Sensitive, where is it written that you have a right not to have your feelings hurt? Well, I'm drawing a picture right now of Mohamed and Jesus playing strip poker with Thai lady-boys...because religion hurts MY feelings. Hey, at least I'm not crashing a plane into a building or burning people at the stake.

All of you threatening Arizona with boycotts...let me explain something to you in no uncertain terms: we don't want you here anyway! Good riddance! All of those touristy things that you are hoping will suffer? Built by non-Arizonans, so go ahead, run them into the ground. There used to be these bumper stickers when I was a kid: "Welcome to Arizona. Now go home." I liked those stickers. We're a curmudgeonly lot who don't like outsiders, whether they are from Mexico or California or anywhere else. Boycott threats actually make me a little giddy...fewer Californians?! AWESOME! Save your negative replies, I already explained the situation to you.

Well, I don't get to put my job off just because I "don't have an appetite" for it. If Congress was doing its job, this wouldn't be an issue to begin with. Arizona has repeatedly asked for help from the federal government with immigration issues, and has been repeatedly ignored, despite the fact that Washington's responsibility in this matter is clearly mandated in the Articles of the Constitution. You don't like Brewer's solution, Congress? Well, you blew it, and now you have to deal with it, even if you "don't have an appetite" for doing your jobs. Napolitano gave Washington several opportunities to do something about it when she was governor of this state, my state, and they did nothing. Now, rather than do something constructive, political haymakers in Congress want to claim that it's a human rights violation. Gives them street cred to side with the poor immigrants. Well, what about the rights of Arizonans who have been murdered by illegal immigrants who then simply fled across the border and thereby avoided prosecution? Who's going to side with them? Should we just let it slide because illegal aliens think they have the same rights as citizens? Washington's responsibility is to the citizens of *this* country, not to foreigners draining our resources.

I live in Arizona, and I don't plan on leaving for quite some time, if ever. I'm not a racist; I don't care if all of Mexico wants to move here...as long as they are willing to become U.S. citizens, learn to speak English and acclimate into our culture. For every person whining about how non-citizens aren't treated like citizens (oh, horror!) there is one illegal immigrant getting free money or free surgery or something doled out to them because of their "anchor babies," or the fact that hospitals can't turn you away if your life is in danger, regardless of whether you are able to pay. It would be unethical for hospitals to behave otherwise, so the state's remedy is: Just keep 'em out. They don't have to pay us back if they can't get here in the first place. You want this not to happen? What have you done about it? If you are so passionate, where's the money? That's all it takes, folks. Not being callous, just calling it like it is. If you want to make sure these people can receive health care for free, set up a charity, collect soda cans, get another job and donate the money...do something to make it better. Otherwise, just kindly shut up. When the state puts forth a solution, that means that you didn't do anything to keep it from happening in the first place. The state does what it has to to see to its responsibilities. It's not the legal responsibility of the State of Arizona to care for sick illegal immigrants, whether they're from Mexico, Canada, or anywhere else. The legal responsibilities of Arizona are to its own citizens, because that's what the institution of the state is there for. That's how it's supposed to work. Arizona does not have the resources to provide for its citizens and the citizens of a neighboring country, nor should it be expected to. Do you think if I hurt myself and went to Mexico for surgery that I'd be able to leave without paying? Not bloody likely. And don't get me started on the murders and other crimes that never get to trial because the defendant fled across the border, or the poor Mexicans who get locked in a semi trailer and left to die in the August sun by some coyote trying to make some fast money, or the scores of illegals who die in the desert from exposure every year because they didn't have enough water. Come on, Mexico, haven't heard anything from you, what do you have to say about it? Oh, telling your citizens not to come here? Fine with me. Maybe you should have thought of that a few years ago.

Insanity plea?...that dog don't hunt. Insane or not, everybody knows it's wrong to murder a child. I do think it would be a more suitable punishment to send him to prison for life...the death penalty would be letting him off too easy.

The second amendment wasn't enacted so people could defend themselves from robbers...that is a given. The second amendment is there so people can defeat the government if they start taking too much power. It is to prevent the rise of tyranny. Besides, "shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear to me...

Ah, political expediency at its best. No statesman since Hoover has had the balls to call this genocide a genocide (civil unrest? Pull the other one, it has bells on.) The reason? Nobody wants to hurt Turkey's feelings. If we keep electing moral weaklings to office, then we will continue to see them make morally weak decisions. If Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan etc. etc. had denied that the Nazis attempted genocide against the Jews, do you think they would have been elected? So what's the hangup here? Are Armenians not considered human anymore? This isn't a difficult one to call, people....