|
|
|
|
|
| | HealthcarePage 41 of 46 (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46) |
That's what I think of the Arizona law being a non-white person.....the same as getting a traffic ticket by video for being a fast-driving person. It's unwanted, and Arizonas have the right to let the people they don't like know exactly how unwanted they are, I get it. They want the right to be a-holes, let 'em.
I needed a good laugh today. You say you'd like to see employers "become criminally liable for checking work permits." Anyone who had read SB 1070 would know that not just one section of it, but three--7, 8, and 9--make it a crime for any employer knowingly or intentionally to hire an illegal alien and describe the related penalties, the recommended reporting forms and procedures, the e-verification system employers should use, the eligibility of employers registered as using it for government business grants, the employment records they must keep, and so on and on. And yes, Judge Bolton's order left all these sections as they are.
You also claim you'd like to see entry "enforced." I don't know how anyone would enforce an entry. But if you mean you'd like to see U.S. *laws* about entry into this country--i.e. its immigration laws--enforced, your claim rings pretty hollow. Enforcing those laws is the central purpose of SB 1070, the law you condemn and call the people of Arizona an obscene name for enacting. That's incoherent--like claiming you'd like to see the cops do something about all the thieves who are breaking and entering houses, while at the same time condemning the burglary statute for unfairly depriving these poor people of their livelihoods.
It's funny enough to see you use a law you've obviously never even read as evidence the people of Arizona deserve your slanders for passing it. It's even funnier when you cast your opinion of that law in terms of your race--"being a non-white person." I'm sure that by doing these things, you've made it easy for everyone to decide how seriously to take your views about SB 1070.
Nice. Sure you're looking forward to that too, Imean you don't want people to break the law and all.
Heavens, no, we don't want that. But I think *you* may. As I recall, you mentioned in one of your early posts that the police stopped you and some members of your family in some other state for some violation. You complained in that post, too, about how they delayed and hassled you. I was all prepared to be outraged, because as we all know, the police are invariably mean, jackbooted rednecks who go out of their way to pick on "non-whites." But just then, you let it slip that whoever was driving--your sister, I think--was doing so without a license.
Now I understand. You were speeding in Arizona, but "being a fast-driving person," you had a *right* to. For your family, apparently--although not for the rest of us--speeding and driving without a driver's license are inalienable rights. And any policeman (or camera--not all cameras, mind you, but Canons and Leicas, especially, are infamous for being racially biased and xenophobic) that fails to recognize your exalted status has let you know you're people they don't like and that you're unwanted in that state. | |
|
| Healthcare
Posted: 7/30/2010 8:19:15 AM | | Yes she is a *fast driving person* but also on her 9th final warning at the slave camp you capitalist pigs call a job. When you pull the race card, use the entire deck. | |
|
| Healthcare
Posted: 7/30/2010 9:35:09 AM |
It's funny enough to see you use a law you've obviously never even read as evidence the people of Arizona deserve your slanders for passing it. It's even funnier when you cast your opinion of that law in terms of your race--"being a non-white person." I'm sure that by doing these things, you've made it easy for everyone to decide how seriously to take your views about SB 1070.
Slander? Because they did something I didn't like and I expressed my feeling about it? Apparently you misunderstand the law too, now that the court's ruled on it and SB1070 did not stand the challenge, as I supected. Guess you should be laughing at yourself.
Heavens, no, we don't want that. But I think *you* may. As I recall, you mentioned in one of your early posts that the police stopped you and some members of your family in some other state for some violation. You complained in that post, too, about how they delayed and hassled you. I was all prepared to be outraged, because as we all know, the police are invariably mean, jackbooted rednecks who go out of their way to pick on "non-whites." But just then, you let it slip that whoever was driving--your sister, I think--was doing so without a license.
I see. You would be outraged, except that you let your misperception of my post change your mind? Right.
What I said was that my mother who was driving and had her documentation was stopped at a "immigrton check" post. She was detained because my sister, the passenger did not have her ID with her. This was not when they were crossing the border, but rather just a random check point in El Paso, TX. They had no idea if she was a citizen or not, just that she was travelling with a woman who was not, and that was enough to detain her until they could do a background check. The good thing is that she was not detained for long because the operation was ran by ICE, not some local police dept. that probably would have kept her in detention until they got word from ICE, and therein lies one of the problems.
And your perception of what I think about law enforcement is again another one of your uninformed opinions.
I admit that I may have been speeding, I have a tendency to do so. Of course, I don't know for certain if that was the case when they took a photo of me....I was not stopped and given a ticket by law enforcement so I have to take the word of State of AZ that I may have. I guess you're okay with systems of cameras and electronic surveillence everywhere to track you, me, not so much. Unfortunately, my car does not top out at 70MPH and I like to play ever so often, so shoot me. | |
|
| Healthcare
Posted: 7/30/2010 9:36:10 AM |
Yes she is a *fast driving person* but also on her 9th final warning at the slave camp you capitalist pigs call a job. When you pull the race card, use the entire deck.
What are you mumbling? Why do you even bother? | |
|
| Healthcare
Posted: 7/30/2010 10:00:14 AM |
I admit that I may have been speeding, I have a tendency to do so. Of course, I don't know for certain if that was the case when they took a photo of me....I was not stopped and given a ticket by law enforcement so I have to take the word of State of AZ that I may have. I guess you're okay with systems of cameras and electronic surveillence everywhere to track you, me, not so much. Unfortunately, my car does not top out at 70MPH and I like to play ever so often, so shoot me.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to speed and play ever so often, but you shouldn't complain when you get caught, no one wants a ticket, but we all know if we break the law we put ourselves in that position.
It's funny when one blames those who catch them, but don't take responsibility for there actions. Personally, I believe we all could get more tickets, but it is because we do have a tendency to drive faster than the speed limit. I hate getting a ticket, but it's never the cops fault..... And how can you blame that little guy sitting up in that camera? It's hot up there, he doesn't get bathroom breaks, he can't even stretch his legs every now and than. But I heard they only hired people who are colored blind, which has created an uproar for those getting tickets for running red lights, I mean come on, how do they know it was red?
I actually don't like the eye in the sky either, and let me put my tin foil hat back on.... I am so not going to like them trying to put a chip in my arm with a gps system, my dna and everything else about me... I'll starve before I have to have my arm swiped at the grocery store. And yes, they will sell it as convenience, but really it is about power and control. OK, now I'll take that hat off for a second and sip some coffee... Seems the tin foil kernels the cream in my coffee. | |
|
| Healthcare
Posted: 7/30/2010 10:21:11 AM | I apologize for my mocking tone Unthinking after all what is law, national security, police officers performing their job compared to your convenience.
I was listening to a psychiatrist today explaining that when he began practicing decades ago the primary patient symptom was excessive guilt. It is now excessive narcissism. And why is this important? Ever notice everything you lefties use to justify your beliefs is about you and your needs? Do you notice excessive discussion of your *rights* and never a mention of your obligations?
But I'm merely rambling, mumbling even, to someone with so much self-revertial narcissism it must sound like street noise in this world, your world.
BWAAAMHHAAAHAHAHAHHALOLOL | |
|
| Healthcare
Posted: 7/30/2010 10:55:42 AM |
It's funny when one blames those who catch them, but don't take responsibility for there actions. Personally, I believe we all could get more tickets, but it is because we do have a tendency to drive faster than the speed limit.
Well, honestly, I rarely drive now, but I haven't gotten a speeding ticket in at least 20 years, probably even longer though I can't recall. When I do speed, I imagine the fine will be pretty large, but I did not expect that surveillence will be the thing of the future. I kind of get the intersection lights, that actually helps determine a fault in case of an accident, as well as a good measure of safety since there are often pedestrians at those locations.
Now, again, I'm not complaining about getting the actual ticket, if I deserve it, I can certainly afford to pay for it. But is it okay with you that the states decide this is a great revenue enhancer and starts putting it on evey highway? See, I rather avoid that, and live in a place where the majority decides that's just too oppressive. Same with the "papers please" AZ law.
No one wants a chip in their arm, that's why it's kind of an absurd theory...possible only if more people than not decide it's a good idea. | |
|
| Healthcare
Posted: 7/30/2010 11:04:09 AM |
Ever notice everything you lefties use to justify your beliefs is about you and your needs?
Why yes, I agree. And that's because we only know enough to talk about our selves.
Whereas, conservatives like to talk about other people's needs...such as how they need to not be gay, need to not have an abortion, need to be suspicious of Muslims, illegal immigrants, athiests, government, etc.
Our obligations to whom? Or what? To mother earth? or the banks? Oceans, or oil companies? Government, or big corporations? | |
|
| Healthcare
Posted: 7/30/2010 11:09:44 AM | ^^^^^^^Nice spin... Do you ever have to take motion sickness pills so you don't lose your lunch?  | |
|
| Healthcare
Posted: 7/30/2010 11:52:22 AM | Hey, I was responding to the most outrageous trash talker of your group, what did you expect?
Besides, there's no real effort involved, just calling it like I see it. But I could use a little | |
|
| Healthcare
Posted: 7/30/2010 12:00:11 PM | Ya, well, I'm just trying to keep it a little lighter today,.... Me thinks my tin foil hat has fried my brain.  | |
|
| Healthcare
Posted: 7/30/2010 12:23:44 PM |
Ya, well, I'm just trying to keep it a little lighter today,....
I say "good job, sir" :) You've been surprisingly pleasant to chat with. | |
|
| Healthcare
Posted: 7/30/2010 1:57:24 PM |
She was detained because my sister, the passenger did not have her ID with her. This was not when they were crossing the border, but rather just a random check point in El Paso, TX.
So what? The Supreme Court has upheld those random checkpoints. You don't say whether your sister was a U.S. citizen. But most of us, whether we're driving or not, don't go too far without a driver's license or some other kind of ID. If she'd had one, they would have had no reason to delay you.
They had no idea if she was a citizen or not, just that she was travelling with a woman who was not, and that was enough to detain her until they could do a background check.
Of course it was enough. SB 1070, incidentally, requires a "reasonable suspicion" to stop someone and ask for evidence they're in the U.S. legally. And if they have even a valid driver's license, the police have to presume they are. That adds protection to one of the federal immigration statutes it requires Arizona officials to enforce--the one which says every alien 18 or older must carry their green card on their person at all times.
Federal officials can enforce that law with no justification at all, except a hunch--they don't even need a reasonable suspicion. It was first enacted in 1940, and Congress has amended various details of its wording, etc. several times, while choosing to leave its main features intact. By your logic, then, Americans in general must be even bigger "a-holes" and racists than Arizonans.
The good thing is that she was not detained for long because the operation was ran by ICE, not some local police dept. that probably would have kept her in detention until they got word from ICE, and therein lies one of the problems.
So you speculate, based on nothing at all. A federal law, 8 U.S.C. 1373 (c), says the federal immigration authorities:
shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to
verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.
Obviously, some federal office maintains a large amount of information and communicates it through this system. Why have the whole thing, and pretend it's there for states to use, if it's useless? And why should it only be useless when used for a purpose you don't like?
SB 1070 specifically recognizes that ICE or CBC can ascertain the immigration status of the person detained under 1373 (c), as well as Arizona officials the feds have authorized to do it. Arizona has already been using this system, and I haven't seen anything by anyone familiar with it that suggests any unreasonable delays would be likely.
Slander? Because they did something I didn't like and I expressed my feeling about it?
Yes--expressed it by calling the people of Arizona "a-holes" and strongly implying they're racists.
Apparently you misunderstand the law too, now that the court's ruled on it and SB1070 did not stand the challenge, as I supected.
Thanks for providing us all another laugh. You--never having even laid eyes on SB 1070, let alone understood it in any detail--suspected this judge would do what she did. Maybe a little bird told you.
And now that Ms. Susan Bolton *has* prostituted herself, her decision proves that anyone who believes all of SB 1070 is perfectly constitutional must be wrong. That is just the sort of "logic" we've come to expect from you. It means that federal district court judges invariably make the right call, which makes appealing their decisions a waste of time and money. But then what explains all those shelves of volumes full of tens of thousands of cases in which district court decisions were overturned on appeal?
I'm not going to analyze Bolton's order much here--but it's an illegitimate piece of trash which flagrantly ignores the U.S. Constitution and the federal laws she's sworn to follow. I'll give just one example. The Supreme Court has clearly explained the legal standard for "facial" constitutional challenges like this suit. Among other things, that standard requires judges to consider *only* what the law in question says on its face, and *not* to consider how it would apply in any hypothetical situations.
Bolton dutifully (and dishonestly) repeats that legal standard--and then proceeds to ignore it. She wanders off into a exactly the kind of hypothetical situation she knew the Supreme Court had explicitly said she must not consider in this kind of suit. She imagines a legal Chilean immigrant walking his dog one evening, when Sheriff Smith stops him for not using a leash. Smith takes this poor legal alien to jail, where he's inconvenienced for eight hours while his immigration status is verified. All that's missing is the melodramatic touch, inspired by so many WWII movies, that the ignoramuses who oppose SB 1070 like so much--the part where the jackbooted Arizona Gestapo ask for his "papers."
Why don't you just come right out and say that you resent this country, don't believe in its sovereignty, and don't want its laws enforced unless they happen to meet with your approval? You might as well--you've made all that pretty clear. | |
|
| Healthcare
Posted: 7/30/2010 2:31:36 PM |
So what? The Supreme Court has upheld those random checkpoints.
Look, no one is challenging the legality of these checkpoints. I never even said the detention was wrong, just highly inconvenient and if similar laws are passed in a state I live in, I'll move. Does everyone that travels with you in your car always have their ID with them? Surely, not ever being leave the house without a wallet or purse is kind of oppressive. Again, note, she was not driving, that was the only relevancy.
Yes--expressed it by calling the people of Arizona "a-holes" and strongly implying they're racists.
If that is your definition of "slander", I guess we are headed towards a pretty insufferable world. Didn't know you could be sued for insults and implications, but it could be a financial boon for the legal industry.
BTW, I know you really want to go into debating legalities of the Arizona law, but I'm not biting. I already told you why I opposed it, I don't need your interpretation, and I say that respectfully. It doesn't matter because it doesn't pass my smell test, and that's all that matters to me. | |
|
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 7/30/2010 2:47:24 PM | ^^^^au contraire Thinkinginca, although Jack has been here longer than this latest crop of "debaters" in the califorums, he has sat in the "hot seat" that you and skooch seem to occupy by default for having an opposing opinion and for not seeming to have read the "New Testament POF CaliforumVersion of Rules of Terminology and Opinion" 2008 Edition, which was produced by a committee of scholars on a free dating site.
I think you can obtain copies of this rare tome on Amazon . com for $6.66 new with the possibility of finding a good used copy for less. it's a totally enthralling read. I finally got mine that a dear friend passed on to me and I read from it every night for the pure joy it brings to my old heathen, lefty/righty, FEMALE, atheist heart. I would testify to that!!!
oh, and don't skip the highly detailed glossary...it's amazing.
it would seem that Jack has been grandfathered-in due to his POF tenure. I doubt he would have otherwise, since he doesn't usually post by this new bible's standard that touts for truth, liberty and justice for all.
quotes from this new bible that I have etched in my little mind:
"thou shall not agree with libtardian people"
"thou shall sprinkle my urine on others as the holy water that it is"
"judge and cast the first stone, lest ye be revealed as an idiot"
"follow the way of the troll, for he is divine"
these teachings have changed my life.  | |
|
| Healthcare
Posted: 7/30/2010 3:08:47 PM |
Surely, not ever being leave the house without a wallet or purse is kind of oppressive.
Oh, yes. I can't tell you the agony and sense of police-state oppression it causes me to think I need to take my wallet and keys with me when I leave the house. And all that weight and bulk of a driver's license! There ought to be a law.
I know you really want to go into debating legalities of the Arizona law, but I'm not biting. I already told you why I opposed it, I don't need your interpretation, and I say that respectfully. It doesn't matter because it doesn't pass my smell test, and that's all that matters to me.
You couldn't be more wrong. I have no intention of wasting my time debating SB 1070 with you or anyone else who has no idea what it says. And nothing I've written about my interpretation of it has been meant to persuade you.
It's fine with me just to have you demonstrate so well that your opinions of it aren't based in facts or reason--i.e. the product of any real "thinking"--but are just arbitrary emotional responses. A smell test means very little when there's so much olfactory impairment. Like anyone else, you have every right to your opinions about SB 1070, whatever you base them on. And whoever reads them has every right to decide how much weight to give them. | |
|
| Healthcare
Posted: 7/30/2010 3:30:09 PM | | Jack's a good un for sure. His pleasant demeanor always makes me feel like I do when I find an M&M in my Rainbow Mixture that I've picked through again and again needing chocolate. Being relatively late to this board I was unaware of his time in the wilderness as it were. He seems to be none the worse for wear having experienced perhaps a high learning curve in the presence of great minds unlike some others who seem to make me feel like I'm in the movie Groundhog Day and as they experience perpetual jamais vu. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/2/2010 6:28:18 AM | Congressman tacitly admits that United States is run by federal dictatorship, Constitution is worthless
Obamacare Supporter Stark: Feds Can Do Anything 020810top
Pro-Obamacare Congressman Pete Stark outraged attendees at a town hall meeting in Hayward California recently when he responded to criticism surrounding the constitutional basis of government run health care by claiming that the federal government had the power to do anything.
An attendee asked Stark to explain his claim that health care was now a right rather than a privilege in light of the fact that government imposed Obamacare “infringes the inalienable rights of other people” under the Constitution. The attendee pointed out that to mandate others to provide a service was a form of slavery and therefore violated the 13th amendment to the Constitution.
If Obamacare was constitutional, added the attendee, then there was no foreseeable limit on what the federal government could do to dictate to Americans how to run their private lives.
Stark responded by claiming the Constitution didn’t stop the federal government from creating “rules” that could affect the private lives of Americans, despite the fact that this is explicitly what the Constitution was created to restrict.
The Constitution, “specifically prohibits slavery and when you tell somebody you have a right to get a service from another that’s essentially saying you get to make that person do something for you and that is a form of slavery,” stated the attendee, adding that if the feds could do this then they could do anything.
Obamacare Supporter Stark: Feds Can Do Anything 150410banner1
“The federal government – yes – can do most anything in this country,” responded Stark, a statement that prompted a loud chorus of dissent from the crowd.
“You sir and people that think like you are destroying this nation,” responded the attendee, to which Stark reacted by nonchalantly nodding his head.
This is not the first time that Stark’s behavior at a town hall meeting has caused controversy. The Congressman displayed similar contempt for his constituents during a June 26 town hall meeting in Freemont California, when he insinuated that people concerned about border security wanted to murder illegal immigrants.
Stark taunted a member of the Minutemen organization when he asked, “Who’re you going to kill today?”
Throughout his political career, Stark has been an enthusiastic advocate of government run health care, causing controversy over the issue as far back as 1990 when he called then Health and Human Services Secretary Louis Wade Sullivan, an African American, “a disgrace to his race” for opposing Stark’s national health insurance proposal.
For a sitting member of Congress to openly declare that the Constitution is virtually null and void, and that the federal government has a stranglehold on power in the United States, is another startling indication of how the majority of so-called Representatives on Capitol Hill are complicit in the overthrow of the country as a Constitutional Republic. | |
|
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/2/2010 7:01:39 AM | | Stark can tell a bad Negro when he sees one, the guy wouldn't get on the plantation where he belongs. You get those people running around thinking for themselves and the next thing ya know poor maxine waters, charlie rangel and and most of congress would be lead off in handcuffs. | |
|
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/2/2010 7:46:23 AM | As usual the guys at Powerline can sum up a policy (socialized health care this time) eloquently and tragically. I will cut and paste only a teaser. It is by no means an outlier, it happens daily, in fact to a level the Brits are running away from public health care. But it's a lot easier to break a light bulb than fix it once you've let leftists "play" with it.
A desperate woman texted photos of herself slowly DYING to her mum as she lay suffering on a hospital bed - being ignored by NHS doctors.
Tragic Jo Dowling, 25, sent over forty messages to her mother and best friend including pictures of a deadly rash spreading across her body as her life ebbed away.
The poor woman knew she was desperately ill, but couldn't convince her doctors and nurses to pay attention:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026891.php | |
|
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/2/2010 8:27:52 AM |
“The federal government – yes – can do most anything in this country,”
Stark is too dense to understand much of the Constitution--and what he does understand, I'm sure he doesn't like. When unprincipled dopes like him have the power to make laws, they're a threat to all our freedoms. He's not fit to serve in Congress, and the fact he and dozens of others just as sorry do is no compliment to our electorate.
The Supreme Court has interpreted Congress's constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce so broadly that it *can* use it to control a lot of our everyday lives. And if the government ever has to defend this health care law in court, the Commerce Clause is what it will probably rely on. Nothing else in the Constitution extends Congress's reach any further into our lives.
But here's the point--just because the Court is reluctant to call Congress for abusing this power, it doesn't mean *we* can't. In a sense, the Court has just left it to the voters to decide when Congress has gone too far. If enough of us think it shouldn't be able to pass a law which forces us to buy health insurance, we can repeal all 2,000-plus pages of that law with one short paragraph. And even before then, we can punish some of the members of Congress who voted for it by removing them from office. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
41
of
46 (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46)
|
|
Home
login 
