American Politics mark something something

[Paladin of Ice]

My only comment on the Arizona bill: can I just say how amused I am that by the way that many of its defenders are going about defending it? To wit, its defenders point at the language of the bill and say that because provisions of the bill say something will happen a certain way, there is no chance of it happening otherwise. Afterall, that would be beyond the scope of the law, illegal, etc.

Yet wen it came to healthcare bills, many of these same people were the ones saying things along the lines of "well, you know it's not going to go strictly according to what the bill says because..." and then lay out a bunch of reasons why they believed that would be the case, while ignoring or contradicting everyone who said that the bill said otherwise.

Talking out of both sides of your mouth for the win.

Also, I shudder to think of what would have happened, if, say, my Italian grandmother, (who came to the US legally as an adult woman and never mastered anything beyond broken English) had been traveling through Arizona with this law in effect. Because what I see is an older woman with poor English, bad hearing, and little paperwork being asked questions she can't entirely understand until the cops decide it's time for her to spend the night in jail.

[Tempra]

Yes, sterling work in arguing the language and defending minute strawmen. Too bad no one has said it actually legalizes it. This is what's been happening:

"This bill is very discriminatory and alarming, and in practice will be akin to racial profiling" -most people

"Wait! Nowhere does it explicitly say it allows racial profiling! That's illegal! Quit spreading malicious lies about this precious and much abused bill!" -You

Way to ignore the substance of the debate and focus on pointless rhetorical minutia. You're a real hero.

"What this law does is give justification to racial profiling and makes it legal."

You said yourself that the law makes racial profiling easier (false) and protects cops from legal prosecution (which is only true if legalizes racial profiling).

How do I argue with someone who denies basic facts? Oh yeah, I won't.

And spare me the righteous indignation about focusing on pointless minutia. Several people have responded to FLoW and myself by saying that the cops can unlawfully harass/persecute Hispanics. No shit. Cops could unlawfully harass Hispanics before this bill too. Cops could even unlawfully harass Hispanics in states other than Arizona. This is an utterly useless response (which we have pointed out) to the question of whether the Arizona bill legalizes racial profiling. And that is what this whole line of debate is about because I called Obama a liar for misrepresenting that the bill legalizes racial profiling.

:rofl: To compare this to death camp healthcare scare is rank idiocy. Which, by the way, I didn't notice you screaming to defend health care against that lie. Keep digging yourself deeper, my friend.

I don't recall anyone here defending that lie, unlike you and others who have defended this lie.

[Tempra]

My only comment on the Arizona bill: can I just say how amused I am that by the way that many of its defenders are going about defending it? To wit, its defenders point at the language of the bill and say that because provisions of the bill say something will happen a certain way, there is no chance of it happening otherwise. Afterall, that would be beyond the scope of the law, illegal, etc.

Yet wen it came to healthcare bills, many of these same people were the ones saying things along the lines of "well, you know it's not going to go strictly according to what the bill says because..." and then lay out a bunch of reasons why they believed that would be the case, while ignoring or contradicting everyone who said that the bill said otherwise.

Talking out of both sides of your mouth for the win.

Also, I shudder to think of what would have happened, if, say, my Italian grandmother, (who came to the US legally as an adult woman and never mastered anything beyond broken English) had been traveling through Arizona with this law in effect. Because what I see is an older woman with poor English, bad hearing, and little paperwork being asked questions she can't entirely understand until the cops decide it's time for her to spend the night in jail.

I call strawman. Only two of us have pointed out that this law does not legalize racial profiling (we aren't even defending it). I avoided the healthcare debate altogether except for the small question of whether the mandate is constitutionally permissible.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

My only comment on the Arizona bill: can I just say how amused I am that by the way that many of its defenders are going about defending it? To wit, its defenders point at the language of the bill and say that because provisions of the bill say something will happen a certain way, there is no chance of it happening otherwise. Afterall, that would be beyond the scope of the law, illegal, etc.

I think this board needs an English reading comprehenson test.

The point is NOT that the police always follow the letter of the law. There clearly are officers that do not, and will hassle people based on race. We know that because it already happened long before this law was passed. Nobody disputes that, and it is a complete mischaracterization of the point to suggest otherwise.

The actual argument is that there is nothing in this particular law that significantly increases the liklihood of such racially-motivated stops beyond what they already are. If you want to dispute that, and claim that this law will increase the liklihood of such stops, then you should point to the part of the law you think will do that. because if you're going to argue that the text of the law doesn't matter, then why be concerned about it at all?

[TrackerNeil]

Even if police officers never abuse the new Arizona law, and the law never leads to racial profiling, is it going to have the desired effect? Neither state nor local police have the authority to deport illegals, and I have heard nothing about the feds dramatically ramping up their efforts to do so. Once we jail all of these terrible illegal immigrants, what then?

It seems to me we're widening one end of the process but not affecting the other, creating a funnel and, inevitably, a backup. That was, IMO, an eminently predictable problem of a state legislating on what is essentially a federal matter.

[alguien]

"What this law does is give justification to racial profiling and makes it legal."

You said yourself that the law makes racial profiling easier (false)

True. Using false in a parenthetical doesn't make it fact. Would it help if Obama had added, "Well, not technically legal, but now its easier for cops to get away with it".

I notice you still haven't responded to Shryke's query. Probably because you don't have an answer.

and protects cops from legal prosecution (which is only true if legalizes racial profiling).

No, it wouldn't be. That second parenthetical is even more ridiculous than the first. Quit spouting that tired bullshit. A cop can now potentially stop a latino for speeding or jaywalking or basically any other reason, ask for papers, and throw them in jail if they don't have any. Can they not?

How do I argue with someone who denies basic facts? Oh yeah, I won't.

I was just thinking the same thing. Only, mine was more, how I argue with someone who holds up rhetorical points like they're the blood of Christ and completely ignores the meat of the argument because he knows he's got nothing.

And spare me the righteous indignation about focusing on pointless minutia. Several people have responded to FLoW and myself by saying that the cops can unlawfully harass/persecute Hispanics. No shit. Cops could unlawfully harass Hispanics before this bill too. Cops could even unlawfully harass Hispanics in states other than Arizona. This is an utterly useless response (which we have pointed out) to the question of whether the Arizona bill legalizes racial profiling. And that is what this whole line of debate is about because I called Obama a liar for misrepresenting that the bill legalizes racial profiling.

Oh, FFS. OK, you win, Obama (and I and others) were obviously totally wrong about all our criticisms because the bill no longer explicitly TECHNICALLY make racial profiling legal, it just makes it a ton easier to harass latinos, which is essentially what racially profiling does. Congrats. You've successfully managed to defend the rich white male, as you always do, and completely avoid the substance of a debate about the bill, derailing this topic by being deliberately obtuse. Well done. :thumbsup:

And, simply because cops always harass latinos, and you're OK with that, its fine not to examine how cops could use this bill to harass them even more. Nope, completely ignore Shryke's quite practical examples because that might force you to think about the actual effects of this law. Instead, keep trying to score rhetorical points against a criticism of the president.

I don't recall anyone here defending that lie, unlike you and others who have defended this lie.

They did. And comparing the two situations is disingenuous at best, obtuse and ignorant at worst.

ETA: and I notice FLoW and you STILL haven't answered Shryke's hypotheticals... all of which are fairly practical outcomes of this bill, in Joe Arpaio Arizona...

[lokisnow]

A nebraska white high school won a soccer game over a nebraska hispanic high school and the student body celebrated by throwing green cards at the hispanic losing team.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/05/20/unger.soccer.game.green.card.kptm?hpt=T3

[Lord Mord]

Tempra,

And that is what this whole line of debate is about because I called Obama a liar for misrepresenting that the bill legalizes racial profiling.

I guess the only problem I have with that is that your estimation that Obama is a liar, while valid, is neither demonstrable nor especially useful. Rather, it's a summary evaluation, no less but also no more valid than Obama's own for which you deride him.

You're essentially trading legal opinions, and I don't really understand how opinions can be provably false, or, more importantly, provably falsified with deliberate intent to mislead.

[Tempra]

Tempra,

I guess the only problem I have with that is that your estimation that Obama is a liar, while valid, is neither demonstrable nor especially useful. Rather, it's a summary evaluation, no less but also no more valid than Obama's own for which you deride him.

You're essentially trading legal opinions, and I don't really understand how opinions can be provably false, or, more importantly, provably falsified with deliberate intent to mislead.

Not really. Obama laid out a set of facts (a Latino parent takes his kid out to get ice cream and is harassed because of the color of his skin). Under Obama's set of facts, the only way the parent will be harassed (because of race) is for an officer to engage in illegal harassment. This could occur regardless of whether the Arizona law was passed, which leads me to believe he meant LEGAL harassment.

Obama could have changed the facts a bit: a father takes his son out to get ice cream and the cops detain the father because they believe he has committed a crime and then question him about his immigration status (if they have reasonable suspicion that he is an illegal immigrant). That would accurately depict this law, but once you add in the qualifier that the cops stopped him because they suspected him of committing a crime, all force is taken from the statement. And, if there is any question as to whether this bill actually DOES legalize racial profiling, both federal and state Constitutions prohibit racial profiling. Obama knows this as a Constitutional law scholar.

[Tempra]

I try not to get too alarmed about every single racial issue, but this is pretty bad. Unfortunately, we don't know from this story if it was just a few bad actors. But even if it is, this is just straight up hate. Very ugly stuff. Did the perpatraters determine if there were actually illegals on the opposing team? Or was their skin color sufficient?

Regardless of whether the hispanic students were legal citizens, the perpetrators should be kicked off the soccer team and suspended from school for several days.

[Shryke]

An interesting NPR inteview with Utah Senator Bob Bennett who just lost his primary to the "Tea Party Candidate": http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126782931

NORRIS: About one-third of the Utah GOP convention delegates were part of the Tea Party movement. Did you do a good enough job as a senator of representing their interest? Many of them felt like they were ignored by Washington, even by the representatives within their own party.

Sen. BENNETT: When you talk to them and said, well, what did I do that didn't represent you, there was never - other than, well, you voted for TARP and that was unconstitutional - as I say, I could talk that one through with them, and oh, well, maybe you did the right thing. Someone would say I'm not troubled about TARP. You've just been there too long.

NORRIS: What do you make of that? How do you respond to someone who feels like you've been there too long?

Sen. BENNETT: There really is no response. Some of my supporters would report conversations they would have. One in particular said to this woman: Who are you voting for? She said: I'm voting for Cherilyn Eager. Why? Well, she loves the Constitution. All right, Senator Bennett loves the Constitution. Yeah, but Cherilyn Eager loves it more. And finally, my supporter said, well, I guess there's nothing I can say to you. And they said no, because I want somebody who really, really loves the Constitution.

[Lord Mord]

Tempra,

And, if there is any question as to whether this bill actually DOES legalize racial profiling, both federal and state Constitutions prohibit racial profiling.

What happens if laws contradict each other? Suppose a law was passed banning ownership of rifles in Washington State. There are, I'm sure you would agree, federal statutes prohibiting just such a ban. Does that mean that the ban does not make owning a rifle illegal?

Even if you say that fed trumps the state law, that's still an opinion -- and moreover the "actual" legality of owning a rifle thus posited is of small comfort to the owner detained under that law.

[Shryke]

Latest Krugman:

Read almost any conservative commentator on economic history, and you’ll find that the era of postwar prosperity — the gigantic rise in living standards after World War II — has been expunged from the record.

You can see why: the facts are embarrassing. Here’s a rough-cut version. The blue line, left scale, shows median family income in 2008 dollars; the red line, right scale, shows the top marginal tax rate, a rough indicator of the overall stance of policy. Basically, US postwar economic history falls into two parts: an era of high taxes on the rich and extensive regulation, during which living standards experienced extraordinary growth; and an era of low taxes on the rich and deregulation, during which living standards for most Americans rose fitfully at best.

This does not, to say the least, make the case for free-market orthodoxy. So a large part of the right has invented an alternative history in which the good years came after, not before, the Reagan revolution.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/down-the-memory-hole/

[Tempra]

Tempra,

What happens if laws contradict each other? Suppose a law was passed banning ownership of rifles in Washington State. There are, I'm sure you would agree, federal statutes prohibiting just such a ban. Does that mean that the ban does not make owning a rifle illegal?

Under the Supremacy clause, Federal law trumps State law. In essence, the law would be unenforceable. In your scenario, one of two things would likely happen:

1) The NRA / ACLU / Rifle owning individual will seek a declaratory judgment that the state law is constitutionally impermissible.

2) A rifle owning individual will be prosecuted and found guilty under the state law. He can then appeal his conviction up through the state courts of appeals and to the United States Supreme Court, if necessary, to have the law thrown out as unconstitutional.

Even if you say that fed trumps the state law, that's still an opinion -- and moreover the "actual" legality of owning a rifle thus posited is of small comfort to the owner detained under that law.

I agree that it can be quite burdensome for an individual to vindicate his constitutional rights. Several statutes have been enacted to ease this burden by providing for attorneys fees, permitting punitive damages, etc. In this case, the Arizona law is being challenged by an army of lawyers, possibly even Obama's Justice Department. We will find out relatively quickly whether this law is constitutional and, if not, on what grounds it is unconstitutional.

[Annelise]

I don't recall anyone here defending that lie

Heh. You just missed it, that's all. There was little condemnation either except by (surprise) HCR supporters.

It's a little different in this case, because from what I've read, "supporters" aren't fans of the immigration law either. They only seem to be saying it's not as bad as others are making out. Arguing over degrees of bad and invoking Obama to add a little argumentative oomph shows we're really not too far apart at all on this. IMHO. :)

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

ETA: and I notice FLoW and you STILL haven't answered Shryke's hypotheticals... all of which are fairly practical outcomes of this bill, in Joe Arpaio Arizona...

I have no idea what Shryke's hypotheticals are. He mentioned something about me not answering a basic question, and I didn't know what he was talking about. Of course, I admittedly didn't care enough to look back through the thread, either.

I might not have answered anyway if it would have taken too much time or effort. I made a point that fluency would not be required, simply some proficiency,and Shryke read it exactly backwards. I see no point in answering questions when he probably won't understand the response.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

It's a little different in this case, because from what I've read, "supporters" aren't fans of the immigration law either. They only seem to be saying it's not as bad as others are making out. Arguing over degrees of bad and invoking Obama to add a little argumentative oomph shows we're really not too far apart at all on this. IMHO. :)

I think I've actually changed my opinion on this a bit over the last couple of days. I'm sufficiently displeased with the Administration's reaction to this that I'm now glad they passed the law, as amended. So I suppose you could consider me a supporter of the law now.

[mcbigski]

I try not to get too alarmed about every single racial issue, but this is pretty bad. Unfortunately, we don't know from this story if it was just a few bad actors. But even if it is, this is just straight up hate. Very ugly stuff. Did the perpatraters determine if there were actually illegals on the opposing team? Or was their skin color sufficient?

Way over reacting here. I suspect it's faux outrage in the media just to pile on about how the Arizona law is awful, demeaning, and lessens all of us etc.

They threw green cards. Not rocks, punches, urine, beer, batteries or anything of that sort. It's impolite, but not exactly "very ugly" and barely on the radar when it comes to soccer passion. Compared to being with Sam's Army at the Azteca, getting a green card tossed at you, with its fabulous accompanying social benefits, seems like the height of luxury to me. And, I'd suspect the perps wouldn't actually be in favor of giving green cards to any illegals on the other team, so they were, from one point of view, actually validating their status.

[Annelise]

I'm sufficiently displeased with the Administration's reaction to this that I'm now glad they passed the law, as amended.

:lol: So you're displeased with Obama's reaction (which has the feeling of eventuality about it anyway) and as such, you suppose I could consider you a supporter of the law (as amended). That's not exactly a ringing endorsement in my book, but consider yourself moved to the yea column. :)

I would like to see this prod another try at federal reform. But given the last few tries, I do appreciate the difficulty. The country agrees on the need for it but will disagree how to go about it, as usual. Compromise will draw fire from all preeminent sides. Oh, good times ahead.

[BLU-RAY]

Way over reacting here. I suspect it's faux outrage in the media just to pile on about how the Arizona law is awful, demeaning, and lessens all of us etc.

They threw green cards. Not rocks, punches, urine, beer, batteries or anything of that sort. It's impolite, but not exactly "very ugly" and barely on the radar when it comes to soccer passion. Compared to being with Sam's Army at the Azteca, getting a green card tossed at you, with its fabulous accompanying social benefits, seems like the height of luxury to me. And, I'd suspect the perps wouldn't actually be in favor of giving green cards to any illegals on the other team, so they were, from one point of view, actually validating their status.

Dude, comparing two high schools in the same state to international matches between professionals is trying a bit too hard.