Sites we Like…...
[...] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read. Listed below are the latest sites that we choose [...]…...
Meh. Burning the flag just isn't my style. Then again, I'm also not a fan of setting ANYTHING on fire unless I HAVE to.Also...I don't really need to do anything symbolic whether burning a flag or setting off fireworks or even playing every patriotic song ever made on a loudspeaker to celebrate my freedom.I do that EVERY SINGLE DAY that I'm on American soil and I do my best to NEVER take a single one of those days for granted either.
Let Penn & Teller explain it:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF2iX2VG6e4Burning the U.S. flag should be celebrated as an act of patriotism.
Hm...I'm not too sure I agree with you there. I think it'd be more patriotic to burn the Communist Manifesto on the 4th of July than to burn something which represents one's own country. That's just MY look on it though.
You have the right to feel and speak the way you did. Thankfully that was not the attitude of the brave men that fought and died to preserve that right.
For the record: I'd cheerfully burn every single U.S. flag in existence rather thanhave someone 'give their life' for the U.S. flag.The most patriotic thing an American can do is to BURN the flag on the 4thof July.Go ahead and see how many other nations will allow you to burn their flag:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration
No one can, but some people try. There are people that will accept being told to shut up by trolls, but not me. I don't agree with everything you say, but you have every right to say it. I would never try to tell someone to shut up. Debate is good. Both parties have a chance to learn something.
Well, I really don't see anyone being able to control another person's speech on the internet...at least not yet. I am SO glad the FCC can't touch the web.
BTW, this comment " "Looks like tourofricky is a plant to stir things up." Y'know...this type of crap is why I've become cynical of honest dialogue " is what a person from that other site said.
The way I look at it is that people whether they're here to stir the pot or if they really just don't agree...are good for allowing us to test our own convictions.
TourOfRicky - uberVU User Profile"Looks like tourofricky is a plant to stir things up." Y'know...this type of crap is why I've become cynical of honest dialogue. . +++++++++++++++++++++
As i said before, I'll post my opinion on here and you can do the same. You will not control what I say. You can stuff it. I'll be here as long as I want. If you want to control someone, It won't happen here.
Just stuff it with the whole "Terrorist" crap. It's a modern day"Godwin's Law"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Bury your head in the sand if you want. I don't tell you what to post on here and won't allow you to control what I post.
There really needs to be a moratorium on the word 'terrorist', seems like it's the new 'racist' label to whip around whenever someone wants to make a point (as half-baked as it is).It's like the time I was watching Ben Stein debate Ron Paul, and the moment Stein didn't agree with Paul's foreign policy, he immediately called Paul an "Anti-Semite". At that point I groaned over Stein losing all credibility. Ron Paul is NOT an anti-semite. So yeah, Williamm, quit being a TERRORIST by TERRORIZING us over the idea of TERRORISTS sneaking over the border along with illegal immigrants to conduct TERRORIST activities.
I have never accused the illegal immigrants of being terrorists. I am saying a border that lets thousands of illegal immigrants in monthly has no way of stopping a terrorist from crossing over. That should be easy to understand.
"but even more about the border being the gateway to terrorists."*facepalm*The 9/11 hijackers were not illegal immigrants.
"I suppose you can tell I finally got around to watching all of Penn & Teller's "BS," and I'm convinced that borders aren't going to do anything unless we spend insane amounts of money."Welcome to sanity.
I understand the insane cost to protect our border, but how about the costs of not securing our border? I'm not just concerned about about the damage done to our economy by allowing more illegal immigrants into the country, but even more about the border being the gateway to terrorists.
Yep. That's a much more logical way to present the argument really. I think it's funny too that people whine and moan and complain about the idea of having to provide identification because if a government official really wants to do a background check and find out about you, all the information's ALREADY in the national databases. It wouldn't take even a minute to find out almost everything there is to find out about a person ANYWAY.There IS a thin line and 2 particular criteria here that I think Americans should WATCH OUT for though.1.) Racial profiling (already been established illegal in this law)2.) TOO MANY checkpoints. Let's keep them to a minimum and to areas where criminal activities have been known to take place.
As you can see below, I retracted my border argument due to the insane costs of what would really be required anyway.
It would be good if they could protect their border, but it costs money. Their budget deficit last year was 2.43 billion dollars, and much of it is due to almost half a million illegals. As I mentioned before, the border is a security issue that affects the whole country, not just Arizona. Why should Arizona be expected to pay for NATIONAL security?
I agree that the Patriot Act which would infringe upon the private lives of American citizens is absolutly wrong. I was arguing that Franklin's quote did not apply to simply producing your papers which if in no violation of the law would result in nothing. Patriot Act focuses on citizens who's private affiars could be in jeopardy of government intrusion, very different circumstances in spying and requesting documentation
Great. So...we basically have to build a WALL OF CHINA covering 2,000 miles across our border in order for my fence argument to ACTUALLY WORK. If a piddly fence plan like Bush's was $60 Billion...then I can ONLY IMAGINE how much a REAL fence (or better yet WALL) would cost us to build. That sucks, dude.I suppose you can tell I finally got around to watching all of Penn & Teller's "BS," and I'm convinced that borders aren't going to do anything unless we spend insane amounts of money.I guess the original argument resumes and honestly...I'm STILL on the side of the Conservatives overall on this though since I don't believe for one second that racial profiling will happen with this law.
Well, I'd have to say where Franklin's quote REALLY comes into play today is The Patriot Act. Now THAT'S where Franklin's quote needs to ring in our ears and us just think to ourselves..."Wow. We just allowed our government to do that because of the big, bad brown man. Unbelievable."Having identification with you is a fairly common thing EVEN OUTSIDE of law enforcement though, so that's why I don't see the merit in the "Nazi Germany" argument. People have to provide a valid ID when they purchase things with a credit card at a lot of stores. People at many banks also have to use a valid ID when they're taking money out of their bank account. Does that make the stores and banks "nazis," as well? Of course not. As long as it doesn't racially profile which from what I've read it doesn't, these arguments have no merit.
Well, as we seem to have acknowledged, the purpose of Arizona finally stepping up their own game is the fact that the federal government hasn't been doing anything. Now, they obviously don't have to fortify the entire southern border...just THEIR OWN. Of course I AGREE that it's the FED'S JOB, but if the point of doing something yourself is losing faith in the Feds, then shouldn't BORDER still be the GOAL?
Yes I know of Franklin's quote. This has nothing to do with that. What liberties are infringed upon by asking to see documentation? None. His quote deals along the lines of rounding up the Japanese into internment camps because they posed a "security threat" so we did the heinous act of "taking their liberty", as the quote puts it. Very different circumstances.
They should fortify their border, but this is one time I think it should be financed by the Feds since it affects the security of the whole country. Terrorists could, and probably have, crossed the border. The immigration problem wouldn't be near as bad if they had done something years ago. Bush didn't do enough and Obama has done nothing. As for passing this law, maybe they did it to force the Feds to get off the pot. Bottom line though is we can't afford to support them and the people on welfare. It's sad that working people have to support the lazy people on welfare and have less than the people on welfare. I know of this family back in Ohio that receives over 700 dollars a month on welfare and 950 dollars in food stamps, and pays 13 dollars a month for rent, while there are homeless people that are working but can't afford a place to live. These people also get free medicaid while the working people can't afford it. They also abuse the medicaid system because it's free to them. I respectfully disagree with you on treatment of prisoners by the sheriff. That's just my opinion.
I wouldn't go as far as to say ALL steps must be taken because there ARE steps that are absurd, but proving citizenship is EASY as long as people will LET it be easy. That video proved the point PERFECTLY that the 4th Amendment is a right that MANY people VOLUNTARILY give up and I also see that yeah...this particular border patrol guy VIOLATED it even when the camera guy was aware of his rights.There's ANOTHER point that video presents. Many people DON'T know how to HANDLE themselves EITHER. Just as with the last attempt at example you gave us, this guy could have EASILY kept his 4th Amendment rights INTACT had he handled the situation in a more RESPECTFUL manner. NOW, he has to go to COURT in order to sue this officer because he was an IDIOT.
Actually, I LIKE the way Arpaio treats his prisoners. He made an EXCELLENT point out of that. American SOLDIERS have to live in tents in hot conditions when they're deployed...why allow better treatment for CRIMINALS? The ONLY reason why Gitmo's a different story is because SOME of the people there are NOT ACTUAL TERRORISTS, but just suspects who are being INDEFINITELY DETAINED (which is unconstitutional by the way).I'm still gonna make my point though that IF Arizona is INNOCENT in all this...then WHY NOT FORTIFY THEIR BORDER to prove their point instead of passing this law that anyone with HALF A BRAIN would KNOW is controversial. You CAN'T tell me that they didn't know this kind of behavior from bleeding hearts.I also agree with you williamm that if we got rid of the ridiculous welfare state and 2 YEAR UNEMPLOYMENT PAY, then just maybe Americans would feel a NEED to do that job IF IT'S AVAILABLE since they're not getting handouts anymore.
I'll say again, Not all cops are bad. I will not try to defend Arpaio though. If we treated the Gitmo prisoners as he does his prisoners in his tent city, we would never hear the end of it. one other thing. If the feds had done their job protecting the border, they wouldn't found it important to pass the law in Arizona. If they would protect the border they could stop the bleeding and work on healing the wound caused by almost half a million illegals in Arizona.
"I believe that all steps must be taken and by that it is as simple as showing a form of documentation proving your legality."..."Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Someone America needs right now.
Unions operate just like everyone else: On self-interest. Unions howeverare incredibly active in lobbying government for the sweet/pork-barrel gigs.The key thing is to vote for a politician who has a PROVEN RECORD of notvoting for the special interest and instead being a champion of the FREE MARKET.The thing is this: Unions as well as non-union businesses share the same thing:Hegemony. They both want to have a market in which there's little/no competition.Competition is oftentimes the #1 nightmare for any business, because thatmeans they'll have to innovate, offer better deals and get off their sorryasses and WORK HARD.I'm all for Unions to exist, I however find the pro-unions laws which basicallyforce people to join unions MUST BE ABOLISHED.You keep hearing about 'lawmakers', what about 'LAW ABOLITIONIST'
Thank You. This is one place i totally agree with you. I lost a job back in the 60s with Chrysler on pads 34 and 37 at the cape . The unions forced them to let us go. There were other jobs I couldn't get later in life because I refused to go union. Larry Summers wrote in an article: " Another cause of long-term unemployment is unionization. High union wages that exceed the competitive market rate are likely to cause job losses in the unionized sector of the economy. Also, those who lose high-wage union jobs are often reluctant to accept alternative low-wage employment. Between 1970 and 1985, for example, a state with a 20 percent unionization rate, approximately the average for the fifty states and the District of Columbia, experienced an unemployment rate that was 1.2 percentage points higher than that of a hypothetical state that had no unions. '
No the officer is the true patriot. In the current situation that Arizona is in with the cartels making Phoenix the #2 kidnapping city in the world, a state overrun with illegals who backed into a corner with no option to run may put people in danger because they know either way they will be apprehended. An officer on tv siad that AZ had over 60 high speed pursuits so far this year, all of them being illegals. The calmness that this officer showed with the knowledge that this car may be drug-runners, possibly armed is highly looked upon. He should have given the i.d. to the officer and been allowed to stay in the car, but it is understandable why the officers did what they did and were very civil as compared to how it couldve gone down. It is the feds fault that the cituation is as bad as it is, but until desperate actions are taken to secure AZ again to where these stops will no longer be necessary I believe that all steps must be taken and by that it is as simple as showing a form of documentation proving your legality. Cops are not stupid they have trained to pick out illegal activity and if they happen to be wrong, well then a quick showing of ID will let the person be on his or her way. WE citizens have to go through piles of paperwork to basically get a job, showing 2 or more forms of documentation, whats the difference? there is none. The SS form of papers came under no form of suspected illegal activity and they apprehended citizens, we are not going to arrest citizens. Simple as that
"There are people who abuse the system on all sides, the scale will not be tipped one way or the other anymore "That's what I'm counting on. I hope the ACLU opens up a permanentlawyer office right in the heart of AZ and file 100 lawsuits daily againstArpaio and his goons.The more often these slimebag 'cops' have to go to court to testifyover x,y and z...the less they'll be on the street and the safer we willbe as a human race. The 2nd amendment is there for a purpose people: USE IT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#...
"What is your opinion on unions?"A lot of unions are nothing more than gang-thuggery.I've seen first-hand Unions applying their 'friendly suggestions' whichcome in the form of "Unionize or else we'll stop you from getting business."Unions are the very worst of class warfare, I can go on and on over howmuch I despise that racket. Glenn Beck did an amazing job takingSEIU and other scam unions to task.On the flipside, if someone wants to join a Union: BE MY GUEST.I work in a heavily unionized industry as a non-union freelancer. I'vehad my share of 'pressures' to join their gangs and my answer hasalways been the same: FVCK NO.
Companies should be allowed to hire whoever they think is right/best for the job.++++++++++=I guess you are against the unions forcing companies to hire only union members since you say the companies should be allowed to hire who they want based on whoever they think is right/best for the job. What is your opinion on unions?
Companies should be allowed to hire whoever they think is right/best for the job.Government should stay the hell out of it: PERIOD.
Mexicans come to America because people arewilling to hire them to do jobs most Americans wouldn't want to do (likepicking tomatoes).If nobody hired them, and free welfare/entitlements were non-existent,then Mexicans would basically not bother to come to the U.S.+++++++++++If not for welfare and food stamps, the Americans would take these jobs that Mexicans are doing. Also, how can we stop companies from hiring the illegals when someone like Pelosi says it's un American to enforce immigration laws?
And citizens can sue the police officer and the department for huge sums of money with free representation and even if their suit is determined to be unfounded the department and the officer have to pay for their defense. There are people who abuse the system on all sides, the scale will not be tipped one way or the other anymore with this law that actually out right says the officer can not simply pull someone over for the color of their skin.
Who do you think will have to pay for the illegal immigrants being here? If they are made legal and pay taxes, then use Earned Income Credits , they will receive more than they pay in. Legal immigrants coming to this country must have a means of support before they can even get a visa. " "Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" This is what leads me to believe you are for Government (actually We The People's ) money being used to support a criminal activity. All these people protesting today are protesting for the rights of people to commit a crime. As to your statement "the fact is: Cops will ALWAYS abuse whatever powers they are given " , that is untrue. There are many good law enforcement officers. There are cases where the cops do abuse their power and i have the vids showing it, but saying all cops will abuse their power is like saying all illegal immigrants will murder someone because some did. Back to illegal immigration issue, why do legal immigrants have to follow the rules and illegal immigrants don't?
"Land of the free"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OydW39DZzcAs Judge Andrew Napolitano said: Cameras are the new "weapons" inwhich citizens may defend themselves from those who violatethe U.S. Constitution. The people in that car are true patriots.
[...] » Coulter: I can’t believe how much the media’s willing to lie about Arizona’s law Via the Right Scoop, I was planning a post on this very subject but now I see that she — and Byron York — have [...]