Arizona gives O the finger

[Guest 2smart4u]

Congrats to Arizona for standing up to the leftist masquerading as the POTUS. Phoenix has become the kidnap capital of the U.S. and murders are off the charts, yet zerO refuses to send troops to the border, he doesn't want to "offend" latinos.

If zerO is not bowing to everyone he meets, he's worrying about offending illegal aliens and being politically correct with terrorists.

He also refused to throw out the bogus charges against the Navy Seals charged with punching a terrorist.

Please God send us a president with a backbone who has the backs of American citizens threatened by illegal aliens and our military.

[Guest Studies and Observations]

Congrats to Arizona for standing up to the leftist masquerading as the POTUS. Phoenix has become the kidnap capital of the U.S. and murders are off the charts, yet zerO refuses to send troops to the border, he doesn't want to "offend" latinos.

If zerO is not bowing to everyone he meets, he's worrying about offending illegal aliens and being politically correct with terrorists.

He also refused to throw out the bogus charges against the Navy Seals charged with punching a terrorist.

Please God send us a president with a backbone who has the backs of American citizens threatened by illegal aliens and our military.

Sorry 2, but you are off base a bit. While the "O" is responsible for the LAST year, GWB ignored the growing Border Problem for two entire terms..for exactly the same reason..not offending the Latinos. We've had scads of cross-border kidnappings, Killings, and even Mexican Army marked vehicles shooting up Border Patrol officers, all under the Previous Administrations watch. While Obama doesnt get a pass..this problem is inherited from past POTUS'.

[Guest Radagast]

Sorry 2, but you are off base a bit. While the "O" is responsible for the LAST year, GWB ignored the growing Border Problem for two entire terms..for exactly the same reason..not offending the Latinos. We've had scads of cross-border kidnappings, Killings, and even Mexican Army marked vehicles shooting up Border Patrol officers, all under the Previous Administrations watch. While Obama doesnt get a pass..this problem is inherited from past POTUS'.

Also, in the rare realm of fairness here, the process needs to begin with the Congress not Bush or Obama. The legislation, or work in progress, by Sens. Schumer D- NY and Graham R- SC seems to have the best chance of making a real impact on the problem. It has good and bad things for both sides in it. I'm actually old enough to remember when Democrats and Republicans would occasionally work together to solve a problem. It's a bill worth following. The Arizona law is just plain nuts and it won't work. However it is born out of frustration that we in New Jersey can't possibly indentify with. We just can't hide from this problem anymore because people on either side might be unhappy, we need to do something substantive.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Sorry 2, but you are off base a bit. While the "O" is responsible for the LAST year, GWB ignored the growing Border Problem for two entire terms..for exactly the same reason..not offending the Latinos. We've had scads of cross-border kidnappings, Killings, and even Mexican Army marked vehicles shooting up Border Patrol officers, all under the Previous Administrations watch. While Obama doesnt get a pass..this problem is inherited from past POTUS'.

Off base only a bit. While it's true Bush did little to shut off the flow of illegals crossing the southern border, crime has never been as bad as it is now. Murder rates have soared on both sides of the border and it's getting worse. zerO seems oblivious to this and is criticizing Arizona for trying to protect themselves. Face it, zerO is more concerned with losing latino votes than protecting Americans.

[Guest 4 the Record]

Congrats to Arizona for standing up to the leftist masquerading as the POTUS. Phoenix has become the kidnap capital of the U.S. and murders are off the charts, yet zerO refuses to send troops to the border, he doesn't want to "offend" latinos.

If zerO is not bowing to everyone he meets, he's worrying about offending illegal aliens and being politically correct with terrorists.

He also refused to throw out the bogus charges against the Navy Seals charged with punching a terrorist.

Please God send us a president with a backbone who has the backs of American citizens threatened by illegal aliens and our military.

All your rhetoric and gum-flapping is for naught. Arizona's new legislation will be shot down in flames by the Supreme Court for one simple reason---it's unconstitutional! States do not have the authority to fabricate their own immigration policy. That is in the realm of the federal government. You can't have 50 states each practicing different laws regarding immigration. Talk about chaos!

You conservatives are always complaining about liberal interpretations of the law, but only when it suits your purposes.

This legislation is purely political. The tight-a** governor is trying to endear herself to the registered Arizona voters who are overwhelmingly white. However in the process, poor John McCain (You know, the loser in the last presidential election) finds himself in an awkward position. During the presidential campaign (You know, the one he lost.) he was all for real immigration reform. Since he was wooing the Hispanic vote, he even hinted that he might consider some sort of amnesty for illegals who were here over a long period of time and had proved to be good and law-abiding residents. Now he's twisting in the wind and back-peddling as he 's engaged in a tight Senate race. Poor Johnny!

Racial profiling lives and prospers in the state of Arizona.

[Guest 2smart4u]

All your rhetoric and gum-flapping is for naught. Arizona's new legislation will be shot down in flames by the Supreme Court for one simple reason---it's unconstitutional! States do not have the authority to fabricate their own immigration policy. That is in the realm of the federal government. You can't have 50 states each practicing different laws regarding immigration. Talk about chaos!

You conservatives are always complaining about liberal interpretations of the law, but only when it suits your purposes.

This legislation is purely political. The tight-a** governor is trying to endear herself to the registered Arizona voters who are overwhelmingly white. However in the process, poor John McCain (You know, the loser in the last presidential election) finds himself in an awkward position. During the presidential campaign (You know, the one he lost.) he was all for real immigration reform. Since he was wooing the Hispanic vote, he even hinted that he might consider some sort of amnesty for illegals who were here over a long period of time and had proved to be good and law-abiding residents. Now he's twisting in the wind and back-peddling as he 's engaged in a tight Senate race. Poor Johnny!

Racial profiling lives and prospers in the state of Arizona.

Profiling, whether racial or otherwise is nothing more than using logic and common sense to decide what or who the threat is. As an example: would you be more comfortable using an ATM late at night with a group of white-haired old ladies behind you or a group of teenage latinos or blacks standing behind you??

What's that you say? You'd feel safer with the old ladies? You're guilty of profiling!

[Guest ko]

Profiling, whether racial or otherwise is nothing more than using logic and common sense to decide what or who the threat is. As an example: would you be more comfortable using an ATM late at night with a group of white-haired old ladies behind you or a group of teenage latinos or blacks standing behind you??

What's that you say? You'd feel safer with the old ladies? You're guilty of profiling!

You're stupid.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Profiling, whether racial or otherwise is nothing more than using logic and common sense to decide what or who the threat is. As an example: would you be more comfortable using an ATM late at night with a group of white-haired old ladies behind you or a group of teenage latinos or blacks standing behind you??

What's that you say? You'd feel safer with the old ladies? You're guilty of profiling!

Wow.

What about old ladies or white teenagers?

[Guest 4 the Record]

Profiling, whether racial or otherwise is nothing more than using logic and common sense to decide what or who the threat is. As an example: would you be more comfortable using an ATM late at night with a group of white-haired old ladies behind you or a group of teenage latinos or blacks standing behind you??

What's that you say? You'd feel safer with the old ladies? You're guilty of profiling!

Depends on the white-haired old ladies. I know a few who could whip my a**! Then again, some of my best family are Latino! (Never assume you know everything about someone from his/her posts.)

But seriously, you're missing the point (surprise, surprise). An individual's personal prejudices or wariness, do not a law make. Once you act on those biases by writing statutes and involving law enforcement, then it becomes racial profiling---and I am doing neither.

Since the US is the land of equality, I hope that Arizona law enforcement will not limit its Gestapo tactics to people of brownish hues. You gotta watch out for those red-haired, freckle-faced terrorists from the Irish Republic and the blond blue-eyed Neo-Commies who still believe in world domination.....and so on....

[Guest Guest]

He also refused to throw out the bogus charges against the Navy Seals charged with punching a terrorist.

Stupid,

You don't know the charges are bogus. Since it's a military trial, you should have confidence that the right result will be reached. I'm happy that we have a president who allows the legal process to proceed in due course. Idiots like you don't understand that the system has to work and that you can't just break the rules because you don't like what's at stake.

[Guest 2smart4u]

You're stupid.

That respone tells me I'm right, you agree with me, but you can't admit it.

[Guest Ditto]

Depends on the white-haired old ladies. I know a few who could whip my a**! Then again, some of my best family are Latino! (Never assume you know everything about someone from his/her posts.)

But seriously, you're missing the point (surprise, surprise). An individual's personal prejudices or wariness, do not a law make. Once you act on those biases by writing statutes and involving law enforcement, then it becomes racial profiling---and I am doing neither.

Since the US is the land of equality, I hope that Arizona law enforcement will not limit its Gestapo tactics to people of brownish hues. You gotta watch out for those red-haired, freckle-faced terrorists from the Irish Republic and the blond blue-eyed Neo-Commies who still believe in world domination.....and so on....

Excellent post.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Depends on the white-haired old ladies. I know a few who could whip my a**! Then again, some of my best family are Latino! (Never assume you know everything about someone from his/her posts.)

But seriously, you're missing the point (surprise, surprise). An individual's personal prejudices or wariness, do not a law make. Once you act on those biases by writing statutes and involving law enforcement, then it becomes racial profiling---and I am doing neither.

Since the US is the land of equality, I hope that Arizona law enforcement will not limit its Gestapo tactics to people of brownish hues. You gotta watch out for those red-haired, freckle-faced terrorists from the Irish Republic and the blond blue-eyed Neo-Commies who still believe in world domination.....and so on....

"I know a few that could whip my ass". That doesn't surprise me, you far left Loonys are known for being a little sweet.

[Guest Guest]

Depends on the white-haired old ladies. I know a few who could whip my a**! Then again, some of my best family are Latino! (Never assume you know everything about someone from his/her posts.)

But seriously, you're missing the point (surprise, surprise). An individual's personal prejudices or wariness, do not a law make. Once you act on those biases by writing statutes and involving law enforcement, then it becomes racial profiling---and I am doing neither.

Since the US is the land of equality, I hope that Arizona law enforcement will not limit its Gestapo tactics to people of brownish hues. You gotta watch out for those red-haired, freckle-faced terrorists from the Irish Republic and the blond blue-eyed Neo-Commies who still believe in world domination.....and so on....

Illegals are illegals no matter what color. Is it asking too much for people to go though the proper channels to work or live here.

[Guest ko]

That respone tells me I'm right, you agree with me, but you can't admit it.

If you can't see the innumerable ways in which your logic is flawed...

Forget it.

You're stupid.

[Guest Guest]

If you can't see the innumerable ways in which your logic is flawed...

Forget it.

You're stupid.

It's worse. He's stupid and arrogant. Doesn't get much worse than that.

[Guest Psychology Grad Student]

Profiling, whether racial or otherwise is nothing more than using logic and common sense to decide what or who the threat is. As an example: would you be more comfortable using an ATM late at night with a group of white-haired old ladies behind you or a group of teenage latinos or blacks standing behind you??

What's that you say? You'd feel safer with the old ladies? You're guilty of profiling!

Profiling is nothing more than using one's intuition, logic and reasoning to arrive at a likely conclusion or decision. Arriving back from Europe not long ago, the screeners after talking with me gave my luggage a brief glimpse inside, while 2 middle-eastern guys in front of me had their luggage gone over closely.

We don't live in a black and white world, there's shades of gray and other colors in between. The far left will never understand these differences with their rigid ideology.

[Guest Of course]

Profiling is nothing more than using one's intuition, logic and reasoning to arrive at a likely conclusion or decision. Arriving back from Europe not long ago, the screeners after talking with me gave my luggage a brief glimpse inside, while 2 middle-eastern guys in front of me had their luggage gone over closely.

We don't live in a black and white world, there's shades of gray and other colors in between. The far left will never understand these differences with their rigid ideology.

But the far right understands it perfectly! They perfected racial profiling in Nazi Germany.

[Guest 4 the Record]

"I know a few that could whip my ass". That doesn't surprise me, you far left Loonys are known for being a little sweet.

There you go again---assuming. Did you assume that because I'm so smart, I must be a man? (Not only prejudiced, but chauvinist as well)

Of course I'm sweet. I'm one of the white-haired old ladies that you're so comfortable with having behind you at the ATM. Make sure you look over your shoulder the next time you make a withdrawal. I might be watching!

[Guest 4 the Record]

Illegals are illegals no matter what color. Is it asking too much for people to go though the proper channels to work or live here.

I find some validity in what you are saying.

While my heart feels for any immigrant whether legal or illegal who struggles to provide a better life for his family, intellectually I realize that we cannot take on the migration woes of the whole world, but this law is not the answer. It is not constitutional nor is it color-blind.

The enforcement of Arizona's Folly will result in the disintegration of families, loss of unskilled laborers (even Republican farmers and ranchers agree about that) and most obviously millions of dollars worth of lawsuits against the state. Take for instance the case of the American father and son who are of Hispanic heritage, who own and work a farm outside of Tucson. They have been stopped 23 times over the last 3 months, even before the law was passed. They are Americans, born in this country and yet have been subjected to illegal stops and searches. They have filed suit in Federal Court for unspecified damages. This scenario will be played out countless times before the Supreme Court nullifies this ridiculous legislation.

There's gotta be a better way.

[Guest ko]

Profiling is nothing more than using one's intuition, logic and reasoning to arrive at a likely conclusion or decision. Arriving back from Europe not long ago, the screeners after talking with me gave my luggage a brief glimpse inside, while 2 middle-eastern guys in front of me had their luggage gone over closely.

We don't live in a black and white world, there's shades of gray and other colors in between. The far left will never understand these differences with their rigid ideology.

Profiling is a worthy tool, especially when trained professionals are involved. That said, racial profiling is completely mindless. It relies on one factor of an individual's outer appearance to determine who is a criminal, terrorist, etc. It's not using "logic and reasoning," and as I said before, the only intuition that is truly valuable comes from a professional profiler or a seasoned law enforcer. Pick up any Arthur Conan Doyle novel and see what real profiling is. Sherlock Holmes' brand of deductive reasoning is what a real profiler employs. And I assure you, Holmes never said "I do say, my dear Watson, this Black man surely has a firearm on his person. Judging by the colour of his skin, he's most likely in a gang. He definitely likes rap music. He plays basketball." That's stupidity. That's not deductive reasoning. That's not any sort of reasoning.

Also, your second to last comment is exceedingly ironic. Racial profiling (if that is the type of profiling you're defending here) relies on a world that is black and white (and maybe one or two different colors), it's not the other way around as you suggest.

Let's continue on with your example which assumes Middle-Easterners should be checked because they are more likely to be Muslim terrorists:

Muslim is not a color, so if your skin-tone suggests Middle-Eastern descent, it doesn't matter, because not all Middle-Easterners are Muslim. And it especially doesn't matter because Muslims can be Black African. And it also especially doesn't matter because Muslims can be White. And it especially especially doesn't matter because not all Muslims are terrorists (IN FACT MOST AREN'T).

Some high-profile terror suspects/convicts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(prisoner)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutaree

The first two don't support the idea of checking the Middle-Easterner (one is a Black kid and the other is Latino). The second is Latino, born in the United States and most likely used his given Latino name when making transactions, paying bills, etc. The third is the group who've been in the media most recently. They're white. They're terrorists. I don't know. Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, John Walker Lindh... What else do you want? Do you want me to say the Weather Underground? Even though I don't think they were really terrorists. I don't understand why anybody would find racial profiling to be a resource at all. It's an exhaustive, brute-force method where so many people have to be checked, why not just check everybody? Right? It's mind-boggling that you call us stupid.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Profiling is a worthy tool, especially when trained professionals are involved. That said, racial profiling is completely mindless. It relies on one factor of an individual's outer appearance to determine who is a criminal, terrorist, etc. It's not using "logic and reasoning," and as I said before, the only intuition that is truly valuable comes from a professional profiler or a seasoned law enforcer. Pick up any Arthur Conan Doyle novel and see what real profiling is. Sherlock Holmes' brand of deductive reasoning is what a real profiler employs. And I assure you, Holmes never said "I do say, my dear Watson, this Black man surely has a firearm on his person. Judging by the colour of his skin, he's most likely in a gang. He definitely likes rap music. He plays basketball." That's stupidity. That's not deductive reasoning. That's not any sort of reasoning.

Also, your second to last comment is exceedingly ironic. Racial profiling (if that is the type of profiling you're defending here) relies on a world that is black and white (and maybe one or two different colors), it's not the other way around as you suggest.

Let's continue on with your example which assumes Middle-Easterners should be checked because they are more likely to be Muslim terrorists:

Muslim is not a color, so if your skin-tone suggests Middle-Eastern descent, it doesn't matter, because not all Middle-Easterners are Muslim. And it especially doesn't matter because Muslims can be Black African. And it also especially doesn't matter because Muslims can be White. And it especially especially doesn't matter because not all Muslims are terrorists (IN FACT MOST AREN'T).

Some high-profile terror suspects/convicts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(prisoner)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutaree

The first two don't support the idea of checking the Middle-Easterner (one is a Black kid and the other is Latino). The second is Latino, born in the United States and most likely used his given Latino name when making transactions, paying bills, etc. The third is the group who've been in the media most recently. They're white. They're terrorists. I don't know. Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, John Walker Lindh... What else do you want? Do you want me to say the Weather Underground? Even though I don't think they were really terrorists. I don't understand why anybody would find racial profiling to be a resource at all. It's an exhaustive, brute-force method where so many people have to be checked, why not just check everybody? Right? It's mind-boggling that you call us stupid.

"Profiling is a worthy tool, especially when trained professionals are involved". Excellent, a brief moment of lucidity!!

[Guest 4 the Record]

Profiling is a worthy tool, especially when trained professionals are involved. That said, racial profiling is completely mindless. It relies on one factor of an individual's outer appearance to determine who is a criminal, terrorist, etc. It's not using "logic and reasoning," and as I said before, the only intuition that is truly valuable comes from a professional profiler or a seasoned law enforcer. Pick up any Arthur Conan Doyle novel and see what real profiling is. Sherlock Holmes' brand of deductive reasoning is what a real profiler employs. And I assure you, Holmes never said "I do say, my dear Watson, this Black man surely has a firearm on his person. Judging by the colour of his skin, he's most likely in a gang. He definitely likes rap music. He plays basketball." That's stupidity. That's not deductive reasoning. That's not any sort of reasoning.

Also, your second to last comment is exceedingly ironic. Racial profiling (if that is the type of profiling you're defending here) relies on a world that is black and white (and maybe one or two different colors), it's not the other way around as you suggest.

Let's continue on with your example which assumes Middle-Easterners should be checked because they are more likely to be Muslim terrorists:

Muslim is not a color, so if your skin-tone suggests Middle-Eastern descent, it doesn't matter, because not all Middle-Easterners are Muslim. And it especially doesn't matter because Muslims can be Black African. And it also especially doesn't matter because Muslims can be White. And it especially especially doesn't matter because not all Muslims are terrorists (IN FACT MOST AREN'T).

Some high-profile terror suspects/convicts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(prisoner)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutaree

The first two don't support the idea of checking the Middle-Easterner (one is a Black kid and the other is Latino). The second is Latino, born in the United States and most likely used his given Latino name when making transactions, paying bills, etc. The third is the group who've been in the media most recently. They're white. They're terrorists. I don't know. Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, John Walker Lindh... What else do you want? Do you want me to say the Weather Underground? Even though I don't think they were really terrorists. I don't understand why anybody would find racial profiling to be a resource at all. It's an exhaustive, brute-force method where so many people have to be checked, why not just check everybody? Right? It's mind-boggling that you call us stupid.

Everything you stated makes sense. Profiling as utilized by the FBI for example is a painstaking process in which the profiler studies his subject at many different levels over a period of time.

Local law enforcement has neither the time, the training, nor the inclination to profile based on anything other than appearance, and as you so ably pointed out, appearances can be deceptive.

[Guest OTJ1987]

Profiling is a worthy tool, especially when trained professionals are involved. That said, racial profiling is completely mindless. It relies on one factor of an individual's outer appearance to determine who is a criminal, terrorist, etc. It's not using "logic and reasoning," and as I said before, the only intuition that is truly valuable comes from a professional profiler or a seasoned law enforcer. Pick up any Arthur Conan Doyle novel and see what real profiling is. Sherlock Holmes' brand of deductive reasoning is what a real profiler employs. And I assure you, Holmes never said "I do say, my dear Watson, this Black man surely has a firearm on his person. Judging by the colour of his skin, he's most likely in a gang. He definitely likes rap music. He plays basketball." That's stupidity. That's not deductive reasoning. That's not any sort of reasoning.

Also, your second to last comment is exceedingly ironic. Racial profiling (if that is the type of profiling you're defending here) relies on a world that is black and white (and maybe one or two different colors), it's not the other way around as you suggest.

Let's continue on with your example which assumes Middle-Easterners should be checked because they are more likely to be Muslim terrorists:

Muslim is not a color, so if your skin-tone suggests Middle-Eastern descent, it doesn't matter, because not all Middle-Easterners are Muslim. And it especially doesn't matter because Muslims can be Black African. And it also especially doesn't matter because Muslims can be White. And it especially especially doesn't matter because not all Muslims are terrorists (IN FACT MOST AREN'T).

Some high-profile terror suspects/convicts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(prisoner)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutaree

The first two don't support the idea of checking the Middle-Easterner (one is a Black kid and the other is Latino). The second is Latino, born in the United States and most likely used his given Latino name when making transactions, paying bills, etc. The third is the group who've been in the media most recently. They're white. They're terrorists. I don't know. Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, John Walker Lindh... What else do you want? Do you want me to say the Weather Underground? Even though I don't think they were really terrorists. I don't understand why anybody would find racial profiling to be a resource at all. It's an exhaustive, brute-force method where so many people have to be checked, why not just check everybody? Right? It's mind-boggling that you call us stupid.

Setting off Explosives in the US Capitol, Pentagon, and NYPD headquarters ARENT "Terrorism"??? Interesting. By the Bye, it seems that the FBI once again either jumped too quickly with the Hutaree investigation, or, as has happened before it was the FBI PLANT that was making the actual plans. Suddenly the Lead FBI agent is having memory problems concerning the investigation. Now, that said... Yes, terrorists come in ALL sorts of races, creeds, and religions, ranging from Arab, to, Muslim to White, Jewish, to Christian, to Black, to Asian, to Communist (I know it is an anathema to religion..but adherents of TRUE Communisn are just as fervent as religious fanatics). Now, with that out of the way, Two of the largest Terrorist Attacks on US Soil, one involving a Weapon of Mass Destruction, WERE in fact planned, and carried out by Young Arabic males of the Muslim religion, and the other involving the use of loaded passenger aircraft as expedient cruise missiles. IT IS NOT UNREASONABLE to have Young arabic males screened a little more closely, as opposed to little old ladies, or small children. Ethn icity cant be the ONLY reason, but ti should be allowable as a factor. i have seen men who exhibited markers that Should have put them into the Intensive screening line passed through, for NO other reason than the screeners had already "Reached their Quota" for the day....or, worse when the TSA screener made a move they subject immediately started the "Racial Profiling" rant...and the Screener backed down instead of holding his/her ground. Oh and the "Quota" is TSA's terminology not mine. There is the right way and the wrong way to do things..and WE do it the wrong way..unfortunately Congress and the Airline Lobbyists wont allow us to do it the RIGHT way, which is the way the Israelis do it at El Al.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Everything you stated makes sense. Profiling as utilized by the FBI for example is a painstaking process in which the profiler studies his subject at many different levels over a period of time.

Local law enforcement has neither the time, the training, nor the inclination to profile based on anything other than appearance, and as you so ably pointed out, appearances can be deceptive.

So, now you're an expert on the training, inclinations and time constraints of all law enforcement. I'm impressed.