1394 replies to this topic

[Balloon guy]

Finally, a chick to take the heat off Sarah's run for President!

[loogie]

Balloon guy, on Thursday, September 2nd, 2010, 2:48 PM, said:

Finally, a chick to take the heat off Sarah's run for President!

And then she announces her vice-presidential candidate...

[Balloon guy]

Speaking of failures of humanity in female form:Hillary touts the Obama administration's lawsuit against enforcing border laws in Arizona an example of their defending human rights to the UN Human rights Committee. They actually equate Arizona's law as an example of human suffering at the hands of government brutalities. The same committee that has Libya in it's membership.

[Balloon guy]

loogie, on Thursday, September 2nd, 2010, 11:50 AM, said:

And then she announces her vice-presidential candidate...

Okay, you got me here.I would never vote for a two skirt ticket.Unless it was the 1980's ticket of Margaret Thatcher with Erin Grey.And that is the only condition.

[akoff]

Balloon guy, on Thursday, September 2nd, 2010, 10:52 AM, said:

Okay, you got me here.I would never vote for a two skirt ticket.Unless it was the 1980's ticket of Margaret Thatcher with Erin Grey.And that is the only condition.

I would be hard pressed to vote for any skirt ticket with the skirt at the top...not saying i wouldn't but won't like it.

[hblask]

Balloon guy, on Thursday, September 2nd, 2010, 12:51 PM, said:

Hillary touts the Obama administration's lawsuit against enforcing border laws in Arizona an example of their defending human rights to the UN Human rights Committee. They actually equate Arizona's law as an example of human suffering at the hands of government brutalities.

Well, more people die each year on our border than in all the years of the Berlin Wall, and once upon a time people thought the wall was inhumane.....

[JoeyJoJo]

[Pot Odds RAC]

hblask, on Saturday, April 24th, 2010, 3:11 PM, said:

States I will never visit: Arizona + Alabama...

Updated your list.http://news.blogs.cn...-law/?hpt=hp_t2

[Balloon guy]

I like Alabama, driven through much of it, beautiful state.

[Pot Odds RAC]

CaneBrain, on Thursday, April 29th, 2010, 10:28 PM, said:

no, they should not do things that are doomed to fail the moment they hit the court system...

Perhaps not so doomed to fail.

[Balloon guy]

Haha...the SC is just bitch slapping the Obama administration over this.

[CaneBrain]

Pot Odds RAC, on Wednesday, April 25th, 2012, 3:57 PM, said:

Perhaps not so doomed to fail.

Yeah, I wrote that before I learned precedent means absolutely nothing to the conservative members of the current court. Glad I don't live in Arizona.

[Balloon guy]

CaneBrain, on Wednesday, April 25th, 2012, 2:56 PM, said:

Yeah, I wrote that before I learned precedent means absolutely nothing to the conservative members of the current court. Glad I don't live in Arizona.

Quote

“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.

I guess the rule of law means nothing to the liberal members of the current court.

[brvheart]

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, April 25th, 2012, 5:33 PM, said:

I guess the rule of law means nothing to the liberal members of the current court.

But really it's just the 10th amendment they hate so badly, BG. Let's not throw the entire "rule of law" out there. Let's just delete #10.

[akoff]

This administration reminds me of a bunch of teenage kids running wild, they have no thought or concern for what they are doing it just feels good…then parents come home and bitch slap them all back into reality, cut off the money and ground them for months.

[phlegm]

CaneBrain, on 25 April 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

QUOTE (Pot Odds RAC @ Wednesday, April 25th, 2012, 3:57 PM)Perhaps not so doomed to fail.Yeah, I wrote that before I learned precedent means absolutely nothing to the conservative members of the current court. Glad I don't live in Arizona.

I never understand flaming lib jews.Seriously could you explain how a jew can side with a party that is openly hostile to IsraelNevermind I just answered my own question.

[Pot Odds RAC]

The "Show us your papers" part of this law was upheld by the SCOTUS

[CaneBrain]

Pot Odds RAC, on 25 June 2012 - 07:14 AM, said:

The "Show us your papers" part of this law was upheld by the SCOTUS

depending on how they enforce it. I have faith that Sheriff Joe will screw that up too.But, I'm surprised Arizona was able to win on anything. Constitutional law is just changing all over the place this last couple years.

[akoff]

healthcare is next....

[FCP Bob]

Here's What The Supreme Court's Arizona Immigration Ruling REALLY MeansRead more: http://www.businessi...6#ixzz1yperjJ1jthe Supreme Court sided mostly with the federal government. The Obama administration didn't get all of its wishes, but three of the four key provisions were ruled unconstitutional. Here's what the Supreme Court struck down, ruling that these provisions were preempted by federal immigration law:

• Making it a state crime for illegal immigrants to not carry and possess their federal registration cards.
• Making it a crime for illegal immigrants to work or apply for work, or solicit work in a public place.
• Allowing state and local police to arrest illegal immigrants without a warrant with probable cause when they committed "any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States."

But the law's most controversial provision — the "papers please" provision that requires law enforcement officials to check the legal status of detained and arrested people with reasonable suspicion — was left standing, a ruling that favors Arizona.But the Supreme Court didn't exactly "uphold" the provision — it simply said there is not enough information to determine whether it conflicts with federal law.Here's the key part of the ruling:The Federal Government has brought suit against a sovereign State to challenge the provision even before the law has gone into effect. There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced. At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume §2(B) will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law.Translation: We need to see how the law is practiced and enforced before we decide whether this state law conflicts with federal immigration law. But the court did leave their opinion open, saying it "does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect."Read more: http://www.businessi...6#ixzz1ypf4ltvl