Another epic fail for Janet Come Lately

[thaiboxerken]

Since you have actually read it, which part is it that you object to? You can cut/paste the offensive part if you want.

Did that in the other thread about this topic.

 

[mortimer]

I, personally, have never seen the John Travolta/Barry Pepper film "Battlefield Earth".

Nevertheless, I feel quite comfortable in calling it a really, really bad movie, because lots of people who have seen it have described, in detail, just how bad it is.

Skepticism at its finest. Lots of people have described how great Jesus is. So may I assume you are a Christian? Lots of people have also described how great Mohammad is. So may I also assume you are a Muslim?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

.. why am I reminded of a saying on S- OH, RIGHT
"You do not need to personally sample the psudeoscience to be skeptical."

(Also, no. Aides. I imagine Napolitano is busy on that redo of the immigration system Obama proposed recently. Or perhaps the normal business of running the department. Especially after the failed Times Square bombing attempt.)

 

[Cicero]

.. why am I reminded of a saying on S- OH, RIGHT
"You do not need to personally sample the psudeoscience to be skeptical."

(Also, no. Aides. I imagine Napolitano is busy on that redo of the immigration system Obama proposed recently. Or perhaps the normal business of running the department. Especially after the failed Times Square bombing attempt.)

And you reckon that was one of Napolitano's shining moments?


"New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, while refusing to criticize agencies, said the suspect was "clearly on the plane and shouldn't have been." Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declined to say how Shahzad was able to board the flight if he was on the No Fly list."

 

[Cicero]

I'll remember that the next time you quote a news article, blog entry, or opinion piece.

Which obviously has zero to do with you relying on what "lots of people" say about anything and then parroting their uninformed opinions. If you actually read the article, blog entry or opinion piece before commenting on it, you would be way ahead of Napolitano.

 

[Snide]

Skepticism at its finest. Lots of people have described how great Jesus is. So may I assume you are a Christian? Lots of people have also described how great Mohammad is. So may I also assume you are a Muslim?

If a lot of people tell you why something they saw or read is bad, you should be able to make a judgment as to how much you should believe them, based on the arguments they put forth and their track record. This is not the same as hearing a bunch of believers praise the lord and thus agreeing with thim. Nor is it the same as just blindly agreeing with them if all they sad was it was bad, as Cicero wrongly claims.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Cicero: I'm defending her from this claim, yes. This should not be construed to mean any comments on her general performance or Times Square incident. Since, you know, I'm not talking about either.

 

[cienaños]

Come on. You don't need to read an entire legislative act to understand it, and having someone boil it down to its essentials saves a lot of time and effort. I would agree that it's best to read something before criticizing what it says, but the fact that you haven't read the entire text does not necessarily mean you are "ignorant" as to what it says.

I've seen Battlefield Earth, and to this day I wish I was speaking about it from a position of ignorance.

OT: Does anyone else weep for the English language every time they see "epic fail" used in what is intended to be semi-serious discourse?[/QUOTE]

It's the new "awesome."

 

[The Painter]

Did that in the other thread about this topic.

That should make it easy to do again. Or you could link the other thread.

 

[A'isha]

Skepticism at its finest. Lots of people have described how great Jesus is. So may I assume you are a Christian? Lots of people have also described how great Mohammad is. So may I also assume you are a Muslim?

I also don't DNA test the steak served to me at the local Western Sizzlin' to prove to myself that it's beef just like the menu says, nor do I perform a chemical analysis of the stuff I pump into my car at the Chevron that they claim is "gasoline", nor do I check each individual cinema in person rather than trust the movie listings in the newspaper. And, gasp, I don't do all the aerodynamic calculations before my plane takes off to be sure that it's actually capable of powered flight!

I'm so gullible, in fact, that I take scientists at their word that the sun is a huge flaming ball of hydrogen being fused into helium, and totally believe my doctor when tells me that taking antibiotics will clear up my strep throat.

Really, I should be drummed off of this skeptics' forum in utter shame and humiliation!

 

[A'isha]

Which obviously has zero to do with you relying on what "lots of people" say about anything and then parroting their uninformed opinions.

"Uninformed" meaning, apparently, "disagrees with Cicero".

 

[cienaños]

I also don't DNA test the steak served to me at the local Western Sizzlin' to prove to myself that it's beef just like the menu says, nor do I perform a chemical analysis of the stuff I pump into my car at the Chevron that they claim is "gasoline", nor do I check each individual cinema in person rather than trust the movie listings in the newspaper. And, gasp, I don't do all the aerodynamic calculations before my plane takes off to be sure that it's actually capable of powered flight!

I'm so gullible, in fact, that I take scientists at their word that the sun is a huge flaming ball of hydrogen being fused into helium, and totally believe my doctor when tells me that taking antibiotics will clear up my strep throat.

Really, I should be drummed off of this skeptics' forum in utter shame and humiliation!

You're one of them seat-belt types, am I right? Into the whole - diet & exercise meme?

 

[Biscuit]

Because he thinks it will inevitably lead to profiling, even though the bill prohibits profiling. So the argument is that this law will lead police officers to violate the law. I suppose that's possible, but it does seem a peculiar argument.

Please note I am not arguing the validity of the lawsuits. I am pissed that while my state parks close and my sales taxes rise the state is going to have to waste a lot of money on a lot of lawsuits. As class sizes expand and schools are shut down the state is entering several years worth of litigation over a law that will not do anything to solve the illegal immigration problem in AZ or of the nation as a whole. All 50 states could pass the same law and it wouldn't do a darn thing.

Even more peculiar is a law that can only be enforced through profiling specifically prohibits profiling.

Which, again, presumes that this law will lead officers to act unlawfully. Again, possible, but I don't take that as a given, and I'm not sure why anyone else should.



Or... officers could obey the law.

Which presumes that officers will just somehow know to ask even if blindfolded with ear plugs in they could simply "sense" the illegal in a line up.

Well, no. The law permits lawsuits for policies of non-enforcement. It does not permit lawsuits for insufficient enforcement.

Well, no. You can file a lawsuit no matter what. Either way the state has to pay its legal fees and the court has to be paid for and all the other tax payer funded costs of running a trial. At what point does insufficient enforcement become to great? What is the point of a law that can be applied insufficiently?

The main reason to ask for identification from anybody is because of an arrest or because of a stop for a traffic violation. In both cases, police are supposed to establish identity anyways, regardless of immigration issues. The primary reason to verify immigration status is if attempts to establish identity are not easily met (they don't have a driver's license when driving, etc), or establishing that identity reveals that they are an immigrant. Accent doesn't have to have anything to do with it.

What is the primary reason you would ask someone, "Are you from Australia?" Is it because they are riding a kangaroo or because of their accent? The way someone looks, talks, and sounds is critical in everyday life in establishing some ones origins. What is the cop going to use in order to have reasonable suspicion if they can't take into account anything about the actual person they have stopped? Are they going to detain every person that doesn't carry ID until they establish citizenship? Thats going to piss off the libertarians who refuse to carry any and soccer moms that forgot it.

This law is ridiculous in its intent, expectations, and the supposed execution.

As you have yet to address this I will state it again. For that matter no one who is for this bill has addressed this. This law will do nothing to positively change the illegal immigration problem in the U.S. It is whack-a-mole legislation designed to make AZ look tough in a year when looking tough is politically cool. The very group that helped write this law, FAIR, will most likely be involved in the lawsuits against my state. For every single illegal that police magically sniff out another ten will cross the border. AZ will bear the costs of enforcement, detainment, and the inevitable lawsuits all for nothing. When the head of the police officers association says its a bad idea I suggest we listen. This law is a pointless waste of time and resources in a state that can ill afford it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

that should make it easy to do again. Or you could link the other thread.

g. A person may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. If there is a judicial finding that an entity has violated this section, the court shall order any of the following:

1. That the person who brought the action recover court costs and attorney fees.

2. That the entity pay a civil penalty of not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of an action pursuant to this subsection.

 

[Tricky]

I do not have to eat the whole apple to know it is rotten.