has that been the experience in california which has had a virtually identical law on the books for over ten years? and as an aside, starting a debate w/ "I can almost guarantee that you won't read my words with an open mind..." is almost as offensive as the name calling that sam, mark, batman, FB and others routinely engage in, all the while claiming to wonder why there's no "honest" debate. the answer should be self-evident.
Name calling? Name calling isn't near the hindrance to honest debate that you running away from threads you start, not answering questions asked of you, and not responding when others answer the questions you ask. And again you have no room to chastise others for name calling. For the record, I don't remember calling you too many names.
I'm just being honest with you. I'm not here to have an honest debate, because I'm not trying to have a debate at all. I'm trying to have a discussion and provide you with some insight that you seem to be lacking and explicitly requested. I agree that making such comments make open and honest discussion almost impossible, but I didn't make them lightly. I made them because that's how I feel about you and your position based on what you have posted in this thread and this forum since I've been reading it. My hope is that you would take these comments not as an insult, but as an honest description of why I hesitate to even begin the discussion with you on this. My hope was that you would consider whether you could do something about your behavior to increase the quality of discussion, because I fear that it will not be the honest exchanging of ideas and mutual understanding that I'd prefer it to be. To wit, I posted a somewhat lengthy explanation and included several questions to try to see if you could understand and appreciate the point I was trying to make. But you basically ignored those, and instead asked a question of your own. Why not take the time to answer my questions first, and then provide an explanation (or an opinion in the form of a question) afterward? Even if you don't answer explicitly, it would be nice if you could address the comments and questions and explain why you don't want to answer.
SECTION 833-851.90 of the California Penal Code. i've quoted portions of it above, from section 834b, (b), (1)
How is that similar if it specifically refers only to people who have been arrested? I don't think the people who oppose the Arizona law would oppose it if those parts of SB1070 were specific to people who have been arrested. By the way, did you intentionally ignore my other post where I respectfully pointed out that it would be nice if you didn't ignore pertinent aspects of my post?
of course not- my failure to respond, much like eric holder's characterization of the arizona law, was inadvertent.
Considering Holder's characterization seemed to be quite measured and reasoned, I'm going to take that as a yes.
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/O6qEQ-KnitQ&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/O6qEQ-KnitQ&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
