Sarah Palin claims minorities are 2nd class citizens

Come on. It's just as dumb to do it in "retaliation" as it is to do it in the first place. Don't stoop.

Were you intending to discuss the Arizona bill? I think it would be an interesting topic.

 

Wait, wait, wait.

Palin supports McCain in Arizona. Arizona just passed ridiculous immigration reform that basically allows police officers to assume anyone is there illegally if they don't look American (WTF does an American look like, given that we're so diverse anyway?). Since Palin supports McCain who is currently a senator of Arizona, she must support this immigration reform. Thus, Palin supports questioning minorities of their immigration status. Such questions indicate they are less important that those who are not minorities. Thus, Palin thinks minorities are second class citizens.

YES. I FOLLOW. PREACH ON BROTHA!

 

It's embarrassing for me to live in Arizona with idiots supporting "1070."

 

First Mexicans, Canadians are next.

 

I think it's a fair title, considering we are not "real" americans.

 

I second this post.

 

This thread is dumb but this post is:

 

I third it.

 

In his defense, what FB did here was not what basso does (and did here)- which was to decide that he doesn't like the subject matter of a thread, or otherwise find it embarrassing and inconvenient, and thus start his own duplicate thread, with a falsified thread title, in order to garner the attention he cherishs in hopes that it overwhelms the previous thread, so as to garner a Pyhrric yet savory internet victory.

That's not the technique that FB borrowed here, as his deals with immigration rather than the whole "teabagger-militant" deal - so his thread is really not a duplicate thread.

 

It is my opinion that ignoring completely is the best option. A thread like this just adds to the mess that has to be waded through to find the good conversation. If you ignore it, it might or might not go away, but at least it will be less likely to pollute or take over the real discussions. Also, if you find that a bad title or implication in a thread distorts a topic you want to discuss, I'd start a new thread with a better title. It's not really a duplicate if the first thread was posted with the focus of the distortion.

But if you are going to start a thread to make your point, don't ruin a perfectly good discussion topic to do it! Then again, I guess if I really wanted to discuss it I could take my own advice and open up a new thread with a non-distorted title and start the conversation there.

 

Well the biggest difference is FB posted a response with more than 1 sentence.

Serious question, has Basso over written a post with more than 1 sentence that didnt quote some terrible article?

That said, no need to duplicate Basso's awful posting style even if it is to make a point.

 

don't cha feel it growin' day by day.

Spoiler

whoa, oh, whoa..

 

He used to, circa early 2000's - but sadly most of his arguments and predictions and etc. proved about as stupid as we initially claimed they were - let's face it, when your basic philosophy is slavish devotion to the policy whims of George W. Bush and his band of idiots, one of the worst presidents in history, you've kind of looked like a big giant fool and tend to say dumb things. Proper use of the Search Function proved to be his undoing. Well, that and the fact that he was so spectacularly wrong.

As the Bush Administration sort of careened into its hubristic, post-Katrina, utter laughingstock state - basso's posts degenerated into the squatty, CTRL-V'ing form that they are in today (actually I believe that was around the time the Plagiarism scandal broke...that was basically his Katrina).

 

I thought minorities were in her first class. Hence the half-dozen transfers for the Communications degree.

 

I cannot even begin to express how angry I am.

When you're a teacher in a Title I school with the majority of the student body being Hispanic, Latino or Mexican, you would understand the impact of this legislation.

This is only the beginning. If an intervention does not take place, it's going to get uglier and the civil unrest will be horrible.

Right-wingers will jump all over this and call it a great move.

Street Justice...

 

I live in Tucson. This law is in reaction to escalating violence in Mexico and the murder of the AZ rancher. Some might say an overreation. I think the intent is to stop lawless activity, and I'm sympathetic to that, but I'm skeptical that this will help.

Our border is wide open and it's the wild west on the other side of it. Many of my native Mexican coworkers have no desire to even visit Mexico any more. You can live in isolated plots of AZ and still commute to Tucson for work. I have a coworker that finds drug mule backpacks in the wash right outside her house, they come through at night, it terrifies her.

It's very easy to come here illegally and very hard to come here legally. That's a screwed up system. We need to make it hard to come here illegally (build a fence, they work), and contract out the immigration process to Visa or some such company (they could do a background check and have you processed in a week, rather than months or years it takes INS).

This isn't anti immigrant, it's anti lawlessness. If the feds would do their job and maintain a modicum of control over the border, it would never get to this point.

That being said, many of my hispanic coworkers are concerned this will lead to racial profiling.

In my mind once someone gets across the border there's little that distinguishes them from a citizen, visually. I would imagine 90% of illegals that come through AZ are hispanic, but there are a ton of hispanics here legally, so profiling wouldn't really work.

The border patrol has random checkpoints along roads near the border, all I have ever seen them do is ask if I'm a citizen. It seems like a complete waste of resources.

We would be better served setting up a system that stops people from coming in at the border, rather than trying to track them down after the fact, which causes all kinds of inconvenience and strife.

Obama needs to make it so laws like this aren't necessary or percieved to be necessary.

But it ticks me off when people try to stir up racial strife. AZ is very diverse and there isn't racial strife here, and that certainly isn't what this law is about.

I'm tired of people proclaiming vast swaths of this country to be racist bigots. I've lived all over and I just don't see it.

 

A thoughtful post, Commodore. I don't disagree with it. But...

I'd venture a guess that, if you're white, you probably wouldn't see it.

 

Consider the context in which you're working/living.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. I live in Central Phoenix and "racial strife" is still very evident.

When you examine the main proponents of the bill and their voting backgrounds, this is not simply about keeping people safe. It's deeper than that.

Race is obviously a big issue involved in the bill.