How the Republican Party Just Screwed Itself

Republican Party is good at Screwing Itself.

quote:

that would make it a state crime to reside there illegally.

Wrong. It has always been a crime to reside in Arizona illegally. It has always been a crime to reside in the USA illegally. Come on, why do you discredit yourself with every knucklehead post you make?

The 70% who supposedly say they are against immigration control probably can't vote because they are illegal, and those that can vote would vote democrat anyway.

70% of the people who live there legally are in favor of the law.

What I have yet to understand is just what part of "ILLEGAL" do people not understand? Why would we want Illegal's in any State of the union? Do they work for little to nothing? Yes! Do they help many businesses achieve greater profits? Yes again! Do they deserve a better life and be able to support their families? Yes and yes they take jobs that other Americans seem not to want to do for the wages it pays still though there are avenues to come to this country and those should be obeyed and those that choose to skip that process shouldn't be thought of positively so both Republicans and Democrats should be in unison on this issue.

Problem is that Arizona took action based on at least two unfortunate reasons and most likely more. First the United States Federal Government (Democratic & Republican Administrations) failed to do it's job at border control and preventing illegal immigration across the border. Second enough Illegals were crossing the border, in Arizona, for the purpose of trafficking drugs and started killing and roughing up Arizona citizens. Arizona did what they felt they needed to do to help the situation. I, for one, wish more states would enact laws like Arizona and if the Republicans are the only ones that have enough backbone to back the law then good for them whatever it cost them.

quote:

Originally posted by Nobluedog:
Republican Party is good at Screwing Itself.

Really?

"This isn't about Republicans playing checkers while Democrats play chess. This is Republicans playing chess while Democrats are in the nurses office because, once again, they've glued their balls to their thighs."

- Jon Stewart

Still funny.

The fence build in California caused the illegals to use Arizona. Left coasters got their heinies protected and left the rest to take up the flood of illegals.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
The 70% who supposedly say they are against immigration control probably can't vote because they are illegal, and those that can vote would vote democrat anyway.

Actually, many latino voters are Republicans (just look at Florida, where most latinos are Republicans).

But by taking a stance that is percieved by latino voters as "extreme," the Republicans are basically alienating that group, and thus losing their votes. And there are parts of this country where the latino vote is significant. Republicans aren't just giving up votes that would normally go Democrat; they are giving up votes that would have gone Republican, too. And not just a few votes, but several.

Maybe not,

quote:

But support for the law broke along partisan lines. Gallup found the following:

Nationally, 62% of Republicans support the law (including 75% of Republicans who have heard about it). Democrats are more likely to oppose (45%) than favor (27%) the law, and a majority of Democrats familiar with the law (56%) oppose it. Independents are somewhat more likely to favor (37%) than oppose (29%) the law, with half of those who have heard about it in favor.

Politicians will likely note that independents tilt towards supporting the new law. The law authorizes law enforcement officers in Arizona to seek proof of legal residency in the U.S. if they have reasonable suspicions about the legal status of someone they've stopped.

As about 43 percent of Arizona LEOs are hispanic, racism shouldn't be too big a problem.

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
As about 43 percent of Arizona LEOs are hispanic, racism shouldn't be too big a problem.

You just made a case against the new law, elinterventor. Your citing of the 43 percent figure for presumably non-racist Hispanic LEOs has its logical converse vis a vis the performance of non-Hispanic LEOs--namely that there IS a likelihood of racism within the non-Hispanic cohort. Otherwise, your analysis makes no sense. Think about it logically if you are able and you will see what I mean.

Also, isn't your "shouldn't be too big of a problem" an acknowledgement that there WILL be a problem? Again, your own inadvertent logic busts up your own argument.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
As about 43 percent of Arizona LEOs are hispanic, racism shouldn't be too big a problem.

You just made a case against the new law, elinterventor. Your citing of the 43 percent figure for presumably non-racist Hispanic LEOs has its logical converse vis a vis the performance of non-Hispanic LEOs--namely that there IS a likelihood of racism within the non-Hispanic cohort. Otherwise, your analysis makes no sense. Think about it logically if you are able and you will see what I mean.

Also, isn't your "shouldn't be too big of a problem" an acknowledgement that there WILL be a problem? Again, your own inadvertent logic busts up your own argument.

Once more betern nuttin, logic and rational thought escapes you. As you are an example of liberal education, I know that is common.

First statement: "Your citing of the 43 percent figure for presumably non-racist Hispanic LEOs has its logical converse vis a vis the performance of non-Hispanic LEOs--namely that there IS a likelihood of racism within the non-Hispanic cohort."

One would assume that hispanic LEOs would not act in a racist mode towards their own ethnicity -- do you have any facts to the contrary? There is no argument that caucasian or asian LEOs would have a compunction to act in a racist mode towards hispanics as a matter of course. Since the law forebodes it and statistics of such actions are kept by police departments, it would not be in their best interest to act in a racist manner.

True, there is a slight argument that native American LEOs, aka Indians, might act in a racist manner towards hispanics or those of indio origin from south of the Rio Grande because of the history of human sacrifice and cannibalism. But, that's another story.

In other news, a new poll by Rassmussen claims that 70% of all drug dealers polled are against narcotics laws that would make illegal narcotics more illegal than their previous state of illegality.

quote:

Originally posted by Hmmm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
The 70% who supposedly say they are against immigration control probably can't vote because they are illegal, and those that can vote would vote democrat anyway.

Actually, many latino voters are Republicans (just look at Florida, where most latinos are Republicans).

But by taking a stance that is percieved by latino voters as "extreme," the Republicans are basically alienating that group, and thus losing their votes. And there are parts of this country where the latino vote is significant. Republicans aren't just giving up votes that would normally go Democrat; they are giving up votes that would have gone Republican, too. And not just a few votes, but several.

Many could be a couple of hundred. Many and most are not the same. Most latinos are either democrat or can't vote because of their illegal status.

We need more politicians willing to make more Un-PC decisions. The liberals have hogtied this country with PC silliness. The vast majority of America agrees with this law that has always been in place, just not enforced.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
As about 43 percent of Arizona LEOs are hispanic, racism shouldn't be too big a problem.

You just made a case against the new law, elinterventor. Your citing of the 43 percent figure for presumably non-racist Hispanic LEOs has its logical converse vis a vis the performance of non-Hispanic LEOs--namely that there IS a likelihood of racism within the non-Hispanic cohort. Otherwise, your analysis makes no sense. Think about it logically if you are able and you will see what I mean.

Also, isn't your "shouldn't be too big of a problem" an acknowledgement that there WILL be a problem? Again, your own inadvertent logic busts up your own argument.

Probably your dumbest post yet. Quite a feat considering how deep that pool is.

quote:

Originally posted by Hmmm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
The 70% who supposedly say they are against immigration control probably can't vote because they are illegal, and those that can vote would vote democrat anyway.

Actually, many latino voters are Republicans (just look at Florida, where most latinos are Republicans).

But by taking a stance that is percieved by latino voters as "extreme," the Republicans are basically alienating that group, and thus losing their votes. And there are parts of this country where the latino vote is significant. Republicans aren't just giving up votes that would normally go Democrat; they are giving up votes that would have gone Republican, too. And not just a few votes, but several.

Politicians need to stop worrying about votes and do what's right. That's why we're in this mess now. The dems and repubs don't want to alienate the latino vote so they ignore the problem. Arizona was forced into doing what they did. I support them 100% but the feds should have done their job.

quote:

Politicians need to stop worrying about votes and do what's right.

You realize that cannot happen, right? Ever.

quote:

Originally posted by dolemitejb:

quote:

Politicians need to stop worrying about votes and do what's right.

You realize that cannot happen, right? Ever.

Ever? That's a long time. There are a few (very few) politicians that are trying to do what's right. It's our job as Americans to find them and put them in office and vote out the bad ones. Can we do this? Judging from the last election I do have my doubts.

quote:

Ever? That's a long time. There are a few (very few) politicians that are trying to do what's right. It's our job as Americans to find them and put them in office and vote out the bad ones. Can we do this? Judging from the last election I do have my doubts.

Yes, but your definition of what's right and the next person's aren't always going to be the same. I'm sure a few politicians really think giving everyone health care at the expense of productive citizens is "doing the right thing." Since politicians often have different definitions of "the right thing" than their constituents, especially the consituents who didn't vote for them, we will never have an elected body that consistently "does the right thing." This is also why the phrase "good government" is oxymoronic.

You're right, I should have used uphold, abide by, and protect the US Constitution as intended by our founding fathers instead of "do what's right".

quote:

Originally posted by Clover-Dale:
In other news, a new poll by Rassmussen claims that 70% of all drug dealers polled are against narcotics laws that would make illegal narcotics more illegal than their previous state of illegality.