I look back and think about the statement a Politician made in support of the new law in Arizona.
“They can tell from how the person is dress and how they act if they are an illegal or not!”.
Other then if the person is wearing a Sombrero, which the only time I have ever seen was a musical group playing at a Mexican restaurant. For the most part their dress is not different then most Americans.
Speaking? Well we often reflect the family we are raised in and the friends we have as to what we sound like when talking. Another point is that I have met several actually known illegals who speak better English then a lot of “Born in America” Latinos.
Some of the people I got a long with the best at the place I was laid off from were those born in the U.S. of Mexican decent. But were hard to understand and they generally when speaking to each other did speak Spanish. I did not doubt that they were Americans, but they were just reflecting their family and how they felt comfortable in interacting.
I speak a little Germany and in part that is because of my heritage and taking it in High School.
So if I speak it should I then have my citizenship questioned?
The most common foreign language learn in America is Spanish, most school do have it as a foreign language credit. So could you judge someone’s citizenship by them knowing Spanish?
The claim that it is largely illegals who are committing crimes is a illusion I think.
I use to believe that Blacks made up the majority of those in jail.
That is until I actually was able to see the break-down of the population by race.
There are more Whites in jail on any given day then any other races.
We have a natural tendency to notice others more that are different then ourselves.
That goes for not just race but also gender as to physical appearance.
This law is not different then the “driving while Black”
Two things I have just seen on Huffington Post that I thought I would mention.
First, it is being reported that Charlie Crist of Florida has decided to run as an independent for the Senate seat.
Second, it looks like the Senate Democrats are getting the cots out for a long night tonight. Republicans, with the help of Ben Nelson again, voted to block the debate on financial reform. Maybe this is the best time politically for Democrats to stick to the guns and make the Republicans stay the night and filibuster – not the bill – just the vote to start the debate.
Seems the Republicans don’t like the $50 billion fund that the Wall Street banks will have to fund themselves (not taxpayer money like those bailouts they all got previously from Bush) to help struggling banks to remain solvent.
And they don’t like the Consumer Protection Agency.
So, they don’t like it when big banks are made to fund their own mistakes and they don’t like it when consumers are protected – is that the bottom line?
Pass the popcorn – the Republicans are going to implode or is that Waterloo their own side.
I have mentioned it before, the Republicans have taken to swinging wildly and it ends in them being hit on the chin by their actions.
Unlike with health care, right off the bat their lies were so obvious to the masses that it came back and smack them! If you have not noticed, the whole bail out claim has fallen flat on its face.
Though there seems to be some Reps like McConnell who seems stuck in neutral and every so often still tries it.
It then changed to they are protecting main street and the little businesses from being caught in a misguided
Law. To be honest that happens quite a bit that those who are unintended get punished by a law that has nothing to do with them. But then that is obvious so the Democratic and Republicans could fix that with no effort.
So the claim is more like the bail out claim and just depending on the old “we are here looking out for you!”.
I do not think it is working this time with the rank and file and will come back and bite them in the ass.
Remember that those who think they are all that and a bag of chip had health insurance already.
But their are also investors and this time it is hitting them where it hurts.
I lot of them have lost money and that impacts them more then some one else not having health care.
I’ve heard their argument that the $50 billion fund, that banks have to use their own money to fund, is really just a tax that is going to be passed on to their customers. So, in the end, taxpayers are going to pay for yet more bailouts.
Uh, no. The customers of the bank have the right to not be customers of the bank. Taxpayers do not have that luxury of opting out of being American citizens. That’s the difference to me.
This tax for the bailout fund would be an operating cost for the bank and should be treated as such. It might just mean that a certain CEO does not get an extra million or two in his bonus check (oh, poor baby).
But I do think toosmart brings up a good point – the investors are getting hit in their pockets and they don’t like it.
What this bill will do is to make bankers actually do their jobs and have to prove they are financially responsible. And the let the chips fall where they may.
I’m tired of bailing out people who continue to screw with people and think nothing of it.
WS has inspired me to look at my own truck, New a good battery to see if I can get it to start and run.
Might rebuild the carb or replace it with the right carburetor. LOL all it takes is money and patience’s.
Both of which I am short of when it comes to my truck!
Well backed out of the Coleman deal, low pay and no real future even my wife knew it!
That actually came as a shock to me, one trait she inherited from her mother is that a husband is not worth a damn if not working.
It is often more important to her that I have a job no matter how little it pays.
But this time she pointed it out that Coleman was paying less then unemployment and would only last a couple of months. I would lose the unemployment and would not be able to get it back afterwards.
Also that I would be better off working at McDonald’s!
I heard that the company I was laid off from is picking up so hope springs!
Though not the most stable of places even in good times I want to work there again.
I have a odd habit, I get to like some place I work that last for about three years then I want something different. losing that job before that point kind of feels like it does breaking up when you are not ready to.
Funny how getting older I am wanting more stability and that is why it was eight years at Wally world.
Busy guy myself. Iggy once pointed out our buddy Russell Pearce to me, noting how extreme he was.
Guess who wrote the law?
I understand the frustrations on immigration, but this law is just going to empower out-of-control cops to screw with Hispanics–and those who vaguely look “Reasonable suspicion”? That’s the Terry v. Ohio standard–the same burden for stop-and-frisk.
It says something that the Tucson police chief opposed it. Why? Simple: While I won’t make any case for the TPD’s perfection (ha!), he’s not a showman like the Sheriff of Maricopa County. It’s an extra burden that will likely make some crucial witnesses back off. A pain in the ass, actually, that is more symbolism than substance.
Add to that, the provision that allows any Arizona citizen to sue any municipality if they think it’s not being properly enforced (no, I’m not kidding), is precisely what AZ cities that are already broke need.
The one saving grace: the law is so relentlessly dumb that it’s dead-on-arrival with the first court challenge. Set your watch by it.
AZ Addendum: Not sure if Brewer signed, but the birthers got a law passed that requires a presidential candidate to prove, according to AZ standards, that they are US citizens which means, I guess, being born in the US.
So why is Señor McCain being allowed to run for the Senate?
AZ Republicans (with Kris Kobach’s help) are striving is surpass Kansas stupidity, I guess.
How true, Zippy! Those crazy ‘birthers’ never talk about the real irony in all of this — Arizona’s own John McCain and the GOP presidential nominee in 2008 could have legally had his natural born status challenged in the courts. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal zone and the law that would have made him a “natural born citizen” wasn’t passed until three years after McCain was born and the bill contained no retroactive considerations.
Rational thought seems impossible for irrational people.
PrairiePopulistsAndProgressives.net 
I look back and think about the statement a Politician made in support of the new law in Arizona.
“They can tell from how the person is dress and how they act if they are an illegal or not!”.
Other then if the person is wearing a Sombrero, which the only time I have ever seen was a musical group playing at a Mexican restaurant. For the most part their dress is not different then most Americans.
Speaking? Well we often reflect the family we are raised in and the friends we have as to what we sound like when talking. Another point is that I have met several actually known illegals who speak better English then a lot of “Born in America” Latinos.
Some of the people I got a long with the best at the place I was laid off from were those born in the U.S. of Mexican decent. But were hard to understand and they generally when speaking to each other did speak Spanish. I did not doubt that they were Americans, but they were just reflecting their family and how they felt comfortable in interacting.
I speak a little Germany and in part that is because of my heritage and taking it in High School.
So if I speak it should I then have my citizenship questioned?
The most common foreign language learn in America is Spanish, most school do have it as a foreign language credit. So could you judge someone’s citizenship by them knowing Spanish?
The claim that it is largely illegals who are committing crimes is a illusion I think.
I use to believe that Blacks made up the majority of those in jail.
That is until I actually was able to see the break-down of the population by race.
There are more Whites in jail on any given day then any other races.
We have a natural tendency to notice others more that are different then ourselves.
That goes for not just race but also gender as to physical appearance.
This law is not different then the “driving while Black”
My days are so jam packed I’m meeting myself coming and going. Plus, I’m out of the habit of being organized and efficient since I retired.
I’ve now completed my civic duty for another 4 weeks and have begun getting caught up at home so I can leave for Boston.
Better get in gear! Just wanted to let you know I didn’t disappear but until mid week next week I’ll be a busy little beaver. 😉
Have fun in Boston. But don’t go joining any Tea Party, you here? LOL
Two things I have just seen on Huffington Post that I thought I would mention.
First, it is being reported that Charlie Crist of Florida has decided to run as an independent for the Senate seat.
Second, it looks like the Senate Democrats are getting the cots out for a long night tonight. Republicans, with the help of Ben Nelson again, voted to block the debate on financial reform. Maybe this is the best time politically for Democrats to stick to the guns and make the Republicans stay the night and filibuster – not the bill – just the vote to start the debate.
Seems the Republicans don’t like the $50 billion fund that the Wall Street banks will have to fund themselves (not taxpayer money like those bailouts they all got previously from Bush) to help struggling banks to remain solvent.
And they don’t like the Consumer Protection Agency.
So, they don’t like it when big banks are made to fund their own mistakes and they don’t like it when consumers are protected – is that the bottom line?
Pass the popcorn – the Republicans are going to implode or is that Waterloo their own side.
I have mentioned it before, the Republicans have taken to swinging wildly and it ends in them being hit on the chin by their actions.
Unlike with health care, right off the bat their lies were so obvious to the masses that it came back and smack them! If you have not noticed, the whole bail out claim has fallen flat on its face.
Though there seems to be some Reps like McConnell who seems stuck in neutral and every so often still tries it.
It then changed to they are protecting main street and the little businesses from being caught in a misguided
Law. To be honest that happens quite a bit that those who are unintended get punished by a law that has nothing to do with them. But then that is obvious so the Democratic and Republicans could fix that with no effort.
So the claim is more like the bail out claim and just depending on the old “we are here looking out for you!”.
I do not think it is working this time with the rank and file and will come back and bite them in the ass.
Remember that those who think they are all that and a bag of chip had health insurance already.
But their are also investors and this time it is hitting them where it hurts.
I lot of them have lost money and that impacts them more then some one else not having health care.
I’ve heard their argument that the $50 billion fund, that banks have to use their own money to fund, is really just a tax that is going to be passed on to their customers. So, in the end, taxpayers are going to pay for yet more bailouts.
Uh, no. The customers of the bank have the right to not be customers of the bank. Taxpayers do not have that luxury of opting out of being American citizens. That’s the difference to me.
This tax for the bailout fund would be an operating cost for the bank and should be treated as such. It might just mean that a certain CEO does not get an extra million or two in his bonus check (oh, poor baby).
But I do think toosmart brings up a good point – the investors are getting hit in their pockets and they don’t like it.
What this bill will do is to make bankers actually do their jobs and have to prove they are financially responsible. And the let the chips fall where they may.
I’m tired of bailing out people who continue to screw with people and think nothing of it.
WS has inspired me to look at my own truck, New a good battery to see if I can get it to start and run.
Might rebuild the carb or replace it with the right carburetor. LOL all it takes is money and patience’s.
Both of which I am short of when it comes to my truck!
Well backed out of the Coleman deal, low pay and no real future even my wife knew it!
That actually came as a shock to me, one trait she inherited from her mother is that a husband is not worth a damn if not working.
It is often more important to her that I have a job no matter how little it pays.
But this time she pointed it out that Coleman was paying less then unemployment and would only last a couple of months. I would lose the unemployment and would not be able to get it back afterwards.
Also that I would be better off working at McDonald’s!
I heard that the company I was laid off from is picking up so hope springs!
Though not the most stable of places even in good times I want to work there again.
I have a odd habit, I get to like some place I work that last for about three years then I want something different. losing that job before that point kind of feels like it does breaking up when you are not ready to.
Funny how getting older I am wanting more stability and that is why it was eight years at Wally world.
Busy guy myself. Iggy once pointed out our buddy Russell Pearce to me, noting how extreme he was.
Guess who wrote the law?
I understand the frustrations on immigration, but this law is just going to empower out-of-control cops to screw with Hispanics–and those who vaguely look “Reasonable suspicion”? That’s the Terry v. Ohio standard–the same burden for stop-and-frisk.
It says something that the Tucson police chief opposed it. Why? Simple: While I won’t make any case for the TPD’s perfection (ha!), he’s not a showman like the Sheriff of Maricopa County. It’s an extra burden that will likely make some crucial witnesses back off. A pain in the ass, actually, that is more symbolism than substance.
Add to that, the provision that allows any Arizona citizen to sue any municipality if they think it’s not being properly enforced (no, I’m not kidding), is precisely what AZ cities that are already broke need.
The one saving grace: the law is so relentlessly dumb that it’s dead-on-arrival with the first court challenge. Set your watch by it.
AZ Addendum: Not sure if Brewer signed, but the birthers got a law passed that requires a presidential candidate to prove, according to AZ standards, that they are US citizens which means, I guess, being born in the US.
So why is Señor McCain being allowed to run for the Senate?
AZ Republicans (with Kris Kobach’s help) are striving is surpass Kansas stupidity, I guess.
How true, Zippy! Those crazy ‘birthers’ never talk about the real irony in all of this — Arizona’s own John McCain and the GOP presidential nominee in 2008 could have legally had his natural born status challenged in the courts. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal zone and the law that would have made him a “natural born citizen” wasn’t passed until three years after McCain was born and the bill contained no retroactive considerations.
Rational thought seems impossible for irrational people.
But McCain’s birth has been easily explained away by Republicans to me. And this is it – hang on to your hats.
McCain was born to a military family.
There it is – black and white. And nobody on the Rabid Republican side questions this.