# Final Score: Jan Brewer 8 billion, Suns owner Rob Sarver 0, zip, nada



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2010)

Most one sided ass kicking since I asked Dem to point out FDR's economic greatness.  Way to go Jan!

The owner of the Phoenix Suns basketball team, Robert Sarver, opposes AZ's new immigration laws.  Arizona's Governor, Jan Brewer, released the following statement in response to Sarver's criticism of the new law:

"What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were sneaking into games without paying? What if they had a good idea who the gate-crashers are, but the ushers and security personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn't be ejected.

Furthermore, what if Suns' ownership was expected to provide those who sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink? And what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured, the Suns had to provide free medical care and shelter?" -Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer

(nand should be nada in my title)


----------



## daveman (Aug 9, 2010)

Expected response:  "That's different.  Somehow.  It just is.  You racist!!"


Good work, Governor!


----------



## G.T. (Aug 9, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Most one sided ass kicking since I asked Dem to point out FDR's economic greatness.  Way to go Jan!
> 
> The owner of the Phoenix Suns basketball team, Robert Sarver, opposes AZ's new immigration laws.  Arizona's Governor, Jan Brewer, released the following statement in response to Sarver's criticism of the new law:
> 
> ...



She lost her credibility with me. I was giving Az. the benefit of the doubt that they weren't going to racially profile, and here she is implying that that's the explicit intent. Strong work.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2010)

Sneaking into Suns arena would actually be a PERFECT way to highlight the Illegal Alien problem.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Aug 9, 2010)

Brewer is trying to do the right thing out there. I think most rational people in Arizona and across the nation respect her for this. I really do think the Democrats are vastly underestimating how angry most Americans are at them for suing their own people in Arizona. I hope they keep underestimating this way. This could lead to them being swept out of power in coming elections. God i hope so anyway. It's time for real change. The Socialists/Progressives gotta go.


----------



## cad (Aug 9, 2010)

G.T. said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Most one sided ass kicking since I asked Dem to point out FDR's economic greatness.  Way to go Jan!
> ...



how does that line "have a good idea who they are" lead to the idea that racial profiling will occur?


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Aug 9, 2010)

So i guess all Suns Games will be free now? Hmm? I really would love to see Brewer hold him to this one. That would be fun.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 9, 2010)

cad said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



 How doesn't it? How else would she "have a good idea?"


----------



## G.T. (Aug 9, 2010)

LibocalypseNow said:


> So i guess all Suns Games will be free now? Hmm? I really would love to see Brewer hold him to this one. That would be fun.



She makes too much Tax revenue for her State off of the Suns to be that big of an imbecile.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Aug 9, 2010)

Btw,this tool is a big Democratic Party donor. Brewer really should hold him to making all Suns games free. Go get em Brewer!


----------



## G.T. (Aug 9, 2010)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Btw,this tool is a big Democratic Party donor. Brewer really should hold him to making all Suns games free. Go get em Brewer!



She'd be hurting herself and her state by doing that, but I already knew that you were dumb.


----------



## Modbert (Aug 9, 2010)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Btw,this tool is a big Democratic Party donor. Brewer really should hold him to making all Suns games free. Go get em Brewer!



Wow, what a moron to compliment a moronic thread.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 9, 2010)

G.T. said:


> cad said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



How many citizens of the US do you know that cannot speak English? How many adult citizens do you know that do not nor has ever possessed a SS card or even a DL? There are ways to tell if someone may or may not be a legal resident without having to rely soley on race or ethnicity.  It just takes some common sense which apparently you lack.


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 9, 2010)

G.T. said:


> cad said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



When the paying ticketholder wants to sit in his seat, but it is occupied... 

Pretty good idea one of them is breaking the law...


----------



## G.T. (Aug 9, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > cad said:
> ...




Speaking and seeing identification doesn't work into her Analogy. Read it again.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 9, 2010)

Dr.House said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > cad said:
> ...



That's analogous to how she'd recognize "who they are" and catch an illegal?


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 9, 2010)

G.T. said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Yes...  It is illegal to occupy the seat of a paying patron if they are not the ticketholder...  (Ever try "moving up" and getting caught?)

When a person holding a ticket for Section 102, Row J, Seat 12 tries to sit in his seat and it is occupied by anyone other than his own ass the usher should have every right to ask for proof that the seat-occupier is occupying the seat legally...


----------



## G.T. (Aug 9, 2010)

Dr.House said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...




Which is analogous to identifying who illegal aliens are..........................how?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 9, 2010)

G.T. said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Nowhere in her analogy was she specific about how one can "have a good idea", that is where "common sense" comes into play. However I'd argue that a ticket stub would be equivilent to say a green card in her analogy.  Personally I can tell an illegal alien most times just by the way they carry themselves. But I suspect I have more experience with illegals than most having lived along the border most my life.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Aug 9, 2010)

Just let em all in. WTG Brewer! This Suns owner is a well known Democratic Party donor so he's just pandering. Let em all in for free and then we can have a real discussion.


----------



## Misty (Aug 9, 2010)

I love Jan Brewer so far. I want her to be President.


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 9, 2010)

G.T. said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Are you kidding?


----------



## G.T. (Aug 9, 2010)

Dr.House said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...




Yea, you're saying that she'd identify them in the analogy because they'd be in someone's freakin seat.....................I'm asking what's the analogy to being in someone's seat..............in the real world...........outside of the analogy............what are you saying "being in someone's seat" is analogous to.............in-terms of identifying someone is an illegal-alien into the Country.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 9, 2010)

Dr.House said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



And honestly, I was going to ask if you were kidding. 

Because I'm asking what the basketball stadium situation she described............is analogous to.........................................and your answer is the basketball stadium situation...............I think you somehow don't get what I'm asking.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Aug 9, 2010)

Just let em all in. What's the big deal? Why would this owner have a problem with allowing everyone into his games regardless of whether they paid or not? Hmm?


----------



## cad (Aug 9, 2010)

G.T. 
do you have a "good idea" who the vast majority of illegals in arizona are?


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Aug 9, 2010)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Just let em all in. WTG Brewer! This Suns owner is a well known Democratic Party donor so he's just pandering. Let em all in for free and then we can have a real discussion.



Uhh..

I don't think you know what the word "pandering" means. He's a big DONOR. That means politicians pander TO him, not the other way around.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 9, 2010)

G.T. said:


> She lost her credibility with me. I was giving Az. the benefit of the doubt that they weren't going to racially profile, and here she is implying that that's the explicit intent. Strong work.



Obviously the majority of illegals in Arizona are Hispanic.  To pretend that's not the case just makes you an idiot, not enlightened.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 9, 2010)

Modbert said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > Btw,this tool is a big Democratic Party donor. Brewer really should hold him to making all Suns games free. Go get em Brewer!
> ...



You zz the MODMORON so you should know


----------



## Gunny (Aug 9, 2010)

G.T. said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Most one sided ass kicking since I asked Dem to point out FDR's economic greatness.  Way to go Jan!
> ...



How do you lose credibility doing the right thing?  Oh yeah .... it's you .....


----------



## ConHog (Aug 9, 2010)

Modbert said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > Btw,this tool is a big Democratic Party donor. Brewer really should hold him to making all Suns games free. Go get em Brewer!
> ...



How is this thread moronic you ignorant little pissant partisan fuck?

it's a funny story. You'd be guffawing your stupid little ass off if a Dem had blasted someone with it.


----------



## Modbert (Aug 9, 2010)

ConHog said:


> How is this thread moronic you ignorant little pissant partisan fuck?
> 
> it's a funny story. You'd be guffawing your stupid little ass off if a Dem had blasted someone with it.



Because Frank is a moron who's posting chain emails again. There is no evidence that she ever said this.


----------



## Modbert (Aug 9, 2010)

Also, these were Sarver's comments on the bill:

2010 NBA Playoffs: Phoenix Suns sending strong message through jersey switch - ESPN



> In a news release from the team, Sarver said, "Our players and organization felt that wearing our 'Los Suns' jerseys on Cinco de Mayo was a way for our team and our organization to honor our Latino community and the diversity of our league, the State of Arizona, and our nation &#8230; "
> 
> The next paragraph was when he teed off on the politicians.
> 
> "*The frustration with the federal government's failure to deal with the issue of illegal immigration resulted in passage of a flawed state law. However intended, the result of passing this law is that our basic principles of equal rights and protection under the law are being called into question, and Arizona's already struggling economy will suffer even further setbacks at a time when the state can ill-afford them*."





> Businesses and unions have already announced they will boycott travel to Arizona. The University of Arizona says it has already received notices from out-of-state students that they won't be attending school there in the fall because of the law. There are calls for Major League Baseball to move the 2011 All-Star Game from Arizona, as the NFL once did with the Super Bowl after the state refused to honor the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.





> The backlash against the law has already led to change. *On Friday, Brewer approved modifications that would prohibit police from using race as a base for questioning people about their status*. But there are also changes that could lead to increased questioning when violations of local municipal codes are investigated.



He made his comments it seems before Brewer changed the original law. One cannot fault Sarver's comments on this bill at that time, which is why Frank's thread is further moronic.


----------



## ConHog (Aug 9, 2010)

Modbert said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > How is this thread moronic you ignorant little pissant partisan fuck?
> ...



And who gives a shit if she did or not? I't a hilarious story either way. I've read plenty of made up shit from the left that you haven't called moronic. Gee guess you'll pull out the old "I didn't see those threads" excuse again?


----------



## Modbert (Aug 9, 2010)

ConHog said:


> And who gives a shit if she did or not? I't a hilarious story either way. I've read plenty of made up shit from the left that you haven't called moronic. Gee guess you'll pull out the old "I didn't see those threads" excuse again?



Because it takes Robert Sarver's comments out of text and doesn't show them at all. Considering it's not in humor but in politics shows that Frank thought she did say this.

I don't even know how you can defend this.

This would be like me starting a thread about someone else mocking comments that you never made in the first place. Though I can see you don't care for the truth.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Aug 9, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



This "fairness" bullshit is a little ridiculous, dude.

Mod's a liberal. He's allowed to be. He doesn't have to criticize Liberals and the left - you guys have that covered. I don't really see you defending Democrats very often here either. The tit-for-tat shit is overrated. Everyone has their side, and that's the way it is. 

Attempting to hold others accountable to unreasonable rules that you yourself don't follow isn't conducive to honest debate.


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 9, 2010)

G.T. said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



It's analogous to someone breaking the law....  Sitting in someone elses fucking seat is an ilegal act...  Speeding or weaving over the double-yellow is an illegal act...

When you perform an illegal act you can be asked for identfication...


----------



## ConHog (Aug 9, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > Modbert said:
> ...



Guess you don't look around very much if you honestly claim I don't defend liberals and ridicule conservatives when each deserve as well. I mean I'll be happy to post links to me calling Mr fitnah a fool or Yurt a retard or lonestar a loon from just today if you'd like. Or I'd be happy to provide a link to where I defended JIllian, or to where I told Allie she was incorrectly calling Obama a fascist, or to where I gave positive rep to several lefties today............. Well you get the point.

And why shouldn't each side be fairer to the other? You LIKE the division and nastiness that have been in America for the last 10 years? I think you really do.


----------



## ConHog (Aug 9, 2010)

Dr.House said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



You're wasting your breath, the analogy doesn't make sense to them since they don't accept that being here illegally is in fact illegal.


----------



## TPD (Aug 9, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Most one sided ass kicking since I asked Dem to point out FDR's economic greatness.  Way to go Jan!
> 
> The owner of the Phoenix Suns basketball team, Robert Sarver, opposes AZ's new immigration laws.  Arizona's Governor, Jan Brewer, released the following statement in response to Sarver's criticism of the new law:
> 
> ...



I guess Jan Brewer likes to use hypothetical situations to justify her actions.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Aug 9, 2010)

ConHog said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...


I'm not claiming that you NEVER defend liberals, or attack conservatives. But you're a conservative. A vast majority of your posts are attacking Liberals and Obama, and defending Conservatives. THAT'S OK. Just like a majority of my posts are defending liberals  or attacking conservatives.

But claiming that a liberal attacking a conservative platform is "hypocritical" because they don't attack every liberal platform isn't a fair play either.

And, btw - the division and nastiness have been around for a whole lot longer than 10 years. I don't claim to like it, but I can't stop it. Neither can you - particularly when you yourself are easily goaded into making personal attacks.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2010)

Well they're here illegally from Mexico so we should check elderly Asian women, amiright?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2010)

Modbert said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > How is this thread moronic you ignorant little pissant partisan fuck?
> ...



I did post an email from my brother, I didn't have time to fact check and I can't find a source that verifies this as Brewer.

Now if that makes me a moron, at least I know that there are 50 states in the USA


----------



## G.T. (Aug 10, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > She lost her credibility with me. I was giving Az. the benefit of the doubt that they weren't going to racially profile, and here she is implying that that's the explicit intent. Strong work.
> ...



Nobody would be pretending anything by not racially profiling. They'd be respecting American law. And I know, I know, it's American law being broken w/illegals......but I'm not against enforcing that either and don't know why anyone is. I simply think profiling, to do so, is a bad idea.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 10, 2010)

Gunny said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




Oh, you know me? I forgot, we've been buds  Eat shit.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 10, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Wrong.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 10, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Well they're here illegally from Mexico so we should check elderly Asian women, amiright?



Let's have an honest conversation, no side swipes. I'll start with a question. Do you think it's alright to racially profile for all laws?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 10, 2010)

G.T. said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Well they're here illegally from Mexico so we should check elderly Asian women, amiright?
> ...



Not for all laws, but I think young Muslim males should be the only ones going through the full body scanners at airports and Mexicans should be checked for Immigration papers.

It's not racial profiling, it's common sense


----------



## G.T. (Aug 10, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Well, it's not common sense really. Statistics matter. For instance, the percentage of Muslims that are terrorists, vs. ....say, the percentage of normal white looking dudes that are murderers. How would you not presume to compare the two percentages, in coming to your conclusions? Is a murderer not a threat to security, also? Let's see the percentages, you seem to have them since you called this common sense.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 10, 2010)

Further, you think illegally immigrating is a more important crime than murder / rape / etc? Becuase, we can take the statistics of those and racially profile for suspects in those cases, but you said not all laws. What's the rationale?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 10, 2010)

G.T. said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Percentage people who strap bombs to themselves and try to blow shit up by race:

Elderly Italian women: 0%

American Veterans: .00000000000001% (Timmy McVeigh, while not technically accurate since he was working with Al Qaeda, I'll cut off 10 pages of debate and put him in the category)

Asian High School Students: 0

Irish Football players: 0

Germans at Oktoberfest: 0

Scandinavian stewardesses: 0

Islamic Jihadists: 99.99999999999%

Who should go through the scanners?


----------



## G.T. (Aug 10, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




what's the percentage of Muslims, or better yet, middle eastern skinned persons, that strap bombs to themselves? Let's hear it. How many out of how many, have done it?

Surely, if the percentage is less than say........the percentage of white males who are child molestors......................you'd feel fine being profiled for THAT crime?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 10, 2010)

G.T. said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Murder is a threat and do you know how Rudy dropped the crime rate in NY? It was by treating ALL Crimes as serious.  If someone jumped a turnstyle it meant they had no respect for the law or civil society and the cops would run them to see if they had done anything else and that why murders dropped from 2,200 down to 830 today


----------



## G.T. (Aug 10, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



that says nothing to why you don't want people profiled for ALL laws.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 10, 2010)

G.T. said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



It's a small percentage of Muslims that are Jihadists same way its a small number of Italians that belong to organized crime. 

But when there's a crackdown on organized crime, they raid social clubs in Little Italy and not some German Bakery uptown, right?


----------



## G.T. (Aug 10, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



No, they raid who'm they've been surveiling. They don't just randomly raid based on Ethnicity. 

It's a simple state of mind, man. 

If less of a percentage(that's a key word) of Muslims are Terrorists, than white men are rapists, you advocate being investigated? Let's be honest. 

Here's the fundamental question: You don't get to pick and choose dangerous crimes, you're either for something or against it.......and the question is one of police state vs. free state.........and what you propose is a good start towards a police state. 

how so?

You're taking Security as being more important than freedom. That's ok, that's your choice, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If there's more of a shot at a white male to rape your daughter.........than a Muslim male to blow up your city bus.............................plain logistical statistics would have you investigate white males, in society, before Muslim males, with your man-power. (if that's the way the percentages work out). You can't just pick and choose, that just shows other biases. I'd rather have my taxes higher on paying an illegal's hospital bill than i would have my daughter raped..............but to solve that I don't propose profiling white males for rape.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 10, 2010)

G.T. said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



So how do you think Illegal Aliens from Mexico break out by race and ethnicity in the USA?

What percentage are Elderly Scandinavian women?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 10, 2010)

Also, where do these Illegal Aliens congregate in the USA? What is their behavior and profile?


----------



## G.T. (Aug 10, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Also, where do these Illegal Aliens congregate in the USA? What is their behavior and profile?



Well, I'm not sure you or I know the percentage of them that break OTHER crimes, aside from illegal immigration, so as far as "behavior" I'd need to see some valuable statistics on that...................

But as far as race...........if we're to profile who's an "illegal immigrant" then we set the precedent that racially profiling is ok..........hence a police state. I'm not ok with sacrificing MY freedoms for what other "late 20's white males" DO.......................and so I don't think "Hispanic looking persons" should all be checked for what other "Hispanics" have done, to their race/reputation. It's not American, in my opinion.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 10, 2010)

Individualism is a concept that means not paying for the crimes that others commit simply because you "look alike." It's the antithesis.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 10, 2010)

And I won't even go there and pretend it's "Racist" to profile, it's "wrong," though.


----------

