# Ariz. sheriff: I'll jail immigration protesters



## Bullfighter (Jul 28, 2010)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The sheriff of the most populous county in Arizona says he's "not going to put up with any civil disobedience" when the state's new immigration law takes effect.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio says that if protesters want to block his jail, he'll put them in it.

The Arizona law, which takes effect Thursday, requires officers enforcing other laws to check a person's immigration status if they suspect the person is in the country illegally.

Arpaio told ABC's "Good Morning America" he doesn't know "what the big hype is."

He says it's "a crime to be here illegally and everyone should enforce" the law.

© 2010 The Associated Press

News from The Associated Press

---------------------------------------------------

Let's hope his police force is like Chicago's from the late 60's. 

The "skull crackers"!


----------



## JScott (Jul 28, 2010)

Bullfighter said:


> WASHINGTON (AP) -- The sheriff of the most populous county in Arizona says he's "not going to put up with any civil disobedience" when the state's new immigration law takes effect.
> 
> Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio says that if protesters want to block his jail, he'll put them in it.
> 
> ...



Lets hope that. That way he goes to jail himself.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 28, 2010)

I'd like to see Arpaio spend a week in one of his tents. The guy sends corrections back to the medieval ages


----------



## Modbert (Jul 28, 2010)

Bullfighter said:


> WASHINGTON (AP) -- The sheriff of the most populous county in Arizona says he's "not going to put up with any civil disobedience" when the state's new immigration law takes effect./url]



Why am I not surprised?


----------



## LuckyDan (Jul 28, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Bullfighter said:
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON (AP) -- The sheriff of the most populous county in Arizona says he's "not going to put up with any civil disobedience" when the state's new immigration law takes effect./url]
> ...


 
I know I am. And he ain't even my Sheriff.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 28, 2010)

LuckyDan said:


> I know I am. And he ain't even my Sheriff.



I know I wouldn't be proud of Joe Arpaio if he were my Sheriff.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 28, 2010)

Illegal Immigrants


----------



## hboats (Jul 28, 2010)

Modbert said:


> LuckyDan said:
> 
> 
> > I know I am. And he ain't even my Sheriff.
> ...



So now showing "civil disobedience" is a first amendment right?

Since the sheriff said that he wouldn't tolerate any "civil disobedience" at protests, and never once said that he would arrest protesters who weren't breaking any laws, what could you possibly see wrong with his statement?

Talk about stretching the truth.

"Watch out, Joe said he'd arrest anyone who protests the Arizona law!!!!!!"  Well, not really, he said he wouldn't put up with anyone who breaks the law while protesting.  Sounds about right to me.  Protest civilly and you'll be just fine.

Rick


----------



## Tank (Jul 28, 2010)




----------



## Modbert (Jul 28, 2010)

hboats said:


> *So now showing "civil disobedience" is a first amendment right?*
> 
> Since the sheriff said that he wouldn't tolerate any "civil disobedience" at protests, and never once said that he would arrest protesters who weren't breaking any laws, what could you possibly see wrong with his statement?
> 
> ...



We'll see when and if he starts throwing people who are merely protesting outside his jails without blocking it in jail. However, I hope that's not the case.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 28, 2010)

Modbert said:


> hboats said:
> 
> 
> > *So now showing "civil disobedience" is a first amendment right?*
> ...



I imagine he would only put the illegals in jail since they have broken the law.


----------



## hboats (Jul 28, 2010)

Modbert said:


> hboats said:
> 
> 
> > *So now showing "civil disobedience" is a first amendment right?*
> ...



And since he never said that he was going to do that, where exactly do you get that Stalin would be proud?

You do know that when protesting it is against the law to block access to and from public property, don't you?  He said he'd enforce the law, is that now a problem with you?

Rick


----------



## Modbert (Jul 28, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> I imagine he would only put the illegals in jail since they have broken the law.



If people are blocking his jails, then yes I'm sure they broke some law and would be thrown in jail. But I have a feeling that Joe wouldn't stop there.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 28, 2010)

illegal immigrants


----------



## hboats (Jul 28, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > I imagine he would only put the illegals in jail since they have broken the law.
> ...



And we care about your feelings because?

Maybe you should try sticking to facts, like the fact that he said he'd arrest people who were breaking the law, and nothing more.

Rick


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 28, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > I imagine he would only put the illegals in jail since they have broken the law.
> ...



Like what?


----------



## Modbert (Jul 28, 2010)

hboats said:


> And since he never said that he was going to do that, where exactly do you get that Stalin would be proud?
> 
> You do know that when protesting it is against the law to block access to and from public property, don't you?  He said he'd enforce the law, is that now a problem with you?
> 
> Rick



Of course he never said he was going to do that. Like I said, I have no problem with him enforcing the law.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 28, 2010)

hboats said:


> Maybe you should try sticking to facts, like the fact that he said he'd arrest people who were breaking the law, and nothing more.
> 
> Rick



We'll see, I hope that's the case.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 28, 2010)

Modbert said:


> hboats said:
> 
> 
> > And since he never said that he was going to do that, where exactly do you get that Stalin would be proud?
> ...




go beyond and do what?


----------



## Modbert (Jul 28, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> Like what?



Considering his record, not sure. But we'll see. I hope he enforces the law and it ends there.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jul 28, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> Illegal Immigrants



Sherrif Connor er....ah.....Arpiao didn't make that distinction.  He said 'protesters' and that's the key item here.


----------



## hboats (Jul 28, 2010)

Nosmo King said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > Illegal Immigrants
> ...



No, he was a little more specific than just saying "protesters" he said anyone who is breaking the law by "blocking" access to his jail.  Which is an arrestable offense at a protest.

Rick


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 28, 2010)

hboats said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...



Ah... so the libs are picking and choosing what laws they think should be enforced?  

I got it now.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 28, 2010)

Illegal Immigrants


----------



## Modbert (Jul 28, 2010)

To clarify: I'll man up and admit I read that article wrong at first. Due to the OP's spin, I thought that he would be jailing protesters in general. Hence my original reaction. I find anyone who would jail just protesters to be wrong and against the first amendment.

However, while I hope Joe Arpaio does enforce the law and leave at that. I would not want this man as my sheriff due to his record and what he's done in the past.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 28, 2010)

Modbert said:


> To clarify: I'll man up and admit I read that article wrong at first. Due to the OP's spin, I thought that he would be jailing protesters in general. Hence my original reaction. I find anyone who would jail just protesters to be wrong and against the first amendment.
> 
> However, while I hope Joe Arpaio does enforce the law and leave at that. I would not want this man as my sheriff due to his record and what he's done in the past.




He has enforced the law.  What do you not like that he has done?


----------



## hboats (Jul 28, 2010)

Modbert said:


> To clarify: I'll man up and admit I read that article wrong at first. Due to the OP's spin, I thought that he would be jailing protesters in general. Hence my original reaction. I find anyone who would jail just protesters to be wrong and against the first amendment.
> 
> However, while I hope Joe Arpaio does enforce the law and leave at that. I would not want this man as my sheriff due to his record and what he's done in the past.



I appreciate your clarification.  Good to know there are people around here honest enough to admit mistakes.

I don't necessarily agree with you on Sheriff Joe, but that's a discussion for another time.

Rick


----------



## Sarah G (Jul 28, 2010)

A little bit of power in the wrong hands..  The guy sounds like an idiot already and may end up in jail himself if he isn't careful.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 28, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> He has enforced the law.  What do you not like that he has done?



Without going into massive tl;dr detail:

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The man constantly abuses his power in general from what I've read.


----------



## hboats (Jul 28, 2010)

Sarah G said:


> A little bit of power in the wrong hands..  The guy sounds like an idiot already and may end up in jail himself if he isn't careful.



Yes, God forbid a sheriff should arrest people for actually, you know, BREAKING THE LAW.

Rick


----------



## Sarah G (Jul 28, 2010)

hboats said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > A little bit of power in the wrong hands..  The guy sounds like an idiot already and may end up in jail himself if he isn't careful.
> ...



Protesters are automatically breaking the law?  Does AZ believe in anything constitutional anymore?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jul 28, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > He has enforced the law.  What do you not like that he has done?
> ...



Controversial doesn't mean illegal, unethical or immoral


----------



## hboats (Jul 28, 2010)

Sarah G said:


> hboats said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



No one said protesters were breaking the law, not even the sheriff.  What he said is he'd arrest anyone who does break the law at a protest by blocking the entrance/exit to the jail.  Which is an arrestable offense at ANY protest.

Point out to me where he said that a protester was automatically breaking the law just by protesting.

Rick


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jul 28, 2010)

Sarah G said:


> hboats said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



 Damn you're stupid.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 28, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Controversial doesn't mean illegal, unethical or immoral



You should probably click on the link and see how he's under investigation by the DoJ and FBI for his abuse of power. Never mind the list that is a mile long of people who accuse him of abusing his power simply because they stand his path. May they be political opponents in elections or people who speak out against what he's doing.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jul 28, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Controversial doesn't mean illegal, unethical or immoral
> ...



When he's convicted, get back to me.


----------



## Sarah G (Jul 28, 2010)

hboats said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > hboats said:
> ...



The title of the thread:

Ariz. sheriff: I'll jail immigration protesters


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 28, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > He has enforced the law.  What do you not like that he has done?
> ...




Read the article.  Nothing there I find disturbing.  He seems to have won all claims against him, so what is it that you have a problem with?


----------



## Modbert (Jul 28, 2010)

Sarah G said:


> The title of the thread:
> 
> Ariz. sheriff: I'll jail immigration protesters



The OP made a dishonest title. More specifically, he's going to jail protesters who block the jail.


----------



## Samson (Jul 28, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...



Hold on, Hold On:



> In February 2007, Arpaio instituted an in-house radio station he calls KJOE.[18] Arpaio's radio station broadcasts classical music, opera, Frank Sinatra hits, patriotic music and educational programming. It operates from the basement of the county jail for five days a week, four hours each day





Shit, Lone Star, how can you be SO BLIND TO ABUSE OF POWER!!!


----------



## Sarah G (Jul 28, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 28, 2010)

In March 2007, the Maricopa County Jail hosted "Inmate Idol"[19], a takeoff on the popular TV show American Idol.



Ok... ya.. you are right.  This is truly a horrible man.

Burn him at the stake.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 28, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> In March 2007, the Maricopa County Jail hosted "Inmate Idol"[19], a takeoff on the popular TV show American Idol.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Got to love that dishonesty. 

Oh I forgot, you don't care about accusations of abuse of power unless it's Obama or a Democrat.


----------



## Samson (Jul 28, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > In March 2007, the Maricopa County Jail hosted "Inmate Idol"[19], a takeoff on the popular TV show American Idol.
> ...



How is it dishonest to quote from the source you gave?


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 28, 2010)

Samson said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...





Shhhhhhhhhhhh..... I don't think he read his own reference.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jul 28, 2010)

Samson said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Modbert said:
> ...



When was the last time you were incarcerated?


----------



## Modbert (Jul 28, 2010)

Samson said:


> How is it dishonest to quote from the source you gave?



That's obviously not what I was referring to when I talked about the abuse of power and you know it. Hence the dishonesty.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 28, 2010)

In 2001, Arpaio required all inmates 18 years and older to register for the Selective Service System. Such registration is mandatory for all U.S. males between 18 and 26 years of age, as well as for resident aliens of the same age regardless of their immigration status. Since 2001, a total of 28,000 inmates (including 9,000 illegal aliens) have registered for Selective Service.[36][37]

The Sheriff also started the "Have a Heart" program in which inmates may volunteer to be organ donors.[37]


Holy hell, fellas.... this just chokes me up.  How can a man be so barbaric!!!?????


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 28, 2010)

Pink underwear, banning porn, tent city....... two meals a day.....volunteer chain gangs

ok.. this should be easy.  What is an abuse of power?


----------



## Samson (Jul 28, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > How is it dishonest to quote from the source you gave?
> ...



What were you referring to?


----------



## Modbert (Jul 28, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> Pink underwear, banning porn, tent city....... two meals a day.....volunteer chain gangs
> 
> ok.. this should be easy.  What is an abuse of power?



Such ignorance, I'm sure you find this okay:



> Under Arpaio, the Maricopa County Jails have lost accreditation multiple times.[21] In September, 2008, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care terminated the accreditation of all Maricopa County Sheriff's Office jails for failure to maintain compliance with national standards, and providing false information about such compliance.[dead link][22][23] In October, 2008, a U.S. district court judge ruled that the grossly inadequate conditions at the Maricopa County Jail, overseen by Arpaio, *are unconstitutional* and jeopardize the health and safety of prisoners.[24]





> In October 2009, it was reported that the FBI was investigating Arpaio* for using his position to settle political vendettas.*[44]





> Reports show that, under Arpaio, the MCSO may be improperly clearing as many as 75% of cases without arrest or proper investigation.[



Deputies Visit Homes of Judicial Assistants; "Pure Intimidation," Says One Judge -- See Update With Names - Phoenix News - Valley Fever


----------



## Samson (Jul 28, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > How is it dishonest to quote from the source you gave?
> ...



Are you saying that the Wiki article you cited, in "piling on" frivoulous excuses of "abuse of power" is dishonest?


----------



## hboats (Jul 28, 2010)

Sarah G said:


> hboats said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



Maybe you shouldn't base you opinions on the dishonest title of the thread and maybe you should actually read the article linked within the thread.

Rick


----------



## Samson (Jul 28, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > Pink underwear, banning porn, tent city....... two meals a day.....volunteer chain gangs
> ...



I tried to validate your wiki quote by following #24 to its source and got:




> Element not valid
> The element requested is either not valid or does not exist.





Is any of the article "honest?"


----------



## Modbert (Jul 28, 2010)

Samson said:


> I tried to validate your wiki quote by following #24 to its source and got:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What? 

I went down and clicked on #24:

Judge Calls Maricopa County Jail Conditions Unconstitutional | American Civil Liberties Union


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 28, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> I'd like to see Arpaio spend a week in one of his tents. The guy sends corrections back to the medieval ages



mee too, we don't believe in law in this here country, not a single reason in the world for anyone to have to follow the law.


----------



## Samson (Jul 28, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > I tried to validate your wiki quote by following #24 to its source and got:
> ...



No, that's citation #25, but I'll not split hairs over the technicality.

Aside from the ACLU writing a hysterical article, quoting their own hysterics, I see that Sherrif Joe has been accused of serving bad food in jail, and that his jails are bad places to be.

It took the ACLU YEARS to make this case, which seems to have been won because of poor record keeping in the Sherriff's office.

If being a poor clerk is the Sherriff's biggest "abuse of power" this needs to be added to all the other frivoulous crap included in your Wiki citation.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 28, 2010)

Samson said:


> No, that's citation #25, but I'll not split hairs over the technicality.
> 
> Aside from the ACLU writing a hysterical article, quoting their own hysterics, I see that Sherrif Joe has been accused of serving bad food in jail, and that his jails are bad places to be.



Uh, do you bother to read or are you being dishonest?

Click on the picture to enlarge it:


#24 is clearly the ACLU article which you said doesn't work. #25 works as well.


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 28, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> Illegal Immigrants



Hey buddy,, libturds REWARD lawbreakers,, so shut the fuck up and find you some law to break..


----------



## Samson (Jul 28, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > No, that's citation #25, but I'll not split hairs over the technicality.
> ...



Like I said, I'm not going to make whether or not a linky works a red herring to the broader issue: The ACLU case was not much more frivoulous than all the other "abuses of power" contained in the article.

Yeah, I reade the article: Like I said most of it quotes ACLU lawyers complaining that a jail is a bad place to be. The food is bad, beds are not always available, people acting crazy are not given counselling......the usual stuff.


----------



## Biggles (Jul 28, 2010)

Go Joe Go!  

I applaud Joe.  He treats criminals as they should be, as criminals.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 28, 2010)

Sheriff Joe is being investigated by the grand jury, and sooner or later, the criminal sheriff will be on the wrong side of his jail bars.  Oh, are those pictures when they hit the press going to be wonderful.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 28, 2010)

Sheriff Joe...somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 28, 2010)

Bullfighter said:


> WASHINGTON (AP) -- The sheriff of the most populous county in Arizona says he's "not going to put up with any civil disobedience" when the state's new immigration law takes effect.
> 
> Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio says that if protesters want to block his jail, he'll put them in it.
> 
> ...



I think he ought to go for it....maybe firehoses and dogs too.   Woo Hoo!


----------



## The Infidel (Jul 28, 2010)

Modbert said:


> LuckyDan said:
> 
> 
> > I know I am. And he ain't even my Sheriff.
> ...



Wow... what an eye opener



I think he is great!


----------



## The Infidel (Jul 28, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sheriff Joe is being investigated by the grand jury, and sooner or later, the criminal sheriff will be on the wrong side of his jail bars.  Oh, are those pictures when they hit the press going to be wonderful.



Yep.... Im sure those fukstiks in DC will figure out a way to do it.
Just like all the other UN-constitional things they are doing.



BTW.... How many ILLEGALS are you helping? You letting them sleep in your front room?
You giving them supper tonite... You gonna give them a ride to work tomorrow? You gonna let em screw your wife?

You libs make me sick! Fucking hypocrites!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 28, 2010)

The Infidel is obviously part of the group of white marginalized males who believe their lack of success in the world is someone else's fault.  Get off your ass, The Infidel, and work for the American Dream, 'cause no one is going to give it to you.


----------



## The Infidel (Jul 28, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Infidel is obviously part of the group of white marginalized males who believe their lack of success in the world is someone else's fault.  Get off your ass, The Infidel, and work for the American Dream, 'cause no one is going to give it to you.



Nope... Im a wealthy white guy who has worked for every penny I have.

I've also been to jail a few times in the past... its not meant to be fun.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 28, 2010)

Your first comment is false while your second comment is undoubtedly true.  And your third comment is the only thing you have said that has made sense here.


----------



## dvinman (Jul 29, 2010)

Why Our Government Keeps The Borders Open

The reason why our government keeps the borders open can be found in a document written by Dr. Steven Steinlight (whom himself is Jewish) called "The Jewish Stake in America's Changing Demography". In it he writes regarding the increase of Hispanics in America. "For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Jewish community is thus in a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions that support our agendas." In other words, the Jewish supremacists will be able to use racial diversity as a way to pit one race of Gentiles against another in order to divide and conquer them all, and the more racial diversity there is, the easier the Jews will be able to do it. That the Jews can enter into "selective coalitions" with Hispanics or Blacks, not because they care about them, but to use them as a way to dilute White political power and prevent Whites from being able to unite against them, so that the 2.5 per cent of the population that is Jewish could continue to control the other 97.5 per cent that is not Jewish.

And that is the reason why in every White country where Jewish supremacists dominate the media the borders are kept open. In America millions of Latinos have come in. In Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, and Spain millions of non-Whites, mostly Muslims have come in. Do you think the Jews care about Muslims? No more than they care about Latinos. But they can use them to make Whites a minority race and thus, prevent Whites from removing the Jewish supremacists from power.

It is in the interests of people of every race to unite against Jewish supremacism. These Jewish racial supremacists are waging a war not just on White people, but against all of humanity. It is primarily White people now because Whites are the greatest threat to their hold on power, but if Whites can be reduced to being a small minority everywhere in the world, there will be nothing to stop the Jewish supremacists from doing to non-Whites what they are now doing to Whites.

If Blacks or Latinos think that the Jewish supremacists will treat them differently from the way they have treated Whites because they now receive Jewish money and media support, then they are very badly mistaken. One only has to look at how they treat Blacks and Latinos who don't want to live under Jewish domination; people such as: Hugo Chavez, and Louis Farrakhan.

The same hate propaganda, the same phoney accusations of "anti-Semitism", and the same guilt trip tactics await all the non-Whites in the world if Whites cannot overcome Jewish supremacist power and take back control of their countries.


----------



## Douger (Jul 29, 2010)

No FreeDumb of expression around ole Joe. He's a true murkin.
Maybe he'll catch a bullet soon.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 29, 2010)

Douger said:


> No FreeDumb of expression around ole Joe. He's a true murkin.
> Maybe he'll catch a bullet soon.




Modern day liberalism on display.  

Congratulations Party of Tolerance.


----------



## Zona (Jul 29, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> I'd like to see Arpaio spend a week in one of his tents. The guy sends corrections back to the medieval ages



People really really don't know what goes on there.  He continues to get re elected even though he is costing this state millions and he kills people in his jails.  

He is all about him.  Period.  He is a camera whore who loves to put his face out there.  How many other sheriffs do you know from outside your state?


----------



## Zona (Jul 29, 2010)

The Infidel said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel is obviously part of the group of white marginalized males who believe their lack of success in the world is someone else's fault.  Get off your ass, The Infidel, and work for the American Dream, 'cause no one is going to give it to you.
> ...



There is not fun and there is in humane treatment.  Green bologna you pay for and those tents in Arizona heat are in humane treatment for people not even found guilty of anything.  He killed people in there and that Chair of his is midevil.
(Unless of course you are a "friend" of his or a celebrity of any sort....then he opens an entire building for you and you can have food delivered to you.  Need links?)
Joe makes me sick.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 29, 2010)

Douger said:


> No FreeDumb of expression around ole Joe. He's a true murkin.
> Maybe he'll catch a bullet soon.



That is a totally inappropriate comment.   Sure you aren't a Freeper?


----------



## Zona (Jul 29, 2010)

The Infidel said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Sheriff Joe is being investigated by the grand jury, and sooner or later, the criminal sheriff will be on the wrong side of his jail bars.  Oh, are those pictures when they hit the press going to be wonderful.
> ...




We "liberals" are not the ones HIRING them.  Nothing happens to the businesses that hire them.  There is a law on the books that makes it illegal to do so, yet 50% of businesses here in Arizona hire them!  

You guys are all against illegals but love cheap labor.  Hypocrite much?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 29, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Bullfighter said:
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON (AP) -- The sheriff of the most populous county in Arizona says he's "not going to put up with any civil disobedience" when the state's new immigration law takes effect./url]
> ...



Because he's already proven himself to be strong against law-breaking.  No reason he should stop now.


----------



## Samson (Jul 29, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> > No FreeDumb of expression around ole Joe. He's a true murkin.
> ...


----------



## blu (Jul 29, 2010)

Bullfighter said:


> WASHINGTON (AP) -- The sheriff of the most populous county in Arizona says he's "not going to put up with any civil disobedience" when the state's new immigration law takes effect.
> 
> Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio says that if protesters want to block his jail, he'll put them in it.
> 
> ...



why do you like authoritarians you jackass? personally I hope the protestors act peacefully and once the cops get rough with them they get rough back


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 29, 2010)

hboats said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > hboats said:
> ...



What do you mean, "now"?  Seems to me Mod wasn't all that thrilled with him enforcing the law BEFORE, either.


----------



## blu (Jul 29, 2010)

hopefully joe gets his skull cracked once he starts messing with people who aren't blocking the jail but are there to protest peacefully and lawfully


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 29, 2010)

Nosmo King said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > Illegal Immigrants
> ...



No, dumbass, he didn't.  The Arizona Republic fraudulently said that in their headline on the story, but what HE actually said was if protesters *want to block his jail*, he'll put them in it.

He also specified "civil disobedience", which by definition requires breaking the law.  Simply protesting does not meet that requirement.

Moron.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 29, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > He has enforced the law.  What do you not like that he has done?
> ...



Is that kinda the way you "read" the article this thread is about and "knew" he was going to jail protesters willy-nilly?

Wikipedia.  Oy vey.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 29, 2010)

blu said:


> hopefully joe gets his skull cracked once he starts messing with people who aren't blocking the jail but are there to protest peacefully and lawfully





More liberalism on display.

You guys are more violent than those crazy, whacked out, ultra violent tea partiers.

Can you imagine how you libs would have responded if the above quote showed up on a sign at a tea party rally?

My gosh you all are a bunch of hypocrites.


----------



## blu (Jul 29, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > hopefully joe gets his skull cracked once he starts messing with people who aren't blocking the jail but are there to protest peacefully and lawfully
> ...



whatever troll, anyone who violates the rights of an American should be dealt with harshly. i would be willing to be all that I have and all my future earnings that lawful protesters will get caught up in joe and his goons sweep of the protest sites, just like what happens at every other protest and was the same tactic used to silence blacks in the 60s


----------



## 007 (Jul 29, 2010)

If we had men like Sheriff Arpaio in every county across America, we wouldn't have a problem with these damn illegal aliens.

Someone willing to enforce the law... what a concept.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 29, 2010)

Sarah G said:


> hboats said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



Another one who doesn't bother to read the frigging article and find out what's actually said before shooting her ignorant mouth off.

Fail.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 29, 2010)

Sarah G said:


> hboats said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



Yes, because all anyone needs to know is the headline of the article/the title of the thread.  Actually reading the text - let alone tracking down the actual quote - is a waste of valuable time that could be better used spouting unsubstantiated bile on the Internet.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 29, 2010)

blu said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



You can't even make a coherant argument.  We are talking about Illegal Aliens and you say "anyone who violates the rights of an American"

Let me know if you need me to explain this contradiction.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 29, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > The title of the thread:
> ...



The OP quoted the headline of the Arizona Republic article verbatim for the thread title.  And yet, leftists mysteriously insist that the media isn't biased in their journalism.


----------



## blu (Jul 29, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...



um, there will be legal residents protesting as well and as we know and its one of the main reasons the law was struck down, is that you can't just look at someone and tell if they are here legally or not


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 29, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > I tried to validate your wiki quote by following #24 to its source and got:
> ...



Well, if the ACLU says it, it MUST be true.  Let's take him out and lynch him right now!


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 29, 2010)

blu said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...




You are correct.  That is why the law doesn't allow a police officer to do that.


----------



## 007 (Jul 29, 2010)

blu said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



That's why FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES "legal aliens" to carry their green cards. So now should the federal law be struck down too?

Where does you people's defense of illegal aliens end, and your support for American sovereignty begin?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 29, 2010)

blu said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



If "anyone who violates the rights of an American should be dealt with harshly", how should we deal with people who sit around HOPING the rights of Americans will be violated and that people will be harmed just to validate their bullshit worldview?

Every time you start talking, I start thanking God I'm not you.


----------



## 007 (Jul 29, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Every time you start talking, I start thanking God I'm not you.



No SHIT! How does a person get to the point where it's always AMERICA LAST in their mind? Unbelievable.


----------



## blu (Jul 29, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> If "anyone who violates the rights of an American should be dealt with harshly", *how should we deal with people who sit around HOPING the rights of Americans will be violate*d and that people will be harmed just to validate their bullshit worldview?



1) I didn't "hope" for the legal residents rights to be violated. I just stated the fact that it will happen because joe and his goons are power tripping assholes who think they can do what they want

2) nothing should be done even if I did hope for such a thing b/c thoughts crimes aren't real yet



Cecilie1200 said:


> Every time you start talking, I start thanking God I'm not you.



nice ad hominem to end a stupid post


----------



## blu (Jul 29, 2010)

Pale Rider said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Every time you start talking, I start thanking God I'm not you.
> ...



joe and his gestapo don't represent america


----------



## 007 (Jul 29, 2010)

blu said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



So enforcing the law isn't representing America? How is it he keeps getting reelected? Could it be your wild, far fetched, unraveled view of him isn't shared by the majority? Yeah... I think so.


----------



## blu (Jul 29, 2010)

Pale Rider said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



or could the majority of people in his area of arizona are so blinded by emotion and rage against illegals that they overlook his wrongdoings? I think so.


----------



## 007 (Jul 29, 2010)

blu said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



What wrong doings? Arresting illegal aliens?


----------



## 007 (Jul 29, 2010)

blu said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



What wrong doings? Arresting illegal aliens?

Like I asked before, where does you people's support for illegals aliens end, and your support for American sovereignty begin? I'd like to know.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 29, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



What is it with some people and lynchings?


----------



## blu (Jul 29, 2010)

Pale Rider said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



again with  your stupid assumptions. I want all illegal aliens gone and sent back to where they came. what I don't want is the rights of "illegal alien looking" American citizens to get violated along the way, even having 1 of them have their rights violated is too much, and its a guarantee that such a thing will happen if/when the full blown Arizona law is passed or when sheriff joe and his goons are allowed to go wild


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 29, 2010)

Pale Rider said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Every time you start talking, I start thanking God I'm not you.
> ...



And I can understand THAT more easily than I can understand actually HOPING that political protests will end in violence and bloodshed.  How does a person get to the point of hoping for a breakdown in law and order?


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 29, 2010)

blu said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...





No... there are laws against such things.

Get a new argument.  You look like a petty little fool.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 29, 2010)

The illegals will not be sent home _en masse_.  Why?  The great majority of Americans will not tolerate police state tactics, for one thing.  Secondly, the birth right citizens as they mature will vote _en masse _against politicans who supported such measures.  The birth right citizens outnumber the nativists of the far right now, and will outvote them within five years.  Check the numbers.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 29, 2010)

blu said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > If "anyone who violates the rights of an American should be dealt with harshly", *how should we deal with people who sit around HOPING the rights of Americans will be violate*d and that people will be harmed just to validate their bullshit worldview?
> ...



First of all, nice try at a dodge, but no go.  You openly hoped for violence between the protesters and law enforcement.  Everyone saw you.  Second of all, I fail to see how you think "I just assume bad things will happen, and hope some of them happen to THIS person" is any sort of improvement on the repulsive character - or lack thereof - that you've demonstrated.

Third and finally, _ad hominem _doesn't just mean "personally insulting", Noah Webster, no matter how many times you ignorant leftists misuse it that way.  It means "marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made".  And in this case, your character - or lack thereof - is the issue at hand, as it is revealed by your contentions.  So it can't very well be _ad hominem_.

If you don't want the fact that you're a revolting pile of excrement commented on, I suggest you avoid making it the topic.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 29, 2010)

blu said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



Yes, if hundreds of thousands of people presume to disagree with you and the truth from on high as represented by your personal opinion, that MUST mean that they are all just emotion-driven, hate-filled bigots, rather than meaning that you, individually, are an ignorant, uninformed puddle of dog sick.  It's the only POSSIBLE conclusion.

Tell me, how does it feel to sit around, hoping that other human beings will be physically harmed for your own personal satisfaction?


----------



## blu (Jul 29, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I sure didn't, making the rest of your post invalid. what I said was the the its a guarantee that joe and his goons will attempt to arrest and harass people who are peacefully and lawfully protesting and that I hope the lawful protesters fight back to and don't just let it happen.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 29, 2010)

blu said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...




He will arrest only those breaking the law.

Do you know how to read?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 29, 2010)

Blu, I agree with you to a point, and that point is the righty is lying about what you were saying.

I hope the protestors don't fight back, but take their beatings on TV: that will end the Arizona law as quickly as the courts will.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 29, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I know you know how to read, Nonelitist, and I know you are not correctly repeating what Blu wrote.  Please stop lying.


----------



## blu (Jul 29, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



right because at all protests the cops are understanding and allow people to protest peacefully. how I forgot


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 29, 2010)

blu said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...





No, no... my fault.  I forgot that you have an irrational and stupifying hatred of cops and the United States.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 29, 2010)

blu said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



They would have to invent new technology to measure my indifference to your desperate attempts to backpedal and rationalize your repugnant behavior.  You made a fool of yourself in public.  You blew it.  End of story.


----------



## blu (Jul 29, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



nice non-response


----------



## blu (Jul 29, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...





the cop out of all neocons who lose a debate


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 29, 2010)

blu said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...




No... you lost the debate.

You don't want a law because you think it is possible someone might abuse that law.  Idiotic argument.

You also advocated violence against law enforcement.  That alone tells us what a miserable,morally diseased,  law abusing person you are.  That makes pretty much anything you say on this matter irrelevant.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 29, 2010)

Frankly, this whole debate  makes me  sad in several ways.  Many  are under the mistaken impression  that SB-1070 was  an attempt  to get rid of all hispanic people's here in Arizona. Which is complete nonsense.  I see all this  emotion and fire directed at Arizona  over the very same laws that have have been in place at the Federal level for  years now with little  if any reaction from the very same people. Perhaps is it that a state  was finally going to do something about a system that allows  the violation of Federal Law  and allows the  abuse of  poor people by those who traffic in human beings, drugs and murder  and  because of the potential votes and the cheap labor involved  some  are worked into this fever of  racial profiling when the same poor  people are caught in the middle? I have news for all those who are upset with Arizona,  mad about  " showing papers" well  ICE has  for years required that of non-resident aliens and  non-citzens,  mad about  local and state law enforcement turning people over to ICE,  look no further than  the "secure communites'  program sponsored by ICE. The  point here is that if you want open borders then prepare yourself for a world that is just across from Nogales and El Paso  of murder, guns death,  human traffic, and yes even IED's.  So want all this  and not the enforcement of our borders  and a system that actually works for the poor people who want nothing more than to come here and make a better life for themselves.  then please continue with your mistaken impresseion.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 29, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...



You are continuing to lie, nonelitist.


----------



## blu (Jul 29, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> [No... you lost the debate.
> 
> You don't want a law because you think it is possible someone might abuse that law.  Idiotic argument.
> 
> You also advocated violence against law enforcement.  That alone tells us what a miserable,morally diseased,  law abusing person you are.  That makes pretty much anything you say on this matter irrelevant.



once a police starts becomes rogue as they often do around protesters they no longer are afforded the special protection they normally get as officers. they are just dangerous criminals at that point and should be treated as such


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 29, 2010)

nonelitist and CC fall under this example of stupid internet techniques of discussion.

" How to Combat These Techniques:  The important thing to remember is that you are dealing with a person who has essentially placed a twig on their head and expects you to believe they are a tree. Armored in that level of "confidence," almost anything you say will be construed by them as evidence that their tree disguise is working, so you will have to be very specific and to the point in addressing exactly what they're doing and why it's not fooling anyone.  //   Subtlety and sarcasm are great tools but there is no way in hell they will get through to this poor sap. Unless you're just toying with them for your amusement, the best way to put an end to it is just to be direct. Point them to this guide if necessary, explain that you know what they are doing, and that it is so obvious it can be seen from space.    //   Chances are they will just end up placing more twigs on their head, praying fervently that this will succeed, but at least you gave it your best shot.   //  Read more: Internet Argument Techniques | Cracked.com


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 29, 2010)

blu said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > [No... you lost the debate.
> ...



Examples?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 29, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...



Bull Conner and the Alabama state criminals?


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 29, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...




How about something in recent history.  Cmon... must be plenty of examples.. cmon little boy.. show us all.


----------



## Samson (Jul 29, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...




There was that cop that killed the family dog after the home's security alarm went off the 7th time for no reason.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 29, 2010)

Samson said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Then there was the one cop that punched that girl in the face that was resisting arrest.  

Ya.. those horrible cops.


----------



## Samson (Jul 29, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...



They ALL MUST BE EVUL!!!!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 29, 2010)

Nope, just the stupid reasoning of someone like nonelitist who believes his opinion is evidence.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 29, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Nope, just the stupid reasoning of someone like nonelitist who believes his opinion is evidence.



When did I state my opinion was evidence or even give that hint?


----------



## Samson (Jul 29, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> When did I state my opinion was evidence or even give that hint?



Well since you asked;



Nonelitist said:


> Ya.. those horrible cops.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 29, 2010)

nonelitist has certainly taken the correct title, although it should not imply is absolute inability to reason.

Non, quit emoting, start thinking, and start reasoning.  Your drivel is offensive only to you.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 29, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> nonelitist has certainly taken the correct title, although it should not imply is absolute inability to reason.
> 
> Non, quit emoting, start thinking, and start reasoning.  Your drivel is offensive only to you.




blah blah blah blah.... 

say why and someone might believe you.


----------



## Zona (Jul 29, 2010)

Pale Rider said:


> If we had men like Sheriff Arpaio in every county across America, we wouldn't have a problem with these damn illegal aliens.
> 
> Someone willing to enforce the law... what a concept.



If we had a Sheriff Joe in every county across the country, this country would literally go broke in a matter of months.  Do you have any idea how many times he has been sued and he lost.  Who do you think pays for it when he looses?


----------



## Bullfighter (Jul 29, 2010)

Zona said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > If we had men like Sheriff Arpaio in every county across America, we wouldn't have a problem with these damn illegal aliens.
> ...



Take it out of the "Save The Beaners" fund!

Oh, no! My 35 year old won't graduate 4th grade!!


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 30, 2010)

Zona said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > If we had men like Sheriff Arpaio in every county across America, we wouldn't have a problem with these damn illegal aliens.
> ...



Nope... how many times?

Inform us all.


----------



## baby_firefly (Aug 5, 2010)

>>>Joe makes me sick.[/QUOTE]

Criminals make me sicker.  

Since when were we supposed to baby criminals?  Nothing that he is doing is causing them long term physical damage and might even keep them from making a come back visit someday like so many of them do.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 5, 2010)

Bullfighter, weren't you the oik spreading lies about Mexico's involvement in WWII.

We aren't going to deport 12mm folks, BF: not going to happen.


----------



## Bullfighter (Aug 5, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bullfighter, weren't you the oik spreading lies about Mexico's involvement in WWII.
> 
> We aren't going to deport 12mm folks, BF: not going to happen.



What involvement? Picking lettuce in a nice safe United States while Americans were getting killed in Europe and the Pacific? Then, years later, complaing that they didn't get social security benefits? Is there any wonder why US vets hate those monkeys?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 5, 2010)

Bullfighter continues to lie.  Mexico declared war in 1942 on the Axis, fought against German submarines in the Gulf of Mexico, and had combat and service units in the Pacific.  Bullfighter's family sat out the war in Argentina.  He is just a racist oik.


----------



## Bullfighter (Aug 5, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bullfighter continues to lie.  Mexico declared war in 1942 on the Axis, fought against German submarines in the Gulf of Mexico, and had combat and service units in the Pacific.  Bullfighter's family sat out the war in Argentina.  He is just a racist oik.




Mexico declared war to get all those goodies from the US they never used agaist the Axis. Show me the bodies!!!! No Mexican fired a shot against Hitler on his ground. They were just to afraid. And a few Mexican troops finally showed up in the Pacific AFTER Germany surrendered. Learn your history from books not written by Latinos. They too greasy!!


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 5, 2010)

Who the fuck care what Mexico did in WW II?

We're talking about what an American sheriff is doing in 2010. Save the history lesson for the history category. There's a place to post crap like that where people who care about it can read it, Snarkey.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 5, 2010)

Tech_Esq said:


> Who the fuck care what Mexico did in WW II?
> 
> We're talking about what an American sheriff is doing in 2010. Save the history lesson for the history category. There's a place to post crap like that where people who care about it can read it, Snarkey.



You know, Great Britain bore the major brunt of WWII for years before the US entered, and has been one of our greatest allies for a long, long time.  I don't want British people coming here illegally, either.  The two have nothing to do with each other.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 5, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Who the fuck care what Mexico did in WW II?
> ...



Precisely right!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 5, 2010)

Tech_Esq said:


> Who the fuck care what Mexico did in WW II?
> 
> We're talking about what an American sheriff is doing in 2010. Save the history lesson for the history category. There's a place to post crap like that where people who care about it can read it, Snarkey.



I responded to racist rhetoric from Bullfighter.  Don't like it, don't read it.  Don't you read?  No wonder your are losing this discussion.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 5, 2010)

Tech_Esq said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



Then shut up about Mexico and WWII, moron, and talk to Bullfighter.  Jeez, you are a moron.

What I know what BF's problem is: he is terrified of "drop and leave Mexican sleeper terror babies" getting him.  You, BF, and Louie Gohmert are all loons.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 5, 2010)

Zona said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > If we had men like Sheriff Arpaio in every county across America, we wouldn't have a problem with these damn illegal aliens.
> ...



Total cost of Sheriff Joe's suits: $41 million. 

Given how long he's been there and how out in front he's been, sounds like the county is getting a deal!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 5, 2010)

But the day when a "drop and leave Mexican sleeper terror anchor baby" jury will jail his sorry ass.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 5, 2010)

Tech_Esq said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



I find it to be an intriguing take on the subject that we are supposed to decide how to enforce the law based on how many expensive lawsuits criminals and their allies can bring against us.  I'm a bit confused, though, as to why leftists think law-abiding citizens should give in to intimidation tactics.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 5, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



Well, it's who they are. It's second nature for them to be cowed by criminals.


----------



## Angelhair (Aug 5, 2010)

_Kudos to Arpaio!! I just wish he would come to CA and do some cleaning._


----------



## Angelhair (Aug 5, 2010)

_He said it very, very simply: He says it's "a crime to be here illegally and everyone should enforce" the law.   Can't be clearer than that._


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 5, 2010)

Data obtained by the Associated Press indicate that local law enforcement from a single Arizona county was responsible for a total of *26,146 forced departures since 2007*, statistics representing about 25 percent of the national total [115,841] processed by 64 agencies across the U.S. in about the same period of time
Arpaio deported 26,146; numbers to increase this FY

Given the statistics on our Sheriff, I tend to believe what he says and what does he get for  enforcing the law? well he gets  investigated  by the DOJ for civil rights violations.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 5, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



Right thinking Americans understand that you are "a bit confused."


----------



## Bullfighter (Aug 6, 2010)

Tech_Esq said:


> Who the fuck care what Mexico did in WW II?
> 
> We're talking about what an American sheriff is doing in 2010. Save the history lesson for the history category. There's a place to post crap like that where people who care about it can read it, Snarkey.



The 50 million people who died in World War 2 and their families think it's important. The Mexicans are using the same techniques used by Hitler, Professor. That makes it important. LA RAZA?.....the master race?......Du-uh!


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 6, 2010)

Bullfighter said:


> WASHINGTON (AP) -- The sheriff of the most populous county in Arizona says he's "not going to put up with any civil disobedience" when the state's new immigration law takes effect.
> 
> Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio says that if protesters want to block his jail, he'll put them in it.
> 
> ...



Good


----------



## Wry Catcher (Aug 6, 2010)

Lots of noise on this thread, even some who know and may practice law seem to miss the issue of jurisdiction.
Protesting is legal.  If a protester violates a law they are subject to arrest.  Arestees are guaranteed specific rights which cannot be abused under the color of authority.
All the bloviation aside the sheriff may notify federal authorities in the event a protester has violated a law and is determined to be in the U.S. illegally.  That's it.
A complaint or information must be filed by the prosecutor within 72 hours of the arrest and reasonable bail set.  Notwithstanding the actions of the Bush Administration this remains the United States of America:
"Habeas Corpus is an ancient common law prerogative writ - a legal procedure to which you have an undeniable right. It is an extraordinary remedy at law. Upon proper application, or even on naked knowledge alone, a court is empowered, and is duty bound, to issue the Extraordinary Writ of Habeas Corpus commanding one who is restraining liberty to forthwith produce before the court the person who is in custody and to show cause why the liberty of that person is being restrained. Absent a sufficient showing for a proper restraint of liberty, the court is duty bound to order the restraint eliminated and the person discharged. Habeas Corpus is fundamental to American and all other English common law derivative systems of jurisprudence. It is the ultimate lawful and peaceable remedy for adjudicating the providence of liberty&#8217;s restraint."
Funny how the RW hopes to see "busted heads" on this thread but demand liberty for themselves on others.  Never underestimate the stupidity of the RWers, what can be done to others can be done to them, an observation they are too stupid to understand.


----------



## Bullfighter (Aug 6, 2010)

Wry Catcher said:


> Lots of noise on this thread, even some who know and may practice law seem to miss the issue of jurisdiction.
> Protesting is legal.  If a protester violates a law they are subject to arrest.  Arestees are guaranteed specific rights which cannot be abused under the color of authority.
> All the bloviation aside the sheriff may notify federal authorities in the event a protester has violated a law and is determined to be in the U.S. illegally.  That's it.
> A complaint or information must be filed by the prosecutor within 72 hours of the arrest and reasonable bail set.  Notwithstanding the actions of the Bush Administration this remains the United States of America:
> ...



That is like defending a man's right to jump off a building then defending the man's family's right to sue the building's owner for not stopping him when he jumped.

It called "Mexican logic"!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 6, 2010)

Bullfight3er is nothing but a practitioner of Nazi principles and logic.

Step off, BF, step off.  Your slimy kind should go to Uruguay where you would be very welcome.  A lot of Nazi descendants there in the back country.  You will find much in common with them.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Aug 7, 2010)

Bullfighter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Lots of noise on this thread, even some who know and may practice law seem to miss the issue of jurisdiction.
> ...



Evidence provided by bullfighter as to why one must never underestimate the stupidity of RWers.  Thanks Bullfighter.


----------



## Toome (Aug 7, 2010)

When is protest a good thing and when is it a bad thing?  If this same sheriff were to say that he's going to jail the health care protesters, would he still be such a hero?

Protest can't be a matter of convenience.  If we are to cherish our freedom of speech and right to speak out against things we disagree with, then we have to accept that right even when it comes to hearing from those who advocate the thing we personally hate most.  That's true freedom of speech.

As for forms of civil disobedience, that's another thing.  The sit-in protests of the 60's are one form, the refusal to pay income tax is another and chaining oneself to the White House fence is still another.  Each one violates a law and brings with it a form of penalty from a fine to time in jail.  From this perspective, if the sheriff means that he won't tolerate civil disobedience that disrupts order or threatens lives or damages property, then he's absolutely right.

However, since he singled out immigration protesters and didn't say anything about Tea Party protesters, I tend to think that this guy is biased.  He's either a racist or he's an idiot that doesn't understand the ramifications of statements made that go well beyond the local population and draw all sorts of attention across the country and all over the internet.

Welcome to the 21st century, sheriff.


----------

