Chef Jim Posted May 6, 2010 Posted May 6, 2010 That guy is the reason the Democrats get run over all the time. He's a weakling moron and a pushover. He can't even take on the Republican lies that the bill is unconstitutional. What a schmuck. Ladies and gentleman, welcome to the department of redundancy department.
Chef Jim Posted May 6, 2010 Posted May 6, 2010 http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns/artic...ns-jerseys.html The Phoenix Suns made a bold statement Tuesday denouncing the controversial new immigration bill that recently was signed into law. In announcing that the Suns would wear their "Los Suns" jerseys in recognition of Cinco de Mayo for Game 2 against the San Antonio Spurs on Wednesday, Managing Partner Robert Sarver also addressed the immigration bill that has been a divisive national topic since Gov. Jan Brewer enacted it into law April 23. "The frustration with the federal government's failure to deal with the issue of illegal immigration resulted in passage of a flawed state law," Sarver said in a statement released by the Suns on Tuesday morning. "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." "I looked around our plane and looked at our players and the diversity in our organization," Sarver said. "I thought we need to go on record that we honor our diversity in our team, in the NBA and we need to show support for that. As for the political part of that, that's my statement." Suns co-captain Steve Nash has no problem expressing his political views under the basketball spotlight. He once wore a "No war. Shoot for peace." T-shirt during 2003 All-Star Game interviews. "It's a clear-cut issue for me," Nash said. "I don't agree with this bill. I don't agree with the spirit of the bill or the message it sends, not only to people in our community but how it represents our community across the country and the world. "I think the bill opens up the opportunity for racial profiling, racism. I think it puts the police in an incredibly difficult position that isn't fair to them. It's an infringement on our civil liberties to allow the possibility for inequality to arise in our community." The San Antonio Spurs wanted to be a part of the Suns' statement Wednesday but could not get the "Los Spurs" jerseys to do it in time. Los Suns?? Come on folks are we really that !@#$ing stupid.
IDBillzFan Posted May 6, 2010 Posted May 6, 2010 That guy is the reason the Democrats get run over all the time. He's a weakling moron and a pushover. He can't even take on the Republican lies that the bill is unconstitutional. What a schmuck. Why worry what the Republicans care is constitutional or not constitutional when you don't even care about the constitution in the first place. I mean, it's not like he took an oath to support and defend it or anything silly like that.
Celtic_soulja Posted May 6, 2010 Posted May 6, 2010 Those that support the constitution have become "extremists" to the general public. Those that support the constitution are now on the list of low level terrorists. Our political system is becoming a major joke. Republican or Democrat makes no difference, both sides wipe thier azz on the constitution. It's not something new.
DC Tom Posted May 6, 2010 Posted May 6, 2010 Those that support the constitution have become "extremists" to the general public. Those that support the constitution are now on the list of low level terrorists. Our political system is becoming a major joke. Republican or Democrat makes no difference, both sides wipe thier azz on the constitution. It's not something new. So you don't support Congress' idea to raise the fine for British Petroleum from $75M to $10B?
Booster4324 Posted May 6, 2010 Posted May 6, 2010 So you don't support Congress' idea to raise the fine for British Petroleum from $75M to $10B? I don't, but only because I don't want them (the government) to have the money. Now if they proposed a flat penalty...
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 6, 2010 Posted May 6, 2010 So you don't support Congress' idea to raise the fine for British Petroleum from $75M to $10B? Who cares? Exxon was ordered to pay $5B in punitive damages shortly after the Valdez spill in 1989. They have yet to pay.
Celtic_soulja Posted May 6, 2010 Posted May 6, 2010 So you don't support Congress' idea to raise the fine for British Petroleum from $75M to $10B? I don't think there ever should've been a cap, you break you buy. Retroactive is funny to me though. Yeah, no you only have to pay 75 million if it breaks...I mean 10B. What but you said...oh no, I meant 10 Billion because we are way too broke to help you out there brohammer.
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 6, 2010 Posted May 6, 2010 I'll take that. I would be the first to tell you that I am naive when it comes to this. All I have is what I have read about the issues and the experiences I have that I think will correlate. I have never been a part of a CDC, so I am naive. I have said in the past that I will learn plenty as I go, and I'm okay with that. I mean I've been talking about best case scenarios, but worst case scenario I go in with the state 45k and my own 30k or so and go one property at a time. I am going to put work in and do my best, that's all. I wouldn't call myself a nincompoop, but I don't think I'm a genius. Holy smokes, do I smell some common sense taking hold?
VABills Posted May 6, 2010 Posted May 6, 2010 So you don't support Congress' idea to raise the fine for British Petroleum from $75M to $10B? And if they did fine them 10B, 100B or more, it wouldn't matter. They'd pass the costs on to us. So in effect we get fined in higher petroleum product prices, all so this communist government can fund more programs.
DC Tom Posted May 6, 2010 Posted May 6, 2010 Who cares? Exxon was ordered to pay $5B in punitive damages shortly after the Valdez spill in 1989. They have yet to pay. That was a civil suit, not a government penalty. And I don't doubt that BP would delay paying anything for decades...but that wasn't my question. I don't think there ever should've been a cap, you break you buy. Retroactive is funny to me though. Yeah, no you only have to pay 75 million if it breaks...I mean 10B. What but you said...oh no, I meant 10 Billion because we are way too broke to help you out there brohammer. I agree it should never have been capped, and BP should pay all remediation costs (which is different from the gov't fine)...but you didn't answer my question. Do you support Congress raising the fine on BP from $75M to $10B?
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 6, 2010 Posted May 6, 2010 That was a civil suit, not a government penalty. And I don't doubt that BP would delay paying anything for decades...but that wasn't my question. Still relevant. The size of the fine and or settlement is meaningless, because BP will bounce it from judge to judge forever. As far as your question, hell yes go to a $10B fine. BP still considers the US a colony to be exploited, regardless of the cost to the natives. Only now they do it by greasing politicians hands, not firing muskets
DC Tom Posted May 6, 2010 Posted May 6, 2010 Still relevant. The size of the fine and or settlement is meaningless, because BP will bounce it from judge to judge forever. As far as your question, hell yes go to a $10B fine. BP still considers the US a colony to be exploited, regardless of the cost to the natives. Only now they do it by greasing politicians hands, not firing muskets Not relevant, because I'm not talking about BP paying the fine. I'm asking Celtic if he thinks Congress should increase the fine against BP.
Celtic_soulja Posted May 6, 2010 Posted May 6, 2010 Not relevant, because I'm not talking about BP paying the fine. I'm asking Celtic if he thinks Congress should increase the fine against BP. You break you buy, but they set the laws and to change them now becuase of something happen is a joke.
DC Tom Posted May 6, 2010 Posted May 6, 2010 You break you buy, but they set the laws and to change them now becuase of something happen is a joke. That answer earns you one "Get out of being called an idiot free" card. Wanted to see if you were consistent in your constitutional view. Congress raising the fine on BP would be an ex post facto law and a bill of attainder - both unconstitutional. Won't stop them, of course...
Adam Posted May 6, 2010 Posted May 6, 2010 I think it's pretty safe to say most Americans have a pretty good idea of what is right for them, even though it may not be right for you. Arizona is eyeballs deep in violent crimes committed by illegal aliens (gangs, kidnappings and murder), and I don't find it hard to understand how they they feel they've had enough. I'm sure the murder of Robert Krentz put them over the edge. Especially after they watched Rogert Barnett get hauled into court and forced to pay about $80,000 to illegals who didn't like the way they were treated when Barnett caught them trespassing on his property and held them at gunpoint. Apparently Barnett should not have used a gun...he should have put out a coffee service cart. Maybe some donuts. Admittedly I am not sure to what extent I like this Arizona law, but I don't have a problem if Arizona chooses to protect its own...especially when 70% support the law. Have a problem with the law? Stay out of Arizona or carry your wallet. To our lib friends on this board (I know you're not one, JA), if you don't like the law, just remember the insightful words you kept telling us when we complained about the health care law: "Hey, it's not perfect, but it's a start, and we have to do something because it's better than nothing. We can't settle for the status quo. We have to pass it to see what's in it." If the majority determined what was right, we would have a democracy, instead of a representative republic. I disagree with that when it came from the liberals and I disagree with it when it comes from the neocons. Passing something for the sake of passing it is never good.
IDBillzFan Posted May 6, 2010 Posted May 6, 2010 If the majority determined what was right, we would have a democracy, instead of a representative republic. I disagree with that when it came from the liberals and I disagree with it when it comes from the neocons. Passing something for the sake of passing it is never good. I completely agree with your thinking. In this case, however, the state made a decision; a bipartisan decision at that. The people of the state are overwhelmingly supportive of it. That sounds like a win-win to me. Only in dipschitt places like San Francisco does a bipartisan law that has 70% voter approval sound like a bad idea. But I guess when your biggest concern is Meatless Monday, you need SOMETHING to cry about.
Celtic_soulja Posted May 6, 2010 Posted May 6, 2010 That answer earns you one "Get out of being called an idiot free" card. Wanted to see if you were consistent in your constitutional view. Congress raising the fine on BP would be an ex post facto law and a bill of attainder - both unconstitutional. Won't stop them, of course... I will use the card in the near future I am sure heheheeh...
Spiderweb Posted May 12, 2010 Posted May 12, 2010 I think it's pretty safe to say most Americans have a pretty good idea of what is right for them, even though it may not be right for you. Arizona is eyeballs deep in violent crimes committed by illegal aliens (gangs, kidnappings and murder), and I don't find it hard to understand how they they feel they've had enough. I'm sure the murder of Robert Krentz put them over the edge. Especially after they watched Rogert Barnett get hauled into court and forced to pay about $80,000 to illegals who didn't like the way they were treated when Barnett caught them trespassing on his property and held them at gunpoint. Apparently Barnett should not have used a gun...he should have put out a coffee service cart. Maybe some donuts. Admittedly I am not sure to what extent I like this Arizona law, but I don't have a problem if Arizona chooses to protect its own...especially when 70% support the law. Have a problem with the law? Stay out of Arizona or carry your wallet. To our lib friends on this board (I know you're not one, JA), if you don't like the law, just remember the insightful words you kept telling us when we complained about the health care law: "Hey, it's not perfect, but it's a start, and we have to do something because it's better than nothing. We can't settle for the status quo. We have to pass it to see what's in it." You state "libs" as in meaning those (If I'm considered to be one, I accept willing) who find the Arizona law unconstitutional, fine. Yet I don't find immigration laws currently on the books being upheld or enforced so I don't have any problem with Arizona making an effort on their own. But please, this illegal immigration problem is not a "liberal" creation anymore than it's a neocon one. GOP likes the cheap labor (GWB, ...Hey, where's the workers?" Do you recall that beauty?) and the Democrats pursue their support. Both parties bear the blame on this one....
IDBillzFan Posted May 12, 2010 Posted May 12, 2010 You state "libs" as in meaning those (If I'm considered to be one, I accept willing) who find the Arizona law unconstitutional, fine. Yet I don't find immigration laws currently on the books being upheld or enforced so I don't have any problem with Arizona making an effort on their own. But please, this illegal immigration problem is not a "liberal" creation anymore than it's a neocon one. GOP likes the cheap labor (GWB, ...Hey, where's the workers?" Do you recall that beauty?) and the Democrats pursue their support. Both parties bear the blame on this one.... My mention of libs in that post was primarily because they are the ones making the most noise against the Arizona law, especially with their idiotic boycott ideas, not because I blame them for the problem. I'm aware the illegal immigration problem isn't a right or left problem. Presidents have been refusing to wall-up the border for years. But the libs are ass-deep in problems for November, and they need to fire up their base, and the best way to do that is to get the unions and latinos upset. It's just that simple. The libs only care about the vote for November, and to repeat my point since it was missed the first time, the libs just got done yelling how the health care law isn't perfect and it'll take time to improve it, and then Arizona passes a law they don't like,and make amendments to improve it, and the left is sitting in a corner pissing all over themselves about what a horrible, horrible law it is in hopes they get their base pissed off enough to vote in November.
Recommended Posts