freecounterpoint: Another Tecsian for reason

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Another Tecsian for reason

11 comments:

Tecumseh said...: Besides all the hot air, the one concrete tidbit I see in this article is a link to a recent Gallup poll: More than three-quarters of Americans have heard about the state of Arizona's new immigration law, and of these, 51% say they favor it and 39% oppose it.

Evidently, according to Rotten Logik, those 51% are outside the mainstream. Where mainstream is defined as \pm epsilon neighborhood of Rot's worldview.; 4/30/2010 12:04 AM
Mr roT said...: They don't know what's in the law, Tecs. Like you and AA and Lowry and so on.; 4/30/2010 4:28 AM
Mr roT said...: Check out Lowry babbling about shit he doesn't even know the definition of. What the hell is a "lawful event"?; 4/30/2010 4:29 AM
Mr roT said...: Funny. Lowry updated his dumbass post (the one I link right here). I am the one that sent him the language and definition. Funny he didn't change his last sentence:

A lot of them have been sloppy. It took Gerson to add bullying sanctimony to the mix.

There was no need, I guess. People reading his crap accept what he says at face value.; 4/30/2010 4:33 AM
Tecumseh said...: Right -- the 51% who heard of the law and agreed with it didn't read, but the 39% who opposed it read and comprehended every single nuance. Only in Rot's universe. Couple of remarks:

* At some point, when you were ranting and raving how un-Constitutional the AZ law was, I challenged you to quote which precise Article n Section m in the US Constitution prohibits any of its provisions. You hemmed, and you hawed, and you blew lots of hot air, but you never replied to my challenge. Chicken.

* How could you, when the law (that roughly says aliens need to be prepared to produce ID when challenged by police) is almost a mirror image of a federal law that has been on the books since 1940 (a law, which one way or the other, any country in the known world has on the books, in one way or the other), and never was challenged as unconstitutional -- merely has stopped being enforced by the federales.

* Ah, perhaps you deny the States the right to pass their own state laws on matters not expressly enumerated in the Constitution as being the sole purview of the Federal Government? But then, there is something called the Tenth Amendment. Of course, in the Rotter world, when someone invokes an actual clause, written black and white in the Constitution, he's a corpse-chewing, "constitution worshipping" [these are dirty words for Rot] Honeckerian Nazi.

* Finally, you raised all sorts of strawmen and red herrings, but never bothered to read the article by Kris Kobach (the KS law prof who basically wrote the law, so presumably knows wtf is in it), that I challenged you to read and comment on if you are a mensch, and want to take on the big boy on this one. But you didn't. Chicken.; 4/30/2010 7:58 AM
Mr roT said...: I didn't say that the 39% that opposed the law were opposing it for the right reason. For all I know those people have the opinions that you falsely attribute to me.

It is generally the case in the US that you not be searched without probable cause. The Az law, in the incarnation favored by you and Pat Buchanan, included the direction to police to investigate the citizenship of anyone that comes into lawful contact.

But lawful contact is less than probable cause.

Period.; 4/30/2010 9:19 AM
Mr roT said...: OK, I read KK's piece in the NYT. Guess what! He's not as clear as the law itself. If you want to read the part about lawful contact, I posted it somewhere.

Anyway, it's all DOA as should be KK's bullshit descriptions of his brainchild in the Times.; 4/30/2010 9:55 AM
Tecumseh said...: What do you mean DOA? The law has passed, maybe now they're fiddling with the language a bit. By summer, it's gonna go in effect. You think your buddy Hölder is gonna stop AZ cops from enforcing a state law? Based on what?; 4/30/2010 9:59 AM
Mr roT said...: The objectionable point of the law was the phrase about "lawful contact." It was too broad and included the possibility that a cop ask you for papers essentially for no reason.

That was the issue. It is gone.; 4/30/2010 10:04 AM
Tecumseh said...: Nitpicking. Whatever, dude. It don't bother me, one way or the other. I always carry my driver's license when out of the house (even when walking the dog), and always carry my passport when abroad. If a cop asks for ID, I show it. Big fucking deal. I mean, duhhh... Is this rocket science, or what?; 4/30/2010 10:07 AM
Mr roT said...: We don't do that in America, Tecs. A cop asks your ID your response should be, "What for?"; 4/30/2010 10:09 AM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)