It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Marshals Raid Sheriff Joe’s Office

page: 6
33
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: xuenchen

That would be true if Joe only targeted illegals, but that isn't the case.

He trampled on the rights of others to go after those that he wanted to get.

That isn't how our nation works.


I'm a Libertarian and I think there should be 300 million sovereign states of America.

But Sherriff Arpaio is head of a county versus the western hemisphere south of the border. I think that qualifies as extenuating circumstances.




posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Being elected does not make one above the constitution.

He has to solve the problems while working in that frame work.

Immigration aside he has a long list of constitutional violations and corruption allegations.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Nope but you're apparently okay with them breaking it if the ends justify your means. Can good ole boy Joe take Americans guns too? I mean if it's okay to demand citizens papers and nab them off the streets for being brown, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments out the window, why not the 2nd?


Are you okay with federal government violating the law?


Are you avoiding the question? See? I can do that too.
The question remains.... why is it OK for Joe to remove Constitutionally granted rights from citizens?


It's not.


Bingo. And he even copped to it so I don't see how he can be defended in any circumstance.


Cheap.

You omitted the rest of my post.

Shame on you.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

BTW to every anti-Joe poster-- Sherriff Arpaio is doing what he is elected by his constituency to do.


Tell that to the rape victims whose cases were ignored. Arpaio would rather spend resources raiding random houses in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: xuenchen

That would be true if Joe only targeted illegals, but that isn't the case.

He trampled on the rights of others to go after those that he wanted to get.

That isn't how our nation works.


I'm a Libertarian and I think there should be 300 million sovereign states of America.

But Sherriff Arpaio is head of a county versus the western hemisphere south of the border. I think that qualifies as extenuating circumstances.




No your NOT a libetarian.

A true libertarian would not defend trampling the rights and freedoms of innocents to get the guilty.

A true libertsrian views everyone equal under the law.


edit on 26-7-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Nope but you're apparently okay with them breaking it if the ends justify your means. Can good ole boy Joe take Americans guns too? I mean if it's okay to demand citizens papers and nab them off the streets for being brown, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments out the window, why not the 2nd?


Are you okay with federal government violating the law?


Are you avoiding the question? See? I can do that too.
The question remains.... why is it OK for Joe to remove Constitutionally granted rights from citizens?


It's not.


Bingo. And he even copped to it so I don't see how he can be defended in any circumstance.


Cheap.

You omitted the rest of my post.

Shame on you.


The rest of your post is irrelevant. Using another entity to give Joe a pass isn't going to cut it.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed



The charges are not valid. Obama has used every thing he can against any who oppose him.. Look at his goddamned track record like siccing the IRS on his enemies. And other government agencies, FDA, FAA, FCC, Anyone who opposes Obama in a big way will be visited.

They started an investigation of Joe long before Obama took office so your whine about Obama being at fault is just nonsense.


ARPAIO is not dirty.

He was the head of the DEA in that state before becoming Sheriff if that doesn't scream he's dirty nothing does.


Stop believing everything that propaganda tells you. He is a strict law abiding Sheriff who RESPECTS the constitution

Yes the millions that he has cost the county due to his treatment of prisoners and his racial profiling really says he supports the Constitution.


Ask yourself the real question, who is really dirty here??

That's easy Nazi Joe.
edit on 9360000005731America/ChicagoSun, 26 Jul 2015 16:28:57 -05002010 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

not really they have yet to step in over a over zealous president.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Nope but you're apparently okay with them breaking it if the ends justify your means. Can good ole boy Joe take Americans guns too? I mean if it's okay to demand citizens papers and nab them off the streets for being brown, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments out the window, why not the 2nd?


Are you okay with federal government violating the law?


Are you avoiding the question? See? I can do that too.
The question remains.... why is it OK for Joe to remove Constitutionally granted rights from citizens?


It's not.


Bingo. And he even copped to it so I don't see how he can be defended in any circumstance.


Cheap.

You omitted the rest of my post.

Shame on you.


The rest of your post is irrelevant. Using another entity to give Joe a pass isn't going to cut it.


Not irrelevant. Putting it into perspective.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

First word I said was, nope.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Nope but you're apparently okay with them breaking it if the ends justify your means. Can good ole boy Joe take Americans guns too? I mean if it's okay to demand citizens papers and nab them off the streets for being brown, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments out the window, why not the 2nd?


Are you okay with federal government violating the law?


Are you avoiding the question? See? I can do that too.
The question remains.... why is it OK for Joe to remove Constitutionally granted rights from citizens?


It's not.


Bingo. And he even copped to it so I don't see how he can be defended in any circumstance.


Cheap.

You omitted the rest of my post.

Shame on you.


The rest of your post is irrelevant. Using another entity to give Joe a pass isn't going to cut it.


Not irrelevant. Putting it into perspective.


Don't see why we need "perspective" when he's admitted to it and YOU said he shouldn't be doing what he did.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer




We've got people ON THIS THREAD who will support and defend the government violating the law


Who?



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

But don't you see?

Obama, by using selective enforcement, allowed Joe to continue at a controlled pace.

Obama got himself a controlled scapegoat.

Now the selectivism gets amplified as needed.

In the meantime, the illegal immigrant flooding continues unabated.

Clever how they did it.




posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: buster2010

But don't you see?

Obama, by using selective enforcement, allowed Joe to continue at a controlled pace.

Obama got himself a controlled scapegoat.

Now the selectivism gets amplified as needed.

In the meantime, the illegal immigrant flooding continues unabated.

Clever how they did it.



OR, to quote Harvey Dent, "Okay, fine. you either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

Again, as with Beez, are you saying that to stem II it's OK to remove citizens rights?



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

You mean the illegal immigration that has been cracked down on harder by Obama than any president since before Reagan?



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

While the Fed goes after Joe, the attractiveness of coming to the US illegally still exists and you cannot deny that it is a very attractive.

go here to see why it is attractive.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

What the fed should be doing is to stop making it so attractive to come over illegally not pick on a sheriff trying to do his job in upholding the constitution and the laws of the land.


edit on 26-7-2015 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

But papers checks are and that is what he was doing.

You can't use law enforcement to walk up to people and make then prove they are citizens.

And it is racial profiling when you see some one that looks 'illegal' because they are brown.


If you have a large number of brown people invading across the southern border, you don't look for really pale people as suspects. He didn't just shop any and all Hispanics, either, from what I can gather, but those that looked suspicious in some way. Nothing wrong with that. Cops can pull someone over on suspicion, and if I have to show my ID when pulled over, then so does everyone else, no matter their color.

Our vehicle was pulled over once, by someone looking for a similar vehicle, and ID was asked for. No one screamed about profiling, either. Another time, when a van almost identical to mine almost plowed down a kid, and the driver looked similar to me, I didn't get offended that I was checked out, either. It's simple common sense.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Still doesnt change the fact Arpaio has a long list of constiutional violations.

The queastion is why was he not stopped sooner?


Id be less pissed at him being finnaly stopped and more about why so long.


If the GOP is ever going to win again then it needs to rid itself of the crazies and mad dogs,
edit on 26-7-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: xuenchen

While the Fed goes after Joe, the attractiveness of coming to the US illegally still exists and you cannot deny that it is a very attractive.



www.abovetopsecret.com...


And that justifies Joe removing citizens rights? What is so hard about that question? Is it OK because they are Latino? It's not like he was going to go after citizen John Smith.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

since when do illegals have citizens rights. Migrant workers are not citizens even if on a visa they are still foreign nationals. And foreign legal citizens are often harboring illegals for profit.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join