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.

 

Teapartiers: What an outrage!

page: 21
33
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
damn 2x post monster has struck again...

[edit on 26-4-2010 by Xtrozero]




posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by dualsweat
 


Very true and very funny. Other borders are extremely closed off and detection after crossing is a major crime even the death penalty.

So we have lots of polarized views, but is there one person here that..

1. Doesn’t want to see physical control on all borders?
2. Doesn’t want to see a robust workers visa program?
3. Doesn’t want Illegals to be registered and need limited worker visas too?
4. Doesn’t want other nations the chance for worker visas and not just Mexico?
5. Doesn’t want state/fed service programs, schools, hospitals etc to get the illegals in the position to also pay or out so states don’t continue to go bankrupt?

We do need workers, but we do not need undocumented slave workers. They could pay a tenth of what they pay to come across the border for their visas and work for the season and go back, rinse and repeat. It will help them, allow others the chance too also work and actually get the numbers we need to have from many nations and not 25 million Mexicans…oh and the cost of the visas will pay for all the border protection…

Everyone know this new law is way over the top, but it is doing what its true intension was to do, and that was to get the Feds to aggressively act on this problem, and do the five things above and not just spin their wheels passing the buck to the next president on something they just do not want to touch.


[edit on 26-4-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Angus123
 

So now you are going to try to tell me Bush made the decision to use tax payer dollars to bail out GM. Man are you lost or what?
I also asked where in the constitution it gives the president the power to completely take over private sector companies.
While we are at it where in the constitution does it give the president the power to force citizens to buy a product?(healthcare)



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by Angus123
 

So now you are going to try to tell me Bush made the decision to use tax payer dollars to bail out GM. Man are you lost or what?
I also asked where in the constitution it gives the president the power to completely take over private sector companies.
While we are at it where in the constitution does it give the president the power to force citizens to buy a product?(healthcare)


He hasn't "completely taken over." And we were talking about the overall stimulus package... and you bloody well know it.

You are confusing your opinions (uninformed as they are) with reality. With every new screed you move the goal post to support your flimsy rantings. Don't waste time denying it. Nobody can possibly be that naive... or flat out stupid. You know very well what you're doing.

So beware dude... the big scary black secret muslim communist non-native closet gay coke-head socialist is coming for your guns!



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Angus123
 

We were talking about the firing yes I said firing of the CEO of GM and the tax payers bailing them out. You can not find one post where I said anything about the overall bailout. But heck Let's say I did. Show me where it says in the constitution it gives the president the power to take over a private sector company and use the citizens money to bail that company out. Please post that.

Are you always this hostile. Can't we try to have a civil conversation.
Chill out. I certainly don't know you well enough to be your enemy.


[edit on 27-4-2010 by rick1]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by Angus123
 

We were talking about the firing yes I said firing of the CEO of GM and the tax payers bailing them out. You can not find one post where I said anything about the overall bailout. But heck Let's say I did. Show me where it says in the constitution it gives the president the power to take over a private sector company and use the citizens money to bail that company out. Please post that.

Are you always this hostile. Can't we try to have a civil conversation.
Chill out. I certainly don't know you well enough to be your enemy.


[edit on 27-4-2010 by rick1]


It has been shown... over and over... that he has done no such thing.
I don't want you as an enemy either. I'm sure that disagreements aside you're a good person.

But you keep making the same false assertion, and the frustrating thing is I honestly don't think you know that.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Angus123
 

Are you saying Obama didn't bail out GM with tax payer dollars?
I used the term fire just to get your goat for a little fun. I didn't say it to make a false statement. That's why I INTENTIONALLY said it twice so you'd take it as a joke but I guess It wasn't that funny huh?



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by Angus123
 

Are you saying Obama didn't bail out GM with tax payer dollars?
I used the term fire just to get your goat for a little fun. I didn't say it to make a false statement. That's why I INTENTIONALLY said it twice so you'd take it as a joke but I guess It wasn't that funny huh?


We know that the Congress and Obama bailed out GM. My problem with that I think is different than yours. When Wall St. came looking for a hand out to save their asses, the government gave them like 7 or 8 hundred BILLION no questions asked.
The auto industry needed their asses saved and Obama and the Congress acted like they deserved little more than scorn, attached all kinds of conditions and grudgingly gave them a FEW billion.

So although I don't believe Obama is the messiah but in general support him, the disconnect between Washington's willingness to pander to Wall St. and their veiled contempt for Main st. Annoys the crap out of me.
The theatrics at today's hearing with Goldman were just that however. Theatrics.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by Angus123]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Anything that is restrictive to a person of color is ok with the Tea party gang

It's similar to the hypocrisy of encouraging the bombing abortion clinics and applauding when the state executes a prisoner.

& these people call themselves Christain [christ-like]


yeah right!



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Angus123
 



The auto industry needed their asses saved and Obama and the Congress acted like they deserved little more than scorn, attached all kinds of conditions and grudgingly gave them a FEW billion.


A FEW billion? I would disagree; it was $50 billion. And it was a waste of money. They got the bailout because they were considered "too big to fail". Well, even with the bailout, they failed. The end result was the same: bankruptcy.

Obama should not be interfering in the private markets. Let troubled companies file bankruptcy and reorganize their debt. Who is Obama to choose which companies should win and which companies should lose? He should keep his socialistic fingers out of the market.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by dalek
Anything that is restrictive to a person of color is ok with the Tea party gang


I assume you have some sort of proof that every person in the tea party wants to restrict those who are any color besides white, right? I'd say it'll be rather interesting to see what sort of proof you have that everyone, myself included since I support the tea parties, is interested in restricting people based on skin tone.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by skunknuts
 


Thank you to the OP for bringing this up...

This law has people outraged in this state (AZ), but for all of the wrong reasons. Certainly, I'm for restricting immigration and tightening up our borders; while I'm also against amnesty and all of the other programs aiming at legalizing illegal immigration right under our noses.

That said, this immigration law here in AZ is a travesty! It sets up a precedent for abuses of power by the police, and is COMPLETELY unconstitutional! This law is a way for them to sneak in legislation under the guise of a popular issue; effectively taking away liberties from the masses without them realizing it.

Immigration reform is one thing, but this law strips a constitutional freedom away from ALL Americans of every race, elasticity, and background.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by bigdaddy7ftr
 




That said, this immigration law here in AZ is a travesty! It sets up a precedent for abuses of power by the police, and is COMPLETELY unconstitutional! This law is a way for them to sneak in legislation under the guise of a popular issue; effectively taking away liberties from the masses without them realizing it.

Immigration reform is one thing, but this law strips a constitutional freedom away from ALL Americans of every race, elasticity, and background.


There is nothing unconstitutional about the AZ law. People are still as secure in their papers as before. They are not subject to unwarranted searches any more than before. This law merely gives LEO the right to ask for proof of citizenship, something they should have been able to do all along.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   
I found this posted somewhere and I think it is Very Relevant to the Tea Party.

Tea Party Code...

Benefits MY agenda and beliefs: Government GOOD
Benefits someone elses: Government BAD
Benefits someone elses and I have to help pay for it: Government VERY BAD
Benefits MY agenda, my beliefs and I have to help pay for it: MY TAXES ARE TOO HIGH
Benefits My wallet through Government handout: Getting back what I was FORCED to pay in
Benefits other persons wallet through Government handout: Lazy, worthless, welfare queen
Benefits poor people but not me: SOCIALISM
Benefits me but not poor people: I EARNED IT
Benefits ALL people including the poor: COMMUNISM
Benefits uber-wealthy corporations: Free Market Capitalism
Benefits minorities: MARXISM



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by bigdaddy7ftr
 




That said, this immigration law here in AZ is a travesty! It sets up a precedent for abuses of power by the police, and is COMPLETELY unconstitutional! This law is a way for them to sneak in legislation under the guise of a popular issue; effectively taking away liberties from the masses without them realizing it.

Immigration reform is one thing, but this law strips a constitutional freedom away from ALL Americans of every race, elasticity, and background.


There is nothing unconstitutional about the AZ law. People are still as secure in their papers as before. They are not subject to unwarranted searches any more than before. This law merely gives LEO the right to ask for proof of citizenship, something they should have been able to do all along.



Tell me you aren't serious? You don't believe that unlawful detainment, or search and seizure without probably cause are unconstitutional? Citizens are under NO obligation to show papers to ANY police officer, unless there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime either has, or is presently occurring.

Amendment IV of our Bill of Rights reads as follows:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


Unless you are prepared to make the argument that wearing a certain skin color is probable cause to suspect a crime is being committed, I recommend you re-think your position...This law sets a dangerous precedent for citizens of ALL racial backgrounds by granting unconstitutional powers to peace officers. This law has serious implications for everyone, not just Hispanics.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by bigdaddy7ftr]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by skunknuts
 


Shame you did not read the Bill first. Oh well. Party Talking Points never did rely on facts, did they?



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by bigdaddy7ftr
 




Tell me you aren't serious? You don't believe that unlawful detainment, or search and seizure without probably cause are unconstitutional? Citizens are under NO obligation to show papers to ANY police officer, unless there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime either has, or is presently occurring.


It is this kind of disinfo that causes all the confusion about this bill. :shk:

If you had read the bill, you would have seen that "unlawful detainment, or search and seizure without probably cause" are specifically prohibited in this bill.

Tagging a section of the Constitution onto your reply does not make your disinfo any less false.

How can we possibly solve the bigger problems of immigration if people keep spreading this kind of bullcrap? It's impossible.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigdaddy7ftr
Tell me you aren't serious? You don't believe that unlawful detainment, or search and seizure without probably cause are unconstitutional? Citizens are under NO obligation to show papers to ANY police officer, unless there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime either has, or is presently occurring.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by bigdaddy7ftr]


Did you even bother reading what you wrote? "...Unless there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime either has, or is presently occurring." I thought being in the United States of America without entering through appropriate customs offices and without appropriate documentation was a violation of the law - ergo, a crime HAS and IS occurring.

I get what you 're saying, hysterically I should add, as I've seen this same line of thought from you in several threads - BUT this is not some new power being granted to law enforcement. The law already exists federally but since the federal government has ssen fit to ignore it completely, the good people of Arizona enacted the same law at the state level.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by bigdaddy7ftr
 




That said, this immigration law here in AZ is a travesty! It sets up a precedent for abuses of power by the police, and is COMPLETELY unconstitutional! This law is a way for them to sneak in legislation under the guise of a popular issue; effectively taking away liberties from the masses without them realizing it.

Immigration reform is one thing, but this law strips a constitutional freedom away from ALL Americans of every race, elasticity, and background.


There is nothing unconstitutional about the AZ law. People are still as secure in their papers as before. They are not subject to unwarranted searches any more than before. This law merely gives LEO the right to ask for proof of citizenship, something they should have been able to do all along.


Well said, police have not been granted any special powers due to this bill. They still have to have reasonable suspicion, probable cause etc, as always to confront anyone for any reason. This law is not giving a police officer a right to walk up to you because your foreign and say "lemme see your papers". This kind of ignorance of the bill is what is causing the problem. Good for AZ for having some balls. I hope more states do the same.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by bigdaddy7ftr
 




Tell me you aren't serious? You don't believe that unlawful detainment, or search and seizure without probably cause are unconstitutional? Citizens are under NO obligation to show papers to ANY police officer, unless there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime either has, or is presently occurring.


It is this kind of disinfo that causes all the confusion about this bill. :shk:

If you had read the bill, you would have seen that "unlawful detainment, or search and seizure without probably cause" are specifically prohibited in this bill.

Tagging a section of the Constitution onto your reply does not make your disinfo any less false.

How can we possibly solve the bigger problems of immigration if people keep spreading this kind of bullcrap? It's impossible.



Really? First off...I did read the bill, and have read it many times since it was first introduced. Have you?

Here it is, in plain English, the part I am referencing...so maybe we can put this to bed once and for all:

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).


I highlighted the term "lawful contact" for a reason...what does it mean to you? or better yet, what does it mean to the courts? Given the fact that the police are able to perform "welfare checks" and "courtesy checks" on any of our citizenry, without the probable cause of an actual crime taking place, police may now use this to ask anyone they come into contact with for their papers; or proof of citizenship.

Before you start throwing around the "disinfo" tag on anyone who disagrees with your position, perhaps you should take the time to better understand the reasons that so many of us have a problem with the language, and implications of the bill.

For the record, I FULLY SUPPORT the effort to secure our borders, and enforce our immigration policy when an arrest is made. If a crime has already been committed, then I agree that our police officers should determine the citizenship of the offender as they always do...by obtaining a drivers license or I.D., and performing a background check.

This bill takes it one BIG step further, however, granting police with the power of unlawful search and seizure as prohibited by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. It allows the police officers to pry into the lives of private citizens without suspecting an offense of crime has been committed.




top topics



 
33
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join