Neo Nazi Influence in Arozona Law

[MercuryJones]

I take very little Rachel Maddow says seriously. She's a pundit, not a journalist.

I fail to see your point. If the facts are accurate I hardly see how her job matters.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

OMG why isn't JYStar rushing in here to bash someone for comparing someone to a neo-nazi? HURRY!

Lol it does disgust me that people feel they are entitled to decide who comes here and who doesn't. People should mind their own business. I looked at these white racist redneck protesters and they are all fucking obese and have a major percent of their teeth missing or rotted yellow. They wanna bitch their rights are being violated why don't they look at themselves and their own corrupt morals. They claim the gop is God's party yet if Jesus came down to earth he'd be bitching them out I'm sure. The funny thing is, Arizona belonged to Mexicans originally anyway.

 

[MercuryJones]

OMG why isn't JYStar rushing in here to bash someone for comparing someone to a neo-nazi? HURRY!

I don't know who JYStar is, but to clarify: I am not comparing anyone to a neo-Nazi. The person in question is self identified as a neo-Nazi.

 

[MercuryJones]

Where is Arozona? I've never heard of this country, is it somewhere in Europe?

No, it's in the Middle East near Fukoffistan.

 

[Jack Springer]

Get a grip guys. The people of Arizona are scared because people are getting killed and the federal government refuses to do anything about it. Is it better if they just let it happen and let more people get killed?

One more thing . . . . . stop the shit talk about Nazi's. Everyone calls everyone else a Nazi too much anymore -- it's losing its effectiveness.

 

[MercuryJones]

One more thing . . . . . stop the shit talk about Nazi's. Everyone calls everyone else a Nazi too much anymore -- it's losing its effectiveness.

Do you have a reading comprehension disability?

Or do you think it's not okay to call people who march under a neo-Nazi flag neo-Nazis? Because here he is:

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

Get a grip guys. The people of Arizona are scared because people are getting killed and the federal government refuses to do anything about it. Is it better if they just let it happen and let more people get killed?

Violating the civil rights of people BORN IN AMERICA with Hispanic heritage isn't going to help that. We all know this is just scared white people desperate to remind the dark-skinned Americans of their "place."

One more thing . . . . . stop the shit talk about Nazi's. Everyone calls everyone else a Nazi too much anymore -- it's losing its effectiveness.

If it walks like a duck...

 

[Kulindahr]

We all know this is just scared white people desperate to remind the dark-skinned Americans of their "place."

But it isn't. There's a lot of support from legal Hispanic immigrants on this topic. There's enough resentment that it can be found up here where a lot of farmhands are immigrants. A massive INS raid that snagged nearly a hundred illegals was called by established Hispanics here (if the businesses involved do it again, they'll probably go bankrupt, BTW).

And it's about violence, about Mexican drug gangs running weapons into the U.S. and bringing their fights here. Of course we could bring that to an end by ending the government subsidy of violent crime know as the "War on Drugs", but no one in government has the good sense to try that.

Yes, the people who introduced it, etc., are basically neo-Nazis. But they managed it because there are a lot of legitimate reasons people have for wanting the immigration laws actually enforced.

Not that I see any change in that -- the money men who pull the politicians' strings probably like having the illegals here, so why would any politician actually want to fix the problem?

 

[JB3]

OMG why isn't JYStar rushing in here to bash someone for comparing someone to a neo-nazi? HURRY!

Lol it does disgust me that people feel they are entitled to decide who comes here and who doesn't. People should mind their own business. I looked at these white racist redneck protesters and they are all fucking obese and have a major percent of their teeth missing or rotted yellow. They wanna bitch their rights are being violated why don't they look at themselves and their own corrupt morals. They claim the gop is God's party yet if Jesus came down to earth he'd be bitching them out I'm sure. The funny thing is, Arizona belonged to Mexicans originally anyway.

And it doesn't now, so what's your fucking point?

Look, we ARE entitled to decide who comes here because the law has already decided that. These people are here in violation of federal law, and they need to suffer the consequences for breaking the law.

P.S. Once again, you've resorted to b.s. blanket assertions about those with which you disagree. It makes you look petty and ignorant, especially if you're trying to make a point.

 

[NotThatCreative]

I like Rachel Maddow. I think she's an awesome woman and I find her entertaining (though I also find her annoying at times, which is why I don't much watch her). She, however, is prone to a line of thought I mistrust deeply, and that's guilt by association.

Assuming you watch her show, then you'll know she especially loves to do this with The Family on C Street. There's another pundit/journalist (which one she is really doesn't matter, to be honest. All are biased, and as long as their information is good who cares what their job title is) who likes to engage in this sort of guilt by association, from the other side of the aisle, and that's Glenn Beck. Who is also entertaining, a good guy, and sometimes annoying (I don't much watch him either).

If you buy into this reasoning, power to you I guess. But if you think most laws can't be, in some way, traced to an unsavory group or person, you don't know enough about lawmaking in this country. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning it. That's the price we pay for having access to our lawmakers and it's a price I think well worth it.

Take all the stuff said about who President Obama's associated with, for example. He's known and been friendly with some rather unfriendly people. That doesn't mean he himself is bad. And, quite frankly, as he's from Chicago, it's kind of inevitable.

My point is that maybe it does have neo-Nazi connections. So what? Neo-nazis aren't evil incarnate, and something shouldn't be thought of as a bad idea simply because a certain group was involved. It should be judged on its merits. If they were trying to convince us a certain set of facts is true, then of course you'd take into account their credibility and slant on the topic area in question. But this isn't that. So who cares what the bill's origins are?

 

[MercuryJones]

Take all the stuff said about who President Obama's associated with, for example. He's known and been friendly with some rather unfriendly people. That doesn't mean he himself is bad. And, quite frankly, as he's from Chicago, it's kind of inevitable.

If this were simply a case of people having historic connections, you'd have a point But this is a case of the people who wrote and take credit for the law being very explicitly white supremacists, neo-Nazis and eugenecists.

My point is that maybe it does have neo-Nazi connections. So what? Neo-nazis aren't evil incarnate, and something shouldn't be thought of as a bad idea simply because a certain group was involved. It should be judged on its merits. If they were trying to convince us a certain set of facts is true, then of course you'd take into account their credibility and slant on the topic area in question. But this isn't that. So who cares what the bill's origins are?

And as I said in the original post, law must stand on its own. That said, for people at all concerned with domestic terrorist groups (which IMO includes neo-Nazis), it's worth noting their activities.

 

[SoulSearcher]

My point is that maybe it does have neo-Nazi connections. So what? Neo-nazis aren't evil incarnate

No? How about incarnated sacks of Satan's excrement?

 

[NotThatCreative]

If this were simply a case of people having historic connections, you'd have a point But this is a case of the people who wrote and take credit for the law being very explicitly white supremacists, neo-Nazis and eugenecists.



And as I said in the original post, law must stand on its own. That said, for people at all concerned with domestic terrorist groups (which IMO includes neo-Nazis), it's worth noting their activities.

By all means, note their activities. But this law isn't bad because of who wrote it. Even Adolf Hitler wrote one or two good laws. It's not only guilt by association, but it's a setting up of cardboard villains, and that's just not the reality we live in.

For example, I detest most tea partiers. Especially the extreme ones who always get news coverage. But as a libertarian socialist I agree with some of their points, like fiscal responsibility. If they were to write a bill that handled fiscal responsibility in a practical manner, I'd support it even though I don't care for the group that wrote it.

"No? How about incarnated sacks of Satan's excrement?"

I have to give you credit for humor on that one. But...

Intolerance of intolerance is still intolerance. There's a strong case to be made that we don't control our beliefs as much as we'd all like to think we do. As long as they're not running around beating the shit out of blacks or crucifying jews, I have no problem with them exercising their rights of speech, assembly, petition, etcetera. And though I believe firmly that they're wrong, they believe just as firmly I'm wrong. People's ethics are often determined by the situation they find themselves in, their perceptions, their upbringing, etcetera. If you were in their shoes, you might be the same way. The same applies to me.

 

[Kulindahr]

My point is that maybe it does have neo-Nazi connections. So what? Neo-nazis aren't evil incarnate, and something shouldn't be thought of as a bad idea simply because a certain group was involved. It should be judged on its merits. If they were trying to convince us a certain set of facts is true, then of course you'd take into account their credibility and slant on the topic area in question. But this isn't that. So who cares what the bill's origins are?

Caring about a bill's origins is always a good thing. It's happened in the past that someone with an agenda will get a few good things passed so people trust them, then start bringing in not-so-good things but people don't look too close because they trust the source. Or they'll bring in one thing that looks good, then a different one, then another, but the pieces start coming together in a way that isn't good at all.

So knowing that this bill arose out of the neo-Nazi toilet, however much it looks like shiny porcelain on the outside, will help people (1) scrutinize it more closely and (2) watch out for these guys in the future.

Never trust a law from a supremacist group, whether Aryan Skinheads or Focus on the Family.

 

[MercuryJones]

By all means, note their activities. But this law isn't bad because of who wrote it. Even Adolf Hitler wrote one or two good laws. It's not only guilt by association, but it's a setting up of cardboard villains, and that's just not the reality we live in.

And I said in my original post, as well as in follow up, the law must stand or fall on its own merits.

Is there a reason you're telling me something I've already stated more than one time?

Intolerance of intolerance is still intolerance.

And if someone suggested these people should have less than full equal rights you'd have a point. They are tolerated.

 

[NotThatCreative]

"And I said in my original post, as well as in follow up, the law must stand or fall on its own merits.

Is there a reason you're telling me something I've already stated more than one time?"

It should be noted that you and I aren't the only ones to post in this thread, and my original post in no way referenced your post. So I made the assumption, quite reasonably given that you quoted me in your next post, that you felt that a bill's origins were intertwined with its merits. Since apparently we agree that that's not the case, I'll let the matter rest here.

Caring about a bill's origins is always a good thing. It's happened in the past that someone with an agenda will get a few good things passed so people trust them, then start bringing in not-so-good things but people don't look too close because they trust the source. Or they'll bring in one thing that looks good, then a different one, then another, but the pieces start coming together in a way that isn't good at all.

So knowing that this bill arose out of the neo-Nazi toilet, however much it looks like shiny porcelain on the outside, will help people (1) scrutinize it more closely and (2) watch out for these guys in the future.

Never trust a law from a supremacist group, whether Aryan Skinheads or Focus on the Family.

The first paragraph is a slipper slope argument, which is a logical fallacy and thus I really don't need to address it. Even Stalin had some good laws, and I refuse to get caught up by a hypothetical slippery slope future.

The second paragraph is answered by the fact that this bill has its own merits, on which I judge it to be bad. Any bill that fundamentally changes such a major issue in a state or the nation at large should be scrutinized regardless of what groups were involved in its making. It came from that oft-oppressor the state, did it not? I question all laws passed down, especially if they increase government power.

The third paragraph is more hatred on groups you disagree with. I don't need their involvement to mistrust a law though. The government's involvement is quite enough for that. And I don't think their involvement should prompt an abnormal amount of distrust. As I've said, it's guilt by association and setting up cardboard villains. The reality I live in is notably more gray than that.

 

[MercuryJones]

^ ^ ^

Sarah Palin, is that you?

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

"Nazi," "Racist," and "Racial Profiling" are nothing but red herrings. They mean nothing anymore.

Unless you're not white.

 

[PrivateTimm]

Laws must stand or fall on their own ..... blah, blah, bl

Rachel Maddow as your source? Really? What would you do if someone here quoted Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh as a source?

 

[MercuryJones]

Rachel Maddow as your source? Really? What would you do if someone here quoted Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh as a source?

The information presented does not rest on the authority of the source, as it is not a matter of opinion. It's accurate or its not. If you would like to point out an inaccuracy, please do.

Same would apply to Beck or Limbaugh.