Author Topic: Arizona may require Obama to show his birth certificate to be on the ballot  (Read 6607 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ghost of Stan Parrish

  • Cats, man
  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1790
    • View Profile
Arizona (illegal alien) bill signed into law.  And Karl Rove =  :facepalm:

The Republicans are successfully delivering the fastest growing voting bloc in the country to the Democrats.  Good for them, I guess.

Yes, how dare Arizona politicans run roughshod over the 23% of voters who actually oppose the new law.

 :users:

That's not relevant to my point.  Karl Rove doesn't care if this law was popular or unpopular in the general population in Arizona.

It's insulting to Latinos, and they are by far the fastest growing demographic group in the country.  That's why Rove wanted the Republicans to court them, not to piss them off.

A party purged of everyone but conservative white men is not a party with a bright future.
"I'm thankful our MHK forefathers had the foresight to lynch white dudes so that we might be able to throw up the mob with a clear conscience."

Offline Paul Moscow

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1812
    • View Profile
Who would of thought a state full of tea baggers could be so socialist?  :runaway:
« Last Edit: April 26, 2010, 09:34:24 AM by Paul Moscow »

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6994
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Arizona (illegal alien) bill signed into law.  And Karl Rove =  :facepalm:

The Republicans are successfully delivering the fastest growing voting bloc in the country to the Democrats.  Good for them, I guess.

Yes, how dare Arizona politicans run roughshod over the 23% of voters who actually oppose the new law.

 :users:

That's not relevant to my point.  Karl Rove doesn't care if this law was popular or unpopular in the general population in Arizona.

It's insulting to Latinos, and they are by far the fastest growing demographic group in the country.  That's why Rove wanted the Republicans to court them, not to piss them off.

A party purged of everyone but conservative white men is not a party with a bright future.

I don't understand this mentality. It's like saying "arresting child molesters is insulting to priests".

A large number of Latinos are dead set against illegal immigration.

Offline Paul Moscow

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1812
    • View Profile
Arizona (illegal alien) bill signed into law.  And Karl Rove =  :facepalm:

The Republicans are successfully delivering the fastest growing voting bloc in the country to the Democrats.  Good for them, I guess.

Yes, how dare Arizona politicans run roughshod over the 23% of voters who actually oppose the new law.

 :users:

That's not relevant to my point.  Karl Rove doesn't care if this law was popular or unpopular in the general population in Arizona.

It's insulting to Latinos, and they are by far the fastest growing demographic group in the country.  That's why Rove wanted the Republicans to court them, not to piss them off.

A party purged of everyone but conservative white men is not a party with a bright future.

I don't understand this mentality. It's like saying "arresting child molesters is insulting to priests".

A large number of Latinos are dead set against illegal immigration.

And a large number of Priests are dead set against molesting children. But that doesn't mean that every priest (or person that looks like a priest) wants to be stopped by the authorities in public and asked if they've ever molested children in their lifetime.




Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6994
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Arizona (illegal alien) bill signed into law.  And Karl Rove =  :facepalm:

The Republicans are successfully delivering the fastest growing voting bloc in the country to the Democrats.  Good for them, I guess.

Yes, how dare Arizona politicans run roughshod over the 23% of voters who actually oppose the new law.

 :users:

That's not relevant to my point.  Karl Rove doesn't care if this law was popular or unpopular in the general population in Arizona.

It's insulting to Latinos, and they are by far the fastest growing demographic group in the country.  That's why Rove wanted the Republicans to court them, not to piss them off.

A party purged of everyone but conservative white men is not a party with a bright future.

I don't understand this mentality. It's like saying "arresting child molesters is insulting to priests".

A large number of Latinos are dead set against illegal immigration.

And a large number of Priests are dead set against molesting children. But that doesn't mean that every priest (or person that looks like a priest) wants to be stopped by the authorities in public and asked if they've ever molested children in their lifetime.


That was my point.

The rest is a liberal talking point that has nothing to do with the bill.


Offline pike

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5138
  • BIG GREEN EGG!!!!
    • View Profile
This is a hilarious thread.  I still want Birthers to point to the provision in the Constitution that requires a President be born on US soil.  Of course he was born in Hawaii, so it doesn't matter anyway. 

Speaking of which, how do you feel about all those wetbacks crossing the border in Arizona and having kids here in the States just so they can be citizens and get their free Obamacare?  Seems like a loophole in the law that needs to be closed. 

Now if you want to train to be an Arizona law enforcement officer, you can just learn to say PAPERS PLEASE! 

Quote
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Not a birther, but know your constitution dude.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 16441
    • View Profile
Safe to say there are a lot of Kobach voters in this thread?   Considering the Phil Kline love, can't say I'm too surprised... :facepalm:
@bentren

Offline WillieWatanabe

  • Solid Level Three Poster
  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 17628
  • We'll always have Salt Lake
    • View Profile



LINK

:dunno: **

I don't give two shits about this...but a facebook friend of mine posted this...
Sometimes I think of the Book of Job and how God likes to really eff with people.
- chunkles

The42Yardstick

  • Guest
^^^Not on the correct type of paper, nobama was clearly born in PAHK-i-STAHN

Offline Jeffy

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1590
  • Hello Wilbur.
    • View Profile
Safe to say there are a lot of Kobach voters in this thread?   Considering the Phil Kline love, can't say I'm too surprised... :facepalm:

Why do you hate the Constitution?

Offline Saulbadguy

  • Administrator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 9849
  • what
    • View Profile
Lol, hope Mjrod has his papers ready.
Heh.
Where did you get that overnight bag?

Sugar Dick

  • Guest



LINK

:dunno: **

I don't give two shits about this...but a facebook friend of mine posted this...

At least this one looks/is real

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 16441
    • View Profile
Safe to say there are a lot of Kobach voters in this thread?   Considering the Phil Kline love, can't say I'm too surprised... :facepalm:

Why do you hate the Constitution?

Does the Bill of Rights count?
@bentren

Offline Jeffy

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1590
  • Hello Wilbur.
    • View Profile
Safe to say there are a lot of Kobach voters in this thread?   Considering the Phil Kline love, can't say I'm too surprised... :facepalm:

Why do you hate the Constitution?

Does the Bill of Rights count?

It's ok to hate some of the additional amendments. 

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40087
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Safe to say there are a lot of Kobach voters in this thread?   Considering the Phil Kline love, can't say I'm too surprised... :facepalm:

Why do you hate the Constitution?

Does the Bill of Rights count?

It's ok to hate some of the additional amendments. 

lol

Offline Jeffy

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1590
  • Hello Wilbur.
    • View Profile
Safe to say there are a lot of Kobach voters in this thread?   Considering the Phil Kline love, can't say I'm too surprised... :facepalm:

Why do you hate the Constitution?

Does the Bill of Rights count?

It's ok to hate some of the additional amendments. 

lol

Or are you still in favor of prohibition?

I really like the one about making women suffer.


Offline AzCat

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 949
    • View Profile
There must be a whole lot of racist Hispanics in AZ. :opcat:

Apparently so.  (And poof goes the last lefty talking point / political straw at which to grasp on this issue).   :users:

Offline bakerman

  • Big Salt Spokesperson
  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1698
    • View Profile
There must be a whole lot of racist Hispanics in AZ. :opcat:

Apparently so.  (And poof goes the last lefty talking point / political straw at which to grasp on this issue).   :users:

lol @ black people opposing it more than the "other race" section.   :lol:

Sugar Dick

  • Guest
Question:

What part of the constitution (Amendments included) does this law violate? 

The way I understand it:  1) person gets stopped for doing something suspicious, 2) during the stop person acts suspicious and doesn't have identification, 3) cops report person to some illegal immigrant hotline thingy, 4) the hotline people take the ball from there.

How is this different than when you get a speeding ticket and they check you for warrants?  Just curious why so many people are opposed to this?  Pure partisan politics I assume.

Offline OK_Cat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15298
  • Hey
    • View Profile
Question:

What part of the constitution (Amendments included) does this law violate? 

The way I understand it:  1) person gets stopped for doing something suspicious, 2) during the stop person acts suspicious and doesn't have identification, 3) cops report person to some illegal immigrant hotline thingy, 4) the hotline people take the ball from there.

How is this different than when you get a speeding ticket and they check you for warrants?  Just curious why so many people are opposed to this?  Pure partisan politics I assume.

Racial profiling.  "doing something suspicious" will turn into "that mexican didn't use a blinker, pull his ass over and check for id." 

The whole argument for/against it is a waste of time, because the supreme court will rule it unconstitutional.  Easy case, really.

Offline _33

  • The Inventor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9087
    • View Profile
Love racial profiling.  Great way to catch criminals.

Sugar Dick

  • Guest
Question:

What part of the constitution (Amendments included) does this law violate? 

The way I understand it:  1) person gets stopped for doing something suspicious, 2) during the stop person acts suspicious and doesn't have identification, 3) cops report person to some illegal immigrant hotline thingy, 4) the hotline people take the ball from there.

How is this different than when you get a speeding ticket and they check you for warrants?  Just curious why so many people are opposed to this?  Pure partisan politics I assume.

Racial profiling.  "doing something suspicious" will turn into "that mexican didn't use a blinker, pull his ass over and check for id." 

The whole argument for/against it is a waste of time, because the supreme court will rule it unconstitutional.  Easy case, really.

Which part of the Act calls for racial profiling?  Not to mention "illegal alien" isn't a race.  I think you're going to need years of data supporting this assertion before it can overturn an entire legislative act.

Test question:  which constitutional amendment has been interpreted to prohibit racial profiling?

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 16441
    • View Profile
Question:

What part of the constitution (Amendments included) does this law violate? 

The way I understand it:  1) person gets stopped for doing something suspicious, 2) during the stop person acts suspicious and doesn't have identification, 3) cops report person to some illegal immigrant hotline thingy, 4) the hotline people take the ball from there.

How is this different than when you get a speeding ticket and they check you for warrants?  Just curious why so many people are opposed to this?  Pure partisan politics I assume.

Racial profiling.  "doing something suspicious" will turn into "that mexican didn't use a blinker, pull his ass over and check for id." 

The whole argument for/against it is a waste of time, because the supreme court will rule it unconstitutional.  Easy case, really.

Which part of the Act calls for racial profiling?  Not to mention "illegal alien" isn't a race.  I think you're going to need years of data supporting this assertion before it can overturn an entire legislative act.

Test question:  which constitutional amendment has been interpreted to prohibit racial profiling?

Unreasonable search and seizure, due process.  Research these.
@bentren

Sugar Dick

  • Guest
Question:

What part of the constitution (Amendments included) does this law violate? 

The way I understand it:  1) person gets stopped for doing something suspicious, 2) during the stop person acts suspicious and doesn't have identification, 3) cops report person to some illegal immigrant hotline thingy, 4) the hotline people take the ball from there.

How is this different than when you get a speeding ticket and they check you for warrants?  Just curious why so many people are opposed to this?  Pure partisan politics I assume.

Racial profiling.  "doing something suspicious" will turn into "that mexican didn't use a blinker, pull his ass over and check for id." 

The whole argument for/against it is a waste of time, because the supreme court will rule it unconstitutional.  Easy case, really.

Which part of the Act calls for racial profiling?  Not to mention "illegal alien" isn't a race.  I think you're going to need years of data supporting this assertion before it can overturn an entire legislative act.

Test question:  which constitutional amendment has been interpreted to prohibit racial profiling?

Unreasonable search and seizure, due process.  Research these.

First of all this is wrong.

Second of all, It's a test question, I know the answer I don't need to do the research.  You do.  Hint:  scour your pocket constitution for "equal protection"

P.S. due process is in several amendments

Offline Jeffy

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1590
  • Hello Wilbur.
    • View Profile
Kinda odd that AZ had a bevy of Constitutional Attorneys studying and working on the wording of the law, but yet it's deemed to be unconstitutional by people that haven't read it.