jump to last post 1-32 of 32 discussions (104 posts)

Arizona's most hateful law must be repealed!

  1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago
    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What's so sad is that Louisiana and Arizona or ANY State should even feel the need to enact such legislation;  sad that States have to make laws forbidding things that common-sense tells everyone are already wrong.  But their heads aren't buried in the sand.  They know the lengths to which not only "science" in general, but wicked greedy liberal minds, will push.
      Amen to Arizona for this, and also for taking a patriotic stand on the immigration issue!

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Sooooooooo,

        I take it you're firmly against monkeymen who don't have proper documentation?

        Careful with your answer, Ganeesha sees all.

      2. RKHenry profile image80
        RKHenryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'm kinda with Brenda on this one.  No mixing of DNA, bad idea.  Really bad idea.  She is right, its a shame that AZ and any other state, had to waste hard earned tax dollars, on a common sense issue.  Ron, how many thousands of dollars were spent getting this measure passed?  This issue I bet you cost your state a good $800,000.00 plus. 

        If you could have just 10 percent of that cash, would you spend it on something so foolish?

        1. KFlippin profile image61
          KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I think what is most alarming about 2 states passing such a bill, and one even being introduced but not acted on at the federal level, is that most likely things are going on in the world of genetics and science that we perhaps don't have a clear picture of.  Makes me think of a line of novels about a group of kids that are part human and part other forms of life, the result of human/animal genetic experiments done to create super humans with unusual skills - weapons, actually.  Amusing books, the kids can fly, and lately have developed gills to even swim underwater, all in a very attractive human package of course. smile

    2. profile image68
      paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hi friend

      I think the bill is good.

      Thanks

      I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Oh wow.
        I think that's the first time I've ever agreed with you.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Christians and Muslims have a great deal in common.

          1. profile image0
            Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            NOT really.
            big_smile

            It's just nice to see others who believe it's wrong to experiment with mixing humans & animals in research.

  2. wyanjen profile image89
    wyanjenposted 6 years ago

    Don't wait around for Spiderman to save the day. He bailed out of Arizona, along with the X-Men. You've got yourself a crime-fighter shortage.
    Batman might still be hanging around... he's pure human and he doesn't seem to get offended too easy.

    Best comment EVER:
    "Jesus was a hybrid"

    lol lol

  3. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 6 years ago

    Clearly prejudiced and unwilling to try new things.  There have been a number of successful hybrids besides Jesus (lol) Batman, Spiderman and Wolverine.  I think Dracula counts two, three..two.. I mean too.

    Such silly laws. lol

  4. JON EWALL profile image46
    JON EWALLposted 6 years ago

    Ron Montgomery

    I read the link,can you explain the relation of your head line with the link content.

    Arizona's most hateful law must be repealed ????/

    The immigration law ?????

    Look forward to a reply.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this



      Sure thing JON EWALL, The Arizona legislature has chosen the 2010 session as a good time to show just how much we as a people hate our non-white, and now animal/human bretheren.  The race-baiting immigration law will never be implemented thanks to the courts and the overwhelming love show by the civilized portion of the United States.

      This latest group to feel the wrath of our hatred is actually in much more danger.  Monkeyman, Javalinachick, and Snakeboy (a fellow hubber by the way) do not enjoy the same support among the people as Pedro, Jose', and Los Chicas do (We'll leave Speedy Gonzalez out of it for the time being, he just complicates things.)  I also doubt that any Constitutional protection exists for animal/human citizens of the United States, therefore it is crucial that this law be swiftly repealed before any centaurs, goatboys, or teamonkeys are seriously hurt by Sherriff Joe's animal control troops.

      Thanks for your inquiry, may Ganeesha be with you.

      1. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        At first I couldn't help but chuckle at how ridiculous this is and blew it off but you bring up an important implication to this silly shenanigan. 

        Snakeboy and others like that.  Though they are 100% human I can see that people would use such a f**Ked up law to instigate hate.

        I wonder though, because it is such a ridiculous law, is that they fear not having control over the 'animal/brethren' because they wouldn't really have to follow the laws of the lands. 

        Plus they might have a point, don't get me wrong, I think the whole thing is stupid.  However, if they actually could cross bread a human, which I very much doubt, what happens if they are successful and then have to deal with the moral and ethical complications arriving from a successful 'hybrid'. 

        Who would protect them? What happens if they are all messed up, do you kill them? What if they have the human intellect but look like an animal or something, would they deny them their human rights?

        Never mind, I cannot even believe I am talking about this.

  5. Pearldiver profile image88
    Pearldiverposted 6 years ago

    OMG..... The lifespan of Blow Up Dolls appears to be completely threatened by any bill like this that restricts the use of artificial wombs... including 'counts' yikes  hmm

  6. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 6 years ago

    As a future member of the ACLU and fervent supporter of hybridization of all types I find this new law to be completely bigoted against the interspecial intermingled of this great nation.

  7. Doug Hughes profile image60
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    About 100 years ago, Southern states enacted a method of discriminating against black voters - the poll tax. It worked like this - you had to pay a fee to vote UNLESS your grandfather had voted. This clever little law never mentioned 'black' or 'negro' - and the bigots were just as proud of thier laws as the teabaggers in AZ are of this one.

    This kind of law means anyone who is 'suspected' will be hassled for papers. Cause for suspician will be dark skin - whether the law says so or not. There a millions of LEGAL dark-skinned citizens in AZ. Speeches by rabid conservatives in the AZ legislature leave no doubt WHO the target of this law will be.

    If the situation in AZ is so dire, I would favor establishing a police state in AZ if the citizens want it. Random airport-style screening checkpoints that EVERYONE has to go through - Arrests of ANYONE travelling without papers. Totally colorblind application of oppression. Great. Let's see how long that law lasts when the inconvenence and humiliation of random searches are visited on blue-eyed blondes in Phoenix.

    1. leeberttea profile image61
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I guess you don't know many hispanics. Many that I know aren't "dark" at all. In fact, I'm darker than some of them. Personally I think it much ado about nothing.

  8. profile image61
    foreignpressposted 6 years ago

    I also have to agree that the article has nothing to do with immigration or the situation in Arizona.
       The figure of nearly 500,000 illegals in Arizona is an underestimate. It could be closer to one million, many of whom are using phony documents to tap into the local and state entitlement programs.
       The illegals brought this law on themselves. If all they did was cross the border that would be the end of it. But then they demand the same rights and privileges as American citizens. If these rights aren't handed to them then they use fraud.
       The best way to handle this is to confront the source: Calderon and the Mexican government. Even without the drug wars Mexico would be dysfunctional.
       The well has run dry in Arizona. Creating a police state isn't a bad idea.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wow! What a viscious hate-filled response.

      What did monkeyman ever do to you.

      May Ganeesha strike you down!

      1. profile image61
        foreignpressposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        There's no hate here. It's called being held responsible for your actions. The Mexican government has decreed that it's easier to send its people here than to help them there. You want hate? Try the Mexican legislature -- which is filled with so much corruption and loathing for the common masses that it borders on genocide. I'm surprised Mexico hasn't been investigated by the U.N. for human rights violations.
           Further, the United States has always been held as the solution to everything. Those days are over. If you'd like, I can give you Calderon's phone number. But don't expect anybody to answer.

  9. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    You people should read the law, also stop assuming all police are racist bigots who will abuse thier power. The Law has plenty of ristrictive measures within it to safeguard against abuse by any.

    As for the illigals. Deport them all. Be they Black, Brown or White. Whether or not they are Spanish, Asain, Russain, Arab, etc.

    I don't care about skin color. If your not here legally... then get out, or you will be removed and you will never be able to return legally.

    I am tired of race baiters chumming the tides to create a racail war. I trust the cops to do thier job. And I think their are enough hispanics in the ranks of the police to allow for a sort of built in safeguard. There is no all white police force anywhere that I know of in Arizona.

    I am tired of the, "your white your a racist" shit. Get over it... and get out!

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wow!  You have to be correct, you're ranked #1!

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thats what happens when you have a real life, and only allow for a day or two a month on here.  If that...

        I have better things to do than lecture athiests, Islamic apologists, Liberals, Muslims and children who just don't know. Especially when most on here won't bother to check the facts... but will spew what-ever retoric they have heard spout from where-ever.

        Yup its good to be #1.

        hahahahaha

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Joking of course!  Duplicate material posted?  Just wondering how you can get such a low profile score.  You don't mention conservatives in your post! Why?

          1. TMMason profile image72
            TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Most conservatives I have ever met will look at the thing in question and the facts, regardless of whether they like them or not. ie: the United States now... as compared to the 40s...

            Do you think if conservatives did not check the facts and correct themselves we would have integrated this country? Or freed the slaves within 90 years of our nations birth?

            I don't.

            I think if the conservatives were as fanatically racist and bigoted as the left says. Blacks would still be a second class citizen if not slaves.

            But the truth of it is. America is the most open and tolerant, if not accepting of all peoples and thier beliefs and ways, of any Nation.

            I don't think we would see that if not for conservatives in this country trying to do things right also, and even correcting themselves and each other at times.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Not surprised at all by your response!  So, conservatives saved America.  So freeing the slaves was a conservative idea?

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, plus they successfully implemented child labor laws and environmental regulations.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                  Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  You forgot single handedly winning the world wars and balancing the budgets!  And don't forget their modesty!

                  1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Hoover and Bush certainly ushered in eras of great economic success.

              2. TMMason profile image72
                TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Is that what I said? I think not. I said it wouldn't have happened without the conservatives, also. But read what you want into it. I am and have always been non party independent. both repubs and dems have screwed us kid. not just one or the other.

                You really need to slow down and catch up if you think either party is out to help you. lol thats rich.

                And Lincoln was a republican kid.. lol

                Did you miss that in school? Also. The Christian Abolitionists were the main impetus in freeing the slaves in this country. (Aside from the need for a larger force in the south. But thats another story.) Or are Christians not the conservatives your speaking of?

                And uhhhh.... I don't recall mentioning any love for Hoover or Bush.  (But Hoovers Grand -daughter on fox all the time ain't so bad now.)

                But Again. It's what you think you read, not what the words actually say, that your talking about eh?

                Anything else?

                1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                  Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I have voted Independent many times before too.  But I had to change because an independent candidate has little chance of winning the presidential office. 

                  The Iraq war has shown me how corrupt the last administration was.
                  Yes I know, neither party is very trustworthy, but we killed perhaps hundreds of thousands of people.  For what?  Greed and power!  What in the hell does "Thou shalt not kill" mean anyway?

                  Gotta go with the lesser of "two weevils!"

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      We HAVE read the law #1, and we will fight to the death to protect monkeyman.

  10. DevLin profile image60
    DevLinposted 6 years ago

    Guys? Ron posted about the bias towards minataurs. forgive my spelling. This could affect all those practicing beastiality. sheep need love too. arizona's afraid they're going to try what was being done in europe with human and animal cross breeding. why, I have no idea. something like that would cross the lines of cannibalism rules.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You are wise indeed.

      Ganeesha has blessed you.

  11. leeberttea profile image61
    leebertteaposted 6 years ago

    Oh I don't think that law is about hate at all. In fact I read yesterday ten other states are considering enacting similar laws. This is just frustration with the federal government's failure to address it's responsibilities, securing the borders. It should be relatively simple to build a fence and station border control agents bases in say 25 mile increments perhaps with the appropriate monitoring electronics along the 2000 mile border. Once that is complete they can address what they will do with the people that already are here. Honestly, I don't see why it should be such a big deal.

  12. Ron Montgomery profile image61
    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago

    http://www.stinkypantsfishing.com/Imagines/testimonial.jpg

    Gotta work now.  See y'all later.

    praise Ganeesha!

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Nice catch. What are they? Where did you catch them?

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        They are called trollfish.  They don't put up much of a fight, but they're tasty.

    2. JON EWALL profile image46
      JON EWALLposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Ron
      IS THAT A LEGAL WEIGH LIMIT CATCH ?
      YOU ARE THE ENVY OF ALL FISHERMAN.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I am used to being envied.

    3. KFlippin profile image61
      KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wade fishing for trouts and reds.....excellent job!

    4. profile image0
      china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That is a lot of bait you got there Ron, you going after one of our big Scottish salmon  ?

  13. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago

    Sheesh Ron!
    Who's Ganeesha?  Ain't the flyin' spaghetti monster jealous of your worship of Ganeesha?

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You will have to find Ganeesha for yourself.  He can only be realized through transcendental meditation.

      FSM is too powerful to be jealous.  Your god is the jealous one.

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I see.
        Amen to the last six words.

        Have fun at work. smile

  14. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 6 years ago

    What is more telling about the motives in Arizona regards the passing of H.B. 2281. I think that this bill is arguably worse than 1070.

    I think this act (2281) really tips the ethnocentric goals of the Arizona lawmakers and their base.

  15. Ralph Deeds profile image71
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    From what I've read the Arizona law will be overturned in the courts as several similar laws have been in Texas.

    1. TMMason profile image72
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think so ralph.

      The Law mimics the federal law and there-fore is not unconstitutional. And many differing appeals courts including the 9th circiut has upheld that states ALSO have the right, concurrunt with the federal Govt., to control and secure thier own borders.

      there is no constitutional standing because the law does not conflict with the federal law.

      Nope. It will not be flipped.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well, we'll see. Here's a portion of what the Washington Spectator (a liberal publication) had to say: "Did governor Jan Brewer's legal staff miss the memo? The constitutional challenges to the anti-immigrant bill she singed into law in April have already been litigated in Texas. And everything the federal courts (including the Supreme Court) have said about Texas's attempt to create its own immigration policy suggest that Arizona's "Support Our Law Endorcement And Safe Neighborhoods Act" is a losing wicket.

        "Texas has been using racial profiling ti identify and expel unwanted aliens since the 1850s, when the cities of Sequin and Austin banned Mexicans. The state's nativists were pushed back in 1982, when the Supreme Court reminded them that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment applies to citizens and non-citizens--and that Texas public schools could no longer require students to provide proof of citizenship....

        "Supreme Court Justice Brennan wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority that upheld Judge Wayne Justice's ruling observing: that: 'The 14th Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: 'Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws..."

        1. JON EWALL profile image46
          JON EWALLposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Ralph Deedsp
          The news media, the press and others have distorted the facts in both the Federal and Arizona laws.
          Check out  the actual SB1070 on foxnews.com/yourworld , only 16 pages
          anyone crossing the US borders without permission has broken the US law.

          Supreme Court Justice Brennan wrote ____________'Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' ___-

          1. The key  without due process of law  -- due process means if you break the law you will be arrested and if found guilty be punished according to the law

          2.The equal protection of the laws  mean that citizens too need to be protected against violators of the law by the law

          3.Universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction,
          that includes legal citizens of the US

          What part of the law don't the people understand? You break the law ,you should be punished. The illegals came across of their  free will knowing that they break the law. They disregard the law only because they believe our politicians and government will not act. EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL !
          The law was passed in 1986 , that's 24 years ago, it's time to enforce the law if only for the illegal aliens stealing our taxpayer money by using government entitlements meant for the poor citizens of our nation.
          Pack up and leave Arizona before the law goes into affect on July 29th. The choice to obey the law has finally caught up to your visit. Sorry ,YOU DID BREAK THE LAW.

  16. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 6 years ago

    Foreignpress, why would Mexico be investigated? The U.S. is so deeply involved in Mexican corruption that by "looking into it" they would be uncovering themselves...

    If the United States stood up to corporations, as opposed to enabling policies for their increased profitability around the world, then perhaps we would see real change..

    And Mexican internal instability only aids American venture capital opportunism....it would be nice to make "socialism" fail....and then reinstate Porfiriato-esq "reforms"....benefiting only the wealthy...

    The U.S. and Mexico have to both realistically work for change....which is not a realistic scenario...

  17. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    How sad is that a forum thread cannot stay on topic? roll

    This forum thread has nothing to do with Mexico, or did that escape people posting? WOW!

    Unbelievable! hmm

    1. Sab Oh profile image60
      Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Didn't you know? For those with an agenda to push every thread is about their pet issue regardless of the actual topic.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The thread has plenty to do with Mexico.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah - Arthur was talking about a Mexican chihuahua.

  18. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 6 years ago

    I don't think many people actually checked out the link...

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Ya think?  lol

  19. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    roll

    But, funny too.  lol lol lol

  20. Arthur Fontes profile image89
    Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago

    I was planning a cross breed elephant and chihuahua workshop in Arizona.

    I want a really small elephant.  If I understand correctly this is still a go?

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I expect the trunk would get a LOT of attention from the girls when you walk him.

    2. DevLin profile image60
      DevLinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Don't cross the elephant with a person, they'll let you do whatever with the chihuahua.

  21. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    lol lol lol

  22. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    If you read the link you would not be saying that. Try again? hmm  roll

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Okay. I get your point.

  23. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago

    We have to throw these little fish back around here, Ron!  Unless those are for bait!

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      They are fishchicks.  I gotta save them from Sherriff Joe.

    2. MikeNV profile image71
      MikeNVposted 6 years ago

      If someone breaks into your house and steals your belongings they have broken the law.

      Would you want the police to investigate and enforce the theft?  Of course you would.  Would you care what color race or religion the thief was?  No.

      And this is the same exact issue.

      Illegal is illegal.  You enforce the law or you live in a state of lawlessness.

      The only people who have anything to worry about are the people who are here illegally.

      I support the rights of the citizens of the State of Arizona to take action to put real effort into enforcement.

      The law is already working as those who are illegal are leaving. That's a good thing.

      Anyone here like to pay for the medical care of my friend who was in a hit and run accident caused by an illegal?  She's basically crippled for life now and can't work.  Had she been hit by a legal citizen at least there would have been insurance coverage to cover her expenses.

      The people who side with criminals are in fact themselves criminals.

      1. DevLin profile image60
        DevLinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        you calling monkeyman illegal?

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          And snakeboy by association.

          1. DevLin profile image60
            DevLinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Some people have no focus

    3. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

      "The people who side with criminals are in fact themselves criminals."

      My feelings exactly regarding the Bush/Cheney regime. Multiple crimes, sadistic behavior, and STILL they are cheered!!!

      We are a country full of criminals...and proud of it.

      1. DevLin profile image60
        DevLinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Ron says monkeyman's a saint

      2. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Love you have to let it go... you are obsessed with bush. it is going to eat you up.


        Meds man meds!

        1. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Lovwmychris has a point. He's quoting MikeNV who says,

          "Illegal is illegal.  You enforce the law or you live in a state of lawlessness."

          It's not an opinion - it's a fact . Warrentless wiretapping was illegal.

          It's not an opinion - it's a fact. Torture is illegal.

          It's not an opinion - it's a fact. Invading a foreign country on a false and phony premise (like WMD) so you can steal their oil is a war crime.

          So if your position is -"Illegal is illegal." My question is - Doesn't that go both ways?

          1. Sab Oh profile image60
            Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            " Invading a foreign country on a false and phony premise (like WMD) so you can steal their oil is a war crime."

            Good thing that's NOT what happened then.

    4. TMMason profile image72
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago

      1 I am not convinced of any torture. And water-boarding is not toture.

      2 If the NY Bomber had weapons of mass destruction. Then we most definately found them in Iraq. (Of course we did find them. They are called chemical weapons. Killed thousands of Kurds in one shot. Or were those woman and babies not good enough to count for you lefties.)

      3 Yes Illegal is Illegal. Correct.

      4 those warentless wiretaps we perfectly legal. The F.I.S.A. (LAW) says they  were. Man, thats a no-brainer. Gee I heard somewhere that was put in by Clinton?... IDK?...

      5 Show me the oil from Iraq. Please. Get real. Thats a laugh.

      So yes, it goes both ways. When you have a solid argument.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Regarding the Kurds gassed by Sadam -  From an online editorial by Barbara O'Brian in Mahablog to Secretary of State Colin Powell -

        "Let's not talk about "the world's" reaction to this tragedy, Mr. Secretary. Let's talk about your reaction. In 1988 then senators Claiborne Pell, Al Gore, and Jesse Helms introduced a bill to impose economic sanctions on Iraq in response to its use of chemical weapons. The Reagan White House blocked that bill. You were part of the Reagan White House, Mr. Secretary. "

        That's right. When it happened, and the world knew and Congress on BOTH sides of the aisle wanted to act, Saint Ronnie of Reagan BLOCKED sanctions against our friend, Sadaam Hussain.

        There were no 'weapons of mass destruction' by international standards. Even the Bush White House had to revise and rewrite the excuses for Operation Iraqi Liberation.  O-I -L

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Even if Iraq had had WMD, which it didn't, they posed no threat to the U.S. because Iraq had no means of delivering them. We lived with a threat of actual WMD from USSR and China for 50 years during the Cold War during which time our policy was containment and mutually assured destruction. Bush, without any discussion or thought changed our policy of containment to one of "preemptive strike," i.e., preventive war, and one of his speech writers, David Frum who has since recanted coined the catchy phrase "Axis of Evil."

          If Iraq had had WMD, they might have posed a threat to Israel and other countries in the area. Even more than the oil our invasion was prompted by the Neocons and the Israel lobby. Saddam Hussein apparently was bluffing out of fear of Iran. There is no evidence of his intent to use any weapons of any kind against the United States. Cheney and Bush with the help of the endless parade of neocon "experts" on network TV conflated 911 with Iraq's alleged WMD. Of course, Iraq had nothing to do with 911.

          Of course our crazy invasion of Iraq was not the first time the American people have been lied into a costly war:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5CF5pfVzLI

          1. Sab Oh profile image60
            Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "Even if Iraq had had WMD, which it didn't, they posed no threat to the U.S. because Iraq had no means of delivering them."

            "We lived with a threat of actual WMD from USSR and China for 50 years during the Cold War during which time our policy was containment and mutually assured destruction. Bush, without any discussion or thought changed our policy of containment to one of "preemptive strike,""

            You are not a simpleton. That comment is very transparent political bias and you know it. You should respect yourself more than to engage in such shamelessness.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              What I said is the absolute truth. Why don't you explain what you disagree with instead of posting unsupported opinions as is your wont?

              1. Sab Oh profile image60
                Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Why are demeaning yourself in this way? Is just being partisan that important to you?

                I find it hard to believe that you really can't figure out how an enemy could harm US interests with WMD in any other manner than shooting an ICBM into a major city. Is the concept truly beyond you? I had thought better of you. The same disappointed conclusion applies to your apparent inability to see why containment was employed against enemies we shared MAD with but was never a declared restriction on our approach to all countries.

                Of course you know all this well enough. You are just so committed to being unrelentingly and mindlessly partisan that you have no shame about it.

                1. profile image0
                  china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  As usual you are engaging in petty insults because you cannot answer a question.

                  WMD did not exist - the administration you support lied to us, including you.  This is not a difficult fact to answer without insults, except that you have no answer.

                  1. Sab Oh profile image60
                    Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    "WMD did not exist - the administration you support lied to us"


                    The fact that you cannot separate those two statements shows how your political bias rules your thinking.

                    1. profile image0
                      china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      Look - let me make this real simple for you

                      the WMD were the lie

                      how can you separate the two

                      Your statement is moronic in its content and childish in its expression.

                2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                  Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Iraq had absolutely no inclination nor any reason to harm the United States. We were their ally in their war with Iran. Iran and Israel were their enemies. Saddam Hussein kept terrorists out of his country and kept the lid on religious strife. Detroit has received 12,000 Iraqi Christian refugees since our invasion, fleeing persecution by Muslim zealots or fear of getting caught in the crossfire between Sunnis and Shiites.

                  1. TMMason profile image72
                    TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Thats Islam Ralph. The Religion of love and peace.

                    Wait till we leave... lolol... it'll be a mass slaughter among themselves.

                    1. alternate poet profile image78
                      alternate poetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      You have already perpetrated mass slaughter among them - and caused the instability and opened up the divisions that lead to further mass slaughter - what is it that you find funny about that?

            2. lovemychris profile image80
              lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              It's the dam truth.
              PNAC...they wrote a letter to CLINTON to invade Iraq for god's sakes! Wanted a "regime change". Said they needed a "Pearl Harbor type incident" to further their agenda. (hello 9/11)
              Neo-Con Zionists....and Bushs's administration was chock full of them...lot of them still there if you believe an article written by Seymour Hersh....and I do. They're called "stay behinds" and apparently they still report to Chin Chin Cheney.
              I read a guy named Benjamin Fulford--used to write for Forbes magazine, anyway, he says the satanists in America are looking for a country to go to since the public is going to be flipping out mad when they find out what they've done.....
              I say don't worry about it, we already know and people don't give a sh*t!
              They cheered Cheney at CPAC! They were chanting in the audience 2012  2012....

              Doug Hughes and Ralph Deeds are right. The tea-baggers have the potential to destroy this country---and the leaders are working on it if you ask me....diligently!
              And you people who love the Republicans don't CARE what laws were broken, what SADISTIC torture they allowed on fellow human beings, How they CORRUPTED the economy to favor their friends....you just don't care.

              You say "Oh Ho...Obama is a foreigner, a socialist, a muslim...blah biddy blah blah blah

              What about the crimes of the former administration? What are we goiong to do about that???..
              zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

              So don't talk about Obama...he's a SAINT compared to your rogues.
              And until you deal with them, your "righteous anger" rings hollow.

    5. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

      Regarding invading Iraq for the Oil - From the Ny Times - June 19, 2008 Note "NO-BID Contracts"

      "The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.

      There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq's Oil Ministry."

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Regarding Warrentless Wiretapping - From LAST MONTH -

        "April 01, 2010|By Carol J. Williams

        "In a repudiation of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism surveillance program, a federal judge ruled Wednesday that the government violated federal law when it failed to seek warrants to spy on two lawyers working for an Islamic charity in Oregon."

        Mason - Do you only watch FOX  and listen to Rush? That might explain why you are unfamiliar with the news.

    6. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

      On Waterboarding - From CBS Nov. 1 2007

      "Waterboarding, long considered a form of torture by the United States, produces a gag reflex and makes the victim believe death is imminent. The technique leaves no visible physical damage.

      Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, considers waterboarding a form of torture. McCain has been quoted as saying that waterboarding is "no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank."

      After World War II, U.S. military commissions prosecuted several Japanese soldiers for subjecting U.S. soldiers to waterboarding, according to Human Rights Watch. In 1968, a U.S. soldier was court-martialed for water boarding a Vietnamese prisoner. "

      You can't prosecute the Japanese after WWII and American soldiers in Vietnam for torture by waterboarding and then declare it NOT torture in 2007. Not in a sane world.

    7. profile image61
      foreignpressposted 6 years ago

      So getting back to Arizona and away from international politics, I'm still trying to figure out what the liberals want regarding immigration.
         Do you want open borders? Do you want foreign nationals to walk around without carrying documentation? Are you saying illegals have a right to be in this country and that we should take care of them?
         This is hideous. These arguments keep going in circles and I've yet to hear a clear-cut justification for allowing in tens of millions -- if not hundreds of millions -- of illegals.
         Everybody talks about "immigration reform" and a so-called guest worker program. But we have a guest worker program and it's a joke. Foreign nationals enter this country legally and then they disappear after their legal stay has expired.
         The core question isn't about SB1070. It's illegal immigration. So what in hell do liberals want?

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I can only speak for myself - not all liberals. I am not a fan of open borders but I think human smuggling will continue as long as we will provide work for them. The Chamber of Commerce has been central in preventing any discussion of penalties for employers who employ droves of illegal aliens. I think we need a fail-safe worker ID system that employers would be required to use. IMO without it, you are playing whack-a-mole with hispanics for fun and amusement - to no real benefit.

        Comprehensive immigration reform means considering the issue of  what level of services will be provided or denied (based on a fail-safe ID method).  Who gets to stay and who would be deported has to be hashed out in comprehensive reform. It will be a compomise - no one will be completely satisfied. How much border security we want - and how we pay for it has to be worked out - but IMO NO border security will be more than a deterrent while business is actively recruiting illegal aliens. Build a bill around a worker ID system with strict penalties for violations and you have the foundation of a working bill.

    8. profile image61
      foreignpressposted 6 years ago

      (Applause)

      That's the most reasonable answer I've heard.

      Now, let's get it done.

    9. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

      How We Got Into This Imperial Pickle:
      A PNAC Primer
      Bernard Weiner
      Co-Editor, The Crisis Papers
      May 26, 2003

      ****
      blast from the past: pnac's 1998 letter to clinton

      ****

      Think Progress ยป Hersh: Cheney 'Left A Stay Behind' In Obama's ..

      ****
      Just google PNAC or Seymour Hersh and stay-behinds.

    10. MikeNV profile image71
      MikeNVposted 6 years ago

      Ignorance is rampant.

      All the Arizona law does is allow the people of Arizona to enforce the existing Federal Laws.

      How people can support chasing "Terrorists" and at the same time do absolutely nothing to protect our borders is laughable.

      Illegal is NOT a race.

     
    working