jump to last post 1-22 of 22 discussions (93 posts)

Arizona Bathroom Bill Requires Birth Certificate

  1. Stacie L profile image88
    Stacie Lposted 4 years ago

    Need a pee in Arizona? Don't forget your birth certificate
    9 hrs ago

    A new "Bathroom Bill" in Arizona, coming up for debate on Wednesday, could conceivably have users of public bathrooms carrying their birth certificates  to prove that they have the right to use one. The new law would require someone to use the public restroom designated for the sex on their birth certificate  or face a misdemeanor charge. It's clearly aimed at undoing a recent Phoenix law making it illegal to discriminate against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people  including in public bathrooms. And of course, it's not the first time Arizonans have taken a close interest in a birth certificate.
    http://now.msn.com/arizona-bathroom-bil … ertificate
    You'll need proof of sex if you want to use the toilet in Arizona soon roll

    1. gmwilliams profile image83
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      More inane and insane laws.   Don't lawmakers have better and more significant issues at hand to worry about?  Now, really!

    2. Gcrhoads64 profile image97
      Gcrhoads64posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      How about I show them my stretchmarks, lol

    3. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Just another bit of reinforcement supporting my general phobia regarding public restrooms. The Right always complains about the costs associated with Government but have no problem wasting tax payers money for mere spite, a byproduct of their endless crusades.  I don't think that the orginal law as passed in Arizona will open the door to lewdness and mayhem, folks will conduct their private business as always.....

      The state becomes all the more crimson red by the hour!

    4. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      If the stupid Phoenix law hadn't been pushed through,  then there'd be no need for a law to fight against that law.
      Same way it is with lots of our Federal laws that have been pushed through----people have to fight them some way, since the Administration and the Supreme Court won't listen to common sense, and instead they listen to the activists who wanted the previous stupid law in place.

      It's a sad situation, really.    Having to make a stupid law in order to counter-act a previous stupid law.  And the wheels go 'round and 'round at the expense of time and money that would've been better spent by citizens to live their daily lives.   (sigh) If ONLY our public Officials would stop the circular stupidity that keeps getting initiated by special interest groups and lifetime political activists who think they have nothing better to do!
      When will it ever end?

      1. Gcrhoads64 profile image97
        Gcrhoads64posted 4 years agoin reply to this

        The law against discrimination is stupid? Wow.

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          No legitimate law against discrimination is stupid unless it seeks to further an agenda which common sense and law have already provided solution to.
          So....the "anti-discrimination" law wasn't legit.  At best, it was unnecessary.  At worst, it actually discriminated against the average person.
          So, no, anti-discriminatory laws aren't (usually) stupid.
          But the Phoenix law was and is.
          And now they're having to make a new law, or else change that stupid law, in order to correct the stupid law that they put in in a rush of pressure from the liberal activists.   Notice that the first law was most likely prompted by that gay Official in Phoenix.......I saw his name and position but right now can't recall it.      Which is why, naturally, citizens are leery about hiring and electing people who are gay----most of them these days who are in public positions want to push a personal agenda on the entire community,  whereas before no one had any reason to doubt their fitness for the job.    It's maddening when someone goes into public service not to do the job at hand, but to tell everyone what kind of sex they like.
          If that's not plain enough for you, then I'll just chalk it up to that circle of confusion that the "gay rights" activists have succeeded in inserting into our daily lives.

          1. Gcrhoads64 profile image97
            Gcrhoads64posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            LOL

      2. wilderness profile image93
        wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Let's hope that the Supreme Court doesn't use their "common sense" (read personal prejudices and opinion of right or wrong) to determine the law!  That's is no part of their job description.

        That isn't even the responsibility of those writing the laws (legislature) - personal morality, prejudices and opinions have no place in determining what controls are necessary in society.

  2. paradigmsearch profile image86
    paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago

    Just make flashing legal. Problem solved.

  3. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    Compulsory public nudity = problem solved. Because not only will we all see what people are packing, but we might possible stop giving a damn about it and about who goes in which pooping stall.

  4. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    Well, if you have to go just pee on the person who requires the birth certificate lol

    You can carry a gun but can't use public washrooms smile

    1. paradigmsearch profile image86
      paradigmsearchposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      +1000

    2. gmwilliams profile image83
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, "logic" at work.    Of course, regressive and neolithic logic is alive and well in good old Arizona.

    3. Seafarer Mama profile image89
      Seafarer Mamaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry, but spraying another with one's bodily fluids is a criminal act, considered an attack with a lethal weapon due to the threat of spreading AIDS or other viruses.

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I always knew my dog was a closet terrorist.

        1. Josak profile image59
          Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          big_smile

  5. usedcarstoronto profile image55
    usedcarstorontoposted 4 years ago

    These politicians need to do what they are paid for, not make our lives miserable

    1. gmwilliams profile image83
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      They are DOING what they are PAID FOR-by the lobbyists and other interests.    They just think of inane things and put them into law.   They feel as if they are the arbiters of our lives and act accordingly.

  6. profile image0
    Peelander Gallyposted 4 years ago

    This kind of stuff is a big part of the reason I left that state.

    Blame Cathi Herrod, that bigoted, homophobic, self-serving lobbyist and disgusting excuse for a human being. She holds way too much sway and should be launched into space.

  7. Nicole Winter profile image59
    Nicole Winterposted 4 years ago

    It never fails to amaze me how some folks just *cannot* stop thinking about what people have in their pants / are doing in their bedrooms.  I mean, seriously, *who* cares?!?  I think lawmakers who pass these types of laws are obsessed, repression has made their hormones seep into their brain and now they can't think about anything else wink

    --- Nicole A. Winter

    1. gmwilliams profile image83
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes indeed.   Sexual repression does have its aftereffects.

  8. Gcrhoads64 profile image97
    Gcrhoads64posted 4 years ago

    Are there not doors on public restroom stalls in Arizona?
    Cannot these lawmakers not find better things to do then waste taxpayer's hard earned money on frivolous bills? I bet the sponsor is a conservative who rails against wasteful government spending. smile

  9. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    It will probably end when people stop caring who goes into which stall.

  10. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    "Common sense" wasn't letting people use the bathroom that best suited them. So, I disagree.

    And I have no idea at all what this has to do with "gay rights". Maybe you are confusing this thread with another topic.

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Nope, I'm not confused.
      Go do a search for the first bill and the current proposal to change that bill.  It's a gay activist piece of fodder.   The whole issue is just one more piece of propoganda designed to insert liberal activism into every are of American life, including an area that should provide some personal privacy----going to the toilet and taking children to the toilet.   Entirely overlooking the rights of mothers and children, and straight men too.    The whole thing is stupid and should've never become an issue.

      1. Gcrhoads64 profile image97
        Gcrhoads64posted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Oh, I see. You don't want people who are "different" looking at your "stuff." Only people who look like you can peek, eh?
        And what rights of children, mothers, and straight men are being overlooked?

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          What the heck are you talkin' about?

          Do YOU want people lookin' at your stuff?  hahaha
          I don't.  Not unless it's my husband!  ha.
          But that's not even the issue here.
          Why did you make it an issue?

          A public bathroom should be a place where nobody looks at anyone's "stuff".   A public bathroom is simply a place to answer the call of nature----to urinate or defecate ....in as much privacy as is possible.   Didn't you know that?   Or do you maybe take it as an opportunity for someone to look at your "stuff" or for you to look at someone else's "stuff"?
          Very odd for you to ask someone that kind of question.

          1. wilderness profile image93
            wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            So you have the privacy of a stall.  What matter who or what sex is in the next stall?

            1. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              It certainly matters if an adult of the opposite sex is in the next stall.
              Women should have the right to privacy, just as men should. And kids too.  Remember that women often need to take their little daughters into the bathroom.   And in some cases, their small son if there's no male adult with them to take them into the men's bathroom.  THAT is acceptable and necessary sometimes.  I personally wouldn't want to have to trust sending a five-year-old boy into a man's bathroom by himself, nor, honestly, a girl into a women's bathroom by herself if I were her father.  But sometimes I suppose a man would have to send their little daughter into the women's bathroom by herself instead of taking her into a man's bathroom where she might see things she shouldn't see.    I've seen some men who wait outside the women's bathroom while some female has volunteered to go in with his daughter, etc., and that's an option if the father feels comfortable with that.  But it is NOT necessary for an adult male to go into a women's toilet, nor is it necessary for an adult female to go to a man's toilet.
              All this was a common situation that people dealt with before, and quite well from what I've heard.  The rest is just nonsense.  Yes, all the carp about transgender this and gay that and all the cries of "discrimination!" are total nonsense.      If a person is physically a male, he needs to go to the men's bathroom.   If a person is physically a female, she needs to go to the women's bathroom.    If the bathroom is "unisex", then I guess the problem is solved already and people just have to deal with it as privately as possible.

              The liberal agenda is a vehicle with the intent of distracting.  Distracting from the norm.  Distracting citizens from already-solved things and taking them off onto a tangent of unnecessary confusion.   All to draw attention to themselves. 
              It's stupid and unnecessary.

              1. wilderness profile image93
                wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                The biggest thing I got out of that was that your young daughter might see "something she shouldn't see" while in the stall with a male in the next stall.

                You're letting your daughter crawl under the stall walls into the next stall?  Or even peek there?  Sounds like it is you, not the quiet gentleman in the next stall, that is in violation of common courtesy.

                Add in that your young son might see that same something vile while you have him in the women's bathroom, or vice versa when your husband takes the daughter into the men's room, and it really does seem like you're digging a very large hole to fall into.

                Probably better to simply teach youngsters that it isn't polite to stare, or even look, but that there is nothing inherently sinful or evil in God's creation of the human body.  If they see something, oh well.  Not a big deal that way.

                1. profile image0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  So you're passing blame off onto KIDS?   And/or to the mother who needs to take her kid into the stall with her?!    "Teach them that it's not polite to stare"??  Oh my God.   
                  Good grief.
                  How about teach men that they should go into a men's bathroom and not a woman's.!!  Surely that's not too hard for 'em to understand.

                  Nobody said there's anything inherently evil with the human body!   But there are plenty of things that little kids shouldn't see.   I thought that was a fact of common knowledge and common decency.
                  Your "quiet gentleman" in the next stall may not be as quiet as you think.   And even if he is, he's an adult and therefore (unlike a kid) responsible for behaving decently, and  it's just common sense to try to keep public bathrooms separated as far as gender goes.
                  I can't understand why you don't understand that.

                  1. wilderness profile image93
                    wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    ??  The kids are the only truly innocent ones here - they have no idea of propriety yet (or they wouldn't be crawling under the stall walls - something we've all seen happen).

                    "I thought that was a fact of common knowledge and common decency"

                    While I might agree with you (and I basically do) others plainly don't.  They don't share your idea of what kids should or should not see - nudist camps and beaches come to mind.  Even nudity within the home.

                    Does that make you right, your opinions or mores correct?  No, of course not - your opinions as to common decency are no better than theirs are.  Even that "common sense" thing is intensely personal and varies widely person to person.

                    In any case, though, if you eliminate urinals in mens rooms you will have stall walls - plenty to keep kids from seeing "what they shouldn't" with just a little supervision.

                2. bBerean profile image60
                  bBereanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Just curious if you think your logic applied in the thread regarding rape, and this one, are consistent?

                  1. wilderness profile image93
                    wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Can the logic of a stone be consistent with that of a trout?

              2. Gcrhoads64 profile image97
                Gcrhoads64posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                So you are saying because of the anti-discrimination law, we now  need a law to make us "prove" what genitalia we have. Sounds rather unnecessary and reactive.

                1. profile image0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  lol

                  No, not exactly.
                  What I'm saying is that the stupidity of the first law is forcing people to make a second law or change the first law so that the discrimination in the first law (against average citizens) doesn't totally get out of control.
                  The advocates of the first law, it seems, bit off more than they could chew.   But hey, it probably makes them happy.   They love love love drama!

                  Both laws are stupid, especially the first one.  Both laws should be stricken from the record and out of sight, to forever never rear their ugly stupid heads again.

                  1. Gcrhoads64 profile image97
                    Gcrhoads64posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Hopefully when discrimination ends, they will be stricken.

              3. Disappearinghead profile image84
                Disappearingheadposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Why the confusion about which toilet a parent should take the child? When my daughter needs the loo I take her into the unisex disabled toilet. The provision of which is mandated by European law. If America is so backward in that unisex disabled facilities are not universally provided, then you canot claim to be the greatest civilisation on Earth. lol

                1. Gcrhoads64 profile image97
                  Gcrhoads64posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  We let our poor people die of preventable causes, too. Ain't we grand!

                2. profile image0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  There was and is no confusion about it to me.  Nor was there to any other people who used common sense.   Everybody dealt with things, did their business, and proceeded on with the rest of daily life.
                  The confusion only came in when liberal activists wanted to have some drama, when they decided that the desires of a few people were more important than the needs of everyone else.

                  1. wilderness profile image93
                    wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    While you might have a "need" for a bathroom, you certainly don't have a "need" for a single sex one.  Just a desire.

          2. Gcrhoads64 profile image97
            Gcrhoads64posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            You are the one saying this bathroom bill was necessary because of the anti-discrimination bill. I'm trying to figure out why you feel the second bill is needed.  Please elaborate.

            1. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              The second bill is needed to correct the stupidity of the first bill.
              The whole issue is stupid.

              For the life of me I don't get why people want to always point out what they like doing in the bedroom, why they think they have a legitimate right to push it onto everybody else.

  11. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    So what exactly is the "first law/bill" we are talking about here?  I will need a few relevant nouns to even try and search for it.

    I still suspect you are failing to discern that gay is not the same as transgender.  Transgender people come in gay and straight (and bi and asexual)  versions just like everyone else.

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The first law tried to say that a small group of citizens who wanted everybody to cater to their whim about whether or not they "felt comfortable" using the existing system of toilet facilities...could discriminate against the average person by making rules that only applied to them (the small group of liberal activists, and at their individual discretion, mind you!) but that everyone had to abide by unless they wanted to be charged with discrimination.
      Not long after that stupid law was enacted, people actually figured out that they had been the victims of the liberal agenda that publicly harrassed anyone who spoke against the stupid law, and now they're having to fight that bill by changing it and perhaps by taking things too far (just like the first bill took things too far the opposite way), because that kind of radical action seems to be the only thing the liberal activists will listen to.   It's come down, like most of the gay rights carp, to having to fight fire with fire.   And the libs don't like it 'cause conservatives won't just lay down and let 'em stomp on 'em.
      Yeah, it's a bit hard to find, but google it.
      It's messed up.

      Oh, but I surely do understand the difference between those things.
      One of the aspects of this issue is the fear expressed by a parent that her little girl (who she says wants to be a boy) would have to (God forbid!  roll)   use a woman's bathroom, which might make her "feel uncomfortable"!     There's where a parent should be an adult and take the girl to a female bathroom and stop listening to such nonsense.  But guess what----I bet that little girl was taught that it's okay to spout discrimination at having to do what's normal and decent.  By non less than that adult parent.    She should be taught that a little girl using a boy's bathroom is likely to make little boys "feel uncomfortable".
      Are people really so insensitive to what's normal and right?
      I don't think so!
      I think they deliberately do things that cause such controversy simply because they like drama.  Drama. Drama.  Narcissism.  Exhibitionism.   All the above.

  12. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    I am over forty and have never seen a kid crawl under a stall.  I guess I have lived in places where parents supervise crawling kids and don't want their hands touching the floor of a public toilet.

    Regardless, unless they crawl into the toilet bowl, they still won't see what kind of tackle their toilet neighbor has.

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, I have!  Usually kids playing with each other, chasing each other around, but also kids waiting while Dad did his own thing. 

      Boredom produces some amazing actions from youngsters. smile

  13. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    I did Google and I found no such bill or law.  So I don't know what you are talking about there.

    And transgender is not the same as gay.

    How about we let the kid in the skirt use the girls bathroom.  No drama, no problem.

  14. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    As it is the kid crawling under the stall could see anything from a rectal prolapse to a gal changing her tampon.  I am not sure a penis would even be in the top ten disturbing things you might encounter when crawling under a toilet stall door.

    Not to mention that male parents often take toddlers and very young babies into the mens room.  So they are going to have the chance to see it there regardless.  Seems like a bit of a red herring to me.

  15. profile image80
    Education Answerposted 4 years ago

    I live in Arizona, and I am very involved in politics.  I haven't even heard of this bill.  Hmmm.  If anybody has information or a link, I'd be interested, as I don't beleive the MSN link at the top of this forum any more than liberals would believe a link from Fox.  It sounds like fiction to me.

    1. Gcrhoads64 profile image97
      Gcrhoads64posted 4 years agoin reply to this
    2. Stacie L profile image88
      Stacie Lposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The new bathroom bill, SB 1432, is a “strike-everything” bill inserted in the shell of another bill that had the same number.

  16. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

    If a man says he is a woman (and looks like one, of course,) he is to be believed and accepted as though he were a woman.   
    If Chaz Bono wants to use a man's bathroom, let him. It should be according to whatever gender the person claims to be.
    Is there a problem with this?   
    If a transgender man starts misbehaving in the women's bathroom, the women there can call the cops with their cell phones, use their martial arts training, and pull out their guns.  If a transgender woman in the man's bathroom starts misbehaving in some manner... same thing. Hmmm what
      w o u l d  they do??? Well, the guys in there would probably take the transgender "man" by the shoulders and push "him" on out of there...

    In ether case, the punishment for misconduct should be equal and extreme... as in mandatory jail time up to a year.
    PS Since when are public bathrooms monitored by anyone ever?

    1. Gcrhoads64 profile image97
      Gcrhoads64posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Common sense should prevail, but some people let their fear of "different" override it.

  17. Soul Man Walking profile image60
    Soul Man Walkingposted 4 years ago

    Don't forget to cover the seat.

  18. pagesvoice profile image84
    pagesvoiceposted 4 years ago

    Arizona is becoming Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and Texas on steroids. Why are these people always so afraid? They seem to feed off of fear and for crying out loud I can't figure it out. Governor Jan Brewer perhaps should have kept closer tabs on her son who has been locked up in a mental institution for almost 25 years due to a kidnapping and sexual assault charge. Oh, and by the way, she attempted to have his records sealed so no one would know exactly what happened. Then you have the blow hard birther and immigrant hater Sheriff Joe Arpaio who seems to relish treating prisoners as less than human and he is beloved by the residents of Maricopa County and we wonder why such a stupid bathroom bill is even presented? I wouldn't visit Arizona for all the barbed wire, electric fencing they so desperately long for.

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Arpaio, an immigrant hater?  Don't think I've seen any evidence of that at all.

      Now, if you're actually speaking of illegal aliens then yes, I don't believe he thinks much of them...but then neither do most of the people supporting them and paying the cost of their illegal activities.

      1. pagesvoice profile image84
        pagesvoiceposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        First of all, human beings are NOT aliens! Secondly, what illegal activities are you referring to? If it's drugs, then lump a large section of American citizens in the same category.

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          a·li·en  (l-n, lyn)
          adj.
          1. Owing political allegiance to another country or government; foreign: alien residents.
          2. Belonging to, characteristic of, or constituting another and very different place, society, or person; strange. See Synonyms at foreign.
          3. Dissimilar, inconsistent, or opposed, as in nature: emotions alien to her temperament.
          n.
          1. An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen.
          2. A person from another and very different family, people, or place.
          3. A person who is not included in a group; an outsider.
          4. A creature from outer space: a story about an invasion of aliens.
          5. Ecology An organism, especially a plant or animal, that occurs in or is naturalized in a region to which it is not native.

          Please read the #1 dictionary definition of "alien" and compare it to your statement.

          Crossing the border without permission.  It is illegal to do so by the laws of the country being entered, if not by the laws of the country being vacated.

          1. pagesvoice profile image84
            pagesvoiceposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            It's amazing that people read only what they want to. Webster - Merriam Dictionary defines "Alien" as: "a : belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing : strange."  Gee, so in the narrow minds of those ruled by the drumbeat of fear the different and be afraid of any person nonwhite , I guess the horrible frightening fact that other people don't look like you or share your culture then they are most assuredly "Alien." How disgusting!

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Nice try.  From Webster - Merriam:
              a : belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing : strange
              b : relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government : foreign

              Some people do indeed read only what they want to.  Want to check the "b" definition and try again?  As you do, explain the "nonwhite" comment as well as "don't look like you or share your culture", please.  I at least find no reference in the definition as to any of those things.  Just national citizenship or allegiance.

    2. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I didn't know that about Jan Brewer's son.
      But hey, at least he's actually locked up instead of being allowed to run the streets advocating for crimes to be condoned by law.
      And about politicians sealing their family records------LOL please let's not even go THERE!  'cause I don't feel like a trip to the White House today.

      1. pagesvoice profile image84
        pagesvoiceposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Amazing...I'm talking about a fear and scare governor and her child. So, what child of President Obama are you referring to?

        1. Gcrhoads64 profile image97
          Gcrhoads64posted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Meh. She's obviously referring to the crazy conservative mantra that Obama has spent MILLIONS hiding his college records, REAL birth certificate, etc. There's no arguing with delusional.

        2. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          And I'm talkin' about a fear and scare President who not only runs the streets but runs the Country with his shock and awe tactics.
          Plus his claimed lack of knowledge about his uncle who's been living in the U.S. for over 40 years illegally,  both he and his wife.    They may have recently obtained citizenship, I dunno.
          But when you criticize someone like Jan Brewer, you should also criticize Obama, 'cause he's go just as many skeletons in his closer, maybe more.

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
            Uninvited Writerposted 4 years agoin reply to this
            1. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              heehee

              What?
              Eh?
              I can't hearrrr you.............

          2. pagesvoice profile image84
            pagesvoiceposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Brenda, Brenda, Brenda, if your statement wasn't so ludicrous and ill informed it would ultimately be humorous. "Shock and awe" came from Bushy boy landing on an aircraft carrier in a staged ploy saying "mission accomplished." LOL The Greed Over People Party (GOP) and especially the old white Tea Party loves nothing more than to try and get people to side with them through fear and scare tactics. Also, sice when does a basically ignorant governor have the unmitigated gall to stand on the tarmac and point her wicked witch of the west finger at a presiding POTUS? This is just another example of ignorance and ill breeding...and these are the folks fearful of illegals? Yikes...give me a respectful immigrant any day over crudeness.

  19. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    Arpaio is getting involved in reporting and arresting undocumented immigrants when it is not his job at all.  That suggests a certain personal antipathy. (e.g. running a hotline and advertising it on prison vehicles).  He is spending his budget for prisoners on activities that belong to another department.

  20. sydneyspence profile image89
    sydneyspenceposted 4 years ago

    For a minute I thought I was on Facebook with all this bickering going on ... I thought this was a discussion about some bathroom law but it quickly turned into a race thing. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion so why are we bashing one another? Can't we all just get along? Sadly the answer is no.

  21. profile image80
    Education Answerposted 4 years ago

    pagesvoice,

    14 percent of all incarcerated people in Arizona are illegal aliens.  40% of all incarcerated kidnappers in Arizona are illegal aliens.  13% of all incarcerated murderers in Arizona are illegal aliens.

    Bogota, Colombia is the kidnapping capital in the world.  Guess which city ranks second. . . Phoenix.  Why?  Illegal aliens kidnap children, often their own, and head for the border.

    Do you really want to talk about the illegal things illegal aliens do in Arizona?  We're tired of the kidnappings.  We're tired of the murders.  We're tired of the drugs.

    1. Gcrhoads64 profile image97
      Gcrhoads64posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, Arizona wants the kidnappers and murderers to all be 100% American.
      smile

      1. profile image80
        Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        If your friends were being murdered, your cars were being stolen, and your children were being offered drugs, you might have a different response.  I live in Arizona.  It's always easy to blame Arizona's problems on racism when you don't have the crime we have, often caused by illegal aliens.  The fact is that 14% of all our prisoners come from the 7% or our state's population, illegal aliens.  This violence is often highly violent, with kidnapping and murders being prevalent.

        I don't know about the whole bathroom issue, but when it comes to illegal aliens, we have every right to keep our citizens safe.  That means making sure we know who is in our state and that these "guests" are not violent murderers.  That's not asking too much.

        1. Gcrhoads64 profile image97
          Gcrhoads64posted 4 years agoin reply to this

          The violent crime rate in Arizona has been going down since 2007. http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statist … UzkuBxQGWI

          1. profile image80
            Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            It needs to go down . . .a lot.

        2. Mighty Mom profile image87
          Mighty Momposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          That means that 86% of the crime in Arizona is committed by 93% of the population of
          legal citizens.
          If you want to bring down the crime rate, it seems to me the place to start is by increasing, not decreasing the number of illegals!
          lol

    2. Uninvited Writer profile image82
      Uninvited Writerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Well, banning transgender people from bathrooms will solve it all...

      1. profile image80
        Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I'm not saying the two have anything to do with each other.  I just responded to another statement about illegal aliens.

      2. bBerean profile image60
        bBereanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I must have missed something...who said transgendered folks can't use the bathroom?  Or do you equate expecting people to use the bathroom assigned for their biological sex, (just like everyone else), with denying them access to a bathroom altogether?

        1. profile image80
          Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          bBerean,

          Are you asking me?

          1. bBerean profile image60
            bBereanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Education Answer, you must be reading this in threaded view so you don't see the quotes.  No, I was responding to Uninvited Writer who said "Well, banning transgender people from bathrooms will solve it all..."

            1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
              Uninvited Writerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Okay, how about arresting people for using the "wrong" bathroom will put more people in jail and cost the taxpayers more money... And taking police away from chasing real criminals...

              1. bBerean profile image60
                bBereanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                I agree it is silly to have to use laws for what should, (and used to), be common sense and decency, which gets back to Brenda's point...the second law wouldn't be being suggested were it not for the foolishness of the first.   You make it sound like I am suggesting we post SWAT teams at bathrooms just in case, and throw away the key on offenders.  How about just repealing the first law?  If not, we apparently need something in place in the event someone reports or lodges a complaint.  It need only be a simple citation, unless other criminal behavior is displayed.  Something to act as a deterrent.   How does it even become an issue that folks want to go in the wrong restrooms?  roll

    3. pagesvoice profile image84
      pagesvoiceposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      If your statistics are correct then I stand corrected. Perhaps I let my personal dislike of your governor and Maricopa Sheriff get in the way of better judgement.

      1. profile image80
        Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Thanks.  We're frustrated, because we're being inundated by illegal aliens.  Many are good, hard-working people.  Many are not.  Many are violent murderers, kidnappers, and drug dealers.  We feel like the federal government has tied our hands and ignored our pleas for help.  Instead, what we get is Fast and Furious.  Remember, that federal program took place in Phoenix and resulted in more deaths?  We are not racists.  We simply want to do something to keep our families safe from violence that is spilling over the border. 

        To offer amnesty to every illegal alien is insane, as many of these people are quite literally scary individuals.  Many are good people.  Isn't it just as bad to assume that every illegal alien is worthy of American citizenship as it is to assume that every illegal alien is bad and must be deported?  Since when do we allow murderers into our country just because they wish to come here?  I believe that a lot of Americans picture illegal aliens as good, hard-working migrant workers.  That may be true in many cases; it is not true all the time.  There is a significantly higher rate of violence, drug use, and criminal activity associated with illegal aliens.  When politicians say that everybody deserves amnesty, they forget this very real reality that we in Arizona live on a daily basis.

  22. TheMagician profile image93
    TheMagicianposted 4 years ago

    Not sure if it was covered in the MSN article OP posted, but I'd also like to add in the fun tidbit that the lawmaker who proposed this bill was asked why he wanted to get it passed as a law, and he answered saying it's just because he thinks (transgender/sexual) people are "weird."

    If you're going to partake in creating a better future for others and you have the power to create and destroy at the tip of your fingertips, rule no. 1 of working in government is that it doesn't matter what you think, it matters whether or not it's going to benefit the population.

    How this man earned a spot as a state rep is something I'll never understand, especially in AZ.

 
working