Repbulican Senate candidate Rubio criticizes Arizona law

[NYcarbineer]

isn't the arizona law simple a state version of the federal law....

exactly...how is it the federal law is not considered racist, yet this law, which seeks only to enforce federal law, is?

why are there no protest against the federal law?

But in this law, I can Sue a cop if he doesn't ask for paperz of day laborers. Now these guys can stop EVERYONE brown because they "suspected" they are illegal.

I wish you guys would just come out and say it, its the definition of racial profiling.

In case you haven't noticed, the conservative consensus, for a very long time, has been for racial profiling in many forms.

 

[oreo]

Marco Rubio speaks out on AZ immigration law

It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens

Then Rubio is full of CRAP too. He is afraid he might offend the hispanic vote in Florida--this is why you need to join THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT IN THIS COUNTRY.

 

[rdean]

Hey Rubio,
You may not want to vacation in Arizona. But if you do, you better have your "papers" in order.

I think it's awful that Fascist Obama would pass a law that, what?, huh?, what do you mean it wasn't Obama? Republicans are always saying Obama is a Fascist.

It was passed by Republicans? Seriously?

Oops.

Never-mind.

At least RUBIO knows where this is headed from the idiots as *YOU*

He knows LAW...and knows the plans of the Statist Democrats with this issue:

However, Rubio was clear that he also doesn’t want the law to be used as “an excuse to try and jam through amnesty legislation”:


I think he has ZERO to fear in the Great State of Arizona dumbass.

LINK

Mien Herr-en,

It's not a question of the "law". It's whether or not the "polizei" have the right to stop anyone they deem "suspicious" (ie, dark, with a Spanish accent) to see their "papers".

It's been done in other countries. In Germany, for instance.

 

[Jarhead]

Hey Rubio,
You may not want to vacation in Arizona. But if you do, you better have your "papers" in order.

I think it's awful that Fascist Obama would pass a law that, what?, huh?, what do you mean it wasn't Obama? Republicans are always saying Obama is a Fascist.

It was passed by Republicans? Seriously?

Oops.

Never-mind.

At least RUBIO knows where this is headed from the idiots as *YOU*

He knows LAW...and knows the plans of the Statist Democrats with this issue:

However, Rubio was clear that he also doesn’t want the law to be used as “an excuse to try and jam through amnesty legislation”:


I think he has ZERO to fear in the Great State of Arizona dumbass.

LINK

Mien Herr-en,

It's not a question of the "law". It's whether or not the "polizei" have the right to stop anyone they deem "suspicious" (ie, dark, with a Spanish accent) to see their "papers".

It's been done in other countries. In Germany, for instance.

And, in theory, it will be the right of the IRS in short order as it pertains to proof of health inusrance. Yet those that want to question that are either racists or wasting tax payer money looking into the constitutionality of it.

Just calling a spade a spade.

 

[Againsheila]

Hey Rubio,
You may not want to vacation in Arizona. But if you do, you better have your "papers" in order.

I think it's awful that Fascist Obama would pass a law that, what?, huh?, what do you mean it wasn't Obama? Republicans are always saying Obama is a Fascist.

It was passed by Republicans? Seriously?

Oops.

Never-mind.

At least RUBIO knows where this is headed from the idiots as *YOU*

He knows LAW...and knows the plans of the Statist Democrats with this issue:

However, Rubio was clear that he also doesn’t want the law to be used as “an excuse to try and jam through amnesty legislation”:


I think he has ZERO to fear in the Great State of Arizona dumbass.

LINK

Mien Herr-en,

It's not a question of the "law". It's whether or not the "polizei" have the right to stop anyone they deem "suspicious" (ie, dark, with a Spanish accent) to see their "papers".

It's been done in other countries. In Germany, for instance.

Like I said before, my brother in law is required to carry his green card on his person at all times, why are Hispanics treated differently? Maybe this is racial.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marco Rubio speaks out on AZ immigration law

It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens

Then Rubio is full of CRAP too. He is afraid he might offend the hispanic vote in Florida--this is why you need to join THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT IN THIS COUNTRY.

Rubio is the Tea Party darling, isn't he?

 

[The Rabbi]

exactly...how is it the federal law is not considered racist, yet this law, which seeks only to enforce federal law, is?

why are there no protest against the federal law?

But in this law, I can Sue a cop if he doesn't ask for paperz of day laborers. Now these guys can stop EVERYONE brown because they "suspected" they are illegal.

I wish you guys would just come out and say it, its the definition of racial profiling.

In case you haven't noticed, the conservative consensus, for a very long time, has been for racial profiling in many forms.

So is Rubio part of the "conservative consensus" (Whatever that means) or does he support the legislation?

 

[drsmith1072]

Did you actually read what he said? Are you capable of it?

For the record he didnt say anything that the WSJ editorial page didnt say yesterday. The immigration system is broken. The law in AZ is a desperate attempt to solve a very difficult problem that the Democrats have refused to address. He expresses a lot of sympathy for the plight of people in AZ, affirms their right to pass such legislation, and then mentions his misgivings about it.
Sounds OK to me. But funny to see the conservative candidate held up as a model for what to think.

What is really funny is how you CHOOSE to focus only on the democrats and yet the last few times a bill was up for debate it was republicans that railed against immigration reform. Even NOW most republicans in congress do not want to deal with this matter this close to an election. Maybe they realize that it could be bad for their party?

So why do you CHOOSE to only blame democrats and ignore the position of republicans??

Funny how reality shoots down your attempt to shift the blame.

Democrats have had 3 years to deal with this issue. Did a single Democratic presdiential candidate so much as talk about immigration in the primaries or general? No.
I rest my case.

Uh did you miss the FACT that the last time it came up W supported it but his own party did NOT?? the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 was filibusterd by all republicans and a few democrats. So as far as that goes republicans lose the justification to complain let alone shift the blame to only democrats based on their own obstruction of passage of immigration reform. Thanks for playing though.

Did the candidates talk about immigration reform?? If your answer is no can you prove that to be the case?? NO.

Furthermore, Based on right wing talking points obama not doing anything now is aviolation of his campaign promises so IF he did make such a promise then that would prove your assertion WRONG.

You are once again shown to be either ignorant or dishonest. So did you know better and LIE or are you ignorant of the facts and merely ranting for the sake of ranting??

I rest my case. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

At least RUBIO knows where this is headed from the idiots as *YOU*

He knows LAW...and knows the plans of the Statist Democrats with this issue:

However, Rubio was clear that he also doesn’t want the law to be used as “an excuse to try and jam through amnesty legislation”:


I think he has ZERO to fear in the Great State of Arizona dumbass.

LINK

Mien Herr-en,

It's not a question of the "law". It's whether or not the "polizei" have the right to stop anyone they deem "suspicious" (ie, dark, with a Spanish accent) to see their "papers".

It's been done in other countries. In Germany, for instance.

And, in theory, it will be the right of the IRS in short order as it pertains to proof of health inusrance. Yet those that want to question that are either racists or wasting tax payer money looking into the constitutionality of it.

Just calling a spade a spade.

Actually you are calling a banana a spade.

Proof of health insurance is in no way shape or form racially related. The two are not similar.

 

[drsmith1072]

At least RUBIO knows where this is headed from the idiots as *YOU*

He knows LAW...and knows the plans of the Statist Democrats with this issue:

However, Rubio was clear that he also doesn’t want the law to be used as “an excuse to try and jam through amnesty legislation”:


I think he has ZERO to fear in the Great State of Arizona dumbass.

LINK

Mien Herr-en,

It's not a question of the "law". It's whether or not the "polizei" have the right to stop anyone they deem "suspicious" (ie, dark, with a Spanish accent) to see their "papers".

It's been done in other countries. In Germany, for instance.

Like I said before, my brother in law is required to carry his green card on his person at all times, why are Hispanics treated differently? Maybe this is racial.

Being required to carry it is one thing. However, being forced to show it becuase you LOOK like an illegal immigrant with no other justification other than appearance is another.
At that point it crosses a line.

 

[NYcarbineer]

But in this law, I can Sue a cop if he doesn't ask for paperz of day laborers. Now these guys can stop EVERYONE brown because they "suspected" they are illegal.

I wish you guys would just come out and say it, its the definition of racial profiling.

In case you haven't noticed, the conservative consensus, for a very long time, has been for racial profiling in many forms.

So is Rubio part of the "conservative consensus" (Whatever that means) or does he support the legislation?

consensus = the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned

 

[The Rabbi]

What is really funny is how you CHOOSE to focus only on the democrats and yet the last few times a bill was up for debate it was republicans that railed against immigration reform. Even NOW most republicans in congress do not want to deal with this matter this close to an election. Maybe they realize that it could be bad for their party?

So why do you CHOOSE to only blame democrats and ignore the position of republicans??

Funny how reality shoots down your attempt to shift the blame.

Democrats have had 3 years to deal with this issue. Did a single Democratic presdiential candidate so much as talk about immigration in the primaries or general? No.
I rest my case.

Uh did you miss the FACT that the last time it came up W supported it but his own party did NOT?? the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 was filibusterd by all republicans and a few democrats. So as far as that goes republicans lose the justification to complain let alone shift the blame to only democrats based on their own obstruction of passage of immigration reform. Thanks for playing though.

Did the candidates talk about immigration reform?? If your answer is no can you prove that to be the case?? NO.

Furthermore, Based on right wing talking points obama not doing anything now is aviolation of his campaign promises so IF he did make such a promise then that would prove your assertion WRONG.

You are once again shown to be either ignorant or dishonest. So did you know better and LIE or are you ignorant of the facts and merely ranting for the sake of ranting??

I rest my case. LOL

You are barely coherent here.
Please post an article where the candidates debated immigration during the primaries. That would prove your point.
But even you agree Democrats joined to torpedo immigration legislation pushed by Pres. Bush. Where were the Democrats in Congress? Where were they after they won control of Congress? Where have they been since they won control of the White House, the House of Representatives and attained a veto proof majority in the senate?
Are you intentionally trying to shift the discussion here, or can you not answer these simple questions?

 

[drsmith1072]

Democrats have had 3 years to deal with this issue. Did a single Democratic presdiential candidate so much as talk about immigration in the primaries or general? No.
I rest my case.

Uh did you miss the FACT that the last time it came up W supported it but his own party did NOT?? the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 was filibusterd by all republicans and a few democrats. So as far as that goes republicans lose the justification to complain let alone shift the blame to only democrats based on their own obstruction of passage of immigration reform. Thanks for playing though.

Did the candidates talk about immigration reform?? If your answer is no can you prove that to be the case?? NO.

Furthermore, Based on right wing talking points obama not doing anything now is aviolation of his campaign promises so IF he did make such a promise then that would prove your assertion WRONG.

You are once again shown to be either ignorant or dishonest. So did you know better and LIE or are you ignorant of the facts and merely ranting for the sake of ranting??

I rest my case. LOL

You are barely coherent here.
Please post an article where the candidates debated immigration during the primaries. That would prove your point.
But even you agree Democrats joined to torpedo immigration legislation pushed by Pres. Bush. Where were the Democrats in Congress? Where were they after they won control of Congress? Where have they been since they won control of the White House, the House of Representatives and attained a veto proof majority in the senate?
Are you intentionally trying to shift the discussion here, or can you not answer these simple questions?

Nice baseless attack. it's what I have come to expect from you.

YOU made the claim that they did not it's your argument to prove or fail to prove. LOL

BTW what you missed is that ALL republicans that voted, voted to filibuster it and only a few democrats so based on that FACT it's alwful hard for any righty to HONESTLY try to blame ONLY democrats as you dishonestly tried to do.

The veto proof majority that you righties love to talk about was very short lived so please find a new more realisitic way to try and hide your inability to debate a topic.

Oh and I just love the way you try to shift it to me to demand that I answer your questions when you ignored my questions. LOL What's the matter?? can't you answer the simple questions that were asked??

 

[The Rabbi]

Naturally one cannot prove a negative. But disproving it would be easy. Please take 20 seconds and Google the subject and present even one or two articles from the election period where the candidates discussed their view on immigration.
Three years and Democrats failed to even consider immigration. That is the relevant fact here.
The veto proof majority was for over a year. How much time do you need to consider legislation? Is bogus climate change legislation more important than immigration,which has reached a crisis point in many areas?

 

[MarcATL]

I see a lot of RWnuts posting about "the fed law and the state law are the same thing."

Can one of you please POST the contents of the Federal law and the State law regarding this matter?

Lets compare and contrast.

Since some of you nutjobs are posting ish like "I see no one is willing to answer."

POST the actual laws side-by-side and lets compare.

Your move.

 

[The Rabbi]

I see a lot of RWnuts posting about "the fed law and the state law are the same thing."

Can one of you please POST the contents of the Federal law and the State law regarding this matter?

Lets compare and contrast.

Since some of you nutjobs are posting ish like "I see no one is willing to answer."

POST the actual laws side-by-side and lets compare.

Your move.

Tell ya what: You post the differences and let other people try to explain why they arent.

 

[drsmith1072]

Naturally one cannot prove a negative. But disproving it would be easy. Please take 20 seconds and Google the subject and present even one or two articles from the election period where the candidates discussed their view on immigration.
Three years and Democrats failed to even consider immigration. That is the relevant fact here.
The veto proof majority was for over a year. How much time do you need to consider legislation? Is bogus climate change legislation more important than immigration,which has reached a crisis point in many areas?

If I prove you wrong will you admit it or will you do as you usualy do when i prove you wrong and attack me continuously only to cut and run from the thread without admitting wrongdoing?

however, here you go.

Before a huge crowd in San Diego last summer, Barack Obama vowed to make fixing illegal immigration a top priority as president, and Latinos nationwide responded with massive support for him on Election Day. Now, they are pressing him to keep his promise.
Obama faces pressure on immigration reform - The Boston Globe

proof that you are WRONG. AGAIN.

Can you prove immigration was never even "considered" or is that your OPINION?? Seems to me that you are rpesenting OPINION as fact. AGAIN.

The veto proof majority was NOT for over a year but thanks for the spin. When did specter switch sides?? April 28, 2010 and when did scott brown win? jan, 10 2010. (corrected typo)

That does not equal a year let alone exceed a year. Your spin loses AGAIN.

 

[drsmith1072]

I see a lot of RWnuts posting about "the fed law and the state law are the same thing."

Can one of you please POST the contents of the Federal law and the State law regarding this matter?

Lets compare and contrast.

Since some of you nutjobs are posting ish like "I see no one is willing to answer."

POST the actual laws side-by-side and lets compare.

Your move.

Tell ya what: You post the differences and let other people try to explain why they arent.

WOW imagine that MORE AVOIDANCE. In typical fashion if you ask a righty to prove their argument then due to the fact that they CAN'T they instead try to flip it back on you and demand that you prove them wrong.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I see a lot of RWnuts posting about "the fed law and the state law are the same thing."

Can one of you please POST the contents of the Federal law and the State law regarding this matter?

Lets compare and contrast.

Since some of you nutjobs are posting ish like "I see no one is willing to answer."

POST the actual laws side-by-side and lets compare.

Your move.

Read SB 1070, it's pretty self explanitory, it references the federal statutes throughout the bill. The bill mirrors federal immigration laws.

 

[The Rabbi]

Naturally one cannot prove a negative. But disproving it would be easy. Please take 20 seconds and Google the subject and present even one or two articles from the election period where the candidates discussed their view on immigration.
Three years and Democrats failed to even consider immigration. That is the relevant fact here.
The veto proof majority was for over a year. How much time do you need to consider legislation? Is bogus climate change legislation more important than immigration,which has reached a crisis point in many areas?

If I prove you wrong will you admit it or will you do as you usualy do when i prove you wrong and attack me continuously only to cut and run from the thread without admitting wrongdoing?

however, here you go.

Before a huge crowd in San Diego last summer, Barack Obama vowed to make fixing illegal immigration a top priority as president, and Latinos nationwide responded with massive support for him on Election Day. Now, they are pressing him to keep his promise.
Obama faces pressure on immigration reform - The Boston Globe

proof that you are WRONG. AGAIN.

Can you prove immigration was never even "considered" or is that your OPINION?? Seems to me that you are rpesenting OPINION as fact. AGAIN.

The veto proof majority was NOT for over a year but thanks for the spin. When did specter switch sides?? April 28, 2010 and when did scott brown win? jan, 10 2010. (corrected typo)

That does not equal a year let alone exceed a year. Your spin loses AGAIN.

Gosh, another failure on your part. I wanted an article from the primary election period that mentioned candidates' stance on immigration. Your article appears to be after the election. Can you not tell the difference?
But even if the article is accurate, are you saying that Obama failed to follow through on yet another promise? Why did he not deal with immigration which was a top priority, as you posted, despite having overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress?