What does the constitution and my Car manual have in common?

[ihopehefails]

I have notice that the left in both parties tend to assume that if something is wrong it much be unconstitutional such as discrimination. The constitution only bans certain kinds of discrimination with respect to voting and only over certain groups. Its a good thing because we should discriminate against criminals who would vote for politicians to reduce the penalties they get for the crimes they do.

The point I am trying to make is that the constitution has more in common with my car manual than any religious text that determines what is right and wrong for the people. It is simply a set of rules for the government to operate by and depending on how those rules are written it can be good or evil. For example: Slavery was legal under the constitution and so was voter discrimination in the 3/5 person provision in it. Those were changed through the legal amendment process but were not changed because it corrupted the "holiness" of the document.

The new Arizona law may discriminate and even do it unethically (thats not my opinion) but that would not change the constitutionality of it unless it actually violated the constitution itself. The constitution has no ethereal goodness to it and is just what it is which is the words that are written onto it and people can't decide the constitutionality of something simply because it is wrong but only because it violated the rules written for the government.

 

[Modbert]

So you're trying to justify discrimination by saying the Constitution is imperfect and therefore the laws in it really don't matter? Troll.

 

[rightwinger]

What does the constitution and my Car manual have in common?

You have no clue what is in either one

 

[mudwhistle]

So you're trying to justify discrimination by saying the Constitution is imperfect and therefore the laws in it really don't matter? Troll.

Discrimination?

I'd like you to read the immigration laws in Mexico and see what discrimination really is.

They have a quota system that doesn't allow the native population to go below a specified percentage level.

You have to have a job to enter the country....and have your own health care.

You cannot collect any benefits of any kind there. You must have enough money in the bank to live there...in other words you can't take any cash out but they don't seem to have a problem with you bringing it in.

Anyone entering the country illegally will be thrown in jail for not less then 5 years and all of his or her possessions confiscated.

 

[Modbert]

Anyone entering the country illegally will be thrown in jail for not less then 5 years and all of his or her possessions confiscated.

So wait, you want to stop illegal immigration because it hurts taxpayers but you're going to throw them in jail, which is completely funded on taxpayers money for more than five years?

Do you bother to think before posting?

 

[mudwhistle]

What does the constitution and my Car manual have in common?

You have no clue what is in either one

And you've never read ether.

 

[mudwhistle]

Anyone entering the country illegally will be thrown in jail for not less then 5 years and all of his or her possessions confiscated.

So wait, you want to stop illegal immigration because it hurts taxpayers but you're going to throw them in jail, which is completely funded on taxpayers money for more than five years?

Do you bother to think before posting? :eusa_eh:

I could ask you the same thing.

I was telling you the immigration laws in Mexico dumb-ass.

 

[Modbert]

I could ask you the same thing.

I was telling you the immigration laws in Mexico dumb-ass.

Yes, and we're not Mexico. Nor should we be.

 

[ihopehefails]

So you're trying to justify discrimination by saying the Constitution is imperfect and therefore the laws in it really don't matter? Troll.

I guess you can't discriminate between unconstitutional discrimination and constitutional discrimination. Let me give you a definition of discrimination. It is when you show a preference of one thing over another. I discriminate when I choose a McDonalds meal number 1 simply because I like it more. A racist will show a preference for one race of people over another hence racial discrimination.

The constitution actually does permit discrimination and even discrimination that is completely unethical in some cases such as allowing a preacher of one faith to kick out people who practice another. I would call that discrimination but if we use your thinking that 'discrimination is evil' then it is discrimination in the same way a store owner would refuse to serve black people.

Fortunately, the law allows one kind of discrimination and forbids another but the law can't be bent to fit someone sense of right or wrong since that would violate what people have established for themselves as something the government can't forbid them from doing thus protecting their freedom.

You may not like the Arizona law but your moral objection to it does not give you the right to trample onto the rights of another state or person. If that was the case then those that want to ban birth control because they think is wrong has every authority to remove someone's rights from them. I hope you do not think that is acceptable?

 

[mudwhistle]

I could ask you the same thing.

I was telling you the immigration laws in Mexico dumb-ass.

Yes, and we're not Mexico. Nor should we be.

God you're an idiot.

I would attempt to clarify my point...but I feel it's a wasted effort.

 

[ihopehefails]

So you're trying to justify discrimination by saying the Constitution is imperfect and therefore the laws in it really don't matter? Troll.

Discrimination?

I'd like you to read the immigration laws in Mexico and see what discrimination really is.

They have a quota system that doesn't allow the native population to go below a specified percentage level.

You have to have a job to enter the country....and have your own health care.

You cannot collect any benefits of any kind there. You must have enough money in the bank to live there...in other words you can't take any cash out but they don't seem to have a problem with you bringing it in.

Anyone entering the country illegally will be thrown in jail for not less then 5 years and all of his or her possessions confiscated.

I wasn't saying that this law was unethical but more saying that just because some people think it is unethical doesn't make it unconstitutional. I was trying to point out the difference between the two concepts.

 

[ihopehefails]

What does the constitution and my Car manual have in common?

You have no clue what is in either one

L...O....snoooooooore....

 

[Modbert]

God you're an idiot.

I would attempt to clarify my point...but I feel it's a wasted effort.

I know what you're getting at. You're trying to say real discrimination is Mexico, and not the U.S. However, saying something is worse doesn't make something else automatically better.

 

[ihopehefails]

God you're an idiot.

I would attempt to clarify my point...but I feel it's a wasted effort.

I know what you're getting at. You're trying to say real discrimination is Mexico, and not the U.S. However, saying something is worse doesn't make something else automatically better.

He said that it is standard procedure for all countries.

 

[mudwhistle]

God you're an idiot.

I would attempt to clarify my point...but I feel it's a wasted effort.

I know what you're getting at. You're trying to say real discrimination is Mexico, and not the U.S. However, saying something is worse doesn't make something else automatically better.

Actually that's exactly what it does.

 

[Modbert]

Actually that's exactly what it does.

Not at all. To give a good example, just because Hitler was a worse psychopath of a dictator than Stalin (or vice versa) doesn't make the other any less worse.

They're both still psychopaths. And at the end of the day, this is still a crappy law.

 

[ihopehefails]

Actually that's exactly what it does.

Not at all. To give a good example, just because Hitler was a worse psychopath of a dictator than Stalin (or vice versa) doesn't make the other any less worse.

They're both still psychopaths. And at the end of the day, this is still a crappy law.

The law does not discriminate between white illegals from Canada, asian illegals from china, or brown illegals from south America. There is nothing in the law that states that. It simply says all illegals of any race will be deported which is the same identical law to the federal government.

 

[Modbert]

The law does not discriminate between white illegals from Canada, asian illegals from china, or brown illegals from south America. There is nothing in the law that states that. It simply says all illegals of any race will be deported which is the same identical law to the federal government.

Really now? Do tell me, how does one have "reasonable suspicion" that someone is a illegal immigrant. Do tell.

 

[mudwhistle]

Actually that's exactly what it does.

Not at all. To give a good example, just because Hitler was a worse psychopath of a dictator than Stalin (or vice versa) doesn't make the other any less worse.

They're both still psychopaths. And at the end of the day, this is still a crappy law.

Actually it's like comparing Hitler to Pee Wee Herman.

Mexico is Hitler...and we are Pee Wee.....

 

[ihopehefails]

The law does not discriminate between white illegals from Canada, asian illegals from china, or brown illegals from south America. There is nothing in the law that states that. It simply says all illegals of any race will be deported which is the same identical law to the federal government.

Really now? Do tell me, how does one have "reasonable suspicion" that someone is a illegal immigrant. Do tell.

The guy speaks spanish but not english, he has car registered in a foreign country, has no US address that we can send him mail to like most people who live here. And even if a cop did think that someone's hispanic heritage made him an illegal the suspected person would still have their 4th amendment rights so they just can't haul them away as you seem to imagine.