So, you're for killing the innocent and sparing the guilty.

Gotcha.

I'm pro life.

(06-27-2012 09:33 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I wouldn't mind conservatives' belief they should be able to use deadly force to defend property if they'd just stop calling themselves pro life. Or the Silent Moral Majority, and realize they're neither silent nor moral nor a majority.

You call yourself an expert. What's the difference? Sorry, couldnt resist

It's what politicians do. The Patriot act had little to do with being a patriot, and the affordable healthcare act is demonstrably anything but affordable

I'm pro actions have consequences. You're a complete phucking idiot.

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

Good for you. Seriously.

(06-27-2012 09:36 AM)Smaug Wrote:  So, you're for killing the innocent and sparing the guilty.

Gotcha.

When you can definitely and exclusively define when life begins, your argument will hold some water. Until then, it is weak and unoriginal. Pretty much what I expect for you UAB types.

(06-27-2012 09:33 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I wouldn't mind conservatives' belief they should be able to use deadly force to defend property if they'd just stop calling themselves pro life. Or the Silent Moral Majority, and realize they're neither silent nor moral nor a majority.

When you stop calling yourself a lawyer, intern.

(06-27-2012 08:46 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  They changed that law last December. You can now shoot someone who is trying to get in your home if you feel your life is threatened.

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

Yes, you could always do that, but when I took ,my CC class we were taught you can't shoot them once they are inside unless your life is threatened.

(06-27-2012 12:56 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 04:38 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 09:54 AM)RobertN Wrote:  If only your "simple solution" was so simple. Of course my point(which went right over your head) was that they will find something that MOST people are not arrested for(or just make up ****) just to check their papers. My point was you will see more latinos being arrested for the sole reason of checking their papers.

So you're saying the police of Arizona will INTENTIONALLY go out of their way to violate Americans civil rights? You really think they're just going to arrest every latino just to check their documentation? Talk about ACLU field day if that one happens...

Not all of them but I do believe they will go out and intentiionally arrest latinos to check their documetation.

They CANNOT arrest Latinos to check their documentation. They can arrest them for A CRIME... how hard is that to understand?

But again.. which is it?

I asked... "will [Az Police] INTENTIONALLY go out of their way to violate Americans civil rights?". You said No.

Then you wrote "[they will] intentionally arrest latinos to check their documentation. ".. you said Yes.

So which one is it Robert, Yes or No?

(06-27-2012 09:45 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 09:36 AM)Smaug Wrote:  So, you're for killing the innocent and sparing the guilty.

Gotcha.

When you can definitely and exclusively define when life begins, your argument will hold some water. Until then, it is weak and unoriginal. Pretty much what I expect for you UAB types.

Life begins at conception. There's no eithical discussion at all if you rationalize it. Once the act of creation is set in motion the natural end result is life, unless its terminated by abortion.
Having sex will either result in pregnancy or not, pregnancy results in life. (Unless there is a natural illness, point being, unless man interferes.) Once two people have sex, the expected result should be the creation of life.

(06-27-2012 10:40 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 12:56 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 04:38 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 09:54 AM)RobertN Wrote:  If only your "simple solution" was so simple. Of course my point(which went right over your head) was that they will find something that MOST people are not arrested for(or just make up ****) just to check their papers. My point was you will see more latinos being arrested for the sole reason of checking their papers.

So you're saying the police of Arizona will INTENTIONALLY go out of their way to violate Americans civil rights? You really think they're just going to arrest every latino just to check their documentation? Talk about ACLU field day if that one happens...

Not all of them but I do believe they will go out and intentiionally arrest latinos to check their documetation.

They CANNOT arrest Latinos to check their documentation. They can arrest them for A CRIME... how hard is that to understand?

But again.. which is it?

I asked... "will [Az Police] INTENTIONALLY go out of their way to violate Americans civil rights?". You said No.

Then you wrote "[they will] intentionally arrest latinos to check their documentation. ".. you said Yes.

So which one is it Robert, Yes or No?

It isn't hard to understand. Problem is, it isn't going to work that way.

(06-27-2012 11:16 AM)RobertN Wrote:  It isn't hard to understand. Problem is, it isn't going to work that way.

Why not?
Situation A: Hispanic male standing on the corner.
Situation B: Hispanic male runs a stop sign.

If they question someone who's in Situation A... Then the poilce have overstepped their bounds, and there's a civil liberties problem in Arizona.

If they question someone who's in Situation B... Then you don't have a problem.

To my recollection the first situation has never happened (and IMO, the Supreme court decision to strike down the 'employment' portion of Az's law pretty much makes sure that can't happen.)

Again, police _cannot_ arrest someone just to check their documentation. That was your claim of what was going to happen.

Quote:I do believe they will go out and intentiionally arrest latinos to check their documetation

You have something that says this will start occuring, or do you just want to generalize and say some cops are going to break the law?

(06-27-2012 09:33 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I wouldn't mind conservatives' belief they should be able to use deadly force to defend property if they'd just stop calling themselves pro life. Or the Silent Moral Majority, and realize they're neither silent nor moral nor a majority.

You know that Pro-Life is just a softer way to go about saying that you shouldn't be able to get abortions. Just like pro-choice means "Have baby-will kill it".

None of that has anything to do with taking out some scum bag.

(06-27-2012 09:33 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I wouldn't mind conservatives' belief they should be able to use deadly force to defend property if they'd just stop calling themselves pro life. Or the Silent Moral Majority, and realize they're neither silent nor moral nor a majority.

If I use deadly force to defend myself, I can't be against the murder of innocent babies.

OK.

Your a moron.

I wouldn't mind you calling yourself pro life if you were.