Ha ha ha ha ha... Lame duckiness is showing.

Reading this has also caused me to channel Nelson Muntz.

Their internal polling probable showed that the immigrants coming in from Mexico have more solid conservative values than liberal [lack of] values.

Guess Gibbs lied. They do look at poll numbers. Wonder how the Latino's feel about being "used"?

' "I don't want us to do something just for the sake of politics that doesn't solve the problem," Obama told reporters Wednesday night aboard Air Force One.'

It would indeed be tragic to falter now and ruin an otherwise perfect record of legislation that to this point has been incredibly effective at solving problems.

"President Obama Kills Immigration Reform"

Whats he gonna do for an encore? Kill the economy?

I don't believe it.

How many times were we told ObamaCare wouldn't be pursued?

It's a trap!

"It's a trap!"

Well, I don't know if it's a "trap" - but it could be a head fake -- given Obama's fondness of basketball.

As a Progressive, I think the actions taken by the Arizona GOPers is the best news we Dems could get.

And it seems to me that if there is a sudden push on the Federal level to reform Immigration now then other states are more likely to sit back and not replicate Arizona's efforts.

So by declaring Immigration reform dead Obama may be hoping more GOP states will display their racist ways and pass lousy legislation that exposes their inherent racism.

Just a thought...

"So by declaring Immigration reform dead Obama may be hoping more GOP states will display their racist ways and pass lousy legislation that exposes their inherent racism."

You throw that word around a lot Lee. Its not racist to adhere to the law. Unless you call me racist for not wearing a seatbelt, jay walking, speeding,calling you an asshole.

Re: "Well, I don't know if it's a "trap" - but it could be a head fake -- given Obama's fondness of basketball."

Ah yes, the old "black people like basketball" racist drivel from Lee Ward.

Whats Barry gonna do next? create a job?

Well Barry, Lee Ward would fit comfortably in your pseudo cabinet.

So nice to see Lee has moved on from utterly unprovable accusations of LYING!!!! to utterly unprovable accusations of RAAAAACISM!!! The old one was getting tiresome.

Lee, the Arizona law in question doesn't change a thing about the requirements of the law. It just allows -- actually, requires -- that the Arizona police enforce the laws the federal government has been ignoring. And it has strict protections to prevent "racial profiling" or other alleged police abuses.

So, if you got a problem with the new law, you're saying you got a problem with the existing law, and were just fine and dandy with the law not being enforced. Why don't you just come out and say that the standing law regarding non-citizens is RAAAAACIST and you want it repealed?

Oh, yeah. Because then you'd have nothing to make up shit about, and you'd have to find a new bullshit charge to toss around.

Have you officially admitted that you can't cite a single example of when I was LYING!!!!!, or do I have to keep hounding you to cite specifics?

I don't mind, really. It's almost fun.

J.

So Lee's still accusing 51% of Arizona Democrats of being racists?

uhm....how many times did we hear that Health reform was dead?

"And it has strict protections to prevent "racial profiling" or other alleged police abuses. "

Actually, Jay, that's a lie. It's a common lie being repeated everywhere,but a lie nonetheless.

What the law says is that race will not "solely" be used.

Of course, racial profiling can still be used, it just can't be the sole reason.

So if a Hispanic asks a police officer for directions then ascts nervously the police offer could conclude that (1) this person isn't from here, and (2) they are acting suspiciously, and (3) they are Hispanic.

Bingo! Show me your papers time.

And if the person was a white Canadian do you think the officer would have asked for his papers?

Of course not. This is a race-based, racial profiling law.

Hey! His race wasn't the "sole" reason! The guy asked for directions then acted nervously.

Or he picked his nose and wiped it on my shirt.

Or he looked suspicious.

Or he jaywalked.

Or he littered.

There are lots of ways racists can use the law to practice racial profiling - they just need to be able to lie and claim that race wasn't the sole reason.

Racists find it easy to lie, don't they Jay? You can lie about pretty much anything. "Hey, he spit on my shoe".

Prove it didn't happen.

So, Jay - did you know you were lying or is this just another of your many "mistaken assumptions"?

Oh, Lee. You've stopped ignoring me. I feel so much better. I was positively fading from the neglect.

The law in question was just revised from "lawful contact" to "lawful stop, detention, or arrest." There was nothing wrong with the initial phrasing, but in the (vain) hopes of shutting up at least one or two of the whining gits like you, they changed it to "lawful stop, detention, or arrest."

Which means they have to have a prior reason besides "that brown guy looks hinky" to approach the suspect. The immigration check has to be secondary. In legal terms, it's not a "primary offense."

Yes, some cops can fudge that if they want to. Just like a cop can always find a reason to pull someone over on the highway.

The question is, do we really think that enough cops are "rogue" enough to fake reasons to "stop, detain, or arrest" just on the chance they might be an illegal alien that we should restrain them all?

Yes, cops can lie and spread bullshit on occasion. Look at the police who turned out their riot squad at the Tea Party folks who showed up to protest Obama in Quincy, Illinois. They issued a press release about the "incident" that was utterly at odds with videos taken at the scene -- but at least Obama was protected from hearing that there are some Americans who agree with most of what you wrote about him when you were still giving Hillary that tongue-bath during the primary.

OK, that's an exaggeration. You were positively racist and xenophobic at the time; we just disagree with his positions and actions. But it's positively delightful to see you giving Obama that tongue-bath after you spent so much time and venom spitting on him.

I'm going along with the Arizona law as an experiment in what can be done when the federal government abdicates its responsibilities to the several states. If it doesn't work out, they can simply change the law back. And I'm fully confident that the organized left in this country will have legions of lawyers on hand to make absolutely certain that each and every illegal alien caught by this law gets every single legal right they can find or make up.

Oh, and Lee, here's something that really ought to stick in your craw: this law did not make anything illegal. It simply expanded the number of legal authorities authorized to enforce existing laws.

So no, despite your endless hysteria and temper tantrums, you have YET to catch me in a single "lie." Nor I you -- but then again, I'm not obsessed with making bullshit accusations that I can't begin to back up. That's your schtick, and I'd never even dream of challenging you for that title.

But you do remain delightfully entertaining, Lee. That's why I've extended my "protection" over you from my colleagues here, going out of my way to keep you from getting banned for your predilection for making venomous accusations that you refuse to back up when challenged. Your temper tantrums and are simple assertions of your absolute impotence to enforce your petty dictates, your hit-and-run tactics demonstrate your rank cowardice and inability to prove any of your wild accusations, and your constant returning shows that you are utterly helpless to leave and stay away, because can't admit that you're hopelessly outclassed and outmatched at each and every single turn.

Sooner or later I might end up banning you, Lee. But it won't be out of fear or anger or as an admission that you've outmaneuvered or outsmarted me (like THAT could happen); it'll be a form of euthanasia, putting you out of your misery and sparing you further psychological harm.

But that's a long, long way off, Lee. Because, at the core of the matter, is the simple fact that I don't like you. I never have, and never will. And while morally I probably should pull the plug on you and end this abusive relationship we have, I find that I really, really like kicking you in the face, publicly, over and over again. I relish each and every time you come storming back in, spittle flying from your lips, and I calmly hand you your ass, time and time again. Smacking you around never gets old.

And you never, ever, ever seem to learn the simple causality of the situation: you show up, you start talking shit, I'm going to pop up and cram your shit right back down your throat.

And without once having to use my authority or power as an editor to back up my actions. No, I meet you on level ground, commenter to commenter, writer to writer, smart guy to asshole, and pound you into the dirt.

J.

"So if a Hispanic asks a police officer for directions then ascts nervously the police offer could conclude that (1) this person isn't from here, and (2) they are acting suspiciously, and (3) they are Hispanic"

They could conclude that if they were "racist", or, for heaven's sake, they may have pulled him/her aside for being an Obama plant.. If your going to be biased?/ You must not leave room for a rebuttal= rebuke.

"The law in question was just revised from "lawful contact" to "lawful stop, detention, or arrest."

Well, then thanks for proving my point.

If the original law didn't enable racial profiling there wouldn't have been a reason to change it, would there?

This proves that the criticism of the law is valid.

The question is -- did the changes made ("Oops, we lied - racial profiling was possible - quick, let dress up the language") actually do enough to stop racial profiling?

The same critics who were lambasting this law as flawed before say no, racial profiling is still enabled by the Arizona legislation.

The same proponents who lied before and said racial profiling was prohibited are not to be believed. They lied before, and the chances are good they are lying now.

That's the way liars work, right Jay? Just keep repeating the same lie over and over, saying that it prohibits racial profiling and after he lawsuits start to mount and you realize you've been caught in a lie - as in this case - when you're caught lying - you make some changes and start lying again.

You know that, Jay. And yet, you can't admit it.

Say, how's that "Democrats beat up the New Orleans couple" lie working out for you? Got any proof yet?

Of course not. You've crawled into a dark corner and pretended to forget all about that lie.

And certainly your use of sock puppets is another example of lying too, isn't it Jay?

Or are you going to lie again and claim that you didn't use sock puppets?

I ignore you because you're a boor, Jay. Look it up, there's your mug shot right next to the definition.

And do pardon me if I ignore you some more. Having you spend countless minutes repeating the same bullshit you've repeated on other threads brings me pleasure, and ignoring you always causes you to boor some more.

lol...

"I ignore you because you're a boor, Jay. Look it up, there's your mug shot right next to the definition."

bears repeating.. YOUR AN ASSHOLE!

lee ward - "As a Progressive, I think the actions taken by the Arizona GOPers is the best news we Dems could get."

WOW lee, with polls in state saying 70% support this bill that seems to indicate you believe Arizona is comprised of 70% "GOers."

True?

more lee weirdness - "So by declaring Immigration reform dead Obama may be hoping more GOP states will display their racist ways and pass lousy legislation that exposes their inherent racism."

Inherent racism? You proof is what?

And here's lee's final mistake in that comment - "Just a thought..."

Everyone suffers when you think.

Aw, Lee. You're back to your old stunt of "you're all a bunch of lying liars!!!" when you got nothing else. Meanwhile, you're doing your own lying -- by selective quoting.

The change to the law was a CLARIFICATION. The lawmakers INTENT did not change; they just made a slight modification to emphasize their meaning because of gibbering dolts like you. A futile move in that direction, but still an improvement on a phrasing that could be considered ambiguous to a nit-picking asshole -- such as you.

Which I spelled out in my prior comment, that you so carefully edited:

The law in question was just revised from "lawful contact" to "lawful stop, detention, or arrest." There was nothing wrong with the initial phrasing, but in the (vain) hopes of shutting up at least one or two of the whining gits like you, they changed it to "lawful stop, detention, or arrest."

(Emphasis added for the part you found inconvenient to quote)

As for your accusation (quick, change the subject!!!!) of "sock-puppetry," let's define the term. Here's Wikipedia:

A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks with or about himself or herself, pretending to be a different person,[1] like a ventriloquist manipulating a hand puppet.

In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum or blog to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a NY Times article claims that "sockpuppeting" is defined as "the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one's self, allies or company."[2]

The one time I did that was when you wrote a piece praising Glenn Greenwald, himself and infamous sock puppeteer. I then posted several comments under several of Greenwald's known aliases, all praising each other, in such a style as to make it instantly obvious they were all written by the same person. Further, I also made certain that my own e-mail was attached to both. In short, I was mocking both you and Greenwald, with no intention of deception.

A foolish attempt. I should have remembered you're an utterly humorless prat.

As far as what you call "sock-puppeting" -- the use of alternate identities to evade your capricious and malicious and abusive bans of those who disagreed with you or made you look like the ass you were -- I decline comment. I neither admit nor deny.

But back on topic... in the other Arizona thread, you say that we'll always have criminals with us. True enough. Pity you can't extend the thought to realize we'll also have misbehaving cops, and you can't write a law to utterly eliminate that chance. You can minimize the chances for abuse, but you seem to think that if you can't make a law absolutely abuse-proof, why bother?

Now let's play your gotcha-game for a moment.

If the original law didn't enable racial profiling there wouldn't have been a reason to change it, would there?

This proves that the criticism of the law is valid.

Well, then, now that it's been fixed, then there's no reason to criticize it any more, is there? By your logic, if it "enabled racial profiling" before it was clarified, then the revision took care of that, so it's just fine now? Or are you just a LYING LIAR who can't stand the actual thought of the federal laws being enforced, and are "bitterly clinging" to any slender reed you can grasp to continue your jihad against it?

Bleah. That felt gross.

I've been meaning to write another followup to the New Orleans case. Thanks for the reminder.

I'm also thinking of another piece that -- be still, your heart -- will be about YOU. Well, you and a few others, and just who is welcome around these parts and who isn't. Spoiler warning: you're not on the "don't go away angry, just go away" list. Even though I can tell you're trying like the dickens to get me to ban you, so you can claim some kind of "victory" in that I had to resort to "abusing" my power to silence you.

Sorry, Lee. Ain't gonna happen any time soon.

J.

The use of banquets has become a popular way of holding such large events as a wedding reception. When you are beginning to plan for the big day, one of the first items on the wedding plan is finding the right banquet hall for the reception. There are many questions you will have such as large a hall do you . Some people like the absolute white wedding dress,it realy well. but i prefer to the casual clothing.need? Once you have settled on the size, you will need to know what services the hall will provide to make your wedding day memorable and glitch-free.