Wonder if they'll find Sheriff Joe taking kickbacks from the commercial prison interests in AZ?

C'mon! It's an innocent question.

Arpaio appears to be suffering from a combination of hubris and dementia.

Then there's that chained men in pink boxers fetish of his.

To bad illegal means brown person in AZ.

The Feds, who are not following the laws, are suing a sheriff who is following the laws.

ObamaNation at it's finest!

This administration is a joke. What a shame. History will call this one "The lost Presidency".

"History will call this one "The lost Presidency"."

Health Care Reform passed. Wall Street Reform passed. The Dow up 24% after dropping 22% over the prior administration. Two Supreme Court nominees in the first year and a half.

Some "lost".

Health Care Reform passed

So did Smoot Hawley in the '30s

The Dow up 24% after dropping 22% over the prior administration

But history will look at what it is at the end of his term, not what it was on sep 2, 2010

Two Supreme Court nominees in the first year and a half.

So it is a feather in O's cap that two supreme court justices retired and he did his job in replacing them?

What a pathetic apologist you are for this loser, danforth

Health Care Reform passed. Wall Street Reform passed. The Dow up 24% after dropping 22% over the prior administration. Two Supreme Court nominees in the first year and a half.

Some "lost".

#7 | Posted by Danforth

Did you get this list off the Teaparty.org website? I think three of these are in the top ten reasons people are voting tea party.

"So it is a feather in O's cap that two supreme court justices retired and he did his job in replacing them?"

Without nominating a Harriet Miers? Sure.

"What a pathetic apologist you are for this loser"

Awww, what's the matter, don't have a President you voted for whose accomplishments you can tout?

"So did Smoot Hawley in the '30s"

Speaking of pathetic....

"history will look at what it is at the end of his term, not what it was on sep 2, 2010"

Today is as far as we have. What other date would you suggest?

"So did Smoot Hawley in the '30s"

Speaking of pathetic....

So you think all legislation is good legislation.

Whatever

Today is as far as we have. What other date would you suggest?

If you are going to compare the DJIA from day 1 of Bush to his last day, I suggest you compare the DJIA from day of Messiah to his last day. IOW, your figure is meaningless.

Now if you want to compare the DJIA from Bush's day one to what it was 18 months later, that's a valid comparison.

Or does being an apologist not have room for honesty?

Without nominating a Harriet Miers? Sure.

I'm not sure how that makes O look good, but clearly you are clutching at straws in apologizing for him.

Awww, what's the matter, don't have a President you voted for whose accomplishments you can tout?

Sadly, no. But unlike you I won't let that turn me into a blind apologist in order to try to save face on the shitty vote I cast.

"unlike you I won't let that turn me into a blind apologist in order to try to save face on the shitty vote I cast."

Blind apologist? What a load. Maybe you missed it, but I've been against more of Obama's decisions than not. Still, that's no reason to go back to the shit-sandwich-makers you voted for. Present me with someone better, and I'll vote for that person. Instead, all I'm getting are the Angles and Pauls of the world, and claptrap when I ask for specific ideas. Who and what have you got that will actually address the problems we face?

"Now if you want to compare the DJIA from Bush's day one to what it was 18 months later, that's a valid comparison."

Okay.

Bush: Down 21.5%
Obama: Up 24.5%

Bush: Down 21.5%
Obama: Up 24.5%

Those are more honest numbers. (assuming they are correct. I'm not going to verify) But odd as it seems, I still think history will be looking at O's entire term after he gets out of office.

Anyone have an opinion on Sheriff Joe?

Still, that's no reason to go back to the shit-sandwich-makers you voted for

The shit sandwich makers to whom you refer never got elected.

If you think I voted for Bush both times and that is to what you are referring, don't worry -- the Constitution forbids him from being president again.

Who and what have you got that will actually address the problems we face?

The next presidential election is 2.5 years away, so not only do I have anyone who will address the problems, I don't even know what the problems will be then.

not only do I have anyone =

not only do I not have anyone

Who and what have you got that will actually address the problems we face?

And even if Obama was the best choice doesn't mean he's doing a good job. It means he was the best choice. You seem confused on that issue

"The shit sandwich makers to whom you refer never got elected."

WTF are you talking about? The guy who got elected turned surpluses into deficits, and left two unfinished wars, a meltdown economy, an additional $150-$200 Billion a year in debt service and a melted down economy. Shit Sandwich.

"I still think history will be looking at O's entire term after he gets out of office."

No shit? Really? Wow...how did you ever come up with a brilliant thought like that!?!?!

Blind apologist? What a load. Maybe you missed it, but I've been against more of Obama's decisions than not

Yet you tout his passage of yet to be implemented and proven health care. That sounds pretty blind to me.

"even if Obama was the best choice doesn't mean he's doing a good job. It means he was the best choice. You seem confused on that issue"

I've said repeatedly put up someone better and I'll vote for that person. Got anyone who isn't in bed with the religionists, the wealthiest, and the Scalias of the world? And I haven't stated Obama is doing a "good job", in fact I've stated I've disagreed more than I've agreed. I merely pointed out anyone who thinks this is a "lost Presidency" doesn't know his history.

WTF are you talking about?

I'm talking about you don't know who I voted for. You assume for some reason I voted for Bush. I didn't. The guy I voted for did not get elected, as I said.

"you tout his passage of yet to be implemented and proven health care. "

I touted the passage, not the bill itself. Love it, hate it, or anything in between, it's still historic.

"That sounds pretty blind to me."

Sure, as long as you're drawing your own conclusions based on what you mistakenly think I posted.

No shit? Really? Wow...how did you ever come up with a brilliant thought like that!?!?!

I knew it all along. But you didn't, or if you did, you deliberately presented invalid numbers in your support of him

"The guy I voted for did not get elected, as I said."

You never voted for Dubya?

So if obamacare fails, you agree that is an element of a lost presidency? Fair enough. But if that is the case, you can't assume it will be peaches and cream and not an element of a lost presidency and throw it up there as such

You never voted for Dubya?

Yes I did. One time

"I knew it all along."

So did I, dipshit.

"you deliberately presented invalid numbers "

I compared Bush's final numbers with Obama's numbers to date, which -- of course -- is all we have. That wasn't good enough for you, so I compared them the way you wanted. Virtually the same numbers, so you barfed up some silly statement about history waiting until Obama's term was over, without even a passing reference to the stark difference.

which -- of course -- is all we have.

Which of course is an invalid comparison. So why do it?

"Yes I did. One time"

Oh, so when you posted "The shit sandwich makers to whom you refer never got elected" what you meant was the shit sandwich maker to whom you refer GOT elected. IOW, you voted in the guy who left the shit sandwich.

I'm done with the word games. Have the last one.

IOW, you voted in the guy who left the shit sandwich.

Actually the state of Texas was in very good shape after the term to which I elected him to in 1995.

You make too many assumptions, danforth.

So did I, dipshit.

You let your emotions override you again, danforth.

I'm going for a swim in the gulf before the moon rises. The phosphorescent plankton is so cool in the dark. I'll be back later

Anyone have an opinion on Sheriff Joe?

Cartman with authoritay.

I think it will be interesting how you can sue someone for enforcing the laws. Kind of messed up if you ask me.

All he has to say is that the documents being given to the federal government would undermine State Security. It works for the Feds with national security, why not the states?

I think it will be interesting how you can sue someone for enforcing the laws.
#42 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

You really need to read the article. Seriously.

All he has to say is that the documents being given to the federal government would undermine State Security.
#43 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Great advice. Result: a stamped ticked straight to the looney bin.

Arpaio's attempting to obstruct a federal civil-rights investigation.

It's a no-winner for him.

And couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.

The Feds, who are not following the laws, are suing a sheriff who is following the laws.

ObamaNation at it's finest!

#5 | Posted by KBM

Ain't that GREAT????? They need to do that to every sheriff that is enforcing federal law. They can't let them bastards get away with that.

Awww, what's the matter, don't have a President you voted for whose accomplishments you can tout?

#12 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

2 Supreme Court Justices that actually effect the decisions of the court (Kagan and Sotamayor have 0 impact currently)
Passed No Child Left Behind (even if it went to crap, passing it was pretty huge at the time... same might happen to HCR)
Killed US involvement in the International Court thing
The Medicare Prescription Drug program (Just in the news for coming in under cost marks)
And though he blew it with Iraq he was a great leader in the wake of 9/11

There's plenty that Bush accomplished... you don't stay in office 8 years without legislative and policy successes... just because you don't agree with them, doesn't mean they aren't successes for him and his party.

For example, his partial birth abortion ban, is seen as a huge victory for those on the far right.

civil rights investigation? Especially dealing with Hispanic individuals in an area where Hispanic individual make up a large portion of the crime in the area dealing with ILLEGAL immigration?

"Hey, that's not fair, you are discriminating against their civil rights by looking for the description of the hundreds of thousands of criminals that you have coming into your state, you fiend".

I suppose it is discrimination to look at people who have black hair, are 6' 2", wearing a hooded sweatshirt and jeans when the night of a crime a person fitting that description was seen? All those people who report someone who might fit that description should go to prison for discrimination?

Funny.

(See, I cane make an absurdly simple false argument from an article just like you Doc.)

Yep, moron, a federal civil-rights investigation.

Maybe you missed it, but I've been against more of Obama's decisions than not.

I, along with probably everyone else on this site, missed that. What have you opposed that Obama has done?

I touted the passage, not the bill itself. Love it, hate it, or anything in between, it's still historic.

LOL. That is by far the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Passing any "historic" bill, no matter how atrocious, is now worthy of praise?

I, along with probably everyone else on this site, missed that. What have you opposed that Obama has done?

#50 | Posted by JOE

Well lawyer Joe, for starters, the new color of drapes in the oval office are all wrong. Also, they sent Soshona to Y camp while sending Malia to Spain...all sorts of wrong there. Then, Michele wore a blue dress with black shoes, need I say anything further?
-Danforth (I)

Passing any "historic" bill, no matter how atrocious, is now worthy of praise?

#52 | POSTED BY JOE

I love the argument that Obama is so great because he passed it when no other president could pass health care reform. I wonder if any of the previous presidents who wanted reform would have signed this bill. Aside from a few new restrictions on insurance companies (that likely have mile wide loopholes), it does nothing to make the care we receive in this country better and its not going to cut costs.

They passed a piece of shit bill so they could say, "we passed it," not because any of them believe it will actually help Americans.

Then, Michele wore a blue dress with black shoes

she was actually barefoot, but that's a common mistake...

The federal lawsuit-- which is here: www.azdatapages.com -- makes for some interesting reading.

#51 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

In a nutshell it says......... you accepted federal money so we can look at all of your books for a fishing expidition.

Just pitch this dumb fucking sheriff and his supporters in a pit with this guy:

she was actually barefoot, but that's a common mistake...

#55 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Now, that's funny Rob.

The DOJ will lose this suit also. Blago walks, no prosecution of Black Panthers, what a joke this whole administration is.

They say if you do not invite evil into your house it will cry at your door till it can sneak in.

Should Joe allow this batch of ankle bitting mutts into his offices? (Hell No!) They would never leave and all decisions would be made under their watchful eye. (Remember the cry baby FBI source that wittnesssed a "problem" at GITMO"?) So, it is best to keep them far away. Make them cry and demand from the court, whuich should need some proof that there is a problem, before it forces the Sheriff to allow this beast in the door.

It is amazing at the way these top down democrats are working to isolate those who are effective and standing up for the rule of law, not the power of the purse!

The feds just can't stand it when someone does their job for them!

The federal lawsuit-- which is here: www.azdatapages.com -- makes for some interesting reading.
#51 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

In a nutshell it says......... you accepted federal money so we can look at all of your books
#56 | Posted by Sniper

There, Snoops, FTFY. No charge.

He is currently the subject of FBI, United States Department of Justice, and Federal Grand Jury investigations for civil rights violations and abuse of power, and is the defendant in a federal class-action suit for racial profiling.

You got to love this guy. I for one would like to see all jails being run like this across the country. Imagine the thought of making it a place one never wants to return to. Seeing as 20 more states have written their own versions of Arizona's SB 1070 law, maybe it isn't that far fetched.

In late 2008 and early 2009 Arpaio appeared in Smile...You're Under Arrest!, a three-episode Fox Reality Channel series in which persons with outstanding warrants were tricked into presenting themselves for arrest.

Arpaio's practices include serving inmates surplus and spoiled food and meals limited to twice daily. He has also banned inmates from possessing "sexually explicit material" including Playboy magazine after female officers complained that inmates openly masturbated while viewing them or harassed the officers by comparing their anatomy to that of the nude models in the publications. The ban was challenged on First Amendment grounds but upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In February 2007, Arpaio instituted an in-house radio station he calls KJOE. Arpaio's radio station broadcasts classical music, opera, Frank Sinatra hits, patriotic music and educational programming. It operates from the basement of the county jail for five days a week, four hours each day.

During the summer of 2003, when outside temperatures exceeded 110 °F (43 °C), Arpaio said to complaining inmates, "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and the soldiers are living in tents, have to wear full body armor, and they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your mouths." Tent City is criticized by groups contending that there are violations of human and constitutional rights.

"The feds just can't stand it when someone does their job for them!"

Hardly.

It's really a very simple question: Did Arpaio and his department violate federal law? Yes or no.

If Arpaio's hands are clean, there's no problem, everything's coming up daisies, give the feds the information. Because if you don't, someone's liable to think you're trying to hide something. And they'll start digging, harder. Which is exactly what the DOJ's doing.

If Arpaio's hands are clean, there's no problem, everything's coming up daisies, give the feds the information.

#64 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

No, this is a smear campaign by the left, don't be fooled. This will bankrupt him, regardless of guilt or innocense. It's a standard Chicago gangster thang b0 and his ilk are famous for.

Amazing that in Arizona they all talk about ILLEGALS but ILLEGALS seem to be A-OK as long as the person is white.

You can see it here from folks on the right. All of a sudden, because this guy is white, they don't care if he is legal or illegal. It's a fucking joke.

And I would rather have 100 people enter this country illegally than have ONE ILLEGAL Sheriff.

But that's just me, and it's clear some of you see in differently.

#63 courtesy of en.wikipedia.org

Ouch. Copied the link and didn't paste.

Anyone have an opinion on Sheriff Joe?

#22 | Posted by bruceaz

It will be Karma if he ends up in his own prison.

#67 | Posted by Manypaths at 2010-09-03 11:37 AM

You doing your best Celisary imitation with the word "ILLEGAL" Many?

Who the fuck is "they" and "this guy" in the respective paragraphs?

"Amazing that in Arizona THEY all talk about ILLEGALS but ILLEGALS seem to be A-OK as long as the person is white."

"You can see it here from folks on the right. All of a sudden, because THIS GUY is white, they don't care if he is legal or illegal. It's a fucking joke."

THEY would be the average white person in AZ and THIS GUY would be the Sheriff mentioned in the link.

(By the way, AZ means ARIZONA.)

It's a standard Chicago gangster thang b0 and his ilk are famous for.

#66 | Posted by RIGHTPOLICY

Bullshit...

Clinton...Whitewater...Ken Starr....Vince Foster....Paula Jones...Lewinski

70 million dollar investigation

impeachment of a President

am I ringing any bells yet?

It will be Karma if he ends up in his own prison.

#69 | Posted by donnerboy

Dressed in all pink too! I would go to Arizona to see that LOL

Seeing him in pink would be great, but unfortunately he would end up in a Federal prison.

No, this is a smear campaign by the left, don't be fooled.
#66 | Posted by RIGHTPOLICY

I'll tell you who's been fooled: Arpaio and his goons.

Check up on his actions against Mike Lacey of "New Times" and you'll see where ol' "Sheriff Joe" let his arrogance get the better of him.

On the "smear campaign," let's see some evidence, 'kay?

THEY would be the average white person in AZ and THIS GUY would be the Sheriff mentioned in the link.

(By the way, AZ means ARIZONA.)

#71 | Posted by Manypaths at 2010-09-03 11:46 AM

Did you even read your own retort? Did you expect anyone to decipher a rant out of nowhere? God only knows what fucking link or Sheriff you mentioned. If it is some stupid line about Arpaio, what the hell do you mean "if he is legal or illegal" shit mean.

"You can see it here from folks on the right. All of a sudden, because this guy is white, they don't care if he is legal or illegal. It's a fucking joke."

I didn't expect you to get it OC as you're a fucking idiot.

Normally people tend to make comments in threads that pertain to the supplied link.

It's not my fault that you're a fucking idiot.

#77 | Posted by Manypaths at 2010-09-03 12:06 PM | Reply | Flag: Well, it's not his fault either. Its natures fault. Dang Natural selection, didn't select him (or you for that matter)

I didn't expect you to get it OC as you're a fucking idiot.

Normally people tend to make comments in threads that pertain to the supplied link.

It's not my fault that you're a fucking idiot.

#77 | Posted by Manypaths at 2010-09-03 12:06 PM

Get what? You fucking start talking out of your ass about "these people" being OK with aliens as long as they are white? Then you strangely start yapping about some Sheriff being illegal? Where in the hell is that in any fucking link or article? The only thing I was being an idiot about is respnding to you and your stupid post. Won't happen again dickhead. Whine on bitch.

Sheriff Arpaio:

" The Obama administration has filed three lawsuits against Arizona in the last few weeks … one against a college district, one against the state of Arizona and now one against my office. Each lawsuit centers on something to do with alleged racial discrimination.

These actions make it abundantly clear that Arizona, including this Sheriff, IS Washington's new whipping boy. Now it's time to take the gloves off. As for today's lawsuit against my office: These people in Washington met with my attorneys only a few days ago. And in that meeting, Washington got our cooperation; they admitted they already have thousands of pages of the requested documents; and they were given access to interview my staff and get into my jails. They smiled in our faces and then stabbed us in the back with this lawsuit. The Obama administration intended to sue us all along, no matter what we did to try to avert it.

Washington isn't playing fair and it's time Americans everywhere wake up and see this administration for what it really is. Calculating, underhanded at times and certainly not looking out for the best interests of the legal citizens residing in this country."

"Calculating, underhanded at times and certainly not looking out for the best interests of the legal citizens residing in this country."

Come on? Suing a state who are trying to protect legal citizens and residents isn't in our best interest? Giving a standing ovation to a foreign leader criticizing a US state and their laws, isn't protecting the rights or in the best interests of those legally residing in Arizona?

I am shocked that anyone would question our intentions.

Sincerely,
Barrack Obama
Nancy Pelosi
William Holden
The Democratic Party

You fucking start talking out of your ass about "these people" being OK with aliens as long as they are white?

I never said aliens you fucking idiot but you just made my point.

I say ILLEGAL and you think ALIEN.

ILLEGAL is ILLEGAL meaning that you are doing or have done something that is ILLEGAL and despite what you think has nothing to do with skin color or country of origin.

But when I say ILLEGAL, you think BROWN GUY.

You can see it here from folks on the right. All of a sudden, because this guy is white, they don't care if he is legal or illegal. It's a fucking joke.

Again, thanks for helping me make my point.

This is the biggest disgrace by our pseudo government since it was created. My God, they are suing this guy, who is doing a service to his citizens and the citizens of Arizona that our useless ass of a president won't do. Obama and his thugs need to be reigned in and impeached.

Some blame 287(g) for giving Arpaio and other local law enforcement agencies across the country the authority to go after illegal immigrants.

how dare anybody give anyone the authority to go after illegal aliens,who in hell wants to stand in line and come here legally?

The feds aren't looking into Arpaio because he "did his job."

They're looking into him because he may have violated federal civil rights laws.

As in, broken the law.

The sentiment from the right in here is "Who Cares if the White Guy Does Illegal Things?"

You guys have made that as clear as day.

Health Care Reform passed. Wall Street Reform passed. The Dow up 24% after dropping 22% over the prior administration. Two Supreme Court nominees in the first year and a half.
Some "lost".

#7 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2010-09-03 12:28 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

I totally agree with Danforth. Not "lost" presidency, "most fucked up" presidency is more appropriate.

the Feds suing the state over shit like this is just pathetic.

Where do you get the idea that the feds are suing the state of Arizona?

The Sheriff is an agent of the state, and who, pray tell, do you think will be footing the legal expenses of defending this action?

or the suit against the community college system? you think the fucking board is gonna pay their own way? maybe the feds will just bankrupt AZ into what it wants. Feds'll just print more money or tax us more for doing stupid shit like this.

The Sheriff is an agent of the state, and who, pray tell, do you think will be footing the legal expenses of defending this action?

#90 | Posted by somoco

The fact that he might have broken the law is of no concern of yours?

It is amazing that you and your ilk don't care about the law when it involves white people. It's just shocking that you don't care if white people break the law.

the Feds suing the state over shit like this is just pathetic.

#88 | Posted by somoco

What's pathetic is you thinking that white sheriffs are above the law.

#92 Bullshit. AZ is being the feds whipping boy for passing the immigration law. Feds don't like it, and they're fucking with them now. I'd be just as pissed if this was the feds. suing over some bs reverse discrimination claim or a claim that a hispanic sheriff was jerking around whitey.

It's generalized douchebaggery for the feds to interfere in this manner with the functioning of a state.

What's pathetic is you thinking that white sheriffs are above the law.

#93 | POSTED BY MANYPATHS AT 2010-09-03 02:04 PM | REPLY | FLAG

never said that. of course they shouldn't. but if they do, there are state mechanisms in place to take care of it.

and who says this guy has even broken any laws? You clairvoyant Many? Give me a fucking break.

and who says this guy has even broken any laws?

According the the Feds, they need the documents that the Sherrif refuses to hand over to determine that.

What's the line from the right? "If he has nothing to hide, then he has nothing to worry about."

Right?

He is impeding their investigation. Do you support the sheriff for doing this or do you think he should cooperate?

never said that. of course they shouldn't. but if they do, there are state mechanisms in place to take care of it.

#95 | Posted by somoco

Not in Federal Civil Rights Cases.

Do you understand the difference? I don't think you do. You seem to be confused.

#98 why should he have to give them shit? especially when it's a fishing expedition?

people who are victimized have rights through state courts, which is exercised all the time. The AG of states and internal investigations happen all the time in cases where there are allegations of abuse. Let's face it, none of this shit would be going down if AZ hadn't passed the immigration bill. Now, they have multiple suits going. Employment discrimination in the college system?

Are you telling me that these folks wouldn't have recourse if they had legitimate claims? This is payback - political payback. It's gonna cost time and money for all involved.

Do you understand the difference? I don't think you do. You seem to be confused.

#98 | POSTED BY MANYPATHS AT 2010-09-03 02:19 PM | REPLY | FLAG

i understand that the feds are using a federal statute for payback that's gonna cost AZ and us a ton of money. i think it's bullshit. not because i hate Mexicans, because i don't think the fed should use it's power to deliver payback. like i said, this would not happen if the immigration law hadn't passed.

The Sheriff is an agent of the state, and who, pray tell, do you think will be footing the legal expenses of defending this action?
#90 | Posted by somoco

He's the Sheriff of Maricopa County. He's not the Sheriff of the State of Arizona.

State of Arizona owes Arpaio no legal representation. The entity responsible if Maricopa County.

if = is

102. isn't the county a political subdivision of the state?

#100 | Posted by somoco

Well then you should write the Sheriff and tell him to hand over the requested information as HE is costing the state and "us", according to you a lot of money.

Why are you trying to blame the wrong party over this? The feds have given him plenty of time and only took this step when the Sheriff publicly declared that he would NOT cooperate with the investigation.

What do you expect the Feds to do? Roll over to some County Sheriff and allow him to possibly continue to break Federal Law?

Because that is the stance you appear to be taking.

isn't the county a political subdivision of the state?
#104 | Posted by somoco

And the state is a part of the United States, but the US of A isn't going to foot Joe's bill.

Clearly the target is Arpaio and his office, part of the county government. It's my understanding that's where the investigation is targeted and where it stops. The State of Arizona ins't a target, but Arpaio and his office are; hence the Maricopa County involvement.

Gotta wonder how some of the folks on this thread would react if the slug at the top of the page read:

"Justice Department civil rights lawyers filed suit against Sheriff Huey 'Hoss' Mack of Alabama on Thursday after talks collapsed on a deal to provide federal investigators with documents they requested. The suit, filed in federal court in Minette, claims the Baldwin County sheriff has failed to cooperate with the investigation into alleged discrimination against Hispanics by Mack's law enforcement officials."

If he was violating State Law, then it would be the State that would be suing Maricopa County.

You think the State would pay the Defense fees then?

Honestly, does anyone doubt but that Arpaio discriminates against Latinos in general in his crusade to detain illegal immigrants? Honestly.

You start inserting honesty into this and...well, I never!

#107 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2010-09-03 02:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why didn't this lawsuit take place before the whole "immigration bill"?

Oh, because it is a reaction to Arizona continuing to enforce it's state policies which have been deemed constitutional (thus far) by the courts, as they have not been deemed unconstitutional, and mirror federal law.

#109 | Posted by moder8 at 2010-09-03 02:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't doubt that all cops disrciminate against people when they are looking for any perpetrator that is not easily defined.

I guess that means we should stop police work in general.

Most of the time they don't call it discriminating, but following a lead, profiling, looking for certain behaviors. It is not the sheriffs fault that Hispanics tend to live in Mexico and a lot of Mexicans tend to come across the boarder.

I guess if we know somewhat what a murder looks like, we are too be fair and give everyone a chance to be the murder.

If there is a Hispanic immigration problem, you look to hispanics

If there is a Czech immigration problem, you look to czechs

If there is a German immigration problem, you look to germans.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Why didn't this lawsuit take place before the whole "immigration bill"?
#111 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

You know when the investigation began? Oh, well, please, pass the news along.

I know that this isn't the only legal mess on Arpaio's plate. From last March:

Honestly, does anyone doubt but that Arpaio discriminates against Latinos in general in his crusade to detain illegal immigrants? Honestly.

#109 | POSTED BY MODER8 AT 2010-09-03 02:36 PM | REPLY | FLAG

if they are arrested with reasonable suspicion, and prove their citizenship, are you suggesting that they are then treated differently than whitey? because i do doubt that, and i don't think there's anything wrong in having to prove citizenship after an arrest - do you?

Arpaio may be a big dawg in Maricopa County, Arizona. But he's about to find out what's it's like to get hit with an ugly stick.

As I've long said, couldn't happen to a more deserving demagogue.

Clearly the target is Arpaio and his office, part of the county government.

He brought it upon himself. I hope he enjoys the attention.

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I thought you guys on the Right liked the Constitution.

You can knock that shit off now. You clearly think it's just a God Damn Piece of Paper.

Now, if the Sheriff violated Anyone's rights in the Constitution, what should happen to him?

What if he is only suspected of violating their rights and won't turn over requested evidence?

What should the authorities do?

It's generalized douchebaggery for the feds to interfere in this manner with the functioning of a state.

Then the state should not have taken federal money. Furthermore, but most importantly, discrimination because of race, ethnicity, nation origin, etc. it is a federal law and the feds have every right to investigate. The feds have an obligation to its citizenry to investigate.

"Then the state should not have taken federal money."

So the taxpayers of Arizona who give their money to the federal gov, should just say thank you for taking my money and giving it to every other state but mine?

So-called probable cause to detain a person can be as simple as jaywalking or dropping a gum wrapper on the sidewalk. As applied by Arpaio, that is being used to detain and question Latinos about their citizenship. And yes, that is racist.

#118 BS, I like the constitution, and nobody has proved the Sheriff did anything wrong. You've already convicted him in your mind.

The part of the Constitution, and what I don't like about this, is the 11th Amendment:

"In Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, the court explained that
we have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms: that the States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact; that the judicial authority in Article III is limited by this sovereignty, and that a State will therefore not be subject to suit in federal court unless it has consented to suit, either expressly or in the "plan of the convention."

What is happening is an obliteration of State sovereignty. I, for one, think it's crap. You all think that this is perhaps the only remedy left - and I say bullshit. People who have problems can sue the states in state courts. It's been ratcheted up for political purposes, and in derogation of the basic precepts of state sovereignty.

#114 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2010-09-03 02:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

I suppose you do not know the difference between an active Lawsuit and an investigation without charges.

I guess you also don't understand the time line involved with the immigration bill.

#123 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Translation: Contrary to what you asserted earlier, you really don't know when the investigation began, do you?

The lawsuit was filed when Arapaio failed to deliver the goods after discussions with DOJ representatives.

So, since you appear to have eyes and ears inside the investigation, when did it actually commence?

#121...

Have you ever come back from Mexico and walked through the Border station to enter back into the US? What exactly do they ask you? What is your citizenship? Now if you don't answer that question and say US, or look like you are not a US resident, what does the Agent do? He asks for proof you can LAWFULLY enter the US. Right? How is this any fucking different than the Arizona law?

As applied by Arpaio, that is being used to detain and question Latinos about their citizenship. And yes, that is racist.

#121 | POSTED BY MODER8 AT 2010-09-03 03:06 PM | REPLY | FLAG

you really believe this is what's happening on an institutional basis? based on "client conferences" you might have had, or the public rantings of an arrestee? gimme a break.

"or look like you are not a US resident"

?

People who have problems can sue the states in state courts.

NOT

WHEN

IT

PERTAINS

TO

FEDERAL

CRIMES.

Why is that so hard to get through your thick fucking little skull? No matter how many times you say it, it isn't true.

How do you manage to breathe and still not be able to understand this very simple concept?

Are you fucking retarded?!?!?!?!?

Real simple OC.

what does the Agent do?

You mean:

What does the FEDERAL Agent do? You do know those are Federal Agents right? And the fact that they ask EVERYONE means they aren't profiling.

#124 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2010-09-03 03:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

So you are telling me that I am wrong because the government actually started investigating Sheriff Joe after they confronted Arizona for their Immigration law, are trying to get them to change it, Joe backed the law ans showed adamant support for the law, and continue to enforce federal laws that already exist, constitutionally?

Ok, not making sense so far. Seems like a reaction to me. Just like their first incorrect reaction to the bill before they ever read it.

Just like their first incorrect reaction to the bill before they ever read it.

Really, then why did AZ change the bill after that reaction? Must have been some truth to it. They made changes based off of that reaction.

How does that fit into your vision of reality?

My own take is that the DOJ has had it with Arpaio and is going to hold his feet to the fire until he does what he's supposed to do: uphold the law by turning over the requested information, as required by law.

There's quite a lot closing in on Arpaio these days and it's not all related to the Arizona law Brewer signed.

"History will call this one "The lost Presidency"."

Health Care Reform passed. Wall Street Reform passed. The Dow up 24% after dropping 22% over the prior administration. Two Supreme Court nominees in the first year and a half.
Some "lost".

Wow. I really feel better about that 9.6% unemployment number now.

"Wow. I really feel better about that 9.6% unemployment number now."

Had Dubya inherited Dubya's economy, it'd be 19.6%.

Had Dubya inherited Dubya's economy, it'd be 19.6%.

#135 | Posted by Danforth

Link.

"Link"

"Link"

images.google.com

#137 | Posted by Danforth

Fair enough. Thanks.

NOT
WHEN
IT
PERTAINS
TO
FEDERAL
CRIMES.
Why is that so hard to get through your thick fucking little skull? No matter how many times you say it, it isn't true.
How do you manage to breathe and still not be able to understand this very simple concept?
Are you fucking retarded?!?!?!?!?

#128 | POSTED BY MANYPATHS AT 2010-09-03 03:15 PM | REPLY | FLAG

no, you're the retard. keep up dipshit. the problem I have with this is that the Feds are suing the state. Or, if you like, the Sheriff who is employed by the County, which is a political subdivision of the state. the feds have no business suing the state, state institutions, or political subdivisions of a sovereign state. State laws have protections for folks who have been wronged by the state, and have redress against the state in state court.

See the 11th Amendment. I know it's tough, do try to follow.

"Link.
#136 | Posted by 101Chairborne"

"See the 11th Amendment. I know it's tough, do try to follow.
#139 | Posted by somoco"

You are overlooking the Supremacy Clause. Sorry, you lose.

#141. No, 11th says and has been interpreted to prohibit feds from suing states. Cited case above. Supremacy Clause is a specific determination of whether a law is precluded because the feds occupy the field, which is different (and is probably why the AZ statute will fall). A tort case, which this is, is different.

So the taxpayers of Arizona who give their money to the federal gov, should just say thank you for taking my money and giving it to every other state but mine?

#120 | Posted by crispee_oc

Works for me. They wanna be dicks and not follow the rules as laid down by the Feds in order to get federal funding then they get no moola. More for the rest of us who are following the rules.

Isn't that how you are supposed to feel about welfare recipients?

He asks for proof you can LAWFULLY enter the US. Right? How is this any fucking different than the Arizona law?

#125 | Posted by crispee_oc

you do know it is not a crime to be in the USA without authorization right? It is a civil infraction. But, it is a crime to enter illegally.

It has never been a crime for an immigrant to be in this country illegally. Arizona just made it a crime -- a misdemeanor the first time, a felony for repeat offenders.

The difference between a civil and criminal offense is colossal.

The more you know...

It has never been a crime for an immigrant to be in this country illegally. Arizona just made it a crime -- a misdemeanor the first time, a felony for repeat offenders.
The difference between a civil and criminal offense is colossal.
The more you know...
#143 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2010-09-03 05:24 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

You say that it is a crime to enter this Country illegally, but not for an immigrant to be here illegally. So, unless the Wizarding World has given people the power to apparate, how could someone here illegally not have committed a crime by entering the country?

Also, AZ might take you up on not getting money as soon as they lift all unfunded mandates - and compensating AZ for the non-enforcement of the borders and the money that has cost the state.

How did Bush get away with suing Illinois then?

#145 was straight up statutory interpretation on whether fed occupied field, which i already said was ok, and why bo will beat AZ in the immigration law. besides, that was Bush, that's ok

So the taxpayers of Arizona who give their money to the federal gov, should just say thank you for taking my money and giving it to every other state but mine?
#120 | Posted by crispee_oc

"Works for me. They wanna be dicks and not follow the rules as laid down by the Feds in order to get federal funding then they get no moola. More for the rest of us who are following the rules."

More sound reasoning from the clown who says it is not against the law to be here illegally, but is a crime trying to get in illegally. Almost as good as the poster who says there is difference between the Border agent asking for proof of citizenship when entering the US is not racial profiling, but if a state peace officers asks, all of the sudden it is.

So, unless the Wizarding World has given people the power to apparate, how could someone here illegally not have committed a crime by entering the country?

Hey... I don't make the rules Bro. Breaking one law is not the same as the other. I am only the messenger here. They tried to change the rules and Arizona stepped in it. Let them explain it to you. All I can tell you is that there is a big difference between civil and criminal offenses. It seems most of you don't realize the difference. You figure it out. Or do you need me to bonk you on the head with my magic wand of understanding? Here is a clue: It is more illegal to hire an illegal alien than to be one.

#147 | Posted by crispee_oc

shows what a hack you are Crispee Critter.... maybe you better use "The Google" before you make another complete ass out of yerself.

"#141. No, 11th says and has been interpreted to prohibit feds from suing states.
#142 | Posted by somoco"

Did the federal gov't under Bush sue Illinois? If so, how can you reconcile that with your claim that the 11th A "prohibits feds from suing states"?

CoCo is getting battered around today. Poor old fucker.

shows what a hack you are Crispee Critter.... maybe you better use "The Google" before you make another complete ass out of yerself.

#149 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-09-03 06:33 PM |

Of course you thought this through right Dooner? Care to take a crack at these? Pretty much makes your retort and you look pretty fucking stupid. Maybe you have been testing your harvest early this year.

'Illegal Immigration is a Crime'

Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or

Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or

Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;
has committed a federal crime.

CoCo is getting battered around today. Poor old fucker.

#151 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2010-09-03 06:35 PM |

You may want to read post# 152 before shoving that size six shoe back in your mouth CoreBoy. Old fucker? Hey make sure you post how cool you are making that up.

"All I can tell you is that there is a big difference between civil and criminal offenses. It seems most of you don't realize the difference."

Aside from the fact both are against the law, and those convicted face fines and jail time, what stupid point are you trying to make?

"Aside from the fact both are against the law, and those convicted face fines and jail time"

Not to put too fine a point on it, but civil courts don't sentence the guilty to jail time.

what stupid point are you trying to make?

#154 | Posted by crispee_oc

I think I made it...sorry you are too stupid to see my "stupid point".

I see you CAN use The Google. Good boy! now did you bother to google what the penalty for BEING an illegal immigrant in this country was?

It is a Civil violation. See the difference yet? Arizona changed that to a felony so that the Arizona police could enforce it. THAT is why they are in trouble. If it wasn't a problem then the Federal Government would not have a case now would it? Or do you really believe this is just Obama going after a Rethug state to harass them or something?

It would have been easier to just enforce the laws we have...like preventing illegal aliens from working here in America. But, that would mean arresting Americans that are breaking the law too now wouldn't it?

Anyway...carry on hack. It is a beautiful day in California (illegal population 3 million compared to Arizona's 500,000). I am going home and hug my wife and play in the sweet California Sun. Maybe I will check in later and see if you got it yet.

Not that I care.

Arizona made it's bed...

Or do you need me to bonk you on the head with my magic wand of understanding? Here is a clue: It is more illegal to hire an illegal alien than to be one.
#148 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2010-09-03 06:31 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

i understand what you say. but, follow this: If someone is here illegally, they committed a crime by entering into this country without documentation at some point in their lives. So, when you find someone who is here illegally, you can prosecute them for the crime of entering into the country in the first place. although you don't have video of them committing the crime, there is no doubt that they did it to get here. so, while you may not be able to jail them for being here illegally, you may prosecute them for entering into the country illegally, and would have to be a pretty poor prosecutor to lose the case.

"I see you CAN use The Google. Good boy! now did you bother to google what the penalty for BEING an illegal immigrant in this country was?"

I thought I did. Hell I even posted it and the links. You do know one has to "enter" before he can be an illegal immigrant, right? Keeping in mind I was responding to this gem you wrote: "It has never been a crime for an immigrant to be in this country illegally." Now you still want to stick to that?

"Enters" or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or

Attempts to enter or "obtains entry" to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact; has committed a federal crime.

"I see you CAN use The Google. Good boy! now did you bother to google what the penalty for BEING an illegal immigrant in this country was?"

Is this a "was" or "is" crap? Like a civil crime is not a crime argument?

Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.

you can prosecute them for the crime of entering into the country in the first place.

Isn't that a Federal Law not a State Law?

Keeping in mind I was responding to this gem you wrote: "It has never been a crime for an immigrant to be in this country illegally." Now you still want to stick to that?

yes yer honor!

I don't make the laws bro. I guess I just understand them better than you...apparently.

Critics don't understand because Arizona will adjudicate a new law that's nothing similar to federal law. Robert J. Barron, a leading immigration attorney in Colorado Springs, confirmed that it's not a crime to be in the United States illegally. It's a common misconception that feeds immigration hysteria. Federal law says it's a civil infraction -- just as it's a civil violation, and therefore "illegal," to send e-mail spam without an "unsubscribe" option. The difference between a civil and criminal offense is colossal.

#160... So I should believe a leading immigration attorney splitting hairs, and not the exact verbage of the law as written?

Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code or a leading immigration attorney, wow that's a tough one Doooner.

the problem I have with this is that the Feds are suing the state. Or, if you like, the Sheriff who is employed by the County, which is a political subdivision of the state. the feds have no business suing the state, state institutions, or political subdivisions of a sovereign state. State laws have protections for folks who have been wronged by the state, and have redress against the state in state court.

See the 11th Amendment. I know it's tough, do try to follow.
#139 | Posted by somoco

we're liable to see Holder and/or some Fed officials wearing pink undies & bunking in a hot tent

The Dow up 24% after dropping 22% over the prior administration

But history will look at what it is at the end of his term, not what it was on sep 2, 2010

#9 | Posted by goatman at 2010-09-03 12:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

So? You say 'but' as if it can only go down.

Did you get this list off the Teaparty.org website? I think three of these are in the top ten reasons people are voting tea party.

#11 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2010-09-03 12:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

You're listening to FAUX News again. Most incumbents are wining against the TeaBigots.

So? You say 'but' as if it can only go down

In response to danforth's assumption it would only go up. Keep it in context, please. Dishonesty only weakens your position

"In response to danforth's assumption it would only go up"

I never assumed that for a moment. Why lie?

I never assumed that for a moment.

You brought it up as an Obama attriute, specifically, not a "lost presidency". My bad. I assumed (as most) that you would cite good things and not bad when defending his not being a "lost presidency"

How silly of me

"I assumed (as most) that you would cite good things and not bad when defending his not being a "lost presidency""

That has nothing to do with assuming the Dow would only go up during his Presidency. Your assumption, not mine.

I'll not play your word games, danforth. We both know exactly what you implied in citing those dow numbers -- that the messiah's were better. You discredit yourself pretending otherwise.

"'ll not play your word games, danforth. "

Too fucking rich, coming from the queen of word games.

"We both know exactly what you implied in citing those dow numbers -- that the messiah's were better."

No implication needed; they are better, by whatever metric you choose. The issue is whether I assumed they would only go up. That wasn't my assumption at all, despite your pretense. Nad up.

Too fucking rich, coming from the queen of word games.

Poor danforth -- this time only a couple of exchanges before you resort to the name calling.

As I said, we both know what you implied. You may pretend otherwise. That's cool. I honestly don't want to see you go into a full blown meltdown. You take this place and its participants too seriously

You take this place and this participant too seriously

FTFY.

I remember a year ago I had to ask you what FTFY meant.LOL

"we both know what you implied. "

No, only you "know" what you believe I implied. As a financial advisor for nearly a decade, the assumption the DJIA would only go upward is ludicrous. Pathetic you had to pretend otherwise.

You are so right, danforth. You cited irrelevant numbers to defend against a "lost presidency" even if those numbers were lower in the end.

You win.

Pretty silly logic, on your part, though, to do that.

But that's not to imply you're not the big time winner here. You are!

I think it's time for a Bush deflection

Danforth and Goatman,
You're both wrong.Dow Jones is a speculatative gambling game.Not much to do with reality.

"You cited irrelevant numbers "

Irrelevant? Just yesterday you claimed they were valid:

"Now if you want to compare the DJIA from Bush's day one to what it was 18 months later, that's a valid comparison."
#16 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2010-09-03 01:00 AM

Are the goalposts heavy when you have to move them like that?

You're both wrong.Dow Jones is a speculatative gambling game.Not much to do with reality.

I was told that exact same thing by the libs when I was pointing out that the Dow was 14,000. Now, strangely enough, the libs embrace it as a belwether of the economy. Go figure

I said you won, Danforth. Fuck. Do you want me to mail you a kewpie doll or what?

"I said you won, Danforth. Fuck. Do you want me to mail you a kewpie doll or what?"

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. You 'said I won', then claimed I was citing "irrelevant numbers", despite the fact I was citing the parameters YOU set. Pathetic.

I was told that exact same thing by the libs

Well this lib just told you the same thing.The American economy is based on bubbles.So they can harvest your 401k

OK, you lost

I don't know what to say to please you, danforth

I don't know what to say to please you, danforth

Silence is golden.

Well this lib just told you the same thing.The American economy is based on bubbles.So they can harvest your 401k

#180 | Posted by bruceaz at 2010-09-04 03:47 AM

They can only harvest it if you let them.

"Despite the splash of attention from the newest lawsuit, the Justice Department's investigation of Arpaio could end badly for Holder. When the Department first informed Arpaio that a probe was under way, back in March 2009, it sent a letter saying the investigation would focus on "alleged patterns or practices of discriminatory police practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures." But now we learn that just six months before that, in September 2008, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, known as ICE, did its own investigation of Arpaio's office -- and gave it a clean bill of health. Arpaio's lawyers recently got a copy of the ICE report through the Freedom of Information Act."