Whoops, read the title wrong. Thought it was a new thread that said, "Why not ride TO Arizona," which sounded like an excellent idea. Especially if it were on dirt
and for that matter the 1st Amendment had now idea it would turn into a TMZ Tabloid media that is able to hide behind it....the US and World for that matter has evolved way beyond what the Constitution was initially intended to cover
Ak-47s are legal if you owned it and registered it before California's assault weapon ban. In Arizona they are legal, no assault weapon registration required!:clap:
Citizens are only required to carry ID when driving a car (which is a privilege, not a right) or boarding a flight, etc. Walking down the street minding your own business, it's ok to leave your wallet at home. From a practical standpoint, it doesn't make sense to not carry ID. I really wouldn't want to wait around while a cop verified who I said I was if I matched the description of someone they were looking for, etc.
No, it is what you put forth as part of your example/argument. An element doesn't make sense to what Kazlx said at all.
^^ we'd better start building that canadian border fence, too, because it's way easier for terrorists to hide behind trees than it is for them to hide behind cactus. i guess that will be the next faux poll...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/27/navarrette.arizona.rogue.state/index.html?hpt=T2 CNN is soo funny.
I am heading out with a group of friends Friday for multi-days of MTBing and supporting Arizona. Dean
California has a very similar law. I guess the rest of the country should boycott California. Lost in all the discussions are some simple facts. One, we are talking about people who are in this country illegally. Since they are here illegally they have no right to be here unless they apply for and are granted asylum. Two, since 99.9% of the illegals coming across the border in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California are Hispanic/Latino, these are the individuals that will be looked at more closely. It's not racial profiling or discrimination it's simply mathmatics and reality. How many Candians or Europeans do we catch illegally coming across the borders of the above states? Three, the Arizona law, as it now stands, is legal since it basically follows federal law, and states are allowed to adopt laws consistent with the federal law. Good luck to those who are challenging that law in court. Do you think there is a reason the federal government hasn't yet filed suit?:?:
The reason the federal government hasnt filed suit is because it is a waste of time and money. Arizona passed the law not to make a difference in anyones life but to make a point. And to get their base riled up for the fall elections. Arizona doesnt have the money to do anything of any importance.
yeah, i bet you guys are dropping some big bucks...sitting around the fire. :lol::lol::lol: i'm going to cancel out your effort by staying in ca and NOT watching the diamondbacks lose again. btw- it's great that people keep picking at this scab; maybe we can keep it going all year...
fact is stranger than fiction. and stranger than art. exhibit A: Prescott, Ariz., elementary school to 'whiten' image of child in mural An artist's decision to prominently feature a non-white child on an elementary-school mural in Prescott, Ariz., sparked so much controversy that school administrators asked him to "lighten" the child's face after a city councilman launched a campaign against the mural, according to the Arizona Republic. The Prescott episode isn't likely to help Arizona's growing reputation as a battleground of racial and ethnic confrontation, as the state faces a widespread boycott campaign over its harsh new immigration law. The mural, which was funded by a state grant, features the faces of four actual students at the school and is intended to promote biking and other environmentally sustainable modes of transportation. The most prominent face on it belongs to a Latino student. Steve Blair didn't like that. Blair, local city councilman and talk-radio host, inveighed against the mural on his show last month, according to the New York Daily News: "I am not a racist individual," Blair said on a radio show last month, "but I will tell you depicting a black guy in the middle of that mural, based upon who's President of the United States today and based upon the history of this community, when I grew up we had four black families — who I have been very good friends with for years — to depict the biggest picture on that building as a black person, I would have to ask the question, 'Why?' " Good question, to which there are two answers: 1) The boy in question is of Latino heritage (but it's hard to tell them all apart sometimes, right?), and 2) because the boy in question is of Latino heritage. It is suspicious, though, seeing as how only 42 percent of Arizonans aren't white. R.E. Wall, a Prescott artist who worked on the mural along with several other members of the city's Downtown Mural Project, told the Republic that local residents driving by the mural as they were painting it — sometimes with children helping — shouted ethnic slurs. Wall claimed the school's principal asked him to make the child's skin tone lighter in response to the pushback. The principal acknowledged receiving three complaints about the child's race but insisted that the lightening was an "artistic" decision. The important thing to remember here is that Steve Blair is not a racist individual and that he has been very good friends with Prescott's four black families for years. Blair didn't immediately return a phone call from Yahoo! News.
