Reverend Al Sharpton Reveals on National Television that the Emperor of Pinal County, Paul Babeu, Has No Clothes (ICYMI)

bgray59

1 Like

It is raining in the high desert. So I built a fire in my stove and decided to enjoy some quality time with a book and the New Times. I never got to the book because I was to busy getting an education from the readers of New Times. This is what I learned this past few days"

The economic laws dealing with supply and demand do not apply when hiring illegal (sorry undocumented) workers. Illegals do not depress wages.

Anyone who opposes illegal immigration but supports legal immigration is a liar and a bigot. Apparently, this type statement is a code used by the KKK for opposing all immigration.

I learned that there is no violence on the border. Persons who have experienced the violence or believe there is violence on the border are delusional, naive, liars or all of the above.

No employer would ever order a worker to perform an unsafe act which could injure or kill him. This factoid amazes me after the 20 plus years I spent as a Safety Professional.

Analogies involving cattle and a water hole in the desert and the impact of uncontrolled immigration on an economy should not be used as it might be hurtful.

Law Enforcement Officials should enforce all laws even if they believe the laws are unconstitutional or illegal. They should be especially tough on the NRA and guns since those nasty NRA people went down and shot up that elementary school, the movie theater, Virginia Tech, and Fort Hood. Oops the cops should not be allowed to enforce drug laws involving MMJ, Immigration laws and traffic laws if I'm in a hurry and run a red light.

I learned that I was a racist, a bigoted reactionary right wing teabagger and I was a leftist and a poser. The amazing thing is that I learned this from the same poster.

Mostly I learned that one cannot have an honest, reasoned discussion with the majority of the posters on this web site. I think I will go read my book as it is still ranining.

DNichols

"You built a fire in your stove"?

Wow, sure wish you owned a radio or something!

For the record on Economy:

January 2008 began the E-verify Law, the I.C.E. Deportation/Incarceration Programs, and of course, the Foreclosure Crisis, the great recession, the Bail Out Programs, our new Ballooning National Deficit, a wave of Racism, Bigotry, and Hatred like never seen before in America, ect.

Fact: the twenty-five year period prior to January 2008 was "The Most Prosperous Period in Total U.S. History."

We all worked Hard together! All of us!!

This will really confuse you.

"America is great because it is good, when it ceases to be good, it ceases to be great."

Alex De Tocueville

Fact is the Hard Labor Immigrants gladly did for America was the very Foundation of our once Strong Economy!

This Great Nation of Immigrants was built on far better principles and values than to rip apart good Christian Families, and to Deport Good Parents away from their Legal Citizen Children!

Your veiws seem to be in perfect allignment with several Supremacist Groups?

When the rain stops try poking your head out of its crevas?

To: Good, and Brotherhood, from Sea to shining Sea.

bgray59

@DNichols You failed to mention one thing. LEGAL Immigrants build this nation. As to the children, it is kind of like the juror who voted to acquit the Mendez brothers for murdering their parents because they were orphans.

As usual when you run out of arguments, you play the race card. You like a black assistant principle I knew in Coolidge, believe that all white males are racist bigots and all nonblack women are promiscuous and desire a black ____.

You have no idea about my race or background. You need to stick to what is know and factual. You loose all credit-ability when you, Like Obama, Sharpton and the Jackson's must divide people along racial and economic lines to retain their alleged legitimacy.

Please respond to my comments with factual and reasoned arguments.

bgray59

@DNichols You are one of those liberals who believe in the model. If the facts do not fit the model you change the facts.

DNichols

Your Comments are nothing but Ranting trash.

I can't wiat for "True Immigration Reform", so Idiots like you can find something else to whine, and bitch about.

Until then stay brave, and kick the Defenseless, and their Legal Children/Families.

You are a Biggot, not by your race, by your nasty veiws.

bgray59

For those of you who follow the New times post, you know that I am an outspoken critic of Babeu. I do agree that Obama is affecting the trappings of a despot. For those of you who are unaware of it, Obama lost a major court decision concerning his recess appointments to the NLRB. His executive orders to violate HIPPA is another example of Imperial tendencies. For some time now his administration has been misusing the Veterans Hospitals to prevent veterans from purchasing firearms. This was done without due process.

What I do not understand about the position of this paper and a large majority of it's readership is the hypocritical nature of its position on enforcing federal laws. The paper opposes local enforcement of immigration laws but finds Babeu's refusal to enforce federal firearms laws to be totally unsatisfactory.

The entire story is based on the efforts of Al Sharpton. Sharpton has repeatedly demonstrated that he has racist tendencies. One need only review the Bralley stories. Sharpton's credibility is lower than the Enquier's

JoeArpaioFan topcommenter

@bgray59 You are a critic of Babeau because you are an oxymoron liberal who believes that our laws are meant to be broken by illegal aliens.

darrellanth

@JoeArpaioFan @bgray59 oxymoron so are u a drug user, I mean who else would use that word. This America we have a right to free speech who are you to judge people? Name calling is just your way of telling a person they are beneath you and where does that leave you? Above the law?

bgray59

@JoeArpaioFan @bgray59 You are obviously unfamiliar with my writings I know that you have no knowledge of my actions. If you were familiar you would know that stereo typing and name calling do not make for an effective argument. These actions bore me and are not worthy of a response. This is your first chance.

JohnQ.Public topcommenter

1 Like

@JoeArpaioFan @bgray59 Hah - you're still calling people an "oxymoron." I tried to help you out on this last week when I explained to you that an oxymoron is not an insult, its a "A figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction." You don't insult anyone but yourself when you call others an oxymoron because all you're doing is proviing to all of us once again how utterly stupid you are.

JoeArpaioFan topcommenter

@bgray59 @JoeArpaioFan You are an oxymoron for saying "Most of these people are poor; they can't just wait to feed themselves and their families. That's why a lot of them take the dangerous journey through the AZ desert. They simply can't wait.

Millions more unemployed US citizens can't wait either so illegals must go to the back of the line. They will not get anything first.

VandaDuarte

4 Like

@bgray59 There is no such EO "to violate HIPPA [sic]." It's a figment. The list of 23 executive actions announced on Jan 16th -- to which Babeu's buffoonish letter is a response -- isn't a list of EOs. It's a list of "actions." The one related to HIPAA merely calls for "address[ing] unnecessary legal barriers" that prevent states from sharing information with NICS. It remains to be seen whether the Administration will limit itself to changes that can be effected within existing law, or propose that Congress change the law. But merely considering the options hardly violates the law or betrays "the trappings of a despot" or "Imperial tendencies."

Obama was an obscure freshman IL State Senator when DVA started adding the names of mentally incompetent vets to NICS. That may or may not be good policy -- I'm inclined to agree that it's not --, but he had nothing to do with its adoption. I don't doubt that you only got concerned about it after he was elected President. But it doesn't make him a "despot," just because he's left in place a practice adopted under previous Presidents.

(Incidentally, Babeu himself has been strikingly hostile to the rights of the mentally ill. On Fox 10 he spluttered that we should "suspend their rights!" On 3TV he proposed that he be given more power to remand them, "not only for assessment, [but] to suspend their rights!" On Channel 5 he repeated that we should "restrict the rights of the mentally ill from having weapons." For some reason, whenever he brings up the subject, which is often, he seems to get agitated, red in the face & loud.)

You don't like Sharpton. Fair enough, but he's not the story. The story is about Babeu's admission on national TV, in humiliating contradiction to everything he'd been saying all day in AZ media, that he actually can think of no Constitutional objection to anything the President announced on Jan 16th. If it took an All Sharpton to finally call his bluff, so much the worse for him and for his enablers in AZ media, who've let him get away with this BS for far too long.

bgray59

@FredericMoreau @bgray59 As they say "The devil is in the details." What is said, on the surface appears innocent. In this case, more than one commentator has reported that Health and Human Services have all ready drafted regulations requiring Mental Health professionals to report previously protected conversations to the FBI.

JohnQ.Public topcommenter

3 Like

@FredericMoreau well put.

MaskedMagician1967 topcommenter

@bgray59

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that the states have no say in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Enforcement of federal gun laws is easily controlled through state laws.

bgray59

@MaskedMagician1967 The supreme court in the Heller decision has ruled that the 2nd Amendment is a personal right. Is it wrong for state and local entities to refuse to enforce laws which on the face are in violation of the Constitution.

The Chicago gun laws have been ruled Unconstitutional and are on appeal. Marylands gun laws have been ruled unconstitutional and are on appeal.

The Feinstein bill and Obama's proposals are essentially the same as the Chicago and Maryland laws. If enacted/implemented they will most probably be overturned.

Given these set of facts, is it not appropriate for local law enforcement to refuse to enforce a law or regulation which appears to be be illegal.

law enforcement personnel have the same duty that soldiers have. It is their duty to refuse to enforce illegal orders.

bgray59

Just checked my Constitutional Law text. Any court can declare a law unconstitutional. That decision will stand until it is overturned or sustained by a higher court. Any citizen can take the position that a law is unconstitutional and refuse to obey it. The courts will then decide if the citizen is correct or incorrect. That is a historical fact. Had people of all colors not stood together in civil disobedience the segregation laws in the south and Mass. not been overturned. So please do not tell me that the SCOTUS is the only organization which can determine if a law is unconstitutional.

SCOTUS is the final arbiter. Agree with the cause or not I have defended and continue to defend the right of each person or group to have a reasoned discourse on a subject.

danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@bgray59 deciding if a law is unconstitutional is up to the supreme court, not the police. the police are there to enforce that law until it is deemed unconstitutional. by saying they will not enforce a law they are trying to be the supreme court and make those decisions

bgray59

@MaskedMagician1967 I agree with your first two paragraphs. They need to enforce the law. It was illegal for Lanza to have a firearm. It was illegal for him to take it onto a school. It was illegal for him to shoot people.

The subject of this discussion is not mass murders committed by registered democrats and or the sons of Liberals. Not a single one of the top five mass murders were committed by an NRA member.

You are correct in your last paragraph.

MaskedMagician1967 topcommenter

@bgray59

Guns are regulated by the federal government. The Gun Control Act of 1968 is an example.

Individual states and the federal government have an obligation to protect citizens from those who choose to use guns irresponsibly. For example, Adam Lanza.

When a national tragedy occurs, what do you want the president to do? Nothing? You'd complain that he's not doing his job.

The U.S. Supreme Court will determine whether the executive orders infringe on Constitutional rights.

danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@bgray59 by the way most of the cops who are protesting this (not Arpaio or Babeu though), i commend on what they want to do, but not the way they are doing it. they as law enforcement have an image to uphold and an example of lawfullness to maintain, and refusing to uphold certain laws does not show them to be the example of law and order the need to maintain. law enforcement is supposed to be impartial and fair, them taking this stand in public does not show them as impartial and unbiased

danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@bgray59 i still feel that it is their job to enforce that law whether they agree with it or not. BUT, if they choose to be slightly lenient on the enforcement of it? that is their choice, i am not telling them they have to be easy or hard on that law, but it is a law that they have absolutely NO place to be publicly stating they will not uphold it. I do not agree with them taking my rights away, but the law is the law. a MAJOR problem with this whole debate is the fact that they are coming out in public saying they dont believe in following the laws of the very government they represent, and then expect us to follow them and their laws when they have just shown that if we dont believe in a law, we dont have to honor it. the people who are representatives of the law are not the people who should be leading a rebellion against the law.

bgray59

@danzigsdaddy @bgray59 I pondered you response. I agree that Arpaio and Babeu may not be the best spokesman for the non-enforcement movement. There are numerous sheriffs across the country who have indicated they will not enforce what they consider to be an unconstitutional law. In fact there are far more sheriffs who oppose the Feinstein/Obama proposals than support it.

Using your analogy of a Col. the county sheriff is the senior law enforcement officer in every county in the nation. It is his/her responsibility to give instruction to his officers as to the legality of an enforcement action. If they through due diligence find that a law is questionable, then it is their duty not to enforce that law.

As a former Army Staff Officer, I participated in many exercises were we were forced to determine if an action was legal or not. At the end of the exercise we were critiqued by Senior Military Legal experts.

In one case I was tasked to use Chemical weapons on an area which included a civilian population. The purpose of the attack was to deny the enemy and avenue of approach and allow us to move forces to another area. I refused the order. It is not fun or career enhancing to face a two star down by refusing his order. In the after action review I was found to be correct. Fortunately, the General retired before he could total my career.

danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@FredericMoreau agreed. the law is neither black nor white and is open to interpretation. if everyone decides to interpret the law to what they feel it is, it will always be going against someone elses interpretation. we have a hierarchy we follow, and no matter what Joe Arpaio and Paul Babeu think...they are not at the top of that chain. If they are handed a new law to enforce, it is their job to enforce it, not debate it. if they feel it is their job to decide what laws are or are not constitutional, they should turn in their badges now and go run for a job in the senate. they are not congressmen or legislators or even state representatives, but are the people who are supposed to enforce the laws that are handed down. their job is law enforcement not law making. by saying they will not enforce the laws they are handed they are saying we all dont have to obey laws we feel are unconstitutional. that is promoting chaos.

bgray59

@FredericMoreau @bgray59 @MaskedMagician1967 When someone poses your argument about "rule-or ruin attitude" I all ways look at the position of both parties to the dispute. Typically I find that the faction claiming that the group who is refusing to compromise or examine the other position is in fact the Rule-or-Ruin group.

A look at the budget fight is a key example. The house has passed numerous budgets as is their duty. The Senate on the other hand has refused to consider a budget. Social Security is going to bankrupt. The democratic s have offered few if any solutions. Instead they demonize the people who have offered solutions.

In 1977 I computed what I could achieve financially if I were allowed to invest my contribution to Social Security. Using Life Insurance actuarial tables I found that at age 65 I would have been able to retire with full pay and a Cadillac medical Plan. In the mean time I could have been covered by a long term disability plan.

Had I been allowed that option, I would not be forced to live on Social Disability.

You really need to look in the mirror before you release spurious charges.

VandaDuarte

1 Like

@bgray59 @MaskedMagician1967 This is how faction wrecks republics. Some disgruntled group adopts a rule-or-ruin attitude. If it doesn't prevail in democratic elections, it persuades itself that the democratically-elected government has no legitimate authority that it's bound to recognize. It tells itself that whatever doesn't correspond to its own policy preferences must ipso facto be unconstitutional. (Note that every time Babeu has passed Constitutional judgment on a matter pending before the courts, he's gotten it wrong. He's an exemplary Constitutional halfwit.) And it takes its own self-serving "Constitutional" prejudices as binding on the whole community. In short, whenever it loses an election, it goes into a slow-motion revolt. All its patriotic posturing betrays a complete lack of civic virtue.

We already have a centuries-old process for adjudicating Constitutional questions. It works. We have no need of the intervention of low-IQ paramilitary demagogues like Paul Babeu.

danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@bgray59 please dont get me wrong, i do NOT have faith in the justice system. but by your reply, maybe i didnt make myself clear. when i say disregard an order against training i am referring to the example you just laid out (shoot a civvie) and yes i agree that is something to not do. i was in the marines, and here is my problem with your statement. if we were told to invade a certain territory that was an order we followed. it didnt matter if there were only afew insurgents or not, we took that area because it was an order placed for a specific reason. ours was not to question their reasoning but to do our job. with the order that Arpaio and Babeu are saying they will not enforce, to me it is the same as me telling a Col. i would not go into a certain area and secure it because it goes against their rights. i am by no means a fan of the order they saying they will refuse to enforce, but if it comes to pass....it is their job to carry out that order. if i had refused an order in the service, it would have been my ass. by them saying they would refuse a direct order, that to me is the same thing. but on top of it all here is my biggest problem with that whole situation. its the involvement of Joe Arpaio and Paul Babeu. i feel this is not an issue that either of them feel strongly about (as i do, and as you seem to also) but rather they are using it for publicity and making a mockery of a serious issue. the other problem with them would be how Joe himself is always saying its up to him to enforce federal laws becaus they wont, yet here he is picking and choosing which ones need to be enforced and who should be enforcing them

bgray59

1 Like

@danzigsdaddy @bgray59 As a solider I was trained and trained others in the laws of war. We are trained not to do certain things. For example if ordered to kill civilians a solider is bound refuse the order. Should he carry out the order he can and will be charged with murder.

At Ruby Ridge the FBI Denver HRT refused to accept the shoot to kill orders approved by Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno. The FBI Sniper who accepted those orders and killed Mrs Weaver was charged with murder. He got off because the State was barred from prosecuting and the DOJ would not carry through.

I appreciate your faith in the justice system. I no longer believe in the system. Paul Babeu and his band of thugs have destroyed my faith. They fabricated evidence against me. Babeu in return received campaign contributions and other considerations from a wealthy out of state contractor.

The Deputy Prosecutor who handled my case plead it out so that I did not get a conviction. (He was fired by the new Pinal County Attorney) The Judge at the final hearing dismissed the charges "with prejudice". The intent of Babeu was to refile charges. The Judges brave decision prevented that.

danzigsdaddy topcommenter

1 Like

@bgray59 i have been watching your posts and some stuff i find very well thought out, and some informative. i however do not agree with everything you are stating, but will hear out what you have to say because you do put thought and research into what you say. one of the things i disagree with would be in the post above this. you say that law enforcement has the same duty as soldiers and that it is their duty to refuse to enforce illegal orders. i am not sure exactly how you mean that. if you mean it as an order that goes against the constitution (as many people are arguing this issue as to whether or not it is against the constitution) or if you are meaning it to mean a questionable order. if you mean it as it is questionable as in against your training (I.E. raid a home without a warrant) then a would agree with you. if you mean as in it goes against the constitution......as a soldier or a cop, that is not your choice to make, rather the decision of your superiors. and until your superiors tell you otherwise, it is an order or command that is your duty and obligation to follow. as a soldier or as a cop you are servant and defender of your country and its laws, not a judge of those laws. i am not so much arguing with you as i am leading up to the problem i see, and this is that problem: if the police and the military are free to make their own choices as to whether or not a command or order is right or wrong, they are practicing selective enforcement. when we allow selective enforcement, each person who is making that judgement call has a different perception of right or wrong and then things will get completely out of control. there needs to be a standard that we all adhere to, not what one group or another believes in. does it make me happy? no it doesnt, but unfortunately we live in a country where we opted out of the decision making process and chose to have elected persons make those choices for us. i dont care for Obama, nor do i like some of his calls, but he is the elected official that we have now and so we have to follow his orders. when we get someone else in there they will have their own orders for us to follow and can always change Obama's edicts. in the meantime though, it is not the police's call to decide what laws they wont be enforcing, if they do, they are encouraging us to decide what laws we should follow also. there are many laws that are enforced locally that i do not feel to be constitutional, but i still have to follow them

donotrecall

3 Like

bgray59, You have to understand, is that Studboi is on National TV without a clear notion of what he is talking about, He is just there for the opportunity to appear on National TV, -which makes him the MEDIA WHORE that he is-, and to pander to the teabaggers and the naive ones, for political gain.

bgray59

@donotrecall Your denigration of people who face the real dangers of uncontrolled (illegal) immigration on a daily basis is unacceptable.

The US is like a pool of water in a desert. If cattle are allowed uncontrolled access to the water, the pool will be destroyed and all of the cattle will die.

Take a tour of the towns along the border. Locate their boarded up hospitals and clinics. An inquiry will reveal that they went bankrupt because they could not support the load placed on them by illegals. Is it right to deny citizens health care because of law breakers.

Currently, the Obama Administration is planning to divide the Phoenix VA Hospital into a VA hospital and a "Community Hospital". The VA staff will serve veterans and illegals.

This Hospital cannot support the Veterans the care they earned. This plan will deny Veterans care in order to support persons who have not earned the right nor are entitled to even be in this country.

You probably will deny this reality check as the raving of a lunatic bigoted fringe teabagger.

That of course is a right which I defended with my body and life while you set in your comfortable chair and made tons of money by hiring illegals to work for you. You made your money by paying substandard wages, no benefits and pocketing the FICA payments because you paid the workers under the table.

bgray59

@squash @bgray59 boring lacking in facts heavy in emotion. Suggest you repeat your logic class.

bgray59

@donotrecall Please review the facts. The border hospitals were forced into bankruptcy because of the requirement to treat illegals. The hospitals were not paid for their services.

If, as most illegals are, paid under the table they do not pay taxes

You need to retake Econ 1010 micro economics. Wages are set by the marketplace. Illegals expand the workforce which depresses wages. The beef processing plants in Nebraska, Kansas and Colorado are an excellent case study in the effects of illegal workers.

Yes I am saying that employees are being killed by their employer. Trenching accidents were the most visible. AZ OSHA attempted an education program to curtail the deaths. It failed because employers did exactly what I described. The blame lies directly with the employer. Failure of government is major part.

Your last comment is boring and trite. Beneath response.

JoeArpaioFan topcommenter

@squash @bgray59 Your theory does not fly. You said "Most of these people are poor; they can't just wait to feed themselves and their families. That's why a lot of them take the dangerous journey through the AZ desert. They simply can't wait."

Oh really? But what about the millions of poor and unemployed US citizens who are out of a job and money and are just trying to feed their families? In case you didn't know it, they can't wait either. But should they be shoved to the back of the line? Just because illegal aliens are poor and without food and money does not give them the right to illegally come here and expect to get everything first. You are another dumb oxymoron.

JoeArpaioFan topcommenter

@squash @bgray59 Oh really? Do you also think that child molesters and senior citizen murders are human too and because they are human they deserve to be avove the law and not have tom suffer the consequences for their crimes?

JoeArpaioFan topcommenter

@bgray59 @squash Right on!

JoeArpaioFan topcommenter

@squash Regardless what he or I think of illegal immigrants is besides the point. The point is that illegal immigrants are just that... illegal and have no place in our society.

JoeArpaioFan topcommenter

@bgray59 Well said. I just cannot understand why some people just don't get it.

donotrecall

1 Like

bgray59, wrong!!!, "Illegals drain our social systems", wrong, Illegals contibute to the economy of this Country when they don't claim their income tax return, which if You do the math is a big ammount, which in turn is used to sustain the economy of this Country.

Employers are the ones that should be blamed for depressed wages, is not like the "illegals" come and tell the Employer: " You are gonna have to pay me such ammount for me to work". The employers are the ones who fix the wages, and if an Employer ignores safety practices is even worse.

"If an EMPLOY refuses...."Are You saying that EMPLOYEES are beign killed by their Employers pushing them to ignore safety messures as in the trenching accidents? Then who is to blame.

"Please note that I did not specify Mexicans....".YOU ARE BUSTED!!!. Every time someone says something like that, it's what they really mean to say. You've learned very well from the MEDIA WHORES. CONGRATULATIONS.Seems to me that You're adamant in justifying Studboi's evil ways of thinking.

donotrecall

1 Like

bgray59, In my post I'm specifically refering to Studboi Babeu, the MCSO Shurf, The Teabaggers and The right wingers, and if You think that these people "face real dangers of uncontrolled (illegal) iimigration, You are completely deluded. The only reason that these two media whores mention Illegal immigration is because they know that that's what appeal the most to the rightwingers and at the same time enable then to control them through terrorism like tactics, telling them that the bad illegals are comming to get them. In regards to your analogy, let me put it this way; If Employers would stop hiring Illegal immigrants, there'd be no "pools of water in the desert for that uncontrolled cattle to access it and destroy it and no cattle would die".It is eazy to blame illegal immigrant for almost everything gone wrong since it seems they have no say at all. Consider this: This Country has been built by immigrants. be it legal or illegal.

"While You seat in your confortable........." The only ones seating confortably are Studboi and Joe Arpayaso, making tons of money from the "Illegals" they arrest for crimes that they supposedly "commit". BTW, If you are not Studboi, you might be one of his subordinates.

squash

1 Like

@bgray59 Sorry, but when you refer to humans as cattle, it might incite an emotional response out of somebody (it's called pathos). There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Besides, what do you call labeling migrants as cattle? It's obvious that you used that word because its connotation invokes emotion in the reader. So, please don 't lecture me about using emotion in my writing when you do the same exact thing. The whole nativist anti-immigrant movement is based off of emotion, namely xenophobia and hate. Also, the "I'm for LEGAL immigration" argument is really just a cop-out that right-wing extremists use to make themselves look better/feel better. In reality, that mantra doesn't take into account how hard it really is for migrants to take the legal avenue to gain citizenship or legal resident status. Most of these people are poor; they can't just wait to feed themselves and their families. That's why a lot of them take the dangerous journey through the AZ desert. They simply can't wait.

bgray59

@squash @bgray59 The economic havoc the illegals reek is as bad as the environmental havoc the cattle reek on the water hole. Please engage in the argument and not the emotional reaction you are feeling.

Personally I prefer animals to humans. Animals actions are determined by their nature and pure. Humans act on emotion, self interest and are impure.

squash

1 Like

@bgray59 Legal, illegal - it doesn't matter what label you affix to a group of people. They're still human and not cattle.

bgray59

@squash It is a good analogy. It shows what I think of illegal immigrants. I actively support legal immigration. In the past I have assisted legal immigrants in obtaining their citizenship and integrating them into our society. Should I have the opportunity in the future I will assist others.

The illegals have a negative impact on our economy and drain our social systems.

They depress wages, make for unsafe work places. Engulfment is significantly higher in locations with a high percentage of illegal workers. Employers ignore safe work practices. If an employ refuses to violate safety he is simply fired and the next worker performs the job. Eventually workers are killed or severely injured. The AZ trenching accidents are a prime example of this practice.

Please note that I did not specify Mexicans and other Hispanic groups. My statement are directed at all illegals whether they be Europeans African Oriental or Middle Eastern.

squash

1 Like

@bgray59 I find it quite telling that when referring to illegal immigration, you throw out the word "cattle". Shows what you really think about immigrants...

jonnyquest topcommenter

@donotrecall He doesn't like Booboo either. He's just saying that even a blind squirrel can find a nut.

jonnyquest topcommenter

@bgray59 Get ready for the name calling. Now I'm a "toothless hillbilly".

127 comments

Newest | Oldest

slutboi1

join to recall and get out of office studboi1 paul babeu

http://www.facebook.com/pages/People-Against-Sheriff-Paul-Babeu/153765354645603

Babeu is not "The Emperor of Pinal County."

Babeu is the "Drag Queen of Pedifile Junction."

mikefrombisbee topcommenter

Mark Dannells, the newly-elected Cochise County sheriff, who received his party's nomination through shady political maneuvering after the DWI-related death of Larry Dever, issued a statement that was published in the local papers today regarding his intention not to enforce any laws that infringed on the second amendment. His statement was as vacuous and meaningless as Babeu's, but it will play well with his mouth-breathing base. I have a call in to his office asking for clarification regarding the statement.

guest

Was Babeu's media blitz last week because the "2011 Sheriff of the Year" was not invited to attend the meeting held in Washington, D.C. in which the President met with the Major Cities Chiefs Association and Major County Sheriffs Association? Babeu will never be ready for prime time.

sgtamare

WILL SAID MA'AMM!!!

trankmonk

lol, Al Sharpton needs to go crawl back under the rock from which he emerged lol.

www.ImAnon.tk

fjfj

@trankmonk Why don't you just use TOR? It's free and anonymous...

FRONTERA

"This is why we need Immigration reform,POLS like this," Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu.

@FRONTERA The only immigration reform we need is tighter enforcement and faster deportations.

@JoeArpaioFan

It costs taxpayers $13,000 to deport 1 illegal immigrant.

Under your theory, taxpayers should spend $156B to deport every illegal in the country.

News flash: America is broke.

America's at war with al-Qaeda, but we're still losing the war against Al Sharpa!

06:09 - http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/82404406/

You mean to tell me that Rev. Sharpton is still alive? I had heard that he had been killed in a drive-by shooting months ago. Everybody knows that he is the biggest racist on the planet and everything that comes out of his mouth is nothing but silly rhetoric.

@JoeArpaioFan And please tell us what in rRv. Sharpton's statement was inaccurate.One again you play with your keyboard and say nothing of substance..

david_saint01 topcommenter

@JoeArpaioFan lmao you calling others racist is like a hooker calling another female a whore.

@david_saint01 Indeed, if this isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

miketucson

So the Sheriff in Marocopa County likes to dress other men in pink underwear and the sheriff in Pinal County likes to take his own picture in his underwear. You can't make this shit up.

@miketucson By the way, that photo is Photoshopped.

And how do you know that? Unless that You did it while you were undoing those grannypanties, asssucker. BTW Jaffy, the FBI is aware of your inciting to violence on this site. Good luck.

@JoeArpaioFan @donotrecall What you do is mere shit-talking.Cyber=flatulence.

@donotrecall Me inciting violence? I doubt it. You anarchists are the ones who is inciting violence and anarchy. Have you ever heard of free speach or do you only think free speech only applies to speach you approve of?

It's sad that Paul Babeu can't even beat Al Sharpton (of all people) in an argument. I guess it just goes to show how big of an absolute moron Paul Babeu really is. That being said, Al Sharpton sucks. I miss Cenk Uygur; MSNBC should have never replaced him.

@squash It's sad that Rev. Sharpton is the oxymoron he is.

@JoeArpaioFan http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/photoGallery/index/2930984/0 and is this photoshopped?

monica.alonzo

@miketucson @JoeArpaioFanThe photos are not fake.

Consider that Babeu had a nearly hour-long press conference the day after New Times published the article about his ex-lover's allegations.

In response to several reporters' questions regarding the photos, Babeu called them "personal and private." He also said he had not posted such photos "for some extreme time."

In fact, Babeu never claimed the photos were altered in any way.

@JoeArpaioFan -- Watch the video yourself so you can make informed comments. (And before you claim that the video is also altered, note that Babeu posted this video himself.)

Enjoy.

http://vimeo.com/37030840

teknik

lies lies lies and more lies, I am morally superior so my lies don't count as lies as long as you believe what I order you to believe those lies are lies!

The "Masked Dick" of Pinal County, Studboi Babeu, another MEDIA WHORE. He shuold be prosecuted for inciting unrest. Probably what he needs is another illegal allien dick so He can STFO. Maybe He is mad at President Obama because Mr Obama is getting rid of all the Illegal Criminals and those are the ones that Studboi likes to interrogate in private the most.

Are morons like Studboi and the corrupt shurf of MCSO that make a laughingstock of Arizona with this kind of nonsense, they should understand what they are talking about before opening their pie hole, but what the heck, as long as the loonies that they pander to are happy, they don't care to make fools out of themelves. So much for the Rule of Law that they refer to so often. Studboi is nothing but a Flower swagger.