sarge87

Twain is truly a national treasure.

It's just a window dressing PR stunt. A 1000 troops will make no difference. Bush sent 6,000 ANG troops four years ago as a stop-gap measure to bide time to get border agents trained. The troops were basically employed as secretaries and glorified Jiffy Lube workers for the ICE motor pool. Thanks for that sarge. I remember W sent some over there, but couldn't figure out how many, and I too thought they pretty much made coffee all day. If there was only some sort of wall type device we could build... hmmmm Absolutely. I'm all for building a wall/strengthening border patrols. That seems like a no-brainer to me. You're preaching to the choir. But the problem is that neither Republicans or Democrats on The Hill want to do anything about this. I take that back. Some of the ones who have been vocal about the problem have been branded by the media and other illegal immigrant proponents as racists. Some Republicans would rather take a pass because Agriculture and Business like the cheap labor. Democrats take a pass because they want that 20-60 million strong future voting block after amnesty to keep them in power for generations. I sympathize with illegals wanting better life for themselves and their families but this can't continue to go on unchecked. We are importing a new slavery class with little vocational skills and minute education. How does broadening the poverty class do anything for the US except increasing the demand for government subsidies? Why isn't the US government putting pressure on Mexico to improve conditions for their people instead of letting it's president lecture us about racial profiling in the People's House to a standing ovation by those who I will not mention for the sake of not getting a banhammer lowered?

It's just a window dressing PR stunt. A 1000 troops will make no difference. Bush sent 6,000 ANG troops four years ago as a stop-gap measure to bide time to get border agents trained. The troops were basically employed as secretaries and glorified Jiffy Lube workers for the ICE motor pool.

Colin Blowhard Mark Duh Skip Brainless Stephen A. Bucketmouth Brent Doucheberger

RE: the bold . . . actually they can. In general, the states can't tell federal agents what to do or not do. The federal agencies enforce federal laws and not state laws. Even Fox News agrees. link You don't have to like it, but it is the law. I know I wasn't clear, it was late. I guess I am saying how can a Federal agency ignore its own laws (in this case Federal immigration law) I understand discretion is every law enforcement officers choice, but to blanket deny processing criminals from a state, where the agency leaders (ICE, homeland security) dont agree with some law, seems wrong to me. What happens if this law is upheld in the Supreme Court? Should ICE ignore it then, just because the current crop of politicians see no real issue with illegal immigration (for the last 20+ years) If it's upheld by the Supreme Court they will still have legal discretion to accept or not accept the referrals. Should they ignore it? I say no. My problems with this law aren't about it's effects on illegal immigrants. If they are illegal, deport them. My problems with this law are the potential for racial profiling and the requirement of carrying identification papers by people. However, if they are referred to ICE that is because they are here illegally and I wish that ICE would act on the information. I think the fight over this law should be fought in the courts and not in federal agencies. That said, they have the discretion so I guess it will still be up to them. I asked Javier, my next door buddy whose wife just received her citizenship a couple of months ago about this, and he said immigrants up and until they are naturalized are required to carry papers by law already. He spent 7 years and a buttload of cash in legal fees trying to get his wife here from Guatemala. While he hasn't quite gotten a grasp of the rules of college football, he likes to watch the Huskers with us when we have a gameday party. He calls Suh "El Toro Grande y Rojo" - The Big Red Bull.

Well I'd be happy to settle the debate for you. This is entirely about free speech and has only ever been about free speech. If there hadn't been death threats, assassinations, and intimidation of American television outlets, there would be no Draw Mohammed Day at all. What would the point be? What would the point of a draw Jesus day be unless some Christian whacko sectarians decided that they were going to car bomb someone they thought had offended them. That's the thing about offense. You don't have the right to not get offended in the United States. The constitution protects my free speech, not their delicate f*#king sensibilities. It's gotten so bad with Islam that we literally have to form ranks and draw targets on all our backs just to protect the freedoms of cartoonists. This is a nonviolent demonstration. If I had my druthers it would be having an open dialogue about the merits of Islam and theism with practicing Muslims, but since that's pretty well out of the question in theocratic countries, this is the best we can do. Good news is its working, as the fundies once again retreat to censorship to protect themselves and demonstrate how sickly and weak their position is. Restriction of free speech by private actors is not against the law. I'm not supporting it . . . but it's not illegal. The Constitution absolutely does NOT protect someone from restricting your speech unless that person is a government actor. Also, you might reconsider somewhat if you saw the drawings that people are posting on the facebook group. Drawing Mohammed makes a valid point . . . but many (maybe most!) people submitting drawings drew Mohammed as excrement, a monkey, etc. For me, that's crossing the line into baiting. Do and should people have a right to do it? Absolutely. Will I be surprised when it offends Muslims? Nope. It's a good concept but unfortunately it's being executed by idiots. No, when Comedy Central caved like a bunch of cowards over South Park's Mohmmad-bear bit, it wasn't illegal, but given the context of what's been going on in the world, it was pathetic. And even John Stewart, so lauded as Mr. Equal Opportunity offense, pulled up his skirt and squeaked, "Well, they pay the bills." Of course a load of a$hole$ are going to miss the point and dump on Islam just because they can, but again, that's not the point behind the demonstration. (Though I shed no tears of meanly depicting an Arab warlord who's said to have personally mutilated and executed numerous people). The internet just extrapolates these things beyond where they need to be. I still think that regardless this is an important and worthwhile exercise of our rights. But aren't the extreme drawings counterproductive? I think the most positive outcome that could potentially come out of this whole thing is that islamic extremists will be exposed as the crazies that they are (as if we need more proof . . .). However, I think that if the drawings are so offensive that we are just creating more extremists than the whole thing is causing more problems than raising awareness. If it's just Mohammed as a monkey or excrement I see it as comparable to Christians being offended by the Piss Christ exhibit. I think the moderate/mainstream Muslims would be more likely to condemn the outcry and marginalize the extremists if there was an outpouring of death threats over smiling stick figure drawings of Mohammed than if the drawings were even more intentionally offensive. A hateful and unthinking drawing campaign will just fuel the inferno whereas a more thought out campaign of less incendiary images might be able to create a backburn that limits or halts the blaze. (Hopefully that's enough fire metaphors in one sentence.) Counterproductive to what aim? I think the bottom line is that we're at war. Literally on the one hand, and ideologically on the other. Because of the particular psychotic nature of Muslim fanatics, the only appropriate response is to show that under no condition will we bow the knee or make exceptions to our freedom even under threats of violence. I have certain serious questions about whether one can be a 'moderate' Muslim who holds to Koranic teaching, but that's a separate issue. You can't forget that the original drawings that started this firestorm were fairly tedious and bland––certainly no Mohammed fornicating with goat kind of thing. The Muslim response to that resulted in numerous deaths and riots. So what we find is we're not operating with two extremes and a wide middle. Once you draw the prophet, it's worthy of death. What are options then? Seems to me it's say you're sorry, or hit back harder. Counterproductive in the sense that I don't see any possible positive result from the inflammatory images. Here's how I could (theoretically!) see the options working out: 1. Smiling stick figure drawing of Mohammed. -Radical muslims send out death threats and generally freak out. Moderate muslims see the overreaction by the fringe and either push back against them or marginalize them. 2. Extremely inflammatory drawings of Mohammed. -Moderate muslims are just as offended as radical muslims and are pushed into the waiting arms of the violent fringe. MORE muslims issue death threats. You say we're at war. Do you mean that you think we are at war with Islam? I sincerely hope that is not the case because that would be a truly impossible war. The only way to win a war of that type would be the complete extermination of the Muslim people. Finally, as an aside, I mostly agree with your difficulty with the term moderate Muslims. I don't know any Muslims personally. I don't think they are very common in Nebraska. My unfamiliarity with the people who follow that religion might make me focus on the Muslims that I see on the news. I really don't know . . . There certainly seems to be a lot of violence in the Koran but there's a lot of violence in the Bible and most other religious texts as well. I suppose it all depends on how you use it. I do know that millions of people have died in the name of Christianity and Islam and I cringe any time religion is used as justification for war or killing. While there are small pockets of Arab Muslims in Omaha and Lincoln, the largest groups of Muslims who live in Nebraska are from Somalia and Sudan residing in the central (G.I. and Kearney) and western regions (N. Platte) of the state.

I've been reading that too..and even outside the state and in California..Although I'm not sure 59% constitutes "overwhelming" or the validity of these statements. I doubt more than 720 people actually have even read the bill (I haven't) and they probably got their "overwhelming suport" by calling folks up and asking misleading questions like "Do you not approve of not protecting our borders against terrorist threats on Sundays?" I realize I don't come into contact with a great number of a "representative section" of society, but I have yet to come across anyone that doesnt have at least some concerns with the potential for abuse. Some of our reputation as a "racist state" is well deserved just based on some of the elected officials we've had. But there are situations where I feel our true intentions as a whole were manipulated by those responsible for writing the ballots..and from outside sources like competing tourism destinations. When I first moved out here, there was a Martin Luther King Holiday thing on the ballot. My Brother's Wife was the only person I came across that was against it (due to Religious differences and just because MLK cheated on his Wife a few times). The press was going on about how close to two thirds of the population actually wanted it..But then the NFL threatened to move an upcoming SuperBowl out of SunDevil stadium, and just as I feared..The locals weren't about to let some outsider influence how we went about deciding how we give government workers another free day off. Then there was the actual ballot. As I recall, there were three choices. One was no MLK Holiday..received a little less than a third of the vote. B ) was a paid day off for Government employees who seemed to get too many days off as it was, but they were compromising by taking Columbus Day off the books. The third choice (I think?) was an unpaid day off. I almost voted for both B. and C. just to be ornery, but it turned out we were allowed to vote for more than one choice..but the way it was worded, everyone thought we could only choose one...It needed a majority, but the two "yes votes" were split pretty evenly, thus canselling each other out..each choice received about a third of the vote...Nothing received over 50%, so the holiday failed. I remember that guy. He got elected in a three way race by like only 40% of the vote. If I recall, he was a borderline schizophrenic and suffered from dementia. His close advisers to his campaign never disclosed his illnesses to party higherups, which in turn got them ex-communicated from the Arizona GOP when it came to light after he was impeached. He was also the reason Arizonans have runoff elections if a candidate receives less than 50% of the vote.

Nobody.

Here's hoping for a full and fast recovery.

Here's the letter in it's entirety. City of LA reply Reading Pierce's letter again, he isn't threatening anything. The ACC doesn't have the authority to cut Los Angeles off from Arizona power, although it has enough influence with utilities in the state to have them rethinking their sales policy. Ha! I like the message. Make it a real boycott or STFU.

I think what this amounts to is a game of chicken. The states are telling the feds to either clean up their mess or they're going to do it for them.

You cherry picked one little quote out of all that..... All you're dealing with is a bunch of what ifs. Nothing has happened yet, and you guys are saying it's discriminatory when there's no evidence to the fact even though there have been laws on the books since the 40's requiring documentation. I did not say the whole thing was discriminatory. If you look back through this thread, I've said that I sympathize with Arizona's situation. What I have said, and I have experience to back up that this is more likely to be true than not, is that this law allows for an environment where discriminatory acts can occur more readily. And when they do (and they will - they happen in states without such laws), this law will be challenged and likely struck down. I know those are what-ifs. But I've seen enough scenarios to know what the likely outcome of this. Fair enough. The thing is, what do you do when the feds are shirking their responsibility on purpose? There are American citizens getting harmed everyday because of this problem.

Maggot therapy is pretty gross, but it's a heck of a lot better than losing your knee joint or your leg. It's a pretty clever use of a pretty nasty little critter, and one I don't think Western medicine would have considered a few decades ago. Here's to progress! Nature's little janitor.

Didn't they develop new antibiotic a few years back called platensimysin just for that incidence? I've heard of them using maggot therapy before also.

I didn't want to sound like a big baby, but there for a while I was feeling like it was a serious situation. It was almost a relief when they found the pneumonia, and it wasn't something worse. It's amazing how fast antibiotics can work. I don't feel "good," but I feel so much better in just a short time. @Sarge - yikes, I didn't want to hear that. Two months? Yeah bud, it takes about that long for the energy level to come back -- where you don't get that oogie feeling after a strenuous activity.

Nah. I'm sure being a trucker will make you more aware of legal rights than actually practicing law and investigating discrimination cases. Just stating an example. Besides, my lifestyle couldn't take the pay cut.

You cherry picked one little quote out of all that..... All you're dealing with is a bunch of what ifs. Nothing has happened yet, and you guys are saying it's discriminatory when there's no evidence to the fact even though there have been laws on the books since the 40's requiring documentation.

I will tell you from experience, after the pneumonia is gone it will still be about 2 months before you feel at 100%.

These two answers to the questions posed say all that needs to be said about how Texas views the Big 12. As long as it benefits them, then it's viable.

Sure they may want to play in their home state, but they will be on TV for every game. If those players want to play on the next level, TV exposure is a definite plus.

Remember though, Colorado is also in the Big 12 Whatever happened to all our resident Buff backers? Did they all commit suicide?

Actually, Mussburger did say that the road for Texas to get to the Big 12 Championship goes through Nebraska this year especially if they lose to OU. Playing OU and then NU back-to-back will test their durability, also with A&M who could be a potential spoiler late in the year.

That is the common misconception that is being spread around. The cops can't pull you over for looking Hispanic, that would be profiling, which has been, and still is illegal. This law pertains to people rightfully pulled over or stopped by police. Those people have to simply show proper ID or documentation. It would be a shame if this law is found to be unconstitutional. You are correct. All the opponents of this law can only lie and distort what it actually details. And the law won't be declared unconstitutional. Why you ask? Arizona has a history of writing sound laws that withstand legal challenges. The ACLU and MALDEF had so far failed to overturn two prior Arizona laws, one requiring proof of citizenship for voting and the other dissolving any business that knowingly hires illegal immigrants more than once. The latter case is before the U.S. Supreme Court. Right, right, right, I get all that. You guys know all about pretext, so let's not get bogged down with how they get pulled over. The fact is that if the cops want to pull a car over they can show probable cause in 90 different ways, from speeding to rolling stops to broken tail lights. At the end of the day they're still pulled over, and they still have to produce ID. Cops will not be doing this to Whites, hence the potential for discrimination. Wow!!! You must be the Amazing Kreskin to know what's in a persons mind. So basically you're saying, if a black police officer pulls me over, then I should figure he's just making up for 200 years of slavery, or an Asian police officer having a chip on his shoulder because his/her Grandparents were interned during WWII, or a Hispanic police officer getting retribution for supposedly stealing the Southwest US from Mexico? Since the Alien Act of 1940 passed, it's long been a requirement of federal law for aliens to have certain documents on their person while in the United States, just as it is a requirement of most countries on the planet for U.S. citizens who travel there to have their documents in their possession while in that country. I've traveled extensively to both Canada and Mexico and get asked for my papers all the time. Why should we not expect the same here? Arizona has become ground zero for human trafficking, Mexican gangs, kidnapping, and drug violence, so you can't blame Arizona for enacting a law when the feds keep ignoring the problem. Why don't you go out and secure yourself a Commercial Class A License and you can learn what it is like to get stopped for no reason at all but for driving a commercial vehicle. A law enforcement officer can stop you to look at your ID, paperwork, and daily logs at any time. You can be subject to search and seizure without warrant and required to take a drug test on the spot. Any refusal of the above is a one way ticket to the crossbar motel and your truck/cargo impounded. On a side note....What if other states would have enacted this kind of law? In the aftermath of 9/11, we learned that five of the 19 hijackers had violated federal immigration laws while they were in the United States. In other words, they were illegal aliens. Amazingly, in the months before the attack, four of those five terrorists were stopped by local police for speeding. All four could have been arrested—if the police officers had realized that they were illegal aliens. Mohammad Atta, the leader of the 9/11 terrorists was one of those stopped.