I know your ego may be hurt by what I'm about to say so I want you to know that this isn't meant as a malicious comment...But I don't live my life around the PC waiting to respond to your posts. You following my Lue ?
No reply needed.
My Right Wing friends, with all this focus on Klein bashing, Mexican bashing, Obama, Pelosi, Gore, Frank and the ACLU bashing, I have been spending less time on this site. Why am I not surprised the moral Conservative compass shines so bright, it mostly appeals to the White. Lets rehash the focus of attention here, lets keep the heels of your moral, patriotic, good Christian, corperate boot on the throats of Hispanics (lations), Blacks, Women, conservationists, gays, Civil rights Attny's, (and yes, even Canadians) wonder why they run (not walk) away from the GOP recruitor. Then when you finally do find a Conservative minority, you hook a leash on them and show them off like a new puppy...so taboo
Your hate for everything not liberal is showing and you are claiming some sort of superior moral compass for the left? HAHAHA
The more you type, the more I clearly see that you are not misguided but have no direction at all.
As to your post. You offered no evidence that the Arizona law is softer than federal law.
Now the difference between the AZ law and the federal law is, the AZ law is a softer version of the same thing? AGAIN, WHY IS THE AZ LAW NECESSARY THEN?
Read the law and the US Code....links provided earlier in this thread. The AZ is not softer, the AZ law is more restrictive than the fed law. The fed law does not require previous legal contact.
It should be beyond obvious to you already that if AZ just nerfs (not in the dictionary, don't know what you are trying so inaptly to say)the AZ law and does what they intend to do in the first place, this partisan game of nothing more than blame and ugly rhetoric wouldn't even be happening in the first place. Draconian? No, try realistic, effective, and solution-oriented.
The AZ is indeed realistic, should be effective and is solution oriented.
On the factual side the part that bothers me the most about the Arizona law is the 'lawful contact' portion. That's a lot of latitude to give the police for asking you to provide proof of citizenship. I look at laws on how I would want them applied to me. I would imagine that most conservatives would agree with me that I don't feel like I should have to offer proof of citizenship if I am a victim of a crime.
First of all, you still haven't read the law or you have failed reading comprehension ...again. If a person in legal contact with LEO has a legal ID from the list, they will never be asked for further ID or proof of status. Pretty simple, NO?
I can't speak for anyone else's experience, but when my pickup was broken into and I called the police I was asked for my ID(required for filing a report), I showed them my driver's license. If I had not had the DL, I guess they would have asked for a different form of ID, that might include some sort of citizenship proof if others were not available. I didn't mind, would you have?
And if there is no profiling going on then the police have to apply the same standards to everyone. That means everyone they have a 'lawful contact' with should be asked for proof of citizenship.
Again, read the law before you go making assumptions, if the have legal contact with a Lilly white , blue eyed, blond haired individual with no ID, they will more than likely be asked for proof of ID including status.This effectively means that the police can ask you for your papers at any time. Under the US Code for immigration, this is already the situation. Previous legal contact is not required.
Yeah, well providing women and blacks equal rights were not popular as well. Look how out of touch America looked back then. I wonder if it wasn't fought by Progression, and we left it up the knucle-dragging Mccarthy-like goons, would women still be in the kitchen bare foot and pregnaut and would blacks still be segregrated....
I beg to differ,(example) the Constitution would not have been amended in favor of civil rights if it was not "popular" enough. The majority of the opposition to civil rights laws were regional.
Sure, close a bunch of military bases overseas, and relocate some of our personal on the border. Leaglize, regulate, tax pot and maybe even cocaine eventually. Arrest business owners with jailtime if they knowingly hire illegals. Reduce gun running by appling tougher regulations and stiffer background checks at Gun Shows. If a Business/Corperation unpatriotically decides to snub American workers and send jobs and services across the pond, at least send them south of the border....just a few suggestions.....what do you suggest Tie, 1940's version of a Japanese round up ??? Are you sure Reagan is a bigger hero to you than McCarthy ???
You've GOT to be kidding, you want to legalize a highly addictive and destructive drug as cocaine? Really?
Some of the ideas you mentioned are not all that bad. I would go for stricter controls on business owners that hire illegals. (BTW AZ has recently enacted such a law) I haven't been to a gun show lately (have you?)but the last one I did attend I had to show an ID and fill out papers to purchase a shotgun.
I can't speak for Tie, but I didn't see anything in any of his posts to warrant you're asinine take on what he might suggest.
So you didn't mind a dumb sober Texan, and a trigger happy VP sending our youth into a meatgrinder in a Desert full of imaginary WMD's ??....
Maybe it's time for a "pothead" for President, couldn't be worse than having GOP's at the helm l
Because I fully support you're right to your opinion, I reserve the same right for myself.
INHO, people like you are a large part of the problem in the USA, are you sure you are an American? You sure seem to be more than willing to give the country to anyone that wants it.
(no offense to those blondes that are actually intelligent) 
