• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Pimp Slaps Infamous Douche Bag Al Sharpton

zimmer

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeE3DfXTe5k&feature=player_embedded#"]YouTube- Sheriff Joe Arpaio Pimp Slaps Infamous Douche Bag Al Sharpton[/nomedia]!

Obama's spokesman and conceirge to The Kummunidy.
The fool(s).

With Obama, don't we have nothing more than Sharpton with a "cleaner" delivery?

.
 
Last edited:
How is this racist jackass anyway are a part of the Obama admiration. Oh, and bicycleman every politician does in someway use a teleprompter its easier for them to keep their eyes on the audience that way. :)

I may not like Aprio, but I really liked that he took a punch to Sharpton face. See not every, liberal like Sharpton who is a racist pig who race baits all the freaking time.

Zimmer what the hell is The Kummunidy is that somehow related to Kennedy family?
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
YouTube- Sheriff Joe Arpaio Pimp Slaps Infamous Douche Bag Al Sharpton!

Obama's spokesman and conceirge to The Kummunidy.
The fool(s).

With Obama, don't we have nothing more than Sharpton with a "cleaner" delivery?

.
Click to expand...

you are kidding me
you think the sheriff won that debate?
i despise sharpton and find him an opportunist who preys on people of color by exploiting their plight to stiff arm large business to pay him to go away
but he absolutely destroyed the sheriff in that encounter

i would say 'nice try', but it was weak assed
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
How is this racist jackass any way contacted to the Obama admiration. Oh, and bicycleman every politician does in someway use a teleprompter. It easier to for them to keep their eyes on the audience that way. :) I may not like Aprio, but I really liked that he took a punch to Sharpton face. See not every liberal like Sharpton who is a racist pig who race baits all the freaking time.

Zimmer what the hell is The Kummunidy is that somehow related to Kennedy family?
Click to expand...

If you would go back and put punctuation in the right places, check your spelling and sentence structure, I mmight be able to understand what you wrote.
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
How is this racist jackass anyway are a part of the Obama admiration. Oh, and bicycleman every politician does in someway use a teleprompter its easier for them to keep their eyes on the audience that way. :)

I may not like Aprio, but I really liked that he took a punch to Sharpton face. See not every, liberal like Sharpton who is a racist pig who race baits all the freaking time.

Zimmer what the hell is The Kummunidy is that somehow related to Kennedy family?
Click to expand...

If a politican wants to keep his eyes on the audience, he should care enough about them to practice his speech enough times so that he can give it without having to consult his notes or a teleprompter. Mindlessly relying on a teleprompter is not the way to go. Witness Obama's recent screwup in Ireland where he read the other guy's speech and thanked himself. That wouldn't have happened had he been aware of what he was going to say.
 
Last edited:
Arpaio and Sharpton should be marooned together on a desert island with no food.
 
1984 said:
Arpaio deserves that kind of treatment, because...?
Click to expand...

he advocates racist policies



he pulls you over for some concocted reason while you are driving
and someone in your car does not have a drivers license
the absence of a drivers license by a non-driver does not mean that person is not a citizen, and therefor subject to incarceration
the sheriff applauds the new state law because it authorizes him to make such unConstitutional arrests of persons who may be American citizens. why would someone who defends the Constitution approve of that outcome

you are walking down the street with a bag of your possessions, not appearing to have significant means. even tho you are a citizen you are not required - at least not now - to carry anything on your person which identifies you to be an American citizen. but because you do not have such identification the sheriff, under this new state law. is now able to detain you, unConstitutionally

and the persons who will be targeted under this new law are those who appear to be of Hispanic ethnicity. which causes him to be a racist, because he endoreses - applauds - such new unConstitutional authority

thanks for asking
 
justabubba said:
you are kidding me
you think the sheriff won that debate?
i despise sharpton and find him an opportunist who preys on people of color by exploiting their plight to stiff arm large business to pay him to go away
but he absolutely destroyed the sheriff in that encounter

i would say 'nice try', but it was weak assed
Click to expand...

I disagree. I would say that both the Sheriff and Sharpton took each other apart. There is nothing better I like to see than a couple of racist assholes beating on each other. It makes my day. :mrgreen:
 
danarhea said:
I disagree. I would say that both the Sheriff and Sharpton took each other apart. There is nothing better I like to see than a couple of racist assholes beating on each other. It makes my day. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I wish they'd been armed. That would have made it even better.
 
justabubba said:
he advocates racist policies



he pulls you over for some concocted reason while you are driving
and someone in your car does not have a drivers license
the absence of a drivers license by a non-driver does not mean that person is not a citizen, and therefor subject to incarceration
the sheriff applauds the new state law because it authorizes him to make such unConstitutional arrests of persons who may be American citizens. why would someone who defends the Constitution approve of that outcome

you are walking down the street with a bag of your possessions, not appearing to have significant means. even tho you are a citizen you are not required - at least not now - to carry anything on your person which identifies you to be an American citizen. but because you do not have such identification the sheriff, under this new state law. is now able to detain you, unConstitutionally

and the persons who will be targeted under this new law are those who appear to be of Hispanic ethnicity. which causes him to be a racist, because he endoreses - applauds - such new unConstitutional authority

thanks for asking
Click to expand...

Thanks for the talking points, but maybe you should actually read the law before you start spouting off ignorant nonsense like the above...

So, anyone else want to take a stab at it?
 
danarhea said:
I disagree. I would say that both the Sheriff and Sharpton took each other apart. There is nothing better I like to see than a couple of racist assholes beating on each other. It makes my day. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Provide credible evidence that Joe Arpaio is a racist or retract your statement.
 
1984 said:
Thanks for the talking points, but maybe you should actually read the law before you start spouting off ignorant nonsense like the above...

So, anyone else want to take a stab at it?
Click to expand...

ok, i'm a big boy ... tell me what i got wrong
 
zimmer said:
YouTube- Sheriff Joe Arpaio Pimp Slaps Infamous Douche Bag Al Sharpton!

Obama's spokesman and conceirge to The Kummunidy.
The fool(s).

With Obama, don't we have nothing more than Sharpton with a "cleaner" delivery?

.
Click to expand...

Sherrif Joe ought to stick to law enfortcement and hire a PR rep. He is lousy at public speaking.

The facts are what they are. The left doesnt want ANY enforcement of immigration laws. There has NEVER been a broad call for federal enforcement of borders or arrest and deportation. Arizona which has a VERY large illegal immigration problem FROM Mexico and has a large drug problem FROM those illegal immigrants FROM Mexico and is having a large problem with kidnapping and murder of its naturalized citizens in Az BY those illegal immigrants FROM Mexico is actually DOING something...and that INFURIATES the left who are COUNTING on those illegal immigrants and their dependence and support in polls and ultimmately the elections.

And of course Sharpton like Jesse Jackson is simply a race baiting whore who has made a CAREER out of stirring up racism and creating it where it doesnt exist, as long as it suits his needs.
 
justabubba said:
ok, i'm a big boy ... tell me what i got wrong
Click to expand...

The law states:

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Click to expand...

Your interpretation:

justabubba said:
he pulls you over for some concocted reason while you are driving.
Click to expand...

You seem to be under the impression that "concocting reasons" incident to a traffic stop is "lawful contact".

It's not.

Next, you state:

justabubba said:
you are walking down the street with a bag of your possessions, not appearing to have significant means. even tho you are a citizen you are not required - at least not now - to carry anything on your person which identifies you to be an American citizen. but because you do not have such identification the sheriff, under this new state law. is now able to detain you, unConstitutionally.
Click to expand...

You seem to think that this law permits law enforcement officials to arbitrarily stop and detain people.

It does not.

Lastly, you state:

justabubba said:
and the persons who will be targeted under this new law are those who appear to be of Hispanic ethnicity. which causes him to be a racist, because he endoreses - applauds - such new unConstitutional authority.
Click to expand...

You're claiming this law permits law enforcement officials to "target" people of Hispanic ethnicity for arbitrary stops and detainments.

It does not.
 
1984 said:
The law states:



Your interpretation:



You seem to be under the impression that "concocting reasons" incident to a traffic stop is "lawful contact".

It's not.

Next, you state:



You seem to think that this law permits law enforcement officials to arbitrarily stop and detain people.

It does not.

Lastly, you state:



You're claiming this law permits law enforcement officials to "target" people of Hispanic ethnicity for arbitrary stops and detainments.

It does not.
Click to expand...

thanks for that. so let's examine the letter of the law you have provided:
... WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES ...
Click to expand...
what behavior is going to be apparent to a LEO such that they would be able to suspect that the person is not a citizen of the USA, making them an alien, and potentially, an illegal alien
there must be something which will distinguish those aliens from American citizens, please identify what that is
 
justabubba said:
thanks for that. so let's examine the letter of the law you have provided:

what behavior is going to be apparent to a LEO such that they would be able to suspect that the person is not a citizen of the USA, making them an alien, and potentially, an illegal alien
there must be something which will distinguish those aliens from American citizens, please identify what that is
Click to expand...

Not having proper identification, for one. Being unable to explain where you reside, specifically, might be another.
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
he advocates racist policies



he pulls you over for some concocted reason while you are driving
and someone in your car does not have a drivers license
the absence of a drivers license by a non-driver does not mean that person is not a citizen, and therefor subject to incarceration
the sheriff applauds the new state law because it authorizes him to make such unConstitutional arrests of persons who may be American citizens. why would someone who defends the Constitution approve of that outcome

you are walking down the street with a bag of your possessions, not appearing to have significant means. even tho you are a citizen you are not required - at least not now - to carry anything on your person which identifies you to be an American citizen. but because you do not have such identification the sheriff, under this new state law. is now able to detain you, unConstitutionally

and the persons who will be targeted under this new law are those who appear to be of Hispanic ethnicity. which causes him to be a racist, because he endoreses - applauds - such new unConstitutional authority

thanks for asking
Click to expand...

It's not racial discrimination. Hispanic is not a race. It is an ethnic origin. There are only 3 races, white, black, yellow.
 
1984 said:
Not having proper identification, for one. Being unable to explain where you reside, specifically, might be another.
Click to expand...

how would they suspect those things visually, to commence their inquiry?

what proper identification must a citizen carry on their person at all times?

what law requires anyone to have an established residence?
 
justabubba said:
how would they suspect those things visually, to commence their inquiry?
Click to expand...

You're getting things backwards. These inquiries can ONLY commence AFTER "lawful contact" has been initiated. They cannot be used as a pretense to initiate contact, like you are implying.

what proper identification must a citizen carry on their person at all times?

what law requires anyone to have an established residence?
Click to expand...

I never said that. I merely gave you an example of how an LEO could have a "reasonable suspicion" that someone was an illegal alien AFTER initiating "lawful contact" with them.

If a police officer pulls someone over for speeding (lawful contact) who (1) doesn't have proper identification and (2) doesn't know their address, they could very well be an illegal alien, and it would be totally "reasonable" to suspect as much.
 
1984 said:
You're getting things backwards. These inquiries can ONLY commence AFTER "lawful contact" has been initiated. They cannot be used as a pretense to initiate contact, like you are implying.
Click to expand...
chicken and egg argument
i'll take mine scrambled ... as if i had a choice



I never said that. I merely gave you an example of how an LEO could have a "reasonable suspicion" that someone was an illegal alien AFTER initiating "lawful contact" with them.
Click to expand...
so, you then recognize that a citizen does NOT have to carry any form of documentation showing themself to be an American citizen
and an illegal alien does not have a form of identification on their person identifying them as an American citizen
explain again how we distinguish between the two

If a police officer pulls someone over for speeding (lawful contact) who (1) doesn't have proper identification and (2) doesn't know their address, they could very well be an illegal alien, and it would be totally "reasonable" to suspect as much.
Click to expand...
why must the passenger of that pulled over car possess a form of identification if they are an American citizen
and if they are not a citizen, please refer to my question immediately above

i look forward to your providing me with the federal statute which proscribes that all citizens and noncitizens of the USA MUST have an identifiable place of residence at all times
if there is no law requiring that, then how can not having a residential address then be an illegal act
 
justabubba said:
chicken and egg argument
i'll take mine scrambled ... as if i had a choice
Click to expand...

No, it's not a "chicken or egg" argument at all. The law clearly states that "lawful contact" is the only justifiable pretense under which an LEO can attempt to determine a person's immigration status.

You just took a provision of the law out of context and made it seem like that was the pretense, when it clearly isn't.

so, you then recognize that a citizen does NOT have to carry any form of documentation showing themself to be an American citizen
and an illegal alien does not have a form of identification on their person identifying them as an American citizen
explain again how we distinguish between the two
Click to expand...

Again, whether or not a person is required to have documentation of sorts is not at issue. You asked how an LEO could have a "reasonable suspicion" (incident to "lawful contact") that someone was an illegal immigrant. If an LEO pulled someone over for speeding and that person didn't have a driver's licence or any other kind of government ID, and couldn't tell the officer their address, the LEO could have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person was an illegal alien. That's what you asked me, and I gave you a perfectly legitimate answer.

why must the passenger of that pulled over car possess a form of identification if they are an American citizen
and if they are not a citizen, please refer to my question immediately above

i look forward to your providing me with the federal statute which proscribes that all citizens and noncitizens of the USA MUST have an identifiable place of residence at all times
if there is no law requiring that, then how can not having a residential address then be an illegal act
Click to expand...

You're obviously having some difficulty in understanding the language of this provision. An LEO can only attempt to determine someone's immigration status incident to "lawful contact"; all the potentialities that you are describing are not "lawful contact", which means they are just strawmen arguments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom