Tom McLaughlin

A former history teacher, Tom is a columnist who lives in Lovell, Maine. His column is published in Maine and New Hampshire newspapers and on numerous web sites. Email: tommclaughlin@fairpoint.net

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Trouble In Utopia


“Americans work too hard,” said my son-in-law. “Over there, people sit around sipping good wine and relaxing. Maybe we should pack up and move to Europe.” He and my daughter had returned from cruising the Mediterranean on their honeymoon, stopping in Spain, Italy, and Greece. I had been reading things like America Alone by Mark Steyn about the looming debt crisis and low birth rates in those countries.

“I don’t think they’ll be relaxing like that for too much longer,” I said.

Last week, the end of the European vacation was coming into view. The almost-daily riots in Greece had escalated. Leftists threw Molotov cocktails at police. Huge banners hung from the Parthenon calling for revolution in Europe.Financial reality had intruded into socialist utopia and the left didn’t want to face it. Ironic that the birthplace of democracy and the birthplace of Achilles is also the place where democracy’s Achilles’ heel is being exposed. And what is that? Democracy works well until the majority realizes it can vote itself money out of the public treasury. The Greek majority has been doing that in the form of extended vacations, boundless entitlements, cushy jobs with short hours, and early retirement. Spain, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, and other European countries are right behind them - weakening democracies lined in a row and ready to tip over.

After World War II, average life expectancy rose in Europe as retirement ages declined. That meant Europeans would be sipping wine, relaxing at sidewalk cafes, and collecting fat pensions for many more years than the system could sustain. Taxes rose somewhat to help pay for it all, but not nearly enough. Added to this was an unwillingness to bear children. They weren’t having babies to grow up into workers paying those increased taxes.It takes money, effort, time, and self-sacrifice to raise children. That cuts into vacations and afternoon wine-sipping. It’s definitely more difficult to relax with little kids running around, teenagers challenging you, asking for money, borrowing your car, and questioning your values. It’s much easier to just go on living with your own parents until you’re forty-five. Mom can do laundry, cook, clean, and iron your clothes while government takes care of everything else. When your aging parents move on to assisted living or die, you can take over their house. Then retirement for you won’t be far away because you can stop working altogether at 53.

If anyone should suggest Europeans are too lazy and selfish even to reproduce, post-modern rationalizations abound. There’s: “Who would want to bring children into a world full of racism and imperialism?” Then there’s: Having children uses up scarce resources and increases our carbon footprint! Haven’t you heard about global warming?” And, of course, there’s: “Humans are overpopulating the earth and crowding out other species.”

While whales and polar bears are doing fine worldwide, human beings in Europe are declining rapidly and their economy is heading for a crash. Liberal/socialist politicians have been reelected again and again on promises of more and more unsustainable entitlements. When taxes were insufficient to pay for it, they borrowed. When it became obvious to lenders that Greece couldn’t pay it back, the money dried up. Liberal/socialist politicians couldn’t deliver on utopian promises and announced cutbacks. The left went ballistic. It was like parents with declining income cutting allowances to their children, who then threatened to burn down the house.Left wing demonstrators in Greece riot because they want government to do more for them. The conservative Tea Party in America demonstrates because they want government to get out of their way while they take care of themselves. Greek leftists leave behind destruction and dead bodies after their riots. Conservative Americans pick up after themselves, leave their demonstration sites spotless. Still, American media do their best to depict them as racist homophobes.

As Greece sank into anarchy, over here the Dow went into an afternoon free-fall brokers hadn’t seen before. Some analysts were blaming a computer glitch, but others knew what it was: the realization that the United States isn’t very far behind Greece. We’re on the same road they are and rapidly accelerating. We’re $14 trillion in debt and adding to it with trillion-dollar-plus annual deficits for the foreseeable future. Our demographics aren’t as dismal as Greece’s, but bad enough. Unfunded liabilities for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security exceed $100 trillion and that’s without considering the costs of the new health care “reform.” American investors looked at this and Greek riots - and they saw America’s future. That vision shook them deeply, as it should.

Conservative British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher saw it coming decades ago when she said: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

Labels: , ,

44 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom is right as usual. This country is right behind Europe. The question is not "if" our economy will go under, but when it will go belly up. The financial experts behind the scenes say the bubble will burst in one to three years. I hope they are wrong, but....

Harvey in North Baldwin

5/12/10, 8:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Tom for a "real" analysis of American failure to realize that the writing is on the (Greek) wall..even Obama said we are on an unsustainable course as he continues spending. When we,the citizens, paid for a $1million engine for the Mt.Washington Cruise Ship,a privately owned vessel,using Reinvestment and Recovery $$ in the name of GREEN, we lost all reality of the role of the federal government. Laurie from Bartlett

5/12/10, 8:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom - thank you again for your observations and analysis of the path Europe and the US are on. Like the Leftists in Greece and other places, the entitlement crowd do not want to face the facts. Please keep up the informative writing.
Dan in Lehi

5/12/10, 9:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I liked your picture of the blue figure holding the gun to the head of the red figure to rob his money. It was a very good way to depict how corrupt capitalist corporations are ripping off American citizens! The coloring was a good pick as well, the red robber figure representing the red states, and the blue figure getting robbed the blue states.

5/12/10, 12:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The conservative Tea Party in America demonstrates because they want government to get out of their way while they take care of themselves."

There are many decent Americans who understandably feel that the government has become too powerful and oppressive. Yet, seeking enlightenment from most tea party speakers is like searching in a dark room for a black cat that isn’t there.


"Many of the attendees seemed to hate liberals far more than they loved liberty. A CBS/New York Times poll conducted in April showed that two-thirds of tea party members have a favorable opinion of Sarah Palin, and 57 percent have a favorable opinion of George W. Bush. Denouncing big government while approving of President Bush is like denouncing immodesty while sunning oneself on a nude beach. After all, it was Bush who championed the prescription drug benefit for seniors that adds $7 trillion to Washington’s unfunded liabilities.

America needs real champions of freedom – not poorly informed Republican accomplices. Either tea partyers should become more principled or they should ditch their Gadsden flags and wear T-shirts of the lobbying group that organizes the rally they attend."

(Christian Science Monitor)


Not to mention that many of these Teabaggers also want to expand government for immigration purposes.

Or how about the teabagger that was in the news who showed up at a rally with his huge horde of children to complain about "entitlement" - his children were all covered by government programs!

These people make about as much sense as Tom's goofy column.

5/12/10, 12:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hilarious! One of Tom's best yet!

lol

5/12/10, 1:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The "Iron Lady" hit the nail on the head! Hopefully, the return to conservatism in England is a fore-runner of change (for the better this time) in the U.S.A.

Think before you vote in 1010 and 1012, and hope it is not too late to stem the tide of fiscal irresponsibility.

5/12/10, 1:13 PM  
Anonymous Ralph said...

"...and hope it is not too late to stem the tide of fiscal irresponsibility."

And hope we get back to the "fiscal responsibility" of Bush!!???!!

You people ARE hilarious!!! My evolution of reading Mclauhglin has gone the old "I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused" route. What is even more amusing is, as was previously pointed out, Tom doesn't even realize that his writings end up hurting his cause!!!

Still waiting on an arguement against open immigration! Just as likely to happen as Tom writing an honest, factual column!!!

Great stuff, always good for a chuckle.

5/12/10, 1:49 PM  
Blogger Steve said...

@Ralph - funny how Tom didn't say a word about President Bush but your main arguement is, 'well Bush wasn't fiscally responsible!' I'm sure I've read in previous posts that Tom disagreed with Bush fiscally. President Bush was not a fiscal conservative.
Please Ralph before you go around pointing the finger at the former President look at our current President. Obama will have put us further into deficit in his two years then Bush did in eight. I'll cite this website as my proof. http://tinyurl.com/d53y2u

5/12/10, 2:14 PM  
Anonymous Ralph said...

Steve, my point is that there has NEVER been a modern Republican President who has practiced fiscal responsibility.


from The freeman online:

"Regardless of war or political party, modern presidents have tended to double the national debt about every nine years.
Even as late as post-World War II (1945–1960) the national debt increased at less than 1 percent per year. But since the Kennedy era and the Schlesinger poll, we have had four Democratic and five Republican presidents. Under these nine men, the national debt has doubled almost five times, from $289 billion in 1961 to a newly proposed ceiling of $9 trillion. Whether the issue has been hurricanes, farm subsidies, or medical care (none of which is a subject for federal aid, according to the Constitution), all these presidents have spent first and asked questions later."

It seems if we really wanted fiscal responsibility we would have to find a way to make Clinton President again:


From Ontheissues.org

"The budget deficit inherited from the Bush presidency was staggering. Bill Clinton felt a commitment to the kind of fiscal politics out of which Republican presidents had made rhetorical hay for two generations, while presidents from both parties allowed debt to pile up.
Most of the platform that had been the foundation for Clinton’s victory, which featured a menu of social programs, was instantly challenged. Ironically, those first 100 days, while the bottom sometimes seemed to be falling out of the new presidency, the course was actually set for a historic economic recovery and boom.
Clinton alone among contemporary presidents grasped the possibilities of the global economy, and what the explosive power of America’s technical invention & new industries could do for the domestic economy. He became the first modern president to actually exercise, as opposed to merely talk about, the fiscal discipline necessary to cut and even balance the federal budget."

5/12/10, 2:59 PM  
Anonymous Russell said...

Tom has recently upped his game and has taken "hysterically funny" to a new level! How about this gem:

"While whales and polar bears are doing fine worldwide..."

I wonder what the word "endangered" means to Tom? It's a long word but he must own a dictionary.

I have some career advice for Tom. I think his material is perfectly suited for the "Colbert Report"! Colbert could read his pieces word for word and get huge laughs! Send him some of your columns, Tom...I can just picture Colbert reading that stuff with a straight face and false indignation.

Or how about "The Onion"? Too bad the "Weekly World News" went under, Tom could submit his piece on the thriving world of Whales, Polar Bears, and Dodo birds!!

I actually had tears of laughter coming down my face with this latest column!

Bravo!

5/12/10, 3:26 PM  
Blogger mikeclarke said...

Your taxes haven't gone up.
And the only entity taking away
civil liberties is the Arizona Republican party. Now what?

5/13/10, 6:02 AM  
Anonymous Jim said...

Which civil liberties have the Arizona Republican party taken away?

5/13/10, 8:43 AM  
Blogger Charles Céleste Hutchins said...

Not to let reality get in the way of your little fiction here, but the Greek debt was run up by a right wing government.

You seem to be under the impression that Europe is a single country and culture with a single post-war history. Which you have a rather cartoonish view of, given that it seems to be all taken fron a two week holiday that you weren't even on.

The world wide debt crisis is rather clearly caused by neo-liberalism, but as that's not a cultural stereotype, I expect you've never heard of it.

5/13/10, 9:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know that the far right does not appreciate the ACLU because they defend our civil liberties, but here is what they have to say:



The law creates new immigration crimes and penalties inconsistent with those in federal law, asserts sweeping authority to detain and transport persons suspected of violating civil immigration laws and prohibits speech and other expressive activity by persons seeking work. The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Arizona strongly condemn the governor’s decision to sign the unconstitutional law and are dismayed by her disregard for the serious damage it could cause to civil liberties and public safety in the state.

"Governor Brewer and the Arizona legislature have set Arizona apart in their willingness to sacrifice our liberties and the economy of this state," said Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona. "By signing this bill into law, Brewer has just authorized violating the rights of millions of people living and working here. She has just given every police agency in Arizona a mandate to harass anyone who looks or sounds foreign, while doing nothing to address the real problems we’re facing."

5/13/10, 9:46 AM  
Anonymous Rick said...

Well put Charles, Tom certainly does have a cartoonish view of the world in which only caricatures and stereotypes exist. Like most cartoons reality does not play a big role in his viewpoint. Like most cartoons though, he is funny.

5/13/10, 9:49 AM  
Anonymous Jim said...

Please show me the Text of Arizona Law SB1070 that "prohibits speech and other expressive activity by persons seeking work."

This statement is either misleading or untrue. I've read and studied the bill extensively and found no text prohibiting speech and/or expression of American citizens or legal residents.

"By signing this bill into law, Brewer has just authorized violating the rights of millions of people living and working here."

Again, this statement is either misleading or untrue. If you say that Arizona Law SB1070 violates American's civil rights please provide evidence from the text of the bill. I have found none.

5/13/10, 10:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim, call up the ACLU and speak with one of their representatives to answer your questions - neither I, nor you, are experts in this matter.

5/13/10, 10:37 AM  
Blogger mikeclarke said...

Probable cause is not defined here and leaves broad latitude (I would say encourages) for law enforcement
to practice unreasonable search and
seizure. We shall see what the courts decide. Mainly though, this law is just stupid and will backfire
on Arizona.

What is Arizona's will for stopping
illegal immigration? How have the laws prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens been enforced? Not very well. The main reason for this law is to harass those who don't dress, talk and look like white Arizonans.

5/13/10, 10:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom, what do you make of Sweden and Denmark having the highest amount of vacation time in the world? How exactly does that gel with your simple-minded assumption that too much vacation is causing financial collapses?

5/13/10, 10:44 AM  
Anonymous Jim said...

@Anonymous: Speak for yourself. I am an expert in this matter and what you posted is incorrect. There is nothing in Arizona Law SB1070 that prohibits speech, expression, or violates civil rights of American citizens and legal residents.

5/13/10, 11:29 AM  
Anonymous Jim said...

@mikeclarke:

Probable cause is not defined here and leaves broad latitude (I would say encourages) for law enforcement to practice unreasonable search and
seizure


Probable cause is defined under section 3. Law enforcement officers are only allowed to to ask for immigration documents AFTER a lawful stop, detention, or arrest of some other existing law.

What is Arizona's will for stopping illegal immigration?
Because it's the law. It is the sworn duty of government officials and law enforcement officers to uphold and enforce the law, whether they agree with it or not.

How have the laws prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens been enforced? Not very well."
I agree with you here. Arizona would have no need to pass SB1070 if the federal government enforced existing law.

The main reason for this law is to harass those who don't dress, talk and look like white Arizonans.
This is a slanderous and bigoted accusation that is completely unfounded.

5/13/10, 11:31 AM  
Blogger Steve said...

@Charles Céleste Hutchins Thanks for staying on topic. I think we all can agree that Greece is in trouble. I'm curious what source you are using to argue that the right wing was responsible for the fanatical collapse. By no means am I an expert on Greece or European politics but perhaps you can enlighten me with your non-cartoonish view of the situation. I know Wikipedia isn't a completely reliable resource but this link shows all the political parties elected and I can't seem to find these 'right wingers' that you are talking about. http://tinyurl.com/27r4gz6

@Ralph thanks for the response and proofs - I don't think I disagree with you on this issue. I only look to make the point that two wrongs don't make a right. Let's review this paragraph.
Liberal/socialist politicians have been reelected again and again on promises of more and more unsustainable entitlements. When taxes were insufficient to pay for it, they borrowed. When it became obvious to lenders that Greece couldn’t pay it back, the money dried up. How is this any different then the way America is going right now?

5/13/10, 11:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When somebody brought up the Colbert Show it struck me. Tom is NOT the ignorant dope with no integrity that he makes himself out to be. It is an act, it has to be. The idea that was brought up that he hurts his own cause with his writing is not an accident, the man is a liberal in disguise. It is the only thing that makes sense. His agenda is to make real conservatives look bad and to bring about intelligent, thoughtful counterpoints. He WANTS to perpetuate the notion that most of the Far Right are wacked out, dishonest, mean-spirited nut jobs. He’s doing a great job.

5/13/10, 12:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, Jim. What law school did you attend?

5/13/10, 12:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cool, not only do we have a civil rights expert with us, but we appearantly have THE expert of experts, one who can flat out state that HE is right and the other experts, (lawyers, senetors, congressmen, ACLU) are wrong.

5/13/10, 12:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is Arizona's will for stopping illegal immigration?
Because it's the law. It is the sworn duty of government officials and law enforcement officers to uphold and enforce the law, whether they agree with it or not.

Jim, as Jeff Jacoby said "there is nothing thoughtful or admirable about insisting that a foolish or counterproductive law be enforced at all costs"

Did you know that in Arizona it is illegal to own more than two dildoes or for donkeys to sleep in the bathtub? (google old archaic silly laws still on the books)

Should Arizona police officers make any effort to uphold these laws?

5/13/10, 12:54 PM  
Anonymous Jim said...

Cool, not only do we have a civil rights expert with us, but we appearantly have THE expert of experts, one who can flat out state that HE is right and the other experts, (lawyers, senetors, congressmen, ACLU) are wrong."

Please provide fact based evidence from the Arizona Law that substantiates the claim that speech, expression, and civil rights of American citizens and legal residents are violated.

If you can't, refrain from posting hackneyed, sarcastic comments. They add nothing to the conversation. As one Anonymous poster said, Try to "bring about intelligent, thoughtful counterpoints" instead.

5/13/10, 1:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim, I have mentioned many experts who have said why they think this law violates civil rights. The only thing you have to add to this conversation is "they are wrong".

There is no having a conversation with somebody who thinks they are the be-all and end-all of experts and dismiss all others.

Why did you avoid the question about enforcing goofy laws?

Don't you have ANYTHING to add to this talk?

5/13/10, 2:35 PM  
Anonymous Jim said...

I've asked you repeatedly to provide text of Arizona Law SB1070 that prohibits speech, expression, and violates the civil rights of American citizens and legal residents. If the excerpt you posted from the ACLU is true you should have no problem with this task. The Law is open to the public, and is published verbatim on the internet.

Like I said earlier, I have read and studied the Arizona law extensively and have found no text that prohibits speech, expression, or violates the civil rights of American citizens or legal residents.

Stop trying to change the subject. Let's get to the bottom of the original point of contention.

5/13/10, 7:39 PM  
Blogger Tom McLaughlin said...

Gutless Anon: Why no name? You can make one up you know - to distinguish yourself from the other gutless anons.

"There is no having a conversation with somebody who thinks they are the be-all and end-all of experts and dismiss all others," you say.

Here we have government by the people, remember, not by the "experts." We American citizens are supposed to use our own brains, not bow to pointy-headed academics who don't know their asses from their elbows.

How about all those global warming experts? Not hearing much from them anymore are we? All their "expert" opinions have been proven groundless and their data fudged. We ordinary-citizen, global-warming "deniers" have been vindicated, haven't we? I'll be you were ready to run off the cliff with Al Gore and the other lemmings.

Obama's chief legal expert, Attorney General Eric Holder, last week threatened to file suit against the Arizona law challenging its constitutionality. Today, he was forced to admit in congressional testimony that he hadn't read the law, just as you haven't. Yet you dare to criticize Jim who has. Holder proved himself a fool today and so did you.

The law is only 16 pages long.

Holder's opinon is primarily political, not legal. He and the "expert" global warming scientists are driven by a political agenda, not a scientific or a legal one, and so are you. You don't seem to realize how obvious you are.

"Why did you avoid the question about enforcing goofy laws?" you ask.

Because it's an obvious red herring and neither Jim nor I will waste our time with it.

5/13/10, 9:16 PM  
Anonymous John Jacob said...

"pointy-headed academics who don't know their asses from their elbows."

A very fitting self-description from Tom, a so called educator.



Thanks for keeping me in touch with what is going on in "la la" land - I was not aware that the loonies there thought that they had any reason to be "vindicated" when it came to global warming.


"...driven by a political agenda, not a scientific or a legal one"

Now there is one of the funniest ever examples of the pot calling the kettle black! lol


As laws being enforced, that is the crux of the whole argument made by Dawn, Jim and yourself. Like parrots, I keep hearing "illegal is illegal", and "what part of illegal don't you understand". But I know you never answer when you get put into a corner. You blab out some outlandish comments based on your fantasy world and then you run and hide like the coward you are.

I suppose this was another "red herring":

Tom, what do you make of Sweden and Denmark having the highest amount of vacation time in the world? How exactly does that gel with your simple-minded assumption that too much vacation is causing financial collapses?

Or how about the meaning of the word "endangered"?

Face it Tom, debate is not your strong point.

5/14/10, 8:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Arizona law may violate Constitution
Jason Brodeur | May 12, 2010

Much has been made about the recent legislation in Arizona meant to crack down on illegal immigration in the state-and I think it is probably warranted. The broad reaching law gives authorities in Arizona the right to stop people if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that they may be in the U.S. illegally. Gov. Jan Brewer said the law seeks to "discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States."

I am in favor of legal immigration and desperately want to stop people from coming here illegally - but the term "reasonable suspicion" seems a little vague even for me. What exactly does it mean to have "reasonable suspicion" that you are an illegal alien? Aggressive enforcement of this law could turn Arizona into a police state in a hurry. And that's not what America is about. The way this law is written, every legal U.S. citizen has to carry their papers with them or risk being arrested and sent to the feds.

It didn't have to be like this. This is a reaction. It's a reaction to failed federal immigration enforcement over several administrations that have not done enough to secure our borders. We have a good immigration policy, but we don't enforce it. And it seems like when we do enforce it, it's to send a Ph.D. working on a cure for cancer back to his or her homeland because their visa ran out. It never seems to be to deport criminals back to their native land so we don't have to pay for them to be in our jails anymore.

The kind of situation we see in Arizona may finally make lawmakers admit that enforcement alone is not really a good policy. It is politically perilous for both sides of the aisle when we talk about deportation or amnesty. We need more avenues for people to come here legally. There are plenty of people who would like to do it the right way but become frustrated with the process. The jobs demand is here, particularly for low skilled labor, and it would be nice to get some tax revenue out of those that are already here, using taxpayer services while performing these jobs.

I have argued on these pages before that issues that don't stand up to the U.S. Constitution should not be supported. In what seems like an odd omission, the Constitution does not specifically mention immigration. Article 1, Section 8 says Congress shall have the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" but says nothing about immigration. (Naturalization is the process by which someone becomes a citizen. Immigration is the process by which they come to the country in the first place.)

Despite its lack of explicit mention in the Constitution, I don't think the Arizona law is going to hold up anyway. I believe it violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unreasonable search and seizure. In order for a search warrant to be considered reasonable, it has to be judicially sanctioned. A police officer who thinks someone might be here illegally hardly fits that hurdle.

Arizona will have its hands full figuring out the legality of their new law, but they may have gotten Washington to finally start paying attention.

5/14/10, 10:42 AM  
Blogger Steve said...

@Anon Wow thanks for posting a link to a local Orlando newspaper. This riveting article was found in the 'Viewpoints' section and Jason Brodeur seems to be a Republican running for office in Florida (unconfirmed that it is the same guy that wrote the article).

http://tinyurl.com/2bd2kgg

You must disprove Jim's statement:
I have read and studied the Arizona law extensively and have found no text that prohibits speech, expression, or violates the civil rights of American citizens or legal residents.

This article was a waste of time and is based solely on speculation.

5/14/10, 10:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Steve, it is not up to me to disprove Jim's statement, it is up to the courts.

And again, I personally have no problem with the law as it has been ammended. The initial law obviously would not hold up and was changed due to the uproar of citizens. I think it very well might pass legal tests now, we'll just have to wait and see because, believe it or not, Jim is not the final "decider".

5/14/10, 11:14 AM  
Blogger Steve said...

@Anon perhaps we agree to disagree on Jim's statement and wait until the Courts are ruling on it.

LOL I do not think Jim could ever be that good at deciding, I leave that up to the pro President Bush! "I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best."

5/14/10, 12:25 PM  
Anonymous Jim said...

@anon

It's clear now that you are unable to produce any text from the Law that prohibits prohibits speech, expression, or violates the civil rights of American citizens or legal residents. It seems that like Atty General Eric Holder, you haven't read the Law and instead, are parroting what you heard from others.

5/14/10, 12:32 PM  
Anonymous Jim said...

@John Jacob

As laws being enforced, that is the crux of the whole argument made by Dawn, Jim and yourself. Like parrots, I keep hearing "illegal is illegal", and "what part of illegal don't you understand".

It appears you have have misstated my argument. Let me repeat it, and expound it to assuage confusion. During the dialog I had with 'mikeclarke' he asked the question, "What is Arizona's will for stopping illegal immigration?" I responded that it is the sworn duty of government officials and law enforcement officers to uphold and enforce the law, whether they agree with it or not.

To paraphrase John Adams, this country is a nation of Laws, not of men. I am not in favor of government officials or law enforcement officers arbitrarily deciding for themselves which laws they think are necessary and which ones are not. The US Constitution and each state constitution provide a means to change laws that are outdated, unnecessary, or unconstitutional.

If you disagree with me then what is the crux of your argument? What is it that grants someone the authority to decide which laws to enforce, and which ones to ignore? Should the enforcement of laws be up to one's discretion rather than what is prescribed the Constitution? Should the oath that government officials and law enforcement officers swear be changed?

5/14/10, 12:46 PM  
Anonymous John Jacob said...

So what you are saying, Jim, is that you believe that Arizona police should do their best to make sure nobody owns two dildoes or that no mules are sleeping in bathtubs. As you say, the police should not be deciding which laws to enforce.

I can see it now:

Arizona Cop: Excuse me, Mame, it seems your left taillight is out and that you appear to be Hispanic. Can you please show me documentation that you are a legal citizen? Oh, and also, you appear to be a very sexual person, I am going to look in your glove compartment to see if you have multiple dildoes. By the way, you don't own a mule, do you?"

5/14/10, 1:01 PM  
Anonymous Jim said...

@ John Jacob

So you disagree with me. I suspected as much and asked you a few questions that you have ignored. I'll repeat them.

If you disagree with me then what is the crux of your argument? What is it that grants someone the authority to decide which laws to enforce, and which ones to ignore? Should the enforcement of laws be up to one's discretion rather than what is prescribed the Constitution? Should the oath that government officials and law enforcement officers swear be changed?

What I find ironic about your latest comment, and avoiding my questions, is the accusation you laid against Tom in an earlier post. You said, "you never answer when you get put into a corner. You blab out some outlandish comments based on your fantasy world and then you run and hide like the coward you are."

Sounds like a pretty funny example of the pot calling the kettle black, no?

5/14/10, 1:33 PM  
Anonymous John Jacob said...

I don't disagree with you. The cops should do their best to bring mass dildoers and illegal aliens to justice.

I'm glad we both agree on that.

5/14/10, 2:03 PM  
Anonymous John Jacob said...

Now that we have reached an agreement on the above topic, allow me to make my point. If the laws are on the books they should be enforced. What I am saying is that I don't think either law SHOULD be on the books. No need to get hostile if we disagree on that.

I'm thinking though that the mules in the bathtubs probably should stay on the books though.

5/14/10, 2:27 PM  
Anonymous Jim said...

I'm glad that you agree with me. But let's face it John Jacob, debate is not your strong point.

5/14/10, 4:22 PM  
Anonymous John Jacob said...

"let's face it John Jacob, debate is not your strong point."

Ah, we're back to that pot calling the kettle black thing again, huh?

Have a nice weekend.

5/14/10, 5:06 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home