GIVEMEREPLAY

Look at this bigot basing his whole argument around the dismissal of racism and "upholding the law" even when illegals are NOT the root of the increase in kidnappings and are in fact the primary target of it. Look at his stupid face babbling about "no right to be in the country" when they provide huge amounts of money to the state and ICE constantly detains nationals and holds them away in secret detainment centers anyway. "

 Kidnapping, including the kidnapping of non-Mexicans, continues to occur at alarming rates. So-called express kidnappings, i.e., attempts to get quick cash in exchange for the release of an individual, have occurred in almost all of Mexico’s large cities and appear to target not only the wealthy but also the middle class. Concerned U.S. citizens, as well as U.S. businesses with offices in Mexico, may contact the U.S. Embassy or any U.S. consulate to discuss precautions they should take.    

1. Why should the "roots" of the law matter? What I care about is how it is executed and who it affects, not the opinions of the people who made it. 
2. If Arizona cops were pulling shady shit before the law passed, then the problem is either with a far less offensive law or with Arizona cops. That needs to be shown before we can use it as a reason to dismiss the law.  
 
Mexico has one of the highest rates of kidnappings in the world, and kidnappings are very high around the border as a consequence. The Arizonians have quite a legitimate gripe with illegals. 
 
And while the law may make illegals less likely to report crime, they are firstly unlikely to report it in the first place for fear that they would be deported under the existing laws, and secondly a provision could be easily added which gives a pass  to those who do report crime.  
 

 Edit: Of course, not to mention ICEs secret holding facilities, illegals actually helping the economy and the law basically making anyone who looks hispanic second class citizens.    

I don't mean to interrupt your shitstorm, but I find it funny that an anarcho-synicalist is claiming that some ideology is un-American. 

Seriously, everyone cut out the double posting. It clogs the forum. Just use the edit command. 

" @GIVEMEREPLAY said:

" I also had a long running email conversation with him a few years back, which caused me to lose a lot of respect for him. "

With Chomsky? "

According to who? Libertarianism can also be about not having any government at all (Anarcho-capitalism). It can also mean a system where 80% of your wealth is taken through taxes as long as it's to defend your rights (Randian libertarianism). There's the libertarian Georgism. There's also Chomskeets flavor of Libertarian socialism.  Not all of these fit your definition, yet they are considered libertarian.       "

A book published in 2006 was dated when I read it four years ago? What are you talking about? 
 
Take a look at his citations sometime. A professor of mine who took classes with him while at MIT joked that he will cite something like "The United States is a hegemonic power that will be completely impoverished by 2020", and when you check the back the reference reads "Bolivian peasant, 2004".  Trust me, back when I was a Chomskyite I tried to argue his points to others and often felt outmatched because I couldn't turn to any reliable sources that backed that point up. He claimed in an interview that the destruction of the Taliban wasn't a war aim in the first years of the war in Afghanistan, a claim which I have never been able to back up. He similarly makes a number of bullshit claims about American imperialism, while simultaneously giving credence to brutal dictators (e.g. Chavez).  
 
I also had a long running email conversation with him a few years back, which caused me to lose a lot of respect for him. I challenged his position that the Second Amendment is somehow wrong because there is no way the citizens of the US could fight the government. I brought up the fact that some insurgents in Iraq were holding off most of our army with just some rifles and explosives, but (like he does with all issues he can't argue), he dismissed it and refused to talk about the subject any further.  
 
Similarly, he dismisses libertarianism as "not even worth discussing" in several interviews, without actually doing much to back up his position. 
 
You'll almost certainly outgrow him. Most do.

" I do read a lot of Chomsky, actually.   Have you? Enough to have an informed opinion? Probably not.  "

" I totally agree with IntheEnd.  "

It's just bushfinger. 

" @GIVEMEREPLAY said:

" @Astrovik said:

" I don't sit anywhere.I just sit back and watch all the bullshit happening and hope America doesn't implode.Taking sides is retarded.Nobody is on one side of an issue 100% of the time. "

No, but you still have to vote. Or, you don't, but then other people decide it on that basis for you.  "

I don't HAVE TO vote.I do though.I wish I could vote for a 3rd party or independent party but that's a waste of a vote.They never win.i've voted Democrat only because the guy in your avatar obviously didn't do his job the way it should have been done. "