You can refer me to every book written and it will still be your folly.

You cannot know every liberal and their personal stance.

You can assume based on a book but you know what they say about a ss u ming, right?

That doesn't address the point.

No, I'm not assuming. I'm basing my decisions on the most renowned and respected liberals. (Mises, Bastiat, Locke, Jefferson, etc.) You are simply regurgitating the understanding given to you by pop culture outlets. I see this incredible ignorance in almost all of your posts. Quite sad, really.

I can definitely say the same for your posts. It is sad.

But you can't say that about my posts LEGITIMATELY. I'm well informed when I post. You are just irritated that I'm right and can back up what I say while all you've got is empty rhetoric. I'm actually quite thankful that you're around, though! People with such irrational, illogical opinions such as you make me look even better.

Oh yes I can legitimately say it.

You obviously have a skewed view of yourself. It happens.

Not legitimately. It's the exact opposite of truth. But, please keep it up! Let the world become familiar with your outlandish lies and misinformation! Then, we can all enjoy a good laugh at your false logic and matrix of lies and self-delusion.

P.S., in regards to liberalism, the Historian and economist Jeff Tucker wrote
"By the time Clemens died in 1910, liberalism was on the verge of transformation. The Gilded Age of capitalist accumulation had come and gone, and inspired envy and ideological fanaticism all around. Liberalism's progressive outlook led to sympathy for socialism and government management, and, later, to the war economy as a means of imposing economic regimentation in the absence of democratic consensus. A half century later, liberalism would have moved full swing toward the very opposite of its 19th-century meaning, while those who opposed government management and favored free enterprise were called conservatives."

Read more: Mark Twain's Radical Liberalism - Jeffrey A. Tucker - Mises Daily http://mises.org/daily/4060#ixzz0pAg5Cznl

As you can see from the references I've given throughout our chats, the history of liberalism is exactly the opposite of what you claim in your bouts of wishful thinking and delusion.

Enough with the foolishness.

Back on topic.

People do not have an issue with the laws being made as long as they are not racist in nature.

Originally written the Arizona law was extremely racist.

You cannot "suspect" an illegal of being so without being racial or biased.

They cleaned it up some but it is still not completely clean.

We do not resort to racism to solve issues between people of differing race or origin.

Like I said before not all illegals are brown so to target the brown ones is extremely racist.

And the syllogistic incompetence continues WAY beyond sunset ... to wit:

(1) God is love.

(2) Love is blind.

(3) My dog is blind.

(4) My dog is god.

Oh yeah, that IS the sequence in use ...

Actually, the law only directs police officers to verify immigration status with the federal government pursuant to federal law (specifically, 8 USC 1373(c), which already requires federal agents to respond to such requests). And even then, they have to have reasonable suspicion, like no Arizona- or other state-issued driver's license when they get pulled over, or getting into a van that someone stops in the middle of the road looking to hire short-term workers.

Any alien in Arizona can easily avoid prosecution by following 8 USC 1304 (e), which requires that "Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him" and makes failure to do so punishable by thirty days in federal prison. Well, any one who HAS a green card can.

I don't know why I have to clear up the record like this, though. Obviously you already know all of this, because you wouldn't criticize a law you hadn't read first.