Arizona Politics for Conservatives: Sonoran Alliance
Arizona Politics, News, Commentary and Information with a Blatantly Conservative Worldview Presented by an Alliance of Writers, Activists, Consultants and Government Insiders.
I support Governor Brewer and the Arizona Legislature in calling for a special session to refer to the ballot a referendum to repeal the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission and thus end the manipulation of election boundaries by a majority of three. By restoring that authority to 90 elected and accountable individuals instead of five un-elected and un-accountable individuals Arizona will stop the redistribution of votes and restore representative democracy to Arizona!
Share this with your friends:
Speaking of legal matters, here’s an interesting one:
“DOJ to Supreme Court: Don’t Take on Arizona SB 1070 Case”
“It seems as though the Obama Justice Department, headed by Attorney General Eric Holder, is getting a bit nervous the Supreme Court of the United States may rule in favor of Arizona over anti-illegal immigration law SB 1070. The DOJ is urging justices not to take up the case.”
That is very interesting.
Chris; we don’t have a departmnet of justice! We have to wait till January 2013.
Good one! He SCORES!
The real issue is this “Kangaroo Kourt” called the Commission on Appellate Appointments. When they select RINO Republicans for the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House to choose from; AND then select Rabid liberals/progressive Democrats disguised as Independents, who’ve lied about their “Independent” status by changing their status before the 3 year requirment to be on the slate from which the the four partisans ‘most of whom carry the same ideology regardless of their party affiliation.
The promoters this fraud and fiasco of this so-called Independent Redistricting Commission had this scenario in mind from the very beginning. When you have Liberal/Statist groups like League of Women Voters, AARP, NEA and Arizona Education Association promoting this “Independent Redistricting”, it’s as honest as the Wolf suggesting Red Riding Hood go to Grandma’s house!
Well, you are mostly right, but you are forgetting one important detail. The Commission vets the candidates, that is true. What you are forgetting is the abysmal attempt by Republicans to recruit candidates outside of Maricopa County. Since only two IRC members can be from the same county/party, when the D’s selected one of their members for Maricopa, it automatically disallowed the bulk of the remaining R candidates. If I recall correctly, Pearce had a choice between only two remaining candidates from outside Maricopa for his appointment.
That’s just crappy planning by Republicans on that one. No one to blame for themselves for the RINOs on IRC. Candidate recruitment = FAIL.
Sounds like he is saying, “Don’t take up the case because the lower courts got it right.” If that is the case, then the SCOTUS rejecting the appeal would carry as much weight as them hearing it and making a ruling of their own.
I would think this would be a pretty common tactic amongst attorneys on the prevailing side of an appellate court decision. Maybe not, though…
Done and sharing!!!
“thus end the manipulation of election boundaries by a majority of three.”
I think a majority of three was what the voters had in mind when they voted for a five-member redistricting commission. The voters of Arizona are going to see right through this con.
It actually is just ONE: the “Independent” who wouldn’t even let the Republicans choose the lawyer they wanted.
I don’t think that allowing ONLY three members out of a five-member commission (who were appointed, and not elected…or accountable to anyone) to create legislative and congressional districts for the ENTIRE state for the next 10 YEARS is what the voters had in mind. With that said, voters need to do their homework and actually think through the unintended consequences of legislation like this.
No, I think that’s exactly what voters had in mind. The voters took the power out of the Legislature’s hands because they knew that what the epitome of unfair. Republicans have held large majorities in both chambers for much of the last two decades. Allowing “ONLY” three? I don’t get it. A majority of five is three. Should there have been a requirement that four votes on the commission were necessary?
Actually, reguiring 4 votes to pass anything would have forced everyone to make honest, justifiable decisions about district boundaries and other issues before the commission. That’s a good idea.
Or let the legislature handle it. Requiring only 3 commission members has not made the “Independent” Redistricting Commission actually independent. Requiring all 5 to agree might even be reasonable. This works for jury trials – this is just as contentious.
I’m all for changing those commission rules if it means keeping the decision-making process out of the legislature’s hands.
We voted for the Legislators, these commissioners are appointed by a few. And look what we have, in my opinion, a liar by omission.
This committe was the most biased and unyielding i’ve ever seen! They wouldn’t even bother to ACKNOWLEDGE any recommendations aor concerns when brought to their attention.
School districts broken up and communities with like minded interest divided, didn’t seem to be a problem for this group of thugs!
Leave up the redistricting to the Legislature…we VOTE them in, and they do the bidding of the people and are accountable to US..this little kangaroo court was accountable to NO ONE!!! Yielding unchecked power without accountability is a recipe for disaster!
What other independent redistricting commissions have you seen?
Thugs … really … and you people wonder why traditional conservatives roll their eyes at you.
The same Legislature that voted in the Birther Bill?
No thanks, too many morons.
Oh you mean the bill that requires all candidates for office to produce their long form birth certificate? Please tell me, what is wrong with that, you are the moron trying to demean the rule of law. I bet you also call Bush dumb and Obama the smartest President we ever had, ok release the scholastic grades like they scream for all Republicans to do. We know Obama can read well.
How many people have their long form certificates? And how many of those certificates have all the information required by the law introduced in AZ last year? Even Secretary of State Bennett was worried that the law was too out there. How many states actually still issue them? I am pretty sure Arizona doesn’t and I know for a fact that each state has a different format for recording a birth.
If a state agency issues a Certificate of Live Birth, that should be good enough because an official is basically certifying under oath that the birth is on record.
Its OK, there was a provision in the bill where Jan was going to examine their wee-wee and check their circumcision records. Can you find something wrong with that tie breaker? LOL
Signed, put up on Facebook. I’d love to see conservatives in Arizona embarrassed again.
I think doing away with the IRC is probably the right thing to do, but if the (R) continues to allow the far right wing to define the discourse, and in so doing use language that makes all (R) look like fools, I fear Klute will get his wish.
In modern politics, we have two parables. The hippie who cried oppression and the wingnut who cried black helicopter.
Let’s drop the black helicopter crowd.
Focus on the problems in the IRC system that are irreparable. Demonstrate how these districts are incompatible with the will of the people. The opposition will claim that this was the first pass, and that it was a “learning experience.” Address how the flaws in redistricting that caused the voters to pass this law either can be remedied or, while not perfect, remain the best viable process.
And, to repeat, leave the black helicopter talk at home. The overwhelming majority of people don’t care that the chair’s husband worked for the (D). They don’t care if a photo exists of them walking into a building with (D) offices inside.
What you commonly refer to using the liberal buzz word, “winguts”, ARE conservatives. You’re simply a liberal attempting, poorly, to feign being a conservative. You may think that you are fooling people but you have no idea how obvious is your attempted deception. Why you even support gay marriage and call yourself a conservative, LOL!
Attack me for what I write, not what the voices in your mind tell you.
And for the record, wingnut does not apply to all conservatives. It is an apt description of the far right … oh, that’s right, to you only those in the far right are conservatives. The rest of us are RINOs.
By “wingnuts” are you referring to the “ultra right”?
I always thought “wingnuts” were the people on the wings, or extreme edges, of their respective parties. The lunatic fringe, the 10%. Whatever you want to call them. (I call them True Believers)
But I never thought a wingnut belongs to the left or right. I thought they were on both sides.
You learn something new every day, I guess…
No, you’re right.
Sorry for not being more clear. I kind of like the wingnuts on the far left, they help destroy the message of the mainstream left.
Conversly, that is why I don’t like the ring-wingnuts.
By “right-winguts” are you referring to the “ultra right:?
106 was just another in a long string of the Soros army taking over America. ALWAYS presented as sensible, accountable, take power out the legislation and have an INDEPENDENT board do it
well, 2 things: 1) the legislator was ELECTED by the people to represent them
2) there is NO SUCH THING as an “independent” you either lean left or right, and Soros and his progressive army knows this
I must have missed something … where was Soros in all this?
Reminds me of Animal House when Belushi says “Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?” and he gets an odd look, and Tim Matheson says “Forget it, he’s on a roll”
Animal House, eh? How did I know that was what you spent your time with, LOL!
A damned funny film. The back story behind it written by Doug Kenney and Chris Miller is pretty good. Miller’s memories of pledging at Dartmouth were much too obscene to turn into a film “Night of the Seven Fires (published in NL magazine”. Harold Ramis also contributed to the screen play. Doug Kenney was one of the early founders of National Lampoon, and was also one of the creators of Caddyshack, not a bad resume. Sadly, Kenney died on Kauai after falling off of a mountain (Hanapepe Lookout), but Ramis went on to do Ghostbusters and High Fidelity, Groundhog Day and many more, he was also a founding member of SCTV. Animal House is one of the highest grossing comedies of all time, and, as I said, its a damned funny film.
Yeah, like I said, that’s what you spent your time with. Explains a lot.
I am an avid reader and a film buff, nothing wrong with that.
Are you sure, LOL!
I think the legislature should impeach and remove the supreme court justices who voted to accept this case and reinstate Mathis. They acted improperly by exceeding their authority. The constitution gives the Senate the role of determining if the governor’s request to remove a commission member is justified. This would be like the State Supreme Court taking on an appeal of conviction of someone who was impeached because they felt they could review the definition of a high crime to see if the impeached person had really committed one. The House makes a determination that a state officer holder has probably committed a high crime and the Senate makes the final determination. In this case, which is not an impeachment, the governor makes the determination that a commission member is probably not fulfilling their responsibilities properly and the Senate makes the final decision. The Supreme Court has no role in this matter.
Before voting to change the state constitution, we need to make sure we have State Supreme Court justices who will actually follow the state constitution instead of usurping power they are not entitle to.
I understand your frustration.
However, redistricting has long been considered outside the “political question” doctrine. (baker v. carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S. Ct. 691, 7 L. Ed. 2d 663).
There were dissents to that decision. Also, it is internally inconsistent because US Senators are not selected on a 1 man – 1 vote basis. Regardless of the population of the state, each gets two US Senators. Although the House seats are closer to 1 man – 1 vote, low population states have fewer voters per representative than most states with more than 3 electoral votes. Clearly, 1 man – 1 vote was not something that was intended by the US Constitution.
Also, the question in this case is not the actual redistricting, but the appointment and dismissal of commission members responsible for redistricting. It is a slightly different issue. It goes beyond Baker vs. Carr.
Finally, constitutional questions can be solved through political means. The question of whether states could secede from the Union was not settled in court. It was settled because the North invaded and subdued the South. The question of unconstituional New Deal programs being considered “constitutional” was settled by Roosevelt trying to pack the Supreme Court rather than by cogent legal arguments.
If the State Supreme Court justices are impeached and removed from office, the new case law that will emerge will support the governor’s and Senate’s authority regarding the issue of IRC commissioner removal is not subject to judicial review.
That is a rather thoughtful essay on how to distinguish Baker from the present case, well done. However, my use of it was solely to demonstrate that the “political question doctrine” is not always in play when the issue of redistricting comes up.
Any thoughts on how the Court will account for itself when it publishes an opinion?
1) Not a political question so jurisdiction is proper and the court can adopt remedy
2) Procedural deficiencies by Brewer
3) Some flavor of the objectively reasonable subject use of authority rule with a dash of laws can not be interpreted so as to frustrate the purpose of their creation.
I think #2 on your list will dominate the published opinion.
I should have added the elements of a political question test, from Baker v Carr
“Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found:
(1) a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;
(2) or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;
(3) or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion;
(4) or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government;
(5) or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made;
(6) or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.”
The state constitution commits this matter to the governor and senate – not to the courts. Although judges may like to think everything is within their jurisdiction, that is only the case if legislators and the governor put up with it. Impeaching and removing the justices who exceeded their authority would properly restore the balance of power. I don’t think the Senate has the guts to remove the judges, though, since they would not even remove the Democrat IRC members along with Mathis even though they were guilty of exactly the same improper actions.
That’s why court’s examine the “political question” criteria.
The courts are always part of the check and balances of the three co-equal branches of government. The courts are to stay out if it’s a political question.
Think of it this way, if a (D) governor used a (D) senate to toss out a perfectly good redistricting that favored (R) and did so simply by declaring that the redistricting was flawed, without a showing of proof, would you want the courts to stay out?
Here, we seem to have a BAD redistricting, but other wise we just flip the (D) above with an (R).
All I am suggesting is that the governor has herself to blame by rushing this through and not taking the time to dot her “i”s and cross her “t”s.
Even as poorly skilled an lawyer as am I knew the Courts would get a crack at this.
Is that ANOTHER nic for you?
Fair enough, that browser had the user account name from email. Must have gotten there when Shane tried to implement security through the blogging service.
My email behind it, however, is the same.
I’ve updated it.
Sorry for your distress, I am told those black helicopter flashbacks are tough.
Brewer may have made some mistakes, but I don’t think the court would have done things differently even if she had dotted every I and crossed every T.
Also, the appointment and removal of commission members is political activity. The actual rulings from the commission – not the composition of it – are reviewable based on legal precedent.
More fundamentally, though, if the Republicans in the legislature had the grit and determination to put the judicial branch back in its place and defend legislative perogatives by impeaching and removing the justices voting in favor of reinstating Mathis, do you think the new set of justices would even accept such a case again much less rule against the governor and Senate?
It’s obvious that there are not 20 Republican senators with that kind of guts. That means the court gets to usurp power without being challenged. It would be better to impeach those justices even if they don’t get convicted. At least we’ll find out from their votes which Republican senators are willing to defend the constitution against judicial encroachment and which are gutless empty suits who should be defeated in the next primary.
“More fundamentally, though, if the Republicans in the legislature had the grit and determination to put the judicial branch back in its place and defend legislative perogatives by impeaching and removing the justices voting in favor of reinstating Mathis, do you think the new set of justices would even accept such a case again much less rule against the governor and Senate?”
No – in fact even an impeachment trial without a conviction would send a strong message.
I actually like that train of throught. It would be a politically difficult act, but I agree that judicial overreach is a real concern.
I am not sure I disagree that had Brewer been more fastidious in her eviction of Mathis the court would have ruled otherwise, but I think it would have had a harder time, and the public would have been more willing to support Brewer’s action.
“Eviction of Mathis”? You need to “come correct”, so to speak. Is Brewer trying to kick Mathis out of her home?
True, have you seen the maps? The gerrymandering is ridiculous.
I agree – I’m just commenting on what is going on in the Court as it reviews the actions of the Gov trying to evict the chairwoman.
When you want to kick someone out, then you have to “come correct,” so to speak.
Evict? And you’re trying to lecture us on “coming correct”, LOL! What, Brewer tried to kick Mathis out of her home, LOL!
There is a reason we have more republican legislators in Arizona than Democrat
Arizona is RED STATE! Republicans tend to be the majority
What the Democrat IRC attempted to do was to make the minority in Arizona the majority by splitting up the republicans so they lose their voice
There is a reason Soros has been been paying liberal activists all these years.. their sole job is to go to every public meeting help and push the radical progressive agenda – while pretending to be just “concerned independent voters”
Arizona is a red state, but if you look at the voter registration numbers Republicans, Democrats, and Independents take around a third each. A Republican dominated Legislature makes sense, since the Independent vote in Arizona leans conservative. It doesn’t necessarily mean that Congressional representation should be dominated by Republicans. I think the draft maps violate community of interest in some areas, but does a decent job of reflecting the partisan divide in Arizona.
Let me get this straight, had it been a three to two vote with the Democrat appointees in the minority it would have been just fine.
That’s what I thought.
Of course! “Progressive” Democrats, like Obama, are radical leftists destorying America and need to be stopped politically across the board. Was there a question?
Anyone that is intellectually honest has to admit those maps were squirrley. In the geogaphic sense at the minimum. Placing grossly geographically distant communities together (the Pinal County district comes to mind) is counter to the objective.
I agree they look bad, but if each district has to have the same number of people (1 man, 1 vote), then there are only so many contiguous combinations of districts that would work. since we know the old maps won’t work (have to be updated at the very least for population shifts and the new Congressional Seat), have any other alternatives really come to light that are any better?
In other words, do we solve the issue of politically distant communities, only to create even more issues with the map?
I don’t have an answer there.
We’re up to 34 signatures. I smell blood in the water!
This petition drive will probably go down in Blog History as the fatal blow that took out the Independent Redistricting Commission once and for all.
I didn’t know that you think that SA is the center of the political universe in Arizona.
Why else all the Lefties abandon their blogs and hang over here? heh.
Because SA is the only allegedly “conservative” blog which let’s them hang around, lie, deceive, misrepresent, use bad language and hurl insults at conservatives? ‘Ya thinK?
“Because SA is the only allegedly “conservative” blog which let’s them hang around, lie, deceive, misrepresent, use bad language and hurl insults at conservatives? ”
Nah, we “lefties” get a chuckle out of watching you do that all by yourselves and to your own.
Don’t be silly. The Lefties on the comments here outnumber Conservatives ten to one, so they bring over from their Leftie blogs their own same ol’ echo chamber Too nervous and insecure to handle facts and other opinions…. as plastic a bubble world and unable to handle other cultures as taking a cruise ship tour to the Bahamas.
Another Wanumba head shaker…
First you say the Lefites here outnumber Conservatives 10-1..
Then you say they’re too nervous and insecure to handle facts and other opinions…
Not mutually exclusive, Rob. When people like Lampoon have to resort to calling me a “pussy” and TC has to resort to calling wanumba a liar, I’d say that is being “too nervous and insecure to handle the facts and other opinions…”
Your faux outrage is noted. You are a big boy and you should have the stones to be able to handle it.
Your faux excuse is noted. Yes, I AM a big boy and I have the “stones” to deal with anything you could possibly dish out. That’s not the point.
The point is that you use vulgar language, which doesn’t further the debate, and that your inappropriate language is tolerated. This is supposed to be a conservative political forum and not a showcase for your extensive repertoire of vulgarity.
Where did you pick that up, from watching “Animal House” or was it from some other form of higher education to which you have exposed yourself? You got the idea that using that kind of language in a public forum is appropriate from somewhere and the tolerance of it simply promotes it. So much for the “limits” which were supposedly set on language!
Aww, sounds like you need a hug. Its not a vulgar word, There are worse words, and there are worse ways to attack a poster and be a complete hypocrite. Again, your faux outrage…well, its tiresome. As a conservative, you should be able to handle the more salty words, after all, you aren’t trying to be one of them Politically Correct Liberals are you ?
Faux outrage from a phoney that uses any cheap trick to divert a debate, rather than focus on the issue. Pretty pathetic, did you ever do debate in college? Did you go to college?
Funny that a “conservative” would be so politically correct, trying to ban speech, but, then again, hypocrisy is your forte’ isn’t it?
Aw, sounds like you need a proper upbringing.
Lampoon wrote: “Its not a vulgar word, There are worse words…”
ROFL! Classic “liberal think”! First, as with marriage, we’ll redefine what “vulgar” is. Next, we’ll point out that there are worse words which, of course, makes your use of a “lesser” vulgarity prefectly acceptable. Not!
Again, your faux excuse is… well, it’s tiresome. The most certain way to identify a liberal like you is their refusal to accept any responisibilty for their actions. Hey, you’re just following Obama’s example as he now blames our economic problems on the private sector and Bill Clinton says that the problem is that Americans are lazy!
Lampoon wrote: “Faux outrage from a phoney…”
That’s “phony”. It has nothing to do with telephones. Maybe if you had spent your time paying attention in school instead of watching “Animal House”, you would know that.
ROFL! And Lampoon is losing it once again, LOL! Man but your buttons are easy to push! Come on, I command you to hurl insults at me, LOL! You’re better than Pavlov’s dog! All I have to do is push the right button and you’re off and running, like some little wind up toy, LOL!
What other vulgarities do you know?
Have a nice day, TC!
CA – you’re just making yourself look like and arse. I have no need for a second ID. This one works just fine for me.
I am not Lampoon.
He is not me.
My but you seem inordinately concerned about looks. A bit vain, are we?
Oh, thanks for clarifying that, Lampoon.
Have a nice day, Lampoon!
Not sure what Lampoon is thinking, but I am worried about looks.
I’m worried that the more you look like the village idiot the more I will look like a bully for thrashing you.
Heck, I’m starting to feel bad for you …
No need to worry about your looks, Lampoon. Just go around with a paper bag over your head, LOL! You know, cut a couple of eye holes and you’ll be just fine.
Oh, no need to feel bad for me. I’m not you and that makes me feel good all the time!
CA, sometimes it would be better for you not to try to refute my posts and be thought of as a fool, instead of making such a terrible attempt like that and removing any possible doubt. Really, that was sad, I felt bad for you.
“Try” to refute your posts! ROFL, ROFL, ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your posts are self-refuting, LOL!
SO what ‘sup with this?
Today Instapundit reporting via Wisconsin that the “recall Walker” drive has been caught on video soliciting student signatures for the recall petition, with promises of free cigarettes for a signature and that … hmm hmm …there is a recall drive with “no opposition candidate” offered up to challenge Walker.
Well, where did we hear all THAT before?
November 19, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Another Wanumba head shaker…
First you say the Lefites here outnumber Conservatives 10-1..
Then you say they’re too nervous and insecure to handle facts and other opinions…
Well, yeah. Count em. Fake True Conservative with the honesty deficit, gets to be counted Leftie at least three times, with the morphing nics. And see what a monoculture of stock lines ya’ll bring. You talk to your stereotype of me and you answer it for “me.” SO, what’s the point of being here? If I say something that shakes that false complacency, I’m branded a “liar.” How intellectually cheap and cowardly is that?
So, back to the point, how’s the package cruise bubble tour going? Too afraid to actually engage the “natives?”
You only get branded a liar when you lie.
When you make demonstratively false claims, such as claiming that I have three nics, or like claiming that Obama supported Odinga and the terror Odinga generated.
My nic is True Conservative. My browser inadvertantly posted as TruConserv for a handful of posts because of the security Shane tried to impliment. Deal with it.
My opposition to the wing-nuttery that you post is because I am a true conservative and your easily-ridiculed stories dillute the (R) party message.
You sure are cheap and profuse with your accusations of “liar” especially for a “lawyer.”
So, how much do you get paid to hang here? Lawyers aren’t cheap, and “philanthrophy” isn’t their “thang.”
I could be available … just sayin’. Gotta eat and all.
I’d have to lie, of course, and that comes with a price, sell my soul and all for some fleeting bucks, but hey!
Because you asked – I spend a lot of my time online waiting for responses from subordinates in various time zones. I’m on SA because I need something to fill the time and because I was told that SA had the best newsfeed for conservative PR releases and that it also had lively discussion of the same.
When I am on the liberal sites, hectoring not only their lunatic fringe but their mainstream as well, I am never asked how much I am paid to be there.
Is that a far-right construct, the conceit that the world so fears one blog that it dispatches an old dude with poor typing skills to try to keep it in check? Much less a “team” of me …
I’m here like everyone else, because I’m interested in Arizona conservative politics. My particular style of conservativism is the one that rejects the fanciful conspiracy and black-v-white dems-are-evil mindset.
I don’t need to think that Obama is Kenyan-born anti-christ who supports a holy war on Christianity to know that he’s not the right leader for the United States.
Now we KNOW that’s a lie. There is nothing subordinate to you, LOL!
…and you’re no lawyer. Your junvenile, illogical, overly emotional, petulant posts prove that!
Your “particular style” of “conservative” is called “radical leftist”, LOL! You love the Southern Poverty Law Center, PolitiFact and FactCheck, ALL of which are far left liberal organizations.
Indeed. The faux True Conservative is one of the most duplicitous lizards yet to show up here, openly mocking Shane’s efforts to maintain a modicum of adherance to basic standards of honesty. It’s one thing to disagree, it’s another to twist and morph, a downright shape-shifter.
Actually more than a bit creepy, because it means the stakes here are bigger than anyone else imagined, and the voices need to be shut down. Who knew that Conservative-informed opinions at little ol’ Sonoran Alliance were such a threat?
Of course, the attack on our Republican form of government is high-stakes power grabbing tyranny, so it’s serious serious business.
The thing I found so disturbing about 9/11 was that our airplanes and our innocent people were used agaist their will to murder our fellow countrymen. The past three years, our wealth has been bodily extracted from citizen’s pockets and delivered in staggering amounts to unions and Democrat connected power brokers and now while we all struggle to make ends meet, so like the terrorists, they use OUR money to organize AGAINST us all, starting with strangling our job market and productivity while attacking our rights as set out in the Constitution, promoting violence and vandalism in the streets, attacking law enforcement and arming drug cartels.
One could suppose that perhaps the 1% Democrats like filthy rich Weatherman domestic terrorist William Ayers have calculated they’re wealthy enough to create islands of security and stability for themselves while they sit back and laugh as the rest of us flounder and drown.
On the other hand, America has never been about “peasants” but about The People, so we’ll see who laughs last.
It always comes back to black helicopters for some people!
You haven’t caught me in a single lie because I haven’t uttered one. I’ve challenged you to sustain your fanciful claims and in so doing laid bare your ignorance.
If you are unhappy that I am able to defeat you with such just a few keystrokes, then change your tactics. Drop the hyperbole and meme, start using facts and sustainable argument.
“…openly mocking Shane’s efforts to maintain a modicum of adherance to basic standards of honesty.”
Like the “Mathis” picture?
Openly mocking Shane.
Hell, he opens himself to mocking with his utter disregard to any modicum of honesty, journalistic standards or integrity.
No actual journalist, not even the sleaziest, would publish a bad photo of someone’s posteriors and then claim it was someone without any other establishing pictures, proof, independent witnesses, etc.
The laughs just keep flowing.
First, let’s summarily dispatch TC. That’s an easy one, LOL!
TC is a habitually disingenuous Pinko who routinely tries to deceive SA readers.
For example, you quoted a paragraph from the FAIR website attempting to prove that they support you liberal version of “immigration reform”. You conveniently failed to quote the next paragraph which explicity stated that they want to stop illegal immigration.
You have attempted to use the left wing, liberal Southern Poverty Law Center to discredit FAIR and slap their “hate group” label on FAIR, yet you claim to be “conservative”. When asked if you support the labelling of the National Organization for Marriage by the SPLC as an “anti-gay” group, you fall silent.
You have attempted to use PolitFact and FactCheck as cited sources to back up your arguments when both of those organizations are are liberal and/or have been found by studies to be biased toward Democrats.
You have attemtped to use the Pew Hispanic Center as a source to back up your arguments when the Pew Charitalbe Trust was involved, along with George Soros, in putting millions of dollars into promoting “campaign finance reform”, huge portions of which were found unconstitutional by SCOTUS.
In short, you have repeatedly proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are a Pinko AND that you habitually attempt to deceive.
Have a nice day, Pinko!
CA – your cyberstalking is as creepy as your lying.
I don’t care that you twist my words … it’s what wingnuts like you do when they are pressed up against a wall.
Your posing as a conservative when you are a same-sex marriage liberal is creepy.
I don’t twist your words, You twist your own words in an attempt to deceive SA readers.
I’d like to see you press me up against a wall. It would be the last time you ever tried that, LOL!
Wisconsin Recall Union flash dancers!
Ah, attacking our system of normal election cycles and majority votes is SO much fun!
What could go wrong?
Recall is part of the normal election cycle.
Normal when used as an adjective means: Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
Recall is lawful, it conforms to a standard (also called the election law) and while not usual, it is expected that, from time-to-time, it will be used.
Recall is a part of American franchise, it is part of the normal election cycle.
TC wrote: “Recall is part of the normal election cycle.” That’s the biggest lie you’ve EVER told!
“Hey, Vern, are those recall elections every two years or every four?” Recalls are NOT part of the “normal elections cycle”. They are an anomaly.
Oh, there he goes with his “definition” defense, LOL! You get your intellectual butt kicked every time you try that but you don’t have a feedback loop. So, you always come back with that totally failed defense yet once again, LOL!
The fact that a recall is NOT normal is proven by the fact that it doesn’t happen “normally”, rountinely, regularly on a recurring cycle AND because if enough valid signatures are not gathered, it won’t happen! Duh!
There is no such thing as an “American franchise” unless you’re talking about a fast food operation, LOL!
I know definitions scare you, but all the same:
franchise: The constitutional or statutory right to vote.
American franchise: The American constitutional or statutory right to vote.
See how that works? American operates as a proper adjective modifying franchise.
Sixth grade English, Eighth grade Civics.
I hesitate to offer the dictionary, knowing CA’s fear of definitions, but it’s all so easy.
“normal election cycle.”
Normal is an adjective in the phrase above.
Defined as an adjective, normal means: Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
The primary definition is “conforming to a standard.”
A recall election is part of the American Franchise. It conforms to a standard, known as the Election Code, and it is expected to occur from time-to-time.
A recall is part of the normal election cycle. If wanumba has intended to convery that a recall was not part of the usual election cycle, he could have done so without contradiction.
Not for nothing, I’m just saying …
ROFL! Don’t try to baffle us with your Pinko BS, LOL!
We know what “normal” is and we know what a “normal election cycle” is.
A recall is neither normal nor is it part of the normal election cycle. Tell me, Pinko, how many recall elections have there been in Arizona for a sitting legislator?
You know, if you want to do a good job of feigning being other than a Pinko, you really do need to learn the syntax. There is no “American Franchice”. America is not a fast food operation.
Just because you aren’t learned enough to read a dictionary does not mean there are not others who can.
That you don’t understand what is the American franchise, even once explained to you, demonstrates your ignorance.
I am not responsible for dumbing down my vocabulary to your trash-collector level.
Give it up, TC. Your pathetic Pinko so called arguments have failed and hiding behind a dictionary isn’t going to save you, LOL!
Get real! I have completely destroyed your idiotic claims about recall elections. You’re a chicken running around with it’s head cut off who is quite simply too stupid to know that it’s already dead, LOL!
Now why don’t you toddle off with your Comrades to a meeting of your Communist cell, like a good little Pinko boy, and we’ll see if we can arrange for your mommie to take you on a field trip to Lenin’s tomb. We’ll even see if we can get you some diapers with a hammer and sickle on them, if you’re very, very good!
I believe the word used by another poster here in describing you is “unhinged.”
Seems pretty apt.
No one “hides” behind a dictionary. When the meaning of words are in dispute, we use the dictionary for clarification.
Your argument is pretty much one of “who you going to believe, the lying dictionary or the man who accuses anyone using a dictionary of carrying a hammer and sickle?”
Most of here, being good, thinking conservatives, will go with the dictionary.
Oooh, CA discovered a new word! As usual, no actual argument from him, just the usual empty attacks. CA must be a liberal plant, here to make conservatives look stupid. (cue the black helicopters!) LOL
I believe that the words to describe you, TC, are “same-sex marriage liberal”.
Define “marriage” for us, TC. That should reveal to readers that you are an ultra-left liberal who thinks that anyone to the right of Dianne Feinstien is “extreme”, LOL!
While I signed the petition for its purpose of repealing Prop 106 I vehemently disagree with the last sentence’s wording in the proposition. This appears to be an opinion petition (as opposed to the legal hardcopy, personal signature petition) necessary to actually place a repeal issue on the 2012 (or any other) ballot. Regardless of the purpose of this petition my intention in signing it is diametrically opposed to “restoring [actually would be establishing] representative DEMOCRACY [emphasis added] to the State of Arizona.” Democracy is more responsible for the existence of Prop 106 than the rule of law (original Arizona Constitution before Prop 106) provides in authorizing the whole legislature to determine the U.S. Representative Districts.
Article IV section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a REPUBLICAN FORM [emphasis added] of Government, …”
DEMOCRACY is majority rule, that is, According to James Madison in Federalist Papers #10, tyranny of the majority. But in a FEDERAL (in which the national government derives its authority FROM the several States) REPUBLIC which is governed by the rule of law and which law specifically protects the minority (those who lose an election) from the majority (those who win an election). The Delegates to the U.S. Constitutional Convention were well aware that DEMOCRACIES self destruct. They knew that DEMOCRACY collapses when the majority decide to vote itself largess from the public treasury.
I just signed the petition!
Shane – is it me or the the name Lucy Vadgelips sound just a little naughty. Nordine
Where’s your gravatar?
Oh, and you are right.
November 21, 2011 at 11:06 am
“…openly mocking Shane’s efforts to maintain a modicum of adherance to basic standards of honesty.”
There’s a big difference between being given something that was implied to have been vetted and finding out afterwards it was not and then removing it as opposed to arriving on this blog expressly to lie or using someone’s else’s handle to deceive people, is that not correct? You know that, so why don’t you differentiate the two instead of being petty? Shane took it down, didn’t he? Did he not try to hide the mistake, but stated he was pulling it? Was he not misled? Did anyone correct the falsehoods smeared about him on other blogs? No. How many blogs in AZ do as well? Too few. It should be standard, but it’s rare and getting rarer.
It’s easy to be nice to your “group,” your “clique” so there is no credit to you for that, instead you are measured for how well you extend equal fairness to people you think you don’t like or agree with.
You read his comments?
He claimed it was vetted and verified.
And stuck by it.
Somehow I’m not picturing you using that line of reasoning with CBS News or Dan Rather.
Would I be far off, Wanumba?
Every time Wanumba posts, I get the vision of Frank Burns from MASH. LOL
He always sycophantically defends SW but criticizes others for much worse. Comedy Gold!
You’d be as far off as Mars, headed for Pluto.
I stopped watching Dan Rather during the China Tianneman Square events. That was a LONG TIME AGO.
I watched as Rather scheduled a phone call with a reporter which was cut off mid report. Rather is a pretty bad actor, all excited that the Chinese had “ceonsored” the broadcast. The reporter was still talking, not understanding what Rather was talking about, then the screen was cut off. Rather breathlessly Rather told us audience that the CHinese gov’t had cut CBS off.
It was the NORMAL, end of broadcast period and CHina cut off as they do EVERY DAY.
RATHER PLANNED IT, HE LIED TO THE PUBLIC. FULL PREMEDIATED PLANNING TO PULL OF A LIE. He’s been LYING for YEARS, but the amoral CBS KEPT HIM on to LIE some more.
THere is NO equivalence.
The only mistake you are making, wanumba, is treating these Pinkos as if they were normal. These dolts would just love to go on all day talking about a picture because it keeps the discussion on trivia and minutia. Don’t waste your time with that, tear them a new bung hole on their disingenuous Pinko tactics and propaganda. They’re a couple of lightweights who couldn’t intellectually punch their way out of a paper bag, LOL!
Well, the foul-mouthed threats whining for a “tone of civility” is always a dead give-away.
“These dolts would just love to go on all day talking about a picture because it keeps the discussion on trivia and minutia.”
Remind us again who wrote “…openly mocking Shane’s efforts to maintain a modicum of adherance to basic standards of honesty”?
You’re more than willing to post a statement but you don’t want to back it up when called on it. And, when you are it becomes….”a discussion on trivia and minutia”.
A cursory review of your replies to others posts shows that both of you engage in far more “threats” than anyone else. It also shows that, in the vast majority of cases, neither of you ever actually answers a question or issues a reply that is on topic. It’s always deflect, misdirect or go in a completely different direction.
But, that’s what I find most enjoyable about this site.
As I said, you couldn’t intellectually punch your way out of a paper bag. Thanks for proving my point, LOL!
I signed the petition Shane! I support our wonderful Governor!
This is a travesty Shane. I’m right there with you buddy.
Return to top of page
Copyright © 2013 ·Sonoran Alliance by Adeptplus · Log in