Diamondbacks Bullpen Forum Index Diamondbacks Bullpen
The baseball forum that doesn't suck
 
 Home       News Feed 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Dave Zirin: Boycott the Arizona Diamondbacks
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 28, 29, 30  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Diamondbacks Bullpen Forum Index -> Anything Goes
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
deweyniner
Everyday Player


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

YBC-Dog wrote:
Exactly why I have a problem with this law. How do you do that without trampling on the fourth amendment rights of legal latino citizens?


That's the tough answer. Answer that, and we can get to the bottom of the problem. How do you do it without trampling on the Fourth Amendment rights of all legal citizens? It's not just about latino illegals, it's about ALL illegals.

Quote:
I am all for cracking down on illegal immigration. I personally don't think it is even one of the top 3 issues facing this state or nearly the problem the people who are against it claim it is, but I do have concerns about the cartels, smuggling, and border security, which this law will do nothing to stop.


It is a big issue facing this state, but I'd be curious to hear your top 3. The State budget, to me, is #1, we're not far from facing a California-type budget crisis.

Illegal immigration would be right behind that, and job creation, specifically, replacing the entire Tucson City and Pima County gov't with competent individuals.

Quote:
I am not for cracking down on illegals at the expense of trampling on legal citizens rights, and especially if we are going to write the law so it leaves interpretation up to LEO via some vague reasonable suspicion standard that can really only be applied via racial profiling.


Here's what I don't understand. If a person is here in this state illegally, yet, breaks no other laws, the LEO has no legal basis for asking/challenging a person's immigration status, and they are not allowed to initiate contact specifically for checking immigration status.

Now if a person is, say pulled over for speeding, or running a red light, or issued a citation for leaving their car parked out on the street in the same place inside Tucson city limits for 24 hours (yes, that is a civil violation in Tucson), then according to Baxter's DD's post, they must provide ID to the LEO.

The RI law says that an LEO may approach a person specifically to ascertain that person's immigration status, yet the Feds are suing this State, and not RI.

So how is RI's law not racist, or up to LEO interpretaiton, and the AZ law is?

Quote:
Isn't all of this about enforcing the law and catching illegals?


I most certainly hope so.

Quote:
Just think, if we removed the language that I want removed, we could get rid of those Canadian illegals and European illegals and Asian illegals and all the other illegals that are going to slip through the cracks thanks to the way this law is worded.


I'm not sure I see how removing the probable cause language is going to allow non-latino immigrants to slip through the cracks, unless you are implying that only latino illegals are the only illegals that break traffic or other laws.

Quote:
Infringe on everyone's rights equally, or nobody. It's the American way.


To a point. However, I would prefer if those here illegally would just go back, or turn themselves in, but that isn't going to happen.

Quote:
And the dirty little secret here that nobody wants to acknowledge is we should have had border security 4 years ago while Bush was President (I believe that legislation called for something like 30K national guard on the border), but the anti-amnesty crowd, many of whom are the same people now whining the federal government isn't doing their job, killed it.


Ahhh, the blame Bush comes out. While Bush II does deserve some of the blame, let's not forget his Pappy and the Clinton adminsitration didn't do anything, either. While it's fashionable and tempting to blame the current adminstration (and some does fall there), the administrations of the last 25 years all have some culpability in this issue. It's one of those 'inherited' issues.

Quote:
One of our own senators, John McCain was leading the way and I believe he now has the nickname Juan McCain amongst the anti-immigration crowd thanks to his work on that legislation.

I bet if they revived the same bill and tried to push it through Congress, most of the people complaining about the federal government not doing anything would be fighting that legislation that would do something tooth and nail.


True. But now the psuedo-con McCain now has billboards up pleading for border security (I was against it, before I was for it, but vote for me anyway), and some people are buying it. McCain needs to do the State a favor and retire.
_________________
"It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government."--Thomas Paine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
YBC-Dog
Veteran Presence


Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 1884
Location: Phoenix

PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

deweyniner wrote:

Ahhh, the blame Bush comes out. While Bush II does deserve some of the blame, let's not forget his Pappy and the Clinton adminsitration didn't do anything, either. While it's fashionable and tempting to blame the current adminstration (and some does fall there), the administrations of the last 25 years all have some culpability in this issue. It's one of those 'inherited' issues.


I am not going to respond to every one of your comments, but this one is 100% wrong.

I was pointing out how the anti-amnesty crowd who consider this their most important issue could have had action 4 years ago if it was really that important, but didn't get action because they are unwilling to compromise to get something done, because (IMO) this is really about blaming minorities and anger, hatred, and rage instead of finding compassionate and sensible solutions to a serious problem.

I respect Bush for his stance on latinos and immigration reform and believe that he understands how important the Latino vote will be in the over the next 30 years and beyond. Unfortunately, everyone else in Republicanland is so worried about 2010 that they could care less what this does to them 10 years from now. I would have gladly accepted immigration reform signed by Bush, even if that meant latino voters voting republican like they did when Reagan did the same thing.

The right may win the battle on this issue, but they will lose the war in the long run because of this law and how they have pandered to the extremists on this issue.

---
As far as the biggest issues facing the state, I would say the housing market is #1 and tied with the budget problem, which doesn't really affect me as directly as how absolutely underwater and worthless my home is, and this law will hurt the housing market here even more and will make my home even less valuable than it already is.

I would rather have seen them pass a law saying if you purchase a house and have the paperwork to prove it, we will give you a driver's license. That would have benefitted this state and it's residents much more than a law going after cleaning ladies and landscapers.

The third biggest issue facing this state is the entire economy being built around building spring training ballparks for a months worth of tourism, and building new housing developments and assuming that people will just keep coming to fill them, again, something that will continue to kill the value of my home.
_________________
You're doing a heck of a job, Kenny!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
deweyniner
Everyday Player


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

YBC-Dog wrote:
I am not going to respond to every one of your comments, but this one is 100% wrong.

I was pointing out how the anti-amnesty crowd who consider this their most important issue could have had action 4 years ago if it was really that important, but didn't get action because they are unwilling to compromise to get something done, because (IMO) this is really about blaming minorities and anger, hatred, and rage instead of finding compassionate and sensible solutions to a serious problem.

I respect Bush for his stance on latinos and immigration reform and believe that he understands how important the Latino vote will be in the over the next 30 years and beyond. Unfortunately, everyone else in Republicanland is so worried about 2010 that they could care less what this does to them 10 years from now. I would have gladly accepted immigration reform signed by Bush, even if that meant latino voters voting republican like they did when Reagan did the same thing.

The right may win the battle on this issue, but they will lose the war in the long run because of this law and how they have pandered to the extremists on this issue.

---
As far as the biggest issues facing the state, I would say the housing market is #1 and tied with the budget problem, which doesn't really affect me as directly as how absolutely underwater and worthless my home is, and this law will hurt the housing market here even more and will make my home even less valuable than it already is.

I would rather have seen them pass a law saying if you purchase a house and have the paperwork to prove it, we will give you a driver's license. That would have benefitted this state and it's residents much more than a law going after cleaning ladies and landscapers.

The third biggest issue facing this state is the entire economy being built around building spring training ballparks for a months worth of tourism, and building new housing developments and assuming that people will just keep coming to fill them, again, something that will continue to kill the value of my home.


Point taken. My point is that the immigration problem has been ongoing and not the responsibility of one administration.

The path to legal immigration is so flawed, takes too long, is way too expensive, so that it encourages illegal behavior. Fix that process, and secure the border, then I'll be satisfied with it.

All three of your issues tie into the economy. Well, unfortunately, for us folks down here in Tucson, we're blessed with a completely inept City Council and County Board of Supervisors, as well as a State gov't that isn't much better.

Once we get people in these positions that understand how to grow an economy and bring companies and jobs into the State, we'll be all right, but that's going to take some work.
_________________
"It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government."--Thomas Paine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
levski
Number Retired


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 17727

PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So you're saying that every Mexican who's illegally in this country is a soldier invading the US?

Give me a #### break.
_________________
"Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first call promising." Cyril Connolly, 'Enemies of Promise'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
deweyniner
Everyday Player


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

levski wrote:
So you're saying that every Mexican who's illegally in this country is a soldier invading the US?

Give me a #### break.


No.

Read the links. There have been Mexican military personnel on this side of the border assisting drug smugglers. Not a permanent presence, but a 'come and go as they please' type deal.

This time, it's not me being intentionally obtuse.
_________________
"It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government."--Thomas Paine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
levski
Number Retired


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 17727

PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

deweyniner wrote:
levski wrote:
So you're saying that every Mexican who's illegally in this country is a soldier invading the US?

Give me a #### break.


No.

Read the links. There have been Mexican military personnel on this side of the border assisting drug smugglers. Not a permanent presence, but a 'come and go as they please' type deal.

This time, it's not me being intentionally obtuse.


Again, having illegal Mexicans in this country is "invasion"? Really? Talk about grasping at straws
_________________
"Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first call promising." Cyril Connolly, 'Enemies of Promise'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
qudjy1
Number Retired


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 12060

PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

deweyniner wrote:
levski wrote:
So you're saying that every Mexican who's illegally in this country is a soldier invading the US?

Give me a #### break.


No.

Read the links. There have been Mexican military personnel on this side of the border assisting drug smugglers. Not a permanent presence, but a 'come and go as they please' type deal.

This time, it's not me being intentionally obtuse.


How does SB 1070 fix THAT? If that's the problem - we should fix THAT.
_________________
Throw fucking strikes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
levski
Number Retired


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 17727

PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

qudjy1 wrote:
deweyniner wrote:
levski wrote:
So you're saying that every Mexican who's illegally in this country is a soldier invading the US?

Give me a #### break.


No.

Read the links. There have been Mexican military personnel on this side of the border assisting drug smugglers. Not a permanent presence, but a 'come and go as they please' type deal.

This time, it's not me being intentionally obtuse.


How does SB 1070 fix THAT? If that's the problem - we should fix THAT.


SB 1070 isn't going to fix shit.
SB 1070 isn't trying to fix shit.

It's a bunch of dick swinging before the elections.
Republicans playing the xenophobia card to get votes.

Color me surprised.
_________________
"Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first call promising." Cyril Connolly, 'Enemies of Promise'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
qudjy1
Number Retired


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 12060

PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

levski wrote:
SB 1070 isn't going to fix shit.
SB 1070 isn't trying to fix shit.


You and i feel that way - but i dont understand why people keep defending it with examples like the one above.

This has been my point all along. You want to secure the border and enforce immigration - fine - just do it right - without laws that promote racism and impact legals more than illegals.

We can do it - just need to try to get it right instead of playing politics.
_________________
Throw fucking strikes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
deweyniner
Everyday Player


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

qudjy1 wrote:
levski wrote:
SB 1070 isn't going to fix shit.
SB 1070 isn't trying to fix shit.


You and i feel that way - but i dont understand why people keep defending it with examples like the one above.

This has been my point all along. You want to secure the border and enforce immigration - fine - just do it right - without laws that promote racism and impact legals more than illegals.

We can do it - just need to try to get it right instead of playing politics.


How does SB 1070 promote racism more than the Rhode Island law?

Or the Missouri law?

Or the Oklahoma law?

Or the California law that isn't enforced?
_________________
"It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government."--Thomas Paine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
YBC-Dog
Veteran Presence


Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 1884
Location: Phoenix

PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

deweyniner wrote:


How does SB 1070 promote racism more than the Rhode Island law?

Or the Missouri law?

Or the Oklahoma law?

Or the California law that isn't enforced?


So deweyniner, can you provide me with the text of this "rhode Island law"?

I already know the answer.

Here is an article that refutes practically everything in the NRO article that was mentioned about "the Rhode Island law" and the case of Estrada vs. Rhode Island, which had absolutely nothing to do with any immigration law that isn't actually on the books. This article does it in the context of it being discussed on Fox News, but I am pretty sure that everything they discussed on Fox came from the National Review article (suprise, surprise).

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007080031

Quote:

Let's start with the case of Estrada v. Rhode Island. This case has absolutely nothing to do with any "Rhode Island law" that "mirrors" the Arizona law. In this case, Estrada was pulled over for making an illegal lane change. Estrada happened to be traveling on his way to work with many passengers in a 15-passenger van. Many of those passengers could not speak English and did not produce valid identification. The police officer patted Estrada down twice, and inquired about the immigration status of all of the passengers in the van. Estrada and his passengers were later escorted to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office. Estrada and his passengers filed a civil suit against the state of Rhode Island and the Rhode Island State Police alleging that the police officer who stopped them performed an illegal search and seizure in violation of the federal statute 42 U.S.C. section 1983, violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution, and violated the Rhode Island Constitution and Racial Profiling Prevention Act. So, again, the case of Estrada v. Rhode Island at no time makes any mention of a Rhode Island immigration law and the First Circuit Court of Appeals makes no ruling upholding such an immigration law. One can only guess, then, what Doocy meant when he said the "two highest courts in the country" have upheld a Rhode Island immigration law that "mirrors" the Arizona law.

Perhaps this "law that's been on the books for years" that Doocy was referring to is the 2008 executive order that Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri issued. This order mandated that police officers receive training from ICE to assist ICE in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. But, even if Doocy mistakenly believed that this executive order was the "law" in question that the plaintiffs in Estrada were suing Rhode Island over, there is still the small problem that the Estrada case was brought in 2007. Estrada did not make any mention of this executive order, and that court neither "upheld" nor struck it down.

Legal scholar Doocy concluded that the courts are "already weighing in" and "what they're doing in Arizona is absolutely fine." But, since Doocy brought up the "highest court...in the country," let's look to the Supreme Court -- and actual "law that's been on the books for years" to decide how the Arizona law might shake out. In the 1941 case of Hines v. Davidowitz, the Supreme Court examined a Pennsylvania statute that mandated every immigrant to register with the state once each year, provide other information and details that the state Department of Labor asked for, obtain and carry an identification card, and display it when asked by police, among other stipulations. The federal government challenged the state law because the law "encroached upon the legislative powers constitutionally vested in the federal government." The Supreme Court agreed, concluding that the federal government:
Quote:

is correct in his contention that the power to restrict, limit, regulate, and register aliens as a distinct group is not an equal and continuously existing concurrent power of state and nation, but that whatever power a state may have is subordinate to supreme national law.


The Court said that the federal government had "plainly manifested a purpose...to protect the personal liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national registration system, and to leave them free from the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance that might not only affect our international relations but might also generate the very disloyalty which the law has intended guarding against." Therefore, the Pennsylvania law was struck down.


As far as what makes our law racist, I can't speak for anyone else, but I have already explained my concern with this law...four simple words that allow it to be applied based on race.

Four words that apparently don't need to be there, but are, because, well, I've already explained that too.
_________________
You're doing a heck of a job, Kenny!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
qudjy1
Number Retired


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 12060

PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

deweyniner wrote:
qudjy1 wrote:
levski wrote:
SB 1070 isn't going to fix shit.
SB 1070 isn't trying to fix shit.


You and i feel that way - but i dont understand why people keep defending it with examples like the one above.

This has been my point all along. You want to secure the border and enforce immigration - fine - just do it right - without laws that promote racism and impact legals more than illegals.

We can do it - just need to try to get it right instead of playing politics.


How does SB 1070 promote racism more than the Rhode Island law?

Or the Missouri law?

Or the Oklahoma law?

Or the California law that isn't enforced?


I dont know anything about the other laws, and frankly dont care.

Basing a law on what Joe Arpaio deems to be "reasonable suspicion" is bullshit.
_________________
Throw fucking strikes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TAP
"Personality of a thumb-tack" - E Byrnes


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 25953

PostPosted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Abby Goodnough / The New York Times today wrote:
BOSTON — In a private meeting with White House officials this weekend, Democratic governors voiced deep anxiety about the Obama administration’s suit against Arizona’s new immigration law, worrying that it could cost a vulnerable Democratic Party in the fall elections.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sb24ws2005
Hall of Famer


Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 4021
Location: Ahwatukee, AZ

PostPosted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Amy K. Nelson/ESPN today wrote:
As Major League Baseball fetes the game this week by showcasing its best players, it faces a looming question just a state and a year away: Should it move the 2011 All-Star Game from Arizona, where a new immigration law has become a flashpoint in the nation's long-standing immigration debate?

Civil rights groups, some politicians and even the Major League Baseball Players Association have, to varying degrees, publicly denounced the law, which can be enforced beginning July 29 unless an injunction by the federal government is granted. Groups organizing protests at this week's All-Star Game in Anaheim promise to increase public pressure on baseball for next year's game, which is set for the home of the Arizona Diamondbacks.

"We don't hold MLB as a party of this unfair law, but we do see the game of baseball as upholding diversity. The law flies in the face of what baseball represents," said Clarissa Martinez, director of immigration and national campaigns for the National Council of La Raza, the country's largest Hispanic civil rights organization. "This is about civil rights."


Really wish we could put this issue to bed.
_________________
"The two most important things in life are good friends and a strong bullpen" - Bob Lemon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TAP
"Personality of a thumb-tack" - E Byrnes


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 25953

PostPosted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sb24ws2005 wrote:
Quote:
Amy K. Nelson/ESPN today wrote:
As Major League Baseball fetes the game this week by showcasing its best players, it faces a looming question just a state and a year away: Should it move the 2011 All-Star Game from Arizona, where a new immigration law has become a flashpoint in the nation's long-standing immigration debate?

Civil rights groups, some politicians and even the Major League Baseball Players Association have, to varying degrees, publicly denounced the law, which can be enforced beginning July 29 unless an injunction by the federal government is granted. Groups organizing protests at this week's All-Star Game in Anaheim promise to increase public pressure on baseball for next year's game, which is set for the home of the Arizona Diamondbacks.

"We don't hold MLB as a party of this unfair law, but we do see the game of baseball as upholding diversity. The law flies in the face of what baseball represents," said Clarissa Martinez, director of immigration and national campaigns for the National Council of La Raza, the country's largest Hispanic civil rights organization. "This is about civil rights."

Really wish we could put this issue to bed.

Not as long as Amy has a story deadline and nothing better to write about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
YBC-Dog
Veteran Presence


Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 1884
Location: Phoenix

PostPosted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/Yovani-Gallardo-would-skip-All-Star-Game-in-Arizona-over-law

Yovanni Gallardo, Joakim Soria, Jose Valverde all say they will support a Latino boycott of the All Star game in Arizona if it is held here next year.

Yeah, this isn't going to be a PR disaster if they hold it here and a large number of Latino players refuse to play.

I think it is all Amy K Nelson's fault for writing an article on it. People should just shut up and support our racist laws.
_________________
You're doing a heck of a job, Kenny!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
AZ SnakePit
Everyday Player


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 974
Location: Bloody Basin Road, AZ

PostPosted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

YBC-Dog wrote:
Yovanni Gallardo, Joakim Soria, Jose Valverde all say they will support a Latino boycott of the All Star game in Arizona if it is held here next year.

Yeah, this isn't going to be a PR disaster if they hold it here and a large number of Latino players refuse to play.

I think it is all Amy K Nelson's fault for writing an article on it. People should just shut up and support our racist laws.

Thought #1. Talk is cheap. Let's see if they actually back it up.
Thought #2. IF so, presumably they will also refuse to travel to "racist" Arizona during the regular season with their teams? Or is that an uncomfortable and hypocritical silence I hear, from the "empty gesture" political corner?
Thought #3. The law remains supported by the majority of the public. I suspect opposing it could just as easily end up a PR disaster for the players concerned, when the All-Star Game simply proceeds without them.
_________________
Jim McLennan
AZ SnakePit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
levski
Number Retired


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 17727

PostPosted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AZ SnakePit wrote:
I suspect opposing it could just as easily end up a PR disaster for the players concerned, when the All-Star Game simply proceeds without them.


Yeah, I can definitely see that - a Mexican baseball player being embroiled in a PR disaster because of his opposition to a law that racially profiles Mexicans... You might be onto something here...
_________________
"Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first call promising." Cyril Connolly, 'Enemies of Promise'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AZ SnakePit
Everyday Player


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 974
Location: Bloody Basin Road, AZ

PostPosted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

levski wrote:
AZ SnakePit wrote:
I suspect opposing it could just as easily end up a PR disaster for the players concerned, when the All-Star Game simply proceeds without them.


Yeah, I can definitely see that - a Mexican baseball player being embroiled in a PR disaster because of his opposition to a law that racially profiles Mexicans... You might be onto something here...

Because, of course, Soria and the Kansas City Royals have such a Latino fanbase... Rolling Eyes
_________________
Jim McLennan
AZ SnakePit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
levski
Number Retired


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 17727

PostPosted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AZ SnakePit wrote:
levski wrote:
AZ SnakePit wrote:
I suspect opposing it could just as easily end up a PR disaster for the players concerned, when the All-Star Game simply proceeds without them.


Yeah, I can definitely see that - a Mexican baseball player being embroiled in a PR disaster because of his opposition to a law that racially profiles Mexicans... You might be onto something here...

Because, of course, Soria and the Kansas City Royals have such a Latino fanbase... Rolling Eyes


Well, if you're telling me that every white Royals fan will start hating on Soria, I'll take your word on it. You seem to be an expert on this...
_________________
"Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first call promising." Cyril Connolly, 'Enemies of Promise'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AZ SnakePit
Everyday Player


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 974
Location: Bloody Basin Road, AZ

PostPosted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

levski wrote:
AZ SnakePit wrote:
levski wrote:
AZ SnakePit wrote:
I suspect opposing it could just as easily end up a PR disaster for the players concerned, when the All-Star Game simply proceeds without them.


Yeah, I can definitely see that - a Mexican baseball player being embroiled in a PR disaster because of his opposition to a law that racially profiles Mexicans... You might be onto something here...

Because, of course, Soria and the Kansas City Royals have such a Latino fanbase... Rolling Eyes


Well, if you're telling me that every white Royals fan will start hating on Soria, I'll take your word on it. You seem to be an expert on this...

Mr. Hyperbole blows things up again...
_________________
Jim McLennan
AZ SnakePit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
xjwheelr
Veteran Presence


Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Posts: 1181

PostPosted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jose Valverde is just boycotting because Montero plays in AZ.
_________________
"Mr. President...while I am impressed with your Renaissance Man-level of knowledge in a plethora of subjects, may I humbly say: That’s great. Just fix the economy!”
- Jon Stewart
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
David B
Hall of Famer


Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 3466
Location: Portland

PostPosted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gallardo softens his stance
_________________
The greatest feeling in the world is to win a major league game. The second-greatest feeling is to lose a major league game. ~Chuck Tanner, quoted in The Sporting News, 15 July 1985
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TAP
"Personality of a thumb-tack" - E Byrnes


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 25953

PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

USA TODAY this evening wrote:
Led by Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, the chief legal officers of nine states and one U.S. territory just filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Arizona's controversial illegal immigration crackdown against a legal challenge by the Obama administration.

The brief was filed before a federal court in Arizona where a hearing on the federal suit has been scheduled for tomorrow.

Joining the Michigan brief: Florida, Alabama, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Texas and the territory of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
xjwheelr
Veteran Presence


Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Posts: 1181

PostPosted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TAP wrote:
USA TODAY this evening wrote:
Led by Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, the chief legal officers of nine states and one U.S. territory just filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Arizona's controversial illegal immigration crackdown against a legal challenge by the Obama administration.

The brief was filed before a federal court in Arizona where a hearing on the federal suit has been scheduled for tomorrow.

Joining the Michigan brief: Florida, Alabama, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Texas and the territory of the Northern Mariana Islands.


You can always count on Texas Very Happy
_________________
"Mr. President...while I am impressed with your Renaissance Man-level of knowledge in a plethora of subjects, may I humbly say: That’s great. Just fix the economy!”
- Jon Stewart
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Diamondbacks Bullpen Forum Index -> Anything Goes All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 28, 29, 30  Next
Page 29 of 30

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



visitors since April 13, 2006.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group