Plime is now in read-only mode and will remain as an archive of old plime activity.
This means you cannot login, post a comment or news post, edit your profile, etc.
 Some sanity in AZ after all
Some sanity in AZ after all
Republican Governor Jan Brewer vetoed the bill that would force candidates for office to produce (among other documents) circumcision records if they cannot show a birth certificate. picked by Moe 6 months ago
tags arizona birth certificate nutjobs vetoed kittens
 quote edit #1 

  comments (18)  share edit history (0)
< 1 >
28
 drogue
6 months ago
Update.

Kudos to Brewer, for showing some—yes, sanity. Sorry, proud 'Zonites, but when did the American Southwest become the cartoonish Deep South of our current age, ideologically?

I'd have to argue that whites in the Deep South States at least had The Destruction/Reconstruction to blame their woes, and their brazen racism on, mostly because I grew up among them.

Just not getting what devastating thing happened to AZ to warrant the xenophobia there.
quote #2
49
 Moe
6 months ago
« Just not getting what devastating thing happened to AZ to warrant the xenophobia there.
Well there is a lot of violence along the border with Mexico. Ranchers getting murdered on their own land by illegal drug runners, thing like that.
quote #3
22
 Interest...
6 months ago
When did demanding the rights of the state to uphold the constitution become "insane". I thought the bill to be completely fair, if you can't produce a birth certificate then they listed some really obscure documents that could prove you were born in the US. So some of them are from religious organizations, I think that is just them showing how fair they can be. It's not like they said "no birth certificate? screw you, you're no American!" I think if they did this before Obama showed up everyone would approve of it, because it is (as far as I understand) a perfectly reasonable requirement and completely constitutional.
quote #4
54
 2manyuse...
6 months ago
« drogue:Update.

Kudos to Brewer, for showing some—yes, sanity. Sorry, proud 'Zonites, but when did the American Southwest become the cartoonish Deep South of our current age, ideologically?

I'd have to argue that whites in the Deep South States at least had The Destruction/Reconstruction to blame their woes, and their brazen racism on, mostly because I grew up among them.

Just not getting what devastating thing happened to AZ to warrant the xenophobia there.
The only bigotry being shown is your comment. While I understand no prejudice was meant, it does show the dangers of painting an entire state or an entire region in broad strokes
quote #5
About Plime
Plime is an editable wiki community where users can add and edit weird and interesting links. Users earn karma when other users vote on their actions. The more karma you have, the more power you have at Plime.

54
 2manyuse...
6 months ago
double post
quote #6
49
 Moe
6 months ago
« Interesting : When did demanding the rights of the state to uphold the constitution become "insane".
The Fed already does this for every candidate

I thought the bill to be completely fair, if you can't produce a birth certificate then they listed some really obscure documents that could prove you were born in the US. So some of them are from religious organizations, I think that is just them showing how fair they can be. It's not like they said "no birth certificate? screw you, you're no American!"
A) Not every man gets circumcised.

B) Not every person who runs for office is a man

C) Not every person who runs for office has been baptized

D) Last time I looked, baptisms and circumcisions did not prove citizenship

I think if they did this before Obama showed up everyone would approve of it, because it is (as far as I understand) a perfectly reasonable requirement and completely constitutional.
You're probably right. But the fact is that it was not put forward before Obama. It was put forward as a direct result of the Birther movement that will by no means whatsoever ever admit that he is a citizen. Hawaii's government has shown all the same documents for him that it ever shows for ANY citizen and yet this is not a dead issue as it should have been years ago.
quote #7
22
 Interest...
6 months ago
« Moe : The Fed already does this for every
Didn't do it convincingly enough for a fair number of people...besides the whole idea behind having "united states" is that each state has some say in what happens

A) Not every man gets circumcised.

B) Not every person who runs for office is a man

C) Not every person who runs for office has been baptized

D) Last time I looked, baptisms and circumcisions did not prove citizenship
A) I know, and some who do don't get a piece of paper that says so...

B) Really?? When was the last time a woman ran for the office of President?

C) Right...kinda the same point as A

D) They don't but if I got baptized at 3 weeks old or circumsized at 7 days old in New York...it's a fair bet I was born there

Also: this was one of many documents acceptable as proof. You don't need more than 2 forms of ID to open a bank account but last time I went to start one they had a long list of what was acceptable...same thing ;)

You're probably right. But the fact is that it was not put forward before Obama. It was put forward as a direct result of the Birther movement that will by no means whatsoever ever admit that he is a citizen. Hawaii's government has shown all the same documents for him that it ever shows for ANY citizen and yet this is not a dead issue as it should have been years ago.
That it isn't dead is interesting to me. Most movements loose credence after time if there is nothing to them...hmmm. Actually I say just get rid of the guy that won't even salute the flag of the country he is supposed to be representing. I'm not a citizen and I salute the flag...it's a sign of respect.
quote #8
16
 shoestix
6 months ago
I live in AZ, and I had to fill out a form I-9 to get my job.
quote #9
49
 Moe
6 months ago
« Interesting : Didn't do it convincingly enough for a fair number of people...besides the whole idea behind having "united states" is that each state has some say in what happens
Elected officials

A) I know, and some who do don't get a piece of paper that says so...
Really? You REALLY think that knowing if his dick is trimmed or not will determine his citizenship?

B) Really?? When was the last time a woman ran for the office of President?
Really? You're really going to go there? Pass the Dick Bill because we've never had a woman on the ticket as the main candidate? There's almost no point in continuing.

C) Right...kinda the same point as A
They have baptismal certificates to celebrate a religious sacrament. Last time I looked, no one was generating "Atheist Certificates in Celebration of Not Getting Your Kid Dunked, Plunked or Splashed". And even if they were, I don't think I would rely on one as a basis as to whether or not one was allowed to run for Leader of the Free World.

D) They don't but if I got baptized at 3 weeks old or circumsized at 7 days old in New York...it's a fair bet I was born there
Surely you can't be serious. Make a law requiring a state mandate something that already happens because you don't trust them...AND...get this...it is a "fair bet" that you'll be right? Ugh. Just, ugh.

Also: this was one of many documents acceptable as proof. You don't need more than 2 forms of ID to open a bank account but last time I went to start one they had a long list of what was acceptable...same thing ;)


That it isn't dead is interesting to me. Most movements loose credence after time if there is nothing to them...hmmm. Actually I say just get rid of the guy that won't even salute the flag of the country he is supposed to be representing. I'm not a citizen and I salute the flag...it's a sign of respect.
Here is the letter of the law as it stands in Hawaii. What was supplied for him is what is supplied for ANYONE born in that state. NOTHING is now, or ever was out of the ordinary. If a person is proven to be wrong, and still continues to deny reality, they are either insane, or they want to just argue and make noise. At this point, I would believe either option for Birthers.
quote #10
16
 B-MoreRa...
6 months ago
« Interesting : B) Really?? When was the last time a woman ran for the office of President?
Is your memory really that short? Does "Hillary Clinton" ring a bell? She was second only to Obama in the Democratic primaries... I believe that makes her a significant candidate. Therefore, your indignation at the notion that a woman would run for president is ridiculous considering the fact that a woman almost got the Democratic nomination in 2008, and would have probably won the presidency considering the widespread anti-GOP and anti-Bush sentiment at the time.
quote #11
28
 drogue
6 months ago
« 2manyusernames : The only bigotry being shown is your comment. While I understand no prejudice was meant, it does show the dangers of painting an entire state or an entire region in broad strokes
Bigotry? Really? So calling out nationally-criticized and mocked racial/territorial intolerance by state officials and activists, while referencing the undeniable historical atrocities of a region I grew up in now counts as bigotry?

No, I think you're wrong about that. I think you've gone backward, and should change your mind.
quote #12
22
 Interest...
6 months ago
« B-MoreRavensFan : Is your memory really that short? Does "Hillary Clinton" ring a bell? She was second only to Obama in the Democratic primaries... I believe that makes her a significant candidate. Therefore, your indignation at the notion that a woman would run for president is ridiculous considering the fact that a woman almost got the Democratic nomination in 2008, and would have probably won the presidency considering the widespread anti-GOP and anti-Bush sentiment at the time.
Oops. I stand corrected. Maybe I assumed since she had more balls than her husband...
And yes I think she would have defeated the GOP as well...probably would have been a more popular president than Obama as well...
I think I see the deeper issue Moe has. It's because they accept documents issued by a religious group. I pity the prejudiced.
quote #13
49
 Moe
6 months ago
Yeah thanks for the pity, but keep it. I have no issue with religious documents at all. I have issue with the entire bill as a whole. There is no reason he should have to "prove" his country of birth. That has already been done.

And as far as future candidates go, the same process by which Obama was proven will prove them.
quote #14
12
 chilehea...
6 months ago
The entire birther movement is a piss-poor disguise for racially motivated outrage that the majority of Americans voted for someone of the "wrong color".

They documentation of O's birth has been vetted far more thoroughly than 99.9% of the American population, yet these mental defectives want to keep raising the bar on the proof required until they have cause to disqualify him - not because he's not qualified, but because he had the temerity to be born with the wrong color skin. Many of these horses-asses also are insisting that he's a muslim, despite his constant public participation in christian services for pretty much his entire life. They're just terrified of having to deal with someone that is "different" from them.
______________
There's no way religious documents should be accepted as proof of anything: religious institutions are not equipped to verify anyone's identity in any way whatsoever. The only time a religious organization has ever so much as asked to see my (state)ID was on the day I got married (biggest mistake of my life), and that is because marriage is a state function, and even then they just checked my state-issued ID. Do you think that churches issue their own ID for people, and that it's as thoroughly backed as a state issued ID? Any two people (of opposite sex) could walk into a church with a baby under their arm and get it baptised and the church wouldn't think to verify the baby as being related to either of the "parents" - or even that the mother wasn't a male drag queen that couldn't have given birth.

The "deeper issue" everyone should have with this is that religious institutions are totally inappropriate for issuing anything approximating proof of anything.

...besides the whole idea behind having "united states" is that each state has some say in what happens
This is the reason each state sends senators and representatives to Washington DC. Allowing local representatives to pass regulations affecting the larger body of the country would be defeating the role of a representative government.
quote #15
54
 2manyuse...
6 months ago
« drogue : Bigotry? Really? So calling out nationally-criticized and mocked racial/territorial intolerance by state officials and activists, while referencing the undeniable historical atrocities of a region I grew up in now counts as bigotry?

No, I think you're wrong about that. I think you've gone backward, and should change your mind.
Bigotry? Yes, obviously. Calling everyone in the Southwest racists is as bigoted and ignorant as saying all group x is blank.

The idea that enforcing immigration laws that the federal government refuses to enforce because of the votes they can garner is incredibly naive and ignorant at best and and more often, the lies spread by those who benefit from allowing illegal immigration but can't debate it as an adult so resort to false personal attacks.

And don't try to claim that such laws are inherently racist. They aren't. In fact by its very definition racial-profiling is impossible to be racist. It is absolutely blind to individual skin color. It is nothing but math. It is probability, statistics. Will hispanic-looking people with broken english be more prone to having their ID requested? Yes, of course. That is because statistically speaking the chances of that broken english Hispanic-looking person is far more likely to be an undocumented immigrant than some random African-american or anyone else. It isn't racist. It isn't unfair. It is simply the logical use of limited resources.

Far more women get breast cancer than men, therefor the limited resources are used to pay for women to have mammograms but nor for men. It isn't a gender bias. It isn't prejudiced. It is statistics.

Same could be said for a bazillion other type of profiling.

So, yes, your statement was prejudiced. I am pretty sure that not everyone in the SouthWest or even a large percentage of them are as prejudiced as you are trying to paint them.
quote #16
54
 2manyuse...
6 months ago
« chilehead : The entire birther movement is a piss-poor disguise for racially motivated outrage that the majority of Americans voted for someone of the "wrong color".
No. It. Isn't.

Is it yet another stupid conspiracy theory? Yes, of course. The world does love a good conspiracy theory.

Just as, contrary to many people, it is quite possible to dislike Obama's policies without it being because of the color of his skin, it is equally likely for someone to be fall into a conspiracy theory without race playing a factor.

Pulling out the race card every single time someone doesn't strew rose petals around Obama is rather pathetic.

The birther movement is no more racist than those who believe we didn't go to the moon, that 9/11 was a Bush job, or any of the other 100's of conspiracy theories.
quote #17
28
 drogue
6 months ago
« 2manyusernames:Bigotry? Yes, obviously. Calling everyone in the Southwest racists is as bigoted and ignorant as saying all group x is blank.
I disagree, as I wasn't calling "everyone" in the Southwest racist (I live here, after all), any more than I was calling "everyone in the south" racist for Jim Crow laws, and beyond. I was calling out what seems to be a growing, if not prevailing political ideology, as expressed through representative legislation. And it's not like I'm the first to do so.

And yes, I think many of Arizona's recent laws (passed by their people's willfully-elected representatives) are based in short-sighted, self-damaging, unrealistic, xenophobic, and yes, race-based stereotypes.

How many times has the term "Flori-duh" been bantered about here, and laughed about without accusations of bigotry?

Can you honestly say that to characterize The South as being ideologically set back by racism and xenophobia (carpetbaggers) during the reconstruction, Jim Crow, and beyond is "bigotry?"

No sense of irony there?

This isn't bigotry against a whole populace, it's political/cultural criticism, which doesn't deserve such damning epithets.
quote #18
28
 drogue
6 months ago
And it was said half-jokingly (DP).
quote #19
+ add a comment
< 1 >