Not at all. I understand you want to be sensationlistic with my comment. I simply stated that things change as time moves a long. People get different perspectives and the owrld evolves not only in science but in society as well.

Spare me the condescending comments, i never posed my argument as an absolute, i simply said quoting people from a hundred years ago to prove a stance on a social issue in a country/world that has vastly changed, to me is a little misguided given the context of the subject matter.

Since the debate is subjective its much harder to "prove" anything here. Im simply saying why take a quote form a hundred years ago and apply it to now when the landscape is different? To me its asinine.

I guess on that note we should throw out the constitution, it was written even before roosevelt made that statement. Science is far different from socail values. I am sorry to say, what roosevelt said still resonates with americans today, that is why I haven't seen it until recently. It was brought up by people who share my veiw and his, that we should be in america to be americans. Way to miss the point though

There are basic ideas that stay the same and simply throwing something out because it's old is just plain ridiculous.

If we're talking 18th century war tactics, yeah, you shouldn't put a whole lot of stock into that (though important to at least know) but the Roosevelt quote is still relevant today.

Also, if this isn't a blanket statement, I don't know what is:

That's the kind of statement that makes it sound as if we're just supposed to throw hands in the air and yell everything we know is wrong.

@ Thranx and twesterm

Alright if you guys still believe that thats cool. I just completely disagree.

I can see why you interperated that the way you did. However i still feel my comment doesnt mean any absolute since im speaking in generalities and never actually used absolute terms such as ALL or EVERY so imo, the interperatation can go either way.

You chose to go the sensational crazy side to make me appear to be psycotic as if im saying abandon history every 10 years or something, but like i said it appears we just disagree on the issue.

I disagree with the law. I understand the intent,but I just think that's the wrong approach. What really defines resonable suspcion? Anything can be resonable suspcion. It's racial profiling in my book.

I was against it when it was announced, but as I learned more about it, I am ok with it.

It really does nothing other then mirror the federal law. It has no provision at all for how to handle people the find, other then to turn them over to the federal government. If the federal government choses to let them go again, then that's there propagative.

There is nothing wrong with a state mirroring a federal law. For example, arson is a federal crime, but it's also a state crime. As long as the state arsin laws don't do anything to negate the federal law, then they are ok, and odd that no one is pissed that every state has an arson law when the feds have it covered.

Anyway, it's a good law, and I have no idea how the feds can jump on them, when they have the same law.

Crazy world we are living in.

Also, I use this analogy in me head, to realize just how fucked up this is...

Let's say you live in the part of the country where you have laws against how tall your grass can grow (most places). You say to yourself one day "You know, I don't think I care about that law" and stop mowing your lawn.

You then look out the window one afternoon, and see your neighbor mowing your yard, and doing your job for you.

You can do one of 3 things.

1. Do nothing, smile, and be happy you don't need to mow it, and the law is obayed without any effort of your own.
2. Feel guilty that your not mowing it, and forcing him to be the good citizen, and start mowing it yourself.
3. Sue him for trespassing.

Now, of those three options, which one seems the dumbest?

The state of Arizona is tired that the federal government is not doing it's job, so the state is going to do it for them, and of the options before the feds, they sue? 

Unbelievable.

Most applicants must also have a working knowledge of the English language.^[8] There are exceptions, introduced in 1990, for long-resident older applicants and those with mental or physical disabilities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law

It's pretty obvious that the federal government has no interest in enforcing the border. If they were, they'd send way more national guard down there and build the freaking fence already. Of course, they're probably doing something way more important tba with the border, like getting us another trillion dollars in debt. *eyeroll*