A Complete Waste of Space

CUDA wrote:your missing the point slick. We IE: "MOST" people are not against Immigration. we are against ILLEGAL immigration. and if you look at a map of the Statue of Liberty. what is it that sits right next door?? Ellis Island, the place where people came to this country LEGALLY, do you think there might be a correlation?

yes, Cuda, but the rules for admittance were much looser. Further, a ton of Europeans arrived here outside the Ellis Island route(1/2 of my wife's family, for instance, in the 1920's),technically illegal, but it worked out for the nation in the end. And almost ALL immigrant groups have been victims of the same xenophobic fears directed toward Mexicans and Central Americans now.

callmeslick wrote:
1. When Sheriff Joe got elected, what were the serious crime issues in Phoenix?

Same as any other big city.

2. How does the level of crime today compare to when he first got into office?

It's worse. Things are dying down a bit cuz a lot of illegals left but then there's that whole drug cartel thing and Obama's administration posting signs 80 miles inside our border telling citizens that it's not safe to travel within 80 miles of the border.

I ask because I wonder whether his approach really solves anything, or merely looks good on paper and doesn't really address the more dangerous threats to the city/region.

I don't like a lot of what Arpaio does. He's ex-DEA and he's tried to implement some unconstitutional stuff (Project Lead for example) but he got smacked down by the people on that. He's taking a bite out of a lot of crime, and especially in the areas where the poor are cuz he's removing some of the criminals (in teh form of illegals). Just cuz Joe is in the news for illegals and tent city and pink underwear doesn't mean his department isn't doing what cops should do. They are.

callmeslick wrote:

Pudfark wrote:fappity,fappity,fap,fap,fap

the question was specifically asked of Ruggie. I don't need to know what some moron in Texas thinks. If I change my mind, I'll ask you.

Here's a little tidbit for ya Slick......Where I lived and worked...nearly thirty years....my little old town had more illegals than all of Arizona's illegals.....and it still does.

Slick, once again, you prove to be an elitist idiot. Rugg gave you a better answer than your questions merited....

ruggbutt wrote:I don't like a lot of what Arpaio does. He's ex-DEA and he's tried to implement some unconstitutional stuff (Project Lead for example) but he got smacked down by the people on that. He's taking a bite out of a lot of crime, and especially in the areas where the poor are cuz he's removing some of the criminals (in teh form of illegals). Just cuz Joe is in the news for illegals and tent city and pink underwear doesn't mean his department isn't doing what cops should do. They are.

fair enough, thanks.

ruggbutt wrote:

callmeslick wrote:
1. When Sheriff Joe got elected, what were the serious crime issues in Phoenix?

Same as any other big city.

2. How does the level of crime today compare to when he first got into office?

It's worse. Things are dying down a bit cuz a lot of illegals left but then there's that whole drug cartel thing and Obama's administration posting signs 80 miles inside our border telling citizens that it's not safe to travel within 80 miles of the border.

1. as the majority of larger US cities to not have a serious, or at least critical, illegal imm prob, AFAIK, do you infer that the problems only really started after Arpaio took office?

or are you implying most or a majority of US cities have a serious illegal imm prob?



2 if a "lot" of illegals have left, yet crime is dying down a "bit", "but" theres the cartel thing; would you agree that by this, one could easily read that the illegals themselves do not affect the crime rate by a huge or disproportionate value, and indeed it is actually the cartel(s) that are the source of the lion's share of nogoodnik?

Rugg wrote:I don't like a lot of what Arpaio does

not sure if it varies state-to-state, but AFAIK in US the Sheriffs are elected by the citizens? (for that matter, arent most offices voted by the people, from dogcatcher to governor?)

how do you feel that affects the quality, good or bad, of your state/local LE, and if u care to comment, of other states' LE? (and the other public services)

in ontario, and prob the other provinces, a police chief is elected internally, by police union and an independent civilian police services board (IIRC)
we only elect mayors and aldermen municipally (neither have any political party affiliations), ministers for provincal parliament (sorta like ur cngsmn), prime minister of prov, and federal PM

any thoughts on the different systems, what may be strengths or weaknesses compared to the other, at least in terms of the LE aspect?

Daiichidoku wrote: how do you feel that affects the quality, good or bad, of your state/local LE, and if u care to comment, of other states' LE?

I definitely think we should be electing out Sheriff. Granted, voters typically are stupid and don't do the research they should to elect someone. But if they choose to vote ignorant like that it's their right.

Here's another thing I don't like about Arpaio. He owns the canteen (the store) which the inmates can purchase foodstuffs from. He's also only giving them two meals a day. Huge conflict of interest IMHO. His second in command retired and gets a huge pension, and now he hired the same guy as a "consultant". Nepotism IMHO. Back to meals and how he treats the prisoners: Some people that are locked up are pre-trial. That means they're not convicted and should be presumed innocent. IMHO their rights are being violated by the Sheriff.

hoped for more, but fair nuff

shocking that he can get away with what you say, if so, in such a blatant fashion

is this guy the same one i saw on 60 minutes a few years ago?

was a jail in the desert, the warden or sheriff (if it was Arpaio) had internal rehab and education programs, and IIRC paid "chainganging" and shit like that..reforming the system, at least at that site

was controversial of course

That's the guy.

Rugg, I can tell you exactly why Sheriffs should not be elected? For the same reason they are not and should not be elected (officers) in the military.... Elected Sheriffs (All of them are in Texas) are prone to the same corruption as politicians.... I am not saying that all of them are corrupt, just saying it is more likely over time that they will become that way....just like the other elected politicians...

This group hug thing that Daii and Slick have going over their feigned interest in Maricopa county...is really a hoot....


Old Pudfark sez: " Senior Law Enforcement Officers should be selected, based on their experience, education and merit....To elect them or politically appoint them is for shit "

Pudfark wrote:This group hug thing that Daii and Slick have going over their feigned interest in Maricopa county...is really a hoot....

when Rugg (and others capable of it) posts without made-up bullshit or 99 and 44/100% hyperbole, it invites d i s c u s s i o n