The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Fuck Sheriff Joe - The Fat Lady Is Warming Up Edition
AngelHedgie
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Remember how, in past threads about the odious sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, I said that Obama should have the Department of Justice investigate his ass?
Seems I'm not alone.
While yes, I know that this is just the House Judiciary Committee making a recommendation to DoJ and DHS, it's a first step, and a badly needed one. A large part of Joe's ability to run Maricopa as his own personal fiefdom has been the willful blindness of the federal agencies best tasked to monitor him. It's looking like those days are coming to an end.
Seems I'm not alone.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), and Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Constitution Subcommittee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Crime Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Scott (D-Va.) called on Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to investigate allegations of misconduct by Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Sheriff Arpaio has repeatedly demonstrated disregard for the rights of Hispanics in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Under the guise of immigration enforcement, his staff has conducted raids in residential neighborhoods in a manner condemned by the community as racial profiling. On February 4, 2009, Arpaio invited the media to view the transfer of immigrant detainees to a segregated area of his "tent city" jail, subjecting the detainees to public display and "ritual humiliation." Persistent actions such as these have resulted in numerous lawsuits; while Arpaio spends time and energy on publicity and his reality television show, "Smile… You’re Under Arrest!", Maricopa County has paid millions of dollars in settlements involving dead or injured inmates.
"Racial profiling and segregation are simply not acceptable." said Conyers. "Media stunts and braggadocio are no substitute for fair and effective law enforcement."
While yes, I know that this is just the House Judiciary Committee making a recommendation to DoJ and DHS, it's a first step, and a badly needed one. A large part of Joe's ability to run Maricopa as his own personal fiefdom has been the willful blindness of the federal agencies best tasked to monitor him. It's looking like those days are coming to an end.
XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
AngelHedgie on
0
Posts
Yeah. A Fox (what network did you think would do this sort of shit) crew went along and filmed his stings. Just add it to the immense and growing list of crimes he's committed.
Look, like him or hate him he is "popular". Which means even if you smack him down, arrest him, and haul him away on charges there are people out there who support what he does. That people currently is the majority.
So when they move in, smack down Joe, he will swiftly be replaced by his hand picked successor Sheriff Moe. Need to target the one immortal head, hack it off, and bury it under a rock. Good luck killing human stupidity however. As long as Joe continues to address issues the voters have that no one else is willing to address they will support him. If the government wanted to do something about Joe it would work to address the very issues Joe uses to gain his popular support.
If the County Clerk is rounding up dissenters and having them shot, it doesn't really matter if everyone still thinks he's the bee's knees.
pshaw
Constitutions are for pussies anyway.
Wait, what?
Does this have anything relevant to do with the highly dubious legality of his actions?
Or is it OK to do illegal stuff as long as you're popular enough?
It's embarrassing living in a state that supports him.
The problem is what he does to anyone who runs against him.
2000: Joe won by 40 points.
2004: Joe won by 27 points- a 13 point drop.
2008: Joe won by 13 points- a 14 point drop.
Granted, it means he won THIS time, but if the trend holds he's due for a neck-and-neck fight, if not a loss, next time he faces the voters. With new federal leadership at the helm, he may not get to face the voters again.
Also, note that the Secretary of Homeland Security is a home-stater. Napolitano is probably verrrrrry interested in seeing Arpaio go down.
Plus, as has already been mentioned, you don't let somebody get away with flagrantly illegal and highly immoral behavior just because a bunch of mouth-breathers like watching them do it.
guess it's cheaper then tipping...
If your trying to get him out of office, and keep people like him out of office you cannot ignore the problem that the people voting for him are supporting the illegal stuff he does. Getting rid of him, only to have him replaced by someone exactly like him who it will take the feds some time to build a case against means you have accomplished diddly squat.
Good point. I also agree we will save a ton on law enforcement if we just stop caring when someone commits a crime.
How is enforcing the law and the Constitution amounting to diddly squat?
Agreed, but that would not stop crime from happening would it? Neither would replacing one criminal with another because the voters are idiots.
I am not saying avoid ENFORCING anything. I am saying if the plan consists of
Step 1. Get Joe out of office.
Step 2. Celebrate
Step 3. Get Moe out of office.
Step 4. Celebrate
Step 5. Get Boe out of office.
Step....
Then we need a better plan. One that will get the voters to stop electing people who are going to commit crimes
Arizona in particular has a long history of electing criminals.
So your point is democracy elects scumbags so we should continue to watch as Arizona elects scumbags and only step in after we can convict one scumbag, only to step back out again so they can elect a replacement scumbag. Ok, personally I would rather do something productive that arrest one scumbag and watch as his idiotic policies continue to be used.
We could always arrest him and take whatever steps it took to fix the root problem.
Okay. I hope you are successful in your... well, I guess attack?... on Arizona. I'm not sure what the National Guard situation is, but I'm sure a man of you means will easily be able to overthrow the state Government and create a thriving dictatorship.
If you need a strongman, I'm in Tempe, just let me know.
That's not to say it won't still happen, to a lesser extent and hidden more carefully, but come on. This is why we enforce the law in the first place.
And if they do arrest him, hopefully they place him in that Tent City jail of his. Nothing says "I broke the law" like male anal rape.
-- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
So wait, you want the root problem of dealing with scumbags who get elected to public office, but when someone suggests something, you call them a fascist? Hypocrite much?
I'm being partially facetious here, but you sound like someone who wants all their problems fixed for them by someone else. You want something done, but don't have the faintest idea what that something is, nor do you wish to think of it yourself. You just want people to slap down proposals in front of you for your approval.
Steam: pazython
umm... what the fuck are you talking about?
My point was that electing someone into office the peoples choice. That doesn't mean you don't arrest them when they're fucking criminal douche bags. But you also don't fuck with people's right to vote.
You want to know the root cause here? It's that people suck, and politics draws a large degree of suck-ass people. So, how does that make me a hypocrite? Is it because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?
So what the hell's the problem then? Earlier, you were saying that there was no point in arresting Sheriff Joe, since someone just as bad would take his place.
By the way, the whole "hypocrite" angle was facetious (like I said in my post), but you're just bringing up the whole "he'll be replaced" angle for the sake of bringing it up.
Edit: I just realized that Detharin was the one talking about not arresting Sheriff Joe, not you. I guess I really didn't know what I was talking about. I blame it on hunger and sleepiness. Either way, I apologize.
Steam: pazython
Actually I was going to suggest following up and actually doing something about the actual problems that Joe used to get in power, address his key talking points so any follow up Joeish candidate would not be able to use them in their campaign during the emergency election that would need to be held due to the fact that anyone already in place to replace Joe would follow his agenda. In addition even with Joe behind bars the people he put in key positions will still be there. So when his hand picked successor goes to run against the other guy what is to prevent the police from doing the same thing to the other guy? We might very well need to bring in someone from the federal level to oversea things until we can ensure a fair election, which is only going to cause problems because it could be spun to the voters to make it look like the government needed to stop joe because he was making progress. Hell just think of the political commercials. "Now that the government has attacked our local hero, Sheriff Joe, and put him behind bars he bravely stands to defend blah blah, american flag, blah. Joe supports Moe for Sheriff, and you should to. Vote Sheriff Moe for more brutality and crime"
This really is a deeper problem than arrest Joe, good times had by all.
But hey its good you know your strengths, unfortunately I think this problem is going to require more intellectual solutions.
That depends entirely on whether or not you understand the fundamental premises of checks and balances. Tyrannical majorities don't, but fuck them, they never realize how dependent they are upon federal funding until the fed says FUCK YOU!
Good plan, lets do it!
Every time you make a post the palm-like dent in my face gets deeper.
No, Detharin was saying that. Sentry was arguing against him.
May I suggest you try actually paying attention while reading posts, especially before being kind of a facetious dick?
At this point I have no idea what sentry was arguing about honestly because when I said we needed a better plan than just kicking Joe out of office sentry goes off about how we do not in fact need a better plan because democracy has a long history of electing scumbags. So near as I can tell he just wants us to remove Joe and then stop caring until the next idiot ends up in the New York Times.
Thanks for the obvious?
Did anyone suggest otherwise?
Hey look we are back at where you came in.