Arizona Bircher Puts the "T" in Controversy | VIVA LOS 1070

[FrankRep]

When Jim Clark and a friend attended a recent Phoenix Suns playoff basketball game, wearing “VIVA LOS 1070” T-shirts expressing their support for Arizona's new immigration law, they created a lot more excitement than they anticipated. By Chip Wood


Arizona Bircher Puts the "T" in Controversy (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3620-arizona-bircher-puts-the-t-in-controversy)


Chip Wood | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
Tuesday, 25 May 2010


When Jim Clark bought a pair of tickets to a recent Phoenix Suns playoff basketball game, he expected to see a pretty exciting contest. After all, the Suns were still in contention for a national championship.

What happened that night created a lot more excitement than Jim, CEO of Phoenix-based Republic Monetary Exchange, a precious-metals brokerage, ever anticipated.

Earlier in the day, the Suns’ owner, Robert Sarver, proudly announced that the team’s uniform would be changed for that night’s game. Instead of the Suns, the jerseys would say, “Los Suns.” Since Sarver had previously marched with Al Sharpton and others in opposition to Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigration law, Sarver left no doubt what he meant by the change.

This was too much for Jim. He promptly had some orange (“LOS SUNS” team color) T-shirts made that said “VIVA LOS 1070” — the number of the legislation that was causing all the uproar. He and a buddy put them on before entering the sold-out arena.

Turns out that Jim’s seats were in the front row, directly behind the San Antonio Spurs bench. So every time TNT, broadcasting game nationwide, scanned ball movement at that end of the court, Jim and his buddy (and their T-shirts) were clearly visible on national TV. Same thing when the junbo-tron showed the team’s bench.

Before too long, however, a couple of security agents showed up. First they asked Jim and his friend to remove their shirts. They refused. Then they asked them to turn them inside out. Again, they said no.

Turns out their third choice was to be tossed out of the game. When ordered to leave, they complied. But once outside the arena, they asked to speak with someone with more authority — say, the director of security. After much back and forth and some private phone calls, Jim and his friends were allowed to reenter the arena. The crowd around them applauded enthusiastically when they took their seats again — proudly wearing their “VIVA LOS 1070” shirts.

So there the story ends, right? Not on your life. First, Jim and his shirt became a cause célèbre in the local media. He was interviewed on several local radio talk shows and TV programs. Then Fox News picked up the story nationally. Glenn Beck talked about it on his program. Jim was asked to be a guest (by phone) on numerous local, out of state and national radio shows, including Lars Larson and Mike Gallagher. Jim was also featured on virtually every local TV station and numerous blogs.

And, this being America, orders for that T-shirt started pouring into Phoenix. Jim responded as would any good entrepreneur — he created a website. Now you too can go to Viva Los 1070 (http://www.vivalos1070.com/) and support Arizona by wearing your own personal “VIVA LOS 1070” T-shirt.

I can’t promise front-row seats to a Suns game when you do. But turn on your TV and you just might see Jim again. Seems Rick Welts, the president of the Suns, called Jim up to apologize personally for what happened. And he offered him four courtside tickets to each of the next 10 Suns’ home game, including the playoffs.

This lifetime member of The John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/) isn’t afraid to make waves. To stand up proudly for his beliefs. Or, in this case, to sit quietly in the front row of a basketball game and let his T-shirt do the talking.


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3620-arizona-bircher-puts-the-t-in-controversy


http://www.vivalos1070.com/images/orangeshirt_v2.pnghttp://www.vivalos1070.com/images/goldshirt_v2.png


Viva Los 1070
http://www.vivalos1070.com/

[MelissaWV]

Awesome. The grammar just gets worse and worse, but no one minds looking foolish. If it were some Mexicans in the stands wearing "Good blass teh USA" shirts, people would think those people to be utter idiots, and would probably say things like "Learn some fuckin' English!" to them.

Los Suns = wrong. Los Soles = correct. Spanglish does not make anyone look smart.

Los 1070 = wrong. The bill is singular. This shirt is actually saying "long live the one-thousand-and-seventy." The 1070 what? Who? Oh, you meant the bill? Since it is singular, that'd be "El 1070," but who cares... the other ignorant folks all knew what was meant.

[yokna7]

Awesome. The grammar just gets worse and worse, but no one minds looking foolish. If it were some Mexicans in the stands wearing "Good blass teh USA" shirts, people would think those people to be utter idiots, and would probably say things like "Learn some fuckin' English!" to them.

Los Suns = wrong. Los Soles = correct. Spanglish does not make anyone look smart.

Los 1070 = wrong. The bill is singular. This shirt is actually saying "long live the one-thousand-and-seventy." The 1070 what? Who? Oh, you meant the bill? Since it is singular, that'd be "El 1070," but who cares... the other ignorant folks all knew what was meant.

I agree with the latter, but the Suns wanted to keep their proprietary name. Your one meticulous gal. I like that. I would have worn a shirt that read "We are all profilers". Cuz I'm artsy fartsy. I meant, Because I am artsy fartsy.

[FrankRep]

Los Suns and viva los 1070 (http://www.examiner.com/x-45209-LA-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m5d12-Los-Suns-and-viva-los-1070)


Examiner.com
May 12, 2010


The Phoenix Suns announced after the passage of SB 1070 that their jerseys would now read “Los Suns,” instead of “The Suns” to show solidarity with those opposed SB 1070. Admittedly it’s a stupid little thing but that is what the owners want to do.

One of the 70 per centers who support the bill in Arizona is Jim Clark (http://www.thepoliticalfish.com/2010/05/11/pro-arizona-immigration-law-shirt-angers-phoenix-suns/), CEO of Republic Monetary Exchange. He is also a long time Phoenix Suns fan.

When the Suns announced the political statement by changing their shirts Clark felt that he had to do something. So, exercising his first amendment rights, as a small quick protest he wore a shirt to the game that said, “Viva Los 1070.”

Early in the second quarter Clark was approached by “secret service” looking security complete with ear pieces and they gave him three options. One, take the shirt off, two, turn it inside out, or three leave the game. Clark and his companion chose the last option. When they reached the outside Clark and his companion argued with security and finally won the right to return to the game.

Clark returned victorious. He received an ovation from the people around him and when he was shown on the big screen there was a roar from the crowd. As it died down you could hear a few feeble boos.

What does that tell you?

I have only questions. Please provide me with some answers.

I wonder if any anti immigration shirts in the stadium that night were also ejected?

Would this have happened even twenty years ago?

When did it become wrong to express your American patriotism on American soil?

An interview with Mr. Clark on KFI Radio in Los Angeles. (http://www.kfiam640.com/mediaplayer/?station=KFI-AM&action=ondemand&item=293987281&feed_name=JohnandKen.xml)


YouTube - NBA Phoenix-Suns- Condenm Arizona Immigration Law 1070 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuKP8ZLBGyA)


SOURCE:
http://www.examiner.com/x-45209-LA-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m5d12-Los-Suns-and-viva-los-1070

[MelissaWV]

I agree with the latter, but the Suns wanted to keep their proprietary name. Your one meticulous gal. I like that. I would have worn a shirt that read "We are all profilers". Cuz I'm artsy fartsy. I meant, Because I am artsy fartsy.

They could have kept their "Suns" logo and name, and worn patches or amended it to include a watermark-style "Los Soles" on the jersey. It didn't bother me quite so much, but I had the nagging feeling that it would be expounded upon in an ignorant way. I could add to the whole thing that, as it stands, even "viva" and "los" are not in agreement. It's ridiculous. People are going to be "proud" to wear these shirts :rolleyes:

[MsDoodahs]

You know....I'm an american. I speak english. I don't speak spanish.

I knew exactly what the message was on the tee shirt - regardless of whether or not I know the correct spanish translation.


Since it is singular, that'd be "El 1070," but who cares... the other ignorant folks all knew what was meant.

:rolleyes:

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

YouTube - NBA Phoenix-Suns- Condenm Arizona Immigration Law 1070 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuKP8ZLBGyA)

Holy cow I am an instant Sun's fan. Will be writing my letter of support fully explaining the constitutional line of thought as to why I support them in opposing a papers please society.

[MelissaWV]

You know....I'm an american. I speak english. I don't speak spanish.

I knew exactly what the message was on the tee shirt - regardless of whether or not I know the correct spanish translation.



:rolleyes:

Since you only speak English, perhaps you should ask them to translate it to "Long Lives the 1070s." :) Otherwise, it seems like a rather silly mixed message. (Please ensure the shirt says it just like that, too, since the message will still be clear. If there's no need to correct the Spanish, I'm sure there will be no need to correct the English, either.)

[Stary Hickory]

Holy cow I am an instant Sun's fan. Will be writing my letter of support fully explaining the constitutional line of thought as to why I support them in opposing a papers please society.

Then you support open borders. Please put that as a disclaimer so we can tell WHO we are dealing with. If law enforcement cannot deal with illegal immigrants and must release them you are saying OPEN BORDERS.

[MsDoodahs]

Since you only speak English, perhaps you should ask them to translate it to "Long Lives the 1070s!" :) Otherwise, it seems like a rather silly mixed message.

Not commenting on the message in any way. My comment goes to your decision to call non spanish speaking americans ignorant.

[FrankRep]

I love Mexican food and the language of Spanish, but I just ask you to obey the law and become a legal citizen of the United States.

How is that evil/racist/ignorant?

[Stary Hickory]

Not commenting on the message in any way. My comment goes to your decision to call non spanish speaking americans ignorant.

Yea that smacks of bias. It's a trick to move the discussion from rational discussion points into a pointless bickerfest.

[MsDoodahs]

I love Mexican food and the language of Spanish, but I just ask you to obey the law and become a legal citizen of the United States.

How is that evil/racist/ignorant?

Because it goes against the agenda, silly!

[Stary Hickory]

I love Mexican food and the language of Spanish, but I just ask you to obey the law and become a legal citizen of the United States.

How is that evil/racist/ignorant?

Absolutely is not any of those things, seeing as the law discriminates against no one based on race. It does allow for officers to apprehend illegal immigrants when discovered, and who in their right mind can be against this?

The naysayers have one argument they use: Cops are racist biggots and will be dishonest in their application of the law. This is a non argument because cops can be of VARIOUS ethic makeups, they also already enforce MANY laws and could be racists biggots already with the existing laws.

[MelissaWV]

Not commenting on the message in any way. My comment goes to your decision to call non spanish speaking americans ignorant.

Ignorant:
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.

If you do not speak/read Spanish, or in this case speak/read enough to know that you've purchased a shirt that says something moronic, you are by definition ignorant. I liken it to the people who have "Asian symbol" tattoos on their bodies, but have no idea what it says (except what the artist told them). The truth of the matter is that some of those "symbols" mean something entirely different from what the person was told. The person who got themselves permanently etched was ignorant, but decided to get it done anyhow.

If you do not speak/read Spanish, and you wear a shirt in Spanish, you're setting yourself up to be wearing something that makes you look stupid, since you have no idea what's being said on your shirt.

The people who pretend to know what it says (and are wrong), even though they obviously don't, aren't just ignorant... they're stupid.

The shirt could have said "En mi Culo: 1070" and people would still wear it, I bet, and wondered why anyone was giggling.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Then you support open borders. Please put that as a disclaimer so we can tell WHO we are dealing with. If law enforcement cannot deal with illegal immigrants and must release them you are saying OPEN BORDERS.

Don't pull that BS. YES I do not advocate criminalizing emigration and besides that the constitution only delegates authority to provide a uniform rule of naturalization which is about allegiance not the former; physically moving from one place to another or trespassing.

1) AZ is free to nullify federal welfare that subsidizes immigration
2) AZ is free to decriminalize drug law reversing the flow of drugs by creating new exports.
3) AZ is free to raise a state militia or utilize their state National Guard (if not deployed) and solve a border problem
4) AZ would be acting lawfully evicting aliens who trespass at the border or if residency or citizenship was verified upon application for state/federal benefits or following a criminal conviction as Ron Paul advocates instead of compelling people to witness against themselves in random encounters with agents of the state executive branch.
5) AZ is free to build a fence or any other structure on state property.
6) AZ is free to tax the citizens of AZ to pay for it or get however creative it wants to finance tough solutions.
7) AZ is free to petition the federal government for redress of grievances
8) AZ is free to pardon all aliens who have trespassed or broken the law upon the condition they do not return to Arizona and transport them to federal territory

The problem here is AZ wants other states to pay for tough solutions first. I am not going to entertain whether or not other states should pay for it or not. That is a question for the union to decide and AZ is free to secede if the union isn't working out. Considering that if AZ left the union she would have to pay for it anyway bitching about who ought to pay for it right now as an excuse to expand police powers in favor of more expensive solutions is BS and irresponsible.

I support right of the people of AZ to self govern but if you are expecting me to compromise on the constitution and original intent I am going to hold you accountable to supporting the extension of the privileges and immunities of the several states, that each state is a Republic, and that no papers are required for citizens to live and work in any state.

I do not come to the discussion table without consideration for solutions. Do you have any?

[MelissaWV]

Yea that smacks of bias. It's a trick to move the discussion from rational discussion points into a pointless bickerfest.

Okay. You got me. The shirt is actually grammatically correct, and I'm just making all this up. :rolleyes: I even pointed out the error on the SUNS jerseys, which are anti-1070, as a distraction.


The naysayers have one argument they use: Cops are racist biggots and will be dishonest in their application of the law. This is a non argument because cops can be of VARIOUS ethic makeups, they also already enforce MANY laws and could be racists biggots already with the existing laws.

The law is poorly-written. Among many perfectly useful clauses is the clause that allows for warrantless arrests of those suspected of being here illegally. There is no lawful initial contact required, and there is nothing in that section about race or ethnic background (as there is in other sections, curiously enough). This implies that if you are someone who "looks like an illegal" in some way, or perhaps "acts like an illegal," you will need to have your papers on you or some form of identification at all times, or risk being detained until your identity is established. Time will tell whether that clause is invoked to simply stop someone walking down the street, ever, on "suspicion of being illegal." It would be a really stupid thing for the officer in question to do. It would cause all kinds of problems that enforcing the bill via its other clauses would not.

The fact that it's unlikely to be invoked is not an excuse to have a poorly-written law, especially one that could have been fixed via a single sentence spelling out the exclusion of the removable offense of being here illegally. The law has been revisited twice to correct things that really didn't need correcting, yet that section has NOT been corrected to remove the ability I described above.

My objections to the bill's use of e-verify generally fall on deaf ears, but I will point it out again here. I am baffled as to why forums that were against e-verify (the same people who make the "No Fly" list and want to make a "No Guns" list are in charge of e-verify, which is the "No Work" list), are now applauding this law that mentions e-verify no fewer than six times.

The bill is maybe 90% there, and could have been fixed, but hasn't been.

[FrankRep]

Los 1070 = wrong. The bill is singular.

Sounds like the bill will become plural soon. Other states like the idea!

Other States Consider Arizona-style Anti-immigration Statutes
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/immigration/3531-other-states-consider-arizona-style-anti-immigration-statutes

Arizona's Immigration Law: Police State or State of Emergency?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/immigration/3436-arizonas-immigration-law-police-state-or-state-of-emergency

[MelissaWV]

Sounds like the bill will become plural soon. Other states like the idea!

Other States Consider Arizona-style Anti-immigration Statutes
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/immigration/3531-other-states-consider-arizona-style-anti-immigration-statutes

Arizona's Immigration Law: Police State or State of Emergency?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/immigration/3436-arizonas-immigration-law-police-state-or-state-of-emergency

So there will be 1,070 bills? :p

"The 1070" is still what's meant, but it's not what's said. Hopefully the other versions of the law will close the "removable offense" loophole, but I won't hold my breath over it. I have no doubt they will include the e-verify language.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Sounds like the bill will become plural soon. Other states like the idea!

Other States Consider Arizona-style Anti-immigration Statutes
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/immigration/3531-other-states-consider-arizona-style-anti-immigration-statutes

Arizona's Immigration Law: Police State or State of Emergency?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/immigration/3436-arizonas-immigration-law-police-state-or-state-of-emergency

It still has to get past ICE and Obama's JD review. In the same way I support that far leftist on end the fed and his new the war is making you poor I will side with Obama if he takes up a no papers please position.

Natural born persons or naturalized citizens do not need papers to live, work, or travel in the united states.

[Stary Hickory]

Okay. You got me. The shirt is actually grammatically correct, and I'm just making all this up. :rolleyes: I even pointed out the error on the SUNS jerseys, which are anti-1070, as a distraction.



The law is poorly-written. Among many perfectly useful clauses is the clause that allows for warrantless arrests of those suspected of being here illegally. There is no lawful initial contact required, and there is nothing in that section about race or ethnic background (as there is in other sections, curiously enough). This implies that if you are someone who "looks like an illegal" in some way, or perhaps "acts like an illegal," you will need to have your papers on you or some form of identification at all times, or risk being detained until your identity is established. Time will tell whether that clause is invoked to simply stop someone walking down the street, ever, on "suspicion of being illegal." It would be a really stupid thing for the officer in question to do. It would cause all kinds of problems that enforcing the bill via its other clauses would not.

The fact that it's unlikely to be invoked is not an excuse to have a poorly-written law, especially one that could have been fixed via a single sentence spelling out the exclusion of the removable offense of being here illegally. The law has been revisited twice to correct things that really didn't need correcting, yet that section has NOT been corrected to remove the ability I described above.

My objections to the bill's use of e-verify generally fall on deaf ears, but I will point it out again here. I am baffled as to why forums that were against e-verify (the same people who make the "No Fly" list and want to make a "No Guns" list are in charge of e-verify, which is the "No Work" list), are now applauding this law that mentions e-verify no fewer than six times.

The bill is maybe 90% there, and could have been fixed, but hasn't been.

The law is fine as written. They reworked the law specifically to deal with these types of objections. What I am understanding about many on these forums is they do not say what they mean. I would oppose any law that discriminates based on race or skin color. Originally I was against this when I listened only to those saying that was discriminatory ...however I read it myself and researched myself to get to the "truth".

Additionally the law has been reworded to emphasize the fact it is not discriminatory. Those who keep saying it is now are not being honest. Some simply oppose borders and immigration controls but will not honesty say this. Instead they misrepresent laws and measures to control immigration and claim they are for secure borders and immigration controls. These types of people really make me angry because they use falsehoods and misrepresentation to move a "hidden" agenda, rather than present their case honestly.

If race is SO important to you take solace in the fact that Hispanic cops will also be enforcing these laws and since everyone is obviously racist(a view held by many on these forums it seems) maybe they will even the odds.

The fact is this law is no different from a multitude of laws already on the books. If cops wanted to be biggots and racists they could use the existing laws in a discriminatory manner too. We have courts that try and protect people. The courts are not perfect either. Does it follow we eliminate courts and the policeforce because they might be racist and have imperfections?

This has gotten to a ludicrous level already....no laws can be enforced because racism exists in some people somewhere. If you follow the logic of some on these forums to it's natural conclusion this is where you end up.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The law is fine as written. They reworked the law specifically to deal with these types of objections. What I am understanding about many on these forums is they do not say what they mean. I would oppose any law that discriminates based on race or skin color. Originally I was against this when I listened only to those saying that was discriminatory ...however I read it myself and researched myself to get to the "truth".

Additionally the law has been reworded to emphasize the fact it is not discriminatory. Those who keep saying it is now are not being honest. Some simply oppose borders and immigration controls but will not honesty say this. Instead they misrepresent laws and measures to control immigration and claim they are for secure borders and immigration controls. These types of people really make me angry because they use falsehoods and misrepresentation to move a "hidden" agenda, rather than present their case honestly.

If race is SO important to you take solace in the fact that Hispanic cops will also be enforcing these laws and since everyone is obviously racist(a view held by many on these forums it seems) maybe they will even the odds.

The fact is this law is no different from a multitude of laws already on the books. If cops wanted to be biggots and racists they could use the existing laws in a discriminatory manner too. We have courts that try and protect people. The courts are not perfect either. Does it follow we eliminate courts and the policeforce because they might be racist and have imperfections?

This has gotten to a ludicrous level already....no laws can be enforced because racism exists in some people somewhere. If you follow the logic of some on these forums to it's natural conclusion this is where you end up.

TRUTH:

Am I free to go?
No (At this point as a matter of law I have been seized)
I exercise my right to remain silent and assert my fifth and sixth amendment constitutional guarantees.

I have no use for your long winded truth because that is the truth right there. People can get arrested in AZ and compelled to witness against themselves. The SCOTUS cases have been cited and no one has refuted that scenario.

[MelissaWV]

The law is fine as written. They reworked the law specifically to deal with these types of objections. What I am understanding about many on these forums is they do not say what they mean. I would oppose any law that discriminates based on race or skin color. Originally I was against this when I listened only to those saying that was discriminatory ...however I read it myself and researched myself to get to the "truth".

Additionally the law has been reworded to emphasize the fact it is not discriminatory. Those who keep saying it is now are not being honest. Some simply oppose borders and immigration controls but will not honesty say this. Instead they misrepresent laws and measures to control immigration and claim they are for secure borders and immigration controls. These types of people really make me angry because they use falsehoods and misrepresentation to move a "hidden" agenda, rather than present their case honestly....

The law is not fine as written. It was reworked to deal with objections to the "lawful contact" section, which is not what I am talking about. I am discussing the "removable offense" section, which is still intact as of the third revision. The law itself is not discriminatory in any way, shape, or form, but the massive loophole which allows an officer to ask for you to prove your innocence if s/he suspects you of being illegal, and arrest you without a warrant based upon that suspicion, leads one to wonder by what standards the police will decide who "looks like an illegal."

This is something that will be decided by the police, obviously, because in order to safeguard themselves from lawsuits and so on, they will need to have procedures in place. There has not, thusfar, been any real discussion or information on what constitutes behavior or physical attributes that make one suspicious. This is a real problem, and ignoring it doesn't make it less of one.

I have said various times that simply stopping someone for "looking illegal" is a bad idea, and it probably won't be done. Of course, there are a lot of laws that most of us would think wouldn't ever be applied, and yet they are. This is why when a law is put on the books, it pays to scrutinize it.

It's simple. If you add an exception for the "removable offense" of being here illegally, then the clause will apply to contact via tips and third parties. Other removable offenses, for instance, include marriage fraud and similar offenses. No one is going to be "pulled over" on suspicion of marriage fraud, hence the clause is necessary in the bill. I understand that. However, as written, it's a problem. Fix it! It seems pretty easy, and way easier than the two rewrites the bill has already undergone.

Anyhow, seriously, the whole original post was about the shirts/jerseys, and yet it's become another thread about the AZ bill.

I'm still not happy with the wording, suspicious of it, and disgusted at the e-verify portion, which is likely going to be kept in all of these bills the other states are going to put in place. "Stopping illegals" will be used to run everyone through the "No Work list" that e-verify is.

[Petar]

Awesome. The grammar just gets worse and worse, but no one minds looking foolish. If it were some Mexicans in the stands wearing "Good blass teh USA" shirts, people would think those people to be utter idiots, and would probably say things like "Learn some fuckin' English!" to them.

Los Suns = wrong. Los Soles = correct. Spanglish does not make anyone look smart.

Los 1070 = wrong. The bill is singular. This shirt is actually saying "long live the one-thousand-and-seventy." The 1070 what? Who? Oh, you meant the bill? Since it is singular, that'd be "El 1070," but who cares... the other ignorant folks all knew what was meant.

Yeah right, as if anyone is actually unaware that "Suns" is not a Spanish word.

The phrase is obviously meant to juxtapose a Spanish word (Los) with an English word (Suns).

If you weren't so obsessively eager to use your proofreading skills to put other people down to make yourself feel smarter, then maybe you would have been able to see that.

And "Viva Los 1070" is obviously meant to specifically mock "Los Sons", which does grant the creator artistic license to use improper grammar as necessary.

If the creator had used "Viva el 1070" then it would have been much less mocking, which would have made it much less funny, and therefor stupid.

If you really are on such a grammar-NAZI mission to take all of the fun out of the internet, then you may as well just write this guy an angry letter denouncing his improper use of the english language:

http://www.walrusbucketsaga.com/images/01-i-has-a-bucket.jpg

I'm sure that will earn you an official grammar-NAZI iron cross first class or something.

[Johnnybags]

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/AZ_RIVET.jpg

[Mini-Me]

I tend to agree with MelissaWV on the law, and I tend to agree with MsDoodahs on the grammar...but more than anything, I totally agree with people causing a ruckus on national TV. :D

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Damnnnnnnnn.......... look at Petar laying it down..... that actually cracked me up :D

http://blabberworks.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/slap.jpg

[MelissaWV]

I often do forget this is the internet, where proper communication (although the entire purpose of the medium) is frowned upon. It's the place where socially-awkward man-children who post "personals ads" about themselves, and misspell something in their own post within quotation marks, are kings of propriety and common sense.

You're so certain the improper Spanish is on purpose that I'll simply believe you, and chalk this one up to a bunch of morons who think they're funny, wearing shirts that actually say something other than what they're pretending they say. Perhaps the title of the thread should have been "Arizona Bircher Puts the 'Si!' in Controversy," even though there's no "i," since that would have been funny, too, right? Adding Spanish to things, even if it makes zero sense, is logical and in fact hi-fuckin'-larious. :rolleyes:

The internet is 14% nonsense, 85% porn, and under 1% people who are stubbornly trying to use it to have rational conversations, which is probably the dumbest thing I could do. It's the definition of insanity.

I'm sure you can't tell this from where you're looking at it, but the meme isn't sad on its own. What's sad about it is the little man who sat there and actually went through the process of creating it, publishing it, and leaving it out there for other sad little men to look up when they felt like making a point they could not express in words. Honestly, you really couldn't express your insult without visual assistance? In general politics of all places, you've decided to "go there." Do you feel bigger and better now?

At least my post addressed the OP. You remember that, don't you? The original post?

[FrankRep]

I often do forget this is the internet, where proper communication (although the entire purpose of the medium) is frowned upon. It's the place where socially-awkward man-children who post "personals ads" about themselves, and misspell something in their own post within quotation marks, are kings of propriety and common sense.


YouTube - We Didn't Start the Flame War (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QyYaPWasos)

[Petar]

I often do forget this is the internet, where proper communication (although the entire purpose of the medium) is frowned upon. It's the place where socially-awkward man-children who post "personals ads" about themselves, and misspell something in their own post within quotation marks, are kings of propriety and common sense.

You're so certain the improper Spanish is on purpose that I'll simply believe you, and chalk this one up to a bunch of morons who think they're funny, wearing shirts that actually say something other than what they're pretending they say. Perhaps the title of the thread should have been "Arizona Bircher Puts the 'Si!' in Controversy," even though there's no "i," since that would have been funny, too, right? Adding Spanish to things, even if it makes zero sense, is logical and in fact hi-fuckin'-larious. :rolleyes:

The internet is 14% nonsense, 85% porn, and under 1% people who are stubbornly trying to use it to have rational conversations, which is probably the dumbest thing I could do. It's the definition of insanity.

I'm sure you can't tell this from where you're looking at it, but the meme isn't sad on its own. What's sad about it is the little man who sat there and actually went through the process of creating it, publishing it, and leaving it out there for other sad little men to look up when they felt like making a point they could not express in words. Honestly, you really couldn't express your insult without visual assistance? In general politics of all places, you've decided to "go there." Do you feel bigger and better now?

At least my post addressed the OP. You remember that, don't you? The original post?

Bringing up my pathetic personals ad at this point makes about as much sense as me bringing up the fact that you are fat.

I know that you like to post images of beautiful women in your avatar, but maybe it should just be a close-up of one of your rolls.

I'm sorry that I spelled "suns" with an "o", and I'm glad that you have at least one valid grammar/spelling-NAZI point that you can hold over my head right now.

Here is an image that describes how I currently feel:

http://www.babypicturesphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/fat-baby-pictures.jpg

[MelissaWV]

You've never seen a picture of me, kiddo. Never.

We have all seen how you act, though.

[Petar]

You've never seen a picture of me, kiddo. Never.

We have all seen how you act, though.

Your fatness and my juvenile behavior are beside the point anyway.

Perhaps we could leave it at that.

[nobody's_hero]

Holy cow I am an instant Sun's fan. Will be writing my letter of support fully explaining the constitutional line of thought as to why I support them in opposing a papers please society.

I hate to break it to you, but the establishment's goal is both amnesty and a national I.D. card. The "paper's please" system is going to be brought to fruition by people who are getting something for supporting it, like, say, a free pass to citizenship.

The leviathan wants new recruits for its REAL I.D.

[MelissaWV]

I hate to break it to you, but the establishment's goal is both amnesty and a national I.D. card. The "paper's please" system is going to be brought to fruition by people who are getting something for supporting it, like, say, a free pass to citizenship.

The leviathan wants new recruits for its REAL I.D.

Indeed. I'm sure they had plans in place in case the bill became unpopular, too. It's just a step on a predetermined path. The journey might look a little different, but the destination has been decided upon.

There's the whole e-verify thing, too. You are now guilty until proven verified innocent.

[nobody's_hero]

Indeed. I'm sure they had plans in place in case the bill became unpopular, too. It's just a step on a predetermined path. The journey might look a little different, but the destination has been decided upon.

There's the whole e-verify thing, too. You are now guilty until proven verified innocent.

I think the bill is unpopular. At least with the Suns anyway. ;)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I hate to break it to you, but the establishment's goal is both amnesty and a national I.D. card. The "paper's please" system is going to be brought to fruition by people who are getting something for supporting it, like, say, a free pass to citizenship.

The leviathan wants new recruits for its REAL I.D.

I agree with you and it's a crappy deal but that is the nature of political crap. One of the reason I articulate my position in the manner I do because papers are not required to live, work, or travel in the U.S.

YouTube - Government Attacks Liberty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIxCLkE2SIQ)

[Inflation]

Since you only speak English, perhaps you should ask them to translate it to "Long Lives the 1070s." :) Otherwise, it seems like a rather silly mixed message. (Please ensure the shirt says it just like that, too, since the message will still be clear. If there's no need to correct the Spanish, I'm sure there will be no need to correct the English, either.)

As you know, the shirts are a parody of the Sun's jerseys.

Everybody else, whether they liked the parody jerseys or were offended by the parody jerseys, seemed to understand that.

Have you ever heard the phrase "straining at gnats (http://lukep.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/09/you-strain-out-a-gnat-but-swallow-a-camel.html)?"

Because that's what your Lesson-o de la Espanol-o is doing..