Just Plain Ruff Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 Like this was any surprise but here it is. Federal judge issues injunction blocking key provision of Arizona's controversial immigration law www.cnn.com And this just in from Elton John. He rips the entertainment artists who are refusing to perform in Arizona. Read the last couple of sentences in the article. http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx?news=512954>1=28102 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akflightmedic Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 He would have a valid point if he were arrested/detained/questioned based on an officer's perception that he is gay. Then it would be comparing apples to apples, but until then...not a fair comparison. I still dig his music!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Plain Ruff Posted July 28, 2010 Author Share Posted July 28, 2010 He would have a valid point if he were arrested/detained/questioned based on an officer's perception that he is gay. Then it would be comparing apples to apples, but until then...not a fair comparison. I still dig his music!! True not a valid comparison on his part but I don't know enough about the artists listed in the article but are any of those artists Latin american? I don't have enough info on them to really know. Maroon 5 doesn't look like any of them are of hispanic heritage Again, rage against the machine also look to not have any members of hispanic heritage And I know for a fact Kanye is not hispanic I'm all for their right to boycot though. Solidarity is where its at right? So do those who are boycotting have a point when the law doesn't apply to them either. They aren't going to be detained/arrested since they aren't mexican. Maybe I'm reaching here but to follow your Logic AK, I don't see their complaints against the arizona law being valid either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akflightmedic Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 Maybe I don't follow you Ruff...but their actions seem valid. They disagree with the law, so they are boycotting the state. Makes sense to me... Does one have to be of a certain nationality to speak out or act against an injustice? Do they have to be the same as those being persecuted, penalized, discriminated (whichever may apply) in order to empathize? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Plain Ruff Posted July 28, 2010 Author Share Posted July 28, 2010 Maybe I don't follow you Ruff...but their actions seem valid. They disagree with the law, so they are boycotting the state. Makes sense to me... Does one have to be of a certain nationality to speak out or act against an injustice? Do they have to be the same as those being persecuted, penalized, discriminated (whichever may apply) in order to empathize? Like I said I might not be following your logic either but I think Elton has just as much right to say that those who are boycotting the state due to the law as those who are boycotting the law have to boycot it. I felt that you said he didn't really have the right to criticize those who were boycotting. I think we are thinking the same thing. Maybe with you using the gay arguments or what not is where we veered off course in our discussion. Maybe John's statements about california is where this got off track. Does that make more sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akflightmedic Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 Like I said I might not be following your logic either but I think Elton has just as much right to say that those who are boycotting the state due to the law as those who are boycotting the law have to boycot it. I felt that you said he didn't really have the right to criticize those who were boycotting. I think we are thinking the same thing. Maybe with you using the gay arguments or what not is where we veered off course in our discussion. Maybe John's statements about california is where this got off track. Does that make more sense? I never said he didn't have the right to criticize...we all have that. I said his argument is invalid, no comparison. If you wanna call them fukwits, call them fukwits, but do not bring in a totally different argument and try to compare. It does not make your (EJ) point any more valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Plain Ruff Posted July 28, 2010 Author Share Posted July 28, 2010 I never said he didn't have the right to criticize...we all have that. I said his argument is invalid, no comparison. If you wanna call them fukwits, call them fukwits, but do not bring in a totally different argument and try to compare. It does not make your (EJ) point any more valid. yep thats were we got off course. I agree with you on that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard B the EMT Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 Does one have to be of a certain nationality to speak out or act against an injustice? Do they have to be the same as those being persecuted, penalized, discriminated (whichever may apply) in order to empathize? Martin Niemöller, a prominent Protestant pastor who opposed the Nazi regime. He spent the last 7 years of Nazi rule in concentration camps. Germany, 1937. — Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) was an ardent nationalist and prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last 7 years of Nazi rule in concentration camps. Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation: First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HERBIE1 Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 So thanks to this judge's ruling, in essence it's no longer illegal to be illegal in AZ. Personally, I'm boycotting those who boycott AZ. I'm also thinking this judge will be in big trouble when it comes time for her reappointment, since 75% of AZ residents support this law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Plain Ruff Posted July 28, 2010 Author Share Posted July 28, 2010 But Richard, if he had spoken out, he would have been taken away much sooner than he was in the end. I disagree with the governments handling of the immigration issue. It seems like every time someone proposes a solution the fed's fight it. Can't build a fence - they fight it Obama promised troops to help patrol the border - nope feds are against that Can't check immigration status - nope feds are against it (they say that's their job yet look where we are) If you live in a sanctuary city, can't check immigration status - nope Feds against it. But I would very much hate to be an incumbent legislator up for re-election. No matter what party you are as an incumbent - you better be wary. It's time to start looking into open lobbyist vacancies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts