Republicans meet Jan Brewer Governor of Arizona

A local CBS affiliate down in Arizona has been investigating her for months over the fact that two people in Brewer's inner circle including her campaign manager work for a huge prison company down there.

That prison company would stand to make a ton of money if the ridiculous Arizona law were to ever go into effect.

She was so pissed that this CBS station was looking into this outrageous conflict of interest that she pulled all of her campaign ads from that particular station.

Brewer is bad bad news. And of course she is an imbecile and shouldn't have anything to do with running an entire State.


I guess you have never owned a business. If someone or organization was coming after me/my business why the hell would I spend my advertising money with them? So you really have nothing on her but you just don't like her politics.

So you really have nothing on her but you just don't like her politics.

The fact that she is dumb as a bag of wrenches and signed that ridiculous unconstitutional law which conveniently makes lots and lots of money for her closest advisors(have you ever heard of political corruption... it's a crime ya know?) might also have something to do with it.

Or is idiotic behavior and fraud an integral part of your business plan as well?

I didn't think so.

The fact that she is dumb as a bag of wrenches and signed that ridiculous unconstitutional law which conveniently makes lots and lots of money for her closest advisors(have you ever heard of political corruption... it's a crime ya know?) might also have something to do with it.

Or is idiotic behavior and fraud an integral part of your business plan as well?

I didn't think so.

I agree that she is not the sharpest tack. I agree that the law appears unconstitutional. But, before you go calling corruption, show me where these guys intentionally proposed the law with the intent to profit. Stupidity is not a crime or half this board would be in jail.

Perhaps, as it was passed by a referendum and not in some back room, the law was a popular reaction to ineffective federal enforcement of the federal law which this "ridiculous" State law mirrors. Further, b/c the prisons in question currently are used to house federal detainees being held for illegal immigration, wouldn't her "cronies" profit equally if the Feds actually enforced the existing laws? Just b/c a media outlet saw a possible connection does not create an actual connection. Was there a failure to disclose the lobbying connections on the individuals mandatory disclosure forms? Has anyone even looked at these forms? Show me the evidence of fraud. Where has someone lied about their possible profit?

Do you understand why the State law is unconstitional? Or are you now going to look that up?

I agree that she is not the sharpest tack. I agree that the law appears unconstitutional. But, before you go calling corruption, show me where these guys intentionally proposed the law with the intent to profit. Stupidity is not a crime or half this board would be in jail.

Perhaps, as it was passed by a referendum and not in some back room, the law was a popular reaction to ineffective federal enforcement of the federal law which this "ridiculous" State law mirrors. Further, b/c the prisons in question currently are used to house federal detainees being held for illegal immigration, wouldn't her "cronies" profit equally if the Feds actually enforced the existing laws? Just b/c a media outlet saw a possible connection does not create an actual connection. Was there a failure to disclose the lobbying connections on the individuals mandatory disclosure forms? Has anyone even looked at these forms? Show me the evidence of fraud. Where has someone lied about their possible profit?

Do you understand why the State law is unconstitional? Or are you now going to look that up?


He took the words right out of my mouth.:D

I agree that she is not the sharpest tack. I agree that the law appears unconstitutional. But, before you go calling corruption, show me where these guys intentionally proposed the law with the intent to profit. Stupidity is not a crime or half this board would be in jail.

Perhaps, as it was passed by a referendum and not in some back room, the law was a popular reaction to ineffective federal enforcement of the federal law which this "ridiculous" State law mirrors. Further, b/c the prisons in question currently are used to house federal detainees being held for illegal immigration, wouldn't her "cronies" profit equally if the Feds actually enforced the existing laws? Just b/c a media outlet saw a possible connection does not create an actual connection. Was there a failure to disclose the lobbying connections on the individuals mandatory disclosure forms? Has anyone even looked at these forms? Show me the evidence of fraud. Where has someone lied about their possible profit?

Do you understand why the State law is unconstitional? Or are you now going to look that up?

First off I started by saying there was an investigation and allegations of corruption. The circumstancial connection between the interested parties is very compelling IMO.

Secondly, Illegal Search and Seizure and Racial Profiling isn't rocket science. It's just illegal.

Thirdly, these are alleged criminal activities. If that is actually the case I expect these people are covering their tracks as best they can and would hope that a qualified investigative agency like THE FBI for example would look into it. They have the resources to properly investigate the allegations. I obviously do not.

Lastly do you have any idea who wrote the Arizona Law? If you want I will provide twenty articles about the architects of SB-1070 and what the (IRLI) which is the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is fighting for in States across the country.

The immigration issue needs to be addressed. I agree.

Gotta keep it legal though.

First off read the thread as I started off by saying there was an investigation and allegations of corruption. The circumstancial connection between the interested parties is very compelling IMO.

Secondly, Illegal Search and Seizure and Racial Profiling isn't rocket science. It's just illegal.

Thirdly, these are alleged criminal activities. If that is actually the case I expect these people are covering their tracks as best they can and would hope that a qualified investigative agency like THE FBI for example would look into it. They have the resources to properly investigate the allegations. I obviously do not.

Lastly do you have any idea who wrote the Arizona Law? If you want I will provide twenty articles about the architects of SB-1070 and what the (IRLI) which is the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is fighting for in States across the country.

The immigration issue needs to be addressed. I agree.

Gotta keep it legal though. Protecting US citizens rights is kind of a big deal.

Is profiling illegals actually illegal? When the goverment storms into a business asking for green cards is that illegal? If this was in your back yard and these illigals where tearing up your farm, home, or property would you still feel the same way?

First off I started by saying there was an investigation and allegations of corruption. The circumstancial connection between the interested parties is very compelling IMO.

Fair enough. The later post drew my attention as it appeared to assert their was proof of corruption. As to the circumstantial evidence, you find it "very compelling". I don't. I do, however, find it worthy of appropriate investigation.

Secondly, Illegal Search and Seizure and Racial Profiling isn't rocket science. It's just illegal.

Yup. However, Police authorities stopping someone for reasonable suspicion of violating the law (as that term has been applied by the Supreme Court) is not an illegal search or seizure. If police start randomly stopping people simply b/c of their appearance, I suspect more than a few advocacy groups would step in and punish the offending enforcment agency.

Thirdly, these are alleged criminal activities. If that is actually the case I expect these people are covering their tracks as best they can and would hope that a qualified investigative agency like THE FBI for example would look into it. They have the resources to properly investigate the allegations. I obviously do not.

Actually, they are merely allegations of alleged criminal behavior b/c the circumstantial evidence you find compelling doesn't, in and of itself, state anything other than that a relationship existed. At this point, there is no allegation, other than pure speculation, anywhere that I can find that actual criminal activity occurred.

Lastly do you have any idea who wrote the Arizona Law? If you want I will provide twenty articles about the architects of SB-1070 and what the (IRLI) which is the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is fighting for in States across the country.

I am familiar with Kobach and FAIR. I am familiar with their agenda. Some of which I agree with, some of which I find hate filled and detestable.

Regardless of who crafted the law, but for its attempt to pre-empt unenforced federal penalities with equivalent state penalties, how is it unconstitutional? Is the pre-emption argument the basis for your claim that the law is "ridiculous"?

The immigration issue needs to be addressed. I agree.

Gotta keep it legal though.

Absolutely, and to the extent that the SB 1070 attempted to pre-empt federal law, it is illegal by virtue of its unconstitutionality.

Give me a break, racial profiling is required any way you look at it for this law to be effective. If they really were interested in enforcing federal immigration laws and not harassing/profiling just brown people they would have mandated that everyone carry proof of citizenship with them. They won't do that of course largely because John and Jane White won't be fond of such big government's intrusive action.

Give me a break, racial profiling is required any way you look at it for this law to be effective. If they really were interested in enforcing federal immigration laws and not harassing/profiling just brown people they would have mandated that everyone carry proof of citizenship with them. They won't do that of course largely because John and Jane White won't be fond of such big government's intrusive action.

Yea all those white illegals are a big issue. I carry an ID everywhere I go like most poeple so why would that be a big deal. If they want to check if I'm here legally thats just fine with me.

Yea all those white illegals are a big issue. I carry an ID everywhere I go like most poeple so why would that be a big deal. If they want to check if I'm here legally thats just fine with me.

You carry an ID that shows your citizenship? Does the state of North Carolina recognize it? Would you be open to them taking you the station? Do you know that 33% of citizens/residents in Arizona are Latino? It would suck to be inconvenience more than them Canadians.


Maybe it's time for a national ID card with all the citizenship data?