Why did they get pulled over after they got the truck back? I didn't notice that they had broken any laws that the policeman saw, but maybe I just didn't see. Or are policemen in California allowed to pull people over just because they think they might be illegals? I know it's not allowed where I live.
I don't want to die now, I've still got a headache! --Arthur Dent
Probably because the idiot stopped at the STOP sign for like 10 seconds lookin all sketchy. Cops have a knack for detecting the smallest amount of suspicious activity and sure enough, they found an illegal alien.
shareFunny how they never find, by a traffic stop, illegal aliens from Canada, England, Australia, and so many other WHITE places.
Wonder why? Oh right...
Wonder why also there's no uproar about WHITE/ASIAN (included it just in case) visitors overstaying their tourist visas and sucking up taxpayer money. Oh right...
Oh right, what? First off, you don't have the knowledge to say they "never" find a white illegal alien by a traffic stop. And second off, I'd say that Mexicans take up at least 95% of America's illegal alien population so it's very obvious why it's always them getting caught. It's simple probability, bozo.
share"you don't have the knowledge to say they "never" find a white illegal alien by a traffic stop"
Care to provide a recent news item on it? I'm sure you'll find one on Fox News...
"I'd say that Mexicans take up at least 95% of America's illegal alien population "
Here's a tip that may surprise you: Central and South America ain't Mexico, and their people illegally in the States ain't Mexicans either. I know to many rednecks any country bellow Mexico is either "down there" or just "Mexico". Check how many illegals caught in the US are actually from Central America, especially El Salvador.
Bet you also think foreign aid takes up at least 95% of the US budget...
This still doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of illegal aliens are Mexican. That means the vast majority of alien arrests are likely to involve Mexicans. That's the simple point I was trying to make, although I'm no longer sure what your original point was(if you had one)that I was responding to. I think you were insinuating that racist America only targets illegal Hispanics rather that illegal whites? Some BS like that? Not sure, but then again, it's never easy for me to interpret what liberals are trying to say because I have to filter through all the lofty rhetoric and ill-placed premises to their arguments.
And here's a tip that might surprise YOU: The Spaniards banged the Mayans, turned them into Mexicans. And they proceeded to move south virtually turning South America into an extended Mexico, so it's fair enough to lump them in all together as Mexicans.
"That means the vast majority of alien arrests are likely to involve Mexicans."
Fair enough, but ti also doesn't change the fact that by having such stupid state policies (Arizona), and even federal ones, youwill most likely miss the REAL threats (the 9/11 attackers overstayed their visas, so they came in LEGALLY).
"I think you were insinuating that racist America only targets illegal Hispanics rather that illegal whites? Some BS like that?"
It's not an insinuation if it's true. But then again it's never easy for me to interpret what conversatives want if on one hand they hate brown people (even legal ones, they "take away all those cool IT jobs") but on the other they LOOOOOVE employing them as illegals to pump up their economies Texas/California/Georgia style. Either accept their presence with all it entails or likewise accept their absence and what it entails (as in start picking your own fruit/produce off the fields and clean up your own homes).
"The Spaniards banged the Mayans, turned them into Mexicans. And they proceeded to move south virtually turning South America into an extended Mexico, so it's fair enough to lump them in all together as Mexicans"
You really aren't even trying are you?
1.- The Spaniards banged the Aztecs (and Tlaxcaltecs and many others, however Mayans were the least of them).
2.- South America is in great part PORTUGUESE ex colony (Brazil), not Spaniard. Sure it's just one country, but the biggest one by far.
3.- To pretend "down there" equals Mexico because of a common language is like pretending the USA, Canada, Australia, India and even China all equal "England" only because they are former british colonies and share English.
Lol I got you with that last paragraph about "the Spaniards bangin the Mayans, turnin them into Mexicans" thing. I got that off It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. I really do hope you actually went and did a little research so you could prove me wrong. I bet you did.
Conservatives hate brown people? TF you talking about? You don't know me. There's great odds that I have way more minority friends than you but that's just speculation so I'll go no further with your neo-stereotype that conservatism goes hand in hand with racism. Liberals push this idea constantly to ensure that they continue to get the black vote, and it works.
You basically said that these state and federal policies are keeping the U.S. from preventing "REAL" threats such as the 9/11 terrorists. This is such an elementary idea, I'm not even sure how to respond. Illegal aliens(Mexicans as the "GREATEST PROBABILITY") present not only tremendous violent and economic threats but also hazardous ones(look up some of the controversial cases with illegal aliens drinking and driving, killing other drivers). This is a BIG DEAL that requires vigilant counteraction. 9/11 has virtually nothing to do with this, and if you've noticed, the U.S has done a pretty damn good job of not letting sh it like that happen again.
You got me? How? It's accepted fact that Mexicans are result of Spaniards and Aztecs/whatever. But if it makes you feel better to think it's a somewhat embarrasing truth (like Reagan raising taxes, cutting/running in Lebanon, dealing arms to Iran through Contras, the French financing/backing Washington against England, etc), go for it.
"Conservatives hate brown people? TF you talking about? You don't know me."
Now THAT is how you get somebody...
"Illegal aliens(Mexicans as the "GREATEST PROBABILITY") present not only tremendous violent and economic threats but also hazardous ones"
You doing meth? The US has plenty local drunken drivers as it is to pretend illegals driving somehow make the streets significantly more dangerous.
"This is a BIG DEAL that requires vigilant counteraction"
Straight out of Fox/Limbaugh land. Gotta watch out for all those beheadings going on in Arizona, right? Brewer said so...
And about stopping such things from happening again, the captain of the Titanic can boast the same claim (or the parent company, they never lost another ship like that again). Sounds just as stupid as well.
^Giant load of ignorant drivel.
"The US has plenty local drunken drivers as it is, to pretend illegals driving somehow make the streets significantly more dangerous." -- This is an excellent example of why liberals are impossible to argue with. They put words in your mouth. I said "also present hazardous threats," you morphed it into "illegals driving somehow make the streets significantly more dangerous." But I'll comment on this anyway. Even if it were only 1 innocent legal American getting killed by 1 illegal drunk driver, you should ask the American's family if that 1 death was "significant."
The Titanic comparison is laughable and doesn't relate. Only further makes you look stupid. Bill O'Reilly created a "No Spin Zone" for his show to keep liberals from doing this because it derails properly formed arguments. Women are also bad about doing this in everyday conversation.
I'm gonna put you to the test. I know this will be hard for you but I'm gonna ask you to answer a simple question to see if you can answer it without "spinning." Here it is: Do you think illegal aliens should be allowed to enter and stay in America?
"Even if it were only 1 innocent legal American getting killed by 1 illegal drunk driver, you should ask the American's family if that 1 death was "significant.""
Good, by that standard we should do the same with the Oklahoma bombing victims and pass legislation to ban/discriminate/investigate white evangelical fundamentalist christians like McVeight, of which the US has plenty...
Or are those deaths not "significant"?
"The Titanic comparison is laughable and doesn't relate. "
Sure it does. Bush's record is great EXCEPT for 9/11 (not counting the anthrax attacks there), his supporters (Giuliani) keep saying that...
"Women are also bad about doing this in everyday conversation"
Somebody needs a FEMALE hug!!!
"Do you think illegal aliens should be allowed to enter and stay in America? "
Does that include Cubans? I ask because they get to walk in LITERALLY with their backs wet (wetbacks) right out of the ocean, yet are not treated as illegal aliens nor are told to get back in line like everyone else. So you need to be more precise in your asking.
"Good, by that standard we should do the same with the Oklahoma bombing victims and pass legislation to ban/discriminate/investigate white evangelical fundamentalist christians like McVeight, of which the US has plenty ..."
You're damn right we should if they are indeed "like McVeight" in which you seem to confirm that "the US has plenty" of people like this. The trick would be knowing that they are "like McVeight" before they actually ever do anything indicative of the sort. This is where we bring in my illegal alien argument that originated in my response of why they were pulled over in the movie. They were Hispanics driving a vehicle with no windshield, and then they proceeded to suspiciously linger at the stop sign right in front of a cop. Why wouldn't the cop pull them over? Even if it weren't for their suspicious activity and he made his decision to pull them over based solely on their ethnicity, suspecting that they could perhaps be illegal, HE WAS RIGHT! Did he do this because he's hateful and racist or did he do it based on what he knew indicated probable crime, especially in that particular area of the country!
"Sure it does. Bush's record is great EXCEPT for 9/11 (not counting the anthrax attacks there), his supporters (Giuliani) keep saying that..."
You are once again agreeing with me without realizing it. I'm not gonna make a response because it's hard to bring an argument back on track via message boards so I'm going to abandon the silly Titanic comparisons.
"Somebody needs a FEMALE hug!!!"
Maybe you can come give me one around my nether regions.
"Does that include Cubans? I ask because they get to walk in LITERALLY with their backs wet (wetbacks) right out of the ocean, yet are not treated as illegal aliens nor are told to get back in line like everyone else. So you need to be more precise in your asking."
Haha I knew you would spin my question! I called it!
This whole convo keeps reminding me of the Reagan quote, "It's not that liberals are ignorant, it's that they know so much that just isn't so." Priceless.
"You're damn right we should if they are indeed "like McVeight" in which you seem to confirm that "the US has plenty" of people like this"
Remember the guy who flew a plane into the IRS building, all the militia members arrested for conpiring to kill cops, the guy who shot up a museum?
McVeight is not an exception and you're implying.
"I'm not gonna make a response"
Because your reply is a loser.
And if that's how you talk to women (you ASSume I'm one), good luck, you'll need plenty (or a lot of roofies).
"Haha I knew you would spin my question"
Ever heard of loaded questions? Whenever O'Reilly is asked one he refuses to answer it as it was framed (yet he demands a reply to his loaded questions).
I can ask you the same thing: "Do you think Bush and Cheney should be brough up on charges for misleading the US into war since the evidence used was BOGUS and the responsibility lies after all with the president?"
"Remember the guy who flew a plane into the IRS building, all the militia members arrested for conpiring to kill cops, the guy who shot up a museum?"
Yes I remember the first guy, can't recall the others. Did you have a point you were trying to make or just asking me?
"And if that's how you talk to women (you ASSume I'm one), good luck, you'll need plenty (or a lot of roofies)."
WRONG! I get laid all the time. I would never talk to a woman that way. But this is a just a message board and I will never actually meet you.
"Ever heard of loaded questions? Whenever O'Reilly is asked one he refuses to answer it as it was framed (yet he demands a reply to his loaded questions)."
My question wasn't loaded. And you didn't even attempt to answer it. I think you just asked me 2 or 3 questions in return that had I answered them, it wouldn't have affected my question and I would have just had to simply restate it.
"I can ask you the same thing: "Do you think Bush and Cheney should be brough up on charges for misleading the US into war since the evidence used was BOGUS and the responsibility lies after all with the president?"
No. If it were some sort of law to persecute presidents for allegedly telling lies, then we may as well not even elect one ever again. And we may as well arrest Obama for everything that he said on the campaign trail. But we can't bring up charges against him for being naive. So once again, NO. <This is how you answer a question. Use it as a template in the future when you are asked questions and tempted to start spinning.
Last I checked 57% of illegals come from Mexico (not 95%), 24% come from central and South America while 19% come from Africa, Asia, Europe and Canada.
shareHey guy, I can't think of a percentage system that has the potential to be more flawed. If they are illegal, then the majority of them haven't been caught...so I'd be interested to know the margin of error on your source.
When I said "95%" I put it into context that made it obvious that I was giving a loose estimation. But to be fair, I should still clarify: I meant that about 95% were non-white, because the person I was talking to said that only non-whites(Hispanics in particular) were targeted so vigilantly. So even if we play your percentages, that means we're still looking at around 90% being non-white.
Hispanic is not a race though, so we can't say how many of them are non-white. For example, 97% of those from Argentina are white and 94% are white in Uruguay since there was hardly any indigenous populations in those areas when they were settled (though I'm not sure how many of those make up the illegal population from South America).
shareDon't waste your time, you're only confusing him/her with inconvenient facts.
If it were the 1800's, "chinamen" would be today's illegal alien boogeyman (and amercian indians, they being natives being just another inconvenient fact).
Also no Windshield. Do not know if there is a sticker as well.
Can you fly this plane?
Surely you can't be serious.
I am serious,and don't call me Shirley
There were a couple of totally legitimate reasons they could have been pulled over:
1) The police could have been notified to look for a truck with that license plate that had just been stolen from a tow yard and destroyed a fence.
2) The policeman could have noticed the windshield was absent.
1) is doubtful as the son explained later the truck could be sold to get the woman back her money.
A missing windshield would be pretty obvious.
1) The police could have been notified to look for a truck with that license plate that had just been stolen from a tow yard and destroyed a fence.
The point was made in the movie that Santiago, the man who stole the truck, sold it on the black market. Since the lot that had the truck had no title it's doubtful if they would have called the police. A missing windshield would definably be a reason to be pulled over.