Elect Sheriff Joe Arpaio
- Thread starter mneilmont
- Start date
Do you have a link? If true, it seems there should be some culpability with the DHS. Class action law suit?
What do you want a link to? I gave you the address that Joe offered in his continued solicitation. I would respectfully suggest you attempt to communicate through him.
Should I have put the passage in quotes with attribution to him?
I was meaning a link to a credible source to substantiate the claim that 66000 released criminal aliens led to 122 murders.
Are you suggesting that Joe is not credible? If he is not, please provide a credible source to substantiate your claim. If you have personal knowledge, please share and let us scrutinize.
I don't know if he is or not ... I would like a different source to determine that regarding this piece of information.
It's funny the position you're taking here because you are taking the position of this one person as 100% credible and essentially refusing to look for or offer any other source to substantiate that, but then in another thread chastise me for accepting the position of half a dozen or more entities that are all verify each other's findings.
Actually you are speaking for me or about me a bit loosely. I got a solicitation and offered an address to the board in the event anyone wants to make a contribution. Beyond that, you are improvising just a bit to state your position. You will have to do your own research if you want to find a position in opposition to the man or his statements. Example: taking the position of one person as 100% credible. No, he is taking positions that I like. Lie detector is not necessary for me. Philosophy is all I want/need to support his position.
So, if it's a position you like, then it doesn't matter about facts. If it's a position you don't like, then none of the sources are credible. Got it. Personally, if somebody is asking me for money, I'm immediately skeptical of their position and what they claim to be fact.
I did research. In the last two years, the DHS has released roughly 66000 criminal aliens. There is some stupid law that says we can't hold them forever if their home country won't accept them back. I think that's ******** and is something that needs to change. There is also very little that can be done to track them once released, which is also something that's ******** and needs to change.
What I have yet to find is anything confirming that once released, these people committed 122 murders that would have been prevented by their continued detention. I have seen a few sources that say that Sheriff Joe has made that claim, but haven't seen that claim substantiated elsewhere.
I also don't see how sending Sheriff Joe money is going to fix any of that. The laws need changed at the DHS/ICE level and that's beyond the purview of a county sheriff. Therefore, since he is soliciting money about a problem that he actually can't do anything about ... then until I see more supporting evidence I'm going to take the stance that he is full of ****. Especially from a glory hound like him. He may as well be Joel Olsteen.
Murder trials take awhile. We are talking about people released in 2013 and 2014. So, even if they went out and murdered people the day they were released, I don't know if there would have been enough time for 122 murder prosecutions.
So you think we should just lock people up and throw away the key like they do in places like Iran, no set term regardless of offense? When did we become that country? And we get on our high horse about the way Americans are treated when they're charged and imprisoned overseas (see the four Americans being held in Iran)? Then there's this little fact: 122 murders committed out of 66,000 illegals released is .00018 percent. That hardly amounts to a crime wave regardless of what Sheriff Joe and his ilk love to yap about.
You don't like what you hear about someone, and they are immediately "full of ****". Sounds logical to me - only if that principle is applied consistently.
You didn't believe a damned thing he had to say, did you? Honestly? Then a little research verifies his statement as factual. Another part of what he says cannot be proven as fact or fiction. And from that, you arrive at total distrust and he is "full of ****".
You cannot see how sending Joe money impacts what he believes and I am in agreement? Would the fact that he is in a reelection campaign against someone who does not share those principles be reason enough?
And "facts" can be pretty damned funny things depending on the source.
Last edited:
May I assume that you are OK with the release of the 66,000 illegal alien criminals and consequent 122 murders in America? Forgive me, but I think that is a bit too liberal in a country of laws.
Yeah, you can assume, but you know what they say about "assume" -- it makes an "***" of "u" and "me" (mostly "u.") Once again, that minuscule percentage tells me that there's no more risk of an illegal released from detention committing murder than there is the guy thrown in jail over the weekend for drunk driving, and maybe not as much. And don't talk about the laws if you don't understand the laws: If they're only being jailed for being in the country illegally, Illegals can only be detained while their deportation cases are being heard, not indefinitely and certainly not forever, or am I to "assume" that you and WhitetailEer are OK with turning America into Iran or North Korea, where people are put behind bars and never heard from again?
Last edited:
Really? More *** in "u" than "me". How do you justify that? Source?
"Minuscule %" We, are taking about the taking of people's life , not pissing on the sidewalk. One murder is more than sufficient to raise question.
Perhaps you would be served to look a little deeper when you are under the impression that the only crimes committed by these people was crossing over the border. Some committed capital crimes and were released. Your understanding of the law in those cases that they can only be incarcerated during importation hearings? One of us need to reconsider our position.
That's not what I said. I said if their only crime was being in the country illegally they can't be detained indefinitely. And if they committed capital crimes as you claim, why aren't they still in state prison? Illegals have no special status when it comes to felonies, they serve their time like everyone else. Illegals have even been executed for capital crimes. And once they've served a sentence, then what? Sorry Mr. Alien, but just because you completed a 15-year sentence for manslaughter means nothing, we're keeping you locked up because you came here illegally and your home country won't accept you for deportation.
I'm perplexed, why do we label people who swim the Rio Grande or just walk across land to enter the U.S. "illegals"? If they are never stopped from doing so how can they be doing something illegal. I think most of you know that people do get locked up for speeding. I'm being sarcastic but it is a valid point.
Holy cow. That's not what I said at all. The way it's worded I guess I can see where you'd interpret it the way you did.
It seems to me that if there is a criminal illegal alien here that we should be able to deport them.
It would seem that way, wouldn't it? Problem is, their home country has to agree to take them back. Maybe that's the part that needs to be worked on.
No, somebody is full of **** when they are full of ****, and generally I don't like what I hear about somebody when they are full of ****. But the determination of whether I like what I hear about them is done AFTER a determination of them being full of ****, not the other way around.
A little research only verified PART of his statement as factual, not the part that those same people committed 122 murders after being released. That kind of thing is only thrown in there for shock value and to get people scared so they throw more money. Coincidentally, sociopaths and people with borderline personality disorder do the same thing ... generally, they are lying, but there is just enough truth/fact in what they are saying to have the entire statement/story to be accepted as true.
You think Sheriff Joe is going to solve this if he only would get more money? How?
Does Sheriff Joe have the ability to change international law? No.
Does Sheriff Joe have the ability to change DHS/ICE policy? No.
Does Sheriff Joe have the ability to implement better monitoring of released criminals nationally? No.
Sheriff is a county position ... how many of that 66,000 were in his county?
How many of the <ahem> "122 murders" <ahem> were committed in his county?
So, how, exactly, is Sheriff Joe going to fix this issue? The answer is that he can't, and so I draw the conclusion that he is full-of-****, issuing shock and scare tactics to raise campaign funds. The first clue that he was full-of-**** is should have been the request for money. When somebody says "send donations to PO Box blah blah blah" my bull-****-ometer immediately goes into the red.
Yes, agree completely. That's really what I was getting at. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I could have done better with the composition of my post, so this misunderstanding is totally on me.
Arpaio is a corrupt piece of trash. His county has paid millions in settlements over the years because his office retaliated against people who dared be critical of him.
Are you really that dense? He continues to get reelected and you really don't think anyone supports him? You do understand that those who vote for him do support him? Or are you suggesting that they vote for him to show non-support? Really?
Well I don't live in Arizona, so it hasn't cost me anything. That doesn't somehow change the facts, though.
You seem to really confuse facts and opinions. He provided a link to a story covering the trial regarding retaliation charges. It's not "opinion" that that happened.
Or maybe you didn't actually click the link?
So you're saying that his office wasn't forced to pay $8.7 million in settlements to people he retaliated against with bogus charges? Because I would say that's a black and white fact that is substantiated by multiple sources.
He is not a piece of trash. He is human. What do you want me to click on that suggests he is not human?
Oh for crying out loud ... Mog, just say that Sheriff Joe is a very bad morally corrupt human ... apparently Neil doesn't understand colloquialisms
And, on the other foot, do you want to interfere with an election of a person that the majority of the local prefer? I fail to see that you have a right to tell those people what you want for them. I assure you that my donation will not mean as much to his election as does the right of those who vote for him. What makes you so all-fired sure that he is not right to enforce the laws that he is enforcing? Obama doesn't want laws enforced that legislators have legally passed.
Would it be too much to ask for a reason of your position?
He cannot survive much longer with the financial burden being placed on family finances to fight the legal battles. It stinks to high heavens. Same tactics that forced Palin from office. Family finances can not fight the onslaught of legal battles.
I really don't understand your logic sometimes. How am I interfering with an elected person by posting on the MMB?
It would seem that you would be interfering by introducing money from outside the district to fund his campaign. Do you not think that money introduced from sources other than the constituency would sway the election process? Particularly in comparison to somebody only posting opinions on the MMB?
And finally ... the part in bold ... I would say that having to pay $8.7M in settlement fees is a pretty "all-fired sure" reason to come to the conclusion that he isn't doing things the way he should be doing them.
I readily admit that I want to influence his reelection. See, I was the OP who made an avenue for anyone on the board to contribute to his continuation to serve the people of his county.
And, in a previous post by you, "It would seem to me that if they are illegal alien that we should be able to deport them". That is not unlike Joe's position. He gets rewarded with a civil rights charge that he has to defend.
Could you possibly be just harassing for the fun of it since you and Joe take the same position?
I find it ironic that you bristled at the idea of providing a source for the numbers claimed in your initial post but demand specific information referenced in something I already linked. But regardless, here are some examples:
This article details many of the cases settled under his watch.
Mike Lacey and Jim Larkin were falsely arrested for publishing information in a newspaper about one of Arpaio's investigation. They received $3.75 million in a settlement.
Mary Rose Wilcox was arrested on racketeering charges. "A Superior Court judge later deemed the attacks to be politically motivated, and the criminal charges lawsuit were ultimately dismissed."
But I'm not asking for money under the guise of addressing an issue that I have little/no power to address.
And ... I'm also not a POS that arrests people under false pretenses and ultimately costs taxpayers nearly $9M.