State Sen. Huppenthal (R-AZ) just flat-out LIED on Hardball about new law...

[jenmito]

He said that police may only ask people for their "papers" (proof of citizenship) if they are caught in the act of breaking the law-doing something like speeding, breaking into a house, etc. When Chris asked if they can be stopped just for "looking suspicious" in the opinion of the police, he said, "No. That would be profiling." :eyes:

Sen. Gutierrez, also on the show, said that what Huppenthal said is the law ALREADY, and there wouldn't BE another law if he was right, but Huppenthal stuck to his li(n)e and Chris said they'll "look into it" or "get to the bottom of it" or something similar showing he didn't know what was in the new law.

[Kdillard]

1. Republicans are bold faced liars nothing new.

[Cha]

2. KR

[stopbush]

3. That guy was a jerk. He kept giving the same answer for every question Tweety asked him,

which was, "there were 250 murders in Phoenix in 2006, and that has dropped to 125 since we began working on the nexus between illegal immigration and violent crime."

Of course, the implication is that those 250 murders were ALL caused by illegal immigrants, and that the 125 murders were ALL caused by illegal immigrants.

This jerk had no business being on TV as he couldn't answer the simplest questions. My guess - he's looking to move out of state office and wanted to get some national exposure, which Tweety provided, free of charge.

[jenmito]

7. Yup-he repeated that same line about 4 times!

And again, he LIED about police NOT being able to stop anyone unless they're in the act of breaking the law. His repeated claim about cutting murders from 250 to 125 had nothing to do with this new law anyway.

[tledford]

4. Is he a Republican? Was his mouth moving?

Q.E.D.

[activa8tr]

5. That's a sure indication that he's lying. LOL n/t

[janx]

6. Actually, I think that's technically true--

but I'm sure it won't stay that way in practice.

[jenmito]

8. No it's not-anyone can be stopped for nothing more than "reasonable suspicion."

That's subjective-that's NOT stopping someone in the middle of breaking in to someone's home or speeding, etc.

[CTLawGuy]

9. what's worse

is that any yahoo can sue a city for NOT stopping people if they have "reasonable suspicion". Now the cops will be faced with a deluge of lawsuits.

[jenmito]

10. Exactly.

Yet the RWers are all over the media claiming they CAN'T stop people unless they're doing something "suspicious" like messing with a lock on a door or "casing" a place. They ALL stress that "racial profiling is illegal" and they're not ALLOWED to stop people for just being Hispanic looking. Yeah, right. Like the "reasonable suspicion" rule won't be abused-and like the cops will ignore white people who complain about Hispanic people just hanging around. :eyes:

[political_Dem]

11. No matter how many times they try to sugar coat it, we can see through the manure pile.

The RW's own base may believe the steady stream of garbage that comes out of their politicians' mouths, but that type of Svengalism doesn't work for everyone.

You'd think that conservatives would know better and simply speak the truth of what the bill stands for. They don't have to hide their racism. Their racial animus has been pretty out there in a virulent fashion since Mr. Obama took office. Furthermore, the RNC's aims have been magnified by the Teabaggers ten-fold.

So, why not just tell the truth and put everything on the table--including their thoughts about anyone who doesn't reflect their WASP-y sensibilities? We know who they support and what they believe, don't we?

[MadMaddie]

13. That's just it, they did not expect the national back lash

and now that they stand to lose $$$$$$$$$$$$ from baseball training camp to other huge events.

[jillan]

12. I had to laugh when I got a robocall from Huppenthal's re-election campaign tonite after watching

him on Hardball. Jerk.

[old mark]

14. You accuse a republican of LYING? I am just shocked...nt