Wow, way to miss my point.

I sure hope I did.

Unless I too missed it, you responded to "See, wouldn't it be stupid if I started doing what the other side is going" with "Yeah? Well then we're going to be even stupider!"

That said, I think both sides already engage in this form of stupidity, though I do think the Republican noise machine has proven more adept than the Democratic one.

Thus, as I understand the issue, if a left-leaning Sarah Palin equivalent was addressing a liberal tea party, she would say, "Change? No thanks, we'll just keep our spray cans . . ." instead of "we'll just keep our guns."

No matter how many times an angry leftist mob yells "Kill Bush," the right-leaning mobs will always be scarier because of the gun porn.

VSLM!

Except that I haven't heard of any gun violence associated with the tea party (there may have been - I just haven't heard of any), yet the vandalism has been present.

Also, there have been threats of violence against latinos that are in support of the immigration law pased in AZ.

I guess scary is in the eye of the beholder.

Gun violence, no, but so much rhetoric essentially saying "we're playing nice for now but push us a little further and we will start shooting." Those sentiments have been from a loud minority, but they are unmistakably threats. (Here, Obama. take my gun, barrel first! - We came unarmed, THIS time! - The tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of tyrants - all recent and real examples.)

I haven't seen reports of vandalism and death threats such as you mention yet. (if you have links, cool.) The usual name-calling and "but YOUR side is just as bad" crapola aside, no reasonable person approves of threats, vandalism or violence. That doesn't change a thing about the very obvious violation that this new law represents. The smoking gun - those who made and signed the law cannot define a reasonable non-race-based way of defining what constitutes justification for demanding identification. Its glaringly and publicly obvious. Its a bad law and ought to be embarrassing even to those who support tougher immigration laws. Change my mind with reasoned argument. Meanwhile, though I won't approve of destructive behaviour, I will certainly understand why a great big chunk of brown-skinned folks feel very angry right about now.

I saw ONE account of vandalism and, despite what flippy implies, I approved of it completely. It was a swastika made of refried beans on a government building in Arizona.

Perhaps it's because I hold to the Roger Rabbit philosophy of "only when it's funny." But the beans are easily washed off - and though technically vandalism, I found it a rather pointed and funny example of non-violent civil disobedience, which I completely approve of.

I cannot get behind any sort of law that was taken from the Nazis and I think the AZ government should be ashamed of themselves.

Sca - would you be all for this law if your family didn't look like they belong here? If it was your family who was at risk of getting pulled over and/or questioned about their immigration status?

Yeah, I can't see much wrong with temporary baked bean expression. Can political macaroni art be far behind?