Am I missing something?
 

Somebody brought up Sheriff Arpaio in Maricopa County, Arizona, a few days ago.

I first learned about him several years ago, in connection with the death of Scott Norberg. I was horrified at what the deputies were able to get away with in killing him. And even more horrified to learn that similar deaths and serious injuries have happened again.

There is a left-leaning newspaper in Phoenix with a writer or two who have been following Arpaio for several years. They have documented many abuses and acts which, I believe, demonstrate Arpaio to be corrupt. Mexico-type corrupt, to a level that I don't want to believe can happen in the US today.

I have had boardmail exchanges (as well as public exchanges on the board) with a number of people who live there, and who vote for him.

The reasons amount to, they love how he's tough on crime and criminals.

I have a hard time believing that anyone who's informed, at least of the accusations against him, would continue to vote for him. But they do.

And it seems that they just don't care about his "personal" issues - they like the results.

So now that brings me to my ultimate question - why should I even care, if they don't?

If he was in Orange County, where I live, I'd be furious.

But they dismiss the 130+ articles written about Arpaio's abuses as left-wing agenda-driven propaganda. Or, even worse, accept that he's got those issues, but they feel safer with him there. Plus, he's Republican.

Are they really that apathetic in Phoenix, or am I tilting at windmills here?

People will trade liberty for security. Look at Putin's popularity. Sure they know he is robbing the country and eroding what little democracy they have. But he talks tough, and that's all that matters.

People will trade liberty for security. Look at Bush's popularity. Sure they know he is robbing the country and eroding what little democracy they have. But he talks tough, and that's all that matters.

Left-wingers are upset that a Republican is tough on crime?

There's a surprise. ;)

Yep you are missing many things.....well you and other irrational liberals who like to stand on their fake and transparent soapbox of morality.

Especially when you get your info from the Phoenix New Times.

While you're at it, I suggest you get your LDS Church Doctrine from The Godmakers.

I still have not received a straight answer on this. Are you (and your ilk) saying that the Phoenix New Times is making up the facts which underlie their 130 + stories about Sheriff Arpaio's abuses of power?

Other than dismissing it as a liberal rag, nobody has addressed any of the specific allegations made in that paper. Do you believe they're just making that stuff up? If so, examples would be nice.

That's something I've noticed. When I try to get into specifics, you guys just blow me off.

The Phoenix New Times is the equivalent of the National Enquirer. They are blatantly biased and do not hide their political intentions.

Anyone can do a hatchet job. That's easy.

If you choose to be duped that easily by what you call "facts" then that's your own personal myopia you have to deal with.

Do I think Sheriff Joe is kind of a dick? Yeah I do.

But I for one think it's damn funny that he makes prisoners wear pink underwear.

Prisoners have EARNED having no rights.

Okay, because you're still not getting it, I'm going to make it easy for you. Let's start with one story from the Phoenix New Times. The first one that I ever read, about Scott Norberg. I'll even link it for you:

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/Issue...s/columns.html

You claim the Phoenix New Times is blatantly biased about how they present their version of the facts, and that they are doing a "hatchet job."

If you're correct, you should easily be able to point out in this article where they're wrong about what happened to Scott Norberg, or about where they're being biased in addressing it.

I don't understand the insensitivity toward the Norberg case, dismissing it as an aberration.

For the record, I am an economically conservative Republican, at least of record. I support law and order, but not at the price of abolishing freedoms. I do not desire to live in an oppressive regime solely for a little bit more security.

Once incarcerated, after a trial and verdict, the prisoners should pay their debt to society. However, the prisoners should not be abused by other prisoners or by guards. It should not be a luxury palace.

However, law enforcement has the ultimate duty of striving for perfection in its treatment of citizens accused and prisoners. They should be above reproach.

In this matter, it was cold-hearted murder. And it was not the only time it happened. Thus, his policies are failures and he is guilty in his administration, which is his primary duty. It's not an anciliary duty.

Hence he should not be Sheriff.

This is the classic case of a person thinking that because someone disagrees with them that they "don't get it". Which is funny cause you clearly don't get that what you're getting your "facts" from automatically and immediately undermines your viewpoint. Basically that renders your opinion....oops sorry..."facts" null and void.

Liberals can ALWAYS find a person who's been done wrong by the justice system. That's easy.