I am now dumber for reading this whole thing. Easily the funniest thing said in this forum was my post on page 3. The chick that dressed up like a cat for her picture is as dumb as the conservative talk radio show host that she gets her talking points from.
I am now more stupid for reading your comment... Instead of bringing up actual evidence to refute someone in a debate, you just resort to character assassination of a person's avatar. At least Cuppycake (yes, I'm at least smart enough to figure out her name), posts actual transcripts of the laws into the discussion.
And, BTW, Cuppycake has not really given what is considered to be a "talking points" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_point
)... Talking points are usually short statements given without much substantive evidence used to attack the opposing view. However, Cuppycake has gone beyond that to actually recite the entire Arizona law so that people can read it for themselves and form their own rational opinion about it. If she were just to scoff and say people should read the bill (without actually doing so herself), then I could see where you'd consider that to be a "talking point". In fact, saying that Cuppycake's arguments are just conservative talk show talking point is actually a talking point in itself; instead of quoting her and showing how it is just a talking point (perhaps by even quoting conservative talk shows and/or blog sites and showing the similarity in the rhetoric) you just make a claim that her arguments are "talking points" hoping that your assertion is enough to validate your claim and thereby invalidate her arguments.
In fact, your comment commits several logical fallacies, a tactic that is common for those that cannot logically argue a side in a debate or in rhetorical propiganda. Ad hominem
attack of Cuppycake's avatar as being reason to dismiss her claims; ad populum
attack and guilt by association to associate her claims with conservative talk radio, which has already been demonized by left wing propaganda and other forms of media threatened by their competitor's success, so as to appeal to people's sense of being in the community of "enlightened people, instead of idiotic conservative talk-radio listeners"; obfuscation by incorrectly using the term "talking points" to criticize her arguments as being invalid because they are "talking points" without actually defining the term and/or explaining how they are indeed just "talking points". (I'm also wondering how a person that physically cannot speak (ie "dumb") can be on talk radio...)
Note that this post has nothing to do with the topic of immigration (I don't want anyone to accuse me of committing the fallacies of "proof by verbosity" or obfuscation). I just wanted to point this out so that we can have a rational discussion about a very current topic instead of one that deteriorates into a bunch of name-calling and inane attacks.