whateverdude
-
Posts
942 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by whateverdude
-
-
I’d expect no less; the Mohammedans have had a lot of practice at removing the cultural and religious icons and replacing them with mosques in the nations they conquer. I admire them, they are a very strong people as we were once.
-
Fixed.
spasibo comrade!
-
Yes spend more money on the re-education system. The following are a few examples of what I learn from K through grad school:
1) The Communist Manifesto has very “empowering” language in it.
2) A true Marxist economy has yet to be started.
3) Marxism was never intended to be implemented in an agrarian society like Russia but was in a rich industrial capitalist society like the UK then and the US now.
4) Marxism is the natural evolution of capitalism through social revolution and collective ownership.
5) The alienated proletarian class will throw off oppressive chains of the exploitative bourgeoisie seizing the machinery of the capitalist.
-
It's still safe to blame middle aged white men, they are the only group left thats not a protected class. Oh, fat people too.
-
-
-
This topic is wasted finger skin! Even if Obama made drilling oil illegal, there would still be tons of drilling in the gulf and many spills by foreign drillers.
Lets face it the birds are screwed!
-
Article:
http://www.examiner.com/x-43345-St-Louis-P...ed-enough-money
Video: skip forward as he's say's it at approx. 19:30
http://www.cspan.org/Watch/Media/2010/04/2...AL+REFORMS.aspx
Was this mentioned on the media last night at all? Wonder why?
WOW I can not believe he said that.
That must have been ad lib. It's one thing for me and you to say that kind of stuff as private citizens but a US president saying that, bumps it up to the governmental policy level. Very dangerous talk even if he did back track on it a bit.
If he's not socialist or communist, then he sure has those tendencies doesn't he?
-
I got to tell you, the Anti-AZ law crowd is coming off as very shrill on this issue. This law does not mandate "paper checks" it just strengths existing one. The left propaganda machine is amazing!
-
Consensual
At any time, a police officer may approach a person and ask questions. The objective may simply be a friendly conversation; however, the officer also may suspect involvement in a crime, but lack “specific and articulable facts”[3] that would justify a detention or arrest, and hope to obtain these facts from the questioning. The person approached is not required to identify herself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time.[4] Police are not usually required to tell a person that she is free to decline to answer questions and go about her business;[5] however, a person can usually determine whether the interaction is consensual by asking, “Am I free to go?”[6][7]
Detained
A person is detained when circumstances are such that a reasonable person would believe he is not free to leave.[8]
Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Many state laws explicitly grant this authority; in Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court established it in all jurisdictions, regardless of explicit mention in state or local laws. Police may conduct a limited search for weapons (known as a “frisk”) if they reasonably suspect that the person to be detained may be armed and dangerous.
Police may question a person detained in a Terry stop, but in general, the detainee is not required to answer.[9] However, many states have “stop and identify” laws that explicitly require a person detained under the conditions of Terry to identify himself to a police officer, and in some cases, provide additional information.
Before Hiibel, it was unresolved whether a detainee could be arrested and prosecuted for refusing to identify himself. Authority on this issue was split among the federal circuit courts of appeal,[10] and the U.S. Supreme Court twice expressly refused to address the question.[11] In Hiibel, the Court held, in a 5-4 decision, that a Nevada “stop and identify” law did not violate the United States Constitution. The Court’s opinion implied that a detainee was not required to produce written identification, but could satisfy the requirement merely by stating his name. Some “stop and identify” laws do not require that a detainee identify himself, but allow refusal to do so to be considered along with other factors in determining whether there is probable cause to arrest.
As of January 2010, the Supreme Court has not addressed the validity of requirements that a detainee provide information other than his name.
Granted i got this stuff off Wiki and there could be some BS in it. I would say that the supremes would see the AZ law as not un-constitutional. the sticky part is whether you would have to give the officer anything other than your name. In most states you do under their Terry stop laws.
-
You said:
What you said above could be done before this law was passed. This law expands the government's ability to challenge immigration status based on reasonable suspicion, even when some guy is reading the newspaper on a park bench.
I believe in AZ, as an enforcement policy, state and local police officers are told not to check or ask for the legal status of people. This was left to the feds. This law was passed because the feds failed to control the problem.
The way I read it this law does not give the local law enforcement any new powers, just re-enforces current ones and most importantly gives protection to the local individual law officer from civil law suits.
“some guy is reading the newspaper on a park bench” does not arouse reasonable suspicion now does it so it would not be lawful to check his legal status, unless of course he was doing coke off the paper.
-
You don't get it. A police officer can ALREADY do what you said. Read the new law again. The police officer is required to question Alien status of LAWFULLY behaving people that he has reason to suspect are alien.
no, I read it right
-
I understand AZ's problem but the part of the law most people are bitching about really is a serious problem:
FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373©.
So a cop sees a Latino guy driving down the street in a pickup truck (lawful contact) with a lawnmower in the back and suspects (based on the fact that he's a Latino landscaper perhaps) that he's an immigrant. So now he must (because the law says SHALL) make a reasonable attempt to ascertain his immigration status? LEGAL immigrants in AZ are going to have their right to be free form unreasonable search and seizure violated right and left under this bill.
I don't see this passing any Constitutional challenge and nor should it.
It will be used just like all the other times reasonable suspicion is used. In the course of the officers official duties he stops a person for illegal operation of the truck like the lawnmower not being tied down in a safe and legal manner or speeding ect..and the driver cannot produce a valid license or produces a Mexican license or cannot tell the officer his or hers place of residence than that would be reasonable suspicion to check their status
-
-
I think he got off too easy
-
hands down it's new zealand and Australia
-
I'll agree. But when is it that a majority is/should be silinced?
(spell checks fcked tonight, sorry)
Since when are Art Bell fans the majority?
-
Geesh, next they’ll be requiring proof that fire can melt steel support beams before issuing building permits
-
To make the statement that many blacks use entitlement programs in itself is not racist but to say that many African Americans use entitlement because they are black is a racist statement in my view.
A statement of fact is one thing but using a statement to disparage a race is another. You have to know what’s truly in ones heart to know the difference.
-
But you're not a reliable Democratic voting bloc, so why should they care about your diversity?
Dude your Avatar is giving me brain seizures!
-
Man, I do not know how you guys make money picking individual stocks. I am a complete failure at it. The only individual stocks I made money on 15 years ago were CISCO and Philip mo. Since then I have been sticking to index funds and ETF sector and index stocks/bonds and have done a lot better.
It's still tough for me to beat the S&P on the stock side.
-
Five jurors in his trial thought all the evidence against him was fabricated. Even the evidence that he himself admitted was true.
yeah, and those same five jurors later must have served on the OJ trail!
-
"The B word set me up"
-
Over 90% of African Americans strongly support Obama. Does that make them racist?
Should we spend more money on education?
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
When the government mandates socialistic policy it's fascism