when do we build our own iron curtain?

[leojoeyjoe]

It is taught by lazy socialists

No arguments about that....
your sentence still sounds like a barely literate eight year old typed it.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
No arguments about that....
your sentence still sounds like a barely literate eight year old typed it.

Always go with what works with the lowest common denominator.

-Yet you STILL had trouble, -and you claim it looks like an eight year old wrote it.

The difference between us is I try to converse with people who may not understand context and language, therefore I bridge the gap.

You get up on your high horse and claim to be so above the rest, and cannot say anything worth listening to.

 

[leojoeyjoe]

alright, we live in a police state...big brother is everywhere and they only want our ids to start the final solution...

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
alright, we live in a police state...big brother is everywhere and they only want our ids to start the final solution...

not yet, but thanks to people who would rather feel safer than be free, we're getting there.

 

[leojoeyjoe]

absolutely, its a good thing there are people like you to protect the jews from the police...

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
absolutely, its a good thing there are people like you to protect the jews from the police...

Do you even know what a Jew is?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
absolutely, its a good thing there are people like you to protect the jews from the police...

sarcasm is unbecoming to you. I'm not out to protect the jews, i'm out to protect all free peoples rights.

 

[leojoeyjoe]

Yes, but in doing so you keep making false comparisons to nazi germany, when, in reality, we are debating a law designed to keep criminals from slipping through the cracks...you can pretend it is not designed for this purpose, but it is disingenious.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
Yes, but in doing so you keep making false comparisons to nazi germany, when, in reality, we are debating a law designed to keep criminals from slipping through the cracks...you can pretend it is not designed for this purpose, but it is disingenious.

Banning and registering guns does the same thing, right?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Look. Police should be able to collect id's. WHile I agree that we must be eternally vigilant against heading down paths toward tyranny, I also believe that our police officers should have a basic right to identify the people they are sworn to protect. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind.

New Bumper Sticker:"Constitutionalists do it rigidly"

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Look. Police should be able to collect id's. WHile I agree that we must be eternally vigilant against heading down paths toward tyranny, I also believe that our police officers should have a basic right to identify the people they are sworn to protect. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind.

New Bumper Sticker:"Constitutionalists do it rigidly"

I like that!

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
Yes, but in doing so you keep making false comparisons to nazi germany, when, in reality, we are debating a law designed to keep criminals from slipping through the cracks...you can pretend it is not designed for this purpose, but it is disingenious.

do you think the third reich just sprung up out of the ground? Or materialized out of thin air?

we are not debating a law designed to keep criminals from slipping through the cracks, we're debating a law that no longer protects free people from its police force. To continue to decry comparisons to nazi germany or to say that this law is beneficial by letting police ID everyone without probable cause is disingenious.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Look. Police should be able to collect id's. WHile I agree that we must be eternally vigilant against heading down paths toward tyranny, I also believe that our police officers should have a basic right to identify the people they are sworn to protect. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind.

New Bumper Sticker:"Constitutionalists do it rigidly"

police should be required to cite probable cause, without it they should not be able to collect ID's.

 

[leojoeyjoe]

and that, according to the reports i've seen, is PRECISELY what the law is

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
police should be required to cite probable cause, without it they should not be able to collect ID's.

You bet---the harder their job is the safer we all are ???

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by dilloduck
You bet---the harder their job is the safer we all are ???

would you rather be safe or free? big brother or independence?

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by dilloduck
You bet---the harder their job is the safer we all are ???

DK's point is well taken. While the law may be enacted for one reason, individuals may change that meaning at will, acting within the law. That is precisely how Hitler grabbed power.

 

[leojoeyjoe]

I don't understand what you are complaining about...you said that they need probable cause....the law says they need it....where's the beef?

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
I don't understand what you are complaining about...you said that they need probable cause....the law says they need it....where's the beef?

I'm not finding anything here so far, though I'll check some legal sites later, that demands probable cause for asking your name. IF you refuse to give it, they can arrest you, THEN demand the identification:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...1/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_police_identification

The court ruled that forcing someone to give police their name does not violate their Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches. The court also said name requests do not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, except in rare cases.


"One's identity is, by definition, unique; yet it is, in another sense, a universal characteristic. Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.


The ruling stopped short of allowing police to demand identification, like driver's licenses, but Justice John Paul Stevens (news - web sites) said requiring people to divulge their name still goes too far.


"A name can provide the key to a broad array of information about the person, particularly in the hands of a police officer with access to a range of law enforcement databases," he wrote in a dissent. Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) also disagreed with the ruling.

 

[leojoeyjoe]

The story I saw said the police had to have a "reasonable suspicion", invoking reason, (which I don't know, maybe "reason" is unacceptable inhere too) and it said the penalty was a 250 dollar fine...