Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Kagan for Supreme Court???? Another Proof, Obama Totally Lost It.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 77 (view)
 
Kagan for Supreme Court???? Another Proof, Obama Totally Lost It.
Posted: 6/1/2010 8:40:38 AM

Well I guess here in the Dayton Ohio area they defy the odds, becauses there are plenty of retired GM workers raking in the dough. Many 75-80 years old, and I can name names. Friends of my grandfathers who retired at roughly the same time as he did. AND THEY LIVE ON!!!! IMAGINE THAT!!!

My grandfather was hardly an exception. Or did he just have an unusually healthy circle of friends? Highly doubtful.


The avg life expectancy in Ohio is 76.2 years, so if your grandfathers friends are living longer than that then they ARE unusually healthy


Some of these problems are the same problems America itself is looking at when they look at Social Security and health care. When Social Security was enacted the average life expectancy was below 70 years of age.


And now, life expectancy is just a few years higher than that.


But guess what? It is a whopping 3-4 years less than number one. Big deal.


Yes, make fun of how small it is when it's 3-4 years, but when it's 5-6 years, go ahead and whine about how it will destroy pension plans.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 59 (view)
 
Another rightwinger caught with their pants down
Posted: 5/28/2010 2:03:06 PM

Whee! This seems like a fun game! Can I play?


Sure! Can I? (because Dems taking bribes is just as bad as repubs diddling children)



STOP REPUBLICAN PEDOPHILIA

* Republican parole board officer and former legislator George C. (Chris) Ortloff pleaded guilty to attempting to lure 11- and 12-year-old girls to have sex with him.
* Republican legislative aide Robert R. Groezinger was arrested for possessing child pornography.
* Republican legislator Robert A. McKee pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography.
* Republican legislator Scott Muschany was charged with molesting a 14-year old girl.
* Republican chief of staff Eric Feltner pleaded guilty to showing pornography to a 13-year old girl.
* Republican presidential campaign official Matthew Joseph Elliott was convicted of sexual exploitation of a child.
* Republican Party Chairman Donald Fleischman was charged with two counts of child enticement, two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a child and a single charge of exposing himself to a child.
* Republican prosecutor John David Roy Atchison was arrested for soliciting sex from a 5-year old girl, then killed himself three weeks later. At the time of his arrest, Atchison was an "assistant U.S. attorney" appointed by President Bush's attorney general.
* Republican city councilman John Bryan killed himself after police began investigating allegations that he had molested three girls, including two of his adopted daughters, ages 12 and 15.
* Republican legislator Ted Klaudt was charged with raping girls under the age of 16.
* Republican city councilman Joseph Monteleone Jr. was found guilty of fondling underage girls.
* Republican congressional aide Jeffrey Nielsen was arrested for having sex with a 14-year old boy.
* Republican prosecutor Larry Corrigan was arrested for soliciting sex from 13-year old girls.
* Republican Mayor Jeffrey Kyle Randall was sentenced to 275 days in jail for molesting two boys -- ages ten and 12 -- during a six-year period.
* Republican County Board Candidate Brent Schepp was charged with molesting a 14-year old girl and killed himself three days later.
* Republican Congressman Mark Foley abruptly resigned from Congress after "sexually explicit" emails surfaced showing him flirting with a 16-year old boy.
* Republican executive Randall Casseday of the conservative Washington Times newspaper pleaded guilty to soliciting sex from a 13-year old girl on the internet.
* Republican chairman of the Oregon Christian Coalition Lou Beres confessed to molesting a 13-year old girl.
* Republican County Constable Larry Dale Floyd pleaded guilty to charges of soliciting sex from an 8-year old girl. Floyd has repeatedly won elections for Denton County, Texas, constable.
* Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.
* Republican Party leader Bobby Stumbo was arrested for having sex with a 5-year old boy.
* Republican teacher and former city councilman John Collins pleaded guilty to sexually molesting 13 and 14 year old girls.
* Republican campaign worker Mark Seidensticker is a convicted child molester.
* Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.
* Republican Mayor Tom Adams was arrested for distributing child pornography over the internet.
* Republican Mayor John Gosek was arrested on charges of soliciting sex from two 15-year old girls.
* Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
* Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.
* Republican Committeeman John R. Curtin was convicted of molesting an underage teenage boy and sentenced to serve six to 18 months in prison.
* Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.
* Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church president Dennis L. Rader pleaded guilty to performing a sexual act on an 11-year old girl he murdered.
* Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.
* Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.
* Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.
* Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
* Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was sentenced to six years in prison for molesting two 8-year old girls, one of whom appeared in an anti-Gore television commercial.
* Republican fundraiser Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s. (Reagan & Bush years.)
* Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s. (Reagan & Bush years.)
* Republican Congressman/ Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.
* Republican campaign chairman Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child and was arrested again five years later on the same charge.
* Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.
* Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.
* Republican Judge Ronald C. Kline pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer.
* Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
* Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.
* Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.
* Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.
* Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.
* Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to prison after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.
* Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.
* Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.
* Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.
* Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.
* Republican legislator Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).
* Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was found guilty of molesting a 15-year old girl.
* Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.
* Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.
* Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.
* Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.
* Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.
* Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.
* Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.
* Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
* Republican campaign worker, police officer and self-proclaimed reverend Steve Aiken was convicted of having sex with two underage girls.
* Republican director of the "Young Republican Federation" Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.
* Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was found guilty of raping a 15-year old girl. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.



Only that politicians are politicians, not saints. Regard accordingly, regardless of party affiliation.


True, but there's a strong correlation between membership in the GOP and pedophilia
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 501 (view)
 
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/28/2010 12:11:16 PM

Sure. No problem. Except if you happen to commit the teeniest, tiniest little crime. It's different in every jurisdiction, but generally speaking you can be arrested, detained, held without bail and charged if you do not identifying yourself in an investigation of any crime including otherwise ticket and release offenses. So considering that cops in AZ must provide a lawful reason to stop someone that is totally unrelated to immigration issues before any immigration investigation can begin, the person being detained would likely have to show some id anyways or risk being detained without bail until id is provided. So yes, you are totally allowed to bop around with no id as long as you're not breaking any law. And that holds true still for people in Arizona. If your concern is that cops will make something up to target Mexican Americans, that's a different issue. I think they will have their hands full without "creating more business" for themselves.


You don't understand what the law means by "ID". The law does not require anyone to carry any document, nor can the police detain someone for not carrying those documents. "ID" means "identification - When the police have reasonable suspicion, they can require someone to identify themselves; They do not require any document

The demand for identification can be met by telling the police officer your name and address. Once the police are informed of the identification, they are allowed to detain someone while they corroborate the ID, which can be as simple as calling the house and having someone corroborate the ID by voice, or running by the house (or the landlords house) and getting confirmation from a neighbor. If the person has a piece of mail, that can be corroboration.

The idea that "asking someone for their name and address" and arresting someone for not having documents that prove their citizenship comes from those who STILL can not explain why they are ignoring the constitutions' requirement for probable cause in order to perform a search.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 457 (view)
 
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/25/2010 9:24:43 AM

can appreciate that. Way back in this thread (or was it the other 'immigration' thread that's closed?) I stated that a big part of the onus was on the employers of the illegals...the need to demagnetize the incentive(s). If the 'path to citizenship' is what is decided as the compromise, one caveat *I* would like to see as a prerequisite, is that before being allowed to stay, a background check is performed. Those who have broken the law while here (besides coming here illegally), should be deported. They should also follow the same guidelines as the people who chose to do it the 'right' (legal) way, e.g. language, civics, pass the natualization test, etc.


I'm glad to see that you're open minded enough to see the sense of the liberal position on immigration. FYI, I believe that the proposals that are currently being discussed (very quietly) do require background and criminal checks. They also require paying a fine and possibly back taxes.


I think they have the right to enjoy and celebrate their indigenous backgrounds, cultures and histories the same as anyone else who immigrated here from Somalia, Cuba, Haiti, Jamaica or anywhere else. I also think they have a duty to participate in this society and culture. This La Raza revolucion crap needs to go bye-bye. It's divisive and does nothing but spawn the ill feelings many here have shown.


IMO, the concern with "La Raza revolucion" is overblown. Every group has its extremists and the Latino seperatist movement is extremely small. That's because they have the right to express their absurd beliefs, and the rest of the immigrant population excersized their right to reject them. It's the same thing with religious seperatists, racial seperatists, etc.

That's the beauty of the 1st Amend. Time after time, people have shown they will reject the divisive, in favor of working together.


The border still needs to be addressed, though...how many times do we hear about someone who was caught and deported only to resurface and get caught again? Cracking down on those who employ illegals and choose not to use the e-Verify database. I.C.E. needs to be better organized, manned and funded...how many times do we hear about local authorities having custody of an illegal only to let them go because the Feds didn't get around to dealing with them?


That's certainly a reasonable concern. However IMO, there will ALWAYS be a problem at the border. It's just like crime, poverty, disease, etc. The job here isn't to completely and finally solve the problem as it is to reduce it to insignificance. That can only be done by attacking the problem from *all* sides. That's why, when I look at what we're doing now, I think the emphasis should be on workplace enforcement. It's the one area where our efforts have been conspicously absent
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Ellen asks female to sing love song to a woman on American Idol;Christian Fundies upset
Posted: 5/24/2010 9:47:07 AM
As our nation slumps into decay, it's good to see some people are still focusing on the important issue

http://americansfortruth.com/news/american-idol-judge-ellen-degeneres-asks-female-contestant-to-sing-love-song-to-a-woman-on-idol-semifinal.html


More gender confusion from Ellen DeGeneres. It is so tiresome to see Ellen mega-hyped as a pop icon despite her immoral and chosen lifestyle as a practicing lesbian and pro-homosexuality activist. The very funny Ellen (who gets very serious when it comes to her public mission of promoting this immoral behavior) is getting more worldly fame than most humans could ever hope to have, but that means nothing before our holy God. She needs to humble herself and repent of her wrong and very changeable lifestyle, as other former “out and proud lesbians” have (e.g., Yvette Schneider and Charlene Cothran; see Charlene’s website HERE).

Pray that Ellen would find reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ and join the ranks of ex-lesbians. Her worldly, Hollywood star would surely fall following such a godly transformation, but she could then become a truly wholesome role model for American girls, which she is not now, despite her many talents. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org.


 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Pa. swim club accused of race bias sold at auction
Posted: 5/24/2010 9:37:26 AM

The club said they didn't expect that many kids - and members were accused of making the racist remarks


The racists at the club lied. As the previous poster pointed out, the correspondence between the camp and the club made it clear how many children would be going to the club.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 12 (view)
 
Christian Terrorist sentenced for involvement in mail bombing
Posted: 5/24/2010 9:35:13 AM

It's really simple, it isn't a professed affiliation or a professed entitlement that defines an act of terrorism, ...it's the act itself.


Funny, but the definition you quoted (which I agree is pretty good) to support your opinion disagrees with you. According to your own definition, ACTS like murder, property damage, etc are NOT terrorism UNLESS " the purpose of the conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act"

IOW, it's the intent of the act, not the act itself.


Christians aren't terrorists, neither are Muslims, ...though there are several state administrations that easily fall under the definition of the act of "terrorism".


Again, the definition you provided contradicts your opinion. According to that definition, terrorism is committed by "ANY PERSON" (emphasis mine). The very first two words of your definition say "any PERSON".

Since administrations are not a "person", state administrations cannot be terrorists
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 17 (view)
 
HBO'S The PACIFIC
Posted: 5/23/2010 12:39:45 PM

Actually no bush lover I was responding to the want to travels comments.


D'oh!

I see that I was very confused. My apologies
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 434 (view)
 
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/23/2010 8:47:54 AM


There are three different situations where searches can occur without probable cause. The first is general in nature and concerns the "interests of the government and the safety of the public". From an old case in Florida...


T]he ability to briefly stop [a suspect], ask questions, or check identification in the absence of probable cause promotes the strong government interest in solving crimes and bringing offenders to justice”); Hayes v. Florida


And again I will explain using small words - the issue is searching without probable cause, NOT asking for ID without PC. Asking for ID is not a search.

It's obvious that you will continue to talk about asking for ID and reasonable suspicion in order to avoid talking about unconstitutional searches w/o PC


Indeed, Florida v. Royer itself suggests that certain seizures are justifiable under the Fourth Amendment even in the absence of probable cause "if there is articulable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime."


And again I will explain using small words - the issue is searching without probable cause, NOT asking for ID without PC. Asking for ID is not a search.

It's obvious that you will continue to talk about asking for ID and reasonable suspicion in order to avoid talking about unconstitutional searches w/o PC


But what is for sure is that government issues and private safety are exceptions to your rule...


The safety exclusion has nothing to do with this. The safety exclusion is for Miranda.

During a Terry stop, which must be based on reasonable suspicion, the police can pat-down (AKA frisk) the person if the person may pose a danger to the officer or the public. This is not call the "safety exclusion". You just like repeating phrases you've heard on the boob tube, even if you don't understand what they mean

It's obvious that you will continue to talk about asking for ID and reasonable suspicion (and now Miranda) in order to avoid talking about unconstitutional searches w/o PC


Although the Fourth Amendment ordinarily requires the degree of probability embodied in the term probable cause, a lesser degree satisfies the Constitution when the balance of governmental and private interest makes such a standard reasonable.


Still not convinced?


Huh? Your quote doesn't say that probable cause isn't required for a search. It says NOTHING about searches. Once again, you fail to understand what you read


The probable cause is, of course, the same standard required to be met in the issuance of an arrest warrant, and must be satisfied by conditions existing prior to the policeman's stop, what is discovered thereafter not sufficing to establish retroactively reasonable cause. 7 There are, however, instances when a policeman's suspicions will have been aroused by someone's conduct or manner, but probable cause for placing such a person under arrest will be lacking.


Basically stop and frisk laws.


Once again, I will explain using small words. The issue isn't patdowns based on reasonable suspicion. The issue is unconstitutional searches (ie demanding proof of citizenship) without probable cause.


the Supreme Court has found certain “special needs” may render a search reasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes notwithstanding the want of a warrant or probable cause. The special needs standard has been invoked in drug testing cases and a comparable standard applied in highway check point cases. In such instances, “[w hen special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable cause requirement impractical. . . the reasonableness of a search [is determined] by balancing the nature of the intrusion on the individual’s privacy against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests,”


That's not really applicable to this law except those road blocks on hiways from Nogales to Tucson, but you get the drift.


Once again, I will explain using small words. The constitution does NOT require PC for "reasonable searches". The constitution DOES require PC for "UNreasonable searches".


You're wrong about always having to have probable cause to search, seize, detain, question or generally f' around suspected criminals. It's time you understood that and moved on.


You need to read the 4th Amend. It's pretty clear. And so far, you have yet to provide one example where someone was required to provide proof of citizenship without probable cause.


Think of it this way...the fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches, not reasonable searches.


WHich is why a demand for proof of citizenship requires PC. All you have done is show that a demand for ID, and pat-downs, and traffic stops do not require PC, even though no one has disputed this.

You are arguing with settled and agreed upon facts in order to hide the fact that you can't provide one example that demonstrates you are right.


I'm not sure why those standards of reasonable suspicion couldn't be applied to state law.


I will again explain using small words - The issue is NOT that reasonable suspicion cant be applied to state law. The issue is unreasonable searches without PC. The constitution forbids it.

Reasonable suspicion has been used in state courts for years. Why you think it hasn't defies logic.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 10 (view)
 
HBO'S The PACIFIC
Posted: 5/22/2010 5:34:23 PM

Seriously read a history book America did come late into the war and did not win it by itself without the Brits the Canadians Russians etc it was a group effort.So please don't insult the memory of my countrymen who gave all.


I'm wondering if you even read the post you're responding to. MontrealGuy (a hint that the poster is not an American) acknowledged that the US came into the war after other nations and that they did not fight alone when he said:


They may have stayed out for the first two years while the rest of the world fought it out, but once they joined the battle it was a major factor in ending the war quickly


So seriously, read what you're criticizing because it does not mean what you think it means.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 422 (view)
 
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/22/2010 11:43:57 AM

This may shock and dismay you, but you're wrong. Check US vs Arvisu...


Arvisu has nothing to do with whether proof of citizenship can be required on the basis of reasonable suspicion. Arvizu CONSENTED to the search.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=534&invol=266

. He approached the driver and learned that his name was Ralph Arvizu. Stoddard asked if respondent would mind if he looked inside and searched the vehicle. Id., at 43. Respondent agreed, and Stoddard discovered marijuana in a black duffel bag under the feet of the two children in the back seat.


The search of the car was not at issue in Arvizu because he consented to the search. It helps if you actually read the case


The ensuing complete search of the car in this particular case revealed a bunch of dope hidden in secret compartments. More from the same case...


You left out the part where Arvizu CONSENTED to the search


As I've said all along, arresting someone for any single factor isn't going to fly.


I guess you haven't noticed that this has nothing to do with searching without probable cause. It's just another excuse for you to talk about reasonable suspicion instead of talking about searches without probable cause which are unconstitutional. That's because you can't explain why it's OK to ignore the constitution


However, when all circumstances are taken into account, they add up to enough for a reasonable person to form a reasonable determination of probable cause or in reality, less than probable cause. And that's what this law stands on.


Yes, Arvisu was about allowing the "totality of the circumstances" to determine reasonable suspicion. So where does it say the police can require proof of citizenship witihout probable cause? (Answer: It doesn't. You're just using this as a distraction so you don't have to explain why it's OK to search someone without probable cause as the constitution requires)




What I'm saying is that the constitution does not allow anyone to be searched for proof of citizenship unless the police have probable cause. It says so right in the constitution.



So if you just don't think that less than probable cause is sufficient then read this regarding section 287 (g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act...




Section 287(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1357(a)(1):
"(a) Powers without warrant.
Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant -


Once again, you have failed to understand simple English as written. It says "without warrant' NOT "without probable cause"


Federal authorities are already allowed to search based on less than probable cause,


No they can't. That's you will continue to claim this is true, but you will never give an example of when it has actually happened without being ruled unconstitutional


arrest without warrant


We aren't talking about arrests without warrants. You're just using this as a distraction so you don't have to explain why it's OK to search someone without probable cause as the constitution requires)


and enforce existing laws with established boundaries for probable cause and for "slightly less than probable cause".


No they can't. That's you will continue to claim this is true, but you will never give an example of when it has actually happened without being ruled unconstitutional


I don't see why these federal laws can't exist at a state level.


Because of a little thing called the constitution. Maybe you've heard of it. Maybe not


. And I'm not advocating racism, profiling, bigottry


No, you're advocating ignoring the constitution
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Staten Island (NYC) GOP Nominates Bigamist Drunk for Congress Run
Posted: 5/21/2010 3:34:14 PM
Can the GOP sink any lower than a man who drives drunk and has TWO families?

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/05/staten_island_republicans_rema.html

Two top Republican lawmakers today declined to say whether they would back former GOP Rep. Vito Fossella if Fossella seeks his old House seat this year

The Staten Island GOP's executive committee rocked the borough political world last night by unexpectedly tabbing Fossella to run against Rep. Michael McMahon (D-Staten Island/Brooklyn) this fall.

When asked if Fossella would have his support, City Councilman James Oddo (R-Mid-Island/Brooklyn) said, "I can't answer that. I don't know."

Oddo said that Fossella left him a voicemail last night saying only that he wanted to talk to him....

...Fossella received the endorsement from the committee, which is packed with his family members and loyalists, even though he didn't come for an interview with the panel last night.

Ignizio called the selection process "unorthodox. It surprised a lot of people, including myself."
If Fossella runs, Ignizio said that he "ought to go before the executive committee and have an interview, to give the committee its rightful role in vetting his candidacy."

State Sen. Andrew Lanza (R-Staten Island), a close friend of Fossella's, last night said he agreed that Fossella was the "strongest" candidate the GOP could field against McMahon

Fossella was arrested for DUI (after being thrown out of a bar). His arrest led to the press discovering that he had a 2nd wife and child by her

http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=25&num=20473


When he was pulled over Fossella told police that he was visiting a sick daughter on Grimm Street when he was really visiting his former mistress and mother to his 'love-child'.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Christian Terrorist sentenced for involvement in mail bombing
Posted: 5/21/2010 3:15:37 PM
Funny how no one (but me) is calling this rightwing racial supremacist a terrorist.

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/05/19/white-supremacist-linked-to-mail-bombing-imprisoned/


A firearms and explosives expert suspected of involvement with two white supremacist brothers in the sending of a bomb to the office of a municipal diversity officer was sentenced to 6½ years in prison in Missouri on Tuesday.

Robert Joos Jr., an antigovernment zealot and pastor of a church of “apocalyptic Christians,” was convicted in January of being a felon in possession of firearms and a felon in possession of explosives. He had a prior conviction for unlawful use of a weapon.

Joos, 56, was indicted last year along with twin brothers Dennis and Daniel Mahon, following a lengthy investigation into the delivery of a mail bomb to the office of Scottsdale, Ariz., diversity officer Don Logan in 2004. Logan, who is black, needed extensive surgery for injuries to his hands and arms. His secretary suffered injuries to her face and eyes. The Mahons are awaiting trial.

Investigators began looking at Joos after phone records the morning of the bombing showed that the first telephone call that Dennis Mahon made after the attack was to a cell phone in Joos’ name. During the subsequent investigation, the brothers allegedly said that Joos’ 200-acre property in rural McDonald County, Mo., was used as a training facility for white supremacists.

Joos told undercover agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that he had caches of weapons, food and water in caves on his property where he would go to avoid capture or attack, authorities said. One undercover agent told Joos he was having trouble with “Kenites” — a word that is apparently used to denote Jews by some anti-Semitic Christian Identity pastors — and Joos mailed him instructions for making a homemade bomb, along with a detailed drawing, according to federal prosecutors. (Most Christian Identity adherents maintain that Eve had sex with Satan and produced a child, Cain, from whom Jews are descended.)

Five shotguns, five hunting rifles and five pistols were recovered from Joos’ property, along with more than 19,000 rounds of ammunition and bomb-making components such as fuses and blasting caps.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 417 (view)
 
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/21/2010 3:13:13 PM

And I'm saying, very slowly so that you can understand, probable cause exists when a cop uses reasonable judgment etc etc etc in determining someone status in the United States.


1) You have never said that before, so please don't pretend that you have

2) It is gobbledy-gook. "Reasonable suspicion" (reasonable judgement is a term you made up with no legal meaning) cannot determine someone's status; Only a search can, and that requires probable cause.

Reasonable suspicion gives a cop the authority to pat down someone to insure they are unarmed, but it does not give police the authority to do a complete search of their body and possessions.


Lots of cases have shown this to be valid in many many circumstances.


Name one


So when you say law abiding citizen, that citizen is still suspectded of a crime and has probably committed the crime if unable to prove otherwise


Wow! That is an extremely warped view of the legal system. You've turned it on it's head. In reality, the accused has absolutely no obligation to prove their innocence; the police and the prosecutors have to prove their guilt.


what you're really saying is that there is no such thing as illegal immigration. You're saying there is no constitutional way to be in the United States illegally so therefore there must not be any law.


What you say here has no relation reality or anything anyone has said. What I'm saying is that the constitution does not allow anyone to be searched for proof of citizenship unless the police have probable cause. It says so right in the constitution.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 412 (view)
 
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/21/2010 6:04:05 AM

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6848672&page=1

Phoenix AZ becomes Kidnapping Capitol.


Same source says crime in AZ is declining

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/illegal-immigration-fact-check-mayhem-us-mexico-border/story?id=10690707


But while several violent high-profile incidents in the Tucson, Arizona, sector have gained national attention and colored political rhetoric, an ABC News analysis of immigration and crime data, combined with interviews with law enforcement officials, shows something very different -- that violence and crime on the U.S. side of the 2,000-mile border with Mexico are generally on the decline.

By numbers alone, the border region appears, as Department of Homeland Security Secretary and former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano put it, is as "secure now as it has ever been."

More than 646 miles of the border are protected by fence, according to Customs and Border Protection.

More than 20,000 border patrol agents serve on the front lines -- an 80 percent increase over 2004 and the largest number in history.

The number of illegal immigrants apprehended along the border, which CBP uses to gauge the flow of migrants, is down nearly 55 percent from 2005. The agency captured 540,865 last year.


OMGWTF



The constitution allows the police to stop and question people (within limits) if they have reasonable suspicion. The constitution DOES NOT allow the police to search someone for proof of citizenship on the basis of reasonable suspicion.


I really doubt that's true.


Which do you doubt? You've already agreed that cops can stop and question people if they have reasonable suspicion. And you've agreed that the constitution prohibits unconstitutional searches and seizures without probable cause (or a warrant)

Since you've already agreed to both points, why are you flip flopping now?


Some states have stop and identify laws. It seems like they are different in every state.


Pay attention. As has been stated numerous times, by numerous posters, SCOTUS has ruled that a cop can ask for ID if the cop has reasonable suspicion. While the laws in various states do differ in some details EVERY SINGLE STATE requires reasonable suspicion in order to stop and question someone. This too has been stated numerous times by numerous people. It has been either implied or explicitely stated every time someone has mentioned Terry stops


So it's not totally unconstitutional for cops to arrest someone for being unidentifiable


I repeat this slowly and use only small words in the hopes you will understand it the third time it's said:

The power of the cops to arrest someone who cannot identify themselves is not in dispute. The constitution allows this.

The issue is whether the cops can demand law abiding citizens to provide proof of their citizenship without probable cause, which the Constitution requires.


There are lots of supreme court cases to cite on this


And they are all irrelevant because no one, absolutely no one, is disputing the polices' power to arrest people who refuse to identify themselves.

You just want to talk about this so that you can avoid talking about the real issue because you know you have no justification for ignoring the constitution
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 398 (view)
 
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/20/2010 8:14:42 AM

What if the suspect can't give answers to the reasonable questions a cop asks? What then? The cops walks away?


Irrelevant. This is just you trying to distract attention away from the issue of unconstitutional searches (not questions) without probable cause


Or is there a point in time when reasonable suspicion turns to probable cause? If there isn't, if a suspect can give all the wrong answers and the cop has no choice but to walk away, then your point is idiotic.


Again, this is just another attempt to distract attention away from the constititional issue of unreasonable searches.

I will repeat, searches backed by probable cause are constitutional. This law requires searches that are NOT backed by probable cause, which is unconstitutional.


You keep saying "absence of probable cause". At some point in an investigation, reasonable suspicion turns to probable cause or it doesn't.


Again, the AZ law does not require probable cause, so asking "What if there is probable cause" is irrelevant to the constitutionality of this law.


There was no reason to stop the guy in the first place! They didn't have any lawful reason to stop him which is exactly what the AZ laws upholds. There must be a lawful reason other than immigration to stop someone, there must be reasonable suspicion to ask the questions, and there must be probable cause to arrest


And again, I will spell it out for you using small words.

The constitution allows the police to stop and question people (within limits) if they have reasonable suspicion. The constitution DOES NOT allow the police to search someone for proof of citizenship on the basis of reasonable suspicion.

Brown v. State of Texas does not say that the police can search people if they have reasonable suspicion they have been involved in a crime; It says that reasonable suspicion must be based on objective facts, and not a police officers' hunch.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 396 (view)
 
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/20/2010 7:40:59 AM
Yeah, that really is dumb of me. I thought they just invented the supreme court.


No comment


I said the az immigration law is three weeks old! Not scotus.


I guess you will not understand the inanity of your question unless I spell it out for you using small words. And even then...but here goes

I said that SCOTUS had already ruled on whether or not some of the things you listed (ex no job, no home, etc) could be used to determine reasonable suspicion. You didn't believe that SCOTUS could have ruled on these issues of reasonable suspicion because this law is only three weeks old.

Your point is inane because it assumes that this three week old AZ law is the first time that SCOTUS has ruled on reasonable suspicion even though this thread has referenced SCOTUS rulings on reasonable suspicion that go back years (ex Brown v State of Texas - even you know about this case, which defines reasonable suspicion)


That case proves my point even more. The cops in that case had no reason at all to stop the guy and arrested him only because he didn't identify himself


No, it proves nothing because I am not contesting the polices' authority to question someone based on reasonable suspicion. There is no constitutional issue with a police officer stopping someone and asking them a few general questions (see prior post for some examples) including their name and address if they have reasonable suspicion.

The issue is the Constitution prohibits the police from requiring citizens to provide proof of citizenship in the absence of probable cause, an issue you continously avoid by ignoring the Constitutions' requirement that intrusive searches be supported by probable cause. Under the Constitution, such searches are unconstitutional when supported only by reasonable suspicion
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 394 (view)
 
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/20/2010 5:24:06 AM



I think that there are many many many circumstances that would raise probable cause; no id (99% of people stopped by cops have id), no job, no address, no relatives in country, no record of border crossing,



Regardless of what YOU think, SCOTUS has already ruled that none of those can be used to show probable cause.



So in the three weeks since this law was signed, scotus has already ruled these specific things are out? Amazing.


Boy, you might just be the only person in the US who think SCOTUS has been around for only three weeks. That is amazing!!


I'd love to see some evidence of this.


Brown v State of Texas


All I've found are actual supreme court definitions of probable cause.


I'm certainly not going to dispute your claim of ignorance regarding the law.


From what I've read, based on their personal believe that anyone approached may be an illegal alien based on his/her knowledge of atypical activities, locations, behaviors, where experience provides the police with reasonable suspicion that a person may be illegal, any cop is allowed to inquire and pursue that suspicion until satisfied.


First, you claim that SCOTUS has only been around for three weeks. Now, after quoting a case that says probable cause is needed for a search, you turn around and contradict yourself by claiming that reasonable suspicion is all that is needed.

Reaonable suspicion is not sufficient for a search and for anything more than a "minimally intrusive" stop. Reasonable suspicion does not allow a police officer to detain someone until the PO is satisfied. The constitution requires probable cause for that, a point you have assidously avoided responding to because you don't want to admit that you don't care what the constitution says




Under this new AZ law, DLs may or MAY NOT be sufficient to prove citizenship depending on which state issued the DL. So your claim that DL is sufficient is FALSE.



DL's require proof of citizenship in 46 states. So you're 8% correct in your claim.


You read about probable cause, and it's obvious you didn't understand what you read. Then you read my claim that a DL "MAY NOT" be sufficient, and misunderstood that.

I was 100% correct. A DL MAY NOT be sufficient. The law makes that clear. Too bad you don't understand what you read.

SaharaM



This note includes several very fundamental inaccuracies.

1) Terry stops are not limited to the basic questions that you outlined (maybe they were just examples?) But just to be clear, they are good examples but there is no articulated list of what may be asked. The basic boundaries are covered in those examples, though.

2) Terry stops include patdowns (frisks.) Those are obviously searches (patting down of the outer clothing). This is permitted for officer safety. Terry stops are often called "stop and frisks." When there is no frisk it's not considered a Terry stop.

3) There is a standard for this, and it is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is currently being committed, or is about to be committed. I believe this standard is found in Brown v. Texas.


1) Yes, they were examples. You are right to say that there no set list of questions permissable during a Terry stop

2) Terry stops do not necesarily include a patdown. Stopping someone on the basis of reasonable suspicion is all that is required for it to be a Terry stop. If the responses to the PO's question satisfies the officer that the person questioned is not armed, then no patdown is necessary and it's still considered a Terry stop

3) Basically true. but you left something out - The person being subjected to a Terry stop need not be suspected of having (or about to) committed a crime; They could also be suspected of being a witness.

Regarding your next post


Isn't it worth noting here that stopping a motor vehicle, while not considered a search, is considered a seizure?


No, because I have no problem with a Terry stop. IMO, it raises no constitutional issues, so why should voice any opposition to Terry stops. It's the unreasonable search for proof of citzenship when there is no probable cause that raises a constitutional issue, so that's what I've focused on


Requiring identification is considered a detention (i.e. seizure of person.) The issue under the Fourth Amendment is one of reasonableness.


No it's not. How can a question be considered a seizure. The seizure only happens if the respondent fails to answer the question. Then, the person is taken into custody (ie seizure)



Asking basic questions is considered a "Perry stop", which the Constitution allows without a warrant or probable cause.

No, it's not. See the above post about Terry stops (with a "T").


Yes, it is. See above (and yes, it's with a T)


Yeah. They made this clear by holding that the stop is a seizure. I'm beginning to think that your omissions of certain words/facts is less oversight and more manipulative. I hope that's not the case.


I've explained why I have no problem with Terry stops. Your accusation is beneath you.


Eh. One more time. All together now. In this case it is a seizure without probable cause. Which is fine, as long as it is reasonable.


One more time, Terry stops are constitutional, and are not an issue here. SCOTUS has already ruled that Terry stops are minimally intrusive and therefore are not unreasonable searches and not unreasonable seizures.

Requiring citizens to prove TO A POLICE OFFICER (trials are supposed to happen in court rooms, not the side of the road) that they are not committing a crime when there is no probable cause is unconstitutional.

The issue is the unreasonable demand for an innocent citizen to produce proof of citizenship in the absence of probable cause. The Constitution forbids this.


When talking about officer action relative to the Fourth Amendment, it's manipulative to discuss "search and seizure" but to omit one of the terms when it applies, simply so you can focus on what the action is not. A great example of this is the first statement quoted in this post. C'mon now


You c'mon now. Please explain why I should discuss reasonable seizures when I have no issue with them whatsoever?
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Last Friday i deleted my Facebook profile....
Posted: 5/19/2010 6:27:42 AM
The owner of Facebook started the site with a bunch of his friends. He ended up owning the site because he screwed his buddies. When asked about it he said his friends were fools for trusting. Now, after promising privacy to his clients, he is now reneging on that promise and selling people personal info.

Anyone who does business with a man who admits only a fool would trust him, gets what they deserve
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 379 (view)
 
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/19/2010 6:09:03 AM

The law is also quite clear that requiring that someone produce proof that they're not committing a crime is considered a search and detainment, both of which are unconstitutional unless accompanied by either a warrant or probable cause.


Not quite true. Take police license/registration or sobriety checkpoint for example. No warrants are issued and no probable cause exists until there is detainment. If probable cause ensues after the detainment, e.g. open containers, smell of alcohol, dilated pupils, etc. the police can legally make the arrest. See Michigan v. Sitz, for example.


Once again, you are confused

Stopping a motor vehicle is not considered a search because nothing is searched by merely stopping a car. Asking some basic question (ex identification, where you're going, etc) is also not considered a search or a detainment. Asking basic questions is considered a "Perry stop", which the Constitution allows without a warrant or probable cause.

In the case you mention, Michigan v Sitz, SCOTUS made clear that merely stopping a car and asking basic questions does not constitute a search. Your claim that the police at sobriety checkpoints can search people without probable cause is false.

OMG


Okay then. But this is about AZ. For this thread and what everybody else is talking about here and what we've been talking about for the last 16 pages, a DL is one of the things that's acceptable as proof of citizenship in AZ.; not "papers, not a trunk full of commissioned affidavits stamped by the Fuhrer, just a DL.


It seems that the supporters of this bill can't get anything write when it comes to the law and the constitution. Under this new AZ law, DLs may or MAY NOT be sufficient to prove citizenship depending on which state issued the DL. So your claim that DL is sufficient is FALSE.



The law is also quite clear that requiring that someone produce proof that they're not committing a crime is considered a search and detainment, both of which are unconstitutional unless accompanied by either a warrant or probable cause. Supporters of this bill will continue to dance around these constitutional fact because there's just no explaining why some want to disregard the constitution and it's requirement for probable cause.




Reasonable suspicion is required to ask the question in the first place, (not unusual or unprecedented in American Law).


Wrong. Police perform "Terry Stops" all the time. With Perry Stops, the police stop someone and ask them some basic questions (Who they are (does not require proof), where they live, where they are going, where they came from, and what they are doing in the area). SCOTUS has ruled that Perry Stops do not require ANY warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion.


I think that there are many many many circumstances that would raise probable cause; no id (99% of people stopped by cops have id), no job, no address, no relatives in country, no record of border crossing,


Regardless of what YOU think, SCOTUS has already ruled that none of those can be used to show probable cause.


contrary answers to questioning, no knowledge of surroundings or circumstances, and on and on. What is a fact is that the arrest can't be made on a hunch, must be concrete in nature, and can't be made based on race.


Congratulations!! You finally responded with a statement that is actually true!!!

 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 73 (view)
 
PROHIBITION
Posted: 5/18/2010 11:40:37 AM

I wasn't going to reply to this thread since I know its just going to be a useless arguement with those being for drug use not thinking things all of the way through. I will however addess this. You're right about the economic effects that would take place if prisons were to be shut down. When prisons are shut down, not only are the officers out of work, but now you have nurses, doctors, maintenance workers, contractors who install/maintain any speciality equipment, uniform companines, food venders, etc that will all take a hit. People also don't realize how big corrections is in some communities and the effects it would have to have correctional facilities shut down.


You used a lot of words just to say "Please don't stop the welfare checks for useless govt workers who can't get a real job"

Hmmmm, using a lot of words where a few will do....I bet you work for the govt!!!
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Pa. swim club accused of race bias sold at auction
Posted: 5/18/2010 11:36:21 AM

Now someone else will get to run the club in a non-bigoted way. The new owners will earn some nice profits because racists are too stupid to run a business properly.



What if the new owners are bigots too?


Thanks for admitting that the previous owners were bigots
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 371 (view)
 
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/18/2010 11:33:40 AM

Nobushlover suggested there is a difference between providing ID and providing proof of citizenship indicating he
was confused on what the actual law requires. It requires a driver's license, not the spookier sounding "papers".


I'm not the one who is confused here.

For one thing, depending on the state (laws differ) "ID" can be as simple as telling the officer your name and address, which is why asking for "identification" is NOT a considered a search under the Constitution. So your claim that ID "requires a drivers license" is not true. In fact, no state requires a DL in order to identify someone. No state requires any document in order to identify someone. (It shouldn't need to be pointed out, but given the sincerity of some posters, I'll point out that DL's can used for ID, but they're not required)

The law is also quite clear that requiring that someone produce proof that they're not committing a crime is considered a search and detainment, both of which are unconstitutional unless accompanied by either a warrant or probable cause. Supporters of this bill will continue to dance around these constitutional fact because there's just no explaining why some want to disregard the constitution and it's requirement for probable cause.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Red Families V. Blue Families
Posted: 5/18/2010 11:31:43 AM
^^No hatred. Just pointing out how everything you've said about Catholics is wrong.


First, I am aware that the catholic abortion rate is SLIGHTLY higher than protestant. It is still lower than average


Umm, no it's not. This is just another of those fake claims you have made repeatedly

[wuote]I have checked your websites and none of them say that the majority of catholics use birth control or believe in abortion. Your 75% comes from one source, does not say how they came to that conclusion and does not say that they use birth control - only that they believe it should be allowed

Another false claim. If you really had checked the Guttmacher website, you would have found the following link
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=richard_fehring

The above link is to a study showing that Catholics use BC more frequently than the average. The difference between non-Catholics who use "Natural Family Planning" methods (ie no contraceptive devices or medication) and Catholics who use NFP is 0.2%

I think it's time to remind you that your original claim was that the practices of of Catholics regarding birth control, abortion, etc was so different from other groups thast it would skew the average. So far, you have yet to post one single factual difference. Despite the absence of any documented factual information to support your claims, you continue to insist you are right, even though I have proven that you are wrong.


Yes, more than half believe that the church should allow birth control. That does not mean they go against the church to use it. Some do, but it is still significantly less than the rest of the population


This is just another baseless claim of yours. As the link I just posted proves, Catholics use birth control just as often (and in some cases more often) as the rest of the country


As for our kids, how do you know what they ignore?


The teenage pregnancy rate. Using documented facts is a method that is far superior at discerning the truth than assuming facts.


My daughter was extremely upset when I tried to discuss birth control with her. She feels it is a serious sin as do most of her friends. She brings up abortion repeatedly in term papers, speech class, anyplace she might be able to persuade someone not to murder (her words) an innocent child.


What does your daughter have to do with this? Do you really think your daughter speaks for all Catholic children?


I think maybe you prefer your own prejudgement to the facts. I will give up on this thread and move on to one with a little less hatred.


I have yet to see you post any facts aside from what your daughter believes, and other irrelevancies. The only prejudgements made in this thread are the ones you made about Catholics, and those have been proven to be completely wrong.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 7 (view)
 
Pa. swim club accused of race bias sold at auction
Posted: 5/17/2010 11:18:51 AM

Wasn't it having financial difficulties since before the lawsuit?


Only in your imagination.


Isn't that why someone agreed to let day campers into the pool in the first place? For revenue?


Spoken like someone who has never had the responsibility of running a succesful business. Any succesful businessperson can tell you why they accepted NEW CLIENTS!! It's not rocket science.


Based on what is in the OP it seems like more of a lesson to racially segregate and discriminate. If you don't, you will lose your customers (or not get any) and not make any money, and go out of business. If you give your customers what they want but slip, you will get sued and go out of business.
So the lesson seems to be to racially discriminate, but never slip and allow any kind of desegregation. And never ever ever let kids near a pool.


Umm, they went out of business because they discriminated. If they hadnt discriminated, they would still be in business

Before they started discriminating, they were making money. Once they starting being racists, they lost their shirts.

Now someone else will get to run the club in a non-bigoted way. The new owners will earn some nice profits because racists are too stupid to run a business properly.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 47 (view)
 
Kagan for Supreme Court???? Another Proof, Obama Totally Lost It.
Posted: 5/17/2010 11:12:37 AM

If you go through the credentials of previous SC judges, you'll notice they all
have at least one of the two important qualifications. They either excelled in academia,proven
by publications of scholarly research papers, or they had mountains of experiences in
US court systems. For the latter case, Sotomayer comes to my mind, she didn't have
publications, but that was compensated by over 500 court cases she presided over.


William Rehnquist had neither of those qualifications when he was nominated for the Supreme Court
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 353 (view)
 
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/17/2010 11:07:55 AM

All of the practical reasons to carry ID are irrelevant. I don't understand why this horse continues to be beaten.


That's because the conservative supporters of this bill are ignoring the difference between "ID" and "proof of citizenship" with as much determination as they are ignoring the Constitutions' prohibition on searches without probable cause
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Red Families V. Blue Families
Posted: 5/17/2010 10:54:58 AM

If the majority of Catholics are using birth control, they are really bad at it.


There's no "if" about it. Catholics ARE using BC.


Even most of the Catholics who do use birth control don't tell their kids that


And you know this....how?


The kids in the church are being taught that they should not use birth control


And they IGNORE what the church teaches them about BC. 75% of ALL catholics disagree with the church.


and they have fairly low rates of abortion


Catholics have more abortions than Protestants

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Catholic/2001/01/The-Catholic-Abortion-Paradox.aspx
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_catholic_women_get_abortions_more_frequently.html
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3422602.pdf


I'm not saying they are better or worse than anyone else


Well, thank god you can say something that isn't 100% wrong


I just think that a group like this skews the red vs blue statistics and makes some of the reasoning used invalid.


That's because you have gotten all of the facts wrong. Catholics do not believe it is sinful to use birth control, including abortion. Catholics do talk to their children about birth control, including abortion. Catholics do use birth control, including abortion, more frequently than just about any other group. And Catholics do NOT, in any way, "skew the statistics". The only invalid reasoning is reasoning that prefers ones' own prejudgments to the facts.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 19 (view)
 
Gaming the System
Posted: 5/15/2010 1:34:48 PM
The solution is to raise the minimum wage which will make work more attractive.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 326 (view)
 
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/15/2010 1:03:09 PM

I would recommend to you to set up back yard amnesty at your house


I would recommend you read the Constitution where it says that citizens can not be searched without probable cause.

No matter how many times I ask, the conservative supporters of this bill cannot explain why it's OK to ignore the constitutions' prohibition of searches without probable cause.

And you have failed just as miserably. No matter how smart you think this law is, you just can't admit that you are ignoring the constitution conservatives hypocritically claim to respect.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Pa. swim club accused of race bias sold at auction
Posted: 5/15/2010 12:58:01 PM

now , nobody gets to swim.


Umm,


The Huntingdon Valley-based Valley Club was sold for $1.46 million Thursday


I have to wonder what logic you used to assume that the new owners will just let the pool sit there unused. (Hint: The new owners have said they are going to do something remarkable with the club - they're going to open a club!!!!)


Ahh , everybody loses , just another day in LA-LA land !


I think that's a splendid name for your delusion. You think that the pool is now closed and won't be used. In reality, the pool and the club will be run by new, non-racist, owners.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Pa. swim club accused of race bias sold at auction
Posted: 5/15/2010 12:11:19 PM
I remember this incident got a lot of attention of POF when it first happened

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iLSkiD_HEJq_JPFUxVKAdRWZjnpAD9FMBEB81


Pa. swim club accused of race bias sold at auction
PHILADELPHIA — A private suburban Philadelphia swim club accused of racial discrimination has been sold at a bankruptcy auction.

The Huntingdon Valley-based Valley Club was sold for $1.46 million Thursday. The club had filed for bankruptcy in November following discrimination lawsuits and a critical state report.

The gated club sits on a leafy hillside in a village straddling two overwhelmingly white townships. Last summer it revoked the memberships of 56 mostly black and Hispanic day campers, saying there were too many children and many couldn't swim. It said the decision was made out of safety considerations and race had nothing to do with it.

The club's bankruptcy trustee says once the sale is cleared by the court the money will be parceled out to the claimants.


This turn of events was predictable once they had been proven to have engaged in racist discrimination

http://www.todaysdrum.com/8376/state-rules-valley-club-pool-discriminated-by-banning-campers/

State rules Valley Club pool discriminated by banning campers

A state investigation found that the Valley Club racially discriminated against 56 African-American and Hispanic children in June when it revoked an agreement to allow the Creative Steps Inc. day camp to use its pool.

In a 33-page report released this evening by lawyers for the Creative Steps campers who have sued the Huntingdon Valley club, the Human Relations Commission found that “the racial animus . . . and the racially-coded comments” by club members were the reason the club revoked Creative Steps’ contract.

The children had reported hearing racial comments after they arrived at the club June 29, and the state report notes that the club has no African-Americans among its 334 members. The camp is based in Northeast Philadelphia.

The Human Relations Commission ordered the club to pay a $50,000 civil penalty and reimburse all of Creative Steps’ expenses. The report also says Valley Club’s members should receive racial-discrimination education.



I say "Good!! Let this be a lesson to anyone else who want to racially discriminate"
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 11 (view)
 
Red Families V. Blue Families
Posted: 5/15/2010 12:00:05 PM
^^I'm not sure where you got the idea that Catholics use less BC than most.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/22678.php


A large majority of Roman Catholics in the United States, Europe and developing nations largely ignore the church's teaching banning the use of artificial birth control, the... Baltimore Sun reports....

more than 75% of U.S. Catholics believe the church should allow the use of contraception, according to a recent Gallup poll (Roylance, Baltimore Sun, 4/10). Because U.S. Catholics tend to abide by the values they consider most important and "quietly ignor[e]" church teachings with which they disagree, many U.S. Catholics use birth control regularly, the New York Times reports
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 316 (view)
 
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/14/2010 7:21:43 AM
I suppose if the majority of the population were exactly the same age, then perhaps the majority would be old at a set point in time. But the total population is a variety of different ages. Even without any immigrants coming into the country, it would still have a steady growth, increasing the population. With old people being replaced by the younger generation.


You just made that up

In order to maintain a zero population growth, a nation must maintain a fertility rate of 2.1 children per female. The fertility rate of the US is between 2.0 and 2.1 and that includes immigrants (both legal and illegal) who have a higher avg fertility rate than american born women. Without the immigrants, there is no doubt (amongst those for whom the facts matter) that the population of the US would decline.

And I see that none of the bills supporters are able to explain why it's OK to ignore the Constitutional prohibition on searches without probable cause. However, I have noticed that some supporters don't even know what the Constitution says, and have confused it with other documents they haven't read
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 64 (view)
 
Take back control of our taxes
Posted: 5/12/2010 1:53:58 PM
^^Any conclusions about the ability to distribute wealth will be faulty if it does not include data on how much the employees make, how the employees spend their money, how the company (large or small) distributes its' profits (ex dividends, raises for employees, etc), how the companies invest their money, etc

A businesses' economic impact and its' ability to distribute wealth involves much more than how many there are and how many they employ.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 48 (view)
 
acts of violence vs. civil disobedience
Posted: 5/12/2010 1:47:51 PM

Although Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as United States minister when the Federal Constitution was written in 1787


Like I said; TJ wasn't around when the Constitution was written


he was able to influence the development of the federal government through his correspondence


Notice how this claim is completely unsubstantiated. For all their bluster, the Jefferson fan club still can't point to one thing in the Consitution that originated with TJ


Later his actions as the first secretary of state, vice president, leader of the first political opposition party, and third president of the United States were crucial in shaping the look of the nation's capital and defining the powers of the Constitution and the nature of the emerging republic.


These all occurred AFTER the constitution was written. I don't know what kind of bizarre logic makes you think TJ helped write the Constitution AFTER the Constitution was already written.

And while President, TJ did the exact opposite of what he preached - Instead of acting as if the govts power were limited by the Constitution (TJ was a strict constructionist), TJ took actions that even he admitted the constitution did not allow (ex Louisiana Purchase, his Indian removal policies, etc)
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 294 (view)
 
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/11/2010 6:15:38 PM

It's not so simple to separate the two. Reasonable suspicion certainly comes into play when considering how this law will be applied.


I'm not sure why you would say that. The two phrases have been defined by the Supreme Court in numerous cases. To oversimplify a bit, the difference is that probable cause requires the reasonable belief that the person being searched (or siezed) has committed a crime while reasonable suspicion is the reasonable belief that someone has or will be INVOLVED in a crime. In other words, witnesses are subject to reasonable suspicion, so the constitution allows the police to ask them to identify themselves (though they can not force anyone to answer any questions), but the constitution does not allow the police to seize (ie arrest them or confiscate their property) or search witnesses who did not commit any crime


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 47 (view)
 
acts of violence vs. civil disobedience
Posted: 5/11/2010 4:03:06 PM


Jefferson and his ideas had no influence on the Constitution.


WTF ??
I would recommend a little less "Heather has two mommies" , and a little more History.


Umm, Jefferson was in France while the Constitution was being written. He had no influence on its' drafting. Anyone who knows history knows that when the constitution was being written, Jefferson was far, far, away

That's why you can't identify one single idea that Jefferson contributed to the Constitution.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 290 (view)
 
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/11/2010 3:59:41 PM

Once again, read the law or any other law for that matter, and understand that reasonable suspicion is all that is required for a limited search of anyone such as asking for ID


ANd once again, the supporters demonstrate their inability to explain why it's OK to conduct a search (not merely asking for ID) without probable cause, which the Constitution requires

Instead, they want to distract attention from their disregard for the constitution by talking about Terry stops, which are not searches, anad reasonable suspicion, which is not probable cause.

And you can tell that the supporters argument is false because he is arguing that this law changes nothing. If that were true, then the law would be unnecessary.


If you want, just point out the part where it says cops can search someone without any reason.


The Constitution say "probable cause" is needed to justify a search, not reasonable suspicion. Since the constitution requires probable cause, why do you think reasonable suspicion is constitutional?

And please stop with the Terry stop BS. Asking for ID is not considered a search, so it doesn't require probable cause. Asking for proof of citizenship (or other documents proving your in the country legally) is considered a search and requires probable cause.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Red Families V. Blue Families
Posted: 5/11/2010 3:50:22 PM
Here's an idea

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/st_20100501_5904.php


: In red America, families form adults; in blue America, adults form families.

For generations, American family life was premised on two facts. First, sex makes babies. Second, low-skilled men, if they apply themselves, can expect to get a job, make a living, and support a family.

Fact 1 gave rise to a strong linkage between sexual activity, marriage, and procreation. It was (and still is) difficult for teenagers and young adults to abstain from sex, so one important norm was not to have sex before marriage. If you did have premarital sex and conceived a child, you had to marry.

Under those rules, families formed early, whether by choice or at the point of a shotgun. That was all right, however, because (Fact 2) the man could get a job and support the family, so the woman could probably stay home and raise the kids. Neither member of the couple had to have an extended education in order to succeed as spouse or parent.

True, young people often make poor marital choices. But that, too, was usually all right, at least from society's point of view, because divorce was stigmatized and fairly hard to get. Even a flawed marriage was likely to be a stable one. Over time, the spouses would grow into their responsibilities.

That is what "families form adults" means. Many teenagers and young adults formed families before they reached maturity and then came to maturity precisely by shouldering family responsibilities. Immature choices and what were once euphemistically called "accidents" were a fact of life, but the unity of sex, marriage, and procreation, combined with the pressure not to divorce, turned childish errors into adult vocations.

But then along come two game-changers: the global information economy and the birth-control revolution. The postindustrial economy puts a premium on skill and cognitive ability. A high school education or less no longer offers very good prospects. Blue-collar wages fall, so a factory job no longer cuts it -- if, that is, you can even find a factory job.

Meanwhile, birth control separates decisions about sex from decisions about parenthood, and the advent of effective female contraception lets men shift the moral responsibility for pregnancy to women, eroding the shotgun marriage. Divorce becomes easy to obtain and sheds its stigma. Women stream into the workforce and become more economically independent -- a good thing, but with the side effect of contributing to a much higher divorce rate.

In this very different world, early family formation is often a calamity. It short-circuits skill acquisition by knocking one or both parents out of school. It carries a high penalty for immature marital judgment in the form of likely divorce. It leaves many young mothers, now bearing both the children and the cultural responsibility for pregnancy, without the option of ever marrying at all.

New norms arise for this environment, norms geared to prevent premature family formation. The new paradigm prizes responsible childbearing and child-rearing far above the traditional linkage of sex, marriage, and procreation. Instead of emphasizing abstinence until marriage, it enjoins: Don't form a family until after you have finished your education and are equipped for responsibility. In other words, adults form families. Family life marks the end of the transition to adulthood, not the beginning
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 58 (view)
 
Take back control of our taxes
Posted: 5/10/2010 8:08:11 AM
Does it make any difference that neither Carrington Automotive nor the so called owner that wrote this email don't exist? Because they don't.


Actually, NO!
If you had not been inebriated, either by 'shrooms, or the opiates distributed by the current democrat party, you would have understood that the story about Carrington Auto was a modern parable, a tale of our times, and the effect that current idiotic policies will have and should have on the employers and employees of this nation. the author of the piece, if I am correct, was none other than Neal Boortz.


In other words, the facts don't matter; It must be true because you like the way it sounds, even if you admit that it's a big lie.


Myself, my partners, and other small business owners all over this nation are feeling exactly the same way


Wrong again. Small business owners are the source of most jobs and most of the wealth creation of this nation. Small business owners all over the nation are doing great. If you're not, it's because you're not very good at your business and just using Obama to blame for your own poor performance

Here's why our taxes are so high:
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0509/gop-rep-fallin-sends-mailer-complaining-government-spending-paid-taxpayers/


Oklahoma Republican used taxpayer dollars to blast government spending

By Stephen C. Webster
Sunday, May 9th, 2010 -- 7:51 pm

In a piece of very campaign-like literature recently mailed by Rep. Mary Faillin (R-OK), complaints of wasteful government spending abound.

The message would seem sincere, were it not for a block of small text noting that the congresswoman paid for the mailer with taxpayer funds.

On the document, which declares that the congresswoman wants to "reduce the tax burden on all Americans," Rep. Fallin touts her conservative credits by noting she voted against the "government regulation of health care," the stimulus, the "potential job-killing" cap and trade measures and the president's entire 2010 budget.

On the front of her full-color, professionally designed placard, printed in small, thin text, a message reads: "This mailing was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense."


And spending taxpayer money to complain about how the govt spends the taxpayers money is not the only way that Fallin wastes taxpayer money


While she has indeed voted against a variety of government spending since President Obama took office, Rep. Fallin's mailer does not mention her support of taxpayer dollars for the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network, a national parks service based in the waters between Virginia and Maryland. On this item, she even broke with Republicans, moving ahead to authorize the stunningly vague "such sums as are necessary". Rep. Fallin's own party cited Congressional Budget Office figures estimating the funds wound top $1 million annually, although the gateways saw federal dollars at some $3 million a year from 1998-2002.

Nor does Rep. Fallin's mailer mention that her largest campaign donor is Chesapeake Energy, a natural gas company based in Oklahoma City, followed in her top 10 most generous contributors by groups like The American Bankers Association, BP Capital, the National Beer Wholesalers Association and Anadarko Petroleum.

"[Just] like her "no" vote on the Stimulus and taking credit for the projects in Oklahoma later on - Fallin is trying to have it both ways... again," DailyKos blogger SamsonWH opined. "She wants the photo-op she just doesn't want to spend the money, she wants to cut spending but still wants to spend, she wants to call on Congress and the White House to enact her agenda but she's leaving the House to run for Governor. She's like one of those 2 and 3 year old kids who want something when they want it and how they want it and by golly NOW."

 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 131 (view)
 
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/10/2010 8:02:56 AM
The people who want to draw mohammed are nothing but wussy pantywaists who want to act tough without leaving their mommies basement. They know that they're nothing more than weak and cowardly failures, and in their mind, drawing a picture will make them feel tough.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 254 (view)
 
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/10/2010 8:00:02 AM

"Larger problems" like refusing to be forced to provide proof of natural born status 'on demand'...?


It's pretty easy to go to jail if you really want to.


I see that the rightwing supporters of this bill are still unable to explain why it's OK to ignore the constitution and allow searches without probable cause. It seems all they have is slogans and silly quips
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 20 (view)
 
medical care. could anybody explain?
Posted: 5/10/2010 7:57:45 AM

its the same reason that when you take your car to a body shop and they ask if you have insurance or will pay cash. Insurance price is always higher than cash.


Not true. In the US, the insurers negotiate with doctors and hospitals for lower rates. Peopl with no insurance pay more than people with insurance
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 12 (view)
 
Give 'em(GOP) hell Harry
Posted: 5/10/2010 7:52:34 AM

HR 1424 is the bill that gave us TARP. It wasn't written by the Bush administration.


Sure it was. Paulson and others in the bush admin wrote it and submitted it to congress


It was overwhelmingly supported by Democrats (96% of Democrats in Congress voted for it) and strongly opposed by Republicans (only one third of Congressional Republicans voted for it).


Again, nothing you have said does anything to refute my accurate claim that it was passed under bush and bush signed it. And it wouldn't have passed without republican votes and the signature of the republican president. You just can't acknowledge the facts.


The only thing you're right about is that Bush signed it, but I never said you were wrong about that.


You said that it was "Obama and the democrats" who passed the bill. Your own words prove that you are wrong. Even you admit that the bill couldn't be passed with just democratic votes (the dems didn't have the votes) and the signature of a republican president.


This was a Democratic bill supported by Obama, just as I said it was.


Nope. It was a bipartisan bill written by the bush administration and signed by bush.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 46 (view)
 
acts of violence vs. civil disobedience
Posted: 5/10/2010 7:46:11 AM

I didn't say he actually wrote it. Go back and read what I wrote.


Here is what you wrote:


by founding a country based on what people like Thomas Jefferson thought the social structure ought to be


And again, Jefferson and his ideas had no influence on the Constitution.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 42 (view)
 
acts of violence vs. civil disobedience
Posted: 5/8/2010 7:22:30 AM

It really was motivated by real events that resulted in the desire to change the existing social structure by founding a country based on what people like Thomas Jefferson thought the social structure ought to be


Umm, Thomas Jefferson had nothing to do with writing the Constitution. Also, Jefferson was very critical of the constitution and had to be talked into publically supporting it by Madison. Soon after he endorsed the constitution, he reversed his position.

Claiming that the constitution was founded on Jeffersons' idea is like saying KFC was founded on chickens' ideas.


Seriously. I'm not kidding.


I know, but I'm laughing anyway
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 221 (view)
 
Why are so many unemployeed
Posted: 5/8/2010 7:08:28 AM

I thought we were talking about the unemployed; Not govt workers like the police, corrections officers, politicians, etc



We are talking about the unemployeed. Regardless of how you feel about government workers, they are contributing to society, for better or worse.


The only govt workers I mentioned were the police and corrections officers because they are truly worthless welfare recipients who provide no benefit to society. They just keep sucking on the govts' teat.


I'm not saying that laziness is the only problem, but its a big one. Usually the lazy ones are the ones making excuses too.


Once again, we're not talking about govt workers like the police and corrections workers; or politicians. We already know that they're a bunch of lazy gits who sit around and do nothing but blame others for their own faults and complain about their welfare checks
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Give 'em(GOP) hell Harry
Posted: 5/8/2010 6:28:05 AM

Ummmmm, that was bush. The bank bailout bill was written by the bush administration and was signed by president bush.

It's funny how, with some people, the more wrong they are, the more certain they are.



The House voted (HR 1424, 110th Congress) as follows:

Dems Yea: 221
Dems Nay: 3
Reps Yea: 47
Reps Nay: 145

The bill's sponsor was Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI).

The Senate voted:

Dems Yea: 40
Dems Nay: 9
Reps Yea: 33
Reps Nay: 15
Inds Yea: 1
Inds Nay:1

In particular, Obama voted Yea.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1424


In other words, YOU CAN'T REFUTE ANYTHING I SAID, so you post irrelevancies.
 NoBushLover
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 202 (view)
 
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/8/2010 6:23:55 AM
jackdiamond,


Who is trashing the constitution? Perhaps those who don't play by the rules, and those who don't uphold the law to make sure those who want to come here, do it legally.


If you think it's OK to search people without probable cause, then you are not playing by the rules. By your own logic, it would be OK to jail or deport you.


We are a Nation of Immigrants... but we are also a Nation of Law.


Which is why it is unconstitutional to search people without probable cause. Which is why you refuse to answer my question; Why is it OK to ignore the Constitution by allowing searches without probable cause?


Lets get off the political bias crap and change this problem we have, so we can enforce our laws


The Constitution, the highest law of the land, prohibits searches without probable cause. It is hypocritical to call for obeying the law and supporting illegal and unconstitutional searches.

That's why you will never explain how it's OK to ignore the constitution and allow searches without probable cause. Any explanantion for ignoring the constitution undermines your claim that you believe in the rule of law. You can't truly believe in the rule of law if you advocate ignoring the constitution.

valenciacityx

The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are for Americans

There is nothing in the document that we have to protect your 'rights' as a foreigner. There is not due process, or illegal search and seizure elements for border busting illegal immigrants


Reading is fundamental. From the Constitution (in case you've heard of it):


Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


"No person" means just that..."no PERSON". It does not say "no citizen" or, as is more common in the constitution when referring to citizens, it does not mention "the people", as it does here:


Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 
Show ALL Forums