Wingnuts fail again.
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: {BS} Here's a "Personal Comment" that won't get displayed!
Next: Douchebag "john" posts recall alerts, obtains attention he missed out on as child.
From: pandora on 30 Jul 2010 17:01 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:33:03 -0400, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:04:21 -0700, Aratzio wrote: > >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:20:49 -0500, in the land of alt.aratzio, pandora >> <pandora(a)peak.org> got double secret probation for writing: >> >>>On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:13:36 +0000, Meat Plow wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:49:59 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:21:46 +0000 (UTC), in the land of >>>>> alt.aratzio, Meat Plow <mhywatt(a)yahoo.com> got double secret >>>>> probation for writing: >>>>> >>>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:17:19 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:55:54 +0000 (UTC), in the land of >>>>>>> alt.impeach.bush, Meat Plow <mhywatt(a)yahoo.com> got double secret >>>>>>> probation for writing: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:47:06 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:25:54 +0000, Meat Plow wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:15:24 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:01:43 -0400, Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:36:28 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <YAWN> Here we go with the straw man of "infringing on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rights of US citizens." The law wasn't written about US >>>>>>>>>>>>>> citizens or Legal Aliens. Why did you have a Green Card? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have to produce it if asked for it. There is nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal or unconstitutional about that. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a citizen. And yes, the law, as written, would do >>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly that. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> How so? If you have a Green Card, you have to produce it to >>>>>>>>>>>> any LEA asking to see it. You know that. You could just be >>>>>>>>>>>> walking down the street, and if a cop comes up to you and >>>>>>>>>>>> asks you for ID, are you going to refuse? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Of course not. But then, I'm not a US citizen and I'm >>>>>>>>>>> *required* to carry my Green Card on me at all times. US >>>>>>>>>>> citizens are not required to do that. As well, it was an >>>>>>>>>>> agreement that I made in order to be allowed to live and work >>>>>>>>>>> here. No such agreement is given by those born here. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We've been through this before and all I can conclude is that >>>>>>>>>>> you just don't wish to admit that the Arizona law impinged on >>>>>>>>>>> the rights of legal US citizens and residents. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not being too well informed on that law but trusting your >>>>>>>>>> knowledge on it, what rights of US citizens are being impinged >>>>>>>>>> upon? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The right to travel freely between states as well as to NOT be >>>>>>>>> asked for papers proving citizenship or resident status. You, >>>>>>>>> (presuming you are a US citizen) are not required to show >>>>>>>>> *papers* ala Nazi Germany. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>So I understand that there are checkpoints set up along the >>>>>>>>roadways ala Nazi Germany and everyone is forced to show their >>>>>>>>"papers" ? If not please correct me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The law allowed the police to detain anyone that did not have >>>>>>> papers. A clear violation of the 4th amendment. The need to carry >>>>>>> identification is well settled law in the USA and the citizens are >>>>>>> not required to carry identification. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sorry to snip but you are wrong. Be detained by the police in any >>>>>>state and fail to produce identification....you know the rest. >>>>> >>>>> "lawfully detained" is what you meant to write. You have to provide >>>>> legal cause before there can be detention. >>>>> >>>>> And no, it is not *any* state. Only 24 states have "stop and >>>>> identiffy" laws. >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes >>>>> >>>>> Keep digging. >>>> >>>> No digging needed. Get pulled for a simple traffic violation and fail >>>> to produce ID then tell me what happened. >>> >>>ID, but not necessarily citizenship or resident status. Besides, if one >>>is driving, one has already agreed to abide by the law that states one >>>must have a valid driver's license in order to be driving. >> >> Yes, the concept of accepted privilege vs constutional rights is lost >> on these people. > > You and Aratzio are the only ones who seem to think so. No, the law thinks so. > As usual, you can't seem to follow a simple idea. Just as I thought. You don't know very much. > Most Liberals can't. Seems to come with the lack of brain cells, I > guess. And again with the ad hominem when you have no reasonable response.
From: pandora on 30 Jul 2010 17:01 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:33:45 -0400, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:32:00 -0500, pandora wrote: > >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:04:21 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:20:49 -0500, in the land of alt.aratzio, >>> pandora <pandora(a)peak.org> got double secret probation for writing: >>> >>>>On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:13:36 +0000, Meat Plow wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:49:59 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:21:46 +0000 (UTC), in the land of >>>>>> alt.aratzio, Meat Plow <mhywatt(a)yahoo.com> got double secret >>>>>> probation for writing: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:17:19 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:55:54 +0000 (UTC), in the land of >>>>>>>> alt.impeach.bush, Meat Plow <mhywatt(a)yahoo.com> got double secret >>>>>>>> probation for writing: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:47:06 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:25:54 +0000, Meat Plow wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:15:24 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:01:43 -0400, Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:36:28 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <YAWN> Here we go with the straw man of "infringing on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rights of US citizens." The law wasn't written about US >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> citizens or Legal Aliens. Why did you have a Green Card? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have to produce it if asked for it. There is nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal or unconstitutional about that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a citizen. And yes, the law, as written, would do >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly that. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> How so? If you have a Green Card, you have to produce it to >>>>>>>>>>>>> any LEA asking to see it. You know that. You could just be >>>>>>>>>>>>> walking down the street, and if a cop comes up to you and >>>>>>>>>>>>> asks you for ID, are you going to refuse? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Of course not. But then, I'm not a US citizen and I'm >>>>>>>>>>>> *required* to carry my Green Card on me at all times. US >>>>>>>>>>>> citizens are not required to do that. As well, it was an >>>>>>>>>>>> agreement that I made in order to be allowed to live and work >>>>>>>>>>>> here. No such agreement is given by those born here. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through this before and all I can conclude is that >>>>>>>>>>>> you just don't wish to admit that the Arizona law impinged on >>>>>>>>>>>> the rights of legal US citizens and residents. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Not being too well informed on that law but trusting your >>>>>>>>>>> knowledge on it, what rights of US citizens are being impinged >>>>>>>>>>> upon? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The right to travel freely between states as well as to NOT be >>>>>>>>>> asked for papers proving citizenship or resident status. You, >>>>>>>>>> (presuming you are a US citizen) are not required to show >>>>>>>>>> *papers* ala Nazi Germany. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>So I understand that there are checkpoints set up along the >>>>>>>>>roadways ala Nazi Germany and everyone is forced to show their >>>>>>>>>"papers" ? If not please correct me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The law allowed the police to detain anyone that did not have >>>>>>>> papers. A clear violation of the 4th amendment. The need to carry >>>>>>>> identification is well settled law in the USA and the citizens >>>>>>>> are not required to carry identification. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Sorry to snip but you are wrong. Be detained by the police in any >>>>>>>state and fail to produce identification....you know the rest. >>>>>> >>>>>> "lawfully detained" is what you meant to write. You have to provide >>>>>> legal cause before there can be detention. >>>>>> >>>>>> And no, it is not *any* state. Only 24 states have "stop and >>>>>> identiffy" laws. >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes >>>>>> >>>>>> Keep digging. >>>>> >>>>> No digging needed. Get pulled for a simple traffic violation and >>>>> fail to produce ID then tell me what happened. >>>> >>>>ID, but not necessarily citizenship or resident status. Besides, if >>>>one is driving, one has already agreed to abide by the law that states >>>>one must have a valid driver's license in order to be driving. >>> >>> Yes, the concept of accepted privilege vs constutional rights is lost >>> on these people. >> >> Well, some just don't understand the difference between a right and a >> privilege. > > Yes, we do. You can't seem to understand that you need to provide > whatever ID you are requested to. No, you are wrong.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 30 Jul 2010 17:40 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:59:45 -0500, pandora wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:31:00 -0400, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: > >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:29:36 -0500, pandora wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 07:27:23 -0700, miguel wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:57:20 -0700, Aratzio <a6ahlyv02(a)sneakemail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:07:37 +0000 (UTC), in the land of >>>>>alt.impeach.bush, Meat Plow <mhywatt(a)yahoo.com> got double secret >>>>>probation for writing: >>>>> >>>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:57:03 -0700, miguel wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:25:54 +0000 (UTC), Meat Plow >>>>>>> <mhywatt(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:15:24 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:01:43 -0400, Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:36:28 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <YAWN> Here we go with the straw man of "infringing on the >>>>>>>>>>>> rights of US citizens." The law wasn't written about US >>>>>>>>>>>> citizens or Legal Aliens. Why did you have a Green Card? You >>>>>>>>>>>> have to produce it if asked for it. There is nothing illegal >>>>>>>>>>>> or unconstitutional about that. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a citizen. And yes, the law, as written, would do >>>>>>>>>>> exactly that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> How so? If you have a Green Card, you have to produce it to any >>>>>>>>>> LEA asking to see it. You know that. You could just be walking >>>>>>>>>> down the street, and if a cop comes up to you and asks you for >>>>>>>>>> ID, are you going to refuse? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Of course not. But then, I'm not a US citizen and I'm *required* >>>>>>>>> to carry my Green Card on me at all times. US citizens are not >>>>>>>>> required to do that. As well, it was an agreement that I made in >>>>>>>>> order to be allowed to live and work here. No such agreement is >>>>>>>>> given by those born here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We've been through this before and all I can conclude is that you >>>>>>>>> just don't wish to admit that the Arizona law impinged on the >>>>>>>>> rights of legal US citizens and residents. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Not being too well informed on that law but trusting your knowledge >>>>>>>>on it, what rights of US citizens are being impinged upon? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Among other things, it required the police to arrest and detain any >>>>>>> immigrant, legal or illegal, until immigration status was >>>>>>> determined. >>>>>> >>>>>>Ah ok. And you can cite that precisely? Also cite the guidelines for >>>>>>determining who is an immigrant and who isn't. >>>>> >>>>>Section 6. >>>> >>>> About guidelines: To my knowledge a legal immigrant isn't required to >>>> carry his green card. If you are talking about identifying the legal >>>> status of an immigrant, the authorities call the INS. >>> >>> Actually, yes they are required to have it on their person at all >>> times. I know, I have one. There used to be a fine of $20,000 and/or 6 >>> months in jail if one didn't have it on them. I have no idea if that >>> is still in effect. >> >> Leave yours home someday so we can find out... > > In all of the 45 years I've lived in the US, NO ONE has ever asked me for > my alien registration card. Ever. I offer it up for photocopying when I > start at a new job. (Hint: It's illegal for an employer to NOT have it > on file.) Good thing you're not brown.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 30 Jul 2010 17:41 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:01:08 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>ID, but not necessarily citizenship or resident status. Besides, if one >>>>is driving, one has already agreed to abide by the law that states one >>>>must have a valid driver's license in order to be driving. >>> >>> Yes, the concept of accepted privilege vs constutional rights is lost >>> on these people. >> >> You and Aratzio are the only ones who seem to think so. > > No, the law thinks so. > >> As usual, you can't seem to follow a simple idea. > > Just as I thought. You don't know very much. I'm not the one confusing the privledge of driving with rights. You two are since you're unable to follw the logic. Right over your heads, as usual.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 30 Jul 2010 17:42
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:01:44 -0500, pandora wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:33:45 -0400, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: > >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:32:00 -0500, pandora wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:04:21 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:20:49 -0500, in the land of alt.aratzio, >>>> pandora <pandora(a)peak.org> got double secret probation for writing: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:13:36 +0000, Meat Plow wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:49:59 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:21:46 +0000 (UTC), in the land of >>>>>>> alt.aratzio, Meat Plow <mhywatt(a)yahoo.com> got double secret >>>>>>> probation for writing: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:17:19 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:55:54 +0000 (UTC), in the land of >>>>>>>>> alt.impeach.bush, Meat Plow <mhywatt(a)yahoo.com> got double secret >>>>>>>>> probation for writing: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:47:06 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:25:54 +0000, Meat Plow wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:15:24 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:01:43 -0400, Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:36:28 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <YAWN> Here we go with the straw man of "infringing on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rights of US citizens." The law wasn't written about US >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> citizens or Legal Aliens. Why did you have a Green Card? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have to produce it if asked for it. There is nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal or unconstitutional about that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a citizen. And yes, the law, as written, would do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How so? If you have a Green Card, you have to produce it to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> any LEA asking to see it. You know that. You could just be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> walking down the street, and if a cop comes up to you and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> asks you for ID, are you going to refuse? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course not. But then, I'm not a US citizen and I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>> *required* to carry my Green Card on me at all times. US >>>>>>>>>>>>> citizens are not required to do that. As well, it was an >>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement that I made in order to be allowed to live and work >>>>>>>>>>>>> here. No such agreement is given by those born here. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We've been through this before and all I can conclude is that >>>>>>>>>>>>> you just don't wish to admit that the Arizona law impinged on >>>>>>>>>>>>> the rights of legal US citizens and residents. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Not being too well informed on that law but trusting your >>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge on it, what rights of US citizens are being impinged >>>>>>>>>>>> upon? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The right to travel freely between states as well as to NOT be >>>>>>>>>>> asked for papers proving citizenship or resident status. You, >>>>>>>>>>> (presuming you are a US citizen) are not required to show >>>>>>>>>>> *papers* ala Nazi Germany. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>So I understand that there are checkpoints set up along the >>>>>>>>>>roadways ala Nazi Germany and everyone is forced to show their >>>>>>>>>>"papers" ? If not please correct me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The law allowed the police to detain anyone that did not have >>>>>>>>> papers. A clear violation of the 4th amendment. The need to carry >>>>>>>>> identification is well settled law in the USA and the citizens >>>>>>>>> are not required to carry identification. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Sorry to snip but you are wrong. Be detained by the police in any >>>>>>>>state and fail to produce identification....you know the rest. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "lawfully detained" is what you meant to write. You have to provide >>>>>>> legal cause before there can be detention. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And no, it is not *any* state. Only 24 states have "stop and >>>>>>> identiffy" laws. >>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Keep digging. >>>>>> >>>>>> No digging needed. Get pulled for a simple traffic violation and >>>>>> fail to produce ID then tell me what happened. >>>>> >>>>>ID, but not necessarily citizenship or resident status. Besides, if >>>>>one is driving, one has already agreed to abide by the law that states >>>>>one must have a valid driver's license in order to be driving. >>>> >>>> Yes, the concept of accepted privilege vs constutional rights is lost >>>> on these people. >>> >>> Well, some just don't understand the difference between a right and a >>> privilege. >> >> Yes, we do. You can't seem to understand that you need to provide >> whatever ID you are requested to. > > No, you are wrong. You don't have to produce an ID when requested by LEA? |