Is a value added tax coming our way?

[fishtaco]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3263865
You mean the cop who got shot by gang bangers, has the highest award given to law enforcement in AZ? I think it is the same sheriff's department where they have that sheriff that makes the criminals wear pink, live in tents and all that... Yeah I'm fine with that. I'm even fine with his "racist" stuff like trying to ban actual racist groups from college campuses... Dude our president hung around with the likes of Bill Ayers. You want me to get bothered about the crap the left is trying to gin up about this guy...
Your getting warmer, but still a little wide on the mark and don't bring Obama into this cause I agree, you are judged especially politically by the company you keep and the actual sponsor of this bill keeps some interesting company to say the least.
Fishtaco

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3263861
I disagree with that statement. I mountain bike all the time without my ID, and I've never worried about a cop pulling me over to ask for it. So you're saying I can't even go take a leisurely walk after dinner with my wife in my own neighborhood without and ID on me? I have one of those community mailboxes that's a couple hundred yards from my house. Guess I can't walk down there and get my mail without carrying my wallet.

The difference in Arizona, is even if I did go out on my own with my ID, I wouldn't have to worry one bit about being stopped and questioned about my legal status, because I'm a middle-aged white boy. Same may or may not be true with stdreb.
Just read Ohio and Texas are looking at passing the same laws. I can see Texas doing it. Like I said, we'll get all the Arizona illegal rejects now. But Ohio? Last time I was up there, I couldn't even find a decent place to get a breakfast taco. Maybe they want to keep them illegal Canadians out of their state.

Disagree all you want. Law states you must have Identification as an adult at all times on you when in public. Your premise for arguing the new law was from a standpoint of "what if I am jogging and don't have my ID?" I was just showing you that is a violation of the law in itself and this new law does not infringe on the scenario that you put forth anymore than before.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3263870
Your getting warmer, but still a little wide on the mark and don't bring Obama into this cause I agree, you are judged especially politically by the company you keep and the actual sponsor of this bill keeps some interesting company to say the least.
Fishtaco
RUSSELL PEARCE---potential white supremacist affiliations............this is what you are driving at.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3263873
Disagree all you want. Law states you must have Identification as an adult at all times on you when in public. Your premise for arguing the new law was from a standpoint of "what if I am jogging and don't have my ID?" I was just showing you that is a violation of the law in itself and this new law does not infringe on the scenario that you put forth anymore than before.
It doesn't? They say it doesn't on paper, but tell that to the Arizona cops. I had a buddy who's African American that moved out of Beverly Hills because he got sick and tired of their cops stopping him for no reason when he went walking around his neighborhood. This was back in the late 80's/early 90's, so maybe they've changed their tune now, but it happened all the same. Arizona Legislature's can't guarantee that there won't be a few 'rogue' cops that'll use this law as a way to shake down certain 'individuals'.
Looks like the law is already showing signs of doing what they intended it to do. I read an article on CNN where these small businesses in Phoenix that cater to Latino's are already seeing a downturn on their business...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/28/ari...ex.html?hpt=C1

 

[fishtaco]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3263874
RUSSELL PEARCE---potential white supremacist affiliations............this is what you are driving at.
Potential? So let's make sure you hold him to the same standard you have held Obama to with Ayers and Wright and lets not forget about the guy who actually wrote the bill, not even a resident of Arizona, odd don't you think.
Fishtaco

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3263880
Potential? So let's make sure you hold him to the same standard you have held Obama to with Ayers and Wright and lets not forget about the guy who actually wrote the bill, not even a resident of Arizona, odd don't you think.
Fishtaco
lol dude, I'm sorry I just don't believe everything I read as fact... Listening to the lefties at CNN needs verification, because they don't do it. You think I'm going to belief some crap on some no name leftist website... Hell you can't even listen to the president, "this bill won't increase the deficit."
If this guy had any possible ties, the incensed "mainstream" media would have already been blasting this all over everything. Remember after all according to a fellow alumni Dan Rather it isn't the authenticity of the papers of the seriousness of the charge...
But tell you what, if any of his buddies headed a group that tried to blow up the pentagon, we'll talk.

 

[fishtaco]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3263885
lol dude, I'm sorry I just don't believe everything I read as fact... Listening to the lefties at CNN needs verification, because they don't do it. You think I'm going to belief some crap on some no name leftist website... Hell you can't even listen to the president, "this bill won't increase the deficit."
If this guy had any possible ties, the incensed "mainstream" media would have already been blasting this all over everything. Remember after all according to a fellow alumni Dan Rather it isn't the authenticity of the papers of the seriousness of the charge...
But tell you what, if any of his buddies headed a group that tried to blow up the pentagon, we'll talk.
Sorry, I'm just going off an actual photo I saw of the guy hanging out with a confirmed white supremist. By mainstream you mean Fox is not covering this, well I would not expect them to cause it would be bad for business, just like it is good for business that CNN or MSNBC is. Remember you MUST hold your conservative politicians to the SAME standards you hold the left of you are in danger of committing hypocricide (did I just make up a word?) LOL
Fishtaco

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3263879
It doesn't? They say it doesn't on paper, but tell that to the Arizona cops. I had a buddy who's African American that moved out of Beverly Hills because he got sick and tired of their cops stopping him for no reason when he went walking around his neighborhood. This was back in the late 80's/early 90's, so maybe they've changed their tune now, but it happened all the same. Arizona Legislature's can't guarantee that there won't be a few 'rogue' cops that'll use this law as a way to shake down certain 'individuals'.
Looks like the law is already showing signs of doing what they intended it to do. I read an article on CNN where these small businesses in Phoenix that cater to Latino's are already seeing a downturn on their business...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/28/ari...ex.html?hpt=C1
Here is what you don't get. If a rogue cop wants to shake someone down, there are already plenty of ways to do this now. This doesn't create an avenue for something that was not being done in the first place...........
So your arguement is rogue cop shakedowns...ok...like that wasn't going on.
Your other argument was inconvience if you don't carry ID...You are suppossed to do this by law anyway...so that is your own fault.
Next argument?

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3263888
Sorry, I'm just going off an actual photo I saw of the guy hanging out with a confirmed white supremist. By mainstream you mean Fox is not covering this, well I would not expect them to cause it would be bad for business, just like it is good for business that CNN or MSNBC is. Remember you MUST hold your conservative politicians to the SAME standards you hold the left of you are in danger of committing hypocricide (did I just make up a word?) LOL
Fishtaco
I will agree with you and conceed the author of the bill holds very questionable company.
However, how does this make the law bad.
Basically this law gives the police force the right to enforce the existing federal law already in place.
Regardless of what the police do....They still have to turn these "illegals" over to ICE and deportation after the fact.
In all actuality this is another law with no teeth.....as we all know ICE and the deportation agency aren't exactly doing their end of the job .............Sure this will fix the situation in AZ....but no illegals will be deported because of it...they will be released and move.......

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3263888
Sorry, I'm just going off an actual photo I saw of the guy hanging out with a confirmed white supremist. By mainstream you mean Fox is not covering this, well I would not expect them to cause it would be bad for business, just like it is good for business that CNN or MSNBC is. Remember you MUST hold your conservative politicians to the SAME standards you hold the left of you are in danger of committing hypocricide (did I just make up a word?) LOL
Fishtaco
Do you listen to yourself talk? Seriously,
Sure, no problem, lets take a random internet photo, like the one there was of Obama not saluting when they were singing the national anthem (saluting, hand over the heart or whatever protocol he wasn't doing). Then lets ask the same questions you're asking... You see where you logic is flawed?
I don't see the change in standard... Because there is none...

 

[fishtaco]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3263892
I will agree with you and conceed the author of the bill holds very questionable company.
However, how does this make the law bad.
Basically this law gives the police force the right to enforce the existing federal law already in place.
Regardless of what the police do....They still have to turn these "illegals" over to ICE and deportation after the fact.
In all actuality this is another law with no teeth.....as we all know ICE and the deportation agency aren't exactly doing their end of the job .............Sure this will fix the situation in AZ....but no illegals will be deported because of it...they will be released and move.......
Thank you Darth, that was all I was asking and thank you for being honest.
Fishtaco

 

[stdreb27]

I don't understand this he's taken a picture with thus he must be in cohorts logic...

 

[fishtaco]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3263893
Do you listen to yourself talk? Seriously?
What? I'm just saying I would prefer these sort of things not have the taint of Nazi imagery associated with them or have influences outside of Arizona helping write these laws. Did you find my use of hypocricide that offensive? LOL
Fishtaco

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3263898
What? I'm just saying I would prefer these sort of things not have the taint of Nazi imagery associated with them or have influences outside of Arizona helping write these laws. Did you find my use of hypocricide that offensive? LOL
Fishtaco
I dunno this one way or the other, but like I said earlier if it doesn't pass muster for the democrat propaganda arm, ie the mainstream media, which will make something up in a heartbeat (see dan rather documents, global warming, etc) then it aint worth my time and effort...
Now if they go out and I hear this in the news for the next few days, I'll go look into it's legitimacy. Photoshop is a powerful tool...

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3263896
I don't understand this he's taken a picture with thus he must be in cohorts logic...
It isn't just one picture. He has also forwarded email from a white supramacist group as well. He has had more than just a few "questionable" issues regarding racism.
But again, I don't see how this has bearing on the law itself as members of congress still had to approve it's passage and language.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3263904
It isn't just one picture. He has also forwarded email from a white supramacist group as well. He has had more than just a few "questionable" issues regarding racism.
But again, I don't see how this has bearing on the law itself as members of congress still had to approve it's passage and language.
I've just seen one, then a buncha other pictures "taken" at the same gathering...
Maybe I'm looking at it differently, because, I've been all sorts of places that I shouldn't have been. Out of morbid curiosity and played along, Obama rallies, some anti federal reserve rallies, a klucker BBQ, Texas secession rallies, Shela Jackson events, some Quanel X marches (houston's poor boy version of the racist's Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson).
But as a state senator you really shouldn't be doing that...
But politically speaking, why should we hold our politicians to the same standards that we hold the democrats? Look at fishtaco, he "claims" to be an independent minded person. But is willing to throw out this bill, because some lefty websites have pictures of the main sponsor and claim it is at a neo-nazi rally. I can find that same crap about just about any democrat, (after all they've all had their pictures taken with Jesse Jackson, remember his 88 campaign for Prez collapsed after he said some anti-semetic stuff) and yet fishtaco is very sympathetic to liberal ideology. Lotta good that did at convincing an "independent." IMO this just another way to fight when you lose in the battle of ideas...

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3263890
Here is what you don't get. If a rogue cop wants to shake someone down, there are already plenty of ways to do this now. This doesn't create an avenue for something that was not being done in the first place...........
So your arguement is rogue cop shakedowns...ok...like that wasn't going on.
Your other argument was inconvience if you don't carry ID...You are suppossed to do this by law anyway...so that is your own fault.
Next argument?
Found this:
First, what the United States Supreme Court said. What the United States Supreme Court held in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court (2004) 542 U.S. 177, was that a state could make it a crime for a person to refuse to identify himself (i.e., tell the officer his name and address) when lawfully detained for criminal activity. Note that the Supreme Court did NOT say that any kind of identification papers could be required, nor did they say that police officers could ordinarily arrest someone for refusing to identify himself absent a state law permitting that arrest. There is no law in the United States requiring everybody to carry ID, at least not yet.
There is NO law in California requiring anybody to carry identification. There is no law making it illegal for anyone (even someone lawfully detained) to fail to have identification papers or to refuse to identify himself (there was such a law, which was declared unconstitutional). Thus, Hiibel is of no effect in California, since there is no comparable law there. (It is, however, a crime to give a FALSE identification.)
A person CANNOT be arrested just for failing to identify himself or failing to have ID, even with a lawful detention. It is NOT interfering with an officer. The only effect of not having ID occurs if a police officer has probable cause to believe an arrestee has committed a criminal offense. A police officer who could otherwise give an arrestee a citation to appear would instead take the person into custody to appear before a magistrate. But this is ONLY if the officer has probable cause to believe the person has committed a crime--NOT just because the person did not have ID.
Of course, one must have identification in his or her possession when driving, and a police officer obviously can demand to see a drivers license from any driver lawfully detained.
Source(s):
30+ years as a criminal defense attorney

 

[bionicarm]

TX Penal Code: Sec. 38.02. Failure to Identify.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 869, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 821, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Ed. Note: Here's what this law means in plain English.
(1) You don't have to carry a driver's license or other ID, if you're not driving.
(2) If you've been arrested you have to give your name, address, and date of birth to a police officer who requests it. (They'll police ask you for lots more than this, but these three items are all you're legally required to give them.)
(3) If you've just been detained, not arrested, you don't have to give thm squat. But refusing to identify might cause them to arrest you anyway and take you downtown so they can determine who you really are. If this happens, you still won't be charged with failing to carry ID, because there is no such crime.
(4) It's a crime to give false information about your identity, whether you've been arrested or just detained..

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3263839
OK, here's one for you. You live in Tuscon, and you decide to take a long evening jog in the downtown area. Since you don't want to be burdened with carrying anything while you're running, you leave your wallet at home. Next thing you know, a cop stops you and says, "Identification please." You tell him you're jogging, and you left your driver's license at home. Guess what, if he doesn't believe you, you get a trip to the police station. With this new law, he has a rigjt to do this. Does he need just cause to ask you? The law says he does, but the cop can just claim he saw a Hispanic running down the street, and got a report that a car was broken into in the area you were running. Before this law was implemented, the cop could still suspect you, but probably wouldn't stop and ask you just because you're some Hispanic running down the street.
Most cops use this wonderful tool called common sense. The law says they must have probable cause. Someone out jogging with no ID isn't probable cause.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3263880
Potential? So let's make sure you hold him to the same standard you have held Obama to with Ayers and Wright and lets not forget about the guy who actually wrote the bill, not even a resident of Arizona, odd don't you think.
Fishtaco
You mean one instance of him forwarding an E-mail dealing with media bias that turned out to be from a white suprimacist group? How is that "keeping company"? I wouldn't call a random photo with someone at a rally proof he's hanging out with them.
If you are going to use your standard Obama is a confirmed Terrorist (Bill Ayers) and Communist radical (I shought out the Marxist professors)

The fact is law abiding residents of Arizona are being terrorized by the criminal element coming across the border, their public services are stretched to the limit by those with no right to be in the country and something needs to be done. It doesn't matter who wrote the bill nor their motivation for doing so.