Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 01:12:00 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  General Discussion  |  Topic: Possible election postponement 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Possible election postponement  (Read 26835 times)
SirBruce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2551


WWW
Reply #70 on: July 14, 2004, 09:55:40 AM

Quote from: daveNYC
Quote from: Dark Vengeance
Where do you think those people get their income? It's not what the rich SPEND, it's what they INVEST that makes the biggest economic impact.

I think you overestimate the amount of money the rich (nebulous group that it is) invest in some sort of new business.  Mutual funds drive the stock market, banks provide small business loans, 'the rich' do not go around lending their money to people with business plans.


You're a moron.  Where do you think banks get the money to lend?  That's right, from rich people with money in their bank accounts.

Only people who get their information from watching Mr. Burns on The Simpson's think the rich keep all their money in large stacks of bills inside their mansion.

Bruce
daveNYC
Terracotta Army
Posts: 722


Reply #71 on: July 14, 2004, 10:04:25 AM

Quote from: SirBruce
Quote from: daveNYC
Quote from: Dark Vengeance
Where do you think those people get their income? It's not what the rich SPEND, it's what they INVEST that makes the biggest economic impact.

I think you overestimate the amount of money the rich (nebulous group that it is) invest in some sort of new business.  Mutual funds drive the stock market, banks provide small business loans, 'the rich' do not go around lending their money to people with business plans.


You're a moron.  Where do you think banks get the money to lend?  That's right, from rich people with money in their bank accounts.

In a bank?  Really?  Why the hell would they have their money in a bank?  You get much better returns from tax-free muni-funds, or just straight up investment in stocks.  Shit, investment real estate property kicks ass too.  Even your local stock broker will have a money market fund for your liquid assets that will be pulling in 5% or more.

Not to mention that with the federal lending rate being about 2% and the commercial rates being rock bottom too, it's not a lack of fucking money in the system that is/was causing the slowdown.

Eat some more fucking paint chips jack-ass.
Dark Vengeance
Delinquents
Posts: 1210


Reply #72 on: July 14, 2004, 10:10:59 AM

Quote from: daveNYC
I think you overestimate the amount of money the rich (nebulous group that it is) invest in some sort of new business.  Mutual funds drive the stock market, banks provide small business loans, 'the rich' do not go around lending their money to people with business plans.


New business is certainly not the only area where people invest. This is quite correct. Providing capital to existing business for purposes of expansion is also an important role.

Banks do provide small business loans. You are correct that the rich don't go lending money to mom and pop to start a fruit stand. Of course, banks do that....many banks also have investors to answer to.

Oh and mutual funds? Mutual funds invest in various stocks and bonds....all they do is maintain a diverse portfolio of investments, and put their client's money into that portfolio. It still ends up being real money from investors, getting invested in real companies.

Quote
Venture capitalists might, however they shot their wad in the 90s and no amount of a tax cut is going to get them back in the game anytime soon.


Venture capitalist = a rich person that is willing to provide capital to a new business. Semantics for teh win.

Where there is opportunity, there will be investors. The amount of risk just determines how many of them are willing to pony up the greenbacks. The more greenbacks they have, the more they can afford to risk.

Quote
Concerning Patriot II:  I dislike any law that says what you're doing is wrong, depending on who you are.  For the record, I also don't like 'hate crimes' laws for very similar reasons.


In the item you cited as your "favorite", I don't see how that is the case. Again, did I miss something there? Or are you referring to another item within the Act?

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

EDIT: Clarified a bit on mutual funds.
daveNYC
Terracotta Army
Posts: 722


Reply #73 on: July 14, 2004, 10:56:29 AM

Quote from: Dark Vengeance
Quote from: daveNYC
I think you overestimate the amount of money the rich (nebulous group that it is) invest in some sort of new business.  Mutual funds drive the stock market, banks provide small business loans, 'the rich' do not go around lending their money to people with business plans.

Quote

Oh and mutual funds? Mutual funds invest in various stocks and bonds....all they do is maintain a diverse portfolio of investments, and put their client's money into that portfolio. It still ends up being real money from investors, getting invested in real companies.

The initial offering of the stock or bond gets the company cash, after that though, it becomes more of an item that the market can place a bet on.  Buying shares in a company vaguely does get some of the money to the company (sorta) but its main effect is in the size of the BMW that the broker drives.  The stock market is more about making money on the performance of existing companies, than investing money in companies that want to grow.
Quote
Venture capitalists might, however they shot their wad in the 90s and no amount of a tax cut is going to get them back in the game anytime soon.


Venture capitalist = a rich person that is willing to provide capital to a new business. Semantics for teh win.
Quote

Where there is opportunity, there will be investors. The amount of risk just determines how many of them are willing to pony up the greenbacks. The more greenbacks they have, the more they can afford to risk.

The climate has more influence on the investment than the available cash.  It's like having a billion bucks in the bank and wondering how much you'd bet that the coin will land on its edge.  The assumption that money in the pocket will be spent/risked/invested is a bad one to make.
Quote
Concerning Patriot II:  I dislike any law that says what you're doing is wrong, depending on who you are.  For the record, I also don't like 'hate crimes' laws for very similar reasons.

Quote

In the item you cited as your "favorite", I don't see how that is the case. Again, did I miss something there? Or are you referring to another item within the Act?

That's true, it doesn't make the activity a crime, what it does do is make the person a criminal (of a sort) for doing it.  These days being labeled as such will probably get you thrown in the slammer double time.
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #74 on: July 14, 2004, 11:30:13 AM

Quote from: Alluvian
And to Haemish:
Quote
Thus, making the louder and stupider elements of the left look publicly ridiculous.


I agree here, but isn't anyone else annoyed that the 'louder and stupider elements of the left' appear to be the news media on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, etc...  The only ones who aren't are FOX and other ridiculously right wing trash.  As trashy as FOX is, I currently find all the others listed just as trashy on the opposite side.


Hence, my complete disdain for almost all media outlets, journalists (Hanzii excepted) and the entire business of "news reporting" in general.

Everyone of those motherfuckers needs to contract a crotchrotting veneral disease.

Dark Vengeance
Delinquents
Posts: 1210


Reply #75 on: July 14, 2004, 12:02:22 PM

Quote from: daveNYC
The initial offering of the stock or bond gets the company cash, after that though, it becomes more of an item that the market can place a bet on.  Buying shares in a company vaguely does get some of the money to the company (sorta) but its main effect is in the size of the BMW that the broker drives.  The stock market is more about making money on the performance of existing companies, than investing money in companies that want to grow.


But when the stock rises, the company can sell additional shares, and fetch a nice price....this provides additional capital from time to time. Issuing stock is a get way to drum up working capital, though the stock price may take a hit. This can be particularly effective in terms of channel expansion....a good example of this would be the new brake pad division in the movie Tommy Boy.

The mutual fund buys the stock, some newly issued and some at market value....the investor is essentially betting on their portfolio of stocks to do well. If the mutual fund performs well, the clients make money proportionate to what they invested.

Quote
The climate has more influence on the investment than the available cash.  It's like having a billion bucks in the bank and wondering how much you'd bet that the coin will land on its edge.  The assumption that money in the pocket will be spent/risked/invested is a bad one to make.


A man with $500 has much less tolerance for the risk experienced at a $5 blackjack table than a man with $500,000. The guy with $500 might not even play, while the guy with $500k could drop $1000 without putting a serious dent in his pocketbook.

It's risk vs reward all the way....he examines the business plan, current economic climate, and makes a risk assessment. If the potential ROI is sufficient, and the investment is within his level of tolerance for risk, it's a go. If not, they pass.

If there is opportunity, someone will be there to make the investment. It may not be a sound investment, or even a particularly smart business decision, but someone is willing to gamble on whether or not the business will succeed.

Quote
That's true, it doesn't make the activity a crime, what it does do is make the person a criminal (of a sort) for doing it.  These days being labeled as such will probably get you thrown in the slammer double time.


I thought "clandestine intelligence gathering activities for a foreign power" was akin to...oh, I dunno...SPYING. To imply that a spy (even an American citizen) is not an agent of a foreign power UNTIL they commit a federal crime is ridiculous. Wouldn't that mean that a spy isn't really a spy until he succeeds in providing intel to the enemy?

Maybe I'm misreading that whole thing, I dunno.....you seem much more up in arms about it than I am, and I still don't see why.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............
Daeven
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1210


Reply #76 on: July 14, 2004, 12:11:29 PM

Quote from: ArtificialKid
I'd like to point out that at the time it was a good solution to a daunting problem, namely, how to establish something akin to a democracy in a geographically large area with rudimentary communications and a largely illiterate populace.  We're not talking a city-state here where everyone goes down to the town square to hash things out.


I'd point out that it is still a good solution because it forces candidates to actually give a damn about places other than New York, Florida, Texas and California.

"There is a technical term for someone who confuses the opinions of a character in a book with those of the author. That term is idiot." -SMStirling

It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion
daveNYC
Terracotta Army
Posts: 722


Reply #77 on: July 14, 2004, 12:15:47 PM

It comes down to motive.  Taking pictures of the Statue of Liberty?  Fine.  Taking pictures of the Statue of Liberty, and we think you have some nefarious motive?  You suddenly become classified as an enemy agent.

It worries me that the definitions are vague, and don't seem to require an actual law to be broken.


Yeah, I know that companies can issue more stock, and get loans using stock as collateral (think that's what killed Enron finally), and offer bonds that can be converted to stock.  There's a lot you can do to raise money once you're in the stock market.  It's just that tax cuts for rich people don't necessarily lead to an increase in investments.

A majority of the market's capital comes from mutual funds that have pension plans, IRAs, and 401(k)s as their main investors.  Individuals are (to a point) irrelevant.  And again, the amount of money in the market was never a problem.  The demand just wasn't there, and demand is driven by consumers, consumers who are usually a little further down on the food chain than the top 5%
El Gallo
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2213


Reply #78 on: July 14, 2004, 12:57:38 PM

Quote from: Daeven

I'd point out that it is still a good solution because it forces candidates to actually give a damn about places other than New York, Florida, Texas and California.


Yeah, it would be a real shame if there was any reason for a Democrat in Utah or a Republican in Massachusetts to actually vote.  The winner take all nature of the electoral college makes all but a handful of swing states entirely irrelevant.  If you don't live in a swing state, your vote does not matter, period.

The typical small state fear of the popular vote is based on the extremely unrealistic scenario where almost everyone in a large state votes for one candidate.  By their nature, large states tend to be more fractured than small ones, because small states are more likely to have homoginized economies.  As a consequence of this, important swing states tend to be big states anyway.  This year, the great lakes/rust belt is mostly in play, as is Florida, whereas there is ZERO reason for either candidate to spend any time in the small Great Plains states.  On this view, the EC itself causes candidates to ignore small states.

Anyway, avoiding that derial, I think there may be a Constitutional problem with finishing up an election at a later date.  "The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States."  Though I imagine Congress could do whatever they want and the Supreme Court would declare it a "political question" and not do anything.

This post makes me want to squeeze into my badass red jeans.
WayAbvPar
Moderator
Posts: 19268


Reply #79 on: July 14, 2004, 01:30:57 PM

Going back to the announcement of potential threats for a moment-

Quote
Personally, I thought the intent was to make people aware of potential threats, so they would notice and report unusual activity, so (golly gee) we might avert an attack and save lives.



This story exemplifies why depending on the grossly ignorant and uninformed public for early warnings is largely ineffective.

When speaking of the MMOG industry, the glass may be half full, but it's full of urine. HaemishM

Always wear clean underwear because you never know when a Tory Government is going to fuck you.- Ironwood

Libertarians make fun of everyone because they can't see beyond the event horizons of their own assholes Surlyboi
Dark Vengeance
Delinquents
Posts: 1210


Reply #80 on: July 15, 2004, 09:45:37 AM

Quote from: WayAbvPar
This story exemplifies why depending on the grossly ignorant and uninformed public for early warnings is largely ineffective.


I've never run into any situation where law enforcement responds well when someone refuses to show ID. Just the opposite. If you won't show ID, they wonder why....maybe they just wanted to check for outstanding arrest warrants, which IME is pretty standard. Especially if someone called it in that he was "acting suspicious".

Racial profiling sucks....but people acting like idiots in response to it doesn't help matters either.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............
Anonymous
Guest


Email
Reply #81 on: July 15, 2004, 10:27:16 AM

I don't see any reason why law enforcement needs to spot check ID.  Feels too much like the "papers please" of the soviet union.

Not that we aren't barreling down that path anyway.  /shrugs
DarkDryad
Terracotta Army
Posts: 556

da hizzookup


WWW
Reply #82 on: July 15, 2004, 10:35:33 AM

Quote from: Soulflame
I don't see any reason why law enforcement needs to spot check ID.  Feels too much like the "papers please" of the soviet union.

Not that we aren't barreling down that path anyway.  /shrugs


And the only reason you would have to not respond to a simple request for ID when they have been called by SOMEONE ELSE is because you may have something to hide. If you get beligerant with cops expect them to be assholes to you.

BWL is funny tho.  It's like watching a Special Needs school take a field trip to a minefield.
Dark Vengeance
Delinquents
Posts: 1210


Reply #83 on: July 15, 2004, 10:39:39 AM

Quote from: Soulflame
I don't see any reason why law enforcement needs to spot check ID.  Feels too much like the "papers please" of the soviet union.
Not that we aren't barreling down that path anyway.  /shrugs


I dunno, I always thought photography students were relatively rare (compared to say, business or engineering types). I can understand that someone thought it looked suspicious that the guy was snapping photos and jotting down notes between them....even moreso if he was using a tripod.

My money says that most folks snapping pics at the locks are tourists....tourists don't normaly bust out the tripod and jot down shutter speeds. Someone probably freaked because a dark-skinned man was doing something out of the ordinary. Odds are they bought his story about being a student, and just wanted to check for arrest warrants....the complaint call would be enough to constitute probable cause, wouldn't it?

I mean, if he was willing to volunteer the notes (as it said he did), why was he so defensive about showing ID?

Bring the noise.
Cheers............
Anonymous
Guest


Email
Reply #84 on: July 15, 2004, 10:42:13 AM

So you are fine with just walking down the street, and having to display your ID to the police?  Not showing ID on demand is belligerance?  What the hell country do you live in?

Nothing to hide?  That's great.

Using that logic, we can install cameras in your home, install tracking devices in your body, read all of your email, track every element of your life.  You have nothing to hide, right?

This is exactly the poor reasoning that has lead to the trampling of our civil rights.  The end result?  We aren't one bit safer than we were from the terrorists.  The government has more scrutiny into the personal lives of it's citizens.
Anonymous
Guest


Email
Reply #85 on: July 15, 2004, 10:43:13 AM

OH, he was DARK SKINNED.

That automatically makes it ok to hassle him.

Sorry, carry on.

/sarcasm
Dark Vengeance
Delinquents
Posts: 1210


Reply #86 on: July 15, 2004, 10:50:16 AM

See, I was leaning more toward the "he was doing something out of the ordinary".

If I walk into a bank wearing all black, wearing a ski mask, I would expect someone to think that is suspicious. By the same token, a guy busting out a tripod and making notes between shots at a tourist spot could be seen as suspicious.

The fact that he is dark skinned adds the element of racial profiling into the mix. Yeah, that part sucks, but it's not as if he was just singled out as "hey darkie, let's see your papers".

Although that's apparently the way he reacted to it.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............
Anonymous
Guest


Email
Reply #87 on: July 15, 2004, 10:54:45 AM

Yeah, Timothy McVeigh, he was REAL dark skinned, that boy was.
WayAbvPar
Moderator
Posts: 19268


Reply #88 on: July 15, 2004, 11:14:01 AM

Quote
If I walk into a bank wearing all black, wearing a ski mask, I would expect someone to think that is suspicious. By the same token, a guy busting out a tripod and making notes between shots at a tourist spot could be seen as suspicious.


You do realize that a tripod is pretty much standard equipment for any hobbyist photographer, right? The place were he was seen is a wide open public area; I would be willing to bet that a good 25% of the people (bare minimum, especially on a sunny day- that attracts both locals and tourists) there at any given time have a camera on them. Probably fewer with tripods, but still- that is akin to interrogating people with picnic baskets since they might have a bomb inside.

If the Homeland Security folks are going to respond to every crackpot citizen report, they MUST make sure their people are better trained to handle this kind of situation. Instead of a gang of black-clad government thugs accosting someone, why not have one person observe him for 5 minutes?

This is exactly the kind of shit that terrifies me about the Patriot Act, John Ashcroft, and Tom Ridge. They are a bigger threat to the American way of life than any terrorist group.

When speaking of the MMOG industry, the glass may be half full, but it's full of urine. HaemishM

Always wear clean underwear because you never know when a Tory Government is going to fuck you.- Ironwood

Libertarians make fun of everyone because they can't see beyond the event horizons of their own assholes Surlyboi
Mi_Tes
Terracotta Army
Posts: 196


Reply #89 on: July 15, 2004, 11:17:18 AM

Quote from: WayAbvPar
This is exactly the kind of shit that terrifies me about the Patriot Act, John Ashcroft, and Tom Ridge. They are a bigger threat to the American way of life than any terrorist group.


Agreed and the top reason not to vote for Bush in my book with the second being the posibillity of him being able to stock the supreme court.

We never do anything half-assed, with us its either full-ass or no-ass!
To win is not always a victory, to lose not always a failure.
Dark Vengeance
Delinquents
Posts: 1210


Reply #90 on: July 15, 2004, 11:31:00 AM

Quote from: Soulflame
Yeah, Timothy McVeigh, he was REAL dark skinned, that boy was.


See, you're trying to make this as if it was purely racial. I'm not denying that his skin tone probably made some idiot overreact....I'm just saying that what he was doing was enough to arouse at least a little suspiscion.

We're not talking about a guy with a disposable camera snapping a few pictures and being questioned because of his skin tone. We're talking about a guy setting up professional-type photography setup, snapping various pictures, and jotting in a notebook. If you visualize it in your head, pop a zoom or telephoto lens onto a decent camera, pop it onto a tripod, and it could very well look like something straight out of a James Bond flick.

Are we so fucking politically correct that it's inappropriate to say "whatcha doing there?" because the guy is dark skinned? I'd expect someone to ask "whatcha doin?" even if it were my grandma snapping the pics.

For the record, she's 4'9" and completely harmless.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............
DarkDryad
Terracotta Army
Posts: 556

da hizzookup


WWW
Reply #91 on: July 15, 2004, 11:35:35 AM

Quote from: Soulflame
So you are fine with just walking down the street, and having to display your ID to the police?  Not showing ID on demand is belligerance?  What the hell country do you live in?

Nothing to hide?  That's great.

Using that logic, we can install cameras in your home, install tracking devices in your body, read all of your email, track every element of your life.  You have nothing to hide, right?

This is exactly the poor reasoning that has lead to the trampling of our civil rights.  The end result?  We aren't one bit safer than we were from the terrorists.  The government has more scrutiny into the personal lives of it's citizens.


You just dont get it do you? Someone thought he was acting suspicious and called the cops. They came to investigate. If he shows his ID when asked and isnt a wanted felon you continue on your way. Usually with an apology.
You start mouthing off about how your rights are being trampled you need to expect them to be assholes because you are being one. There is nothing  on a standard drivers licence that is top secrect that isnt house in a computer someplace. The only reason you would have to not show it is you are hiding something. Quit making the world out to be this horribly unfair place where your poor little feelings get hurt. You either need to grow a fucking skin or move the fuck on.

BWL is funny tho.  It's like watching a Special Needs school take a field trip to a minefield.
SirBruce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2551


WWW
Reply #92 on: July 15, 2004, 11:53:17 AM

I'd already read that story a couple of weeks back.  The guy's web page had a pretty good explanation about what happened:

http://www.brownequalsterrorist.com/artiststatement/

Personally, I'm all for what the cops did.

1. The guy was taking pictures of the bridge.  Someone saw him and thought he looked suspiscious, and THEY called the cops.  It's not like the police saw him and went after him because they are racists.  Perhaps the people who alerted the police were racial profiling, but you can't fault the cops for checking it out.

2. The guy was asked by a security guard for ID.  He didn't present it.  Now, what do you expect at that point?  The guard didn't beat him up, but for all he knew the guy's ID could be that of a wanted terrorist.  The guard went and called the cops... perhaps a little overzealous, but better to err on the side of caution, eh?

3. The cops didn't beat him up, either.  They simply investigated what he was doing after getting tipped off that there might be a problem.  If he had shown his ID, they would have left a lot sooner.  Yeah, they did lie to him, which is perfectly legal as anyone who has watched Law & Order knows.  They didn't arrest him.  At any time he could have elected not to answer questions.

4. The guy's defense was that lots of other people take pictures of the same place; it's a tourist attraction.  True enough.  But the vast majority of those are using little digital cameras and they're in the crowds.  He went off to select spots by himself, with a tripod, and probably stood around a long time trying to get the right perspective and lighting.  Sorry, but that's suspicious.  Yes, it means professional photographers everywhere are going to have to endure more scrutiny from local law enforcement if they choose to photograph large public infrastructure... deal with it.

5. Can you imagine if the bridge HAD been blown up?  Then you have Congress release a report later, critizing how terrible the intelligence failure was in the Bush administration.  "They had a report of a guy who was photographing the bridge days before.  When asked for his ID, he refused, and THEY NEVER EVEN FOLLOWED UP THE INVESTIGATION!  They never bothered to find out who he was!"  And all you Democrats would be hopping up and down to blame Bush for not doing anything.

6. As I told another friend when we argued about this, I have no problem with "Papers, please" to show my ID.  My freedom of movement isn't being restricted, BECAUSE I'M NOT A TERRORIST.  When they start adding Jews to the list of people whom they won't let go wherever, then I'll start worrying.  So long as they're only looking for terrorists and felons and the like, I'm all for it.

Bruce
daveNYC
Terracotta Army
Posts: 722


Reply #93 on: July 15, 2004, 11:58:18 AM

Quote from: SirBruce
My freedom of movement isn't being restricted, BECAUSE I'M NOT A TERRORIST.

How very short sighted of you.
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #94 on: July 15, 2004, 12:05:29 PM

Yes, but this man's freedom of movement WAS restricted, and HE WASN'T A TERRORIST EITHER, FUCKWAD.

If the police ask you for ID, you have every right to find out WHY they are asking for it. It's a valid question, probably the first thing I'd be asking as I reached for my wallet. If they can't tell him why they want to see his ID, he doesn't have to show it to them.

The police do not have the right to just walk around and ask random motherfuckers for, as Soulflame put it, "PAPERS PLEASE!" If they are investigating suspicious activity, as they were, they have every right to ask the guy what's he's doing, but they also need to inform him of such. I mean, shit, how hard is it to say, "We've received reports of suspicious activity in the neighborhood, involving men matching your description taking photographs and jotting down notes."

How fucking hard is that? Just because you think the law gives you the right to act like a jack-booted thug, doesn't mean you have to ACT like a jack-booted thug. "Protect and Serve" not "Harrass and Pacify."

WayAbvPar
Moderator
Posts: 19268


Reply #95 on: July 15, 2004, 12:24:38 PM

Quote
He went off to select spots by himself, with a tripod, and probably stood around a long time trying to get the right perspective and lighting. Sorry, but that's suspicious. Yes, it means professional photographers everywhere are going to have to endure more scrutiny from local law enforcement if they choose to photograph large public infrastructure... deal with it.


Fuck that. I don't want to 'deal with it'. I shouldn't have to 'deal with it.' I am not interested in trading in my civil rights for the warm cozy feeling that the government is acting in my best interests (when there is all sorts of evidence to the contrary). This is a slippery slope that I am afraid we are already starting down. Just 'dealing with it' and not standing up for ourselves will lead to bad, bad things.

When speaking of the MMOG industry, the glass may be half full, but it's full of urine. HaemishM

Always wear clean underwear because you never know when a Tory Government is going to fuck you.- Ironwood

Libertarians make fun of everyone because they can't see beyond the event horizons of their own assholes Surlyboi
Anonymous
Guest


Email
Reply #96 on: July 15, 2004, 12:43:45 PM

Some of you want the government to be a security blanket.

I stopped needing a security blanket a long time ago.
Dark Vengeance
Delinquents
Posts: 1210


Reply #97 on: July 15, 2004, 12:45:40 PM

Quote
I’d even left my subject and returned with more film just to try to get the right shot. Being new to photography, I made careful notes of my camera’s settings.
...
They asked if I was taking photos of the train bridge, and I couldn’t help but laugh.
...
I gave him my ID, and then sat through another ten minutes of awkward and demeaning questions. I was hoping my neighbors wouldn’t assume that I was a drug dealer. Aggravated and embarrassed, I retaliated by snapping off a few shaky photos of the strategic placement of their police cars when they finally let me go. (I've developed an odd sense of humor. It kicks in when I'm nervous.)
...
So, I went to the Ballard Locks, in the rain, found the best location I could, and waited for passing trains and boats. Within about thirty minutes of my setting up my tripod I noticed a lone security officer coming down the hill to ask me a few questions.
...
As my confronters ascended the hill, I couldn’t resist spinning my camera around and taking a quick shot of them returning to their security vehicle.
...
Now, over the next half an hour or so, I noticed a number of suspicious men walking around the path in my general area. It was still raining lightly, but they didn’t seem to be dressed for an outing at the Locks. I noticed them, and I noticed them noticing me.
...
After a quick thought, I caught up with Special Agent McNamara in the parking lot at the top of the hill and asked for a business card.


This kid is determined to think that it's all about people harrassing him because of his race. In several cases, he even asks if he is legally obligated to comply before refusing to show ID.

Time and time again, he fucks with the authorities for even questioning him...and he wonders why they take it as far they legally can. Yet, despite all of it, he figures that the only possible reason he was questioned at all is the color of his skin.

Fuckin clown.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............
Sky
Terracotta Army
Posts: 32117

I love my TV an' hug my TV an' call it 'George'.


Reply #98 on: July 15, 2004, 01:36:43 PM

It's pretty simple, actually. Don't carry ID when you're not operating a motor vehicle. I won't surrender ID without good cause, because I don't go about breaking the law. I won't be a dick, but the officer better have a good reason, and "because I said so" isn't a good one imo.
SirBruce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2551


WWW
Reply #99 on: July 15, 2004, 02:22:48 PM

Quote from: HaemishM
Yes, but this man's freedom of movement WAS restricted, and HE WASN'T A TERRORIST EITHER, FUCKWAD.


No, it wasn't.  He wasn't under arrest.  He was free to walk away at any time... of course, THEN he would have been arrested, and for good reason.

Quote

If the police ask you for ID, you have every right to find out WHY they are asking for it. It's a valid question, probably the first thing I'd be asking as I reached for my wallet. If they can't tell him why they want to see his ID, he doesn't have to show it to them.


But he knew why.  This was not the point of contention.  The point was he didn't think he should have to show his ID.  You want your rights protected?  You say you've got a lawyer and to have him answer all questions.  Of course, then you'll get arrested and find out, indeed, they are free to take your ID from you anyway.

Quote

The police do not have the right to just walk around and ask random motherfuckers for, as Soulflame put it, "PAPERS PLEASE!"


It wasn't random.  And furthermore, they do indeed have the right to ask random motherfuckers for ID, depending on circumstance.  If you don't like it, take 'em to court.

Quote

If they are investigating suspicious activity, as they were, they have every right to ask the guy what's he's doing, but they also need to inform him of such. I mean, shit, how hard is it to say, "We've received reports of suspicious activity in the neighborhood, involving men matching your description taking photographs and jotting down notes."


Er, did you read the link I gave?  He was informed, though not to the degree you write.

Bruce
SirBruce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2551


WWW
Reply #100 on: July 15, 2004, 02:24:52 PM

Quote from: WayAbvPar

Fuck that. I don't want to 'deal with it'. I shouldn't have to 'deal with it.' I am not interested in trading in my civil rights for the warm cozy feeling that the government is acting in my best interests (when there is all sorts of evidence to the contrary). This is a slippery slope that I am afraid we are already starting down. Just 'dealing with it' and not standing up for ourselves will lead to bad, bad things.


You aren't trading in your civil rights.  Where under the Constitution does it say that you have a right not to be asked for your ID by the police if you are reported to them as suspiciously photographing a bridge during a period when they have reason to think said bridge is a likely terrorist target?

Bruce
El Gallo
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2213


Reply #101 on: July 15, 2004, 02:29:04 PM

Quote from: SirBruce
Quote from: HaemishM
Yes, but this man's freedom of movement WAS restricted, and HE WASN'T A TERRORIST EITHER, FUCKWAD.


No, it wasn't.  He wasn't under arrest.  He was free to walk away at any time... of course, THEN he would have been arrested, and for good reason.


 Let me get this straight.  The police stop you.  If you walk away, you get arrested.  This does not restrict your movement.  GG Mr. Orwell.

This post makes me want to squeeze into my badass red jeans.
SirBruce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2551


WWW
Reply #102 on: July 15, 2004, 02:30:53 PM

Quote from: Dark Vengeance

Time and time again, he fucks with the authorities for even questioning him...and he wonders why they take it as far they legally can. Yet, despite all of it, he figures that the only possible reason he was questioned at all is the color of his skin.

Fuckin clown.


Indeed.  If you're being questioned by police, you really only have thave two good choices:

1. Cooperate politely.  You've got nothing to hide and they are just trying to do their job.  You endure some questioning so you can satisfy them.
2. Tell them sorry, but you don't want to talk to them, and that you've got a lawyer.  They either arrest you or they don't.

And if you get arrested, THEN get a lawyer and do what he tells you to.

This guy tried a third option, which was to not cooperate and ask as suspiciously as possible.  And he got upset because they kept questioning him.  If he thought he was being unfairly targeted and shouldn't have to ask these questions, then he should have shut up and gotten a lawyer.  You know what happens then?  All questioning would have ceased.  He would have either been arrested, or let go.

Bruce
SirBruce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2551


WWW
Reply #103 on: July 15, 2004, 02:32:23 PM

Quote from: El Gallo
Quote from: SirBruce
Quote from: HaemishM
Yes, but this man's freedom of movement WAS restricted, and HE WASN'T A TERRORIST EITHER, FUCKWAD.


No, it wasn't.  He wasn't under arrest.  He was free to walk away at any time... of course, THEN he would have been arrested, and for good reason.


 Let me get this straight.  The police stop you.  If you walk away, you get arrested.  This does not restrict your movement.  GG Mr. Orwell.


Except in Mr. Orwell's world, there's no appeal.  In OUR world, if the police REALLY arrested you without good reason, it would get thrown out, they'd get punished, and you'd get compensated.

But that wouldn't have happened in this case, because any judge would have said the guy was stopped reasonably... and he was.

Bruce
El Gallo
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2213


Reply #104 on: July 15, 2004, 02:35:47 PM

Right.  His freedom of movement was restricted.  Exactly the opposite of what you said.  I was referring to the use of language in Orwell's state, not its judicial structure.  As in "you are free to walk but we will arrest you if you do" which constitutes "freedom" in both Orwell-land and SirBruce-land.

This post makes me want to squeeze into my badass red jeans.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  General Discussion  |  Topic: Possible election postponement  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC