Andy9o8

Outside of the Third World, it is generally considered outside the rule of modern law to essentially detain a person indefinitely from travel outside the country simply because they're a party to a civil dispute over a debt claim.

Yes!! Yet another thread in which you remind us of how foreign-MOOZLIM-ish he is. I'm sure you don't realize it, but every time you folks do shit like that, intelligent conservatives who would actually like to win some elections outside of Red States just in despair and wish you were on some other team.

Fucking brilliant. Please do this as often as possible, as loudly as possible - I want to assure that the next President will be a Democrat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bufTna0WArc

That's the level of your game? LOL, ok.

Yep. Just like when, say, Ann Coulter says something outrageously shit-headed, then the next day it's what everyone's talking about. She and her accountant just smile. This is the element for whom there's no such thing as bad publicity.

If you know ahead of time you will run late, call before the appointed time. If you're running late unexpectedly, you better have a pretty good reason not to call w/i the 1st 15 mins of lateness, or in my book it's very rude.

I'm getting them repealed.

Not without paying me first, once my patent's granted.

I fuckin' did !!

Not necessarily. I'm pretty sure that in most, probably all, US states, a legal resident alien (a/k/a holder of a "green card") may obtain a driver's license. Some states allow it for valid holders of certain types of visas, but less than "green card" status. So, conceivably, a legitimate visa-holder could obtain a driver's license, and then over-stay his visa, or have it expire due to loss of, say, employment status or whatever. At that point, if he remains in the US, he's illegal, yet he still possesses an active drivers license.

You're making a separate point. All I'm saying is that most average Americans don't carry proof of their US citizenship around with them in their wallets or purses which can be produced at an instant's notice if stopped by a cop. Yeah, if I was applying for something and had to submit proof of my US citizenship as part of the paperwork package, I could do so. But, for example, at a traffic stop? Of course not, at least not beyond my driver's license (which wouldn't be sufficient anyway).

It's not like directed-energy weapons are going to be any lighter. Oh ye of little vision... Have you ever lifted a car battery? Or are you suggesting something of a chemical nature; mace, etc? Sorry; my patent application is still pending.

It's not like directed-energy weapons are going to be any lighter. Oh ye of little vision...

So are you saying that we should start enforcing the immigration laws that are on the books? Interesting notion.... Part of the benefit of living in a democratic country governed by the people, according to the rule of law, is that when government abuses its power by trampling on the nation's own laws and principles in the ostensible name of "law & order" or "enforcing the laws" - whether it's done by the police, or by the taxing authorities (like the IRS), etc. - The People get to call the government out on it. Thugs like Arpaio don't do what they do to promote the law. The law is just the tool they get to use, abuse and hide behind in order to be self-aggrandizing bullies. They do it to promote themselves, precisely because they are thugs. Thugs like Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Sheriff Bull Connor, Mayor Richard Daley (Senior), Mayor Frank Rizzo, Sen. Joseph McCarthy - they're all cut out of the same cloth. There's your interesting notion.

It reminds me of the routine in the film Born in East LA, where LA-born, Mexican-looking, English-only speaking, Cheech Marin is arrested as an illegal immigrant, and is deported "back" to Mexico because he couldn't prove he was a US citizen with just the papers in his wallet. (Just as I cannot, or you cannot.) Pretty funny. Also reminds me of the Passbook system formerly used by South Africa to enforce its apartheid laws. Hm, not so funny.

As long as you people keep thinking in terms of primitive kinetic energy projectile weapons, you'll forever be stuck in the Dark Ages.

Word has it he had a frog in his throat.

Yeah. Way to miss the point guys

Like dismissively referring to people as "the open borders people"? Your personal hypocrisy aside, yeah, why discuss policy when you can just call names, and then accuse people of calling names. Congratulations. You're "that guy".

Sounds like a case for Sheriff Joe. Seems to me, if I wanted to stoke up some shit, yeah, I'd dress up like a towel-head.

It just infuriates you, doesn't it?

It's just the Progressives showing us they have a case of "Stockholm Syndrome" towards their perceived Islamist allies. Really? "These people still beat their wives" is the best you can come up with? Turn in your Speakers Corner card. QuoteSpeaking of Stockholm, at least in my part of the world, I could not help notice how the consensus mainstream media have been ignoring the rioting that has been going on in a specific part of that city this week. Oh, bullshit. Even Calgary gets the MSM, as well as the internet which I hereby use to scoff at you. The Stockholm riots have been all over the TV news, all over the internet MSM.

Even with a "gag order" imposed upon the parties and attorneys, any such reporting restrictions imposed upon the news media would be unconstitutional in the US. Yes, selecting an impartial jury in a highly-sensationalized case is always a difficult issue; I imagine the defense attorneys will probably make the record of asking the judge to rule it impossible in this instance (which request will very probably be denied). Clearly it's more important for the media to have their circus than for the defendant's guilt (or not) to be evaluated by an unbiased jury. Aside from the idea of amending the Constitution to carve-out an applicable exception to the First Amendment, this is not simply a matter of journalistic ethics, or lack thereof, and not simply a matter of how the news media report the details of trials, or not. An increasing number of states are amending their court rules to expressly allow video recording of trials for use in the public domain (notably, TV broadcast). Even many JUDGES have spoken out in favor of this, as a matter of public policy; the idea being that keeping the public well-informed about the most inner workings of the judicial branch of THEIR government, by recording and broadcasting court proceedings, helps assure and preserve participatory democracy. So this is a dynamic that has a lot of energy driving it from all segments of American society. Your concerns about unbiased juries are well-taken, but the other factors must also be considered in the mix.

I'm selling shares to a bridge in Washington state. It's an excellent investment.