VictoryShipSailor

quote:

---

quote:
you do know that was a year ago, right?

---

quote:

---

So what? Does that erase his time from history?

---

My inference from the 1st statement is that the poster is suggesting Quinn is likely faster today rather than the info is irrelevant.

quote:

---

Just say "Neocons and all Democrats are disregarding low income workers with amnesty bill -- as corporatists/fascists always do"

---

FIFY

"SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!"


My input on this thread/issue:

https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/ addresses the various "Terry" iterations that regulate police behavior relevant to this discussion. While it is complicated and often unresolved, these excerpts seem clear enough to provide the insight into the Moore, OK case.

quote:

---

The Terry rule has developed quite a bit since 1968, but some aspects remain murky. In particular, if the suspect refuses to give his name or any identifiers, may an officer arrest the suspect? According to the Supreme Court, the police may arrest for failure to identify if state law criminalizes such behavior.

---

We know Oklahoma has not criminalized such behavior and so the deceased broke no laws that could have eventuated in an arrest--had he survived the detention.

But what if Oklahoma had such a law?

quote:

---

Still, the Supreme Court has never dealt squarely with the constitutionality of a state statute that requires production of documentary identification in an investigative detention or the legality of an arrest of a pedestrian for refusal to produce documentary identification. Obviously, if someone is operating a motor vehicle in a public area they can be required to produce the associated privilege license, which of course has the effect of identifying that person.

---

This says to me that any claim that the Supreme Court has ruled the police have the right to demand a pedestrian's ID even in a state with a statute allowing it in an investigative detention is false.

quote:

---

But what of suspects who are stopped but are not operating vehicles? Current law generally does not require that ordinary pedestrians even carry documentary identification and it remains to be seen what courts will do with the issues surrounding a requirement of documentary identification. Naturally, if someone is arrested, any documentary identification on that person can be located in the search incident to arrest.

---

It follows, it seems to me, a demand to produce what the law does not require one to have is patently tyrannical--especially as a pretext to inflict violence/harassment when it is not produced.

quote:

---

An interesting question arises when state law does not make it a crime to refuse to identify oneself but does clearly allow the police to temporarily detain the suspect and determine his identity. The decision in Hiibel suggests that Terry allows officers to ask for identification as long as the request for identification is reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the initial stop.

---

The police arrived there in need of determining if any crime had in fact occurred and if the perpetrator or victim was still on the scene. They did not know the name of the perpetrator, so the ID of anyone there was outside the scope of the circumstances that justified any initial stop. Knowing anyone's name would not advance anything.

My intuition tells me the culprit in this matter is the Department of Wildlife (FED, State?) officer, Strang, who was working as a security guard for the theater -- not for the mall's parking lot. What is his jurisdiction? When the local police are on the scene, what authority permits him to leave his post, to interject himself into any investigation, to interrogate standers-by, presume anyone is a threat, esp when there was no evidence that any crime had even occurred. From the above quote it seems like he (and even the actual police) had no right to demand ID from anyone. One cannot have reasonable suspicion of anyone until they have established a crime had been committed. What could they be suspecting him of? The domestic violence charge is suspicious: It's a parking lot, not a home. The 911 caller could not have known the 2-3 people who were screaming at each other (disturbing the peace) were related. If the caller saw the slap, then the caller knew it was a female-female incident and would more likely have stated that than the speculation that the screamers were blood related. Something smelly about that.

Back to Strang. So here's this cop wannabe, abandoning his post to play investigator and interrogating people at random while the actual cops in their jusrisdiction are right there. The deceased makes his fatal act, he tells this little man (in character) to mind his own business. So profoundly bruised is this post-abandoner's ego, that he resolves then and there to give this father grief. He needs to assuage his hurt feelings by extracting a pound of flesh. He persists in his questioning and hears from his intended victim that the wife is the perp and so he needs another reason, any reason, to extract his vengeance. He unlawfully (from the quotes above) demands the deceased to produce a document the deceased is not required to have or produce if he did. The deceased then attempts to go around his aggressor--not away from the police--likely to rejoin his wife and the actual police. The physicality begins at that point and Strang has his way, supported by the then mob mentality that overcomes the 5.

That's what my intuition tells me.

Finally, a word about debates from an amateur: A master does not begin his argument by making absurd, demonstrably false statements like the police are not a part of government. He substanciates his points--especially in matters of law. The use of ad hominem attacks loses big points, and name-calling forfeits the debate.

Points are more easily accepted in a civil exchange. Rudeness does not enhance a position.

As a senior citizen in line to die off, let me suggest our society is losing more than fascists.

quote:

---

dgnx6:

I'm just going to say its because those positions aren't valued highly. To LSU they are, but most schools not so much. Plus I guess its hard to project those guys on the next level. Kicker spots don't open up much in the pros. Usually it just seems like the sane recycled names.

---

This. The services' rankings do not value classes well of teams with LSU's style of play and priorities.

quote:

---

star ratings are based on NFL draft stock...for instance, a kicker rarely gets drafted no matter how good he is...hence the 3 star ranking. same for fullbacks.

Stars have little to do with how good a player currently is and more to do with how he projects in 4 years in the draft.

---

And this is entirely on point; 5-star recruits are the services' best guess of who will be drafted in the first round of the draft when the recruits come out. A review of how well those guesses have panned out in the past shows they are consistently correct on about 4 out of 32. Sometimes a little better. That performance strikes me as pathetic. So their poor evaluations of teams like LSU comes at the expense of doing an even poorer job achieving their goal of predicting the first round.

Another way of looking at this is that services ignore the team with which the players choose to sign. Their ranking of a player is independent of the team for which he will play. If Ducre signed with aTm, his 3-star FB rating would be an effective 2-star. At LSU, Ducre's 3-star rating is an effective high 4 or even 5.

So take the services with a grain of salt. They are the second best thing we have as recruiting fans. The best thing we have is our coaches' evaluations, which insiders leak out.

quote:

---

My beef is his excessive "you knows"

---

My beef is he thinks it's Louisiana State Shuniversity. He speaks for a living...you'd think he'd have the name down.

quote:

---

quote:
Consider the actions of every Marxist regime throughout the 20th Century. Hundreds of millions of silenced opposition in Russia and China.



Stalin and Moa didn't employ Marxism. What they did was in direct defiance of Marxism on many accounts.

---

Perhaps by the accounts of misinforming Marxists! Both communism and socialism are Marxist manifestations. Fascism is the term two socialist nations (Italy and Germany) adopted to identify their brand of socialism. The iconic symbol of the European Axis Powers, the Fasci,


bound reeds forming a strong weapon, represented industries bound by government to give them strength. Today we say "corporatism" to approximate the same idea. Both Hitler and Musolini were the respective leaders of their National Socialist (Nazi) Parties. We are describing an economic systen marked by centralized control of the nationalized means of production -- big government determining, what and how much is made by whom for whom, with government having first dibbs on everything. Marx was an economist and this idea of central control, top down, of nationalized industries was Marx' repudiation of capitalism, which he regarded as evil and exploitative. Some believe he merely restated the ideas of the earlier Adam Weishaupt of Bavaria, founder of the Illuminati in 1776. A year later he was initiated into the Masonic Lodge.

Communism takes Marx' repudiation of capitalism to its extreme form. The centralized control extends to EVERYTHING. Not only are industries nationalized, everthing and everyone are nationalized. Nobody owns anything -- except the Party Elite, of course, the more equal.

So we see in Europe and Russia the political spectrum was entirely Marxist with the "left wing" being the communists, the "right wing" being socialists. When you hear the term "right wing fascist," this is the context in which it was originally expressed, the European political spectrum.

China later adopted the Marxist left wing as indeed did the bulk of asia. Communists are fully Marxist; there is no capitalism at all, as seen in socialist states which preserve capitalism on the individual scale. Under communism the individual is reduced to what Marx calls a "species being" that (not who) functions perfunctorily and godlessly in the service of his species. Marxists are hostile to religion as he is famously quoted as saying "religion is the opiate of the masses," What he actually said is

quote:

---

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

---

Such lofty rhetoric reveals the arrogance typical of Marxists: they know what makes you happy, since you are opiated, you cannot. The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Later Mao reportedly said to the Dalai Lama "Religion is Poison" as he expelled him and began a relentless oppression of his people. They always know what's best for other people.

quote:

---

Nazi Germany was fascist, the opposite of Marxism.

---

A Marxist anxious to distance himself from Hitler told you that. It's nonsense. Marxism is the foundation of both socialism and communism. Look it up. :lol:

quote:

---

Creepy while it lasted though.

---

That IS creepy. In the run up to the 2010 elections we know the IRS was effectively active in silencing opposition. It is not a stretch to suppose the regime was active on more than one front to achieve their objective.

Thanks for sharing your experience.

quote:

---

I made a formal accusation last year against a poster on here. Did research, found their posting pattern all over the net.

Admin PM'ed me. Sent research. Nothing happened.

Poster was DA.

---

Forgive my ignorance, who is DA?

Are we to infer from your post that you suspect this DA is an actual bona fide covert agent in the employ of the government and up to nefarious ends?

They have to be somewhere. The documents establish that they are in this type of environment.

quote:

---

I really do not think it is Marxist. They are not following some play book. It is just how people are who think they know better than everyone else. They are controlling and they think anything is fair game as long as it gets them to their end game. It is some genetic disorder. Maybe narcissism or something similar.

---

While Obama is an example supporting your genetic theory (his alleged father was a devout Marxist), don't preclude the possibility that it is both a genetic AND a mental disorder like narcissism. It strikes me as a mental disease charcaterized by envy, need to control others, hubris, and the delusion that once their agenda is affected, they'll be okay -- as if being a slave is okay.

He follows the Sol Alinsky playbook, Rules for Radicals -- he taught a course on that at the University of Chicago. Also, he is applying the Cloward–Piven strategy he picked up at Columbia, overwhelming our system to break it. His corporatism includes unions, so the triunvirate he is installing (with government binding the two, the Fasci) follows the Musolini paradigm. Sounds like Marxism to me...

Forgive me if you see me continue to refer to his maladaption as Marxism, granting that it is a homicidal mental disorder.

quote:

---

Well, dd...they have smart people that work for Obama/Progs...and they must realize that it's one thing to play politics and hammer the Republicans...but it's altogether another to slap down an individual. Words are one thing...personal hurt is altogether another animal. That takes things to a whole nother level; one makes a blood enemy, for life...if one goes there. When that starts happening...it fast falls apart, and goes to the street. I don't think none of us - Progs included - want to go there. Too good to lose.

---

My reading comprehension skills have waned over the past few decades, but it seems like you are of the opinion that these personal attacks are not yet ongoing. If so, please read the documentation that supports the cited link on the OP: the attacks ARE ongoing and highly effective.

"Too good to lose?" What do you think "fundamentally transform America" means? He means to install a Marxist state where everyone is enslaved in service of that state. Hello? Haven't you looked at what little history is not sealed about Obama? His mentors, his associates, his family? He is a Musolini-style fascist intent on making America Italy c.1938. He needs to eliminate opposition to that design and he's well into it. Read the documents.