Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: This turned my stomach
daniel48706 Joined Fri 03/16/07 Posts: 8566	Mon 05/19/08 05:20 PM
I am truly curious now, I asked a federal agent and he said none of the states have that law, while it is helpful for the officers it is not mandatory to have/walk with identification. I am assuming he is incorrect due to the responses, question, how can I check which states require id on person at all times??? I have been trying to do google searches on each state I can name (sadly my geography is poor enough I cant name them all), but so far can not find anything other than what you need to get your id/license, witht eh sole exception of california.

daniel48706 Joined Fri 03/16/07 Posts: 8566	Mon 05/19/08 05:22 PM
It does have everything to do with a "Nazi" country. Hitler was just an experiment. The Bush family backed him to begin with Please provide reasoning behind this statement? I find it hard to believe that The Bush Family back Hitler.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 05/19/08 05:30 PM
It does have everything to do with a "Nazi" country. Hitler was just an experiment. The Bush family backed him to begin with Please provide reasoning behind this statement? I find it hard to believe that The Bush Family back Hitler. Bush Property Seized--Trading with the Enemy In October 1942, ten months after entering World War II, America was preparing its first assault against Nazi military forces. Prescott Bush was managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman. His 18-year-old son George, the future U.S. President, had just begun training to become a naval pilot. On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City which were being conducted by Prescott Bush. Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the government took over the Union Banking Corporation, in which Bush was a director. The U.S. Alien Property Custodian seized Union Banking Corp.'s stock shares, all of which were owned by Prescott Bush, E. Roland `` Bunny '' Harriman, three Nazi executives, and two other associates of Bush.@s1 For the rest of the story: http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm This is all a matter of history. The Bush Family from Prescott, George Sr and George Jr. Its all part of the new world order plan to take over the world. JB

Single_Rob Joined Mon 02/04/08 Posts: 8233	Tue 05/20/08 12:31 PM
I am truly curious now, I asked a federal agent and he said none of the states have that law, while it is helpful for the officers it is not mandatory to have/walk with identification. I am assuming he is incorrect due to the responses, question, how can I check which states require id on person at all times??? I have been trying to do google searches on each state I can name (sadly my geography is poor enough I cant name them all), but so far can not find anything other than what you need to get your id/license, witht eh sole exception of california. because it doesnt exist.

Single_Rob Joined Mon 02/04/08 Posts: 8233	Tue 05/20/08 12:33 PM
I am truly curious now, I asked a federal agent and he said none of the states have that law, while it is helpful for the officers it is not mandatory to have/walk with identification. I am assuming he is incorrect due to the responses, question, how can I check which states require id on person at all times??? they dont exist. They have been challenged and beaten, all of them that I know of. It was truly seen as a racist way for deportation of illegals in the south (mainly). It has no place in these united states, and am glad the courts seen fit to remove the stupidity from the legal books

franshade Joined Tue 07/24/07 Posts: 24704	Tue 05/20/08 12:35 PM
thanks Rob, kept reading the responses here and some will assume that certain states mandate such when in reality they dont.

Single_Rob Joined Mon 02/04/08 Posts: 8233	Tue 05/20/08 12:47 PM
thanks Rob, kept reading the responses here and some will assume that certain states mandate such when in reality they dont. well I tried to say that from the beginning . It has been insituted a lot, but gulp I hate to say this but thanks to the aclu it has been stricken down everytime it has come up for challenge resulting in some states actually removing it on their own without suit being filed

franshade Joined Tue 07/24/07 Posts: 24704	Tue 05/20/08 12:50 PM
thanks Rob, kept reading the responses here and some will assume that certain states mandate such when in reality they dont. well I tried to say that from the beginning . It has been insituted a lot, but gulp I hate to say this but thanks to the aclu it has been stricken down everytime it has come up for challenge resulting in some states actually removing it on their own without suit being filed thanks

daniel48706 Joined Fri 03/16/07 Posts: 8566	Tue 05/20/08 01:03 PM
I am truly curious now, I asked a federal agent and he said none of the states have that law, while it is helpful for the officers it is not mandatory to have/walk with identification. I am assuming he is incorrect due to the responses, question, how can I check which states require id on person at all times??? they dont exist. They have been challenged and beaten, all of them that I know of. It was truly seen as a racist way for deportation of illegals in the south (mainly). It has no place in these united states, and am glad the courts seen fit to remove the stupidity from the legal books ok, so let me make sure I understand this. You say it was stopped because it was deemed racsist to deport illegal aliens back to their home of origin?

MirrorMirror Joined Fri 10/26/07 Posts: 89680	Tue 05/20/08 01:03 PM
I dont like any kind of pork product

Single_Rob Joined Mon 02/04/08 Posts: 8233	Tue 05/20/08 01:08 PM Edited by Single_Rob on Tue 05/20/08 01:09 PM
it was introduced as a form of discriination agains minorities. If a person of hispanic origin could not produce id it would be easier to lock them up, and determain their legal status and start deportation.

daniel48706 Joined Fri 03/16/07 Posts: 8566	Tue 05/20/08 01:45 PM
it was introduced as a form of discriination agains minorities. If a person of hispanic origin could not produce id it would be easier to lock them up, and determain their legal status and start deportation. the rebuttal to that though is the fact that it is not something used only against hispanics. It can, and has been used, "against" anyone and everyone. Personally, if it will help deport illegal aliens, without taking anything away from anyone else, then it should be in effect, with no questions.

franshade Joined Tue 07/24/07 Posts: 24704	Tue 05/20/08 01:48 PM Edited by franshade on Tue 05/20/08 01:52 PM
it was introduced as a form of discriination agains minorities. If a person of hispanic origin could not produce id it would be easier to lock them up, and determain their legal status and start deportation. the rebuttal to that though is the fact that it is not something used only against hispanics. It can, and has been used, "against" anyone and everyone. Personally, if it will help deport illegal aliens, without taking anything away from anyone else, then it should be in effect, with no questions. and all this because you say so... for someone who had issues with a teenager yelling at your kids, now your an authority on who to have deported better yet have a definite opinion... I say if you cant control what happens at home, stay out of mine (jmo)

daniel48706 Joined Fri 03/16/07 Posts: 8566	Tue 05/20/08 01:57 PM
it was introduced as a form of discriination agains minorities. If a person of hispanic origin could not produce id it would be easier to lock them up, and determain their legal status and start deportation. the rebuttal to that though is the fact that it is not something used only against hispanics. It can, and has been used, "against" anyone and everyone. Personally, if it will help deport illegal aliens, without taking anything away from anyone else, then it should be in effect, with no questions. and all this because you say so... for someone who had issues with a teenager yelling at your kids, now your an authority on who to have deported... I say if you cant control what happens at home, stay out of mine (jmo) Ok first of all, I did not attack you, so I will ask that yuo dont attack me. Secondly, I never stated to be an authority on anything. However, United States [n]LAW dictates that someone who was not born on American soil, or born to American parents needs to apply for citizenship in order to be granted citizenship. And if you do not follow this procedure, then you are nt a legal citizen of the United States. Thus, if you are here without proper paperwork (visa, passport for vacation etc) you are an illegal alien in the United States. An United States law also dictates that if you are here illegally then you will be deported back to your nation of origin when found. So, I did not claim to be an authority on anything, I simply stated that if being required to show legal documentation of citizenship (your state id card) would help remove the illegal aliens from our soil, without removing any citizens legal rights and priviledges, then it should be instated without any arguments. And finally, I have an issue with a teenager yelling at my kids, because NO ONE has the right or priviledge to yell at anyone elses children without express permission from the parent(s) of that child first. No comparison to this.

Single_Rob Joined Mon 02/04/08 Posts: 8233	Tue 05/20/08 02:17 PM
it was introduced as a form of discriination agains minorities. If a person of hispanic origin could not produce id it would be easier to lock them up, and determain their legal status and start deportation. the rebuttal to that though is the fact that it is not something used only against hispanics. It can, and has been used, "against" anyone and everyone. Personally, if it will help deport illegal aliens, without taking anything away from anyone else, then it should be in effect, with no questions. achtung! your papers are not in order HALT! It does NOT need to be put into effect. There is no reason to madate the carrying of identification for citizens of this country. We are a free society. Block the borders, you cannot punnish the mass for the crimes of this government for allowing illegals easy access.

Single_Rob Joined Mon 02/04/08 Posts: 8233	Tue 05/20/08 02:22 PM
So, I did not claim to be an authority on anything, I simply stated that if being required to show legal documentation of citizenship (your state id card) would help remove the illegal aliens from our soil, without removing any citizens legal rights and priviledges, then it should be instated without any arguments. Well sir I dare say someone interupting a citizens walk asking him/her for their papers is a violation of our constitutional rights. That piece of paper is still the one true law of this land

franshade Joined Tue 07/24/07 Posts: 24704	Tue 05/20/08 03:07 PM
it was introduced as a form of discriination agains minorities. If a person of hispanic origin could not produce id it would be easier to lock them up, and determain their legal status and start deportation. the rebuttal to that though is the fact that it is not something used only against hispanics. It can, and has been used, "against" anyone and everyone. Personally, if it will help deport illegal aliens, without taking anything away from anyone else, then it should be in effect, with no questions. and all this because you say so... for someone who had issues with a teenager yelling at your kids, now your an authority on who to have deported... I say if you cant control what happens at home, stay out of mine (jmo) Ok first of all, I did not attack you, so I will ask that yuo dont attack me. Secondly, I never stated to be an authority on anything. However, United States [n]LAW dictates that someone who was not born on American soil, or born to American parents needs to apply for citizenship in order to be granted citizenship. And if you do not follow this procedure, then you are nt a legal citizen of the United States. Thus, if you are here without proper paperwork (visa, passport for vacation etc) you are an illegal alien in the United States. An United States law also dictates that if you are here illegally then you will be deported back to your nation of origin when found. So, I did not claim to be an authority on anything, I simply stated that if being required to show legal documentation of citizenship (your state id card) would help remove the illegal aliens from our soil, without removing any citizens legal rights and priviledges, then it should be instated without any arguments. And finally, I have an issue with a teenager yelling at my kids, because NO ONE has the right or priviledge to yell at anyone elses children without express permission from the parent(s) of that child first. No comparison to this. you're entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine, there was no personal attack just sharing my opinion. Whether I chose to walk with identification in order to make it easier on governmental officials is a choice not mandated as you stated. Then of course you ran w/the illegals... so I ran with the yelling, pretty childish I'd admit but that happens when 'we' steer off the topic no???

daniel48706 Joined Fri 03/16/07 Posts: 8566	Tue 05/20/08 03:13 PM Edited by daniel48706 on Tue 05/20/08 03:15 PM
it was introduced as a form of discriination agains minorities. If a person of hispanic origin could not produce id it would be easier to lock them up, and determain their legal status and start deportation. the rebuttal to that though is the fact that it is not something used only against hispanics. It can, and has been used, "against" anyone and everyone. Personally, if it will help deport illegal aliens, without taking anything away from anyone else, then it should be in effect, with no questions. achtung! your papers are not in order HALT! It does NOT need to be put into effect. There is no reason to madate the carrying of identification for citizens of this country. We are a free society. Block the borders, you cannot punnish the mass for the crimes of this government for allowing illegals easy access. Howis it a punihsment to carry a little card (not even 3x5) on your person to show that you are a legal citizen of thses here United States? the "Legal" definition of punishment is as follows: PUNISHMENT - Some pain or penalty warranted by law, inflicted on a person, for the commission of a crime or misdemeanor, or for the omission of the performance of an act required by law, by the judgment and command of some lawful court. fore more information on thi sparticular definition go to the following link: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p201.htm. So, again I ask how you are being punished by being required to carry a small plastic card that identifies you as a ctizen of the United States?

daniel48706 Joined Fri 03/16/07 Posts: 8566	Tue 05/20/08 03:16 PM
So, I did not claim to be an authority on anything, I simply stated that if being required to show legal documentation of citizenship (your state id card) would help remove the illegal aliens from our soil, without removing any citizens legal rights and priviledges, then it should be instated without any arguments. Well sir I dare say someone interupting a citizens walk asking him/her for their papers is a violation of our constitutional rights. That piece of paper is still the one true law of this land And how is a cop asking you to provide id while on a walk, a violation of your constitutional rights? It harms you in no way, and it detracts from your ersonal liberites and freedoms in no way.

daniel48706 Joined Fri 03/16/07 Posts: 8566	Tue 05/20/08 03:24 PM
it was introduced as a form of discriination agains minorities. If a person of hispanic origin could not produce id it would be easier to lock them up, and determain their legal status and start deportation. the rebuttal to that though is the fact that it is not something used only against hispanics. It can, and has been used, "against" anyone and everyone. Personally, if it will help deport illegal aliens, without taking anything away from anyone else, then it should be in effect, with no questions. and all this because you say so... for someone who had issues with a teenager yelling at your kids, now your an authority on who to have deported... I say if you cant control what happens at home, stay out of mine (jmo) Ok first of all, I did not attack you, so I will ask that yuo dont attack me. Secondly, I never stated to be an authority on anything. However, United States [n]LAW dictates that someone who was not born on American soil, or born to American parents needs to apply for citizenship in order to be granted citizenship. And if you do not follow this procedure, then you are nt a legal citizen of the United States. Thus, if you are here without proper paperwork (visa, passport for vacation etc) you are an illegal alien in the United States. An United States law also dictates that if you are here illegally then you will be deported back to your nation of origin when found. So, I did not claim to be an authority on anything, I simply stated that if being required to show legal documentation of citizenship (your state id card) would help remove the illegal aliens from our soil, without removing any citizens legal rights and priviledges, then it should be instated without any arguments. And finally, I have an issue with a teenager yelling at my kids, because NO ONE has the right or priviledge to yell at anyone elses children without express permission from the parent(s) of that child first. No comparison to this. you're entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine, there was no personal attack just sharing my opinion. Whether I chose to walk with identification in order to make it easier on governmental officials is a choice not mandated as you stated. Then of course you ran w/the illegals... so I ran with the yelling, pretty childish I'd admit but that happens when 'we' steer off the topic no??? Out of graciousness I willa ccept you did not mean to attack. However, I will not accep the excuse of *"stearing off topic"*. I did not "run with the illegals" as you so well put it. The issue of illegals had been mentioned prior to my even using them as an example. As a reasoning behind why the id law was first instated int he first place. I merely maintained that it was not a bad idea to use it that way, as it does not detract from a citizens rights or priviledges. And to answer a comment you made earlier, that I missed, you stated"...stay out of my home...". I have not once netered your abode, nor would I be interested. I hae not once suggested anythign to do with anyone lese entering your place of dwelling. I am refferring to id in public places. what a lot of people do not understand, is that you give up some of your rights when you step out your door and into public, because you are now in a public area, which means the group needs to get along. not everyone conforming to everyone elses wishes.