[phatosealpha]

The bit about the homeland security department will be flat out ignored by the courts.  It's by far in the best interests of the courts to declare such an act unconstitutional, someone will challenge it and it will go down.

[icespeed]

this is... ah, terrible.

i'm just thinking that we have to think about all these ethical issues each time we ask people to give us some blood or tissue or whatever so we can test them and make sure they're not sick- this is something we do _for the people_. now there are no ethical issue about forcing people to give bodily samples for purposes of identification?

probably this is not relevant since i have never been in such a situation, but i think i would resign rather than vote for such a bill. career? screw that. i have my morality and my conscience to answer to.

[Krackers87]

Now my sourcers are sketchy (the daily show, although they dont tend to make up news, just make fun of it) but aparently florida passed a law that makes it legal to open fire on someone if you feel threatened.

Like on the roadways for example, someone cuts you off, and you have every right to blow the everliving **** out of him with you .22

Someone pinch me.

Ive lost all faith in my country and its people.

[Drew]

so basically Michael Chertoff cant be sued, is what that excerpt is saying

[Taristin]

Originally posted by Krackers87

Ive lost all faith in my country and its people.

Welcome to America. Please deposit your freedoms at the door. You are to obey our will. Any contradictory statements, actions, or thoughts will result in your incarceration. You are to carry an ID card. Loss of ID card will result in your incarceration. Have a nice day.

[Drew]

after reading the bill youll notice that half of the statments in the registers article is just speculation, hell calling it a national id card is a strech all it does is set up rules that the states have to follow when making their own drivers liscenses. of states do this crap already, with databases (minus the pictures) and avalable on the internet.  basically its making state ids harder to alter.  youll probably see holograms and barcodes and maybe even chips, but thats totaly the state's jurisdiction; other than that the only thing the states are required to do is share their information.

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by icespeed
but i think i would resign rather than vote for such a bill. career? screw that. i have my morality and my conscience to answer to.

you'r not a politition.
think about it, do you think these people would be were they are today if they didn't have the opposite of that sort of personality?

[Rictor]

The things is that one person, or a few at most, could potentially have the morals to take a principled stand like that. But it would essentially be career suicide in vain, since the vast majority would still vote them down. There are a few independents, and moderates in both parties who have some degree of ethical decency, but there's no way you could get enough people  to defeat the motion.

I'm holding out hope that the law can be declared unconstitutional, but seeing as how Bush is likely to get his guys up on the Supreme Court pretty soon....

[NGTM-1R]

The Supreme Court doesn't always decide to its political leanings, you know. In fact it has a history of going the other way in major cases.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Drew
after reading the bill youll notice that half of the statments in the registers article is just speculation, hell calling it a national id card is a strech all it does is set up rules that the states have to follow when making their own drivers liscenses. of states do this crap already, with databases (minus the pictures) and avalable on the internet.  basically its making state ids harder to alter.  youll probably see holograms and barcodes and maybe even chips, but thats totaly the state's jurisdiction; other than that the only thing the states are required to do is share their information.

The first step to tyranny is ignoring the worst case scenario.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
The things is that one person, or a few at most, could potentially have the morals to take a principled stand like that. But it would essentially be career suicide in vain, since the vast majority would still vote them down. There are a few independents, and moderates in both parties who have some degree of ethical decency, but there's no way you could get enough people  to defeat the motion.

No need to block the bill. Just do what the others did an attach a rider making gay marriage legal. Then the bill would simply turn into a game of one-upmanship with each side trying to come up with riders which are more and more repugnant to the other side until both sides cave in and pass the bill with no riders at all

Or have I misunderstood exactly who can attach what to a bill?

[redmenace]

Originally posted by Krackers87
Now my sourcers are sketchy (the daily show, although they dont tend to make up news, just make fun of it) but aparently florida passed a law that makes it legal to open fire on someone if you feel threatened.

Like on the roadways for example, someone cuts you off, and you have every right to blow the everliving **** out of him with you .22

Someone pinch me.

Ive lost all faith in my country and its people.

Frankly I would read the bill first before trusting Jon Stewart. And besides in the right situations this is a great law. Say somone breaks into your home. You can shoot them and don't have to worry about a lawsuit.

[Unknown Target]

Originally posted by Krackers87
Now my sourcers are sketchy (the daily show, although they dont tend to make up news, just make fun of it) but aparently florida passed a law that makes it legal to open fire on someone if you feel threatened.

That actually is a good idea. An old man down here had his house broken into, so he grabbed his shotgun and shot the guy as he was coming through the window. He didn't kill the guy, instead only wounding him. So guess what the thief did? He sued the old man.

Anyway, I'm also hoping the Supreme Court will take a look at this.

[Swamp_Thing]

Originally posted by redmenace

Say somone breaks into your home. You can shoot them and don't have to worry about a lawsuit.

´

What if i´m the meter man, and enter your house to check the meter, and you just shoot me, because you weren´t expecting the meter man to come by?
Right, no lawsuit...

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Unknown Target


That actually is a good idea. An old man down here had his house broken into, so he grabbed his shotgun and shot the guy as he was coming through the window. He didn't kill the guy, instead only wounding him. So guess what the thief did? He sued the old man.

Anyway, I'm also hoping the Supreme Court will take a look at this.

It's also a get-out-of-jail-free card.

 Shoot a bystander knocking on your back door?  Fair enough - you felt threatened.  Don't approve of your daughters boyfriend visting at night and chucking pebbles at the window?  Get the shotgun out.

The more the consequences of force - especially lethal force - are reduced, the more likely it is that it'll be used.  You might think it's fair enough to kill a burglar, but then why not introduce the death penalty for theft?

[redmenace]

Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
´

What if i´m the meter man, and enter your house to check the meter, and you just shoot me, because you weren´t expecting the meter man to come by?
Right, no lawsuit...

metermen ask to enter your home.

Metermen ask to check your meter or atleast tell you that they are there.(when the meter is on the outside.)

Basically, your analogy doesn't work.

On the subject of an intruder. People who have boobie trapt their property because of repeated break ins and the police don't bother to help and been sued when some dumb ass black kid broke and was killed.

[Nuclear1]

On the subject of an intruder. People who have boobie trapt their property because of repeated break ins and the police don't bother to help and been sued when some dumb ass black kid broke and was killed.

And the first step to bigotry...

[redmenace]

Well that is not exactly bigotry. If anything it points out a trajedy of the inner cities.

If you really want bigotry, I can do bigotry. I could say all blacks are dishonest, drug dealing, murders etc. But I am not because, besides from being unfair and a stereotype is wrong since I HAVE A BLACK BROTHER AND SISTER.

[Swamp_Thing]

Originally posted by redmenace

metermen ask to enter your home.

Metermen ask to check your meter or atleast tell you that they are there.(when the meter is on the outside.)

Basically, your analogy doesn't work.

Just because you don´t want it to work, that´s all.
Suppose you are in the shower, and can´t hear the door bell. The meter man still needs to enter your yard. So you get out of the shower, and notice some guy creeping around your yard. You feel threatened, so out comes the customized assault rifle, and bye bye goes a meter man...

What this bill is trying to do is turn every house into a man´s medieval castle, where you do what the hell you want to anyone coming in, even if they come in peace. It´s a license to kill your neighbour, and go scott free.
Maybe i don´t like the milkman, because i got it through my thick skull that he´s banging my wife. So all i need to do is wait behind the bushes... Goodbye milkman.

[Unknown Target]

Neat I have a bunch of black relatives too! I have a very mixed family