DescentBB

woodchip wrote:

Top Gun wrote:
Did you ever stop and think that oh hey, maybe the ID requirement for the march is due to liability reasons, i.e. if someone has a medical emergency and they need to be identified so that their family can be contacted? But nah we'll just avoid that irritating little process called critical thinking and jump right to ridiculous conclusions.

You could say the same thing for voting. Long lines can be stressful and who knows what medical emergency can happen. No tickets in the voting line with any ex-claimers printed on them either.

wow, there's a stretch.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

Top Gun wrote:
Did you ever stop and think that oh hey, maybe the ID requirement for the march is due to liability reasons, i.e. if someone has a medical emergency and they need to be identified so that their family can be contacted? But nah we'll just avoid that irritating little process called critical thinking and jump right to ridiculous conclusions.

You could say the same thing for voting. Long lines can be stressful and who knows what medical emergency can happen. No tickets in the voting line with any ex-claimers printed on them either.

wow, there's a stretch.

Didn't see you saying that TG's statement was a stretch.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:I thought the issue here was "photo" ID*, anyone in their right mind would never leave the house without some kind of ID to help anyone that might need it, in case of an emergency. (clean underwear too )

In fact I do believe the law requires you to have ID on you at all times here in Philly (outside the home) although I can't confirm this.

no, it doesn't. In fact, to do so is forbidden.

Where do you pull these statements out from. It is not "forbidden"...it is just not required. Also look into the “Real ID Act of 2005” which was implemented in 2011. It turns your drivers license into a de facto national I.D.

Top Gun wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:If demanding photo ID is a racist violation of civil rights, as Dems claim it is, in voting policy....then photo ID is also the same racist ploy in the NAACP requirement to join them in their march on public land.

Did you ever stop and think that oh hey, maybe the ID requirement for the march is due to liability reasons, i.e. if someone has a medical emergency and they need to be identified so that their family can be contacted? But nah we'll just avoid that irritating little process called critical thinking and jump right to ridiculous conclusions.

Lol!
Yes, I have thought about this and critically as well, not just trying to feed the photo ID requirement through some political argument template and then constructing excuses for a Party's stance on the use of them as some people have.

You are correct when you rejected that requiring a photo ID is inherently racist, or an unreasonable bit of documentation to ask people to provide, it isn't so burdensome to acquire that poor people can't get one!
So you offered the premise that sometimes a photo ID is needed, or appropriate. Well done Grasshopper!

I don't think insurance is the reason but it doesn't really matter what the specific reason or reasons are for this discussion. Only that we all acknowledge that hypocrisy is deep, thick and stinky swirling around the NAACP in this case and slick has waded in up to his shoulders to try and redirect traffic away from the spectacle.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:I thought the issue here was "photo" ID*, anyone in their right mind would never leave the house without some kind of ID to help anyone that might need it, in case of an emergency. (clean underwear too )

In fact I do believe the law requires you to have ID on you at all times here in Philly (outside the home) although I can't confirm this.

no, it doesn't. In fact, to do so is forbidden.

Citation please.

EDIT:

Actually I may have the requirement to show ID to a policeman if requested, confused with the requirement to carry at all times.

But I still want to see where it is forbidden to require carrying ID by a city or municipality.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:I thought the issue here was "photo" ID*, anyone in their right mind would never leave the house without some kind of ID to help anyone that might need it, in case of an emergency. (clean underwear too )

In fact I do believe the law requires you to have ID on you at all times here in Philly (outside the home) although I can't confirm this.

no, it doesn't. In fact, to do so is forbidden.

Where do you pull these statements out from. It is not "forbidden"...it is just not required. Also look into the “Real ID Act of 2005” which was implemented in 2011. It turns your drivers license into a de facto national I.D.

but it isn't constitutional to require carry, I believe. No one is required to get one, and no one has to have one on his/her person unless they are OPERATING a vehicle(and, in many states, they have 24 hours to produce it). Big, big differences.

I'm sorry Slick but here in MO you have to produce ID on demand even if you are walking down the street and they are allowed to search you for their own safety

It's called Stop and identify statutes

Image shows which states have these laws. In red.



If you don't provide information about yourself you can be arrested.

as you can see from your map, Heretic, we have that law in Delaware.....however, you merely have to self-identify. There is NO ID carry requirement....as I said, it would be likely found Unconstitutional. You can be ordered to produce same within 24 or 48 hours, IIRC.

You have to do more than self identify if you are wanted for a warrant, or are a suspect of a crime.

Spidey wrote:You have to do more than self identify if you are wanted for a warrant, or are a suspect of a crime.

sure, but you'll be doing that in the precinct house, right?

Yup, unless they escort you to your residence to provide any ID needed.

In the context of this thread, the 24 hours provision makes the voter ID requirement even less of an issue since you can cast a provisional ballot...return to prove ID...vote continues to be counted as cast. No harm, no foul.

In the case of using the same 'racist' photo ID tactic to permit someone to attend the NAACP march, returning 24 hours after the march to show you should be allowed to march is...well...

So none of that exercise diminishes the hypocrisy that is still overflowing the NAACP cup.

Will Robinson wrote:In the context of this thread, the 24 hours provision makes the voter ID requirement even less of an issue since you can cast a provisional ballot...return to prove ID...vote continues to be counted as cast. No harm, no foul.

well, except that such a process, coupled with overt intimidation or hurdles to validation of the provisional, becomes the issue. In Virginia, for example, in the last election, the attorney general(who just happened to have lost the election for governor) imposed an arbitrary short window on the validation process in a desperate attempt to get one of the GOP ticket members a better shot at winning a close vote. It failed, but it shows that matters aren't so cut and dried as you infer.

In the case of using the same 'racist' photo ID tactic to permit someone to attend the NAACP march, returning 24 hours after the march to show you should be allowed to march is...well...

as was patiently pointed out to you(twice, I think), the ID requirement there was merely a request. I strongly doubt that anyone was NOT allowed to march without an ID. Further, it was a private group decision for a demonstration and was, as was pointed out to you again, around liability or other matters.

So none of that exercise diminishes the hypocrisy that is still overflowing the NAACP cup.

those pesky black folk. Freakin' race baiter, as always.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:In the context of this thread, the 24 hours provision makes the voter ID requirement even less of an issue since you can cast a provisional ballot...return to prove ID...vote continues to be counted as cast. No harm, no foul.

well, except that such a process, coupled with overt intimidation or hurdles to validation of the provisional, becomes the issue. In Virginia, for example, in the last election, the attorney general(who just happened to have lost the election for governor) imposed an arbitrary short window on the validation process in a desperate attempt to get one of the GOP ticket members a better shot at winning a close vote. It failed, but it shows that matters aren't so cut and dried as you infer.

The fact that some people try to change the original law to suit their political fortunes is not proof the law was wrong. Or should you now abandon support for Obamacare since he is clearly changing it for political reasons! Lol. You just throw out red herrings everywhere you want to avoid the point. I guess I should be used to it by now and just ignore you because you don't have discussions you just issue proclamations and spew ideological spin.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:In the case of using the same 'racist' photo ID tactic to permit someone to attend the NAACP march, returning 24 hours after the march to show you should be allowed to march is...well...

as was patiently pointed out to you(twice, I think), the ID requirement there was merely a request. I strongly doubt that anyone was NOT allowed to march without an ID. Further, it was a private group decision for a demonstration and was, as was pointed out to you again, around liability or other matters.

It wasn't pointed out with any substance to make it believable...it was weakly speculated. Stop making proclamations so you can bypass the points you have trouble with, you are not the king of the world.

But that is completely beside the point.

The point being the hypocrisy. It doesn't matter if any one was kept from marching. It was a march to protest photo ID requirements that they will tell you is a hardship for the people they represent. The same people they were gathering to march... but required them to bring a photo ID!!!

For crying out loud! If you can't concede that stinks of hypocrisy you are not human! You have been assimilated completely. You are some DNC software bot on a server somewhere.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:So none of that exercise diminishes the hypocrisy that is still overflowing the NAACP cup.

those pesky black folk. Freakin' race baiter, as always.

Voila! right on schedule. Call the messenger a racist if you can't defend your position..

Heretic wrote:I'm sorry Slick but here in MO you have to produce ID on demand even if you are walking down the street and they are allowed to search you for their own safety

It's called Stop and identify statutes

If you don't provide information about yourself you can be arrested.

Doesn't this requirement bother anyone who has the notion that this is a free country with freedom of passage, and that these laws are turning us into a Nazi Germany or Soviet-like country when we have to show our identity to authorities upon request without probable cause? It sure scares me.

As a matter of fact we have been living under a free police state for a while now.

Will Robinson wrote:The fact that some people try to change the original law to suit their political fortunes is not proof the law was wrong. Or should you now abandon support for Obamacare since he is clearly changing it for political reasons!

either you are clueless or lying. The implementation was changed at the request of his business panel which consults on the law.

Lol. You just throw out red herrings everywhere you want to avoid the point. I guess I should be used to it by now and just ignore you because you don't have discussions you just issue proclamations and spew ideological spin.

and, as I showed above, you just make stuff up......and then, have the brass to accuse me of 'spin' or 'red herrings'? Hilarious!

It wasn't pointed out with any substance to make it believable...it was weakly speculated.

only from the point of view of someone who wanted to make a cheap political point.....hmmm, the exact thing you accuse me of.

But that is completely beside the point.

thus far, that would describe every post you've made in this thread.

The point being the hypocrisy. It doesn't matter if any one was kept from marching. It was a march to protest photo ID requirements that they will tell you is a hardship for the people they represent. The same people they were gathering to march... but required them to bring a photo ID!!!

go, as soon as it's convenient, and grab a dictionary. Look up the words 'request' and 'require' and see if they mean the same thing. If so, you are correct, if not, you are raising a bogus point as usual.

.

Voila! right on schedule. Call the messenger a racist if you can't defend your position..

oh, I think I defended it just fine..........

Heretic wrote:As a matter of fact we have been living under a free police state for a while now.

But, does it bother you at all?

Hah, you just got me thinking of the ramifications of requiring ID, and in the course of thinking about it, I am now convinced Philly doesn’t have any such laws…….

Because they would have figured out a way to turn it into a revenue stream long ago… Hell these bitches look into your trash to see if there are any recyclables in there.

But I did do a few hours of research last night, and the only thing I could come up with were some archaic vagrancy laws, which probably started the rumors in the first place.

It’s amazing just how many of these laws are still on the books.

hell, if they enforced vagrancy in Philly, the jails would be overflowing within 3 hours.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The fact that some people try to change the original law to suit their political fortunes is not proof the law was wrong. Or should you now abandon support for Obamacare since he is clearly changing it for political reasons!

either you are clueless or lying. The implementation was changed at the request of his business panel which consults on the law.

Are you trying to say Obama isn't responsible for delaying the mandate in the law? That some business panel that provides consulting has done that?!?

Lol! Even if that fairy tale was true where would these civilians get the authority to alter the US Law?

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Lol. You just throw out red herrings everywhere you want to avoid the point. I guess I should be used to it by now and just ignore you because you don't have discussions you just issue proclamations and spew ideological spin.

and, as I showed above, you just make stuff up......and then, have the brass to accuse me of 'spin' or 'red herrings'? Hilarious!

Uh, ok...
See your silly claim above about 'business consultants' are responsible for altering sections of US law.

Then see this:

The Obama administration will delay a crucial provision of its signature health-care law, giving businesses an extra year to comply with a requirement that they provide their workers with insurance.

From That was the first time.....and now they decided to put it off yet another year!

The Obama administration will delay a crucial provision of its signature health care law, giving businesses an extra year to comply with a requirement that they provide their workers with insurance.

From [url=www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/ ... 97483.html]here

But according to slick it isn't Obama doing it at all!
'I just make it all up saying it is his doing'
Noooo, it is some group of business consultants that apparently have the power to arbitrarily postpone US law.

slick you are completely pathologically dishonest!

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The point being the hypocrisy. It doesn't matter if any one was kept from marching. It was a march to protest photo ID requirements that they will tell you is a hardship for the people they represent. The same people they were gathering to march... but required them to bring a photo ID!!!

go, as soon as it's convenient, and grab a dictionary. Look up the words 'request' and 'require' and see if they mean the same thing. If so, you are correct, if not, you are raising a bogus point as usual.

Lol!
That is the weakest frikken dodge of a point I have ever seen! The epitome of weak dodge!

I'm seriously wondering if you are drunk.

Will Robinson wrote:Are you trying to say Obama isn't responsible for delaying the mandate in the law? That some business panel that provides consulting has done that?!?

um, no. I'm saying, and was rather clear about it, that the change wasn't made for political reasons, which was your ludicrous claim.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The point being the hypocrisy. It doesn't matter if any one was kept from marching. It was a march to protest photo ID requirements that they will tell you is a hardship for the people they represent. The same people they were gathering to march... but required them to bring a photo ID!!!

go, as soon as it's convenient, and grab a dictionary. Look up the words 'request' and 'require' and see if they mean the same thing. If so, you are correct, if not, you are raising a bogus point as usual.

Lol!
That is the weakest frikken dodge of a point I have ever seen! The epitome of weak dodge!

I'm seriously wondering if you are drunk.

still don't know the difference, huh? Sad. This time, I highlighted your words, and would like you to show how a request equals a requirement. Calling me names doesn't make you less wrong, Will. But, keep it up, you have become sort of amusing. Oh, and I haven't gotten drunk in over 3 decades, to tell the truth.

Slick, you don't get to declare the business interests of the private sector are not completely intertwined with Obamas politics.

He and his party passed a law that set the rules. He then decided after the fact that noise from powerful interested parties was too great to ignore so he delayed it.

He now has delayed it again because the noise is still there.

That is politics and regardless of your attempt to protect Obama from being at the heart of it he is.

"Politics" are the administration of governments business and managing how that collides with the private sector and managing how the collision effects the public perception of the politician.

The ACA was set into law. The time table was designed to make the program viable. When reality collided with the politicians timetable and threatened the politicians standing in the publics eye he changed the time table even though it hurt the prospects of funding the program!

He is neck deep in the decision and it wasn't some unexpected business concern that snuck out of the jungle and bit him on the ass! You aren't going to be able to sell that turd as a jelly bean around here.

He was aware of the impact Obamacare was going to have from the beginning and in spite of that knowledge he had to sell it as viable to get it into law and now he is scrambling to to shuffle things around in hopes viability suddenly manifests itself out of the smoke and mirrors he used to get it sold.

All of that is "politics". Your attempt to insulate him from that is your contribution to another smoke and mirror show.

And on the other front.


Regardless as to whether the NAACP requested or required photo ID to attend the march to protest photo ID is completely irrelevant to the point you are swerving so desperately to avoid.
The POINT IS it is funny as hell, it is hypocrisy on parade.

The march is symbolic. The request/requirement is symbolic.
Is it important? No.
It is FUNNY.

But you can't laugh at it because your are neck deep in dogma poo.

Will Robinson wrote:Slick, you don't get to declare the business interests of the private sector are not completely intertwined with Obamas politics.

how so?

"Politics" are the administration of governments business and managing how that collides with the private sector and managing how the collision effects the public perception of the politician.

uh-huh, so doing smaller businesses a favor translates into re-election for Obama? Whoops! He's not running for anything, ever again.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Slick, you don't get to declare the business interests of the private sector are not completely intertwined with Obamas politics.

how so?

It was explained in the parts you dodged. You don't really think no one recognizes you did that do you? Lol

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:"Politics" are the administration of governments business and managing how that collides with the private sector and managing how the collision effects the public perception of the politician.

uh-huh, so doing smaller businesses a favor translates into re-election for Obama? Whoops! He's not running for anything, ever again.

Lol. Really? That's it?
Yea, he was merely doing small business a favor.
No concern for the Dem politicians he is hanging out to dry if Obamacare continues to fail! No concern for legacy or post presidential power standing for him! No! Only Repubs continue to play the game after the term is up...

lol!

Punch drunk I think. Someone throw in the towel, your done.

Will Robinson wrote: Someone throw in the towel, your done.

I likely am, because you clearly have lost contact with reality, and nothing by way of real facts is going to change that fact. Enjoy your Obama-hate fantasy world!


edit--to catch up: Will has thus far failed, miserably, to see the difference between a request from a private organization of it's membership, for a protest march, and the government REQUIRING ID. Yes, I'd say I'm pretty much done, now, because that seems unlikely to change.

TC yes it bothers me as it should bother any one. I have been stop a few times walking though my neighborhood. After walking to and from the store five blocks from my house. I guess they don't like people with shoulder length hair and a beard.

Heretic wrote:TC yes it bothers me as it should bother any one. I have been stop a few times walking though my neighborhood. After walking to and from the store five blocks from my house. I guess they don't like people with shoulder length hair and a beard.

seems a bit much to me, too.

tunnelcat wrote:Doesn't [stop and identify statutes] bother anyone who has the notion that this is a free country with freedom of passage..?

Heretic wrote:TC yes it bothers me as it should bother any one. I have been stop a few times walking though my neighborhood. After walking to and from the store five blocks from my house. I guess they don't like people with shoulder length hair and a beard.

I've had shoulder-length hair and a goatee for years, and have had certainly had to deal with suspicion based on appearance, myself. I'd be peeved if I was asked for ID without cause.

Here's what I've learned about dealing with the police, and I bear scars on both hands from the handcuffs from grabbing 2 and choking the piss out of them. Didn't let go till my friend jumped out to 'help' and those jokers tensed up good and went for their guns. They do not have the right to question you without cause, but 98% of them got into the job to good, expect you to hate them, and are your neighbors. Make friends out of them and you have friends for life.

I learned very early in life...if you show the police respect...they show respect right back...but if you give them crap...........

flip and Spidey.....very sound observations in my experience as well. One caveat: I'm white, and can vouch for the fact that such evenhanded warm and fuzzy stuff is not the case for black people in many areas. Try as they might, they will never be befriended or even treated well. Such is the reality in the US, to this day.

That may have been the case, but that is slowly dying. Only people trying to keep it alive are the same people who need division to continue to operate.

flip wrote:That may have been the case, but that is slowly dying. Only people trying to keep it alive are the same people who need division to continue to operate.

on both sides of the equation? Perhaps.

I don't know about that. All I know is here, we all smile at each other until a Zimmerman case gets blown out of proportion. Then you can feel the tension again.

which means, Flip, that the underlying tension never went away......you all just covered it over with fake smiles in many cases.

No it doesn't. It means that there was an offense long ago and people who like to stir up dissension are keeping people conditioned to react in a certain way. I know exactly how people are, and I also know that most are getting tired of it. I've walked up to people with scowls on their face and smiled and been friendly and they instantly smile back and relax. I'm not the only one who knows that

Foil wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Doesn't [stop and identify statutes] bother anyone who has the notion that this is a free country with freedom of passage..?

Heretic wrote:TC yes it bothers me as it should bother any one. I have been stop a few times walking though my neighborhood. After walking to and from the store five blocks from my house. I guess they don't like people with shoulder length hair and a beard.

I've had shoulder-length hair and a goatee for years, and have had certainly had to deal with suspicion based on appearance, myself. I'd be peeved if I was asked for ID without cause.

They can make up any cause they want. I was told once that there had been burglaries in the neighborhood, first they stop then they search you for their safety they say. Ask for ID and if they feel like you may be a suspect they take you in and can hold you up to 24 hours with no charges.

A man should have the right to stroll around at night with a black jump-suit and knit cap if he feels the need! Stop looking so suspicious, Heretic!

I'm with Flip on this one. Get to know 'em. Or if they really are assholes then take them to court.