[WS]HD wrote: Tx, you and i are frequently on opposing sides of these arguments and i think it's important for you to remember that what you need to do today to get a warrant you may not need to do tomorrow. Whose side are you going to be on if the people rise up? Where will you stand if uncle Sam decides they want to take your guns away our lock up your wife and kids? What then? Will you still support the feds then?

Well I am not an alarmist. I do not foresee another revolution. But hypothetically speaking, I am an American. I will not stand by and watch secessionists rip the country apart because they can't carry an election. As a peace officer, I am sworn to uphold the law not enact or adjudicate it. I respect the right of the election day victor to govern. If laws are upheld through court challenge, I would be an oath breaker and dishonor myself not to enforce them. So, if our fellow citizens repeal the 2nd or any other amendment by the process stipulated by the Constitution, then it is the law of the land. If the SCOTUS upholds a law, it is the law of the land. If the government usurps and suspends the Constitution, then I will protect my family first and foremost. If people declare a revolution because they can't win an election, I will assist in restoring order, protecting the union, and bringing the wrongdoer to justice. Here is my absolute favorite bible verse to support me on this and how I reconcile potentially killing another human as a Christian:

Romans 13:3-4
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

MaDtotheMoM wrote: Kptn singh and onesekone......very interesting views indeed....its opened my mind that's for sure. Heres another idea ive had many times......the human brain and the mind....we use only a small amount of it? And yet we do not know what the rest is used for....do you think it is a part of evolution or maybe a lost skill that we have the ability to maybe see or to communicate with the devines/angels/god himself?

you bring up an interesting scientific observation and I see this as another instance of where science and religion do work together. accepting what is given to us by god/creator as well as accepting that we may not truly know the function of everything forms the core dogma of Sikhi as set forth by Nanak when he wrote the Sukhmani (peace of mind), which forms the basis for the whole Guru Granth Sahib scripture. This philosophy forms the basis of why Sikhs keep their hair long.


I have a theory that both long hair and the extra mental capacity you mentioned have a function that is not understood by us and they may in fact work in unison. I tend to believe they are devoted towards creativity and spirituality. Creativity exists outside the realm of traditional intelligence and cannot be measured by IQ tests. From personal experience as a musician, I can sit for hours try to come up with something sounding 'uplifting and cool' and come up empty. Or I can be thinking of something other then music and all of a sudden something really cool I had never expected or worked for comes out. You cant command creativity or will it, its something given to us by the divine. Hence, its a form of communication. Its not born of our brain but communicated from an external source. Furthermore, music does not require training or education as some of the best have been self taught. Nanak understood this and its the reason why he stressed all human beings to be involved in creative endeavours and not to let our profession, education, socioeconomic status stunt our potential.

Creativity is not just important in the arts its important in everything we do. Intelligence and analytical skills will let humanity continue with the status quo, but its through creativity we progress.
Its the driving force towards our progression, any Ideas or rules that seek to limit creative endeavours work against the will of god which is why Nanak spoke out against the caste system.

ZebraUp wrote:

[WS]HD wrote: The flaw in that logic zebra is that during basic soldiers are indoctrinated to follow orders without question, no mater the order because some orders may have an element above that soldiers clearance. I hope our soldiers defect when they realize what's going on. I don't see that happening though as too many are blind.

Well HD the military is led by their officers.. who like all members of the military are REQUIRED to disobey an unlawful order.. that being said, any order given that is against the US Constitution is by definition an unlawful order. So I HOPE they would refuse orders of that nature.. there are always those that would refuse to see or be blind.. but hopefully those that weren't would speak up.

While you are right that officers have the right to disobey an unlawful order, the problem is that the officers who would disobey such an order are often imprisoned, stripped of both their command and their rank, and forfeit their pay in doing so. Some military officers take the stance that any soldier refusing to follow what they believe to be an unlawful order is a coward and a deserter. This creates a situation in which some soldiers (as was seen by former third reich soldiers at the end of ww2) simply follow their orders out of fear of retaliation by the government against them and their families, which leads to atrocities being commited. Personally i believe that everyone, soldiers, law enforcement and civilians alike, have the responsibility to decide whether a law is morally right or wrong, while taking into consideration the rights of the people they know. To illustrate this i give this example. J- walking is against the law, most often just punishable by a ticket. Im sure we've all j-walked in front of a cop before but has anyone ever really been ticketed for it? I know i havent. It is my belief that this particular law isnt enforced mostly because cops have bigger fish to fry than ticketing people for not walking all the way to a crosswalk before crossing the street. However, this still illustrates the law enforcement officer interpreting the law to be something he doesnt or shouldnt enforce. Tx this is why it bothers me when you say you have to support the law of the land bc while i do understand your position, it still makes me fear that you will get caught in that grey area and not realize it until its too late. I dont advocate war bc the candidates that i choose to back haven't won, i advocate war bc i dont want my beloved country to turn into a military dictatorship. Laws like the ndaa shouldnt even exist. Military prisoners should be in military prisons and subject to military laws, and civilians should be put in civilian prisons subject to civilian laws. When i see laws talking about malcontents and indoctrination, that sounds to me like anyone who is determined to be a political threat to the current government should be arrested and held without trial, whether they are citizens or not. That sounds like the behavior of a military dictatorship to me. Who decides who the "malcontents" are? Who decides what firearms are legal or not? The founding fathers had firearms and weapons that in their day could have been described as military. Why should there be a disparity between the weapons of the government and the weapons the people hold to deter their government from seizing too much power?

onsekone wrote: Hey Titus. Do you know this artist?

Hi Onsekone and thanks for thinking to me for the "french touch"

Yep i recognize this artist, he is one of the two DaftPunk without his helmet !

He looks like our MORAF here in France but it is just pure coincidence.

[WS]HD wrote:

ZebraUp wrote:

[WS]HD wrote: The flaw in that logic zebra is that during basic soldiers are indoctrinated to follow orders without question, no mater the order because some orders may have an element above that soldiers clearance. I hope our soldiers defect when they realize what's going on. I don't see that happening though as too many are blind.

Well HD the military is led by their officers.. who like all members of the military are REQUIRED to disobey an unlawful order.. that being said, any order given that is against the US Constitution is by definition an unlawful order. So I HOPE they would refuse orders of that nature.. there are always those that would refuse to see or be blind.. but hopefully those that weren't would speak up.

While you are right that officers have the right to disobey an unlawful order, the problem is that the officers who would disobey such an order are often imprisoned, stripped of both their command and their rank, and forfeit their pay in doing so. Some military officers take the stance that any soldier refusing to follow what they believe to be an unlawful order is a coward and a deserter. This creates a situation in which some soldiers (as was seen by former third reich soldiers at the end of ww2) simply follow their orders out of fear of retaliation by the government against them and their families, which leads to atrocities being commited. Personally i believe that everyone, soldiers, law enforcement and civilians alike, have the responsibility to decide whether a law is morally right or wrong, while taking into consideration the rights of the people they know. To illustrate this i give this example. J- walking is against the law, most often just punishable by a ticket. Im sure we've all j-walked in front of a cop before but has anyone ever really been ticketed for it? I know i havent. It is my belief that this particular law isnt enforced mostly because cops have bigger fish to fry than ticketing people for not walking all the way to a crosswalk before crossing the street. However, this still illustrates the law enforcement officer interpreting the law to be something he doesnt or shouldnt enforce. Tx this is why it bothers me when you say you have to support the law of the land bc while i do understand your position, it still makes me fear that you will get caught in that grey area and not realize it until its too late. I dont advocate war bc the candidates that i choose to back haven't won, i advocate war bc i dont want my beloved country to turn into a military dictatorship. Laws like the ndaa shouldnt even exist. Military prisoners should be in military prisons and subject to military laws, and civilians should be put in civilian prisons subject to civilian laws. When i see laws talking about malcontents and indoctrination, that sounds to me like anyone who is determined to be a political threat to the current government should be arrested and held without trial, whether they are citizens or not. That sounds like the behavior of a military dictatorship to me. Who decides who the "malcontents" are? Who decides what firearms are legal or not? The founding fathers had firearms and weapons that in their day could have been described as military. Why should there be a disparity between the weapons of the government and the weapons the people hold to deter their government from seizing too much power?

I am not trying to patronize, but this really is basic civics. Posse Comitatus prohibits federal troops from functioning s law enforcement on US soil. Please note the national guard units are commanded by states until they are federalized. This is why we cannot conveniently use troops to seal our borders. We were briefed by Civil Air Patrol that since they are a wing of the USAF, they cannot even bird dog a fleeing subject and direct police units to their location. How are all of these alleged experts spewing this crap on talk radio missing these basic items from high school civics class?

TX, you know as well as I do that if you or anyone else tries to disarm the good citizens of Texas in this lifetime that you will be facing a bloodbath that makes the American civil war look like a church picnic. There are several other states that are the same way. Those that would strip us of our 2nd amendment rights also know this and that why everything they do is one piece at a time. Whatever their end game is, be it unicorns and rainbows, or enslaving all that don't see things the way they do, no one really knows. I figure it's both and everything in between. I also feel it's very misguided.

I'm not too worried about mass internment of any particular group any time soon. It could happen, but the probability is about .000001 percent. I just don't like the way that people are being dumbed down to believe that ultimately someone other than themself is responsible for their health, welfare, and safety. Being able to defend yourself from Joe the thug, or a tyrannical government is part of taking responsibility for yourself and the world around you. Self reliance and self responsibility is disappearing from our society, and that is what alarms me. We all have a responsibility in maintaining ourselves, our communities, and our freedoms. Sadly, I think I'm one of the few who realize this.

Now, just for fun, can someone PLEASE tell me why voter ID is racist? Thanks

I don't believe voter id is racist, but rather a way to insure the people voting are: a. Alive b. Able to legally vote and c. Not buried in a cemetery somewhere. I doubt we will see an uprising in this country...however, that said, any attempt to remove my constitutional right to bear arms will not be a good turn out. I do believe several military members would agree...and there are several who will side with the govt. No offense, but police will be no match for the kind of things which could potentially happen as a result of an unconstitutional order. Our politicians are aware of this...maybe one reason they pursue other avenues. The other thing to consider, i believe police take an oath to uphold the constitution...it's a reason they must ask to search a car subsequent to a stop and without probable cause to proceed and know the driver has the right to say no. There are several oathkeeper everywhere who will side with law abiding citizens. So, yes, we have potentially dangerous politicians, i don't foresee any force used anytime soon. Just my two cents. People do need to wake up...it wouldn't be our brothers, sisters, family trying to force any type of fun confiscation...this, i believe would be done by a military force not under our control.

The bill that I showed earlier is law. FM 3-40-39 I believe...

After stirring through hundreds of pages of beaurocratical horse shit (excuse my language, but that's what it is), here is what I found.

Military funding has to be approved and written every year with accordance to the constitution (hopefully)

NDAA of 2012- it includes indefinite detention, BUT it specifically says "not to be used for US citizens, resident aliens, and anyone in the country.



But, hold on a second, when Obama signed it, he fetched a lot of crap for it, and he specifically said he "has no plans to abuse his powers to indefinitely detain US citizens, so, even though it isn't specifically allowed in NDAA of 2012, he still had intentions of doing it. (Just trust the politician, they always do as they say)

NDAA of 2013- this has no reference to indefinite detention, and has no mention of detaining people in the US being illegal. In fact, that section isn't even in there. Section 1021 is what it should be-


The way i see it, since Obama had intentions to indefinitely detain (and probably did, but we will never know about all the blacklisted operations here) US citizens anyways, illegally, congress figured there was no point in including it in the law.

Although this shows that indefinite detention is not made legal by any law, as many of us have been led to believe, it shows that Obama still has intention of doing so, as bush did before him.

Here are direct links to the laws, off of a government website-

NDAA of 2012- look for section 1021
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ81/pdf/PLAW-112publ81.pdf

NDAA of 2013-
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr4310enr...LLS-112hr4310enr.pdf

Good for you for taking the time to look it up Big C. You have to be careful of the propaganda spin put on all of this stuff. Everyone grabs a piece of this and a piece of that to further their agendas, but can't be bothered to tell the whole truth. Anymore, there are so many people throwing their version of the truth at you, that it's practically impossible to know who to believe. As I do with almost every important decision in my life, I gather opinions.... As many as possible, and then use that to make up my own mind. I know I don't always get it right, and that my opinions are just that, but I think I have a good method of getting to the best "truth" possible by listening to as many people as possible. I'm sure some folks would call me an "askhole" for getting their opinion and doing the complete opposite, but that's a risk I'm willing to take.

On a different note, George W didn't snatch very many people out of their bedrooms and lock em up, and so far with the exception of that guy whose video was made into the baloney scapegoat for the Benghazi F up, Obama hasn't either. I'm sure it may have been done on a small scale and then hidden from us, but it hasn't happened yet so as the average person would know about it. Hopefully it doesn't either. Most of the damage that I believe that Obama has inflicted so far has been by putting people in key positions that like to over regulate everything, and also by deciding which laws he is and isn't going to enforce (not his place). Beyond that, he seems like a guy that loves having the office and the doors that it opens, but doesn't really want to do the job unless he's dragged kicking and screaming into it. He is a poor leader. But, as I don't like his politics very much, if he is ineffective it's fine with me. Maybe he'll leave less of a mess in his wake.

TXLAWMAN wrote:

[WS]HD wrote:

ZebraUp wrote:

[WS]HD wrote: The flaw in that logic zebra is that during basic soldiers are indoctrinated to follow orders without question, no mater the order because some orders may have an element above that soldiers clearance. I hope our soldiers defect when they realize what's going on. I don't see that happening though as too many are blind.

Well HD the military is led by their officers.. who like all members of the military are REQUIRED to disobey an unlawful order.. that being said, any order given that is against the US Constitution is by definition an unlawful order. So I HOPE they would refuse orders of that nature.. there are always those that would refuse to see or be blind.. but hopefully those that weren't would speak up.

While you are right that officers have the right to disobey an unlawful order, the problem is that the officers who would disobey such an order are often imprisoned, stripped of both their command and their rank, and forfeit their pay in doing so. Some military officers take the stance that any soldier refusing to follow what they believe to be an unlawful order is a coward and a deserter. This creates a situation in which some soldiers (as was seen by former third reich soldiers at the end of ww2) simply follow their orders out of fear of retaliation by the government against them and their families, which leads to atrocities being commited. Personally i believe that everyone, soldiers, law enforcement and civilians alike, have the responsibility to decide whether a law is morally right or wrong, while taking into consideration the rights of the people they know. To illustrate this i give this example. J- walking is against the law, most often just punishable by a ticket. Im sure we've all j-walked in front of a cop before but has anyone ever really been ticketed for it? I know i havent. It is my belief that this particular law isnt enforced mostly because cops have bigger fish to fry than ticketing people for not walking all the way to a crosswalk before crossing the street. However, this still illustrates the law enforcement officer interpreting the law to be something he doesnt or shouldnt enforce. Tx this is why it bothers me when you say you have to support the law of the land bc while i do understand your position, it still makes me fear that you will get caught in that grey area and not realize it until its too late. I dont advocate war bc the candidates that i choose to back haven't won, i advocate war bc i dont want my beloved country to turn into a military dictatorship. Laws like the ndaa shouldnt even exist. Military prisoners should be in military prisons and subject to military laws, and civilians should be put in civilian prisons subject to civilian laws. When i see laws talking about malcontents and indoctrination, that sounds to me like anyone who is determined to be a political threat to the current government should be arrested and held without trial, whether they are citizens or not. That sounds like the behavior of a military dictatorship to me. Who decides who the "malcontents" are? Who decides what firearms are legal or not? The founding fathers had firearms and weapons that in their day could have been described as military. Why should there be a disparity between the weapons of the government and the weapons the people hold to deter their government from seizing too much power?

I am not trying to patronize, but this really is basic civics. Posse Comitatus prohibits federal troops from functioning s law enforcement on US soil. Please note the national guard units are commanded by states until they are federalized. This is why we cannot conveniently use troops to seal our borders. We were briefed by Civil Air Patrol that since they are a wing of the USAF, they cannot even bird dog a fleeing subject and direct police units to their location. How are all of these alleged experts spewing this crap on talk radio missing these basic items from high school civics class?

Tx, once again, i see the wise words ive come to expect from you, however, with regards to the CAP, while they do fall under command of the USAF during wartime, in times of peace they fall under the command of whichever state a particular squadron is based in. This means if a CAPFLIGHT is airborne and witnesses say a high speed pursuit, they can render assistance in a non combat and SAR role if necessary and then only if ordered to after radioing wing command and recieving the green light. And it is also important to point out that the CAP has a distinguished combat history during ww2 during which they were credited with the sinkings of 2 german u-boats and damaging another 3 during the early years of the war. While it is the auxiliary of the air force, it operates much like the national gaurd.

Jacklpe wrote:
Now, just for fun, can someone PLEASE tell me why voter ID is racist? Thanks

It is not racist in terms of disparate treatment (intentionally singling out a group for harassment, inferior services, denial of rights, etc..). The law does have a disparate impact (inadvertently harming certain groups because of their status i.e. gender, race, ethnicity, etc...). For example, Texas has 87 DMV stations where a person get their voter ID. The problem is that there are 254 counties in Texas. So, you are an honest hardworking citizen going paycheck to, should you have to miss a days pay to travel to an adjoining county to get an ID to exercise your Constitutional Right to vote? Do you need this ID to exercise free speech? Do you need an ID to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure?

Should a woman be denied the right to vote in an election because the timing of her marriage or divorce was wrong and she now cannot obtain a proper ID. Some estimate that 1/3 of women might be prevented from voting.

www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/201...ame-changes/3315971/

Voter fraud has been non existent. The percentage of fraud occurring is .00000013. That is near perfect.

abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud...re/story?id=17213376
quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html

So, there are roughly 26 million people in Texas of which 13 million are women. We passed a law that has a disparate impact on 4 million women to prevent 26 convictions of voter fraud in 197 million votes cast or .00000013% rate of voter fraud. It is a terrible reactionary law bred on fear mongering absent factual evidence to support it. Just my 2 cents.

If Texas, large as it is, only has 87 DMV stations, then that is hurting the entire state in countless ways. I hope that was just an example and not a real number.

The only point I'm going to immediately concede is that it is a constitutional right. I hadn't thought of that one, and it is a very good point. I don't believe that makes it a race issue, but it may create a logistics issue for all voters, thereby creating a problem. Let me think on the rest...

My definition of racism is the belief that one race is genetically superior to another. So I'm intentionally misusing the word a bit, but we all get the point.

Honest question... If I don't have ID when a cop stops me for practically anything, am I not (in real life) almost certainly about to be searched?

Anyone else wanna take a stab at it?

Why is it racist to require ID for voting?

Jacklpe wrote: If Texas, large as it is, only has 87 DMV stations, then that is hurting the entire state in countless ways. I hope that was just an example and not a real number.

The only point I'm going to immediately concede is that it is a constitutional right. I hadn't thought of that one, and it is a very good point. I don't believe that makes it a race issue, but it may create a logistics issue for all voters, thereby creating a problem. Let me think on the rest...

My definition of racism is the belief that one race is genetically superior to another. So I'm intentionally misusing the word a bit, but we all get the point.

Honest question... If I don't have ID when a cop stops me for practically anything, am I not (in real life) almost certainly about to be searched?

Anyone else wanna take a stab at it?

Why is it racist to require ID for voting?

The only way I would say it is racist is because it causes a disparate impact. If you look at Civil Rights legislation and case law, disparate treatment or disparate impact are the buzzwords. Disparate impact might not be racist it might be sexist. For example, women are extremely under represented in fire departments. There are not very many women that can run 3-4 flights of stairs with an 80 pound hose. This hiring practice creates a disparate impact. However, courts have held that the ability to run 3-4 flights of stairs carrying an 80 pound hose is a valid and necessary job requirement for a firefighter. Thus, the standard has been upheld even though it causes a disparate impact. So the question on voting should be: Is it worth disenfranchising 4 million voting women to prevent 26 cases of voter fraud occurring in 197 million votes cast over an 8 year span in Texas (.00000013%)? This does not even begin to address the impact on other classes of citizens. Like I said, bad law in my humble opinion.

As far as getting searched for no ID, that is tricky. If you are stopped for probable cause (you have committed a traffic violation or other offense) and you have no ID, you could be subject to arrest. How can I give you a ticket if I cannot confirm your identity. In Texas, there are only 3 offenses in which I must give you an opportunity to sign a ticket: speeding, driver consuming alcoholic beverage, and open container in the car. I can arrest you for everything else even if you have ID. No exaggeration. YOu run a stop sign, you can be arrested. Expired driver's license, registration, inspection off to jail. Walking on the wrong side of the road (great for prostitutes and street dope dealers) off to jail. Now state law gives me this authority, but before people cry and moan my department promptly limits it through internal policy. After all just because we can does not necessarily mean we should. So, if you are stopped with no ID, arrest could be a very probable outcome in which case you will be searched incident to arrest.

If you are stopped on the basis of reasonable suspicion (no offense has occurred be you are a suspicious person in a suspicious place at a suspicious time), I can detain you. To search you, I either need your permission or probable cause or I need to articulate a safety issue that will allow a "Terry Pat" (resulting from Terry v. Ohio). If the officer tells you they are going to search you and you do not consent and do not believe they have cause, go along with it. The place to fight that battle is in court not on the street. The officer is probably recording audio and video (depending where the car is). Be courteous, polite, and ask the officer for an explanation after the search.

Happy trucking, brother!

TXLAWMAN wrote:

Jacklpe wrote: If Texas, large as it is, only has 87 DMV stations, then that is hurting the entire state in countless ways. I hope that was just an example and not a real number.

The only point I'm going to immediately concede is that it is a constitutional right. I hadn't thought of that one, and it is a very good point. I don't believe that makes it a race issue, but it may create a logistics issue for all voters, thereby creating a problem. Let me think on the rest...

My definition of racism is the belief that one race is genetically superior to another. So I'm intentionally misusing the word a bit, but we all get the point.

Honest question... If I don't have ID when a cop stops me for practically anything, am I not (in real life) almost certainly about to be searched?

Anyone else wanna take a stab at it?

Why is it racist to require ID for voting?

The only way I would say it is racist is because it causes a disparate impact. If you look at Civil Rights legislation and case law, disparate treatment or disparate impact are the buzzwords. Disparate impact might not be racist it might be sexist. For example, women are extremely under represented in fire departments. There are not very many women that can run 3-4 flights of stairs with an 80 pound hose. This hiring practice creates a disparate impact. However, courts have held that the ability to run 3-4 flights of stairs carrying an 80 pound hose is a valid and necessary job requirement for a firefighter. Thus, the standard has been upheld even though it causes a disparate impact. So the question on voting should be: Is it worth disenfranchising 4 million voting women to prevent 26 cases of voter fraud occurring in 197 million votes cast over an 8 year span in Texas (.00000013%)? This does not even begin to address the impact on other classes of citizens. Like I said, bad law in my humble opinion.

As far as getting searched for no ID, that is tricky. If you are stopped for probable cause (you have committed a traffic violation or other offense) and you have no ID, you could be subject to arrest. How can I give you a ticket if I cannot confirm your identity. In Texas, there are only 3 offenses in which I must give you an opportunity to sign a ticket: speeding, driver consuming alcoholic beverage, and open container in the car. I can arrest you for everything else even if you have ID. No exaggeration. YOu run a stop sign, you can be arrested. Expired driver's license, registration, inspection off to jail. Walking on the wrong side of the road (great for prostitutes and street dope dealers) off to jail. Now state law gives me this authority, but before people cry and moan my department promptly limits it through internal policy. After all just because we can does not necessarily mean we should. So, if you are stopped with no ID, arrest could be a very probable outcome in which case you will be searched incident to arrest.

If you are stopped on the basis of reasonable suspicion (no offense has occurred be you are a suspicious person in a suspicious place at a suspicious time), I can detain you. To search you, I either need your permission or probable cause or I need to articulate a safety issue that will allow a "Terry Pat" (resulting from Terry v. Ohio). If the officer tells you they are going to search you and you do not consent and do not believe they have cause, go along with it. The place to fight that battle is in court not on the street. The officer is probably recording audio and video (depending where the car is). Be courteous, polite, and ask the officer for an explanation after the search.

Happy trucking, brother!

I had a great reply typed out... Long one too. My big thumb hit the stupid done button and wiped it out. I have no personal issues with allowing a LE officer to check my ID. I've never been arrested or in jail. But, in my teenage years especially I have been subject to what was most definitely illegal search... A couple of times. It opened my eyes to what the possibilities really are, and that the police are definitely not always my friend. In my career, I am subjected to DOT inspections. I won't even go down that road, because the laws and fines we are subjected to are so far beyond reasonable, safe, or correct that it's not even funny. If we wanna debate that, we can start another thread. There is enough fodder for that cannon to fill a new thread easily. The only thing that has protected this country from a MAJOR strike and shutdown over this is that we as an industry are too busy fighting each other and cutting one another's throats. If we ever find an ounce of unity, there will be hell to pay until some big changes are made in a hurry. Right now, it's not going to happen though. But, my point here is that my job comes with built in LE interaction, and so part of my job is being able to do that professionally. I will say, I am good at my job. My safety record is very very good, partially because of this. The discussion that we are having most certainly never enters the conversation when I am working.

My hypothetical ID question was not necessarily meant as the driver of a vehicle. A passenger, or even a pedestrian that has an officers attention for whatever reason who is asked for ID and cannot or will not produce it seems like they are guaranteed to be searched. I know the officer is using whatever he must to do his job, but is it really constitutional? I have my doubts...

What I'm referring to in my job is the FMCSA and their massive overreach in the last 10 or so years. Unfortunately, the state (and now, gasp, county officers) are tasked with enforcing this baloney. Big trucks = big bucks, so most of these states are more than happy to oblige. It's a mess right now. Old and experienced drivers are fleeing the industry. New drivers who have other options are fleeing too. If I saw a way out, as much as I love what I do, I would take it. These laws turn honest men into criminals, and this is no longer a good place to be.

Ok. Enough of that. It's more fun to debate the "talking points" that everyone is well versed in.

"My hypothetical ID question was not necessarily meant as the driver of a vehicle. A passenger, or even a pedestrian that has an officers attention for whatever reason who is asked for ID and cannot or will not produce it seems like they are guaranteed to be searched. I know the officer is using whatever he must to do his job, but is it really constitutional? I have my doubts... "

Jack, I would never engage in a discussion of OTR regulations with you...I have not a clue except for all those unattended weigh stations I run across driving down the interstate...LOL.

As to your above comment [and I wait for TX to jump me on this one...] I think much of the ID question that gets folks worked up about it is in the implementation of the law. The Constitution has a real tough time with unequal treatment, but it often takes a long-time pattern of abuse to determine if that unequal treatment will get a reaction from the courts. The most recent example of this to my mind is New York City's stop and frisk policy. In its intent, perhaps a well-intentioned policy to promote public safety. However, the courts cast a pretty sour eye on how it was implemented in practice. Other examples can be found with routine vehicle stops that, over time, reveal a racial, gender, age, and or ethnic bias. [ie. it ain't cool for a trooper to just yank over a vehicle on I-95 simply because the driver happens to be a young Hispanic...]

Again, I wouldn't fault law enforcements' powers to promote the public safety to pull over unsafe drivers, unsafe equipment, suspected criminals, etc., etc. And, neither do the courts. But folks in uniforms are human as well, and if their human biases start to reveal themselves in their acts as public officials, the court is often the first line of defense to end those patterns of unequal treatment. And, ultimately, there may be the extreme action of passing laws to more closely confine those uses of authority.

...and no, the system is not perfect...

TX, don't take my comments as any slight to LE as a whole. I have several close friends and a few less close but still top notch friends that are in all different forms of law enforcement. I appreciate the job you do. I also understand that although you guys have to make quick decisions based on your interpretations of laws, you don't make the laws. In the mean time you are usually under a microscope. A close friend of my family when I was a kid was a KY state trooper. I wanted more than anything to be just like him. Now, I'd hate like hell to have to do that job. Granted, I love the toys ya'll get to play with, and I'd probably be damn good at the job , but you couldn't give it to me. I don't mind the thought of being shot at. Hell, I've been shot at... It's the constant second guessing that I couldn't handle. At all...

So although I'm all about discussing and working on the laws you guys have to enforce, my hat is still off to those that are doing their job with courtesy, class, and discretion. Now the bad ones among you... We can put them on a bus with the shit head truck drivers and deport them together. That'd be fine with me.

Duck Dynasty and Phil Robertson's comments... Any thoughts?

Personally, I find it amazing when someone tells you they are a devout Christian, and then when they answer gotchya questions truthfully, people feign as much outrage as they can muster.

Not gonna debate the rights or wrongs of being gay etc either. In the interest of full disclosure, as it's against my religion, I make sure not to be gay myself. So far it hasn't been difficult... What everyone else does is their business.

But, I'd love to hear if anyone has any strong opinions on the events surrounding A&E's supposed suspension of Phil Robertson.

Best marketing ploy ever?
Right thing to do?
Wrong thing to do?
Stupid business move?

I'm anxiously awaiting your replies!

I am saying it was the right thing to do. It was right for Phil to use his celebrity to speak on his faith although the lecture on the benefits of a vagina over a man's anus truly diminished his message. It was right for A&E to stand by their values and can him. The decisions are going to cost both people some serious cash. It is nice to see people and companies place principles ahead of money. I am happy for both groups.

All very true.

But, although I'm not a big fan of the show, and I actually don't even have cable, I've still seen enough of it to know very well that those guys are pretty much fundamentalist Christians. Much of the show has always revolved around that fact.

Fundamentalist Christian beliefs on the subject of homosexuality are not a secret. To act suprised that someone claiming to hold such religious beliefs would feel as they do about gay people seems completely fake and disingenuous.

It's pretty obvious to me that A&E knew this about these guys, yet they have had no problem with cashing all of those big checks that the Christians earned for the network while frequently sharing their beliefs and their status as Christians.

I think that makes A&E look hypocritical, not principled when they choose to react as they did.

Am I going wrong anywhere here?

I think it shows everything that is wrong with this country today. Every one wants to be catered to. Who cares what the man thinks of gays? They asked him and he told 'em. HIS views. Agree or disagree. HIS! How ever you swing is YOUR business, the same as this mans opinion is his, that doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with it. This type of thing makes me sick. I hope they take the DD franchise to another station and make loads of money for someone else because of it. I would if they tried it on a family member of mine. Gays think it's right. Phil thinks it's wrong. Who cares either way? Not me. Should he be burned at the stake? HELL NO! No different than a gay man being fired for being gay. No difference at all. Everyone thinks everyone else needs to believe the way they believe or else. WTH?

Wouldn't the world be a sad place if we all looked, dressed, acted, & thought alike? That's what they want us to do now days. We better all believe in the same things while we are at it. Then no one would have anything to bitch about.

I will be the first one to buy a rainbow colored Duck Dynasty bandana. Wouldn't that be great?

On that note Max (love the post),

I've been saving this one for a rainy day...

Phil had every right to give his opinion and his Christian veiw. Because of the free market system (which Is good) a&e also had the right to ban him and I believe a&e is going to lose on this deal.

I'm sick and tired of anyone being labeled a HATER just because they disagree with the gay lifestyle. My second all time friend that lives in Sacramento calif is gay and I love that man like he was a brother. I will be with him on the 28th. I certainly do not hate him even though I disagree with his lifestyle. A true Christian man does not hate the person but will hate the sin and we all sin.

We are in a position in this country where certain folks are not allowed to expressed opinions that go against the so called tolerant left or the gay community. We are labeled as right wing religious finantics haters which could not be further from the truth but others can say horrible things about the Christians and yet that is perfectly ok. These same folks who bash Christians are scared stiffness to say anything against Mohammad.

Freedom of speech is being restricted in the USA. If a person wants to be gay then fine be gay, I don't care one way or the other but don't try to tell me that I cant have an opinion against it. If you have an opinion against Christianity then great, you have that right.

Lol davy your statement of them not bashing Mohammed makes me laugh. I agree with you there. It would be interesting to so one of those people bashing the christians go to the middle east and say crap about Mohammed, God Allah (same person), and Jesus. I bet if they said one bad thing about those 3 people over there they would not last a day with out having there head on a stake in the middle of the city. You have a could number of Radicle muslims, jews, and christens over there. Makes me wonder if they even read there holy books over there though lol. I have started reading the Koran just to see how it compares with the bible and man what goes on in the middle east goes against everything I have read in it so fare. I think they are forgetting something that Allah says every other page in that book. "Do not cause Havoc on this earth" So fare what I have read in it the muslim religion seems pretty peaceful or it should be. Maybe there is a twist some where in that book I haven't got to yet.

Phil had every right to say what he wanted to say in that interview and I agree with max the family should leave and go to another channel. I don't hate gay people even though the whole thing disgust me and makes me want to lose my stomach every where. Its not natural. Maybe one of these days they will come up with a medication that fixes that part of the brain that makes them that way. I think that would be a win for everyone. A & E they can do what they want. If thy want to lose there big cash show then go ahead they can through it out the window for some one else its there right but they sure are stupid for doing it.

Sky, if someone is happy with who they are, why would they take medicine to change it, or feel bad because of it? To a person who believes they are gay, they believe it just as someone who believes they are straight.

The not natural part of it all... I won't blast that because our survival obviously depends on us being able to reproduce... But a gay person believes this is natural for them. Who am I to tell them the way they feel isn't natural, when it involves what they do in their private life and if it doesn't affect anyone other than them? As I have said, I follow a religion that says it's not ok, so therefore it's not ok for me to be gay. But, for someone who doesn't subscribe to that, I'll let them work it out with God, assuming that I happen to be right about it all. In the mean time, I will give them every courtesy that I give anyone else. If my life somehow makes them want to believe as I do, that will be a choice that they can make. If not, it's also their choice.

My problem with the whole thing is that when this guy was asked a direct question about his religious beliefs, he was punished for his answer. That's not cool.

The only thing that will bug me more than the witch hunt for gay rights is if they don't stick to their guns. They should all come together as a family and lay down on that show and A & E. Make them use old footage and have the rest of the season be highlight reels of past shows. This is what I believe they will do. I hope. Then take the show somewhere else.

If they come out with an apology statement I will lose all respect. The forced apology and reverse of statement/opinion is the only thing that is worse. It is a disgusting thing to do. Or to make someone do.

I will take one honest mans opinion over 10,000 liars any day. I don't have to make that opinion my own or even agree with it. You know why? Because it isn't mine.

I would love to see a law suit for discrimination brought against A&E by the Robertsons.

I'm neither for nor against gays. I'm neither for nor against bible thumpers. I believe they should all have their own opinions and lifestyles and leave one another alone. Neither should push views and lifestyles on the other. That is where anyone loses me. I'm cool with folks being different. Of course they don't think the same. Running someone out of a job or anything else in Either direction is wrong. Makes no sense to me. Gays and Rednecks don't have the same views? I'm shocked!

I can't beleave some of the stuff I read in here now days...