Gods, remember the damn digicams that had full floppy disk drives on them? I used to work with someone that swore up and down that was the "easiest" way to get pictures off a camera and onto a computer. Apparently she had never heard of media readers....
No they won't. The law specifically says that drivers licenses or any other form of state or local ID provide presumptive evidence that the person isn't in the United States illegally. Maybe you should read it before you reply with another incorrect assumption?
I can go down to my local sheriff's office here in New York State and get a "Sheriff's ID" for $5. By the letter of this law in AZ such an id would be all that's required to prove I'm not unlawfully in the US.
As far as I'm aware, state LEOs cannot arrest you for a Federal crime
If you really believe that, drive down to your local non-Federal police station and threaten to kill Barack Obama. I think you'll find that they can arrest you for it.
It's almost certain that American citizens will be detained under this law until their status can be proven since:
a) Carrying ID is not required of American Citizens
b) Driver's Licenses don't prove citizenship
c) Arizona has a large number of latinos
d) The ratio of latino citizens to illegal aliens in Arizona is about 2:1.
It's almost certain that you haven't read the law, since drivers licenses are specifically listed as being documents that prove you aren't here unlawfully.
I'll remember that the next time I need to take my shoes off while walking through a machine that shows my cock to a government bureaucrat just so I can board an airplane.
Most jobs these days require you to sign a waiver for background checks (unless you live somewhere where it's already permitted without a waiver), and for some jobs, like working with children, any arrest record is mandatory disqualification.
Bullshit. Convictions are grounds for disqualification. Arrests are not. Many (most?) US States seal the arrest records of those who were never convicted/plead guilty. When I got criminally charged and the charges were disposed of (grand jury refused to indict) the involved police agencies all received a court order compelling them to destroy my fingerprints/photograph/all other paperwork.
the nutty "president must have birth certificate" (Hmm, yes I'm SURE AZ has the authority to make federal election laws)
AZ has the authority to determine who can be listed on it's ballot. You'll note that third party Presidential candidates aren't always able to gain ballot access in all 50 states.
Why would you object to a state wanting to make sure that someone can legally hold the office they are standing for? Would you get upset if they passed a law saying you have to 35 to run for President? 30 to run for US Senator? 25 to run for the House?
The problem is that state and local government do not have the authority or jurisdiction to enforce federal laws.
Citation needed. Is your claim really that if a local LEO observes someone breaking a Federal law he can't do anything about it other than call the FBI/US Marshals/etc? If I threaten to kill Barack Obama (Federal crime to threaten POTUS) in front of the local police station they can't arrest me? If I destroy a mailbox I can't be arrested by a non-Federal LEO? If I rob a bank the FBI or USSS are the only ones that can arrest me?
then according to this clause, I am presumed to be an alien unlawfully present in the US. Perhaps you should read it before making crap up.
No, this clause says you are presumed NOT TO BE an unlawful alien if you can produce one of the listed forms of ID. It doesn't say that the absence of such ID makes the opposite true. The police would need probable cause before they could assume that you are an unlawful alien. We don't generally see an issue with the PC requirement for other detentions, why for this one?
Essentially, any valid ID issued by any local or state government, or by the Federal government, is sufficient to ensure law enforcement has no reason to suspect you of being an unlawful alien.
That's interesting. What about states that issue firearms or hunting licenses to non-citizens?
having paid nearly $1000 two years ago for "processing" (just part of the nearly $15,000 my immigration has cost me in fees and direct expenses alone
Out of curiosity, as someone who has gone through all that hassle, doesn't it piss you off when our genius politicians start taking about an amnesty for the people who couldn't be bothered to go through the process and whom are here illegally?
Why should they work with the other side? They are in the opposition. More to the point, the other side has shown little to no inclination to meet in the middle. Why would they? They have huge majorities.
The expectation that the GOP go along with an agenda that would be opposed by most of their base shows a lack of understanding of our political system.
You did read the part about the "Orderly dissolution fund" being funded by the very corporations who may someday be dissolved, correct?
So is the FDIC. Does anyone doubt that if the shit hit the fan they would use tax dollars to keep it running? The law already provides a way to wind down failed corporations. It's called bankruptcy.
No it wouldn't. Aircraft Carriers are warships and designed with compartmentalization to isolate damage and flooding. All things being equal, a single hit below the waterline would probably not be enough to sink a CVN.
(or fuel tanks or munitions stores)
That's possible, though munitions are stored deep within the ship and Aircraft Carriers have enough firefighting capacity to rival a small city. Understand that I'm not saying it's impossible to sink one -- only that it's a lot harder than the armchair admirals seem to think.
The hard part is getting the weapon there un-harassed. First you have to get in range undetected. launch the weapons (preferably undetected) and hope that it is not intercepted and successfully strikes the target.
You left out the first part: finding the carrier. The most important part of naval warfare is finding your enemy before he finds you. This is easier said than done, even with modern technology such as satellites and radar. Satellites are limited by orbital mechanics and can be jammed or decoyed. Radar has to have enough power to hit the target and return to it's transmitter and will thus reveal your location long before it detects the enemy.
With modern guidance jammers and countermeasures (flares/phalanx) the last bit is the most difficult part.
Phalanx actually isn't that modern. It's being slowly replaced by the rolling airframe missile. Those are only point defenses too. You still need to get your weapons past the fighters from the carrier and the dozens of SAMs carried by the Aegis escorts.
But with drones and VTOL aircraft becoming common the fleet carrier is going the way of the battleship
Says who? The British and French are both building a new class of fleet carriers. The Brits in particular have a lot of experience with VTOL aircraft and even fought a war with them. They have apparently decided that they need the capability offered by a fleet carrier. Look at the last war fought from Aircraft Carriers -- if the British had a real fleet carrier with the ability to operate AWACS aircraft the Argentine Air Force would never have gotten close enough to use the Exocets that caused the Royal Navy so much grief.
Oversized and inefficient compared to assault carriers which most Navies are now using.
Efficiency includes economy of scale. If you want the capability to operate 60-100 aircraft it's going to be cheaper to build a fleet carrier than to build several smaller carriers. Most Navies don't use them because they are hugely expensive, not because they think they are going the way of the battleship.
Part of the bill aims to set up an "orderly dissolution fund" that will be used to wind down failing firms. I see two problems with this:
1) It codifies "too big to fail". If a corporation isn't "too big to fail" then why do we need a fund to wind down their operations with? Let them file Ch 11 (or 7) like everybody else has to. If they are "too big to fail" then maybe we should attack that problem at the source?
2) It will invariably be used for other purposes, just as TARP was and continues to be.
The final bill will doubtless draw some GOP support. In the meanwhile it's disingenuous to look at a single Senate vote while negotiations are still ongoing and assume that the GOP is simply trying to block all legislation.
If government is at all to blame, it is Bush and the Republicans, and it's only political theater if you disagree with it.
It's political theater because you take ONE Senate vote and draw a conclusion from it, exactly as the Democrats hope you will. If you had bothered to read the story I linked you would see that the moderate Republicans that the Democrats need are the ones calling out Monday's vote for what it was -- a political stunt designed to give the Democrats another talking point. The fact that the GOP has a good faith disagreement on the wisdom of setting up a permanent bail out fund apparently does not warrant consideration.
Yeah, what were you saying again?
That a Democratic President signed it into law? I should think what I was saying was plainly obvious.
Just as an aside, I have to say thank you, personally, for letting me mop the floor with you in debates again and again, it really makes my day. It's almost as though you enjoy being my bitch in public.
Tell yourself that if it makes you feel better. The fact remains that both parties share some measure of the blame for our current predicament. You expose yourself as a naked partisan when you refuse to accept this.
No, most Americans still rightly blame the fat cats on Wall Street for this mess.
Fat cats? It'd be easier to take you seriously if you didn't use so many talking points.
It's not as if the government was forcing banks to make bad loans
What does that have to do with assigning blame at our political leaders for bailing them out?
but obviously under Bush any kind of regulation was out of the question
That's cute, trying to place all the blame on Bush, but reality is much more complicated than that. Guess who the evil Republican was that repealed glass-stiegel?
You will also note the Democrats in congress attempting to bring reform to the financial sector, but being blocked by Republicans, who are not only filibustering any bill, they are filibuster the motion to even debate the bill.
You do realize that TV isn't a life essential service, right? Ditch cable and get yourself an antenna. OTA is free and high-def. Combine that with the internet (legal and not-so-legal sources) and you'll find that most of your entertainment needs are met.
They only keep raising rates because people keep writing them checks. Cut the cord.
Slashdot Mirror
Gods, remember the damn digicams that had full floppy disk drives on them? I used to work with someone that swore up and down that was the "easiest" way to get pictures off a camera and onto a computer. Apparently she had never heard of media readers....
No they won't. The law specifically says that drivers licenses or any other form of state or local ID provide presumptive evidence that the person isn't in the United States illegally. Maybe you should read it before you reply with another incorrect assumption?
I can go down to my local sheriff's office here in New York State and get a "Sheriff's ID" for $5. By the letter of this law in AZ such an id would be all that's required to prove I'm not unlawfully in the US.
As far as I'm aware, state LEOs cannot arrest you for a Federal crime
If you really believe that, drive down to your local non-Federal police station and threaten to kill Barack Obama. I think you'll find that they can arrest you for it.
Requiring employers to check the ID of their employees does not need to be undue burden.
Yes, because the contractor who put up my drywall the other day seemed real concerned about keeping his paperwork in order.
It's almost certain that American citizens will be detained under this law until their status can be proven since: a) Carrying ID is not required of American Citizens b) Driver's Licenses don't prove citizenship c) Arizona has a large number of latinos d) The ratio of latino citizens to illegal aliens in Arizona is about 2:1.
It's almost certain that you haven't read the law, since drivers licenses are specifically listed as being documents that prove you aren't here unlawfully.
They looked for people without foreskins? ;) *duck*
This is the land of the free, not the fearful.
I'll remember that the next time I need to take my shoes off while walking through a machine that shows my cock to a government bureaucrat just so I can board an airplane.
Most jobs these days require you to sign a waiver for background checks (unless you live somewhere where it's already permitted without a waiver), and for some jobs, like working with children, any arrest record is mandatory disqualification.
Bullshit. Convictions are grounds for disqualification. Arrests are not. Many (most?) US States seal the arrest records of those who were never convicted/plead guilty. When I got criminally charged and the charges were disposed of (grand jury refused to indict) the involved police agencies all received a court order compelling them to destroy my fingerprints/photograph/all other paperwork.
we have a constitution and a supreme court that specifically says this type of action (arresting/detaining people without probable cause)
Who says they are planning on holding people without probable cause?
and making people carry their papers at all times or else go to jail is repugnant
Federal law already does that in the case of foreign nationals.
the nutty "president must have birth certificate" (Hmm, yes I'm SURE AZ has the authority to make federal election laws)
AZ has the authority to determine who can be listed on it's ballot. You'll note that third party Presidential candidates aren't always able to gain ballot access in all 50 states.
Why would you object to a state wanting to make sure that someone can legally hold the office they are standing for? Would you get upset if they passed a law saying you have to 35 to run for President? 30 to run for US Senator? 25 to run for the House?
The problem is that state and local government do not have the authority or jurisdiction to enforce federal laws.
Citation needed. Is your claim really that if a local LEO observes someone breaking a Federal law he can't do anything about it other than call the FBI/US Marshals/etc? If I threaten to kill Barack Obama (Federal crime to threaten POTUS) in front of the local police station they can't arrest me? If I destroy a mailbox I can't be arrested by a non-Federal LEO? If I rob a bank the FBI or USSS are the only ones that can arrest me?
then according to this clause, I am presumed to be an alien unlawfully present in the US. Perhaps you should read it before making crap up.
No, this clause says you are presumed NOT TO BE an unlawful alien if you can produce one of the listed forms of ID. It doesn't say that the absence of such ID makes the opposite true. The police would need probable cause before they could assume that you are an unlawful alien. We don't generally see an issue with the PC requirement for other detentions, why for this one?
Essentially, any valid ID issued by any local or state government, or by the Federal government, is sufficient to ensure law enforcement has no reason to suspect you of being an unlawful alien.
That's interesting. What about states that issue firearms or hunting licenses to non-citizens?
Seriously, making it a crime not to have papers on you is dumb.
Fortunately they didn't do that. They made it a crime to be in the United States illegally.
having paid nearly $1000 two years ago for "processing" (just part of the nearly $15,000 my immigration has cost me in fees and direct expenses alone
Out of curiosity, as someone who has gone through all that hassle, doesn't it piss you off when our genius politicians start taking about an amnesty for the people who couldn't be bothered to go through the process and whom are here illegally?
A passport accomplishes the same thing as a birth certificate. When I traveled overseas I had my passport on me at all times.
Why should they work with the other side? They are in the opposition. More to the point, the other side has shown little to no inclination to meet in the middle. Why would they? They have huge majorities.
The expectation that the GOP go along with an agenda that would be opposed by most of their base shows a lack of understanding of our political system.
You did read the part about the "Orderly dissolution fund" being funded by the very corporations who may someday be dissolved, correct?
So is the FDIC. Does anyone doubt that if the shit hit the fan they would use tax dollars to keep it running? The law already provides a way to wind down failed corporations. It's called bankruptcy.
What do you suppose the American response to the use of nuclear weapons and the loss of thousands of sailors would be?
A good shot below the waterline would do it
No it wouldn't. Aircraft Carriers are warships and designed with compartmentalization to isolate damage and flooding. All things being equal, a single hit below the waterline would probably not be enough to sink a CVN.
(or fuel tanks or munitions stores)
That's possible, though munitions are stored deep within the ship and Aircraft Carriers have enough firefighting capacity to rival a small city. Understand that I'm not saying it's impossible to sink one -- only that it's a lot harder than the armchair admirals seem to think.
The hard part is getting the weapon there un-harassed. First you have to get in range undetected. launch the weapons (preferably undetected) and hope that it is not intercepted and successfully strikes the target.
You left out the first part: finding the carrier. The most important part of naval warfare is finding your enemy before he finds you. This is easier said than done, even with modern technology such as satellites and radar. Satellites are limited by orbital mechanics and can be jammed or decoyed. Radar has to have enough power to hit the target and return to it's transmitter and will thus reveal your location long before it detects the enemy.
With modern guidance jammers and countermeasures (flares/phalanx) the last bit is the most difficult part.
Phalanx actually isn't that modern. It's being slowly replaced by the rolling airframe missile. Those are only point defenses too. You still need to get your weapons past the fighters from the carrier and the dozens of SAMs carried by the Aegis escorts.
But with drones and VTOL aircraft becoming common the fleet carrier is going the way of the battleship
Says who? The British and French are both building a new class of fleet carriers. The Brits in particular have a lot of experience with VTOL aircraft and even fought a war with them. They have apparently decided that they need the capability offered by a fleet carrier. Look at the last war fought from Aircraft Carriers -- if the British had a real fleet carrier with the ability to operate AWACS aircraft the Argentine Air Force would never have gotten close enough to use the Exocets that caused the Royal Navy so much grief.
Oversized and inefficient compared to assault carriers which most Navies are now using.
Efficiency includes economy of scale. If you want the capability to operate 60-100 aircraft it's going to be cheaper to build a fleet carrier than to build several smaller carriers. Most Navies don't use them because they are hugely expensive, not because they think they are going the way of the battleship.
Part of the bill aims to set up an "orderly dissolution fund" that will be used to wind down failing firms. I see two problems with this:
1) It codifies "too big to fail". If a corporation isn't "too big to fail" then why do we need a fund to wind down their operations with? Let them file Ch 11 (or 7) like everybody else has to. If they are "too big to fail" then maybe we should attack that problem at the source?
2) It will invariably be used for other purposes, just as TARP was and continues to be.
The final bill will doubtless draw some GOP support. In the meanwhile it's disingenuous to look at a single Senate vote while negotiations are still ongoing and assume that the GOP is simply trying to block all legislation.
See, the thing the right wing liars forget,
I do not live in a right wing echo chamber where bald faced lies are amplified and repeated until the entire cult thinks that black is white.
You can't help but let your own bias slip through, can you?
If government is at all to blame, it is Bush and the Republicans, and it's only political theater if you disagree with it.
It's political theater because you take ONE Senate vote and draw a conclusion from it, exactly as the Democrats hope you will. If you had bothered to read the story I linked you would see that the moderate Republicans that the Democrats need are the ones calling out Monday's vote for what it was -- a political stunt designed to give the Democrats another talking point. The fact that the GOP has a good faith disagreement on the wisdom of setting up a permanent bail out fund apparently does not warrant consideration.
Yeah, what were you saying again?
That a Democratic President signed it into law? I should think what I was saying was plainly obvious.
Just as an aside, I have to say thank you, personally, for letting me mop the floor with you in debates again and again, it really makes my day. It's almost as though you enjoy being my bitch in public.
Tell yourself that if it makes you feel better. The fact remains that both parties share some measure of the blame for our current predicament. You expose yourself as a naked partisan when you refuse to accept this.
No, most Americans still rightly blame the fat cats on Wall Street for this mess.
Fat cats? It'd be easier to take you seriously if you didn't use so many talking points.
It's not as if the government was forcing banks to make bad loans
What does that have to do with assigning blame at our political leaders for bailing them out?
but obviously under Bush any kind of regulation was out of the question
That's cute, trying to place all the blame on Bush, but reality is much more complicated than that. Guess who the evil Republican was that repealed glass-stiegel?
You will also note the Democrats in congress attempting to bring reform to the financial sector, but being blocked by Republicans, who are not only filibustering any bill, they are filibuster the motion to even debate the bill.
Stop falling for political theater.
You do realize that TV isn't a life essential service, right? Ditch cable and get yourself an antenna. OTA is free and high-def. Combine that with the internet (legal and not-so-legal sources) and you'll find that most of your entertainment needs are met.
They only keep raising rates because people keep writing them checks. Cut the cord.