🚀 go-pugleaf

> Texas is a third-world country and the Shrub is the Chief Banana
Republican.
> Note the "professional" opinion by Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee.  I
> wonder if he was deep into a six-pack of Lone Star when he formulated this
> educated thought.  Keeping in mind that the Court is dominated by
> conservative Republican appointees, see the following:

You are an ignorant  moron. The Justices often, during the presentation of
oral arguments, play devil's advocate with counsel in exactly such ways as
this, simply to get the counsel to make a point more completely.

> The city's lawyer, Roger J. George Jr., said officers are allowed to make
an
> arrest if they see someone violate the law. Police often do not have
enough
> information to know whether someone's actions constitute a felony or
> misdemeanor, he said

This guy, however, is also a moron. He says police "often don't have enough
information," etc. - in other words, they don't have probable cause for an
arrest - and yet he's trying to imply that lack of probable cause is a
reason in itself for an arrest, that doubt = a need to arrest to clear up
that doubt.

On Wed, 06 Dec 2000 06:49:45 GMT, "Travis Bickle" <bushis@dope.net>
wrote:

>Texas is a third-world country and the Shrub is the Chief Banana Republican.
>Note the "professional" opinion by Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee.  I
>wonder if he was deep into a six-pack of Lone Star when he formulated this
>educated thought.  Keeping in mind that the Court is dominated by
>conservative Republican appointees, see the following:

I never realized that Shrub was a police officer.  This certainly do
go straight to his character.

Wow, that is probably the stupidest thing I have ever read in my life, you
deserve kudos Biff!!
Aside from more than likely taking the one part of the story out of context,
(which is what most liberals do anyway, because they lack the patience &
intelligence to read a story from beginning to end) how is it that one
policeman's action can be blamed on the Governor of the state he happens to
work in?
I know you can't answer that intelligently, so let's proceed....
My guess is that the woman either was high, drunk, or stupid enough to give
the cop a hard time, & in turn, got to ride in the pretty black & white car
with the big red light on top.
And have you ever seen a sucker mom try to navigate your local mall parking
lot in one of those huge behemoth SUV's ? She probably took out ten cars
right before she was pulled over by the cop.
Cops are all bad, & criminals are all innocent victims of the police
state...
One day, I'd like to see your liberal, long haired, tie dyed, pot smoking,
authority questioning ass out there on the streets trying to police the
masses.
At that point, your viewpoint may actually be worth considering, but for
now, that is not the case.
Cops are the god guys, the impotent judges are the ones in our justice
system who's actions should be questioned....
It always amazes me how some can take unrelated issues, tie them together
somehow, & draw what they think is an intelligent conclusion from that
equation.

Nice going Biff...

~~Ace**


"Travis Bickle" <bushis@dope.net> wrote in message
news:dklX5.8341$Ei1.597108@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Texas is a third-world country and the Shrub is the Chief Banana
Republican.
> Note the "professional" opinion by Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee.  I
> wonder if he was deep into a six-pack of Lone Star when he formulated this
> educated thought.  Keeping in mind that the Court is dominated by
> conservative Republican appointees, see the following:
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) - Hearing arguments in a case that could affect anyone who
> drives a car, Supreme Court justices debated whether people can be
arrested
> for traffic violations punishable only by a fine.
>
> A Texas woman who was arrested, handcuffed and jailed because she and her
> children weren't wearing seatbelts asked the justices Monday to rule that
> the police violated her constitutional protection against unreasonable
> arrests.
>
> ``You've got the perfect case,'' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor told the
> attorney for Gail Atwater, who was arrested by a Lago Vista, Texas, police
> officer in 1997 while driving her children home from soccer practice.
>
> Later, O'Connor told the city's lawyer, ``Even knowing it was a mother
with
> two small children in a small town ... This is kind of an amazing case.
But
> you think that's fine.''
>
> But several justices also questioned whether the Supreme Court should try
to
> set a rule governing such situations.
>
> ``How bad is the problem out there?'' asked Justice David H. Souter, who
> said he wondered if the justices should base a constitutional rule on a
rare
> case.
>
> ``It is not a constitutional violation for a police officer to be a
jerk,''
> added Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
>
> Texas law gives police the discretion to make full custodial arrests for
> routine traffic violations, except for speeding.
>
> The officer who stopped Atwater handcuffed her hands behind her back and
> took her to the city police station, where she was placed in a cell for
> about an hour before she appeared in court and paid a $50 fine. Atwater
> later sued the city.
>
> The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the arrest was reasonable
> because the officer had reason to believe she had violated the law and
> ``because it was not conducted in (an) extraordinary manner.''
>
> Atwater's lawyer, Robert C. DeCarli, said the Constitution's Fourth
> Amendment ``restricts the use of custodial arrest for minor offenses such
as
> this.''
>
> He said it would be a different case if someone were stopped for drunken
or
> reckless driving, which could create a risk to others on the road if they
> were released.
>
> Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the ``strongest argument against you ...
has
> to do with police officers being human,'' adding that he wondered if an
> easily understandable rule could be devised.
>
> The city's lawyer, Roger J. George Jr., said officers are allowed to make
an
> arrest if they see someone violate the law. Police often do not have
enough
> information to know whether someone's actions constitute a felony or
> misdemeanor, he said.
>
> The justices are expected to issue a ruling by July.
>
> The case is Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408
>
>
>

"~~Ace**" <Raceace24@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VZzX5.176069$td5.25228169@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> Wow, that is probably the stupidest thing I have ever read in my life, you
> deserve kudos Biff!!
> Aside from more than likely taking the one part of the story out of
context,
> (which is what most liberals do anyway, because they lack the patience &
> intelligence to read a story from beginning to end) how is it that one
> policeman's action can be blamed on the Governor of the state he happens
to
> work in?
> I know you can't answer that intelligently, so let's proceed....
> My guess is that the woman either was high, drunk, or stupid enough to
give
> the cop a hard time, & in turn, got to ride in the pretty black & white
car
> with the big red light on top.

More likely the guy was a jerk. If she had been drunk, etc, etc, she
probably would have been caught at it. Police are just people. There a good
ones and there are jerks.

Rick

~~Ace** wrote:

> Wow, that is probably the stupidest thing I have ever read in my life, you
> deserve kudos Biff!!
> Aside from more than likely taking the one part of the story out of context,
> (which is what most liberals do anyway, because they lack the patience &
> intelligence to read a story from beginning to end) how is it that one
> policeman's action can be blamed on the Governor of the state he happens to
> work in?
> I know you can't answer that intelligently, so let's proceed....
> My guess is that the woman either was high, drunk, or stupid enough to give
> the cop a hard time, & in turn, got to ride in the pretty black & white car
> with the big red light on top.
> And have you ever seen a sucker mom try to navigate your local mall parking
> lot in one of those huge behemoth SUV's ? She probably took out ten cars
> right before she was pulled over by the cop.

Our local paper gave additional details. She was on a rural road, traveling 15
miles per hour. One of her children had dropped a toy out the window, and they
were looking for it. There was no other traffic.

It is a small town, and the officer knew her.

>
> Cops are all bad, & criminals are all innocent victims of the police
> state...
> One day, I'd like to see your liberal, long haired, tie dyed, pot smoking,
> authority questioning ass out there on the streets trying to police the
> masses.
> At that point, your viewpoint may actually be worth considering, but for
> now, that is not the case.
> Cops are the god guys,

Some cops are real jerks. Fortunately, not too many.

The Tarrant County Sheriff probably counts as a "god guy". He has set up a
special wing of the jail for Christians, spends the commissary profits on
Chaplains, and refuses to attend the County commissioners court to answer
questions about his budget. He has also taken the county commissioners to court
claiming that according to the Magna Carta, they have no jurisdiction over his
operations. For some odd reason he lost in the Primary to another Republican
this year. I understand that he hasn't ben seen in the office since then (March
2000).


> the impotent judges are the ones in our justice
> system who's actions should be questioned....

If they are impotent, then they can't do anything wrong. They can only do wrong
if they have power and the ability to choose.

>
> It always amazes me how some can take unrelated issues, tie them together
> somehow, & draw what they think is an intelligent conclusion from that
> equation.
>
> Nice going Biff...
>
> ~~Ace**
>
> "Travis Bickle" <bushis@dope.net> wrote in message
> news:dklX5.8341$Ei1.597108@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Texas is a third-world country and the Shrub is the Chief Banana
> Republican.
> > Note the "professional" opinion by Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee.  I
> > wonder if he was deep into a six-pack of Lone Star when he formulated this
> > educated thought.  Keeping in mind that the Court is dominated by
> > conservative Republican appointees, see the following:
> >
> > WASHINGTON (AP) - Hearing arguments in a case that could affect anyone who
> > drives a car, Supreme Court justices debated whether people can be
> arrested
> > for traffic violations punishable only by a fine.
> >
> > A Texas woman who was arrested, handcuffed and jailed because she and her
> > children weren't wearing seatbelts asked the justices Monday to rule that
> > the police violated her constitutional protection against unreasonable
> > arrests.
> >
> > ``You've got the perfect case,'' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor told the
> > attorney for Gail Atwater, who was arrested by a Lago Vista, Texas, police
> > officer in 1997 while driving her children home from soccer practice.
> >
> > Later, O'Connor told the city's lawyer, ``Even knowing it was a mother
> with
> > two small children in a small town ... This is kind of an amazing case.
> But
> > you think that's fine.''
> >
> > But several justices also questioned whether the Supreme Court should try
> to
> > set a rule governing such situations.
> >
> > ``How bad is the problem out there?'' asked Justice David H. Souter, who
> > said he wondered if the justices should base a constitutional rule on a
> rare
> > case.
> >
> > ``It is not a constitutional violation for a police officer to be a
> jerk,''
> > added Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
> >
> > Texas law gives police the discretion to make full custodial arrests for
> > routine traffic violations, except for speeding.
> >
> > The officer who stopped Atwater handcuffed her hands behind her back and
> > took her to the city police station, where she was placed in a cell for
> > about an hour before she appeared in court and paid a $50 fine. Atwater
> > later sued the city.
> >
> > The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the arrest was reasonable
> > because the officer had reason to believe she had violated the law and
> > ``because it was not conducted in (an) extraordinary manner.''
> >
> > Atwater's lawyer, Robert C. DeCarli, said the Constitution's Fourth
> > Amendment ``restricts the use of custodial arrest for minor offenses such
> as
> > this.''
> >
> > He said it would be a different case if someone were stopped for drunken
> or
> > reckless driving, which could create a risk to others on the road if they
> > were released.
> >
> > Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the ``strongest argument against you ...
> has
> > to do with police officers being human,'' adding that he wondered if an
> > easily understandable rule could be devised.
> >
> > The city's lawyer, Roger J. George Jr., said officers are allowed to make
> an
> > arrest if they see someone violate the law. Police often do not have
> enough
> > information to know whether someone's actions constitute a felony or
> > misdemeanor, he said.
> >
> > The justices are expected to issue a ruling by July.
> >
> > The case is Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408
> >
> >
> >

<davekle@city-net.com> wrote in message
news:3a2e68a0.126837692@news.city-net.com...
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2000 06:49:45 GMT, "Travis Bickle" <bushis@dope.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Texas is a third-world country and the Shrub is the Chief Banana
Republican.
> >Note the "professional" opinion by Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee.
I
> >wonder if he was deep into a six-pack of Lone Star when he formulated
this
> >educated thought.  Keeping in mind that the Court is dominated by
> >conservative Republican appointees, see the following:
>
> I never realized that Shrub was a police officer.  This certainly do
> go straight to his character.

No, Dubya isn't a police officer.  However, how many other states have laws
that permit officers to put people in jail, without reasonable cause, for
nothing more than minor traffic offenses?

The usual Texas way of dealing with abuses of authority is for people in
power to utter some platitudes, talk tough or act cute, and bury their heads
in the sand rather than try and remedy the situation.  If the law in Texas
needs to be changed, you will not be able to count on Texas Government to
address the situation, unless they are forced.

"~~Ace**" <Raceace24@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VZzX5.176069$td5.25228169@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> Aside from more than likely taking the one part of the story out of
context,
> (which is what most liberals do anyway, because they lack the patience &
> intelligence to read a story from beginning to end) how is it that one
> policeman's action can be blamed on the Governor of the state he happens
to
> work in?

1.  The article was copied from the AP in its entirety; it wasn't taken out
of context.
2.  That kind of abuse of power is pretty typical of the state as a whole.
Texans in positions of power are generally lazy (e.g. Henry B. Gonzales-30
years in Congress without introducing a single piece of legislation),
self-aggrandizing, and full of excuses.
3.  It wasn't one policeman's action--it is the state law. You can spend the
night in the Texas hoosegow and get a blot on your record merely for driving
around with a burned-out tail light.
4. You obviously need to label others choose to disagree with your high
opinion of yourself. At least you didn't throw out the hackneyed, typical
(for Texans, anyway) "commie" label.
5.  Doctrinaires exist at both ends of the political spectrum. People who
identify themselves as liberals, conservatives, or libertarians, find it
much easier to adhere to rigid beliefs rather than think for themselves.


> I know you can't answer that intelligently, so let's proceed....

You know nothing.  Read on...

> My guess is that the woman either was high, drunk, or stupid enough to
give
> the cop a hard time, & in turn, got to ride in the pretty black & white
car
> with the big red light on top.

Your guess notwithstanding, the article said nothing about her being drunk,
high, or belligerent. As a matter of fact, another article in a local Texas
paper said she was cruising through Lago Vista, TX at 15 mph with three
children, a bag of charcoal, a tricycle and soccer gear. She was returning
from a soccer outing and was arrested in front of her crying children.

> And have you ever seen a sucker mom try to navigate your local mall
parking
> lot in one of those huge behemoth SUV's ? She probably took out ten cars
> right before she was pulled over by the cop.

Your moronic anecdote just proved what a complete jackass you are.

> Cops are all bad, & criminals are all innocent victims of the police
> state...

Wrong. I'm generally on the side of the police.  However, in this case, the
law needs to be changed.  Unless you're a complete pollyanna, it is plain
that a law such as the one in Texas is wide open to abuse.  The wrong
decision by the US Supreme Court will enable other states to enact similar
laws. That kind of power isn't really necessary for maintaining order.  Can
you say " Banana Republic"?

> One day, I'd like to see your liberal, long haired, tie dyed, pot smoking,
> authority questioning ass out there on the streets trying to police the
> masses.

Really?  What about us short-haired, middle-aged, teetotaling white collar
types?  Never mind.  Many of us are already your bosses--or cops.

> At that point, your viewpoint may actually be worth considering, but for
> now, that is not the case.

<Remainder of sophomoric diatribe deleted for clarity>

> ~~Ace**
>
Maybe ~~Ass** would be a better moniker for you...

Travis Bickle wrote:
> 
> <davekle@city-net.com> wrote in message
> news:3a2e68a0.126837692@news.city-net.com...
> > On Wed, 06 Dec 2000 06:49:45 GMT, "Travis Bickle" <bushis@dope.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Texas is a third-world country and the Shrub is the Chief Banana
> Republican.
> > >Note the "professional" opinion by Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee.
> I
> > >wonder if he was deep into a six-pack of Lone Star when he formulated
> this
> > >educated thought.  Keeping in mind that the Court is dominated by
> > >conservative Republican appointees, see the following:
> >
> > I never realized that Shrub was a police officer.  This certainly do
> > go straight to his character.
> 
> No, Dubya isn't a police officer.  However, how many other states have laws
> that permit officers to put people in jail, without reasonable cause, for
> nothing more than minor traffic offenses?

Every state allows broad powers for police to exercise their duties.
Here in the good ol' state of PA disorderly conduct is the de facto
charge that officers assert when they want to get someone off of the
street for doing nothing more that not looking right.
 
> The usual Texas way of dealing with abuses of authority is for people in
> power to utter some platitudes, talk tough or act cute, and bury their heads
> in the sand rather than try and remedy the situation.  If the law in Texas
> needs to be changed, you will not be able to count on Texas Government to
> address the situation, unless they are forced.

Charmo. Vojtas. Cooperstein. It's not just Texas.

LK
-- 
"I can fall asleep lying next to a dead man."
-Scarface (Brad Jordan)

"You can cry, but you'll still die. There'll be no tears in the end."
-Scarface (Brad Jordan)

"Even paranoids have enemies"
-Henry Kissinger

Richard Brewer <jackbrew@flash.net> wrote in message
news:3A2EE4C9.15F4231E@flash.net...
>
>
> ~~Ace** wrote:
>>Pbbbbbbbtt!...............wet fart.
> > Wow, that is probably the stupidest thing I have ever read in my life,
you
> > deserve kudos Biff!!
> > Aside from more than likely taking the one part of the story out of
context,
> > (which is what most liberals do anyway, because they lack the patience &
> > intelligence to read a story from beginning to end) how is it that one
> > policeman's action can be blamed on the Governor of the state he happens
to
> > work in?
> > I know you can't answer that intelligently, so let's proceed....
> > My guess is that the woman either was high, drunk, or stupid enough to
give
> > the cop a hard time, & in turn, got to ride in the pretty black & white
car
> > with the big red light on top.
> > And have you ever seen a sucker mom try to navigate your local mall
parking
> > lot in one of those huge behemoth SUV's ? She probably took out ten cars
> > right before she was pulled over by the cop.
>
> Our local paper gave additional details. She was on a rural road,
traveling 15
> miles per hour. One of her children had dropped a toy out the window, and
they
> were looking for it. There was no other traffic.
>
> It is a small town, and the officer knew her.
>
> >
> > Cops are all bad, & criminals are all innocent victims of the police
> > state...
> > One day, I'd like to see your liberal, long haired, tie dyed, pot
smoking,
> > authority questioning ass out there on the streets trying to police the
> > masses.
> > At that point, your viewpoint may actually be worth considering, but for
> > now, that is not the case.
> > Cops are the god guys,
>
> Some cops are real jerks. Fortunately, not too many.
>
> The Tarrant County Sheriff probably counts as a "god guy". He has set up a
> special wing of the jail for Christians, spends the commissary profits on
> Chaplains, and refuses to attend the County commissioners court to answer
> questions about his budget. He has also taken the county commissioners to
court
> claiming that according to the Magna Carta, they have no jurisdiction over
his
> operations. For some odd reason he lost in the Primary to another
Republican
> this year. I understand that he hasn't ben seen in the office since then
(March
> 2000).
>
>
> > the impotent judges are the ones in our justice
> > system who's actions should be questioned....
>
> If they are impotent, then they can't do anything wrong. They can only do
wrong
> if they have power and the ability to choose.
>
> >
> > It always amazes me how some can take unrelated issues, tie them
together
> > somehow, & draw what they think is an intelligent conclusion from that
> > equation.
> >
> > Nice going Biff...
> >
> > ~~Ace**
> >
> > "Travis Bickle" <bushis@dope.net> wrote in message
> > news:dklX5.8341$Ei1.597108@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > Texas is a third-world country and the Shrub is the Chief Banana
> > Republican.
> > > Note the "professional" opinion by Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan
appointee.  I
> > > wonder if he was deep into a six-pack of Lone Star when he formulated
this
> > > educated thought.  Keeping in mind that the Court is dominated by
> > > conservative Republican appointees, see the following:
> > >
> > > WASHINGTON (AP) - Hearing arguments in a case that could affect anyone
who
> > > drives a car, Supreme Court justices debated whether people can be
> > arrested
> > > for traffic violations punishable only by a fine.
> > >
> > > A Texas woman who was arrested, handcuffed and jailed because she and
her
> > > children weren't wearing seatbelts asked the justices Monday to rule
that
> > > the police violated her constitutional protection against unreasonable
> > > arrests.
> > >
> > > ``You've got the perfect case,'' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor told the
> > > attorney for Gail Atwater, who was arrested by a Lago Vista, Texas,
police
> > > officer in 1997 while driving her children home from soccer practice.
> > >
> > > Later, O'Connor told the city's lawyer, ``Even knowing it was a mother
> > with
> > > two small children in a small town ... This is kind of an amazing
case.
> > But
> > > you think that's fine.''
> > >
> > > But several justices also questioned whether the Supreme Court should
try
> > to
> > > set a rule governing such situations.
> > >
> > > ``How bad is the problem out there?'' asked Justice David H. Souter,
who
> > > said he wondered if the justices should base a constitutional rule on
a
> > rare
> > > case.
> > >
> > > ``It is not a constitutional violation for a police officer to be a
> > jerk,''
> > > added Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
> > >
> > > Texas law gives police the discretion to make full custodial arrests
for
> > > routine traffic violations, except for speeding.
> > >
> > > The officer who stopped Atwater handcuffed her hands behind her back
and
> > > took her to the city police station, where she was placed in a cell
for
> > > about an hour before she appeared in court and paid a $50 fine.
Atwater
> > > later sued the city.
> > >
> > > The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the arrest was
reasonable
> > > because the officer had reason to believe she had violated the law and
> > > ``because it was not conducted in (an) extraordinary manner.''
> > >
> > > Atwater's lawyer, Robert C. DeCarli, said the Constitution's Fourth
> > > Amendment ``restricts the use of custodial arrest for minor offenses
such
> > as
> > > this.''
> > >
> > > He said it would be a different case if someone were stopped for
drunken
> > or
> > > reckless driving, which could create a risk to others on the road if
they
> > > were released.
> > >
> > > Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the ``strongest argument against you
...
> > has
> > > to do with police officers being human,'' adding that he wondered if
an
> > > easily understandable rule could be devised.
> > >
> > > The city's lawyer, Roger J. George Jr., said officers are allowed to
make
> > an
> > > arrest if they see someone violate the law. Police often do not have
> > enough
> > > information to know whether someone's actions constitute a felony or
> > > misdemeanor, he said.
> > >
> > > The justices are expected to issue a ruling by July.
> > >
> > > The case is Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408
> > >
> > >
> > >
>

Here we go again....
***denote my rebuttals***



"Travis Bickle" <bushis@dope.net> wrote in message
news:%kCX5.179$d62.10208@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "~~Ace**" <Raceace24@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:VZzX5.176069$td5.25228169@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> > Aside from more than likely taking the one part of the story out of
> context,
> > (which is what most liberals do anyway, because they lack the patience &
> > intelligence to read a story from beginning to end) how is it that one
> > policeman's action can be blamed on the Governor of the state he happens
> to
> > work in?
>
> 1.  The article was copied from the AP in its entirety; it wasn't taken
out
> of context.

**Did the conclusion the the state was a banana republic also appear in the
story, or was this miraculous assertion formed by your pea brain?**

> 2.  That kind of abuse of power is pretty typical of the state as a whole.

***Oh, & you live there, & now this to be a fact based on first hand
information, right?****

> Texans in positions of power are generally lazy (e.g. Henry B. Gonzales-30
> years in Congress without introducing a single piece of legislation),
> self-aggrandizing, and full of excuses.

***Better than being full of shit, like yourself...***

> 3.  It wasn't one policeman's action--it is the state law. You can spend
the
> night in the Texas hoosegow and get a blot on your record merely for
driving
> around with a burned-out tail light.

***And there are no Dumbocrats in the State Legislature to block such an
unfair law?
Or were they busy authoring & introducing other pieces of legislation, & not
paying attention to the details?***


> 4. You obviously need to label others choose to disagree with your high
> opinion of yourself.

****No..... asshole describes you perfectly...****


At least you didn't throw out the hackneyed, typical
> (for Texans, anyway) "commie" label.
> 5.  Doctrinaires exist at both ends of the political spectrum. People who
> identify themselves as liberals, conservatives, or libertarians, find it
> much easier to adhere to rigid beliefs rather than think for themselves.
>
>
*****You haven't a clue do you? It is high standards that set people such as
myself apart from fools such as yourself.....*****



> > I know you can't answer that intelligently, so let's proceed....
>
> You know nothing.

*****I know plenty.*****



  Read on...
>
> > My guess is that the woman either was high, drunk, or stupid enough to
> give
> > the cop a hard time, & in turn, got to ride in the pretty black & white
> car
> > with the big red light on top.
>
> Your guess notwithstanding, the article said nothing about her being
drunk,
> high, or belligerent. As a matter of fact, another article in a local
Texas
> paper said she was cruising through Lago Vista, TX at 15 mph with three
> children, a bag of charcoal, a tricycle and soccer gear. She was returning
> from a soccer outing and was arrested in front of her crying children.
>
*****If you believe that there is nothing more to this story than the
miniscule amount of info that you furnished, I would say that you are rather
gullible, or too shallow to look further & get the whole story, either way,
you don't strike me as the sharpest pencil on the desk....*****



> > And have you ever seen a sucker mom try to navigate your local mall
> parking
> > lot in one of those huge behemoth SUV's ? She probably took out ten cars
> > right before she was pulled over by the cop.
>
> Your moronic anecdote just proved what a complete jackass you are.

*****Comic relief, poopy butt...a little too subtle for your intelect, I
guess...*****

>
> > Cops are all bad, & criminals are all innocent victims of the police
> > state...
>
> Wrong. I'm generally on the side of the police.  However, in this case,
the
> law needs to be changed

****So cry about the Dumbocratically controlled Texas State Legislature who
write the laws, not the Governor who has to enforce the laws.... God, are
you THAT stupid????????******


.  Unless you're a complete pollyanna, it is plain
> that a law such as the one in Texas is wide open to abuse.


****You truly have an uncanny grasp of the obvious....DUH?****



 The wrong
> decision by the US Supreme Court will enable other states to enact similar
> laws. That kind of power isn't really necessary for maintaining order.
Can
> you say " Banana Republic"?

****Yes, can you say clueless fool????*****


>
> > One day, I'd like to see your liberal, long haired, tie dyed, pot
smoking,
> > authority questioning ass out there on the streets trying to police the
> > masses.
>
> Really?  What about us short-haired, middle-aged, teetotaling white collar
> types?  Never mind.  Many of us are already your bosses--or cops.
>

****I have no boss, I own a business with a lot of short-haired,
middle-aged, teetotalling types such as yourself as my employees.....*****


> > At that point, your viewpoint may actually be worth considering, but for
> > now, that is not the case.
>
> <Remainder of sophomoric diatribe deleted for clarity>

****Just as I had mentioned previously, lack of patince, or intelligence to
even finish the debate...***



>
> > ~~Ace**
> >
> Maybe ~~Ass** would be a better moniker for you...
>
> ****With a name like Travis, it would be redundant to make fun of THAT
name...*****
>
>

Wow, one humorous post, & it follows you around like some venereal
disease...jeesh!




<paulk@telerama.com> wrote in message
news:t2u9inmnp2oede@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Richard Brewer <jackbrew@flash.net> wrote in message
> news:3A2EE4C9.15F4231E@flash.net...
> >
> >
> > ~~Ace** wrote:
> >>Pbbbbbbbtt!...............wet fart.
> > > Wow, that is probably the stupidest thing I have ever read in my life,
> you
> > > deserve kudos Biff!!
> > > Aside from more than likely taking the one part of the story out of
> context,
> > > (which is what most liberals do anyway, because they lack the patience
&
> > > intelligence to read a story from beginning to end) how is it that one
> > > policeman's action can be blamed on the Governor of the state he
happens
> to
> > > work in?
> > > I know you can't answer that intelligently, so let's proceed....
> > > My guess is that the woman either was high, drunk, or stupid enough to
> give
> > > the cop a hard time, & in turn, got to ride in the pretty black &
white
> car
> > > with the big red light on top.
> > > And have you ever seen a sucker mom try to navigate your local mall
> parking
> > > lot in one of those huge behemoth SUV's ? She probably took out ten
cars
> > > right before she was pulled over by the cop.
> >
> > Our local paper gave additional details. She was on a rural road,
> traveling 15
> > miles per hour. One of her children had dropped a toy out the window,
and
> they
> > were looking for it. There was no other traffic.
> >
> > It is a small town, and the officer knew her.
> >
> > >
> > > Cops are all bad, & criminals are all innocent victims of the police
> > > state...
> > > One day, I'd like to see your liberal, long haired, tie dyed, pot
> smoking,
> > > authority questioning ass out there on the streets trying to police
the
> > > masses.
> > > At that point, your viewpoint may actually be worth considering, but
for
> > > now, that is not the case.
> > > Cops are the god guys,
> >
> > Some cops are real jerks. Fortunately, not too many.
> >
> > The Tarrant County Sheriff probably counts as a "god guy". He has set up
a
> > special wing of the jail for Christians, spends the commissary profits
on
> > Chaplains, and refuses to attend the County commissioners court to
answer
> > questions about his budget. He has also taken the county commissioners
to
> court
> > claiming that according to the Magna Carta, they have no jurisdiction
over
> his
> > operations. For some odd reason he lost in the Primary to another
> Republican
> > this year. I understand that he hasn't ben seen in the office since then
> (March
> > 2000).
> >
> >
> > > the impotent judges are the ones in our justice
> > > system who's actions should be questioned....
> >
> > If they are impotent, then they can't do anything wrong. They can only
do
> wrong
> > if they have power and the ability to choose.
> >
> > >
> > > It always amazes me how some can take unrelated issues, tie them
> together
> > > somehow, & draw what they think is an intelligent conclusion from that
> > > equation.
> > >
> > > Nice going Biff...
> > >
> > > ~~Ace**
> > >
> > > "Travis Bickle" <bushis@dope.net> wrote in message
> > > news:dklX5.8341$Ei1.597108@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > > Texas is a third-world country and the Shrub is the Chief Banana
> > > Republican.
> > > > Note the "professional" opinion by Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan
> appointee.  I
> > > > wonder if he was deep into a six-pack of Lone Star when he
formulated
> this
> > > > educated thought.  Keeping in mind that the Court is dominated by
> > > > conservative Republican appointees, see the following:
> > > >
> > > > WASHINGTON (AP) - Hearing arguments in a case that could affect
anyone
> who
> > > > drives a car, Supreme Court justices debated whether people can be
> > > arrested
> > > > for traffic violations punishable only by a fine.
> > > >
> > > > A Texas woman who was arrested, handcuffed and jailed because she
and
> her
> > > > children weren't wearing seatbelts asked the justices Monday to rule
> that
> > > > the police violated her constitutional protection against
unreasonable
> > > > arrests.
> > > >
> > > > ``You've got the perfect case,'' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor told
the
> > > > attorney for Gail Atwater, who was arrested by a Lago Vista, Texas,
> police
> > > > officer in 1997 while driving her children home from soccer
practice.
> > > >
> > > > Later, O'Connor told the city's lawyer, ``Even knowing it was a
mother
> > > with
> > > > two small children in a small town ... This is kind of an amazing
> case.
> > > But
> > > > you think that's fine.''
> > > >
> > > > But several justices also questioned whether the Supreme Court
should
> try
> > > to
> > > > set a rule governing such situations.
> > > >
> > > > ``How bad is the problem out there?'' asked Justice David H. Souter,
> who
> > > > said he wondered if the justices should base a constitutional rule
on
> a
> > > rare
> > > > case.
> > > >
> > > > ``It is not a constitutional violation for a police officer to be a
> > > jerk,''
> > > > added Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
> > > >
> > > > Texas law gives police the discretion to make full custodial arrests
> for
> > > > routine traffic violations, except for speeding.
> > > >
> > > > The officer who stopped Atwater handcuffed her hands behind her back
> and
> > > > took her to the city police station, where she was placed in a cell
> for
> > > > about an hour before she appeared in court and paid a $50 fine.
> Atwater
> > > > later sued the city.
> > > >
> > > > The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the arrest was
> reasonable
> > > > because the officer had reason to believe she had violated the law
and
> > > > ``because it was not conducted in (an) extraordinary manner.''
> > > >
> > > > Atwater's lawyer, Robert C. DeCarli, said the Constitution's Fourth
> > > > Amendment ``restricts the use of custodial arrest for minor offenses
> such
> > > as
> > > > this.''
> > > >
> > > > He said it would be a different case if someone were stopped for
> drunken
> > > or
> > > > reckless driving, which could create a risk to others on the road if
> they
> > > > were released.
> > > >
> > > > Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the ``strongest argument against you
> ...
> > > has
> > > > to do with police officers being human,'' adding that he wondered if
> an
> > > > easily understandable rule could be devised.
> > > >
> > > > The city's lawyer, Roger J. George Jr., said officers are allowed to
> make
> > > an
> > > > arrest if they see someone violate the law. Police often do not have
> > > enough
> > > > information to know whether someone's actions constitute a felony or
> > > > misdemeanor, he said.
> > > >
> > > > The justices are expected to issue a ruling by July.
> > > >
> > > > The case is Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
>
>

"~~Ace**" <Raceace24@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AQVX5.178933$td5.25638146@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> > > Aside from more than likely taking the one part of the story out of
> > context,
> > > (which is what most liberals do anyway, because they lack the patience
&
> > > intelligence to read a story from beginning to end) how is it that one
> > > policeman's action can be blamed on the Governor of the state he
happens
> > to
> > > work in?
> >
> > 1.  The article was copied from the AP in its entirety; it wasn't taken
> out of context.
>
> **Did the conclusion the the state was a banana republic also appear in
the
> story, or was this miraculous assertion formed by your pea brain?**

If the shoe fits....

> > 2.  That kind of abuse of power is pretty typical of the state as a
whole.
>
> ***Oh, & you live there, & now this to be a fact based on first hand
> information, right?****

Yep!

> > Texans in positions of power are generally lazy (e.g. Henry B.
Gonzales-30
> > years in Congress without introducing a single piece of legislation),
> > self-aggrandizing, and full of excuses.
>
> ***Better than being full of shit, like yourself...***

What a well-reasoned and thoughtful answer, but not unexpected in light of
your limited vocabulary.  If one of your local congressmen was living the
high life for 30 years at taxpayer expense, you'd be ready to hang him from
the Fort Pitt Bridge, rather than repeatedly reelecting him or celebrating
him as a local hero after his passing.

> > 3.  It wasn't one policeman's action--it is the state law. You can spend
> the
> > night in the Texas hoosegow and get a blot on your record merely for
> driving
> > around with a burned-out tail light.
>
> ***And there are no Dumbocrats in the State Legislature to block such an
> unfair law?
> Or were they busy authoring & introducing other pieces of legislation, &
not
> paying attention to the details?***

Politicians of every stripe here are pretty useless.  With an immigrant
population rapidly approaching 50%, voter turnout is extremely low for local
elections.  Hence, the politicians aren't accountable to anyone, with the
exception of the special interests who get them elected and pay them to look
the other way.

>
> > 4. You obviously need to label others choose to disagree with your high
> > opinion of yourself. At least you didn't throw out the hackneyed,
typical (for Texans, anyway) "commie" label.
> > 5.  Doctrinaires exist at both ends of the political spectrum. People
who
> > identify themselves as liberals, conservatives, or libertarians, find it
> > much easier to adhere to rigid beliefs rather than think for themselves.
> >
> >
> *****You haven't a clue do you? It is high standards that set people such
as
> myself apart from fools such as yourself.....*****
>
Speaking of not having a clue, the term "doctrinaire" isn't complimentary.
Have your high school teacher look it up for you.
>
>


> ****I have no boss, I own a business with a lot of short-haired,
> middle-aged, teetotalling types such as yourself as my employees.....*****

Ain't America great?  Even inarticulate punk-asses like you can become
businessmen. Of course, you realize that dealing drugs is a violation of
federal law, don't you,  ~~Ass**?
>
> > > At that point, your viewpoint may actually be worth considering, but
for
> > > now, that is not the case.
> >
> > <Remainder of sophomoric diatribe deleted for clarity>
>
> ****Just as I had mentioned previously, lack of patince, or intelligence
to
> even finish the debate...***

Or, in you're case--other than the four-letter words--even
the patience to spell correctly.
>
>

More:

The woman in this case is married to an emergency room physician.  Officer
Barney resigned when the extent of his abuse was made public.  The Mayor, a
former San Antonio councilman, said he wished that she hadn't gone so far
with the case.  With the exception of sycophants like you,  it seems as if
the wrath of the nation is on his back, according to the venerable mayor.

I'm going to encroach on your meager intellectual turf here--by speculating:
I  suspect that if the arrestee was a working stiff of more modest means,
there would've been no case.  The incident would never have come to light.

> >
> > > ~~Ace**
> > >
> > Maybe ~~Ass** would be a better moniker for you...

Talking in useless multi-syllabic words neither makes you right, or smart.
By the way, I picked up on your insult, I was responding to the only part of
statement that was worth responding to.
You are about as intellectually superior to me as Monica Lewinski is to
Einstein.
"punk ass"...Yea that's intelligent..
"Ass"...Isn't that spelled with three letters???
Son, if you are the smartest person in this NG, why do you continue to
submit such lame posts?
You better get back to work, your boss may be around...






"Travis Bickle" <bushis@dope.net> wrote in message
news:KxuY5.11761$Ei1.816940@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "~~Ace**" <Raceace24@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:AQVX5.178933$td5.25638146@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> > > > Aside from more than likely taking the one part of the story out of
> > > context,
> > > > (which is what most liberals do anyway, because they lack the
patience
> &
> > > > intelligence to read a story from beginning to end) how is it that
one
> > > > policeman's action can be blamed on the Governor of the state he
> happens
> > > to
> > > > work in?
> > >
> > > 1.  The article was copied from the AP in its entirety; it wasn't
taken
> > out of context.
> >
> > **Did the conclusion the the state was a banana republic also appear in
> the
> > story, or was this miraculous assertion formed by your pea brain?**
>
> If the shoe fits....
>
> > > 2.  That kind of abuse of power is pretty typical of the state as a
> whole.
> >
> > ***Oh, & you live there, & now this to be a fact based on first hand
> > information, right?****
>
> Yep!
>
> > > Texans in positions of power are generally lazy (e.g. Henry B.
> Gonzales-30
> > > years in Congress without introducing a single piece of legislation),
> > > self-aggrandizing, and full of excuses.
> >
> > ***Better than being full of shit, like yourself...***
>
> What a well-reasoned and thoughtful answer, but not unexpected in light of
> your limited vocabulary.  If one of your local congressmen was living the
> high life for 30 years at taxpayer expense, you'd be ready to hang him
from
> the Fort Pitt Bridge, rather than repeatedly reelecting him or celebrating
> him as a local hero after his passing.
>
> > > 3.  It wasn't one policeman's action--it is the state law. You can
spend
> > the
> > > night in the Texas hoosegow and get a blot on your record merely for
> > driving
> > > around with a burned-out tail light.
> >
> > ***And there are no Dumbocrats in the State Legislature to block such an
> > unfair law?
> > Or were they busy authoring & introducing other pieces of legislation, &
> not
> > paying attention to the details?***
>
> Politicians of every stripe here are pretty useless.  With an immigrant
> population rapidly approaching 50%, voter turnout is extremely low for
local
> elections.  Hence, the politicians aren't accountable to anyone, with the
> exception of the special interests who get them elected and pay them to
look
> the other way.
>
> >
> > > 4. You obviously need to label others choose to disagree with your
high
> > > opinion of yourself. At least you didn't throw out the hackneyed,
> typical (for Texans, anyway) "commie" label.
> > > 5.  Doctrinaires exist at both ends of the political spectrum. People
> who
> > > identify themselves as liberals, conservatives, or libertarians, find
it
> > > much easier to adhere to rigid beliefs rather than think for
themselves.
> > >
> > >
> > *****You haven't a clue do you? It is high standards that set people
such
> as
> > myself apart from fools such as yourself.....*****
> >
> Speaking of not having a clue, the term "doctrinaire" isn't complimentary.
> Have your high school teacher look it up for you.
> >
> >
>
>
> > ****I have no boss, I own a business with a lot of short-haired,
> > middle-aged, teetotalling types such as yourself as my
employees.....*****
>
> Ain't America great?  Even inarticulate punk-asses like you can become
> businessmen. Of course, you realize that dealing drugs is a violation of
> federal law, don't you,  ~~Ass**?
> >
> > > > At that point, your viewpoint may actually be worth considering, but
> for
> > > > now, that is not the case.
> > >
> > > <Remainder of sophomoric diatribe deleted for clarity>
> >
> > ****Just as I had mentioned previously, lack of patince, or intelligence
> to
> > even finish the debate...***
>
> Or, in you're case--other than the four-letter words--even
> the patience to spell correctly.
> >
> >
>
> More:
>
> The woman in this case is married to an emergency room physician.  Officer
> Barney resigned when the extent of his abuse was made public.  The Mayor,
a
> former San Antonio councilman, said he wished that she hadn't gone so far
> with the case.  With the exception of sycophants like you,  it seems as if
> the wrath of the nation is on his back, according to the venerable mayor.
>
> I'm going to encroach on your meager intellectual turf here--by
speculating:
> I  suspect that if the arrestee was a working stiff of more modest means,
> there would've been no case.  The incident would never have come to light.
>
> > >
> > > > ~~Ace**
> > > >
> > > Maybe ~~Ass** would be a better moniker for you...
>
>
>
>
>
>