Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="trplnkl" data-source="post: 737326" data-attributes="member: 13254">.....Continued....I've cited SB1070, you tell me "that's not what it implies." I thought you were going to tell me how it doesn't. You will not do MY research. You will do YOURS, and tell me how it's not what it implies what I said.[FONT=&quot]Sorry I don’t remember the context of the statement "that's not what it implies." , and I’m not going to look it up. [/FONT]OK, don't look it up. You're just leaving that a blank statement. And you're the one complaining about me... You want me cite every single law on each of my statements, and you can't even give you're simple opinion (with no backup, laws, or political propaganda) on that one. OK.    Just following your lead so yes, I am going to leave the out of text statement without further reply.And please, although I have zero tolerance about anyone touching my Bill of Rights, I want to know your point of view on the part of "Reasonable Suspicion," [FONT=&quot]Reasonable suspicion would/could come from anyone not having the legal IDs required of any person. It’s pretty simple really, if pulled over for a traffic violation and the subject has no ID whatsoever, it is reasonable to suspect that individual has something to hide, including being an illegal alien and there will be further investigation.[/FONT] If you tolerate this, don't be surprised when you're next.  Ya see, that is why I won’t be next. I carry my DL (government photo ID) with me, everywhere I go. And here is a news flash for you, it’s NOTHING new. This has been the norm since way before you were born and the burden of proof is always going to be around."The "solely," color, race, nationality," etc. crap. I've cited you part of the law, but you haven't explain me your point of view on how my statements don't imply to the law. I thought you were going to place the rest of the law (the rest that you said I ignore) and explain how in the world they write something like the "solely," color, race, or national origin, and all that stuff.[FONT=&quot]The word “solely” was used in the original text of the law, and then taken out. I [/FONT][FONT=&quot]would guess maybe[/FONT][FONT=&quot] because of the taking that one word to twist the sentence to mean that R,C and national origin could be considered as reasonable cause to pull someone over which is NOT the intent of the law[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Um... you're just guessing. It's not the intent of the law? Don't be so innocent, you, me and everyone who wrote the damn law know it is. Now, I'm wondering if you know who wrote what you presume you have read. You contradict yourself too much, but I don't blame you, the law itself it's too contradictory. (please, when you put your words between mine change the color of the text so anyone else reading will know they are YOUR words, not mine. Thank you)  Nice try DippyDoDawg, that is NOT what I was guessing about. If you don’t know that you do need help.  I was “guessing” on the reason for removing the word “solely” from the text of the law because they new idiots would try the twist that to construe profiling was to be condoned.   ..................  [FONT=&quot]With the wording of the law including the anti-profiling language some many different places and time, it’s pretty obvious that stopping someone based on R,C or NO is not allowed.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Real kind words, but they're just words. We don't need the kind words of Ms. Brewer, because a signature doesn't care about words[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. If this means what I think it does, you are unwilling to accept any point of view than your won? If that is the case, why am I wasting my time?[/FONT]</blockquote>

Verification