John Adams

Get a brain Moran.

It's been discussed here before but it still kills me when I used to contract for the government. We were building a landfill at Pax River and found an enormous supply of clean fill--which meant we saved millions by digging up our own fill instead of buying it. As the year end approached and this 8M project was 1.%M underbudget, the Navy directed us to help them figure out what we could do to spend the other 1.5M...because if they didn't find a way to spend it, they would get less money next year. We created something to build and spent it (hard to say no to 1.5M). Who got screwed? Everyone.

The biggest part of the problem is that the government is so big that it's become a form of welfare, providing (useless) jobs to many people. Cutting a ton of spending = driving up unemployment significantly and paying for those people to do (more) nothing (than they do as gov't workers).

Sounds like Android's new ad campaign.

You're wrong with fish. Under the old law, you can already detain people and question their alien status if you have reasonable suspicion of a crime (not driving with a license, violating noise ordinance, loitering, jaywalking...to address fish's last post). This law makes it mandatory for a police officer to question alien status of lawfully acting people based on "reasonable suspicion" that they are not aliens. MY question stands: How in the !@#$ do you reasonably suspect someone acting lawfully is an alien. The first time some cop seizes an American and asks for his papers, he's going to say that is an unreasonable S&S and I suspect the challenge will be upheld.

Do you think cooks are not under a watchful eye as they prepare a meal for multiple heads of state? Sounds kooky. Not impossible. But considering there is no evidence other than people go sick, kooky.

Sounds kooky.

Right. But since you refuse to discuss your objective or intent because you're a coward, it's just what everyone deduces based on your actions.

Cut the Jon Stewart BS. If you don't know my beliefs, don't assume them. Try this another way. You're a cop. How will you develop reasonable suspicion that a person is an illegal alien? They haven't committed a crime. They are under no suspicion for another crime. Go.

Of course they can question you when they think you committed a crime like shoplifting, but only if they have the reasonable suspicion. Some witness saw you take the thing. But the police can't just question every person they see on the block who fits a certain profile of a shoplifter (I'll let WBF fill in the profile here) where there is no witness or other reason that leads them to have suspicion. But here's my question. How in %$^# can a police office tell if someone is an illegal immigrant just by looking at them? Shabby clothes? Dark skin? Carrying a backpack? None of those things are crimes. It's completely different if they have a picture of a guy crossing the border or a reliable informant points to a guy and says he's illegal. But just giving the police the power to question alien status based on appearance is going to run afoul of the S&S in the Constitution, or at least I hope the Court agrees it does. I have a hard time even thinking the right wing guys on the Court will go along with this law.

That's a neat story. It's amazing how much we're learning about all animals lately. Many of them use primitive tools. Lots of them don't do as much on instinct as we used to think--they are taught many things by their peers/parents. Animals have a lot more human characteristics than we often believe.

That case has nothing to do with this new law because it's not in harmony with the US Constitution. But the issue here is that the new law permits authorities to question LAWFULLY-acting people. That will run afoul of search and seizure in the Constitution.

You must have been missing the headlines for the last decade. The Republicans have a lock on gay sex scandals.

Ben's response: No need to register. Between Magox, GG, and me, we post all the good stuff.

Poor people need more access to home loans.

And recommends that the Obama debt commission REVISE THE TAX CODE?!? Really Ben!? That's what you recommend? Any other ideas? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...eTabs%3Darticle The WSJ commenters have a better understanding of the problem than the Fed Reserve Chairman.

Swing and a miss.

That's a solid litmus test question and a good way to get rid of Dems who knock on my door.

I can't conceive of what grounds the judge issued that order on. Guess we'll find out.

Agree 100%. I have no confidence that Wood will be ready this season. If he is, great...but I have to think he won't be back in form until 2011 (if that season even happens). I hear what you're saying regarding tickets but going into the draft, Nix was publicly clear that the team recognized the need for tackles. I honestly think they felt like Spiller was too good to pass up. Looking at the draft, you can't say they went for flashy picks the rest of the day. Troupe won't sell tickets. Neither will Carrington. The problem with the draft in Rounds 2-3 is that the switch to 3-4 left holes the Bills have to fill...in addition to the OT spot. I don't think the O-line will be any better than 2009 and that will be a huge problem. I don't see the team regressing on offense (it would be hard to get worse) but I can't imagine they will be much better either unless someone like Gaither at LT and another RT vet fall into the roster. Wang and anyone else are for 2011 and beyond. Let's not kid ourselves: guys drafted in the 5th round are not NFL starters.

You could be right but leading up to the draft, there was a lot of stuff leaking about how much film the Bills were studying of Spiller. I prefer to think that the Bills looked at their board at #9 and thought that although some players were there at positions of need, they couldn't pass up Spiller. The guy is pretty special. That said, the rest of the draft was big strong guys (even at WR) and I suspect that shows how seriously Nix recognizes the team's missing "tough" factor. If Nix can sign Gaither, I'll start getting excited about the offense. Until then, I suspect that the line will be every bit as bad as last year.

You said: What you said above could be done before this law was passed. This law expands the government's ability to challenge immigration status based on reasonable suspicion, even when some guy is reading the newspaper on a park bench.

You don't get it. A police officer can ALREADY do what you said. Read the new law again. The police officer is required to question Alien status of LAWFULLY behaving people that he has reason to suspect are alien.

Not true. The Rolex is supposed to be reported as income, just like cash payments. (And tips, and when you pay Jenny to babysit the kids.) Bishop has some issue with the barter system. Not sure I understand it to be honest.

Reasonable suspicion = appearance, ie, somehow someone looks like an illegal alien. Again, I'm not real happy putting that power in the hands of law enforcement. I have no problem with a "broken windows" approach to this, where you can pull over/question anyone who is breaking any law, including jaywalking, loitering, etc. But this law is different. It mandates that a police officer question someone based on "reasonable suspicion" that they are Alien. That is troubling.