Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 07-18-2012, 02:04 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb
Moderating

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton
OK, but I think this crap is pretty thread-relevant -- Arpaio's involvement is indirect, but real.
Unless you have a recording of Arpaio saying that he was going to use attacks on Obama to further his violations of the rights of Hispanics in Arizona, you are wrong.

This thread was an invitation for posters to attempt to defend Arpaio against the charges of specific violations of the rights of people in Arizona, not simply a grabfest of "We hate Arpaio" stories.

You are free to open a substantive discussion of Arpaio's Birther activities in GD or the Pit, but this thread already has a focus and a purpose and Arpaio-as-Birther (or supporter-of-Birthers), is not it.

[ /Moderating ]
(emphasis mine)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Submitted with one comment:
  #252  
Old 07-18-2012, 02:07 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Is it really a mandatory procedural move? Because it seems totally ludicrous to handcuff a 6 yo.
Oops. I mistyped. Meant to say she "wasn't" handcuffed, as in "was NOT", which makes what the sentence make much more sense.
  #253  
Old 07-18-2012, 02:10 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,150
Are you eyerolling at Arpaio or BrainGlutton?
  #254  
Old 07-18-2012, 02:36 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
Are you eyerolling at Arpaio or BrainGlutton?
I can't see where the confusion is. Especially with the portion of tomndebb's moderation I highlighted.
  #255  
Old 07-18-2012, 03:15 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,150
I could have sworn the tomndebb quote wasn't there before. Sworn! Anyway, question answered.
  #256  
Old 07-18-2012, 03:19 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
I could have sworn the tomndebb quote wasn't there before. Sworn! Anyway, question answered.
Excellent. Confusion cleared. Faith restored. All is well with the world. Well, other than the direct refusal to follow board moderation. But maybe he has some Der Trihs-like special dispensation.
  #257  
Old 07-18-2012, 03:24 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 53,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
Excellent. Confusion cleared. Faith restored. All is well with the world. Well, other than the direct refusal to follow board moderation. But maybe he has some Der Trihs-like special dispensation.
So you reported the post to the moderators and nothing happened.
You did report the post to the mods first, right?
  #258  
Old 07-18-2012, 03:37 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
(emphasis mine)



Submitted with one comment:
Don't you get it?! The birther-story is thread-relevant now because of the timing of Arpaio's latest birther-announcement: The first court arguments in his DOJ lawsuit are to be heard tomorrow, July 19. This announcement obviously is a feeble effort to divert public attention from that. He doesn't seem to get that the only name that stands out in the birther-story any more is "Arpaio," not "Obama."

Last edited by BrainGlutton; 07-18-2012 at 03:39 PM.
  #259  
Old 07-18-2012, 03:55 PM
Zeriel Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Don't you get it?! The birther-story is thread-relevant now because of the timing of Arpaio's latest birther-announcement: The first court arguments in his DOJ lawsuit are to be heard tomorrow, July 19. This announcement obviously is a feeble effort to divert public attention from that. He doesn't seem to get that the only name that stands out in the birther-story any more is "Arpaio," not "Obama."
In fairness to magellan, if you would have said that in your first post it would have been a lot clearer what you are driving at.
  #260  
Old 07-18-2012, 03:56 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234
Moderating

Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
Excellent. Confusion cleared. Faith restored. All is well with the world. Well, other than the direct refusal to follow board moderation. But maybe he has some Der Trihs-like special dispensation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
So you reported the post to the moderators and nothing happened.
You did report the post to the mods first, right?
Please take the moderating-related discussion out of this thread (and into ATMB if necessary).
  #261  
Old 07-18-2012, 04:27 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Don't you get it?! The birther-story is thread-relevant now because of the timing of Arpaio's latest birther-announcement: The first court arguments in his DOJ lawsuit are to be heard tomorrow, July 19. This announcement obviously is a feeble effort to divert public attention from that. He doesn't seem to get that the only name that stands out in the birther-story any more is "Arpaio," not "Obama."
Reported. Along with your previous flouting of tomndebb's moderation.

Perhaps those interested in this aspect of Arpaio's activities will respond in the other link you also posted the link in. The one about the actual subject and not your theory.
  #262  
Old 07-18-2012, 04:40 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234
Moderating

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Don't you get it?! The birther-story is thread-relevant now because of the timing of Arpaio's latest birther-announcement: The first court arguments in his DOJ lawsuit are to be heard tomorrow, July 19. This announcement obviously is a feeble effort to divert public attention from that. He doesn't seem to get that the only name that stands out in the birther-story any more is "Arpaio," not "Obama."
Yes, it would've been much clearer if you'd explained this earlier. But even if the theory in the article is true, the Birther discussion belongs in another thread. There are several of those in Elections. If you want to talk about this any more, post to one of those threads.
  #263  
Old 07-18-2012, 06:42 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
I have a comment:
You were told that you were perfectly free to open a new thread on the topic to which you linked, but that it was a hijack to this thread and that you were to refrain from pursuing this off-topic discussion, here.

This is a Warning to avoid hijacking threads and to avoid ignoring staff instructions.

= = =

Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
Submitted with one comment:
If you see a violation, report it; do not use it to attack other posters.
Knock it off.

= = =

EVERYONE:
Any discussion of Arpaio's Birther idiocy is to be taken up in a separate thread. Do not comment upon it further, here--not even as a reply to another post.

[ /Moderating ]
  #264  
Old 07-18-2012, 06:57 PM
An Arky An Arky is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,333
I would venture to say that limiting this discussion is just dick swinging. There's no debating left to do; just move it to the pit and butt out.

Last edited by An Arky; 07-18-2012 at 07:01 PM.
  #265  
Old 09-03-2012, 01:35 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 55,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post

Does anyone care to make a case here that Arpaio should not be sued, or that he has Done the Right Things, or at any rate things a sheriff should be allowed to do?
From Huffington Post's link to the Arizona Republic's story:

Quote:
At 5 p.m. Friday, before a long holiday weekend, a brief note went out from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Phoenix, saying without explanation that the office would not file federal or state criminal charges against "current and former members of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office."

In recent months, it had become increasingly apparent within the legal and law-enforcement communities that criminal charges likely would not come out of an investigation that began four years ago under President George W. Bush and spanned the tenures of several Arizona U.S. attorneys.
.
.
.
Ironically, among the findings against Thomas in other legal proceedings is that he filed criminal charges without probable cause. But as Fontes points out, most prosecutors won't bring charges unless they are convinced they can get a conviction.

"Does this rise to a level of criminality that requires prosecution?" he asked. "If it's shaky -- and it's been shaky for a while -- they can wait for the other (civil) cases to go forward."

Last edited by Bricker; 09-03-2012 at 01:37 PM.
  #266  
Old 09-05-2012, 04:12 PM
ralph124c ralph124c is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 18,476
So Arpaio (apparently) hasn't broken any laws! Now, let's see if AG Holder will be found innocent ("Fast and Furious").
  #267  
Old 11-26-2012, 11:16 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 16,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
To give you an example of what I mean: in France you're required to have ID on your person at all times, and cops can stop you in the street and request you show it.
Even though widely believed, that's no true. There's no obligation to carry an ID in France. Police officers can't stop you and request that you prove your identity except in some cases :

-You're operating a motor vehicle
-They have objective reasons to believe you've been involved in a crime
-You're present near a place where a crime has just been commited
-The local prosecutor ordered identity checks for a specific reason at a specific place and time (that's the ID checks targeting brown people you see in subway stations *)

If, in these circumstances you're unable to prove youre identity (either by providing an ID or by testimony), you can be detained up to 4 or 6 hours (can't remember) while the police tries to establish it.


Quote:
They also routinely carry searches out in the streets (even though it's technically illegal - but then if you protest they can haul you in and keep you in the drunk tank for 24 hours so...).
Maybe they do, but both actions are illegal. Especially the part about being detained without a cause.



No doubt, though, that certain skin shade and age combinations get you harassed.




(*)Which by the way, are very convenient to up arrest figures. For instance, they've have been multiplied during the two last years of Sarkozy's mandate, with specific number of arrest objectives determined by "préfets". Just have some police officers hang around a train station at peak time searching for illegal aliens or around a known drug selling place searching for drug consumers and voila, you're 100% certain to have a number of criminals arrested by the end of the day, instead of wasting your time enquiring about burglaries or other complicated stuff.

Last edited by clairobscur; 11-26-2012 at 11:16 PM.
  #268  
Old 11-26-2012, 11:43 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 16,837
Hmmm....Sorry, I followed a link to this thread, and didn't realize it was an old one.
  #269  
Old 11-26-2012, 11:46 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 53,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
From Huffington Post's link to the Arizona Republic's story:
There's the question, and there's the link...without comment, it seems. Are you personally making a case here that Arpaio should not be sued, or that he has Done the Right Things, or at any rate things a sheriff should be allowed to do?
Or are you "just sayin'"?
  #270  
Old 11-27-2012, 06:39 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 20,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralph124c View Post
So Arpaio (apparently) hasn't broken any laws! Now, let's see if AG Holder will be found innocent ("Fast and Furious").
He was.
  #271  
Old 11-27-2012, 10:47 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 55,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
There's the question, and there's the link...without comment, it seems. Are you personally making a case here that Arpaio should not be sued, or that he has Done the Right Things, or at any rate things a sheriff should be allowed to do?
Or are you "just sayin'"?
I'm saying that the author of the piece made the case that criminal charges were not supportable by available evidence.
  #272  
Old 11-27-2012, 10:52 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 53,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I'm saying that the author of the piece made the case that criminal charges were not supportable by available evidence.
And do you agree with the author? Go ahead-give a personal opinion. It's not going to kill you.
I promise.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 11-27-2012 at 10:53 AM. Reason: spelingg
  #273  
Old 11-27-2012, 11:08 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 55,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
And do you agree with the author? Go ahead-give a personal opinion. It's not going to kill you.
I promise.
There's a forum for personal opinions. We're not in it.
  #274  
Old 11-27-2012, 11:25 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 53,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
There's a forum for personal opinions. We're not in it.
You can't even say "I agree with the link I researched and provided."?

Wow.
  #275  
Old 11-27-2012, 11:50 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 55,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
You can't even say "I agree with the link I researched and provided."?

Wow.
I can personally agree with having a forum called "Great Debates" being used for debates, in which participants defend and attack positions based on supporting factual citations, and another forum called "In My Humble Opinion," in which the personal opinions of the posters are the coin of the realm, be they grounded in fact or completely untethered.

And I can personally agree that keeping those two missions separate is a good thing.

Last edited by Bricker; 11-27-2012 at 11:51 AM.
  #276  
Old 11-27-2012, 12:33 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 28,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
There's a forum for personal opinions. We're not in it.
Boy, reading threads in this forum must be like fingernails on a chalkboard for you, huh?
  #277  
Old 11-27-2012, 10:48 PM
Chen019 Chen019 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
I

Now, set on the other side (not legally, but politically, socially, etc.) of this are such considerations as states' rights and local autonomy, which are still important to many Americans, I suppose. Also the consideration of border control; but I don't see how anything Arpaio or his department has been doing is necessary or helpful to effective border control.

Does anyone care to make a case here that Arpaio should not be sued, or that he has Done the Right Things, or at any rate things a sheriff should be allowed to do?
Well, the gold standard in border control is probably Israel? The profiling that Arpaio uses is pretty standard there (I wasn't aware the US has even spoken against this?). Probably because it works. So I would disagree with your comment that Arpaio's methods aren't necessary or helpful for border control. The problem is that they are not replicated elsewhere in the US to deter illegal immigration.


http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...ogies-1.261075
  #278  
Old 11-28-2012, 05:59 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 20,145
That's an...interesting...comparison.
  #279  
Old 11-28-2012, 09:43 AM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chen019 View Post
Well, the gold standard in border control is probably Israel? The profiling that Arpaio uses is pretty standard there (I wasn't aware the US has even spoken against this?). Probably because it works. So I would disagree with your comment that Arpaio's methods aren't necessary or helpful for border control. The problem is that they are not replicated elsewhere in the US to deter illegal immigration.


http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...ogies-1.261075
So... it's okay because Israel does it? That's your argument?
  #280  
Old 12-04-2012, 09:55 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chen019 View Post
Well, the gold standard in border control is probably Israel?
No, that would be North Korea.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017