Irving Police Make Arrests . . .

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Fscking Texas:thumbsdown:

Unreal. Pre-emptive drunk driving arrests is what this amounts to. I guess "fsckin idiotic ideas" is something that trickles down from the highest levels of our government.

BTW, there's no legal compulsion to take a field sobriety test. You're well within your rights to refuse it.

ok.. i just KNEW that somehow, some way, someone here was going to tie this to Bush!! That's just amazing...

And I just knew a Bush butt li9cker would draw this conclusion to that post and come whining about it.

i wasnt whining. i was actually commending them on their incredible ability to exagerate! It's amazing! Excellent even!

Well I didn't see the Dub's name mentioned. I took that post to mean the Religious Right who seems to be in charge of Texas Politics.

 

[Steeplerot]

I could see it though, tx was always a pretty ass puckered place but the police state crackdown bit and random arrests for not fitting in or looking crosseyed really got bad when bush was gov. just about everyone I knew left for more sane places, for whatever that is worth. *shrug*

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Fscking Texas:thumbsdown:

Unreal. Pre-emptive drunk driving arrests is what this amounts to. I guess "fsckin idiotic ideas" is something that trickles down from the highest levels of our government.

BTW, there's no legal compulsion to take a field sobriety test. You're well within your rights to refuse it.

ok.. i just KNEW that somehow, some way, someone here was going to tie this to Bush!! That's just amazing...

And I just knew a Bush butt li9cker would draw this conclusion to that post and come whining about it.

i wasnt whining. i was actually commending them on their incredible ability to exagerate! It's amazing! Excellent even!

I never said Bush, but nice of you to associate "stupid fscking ideas" with your little paper hero. So quick to knee-jerk and come to his defense -- what? Are you bucking for a promotion or something?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Fscking Texas:thumbsdown:

Unreal. Pre-emptive drunk driving arrests is what this amounts to. I guess "fsckin idiotic ideas" is something that trickles down from the highest levels of our government.

BTW, there's no legal compulsion to take a field sobriety test. You're well within your rights to refuse it.

ok.. i just KNEW that somehow, some way, someone here was going to tie this to Bush!! That's just amazing...

And I just knew a Bush butt li9cker would draw this conclusion to that post and come whining about it.

i wasnt whining. i was actually commending them on their incredible ability to exagerate! It's amazing! Excellent even!

I never said Bush, but nice of you to associate "stupid fscking ideas" with your little paper hero. So quick to knee-jerk and come to his defense -- what? Are you bucking for a promotion or something?

lol.. so now you'll play it like that isnt what you meant?! damn, you're good!

dont you have a NAMBLA meeting to attend, or something?

 

[techs]

"Public Intoxication"?
Is there a blood alcohol level that determines this?
Is it the same as the drunk driving level?
Basically you would have to literally shut down all bars if this policy is allowed to continue.
While a bar may be a "public place" by certain definitions, this is as wacky a police idea as I have ever heard of.

 

[dahunan]

Where was Boy George governor before

Where is Tom DeLay

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Fscking Texas:thumbsdown:

Unreal. Pre-emptive drunk driving arrests is what this amounts to. I guess "fsckin idiotic ideas" is something that trickles down from the highest levels of our government.

BTW, there's no legal compulsion to take a field sobriety test. You're well within your rights to refuse it.

ok.. i just KNEW that somehow, some way, someone here was going to tie this to Bush!! That's just amazing...

And I just knew a Bush butt li9cker would draw this conclusion to that post and come whining about it.

i wasnt whining. i was actually commending them on their incredible ability to exagerate! It's amazing! Excellent even!

I never said Bush, but nice of you to associate "stupid fscking ideas" with your little paper hero. So quick to knee-jerk and come to his defense -- what? Are you bucking for a promotion or something?

lol.. so now you'll play it like that isnt what you meant?! damn, you're good!

dont you have a NAMBLA meeting to attend, or something?

Nambla? WTF is wrong with you?

 

[dahunan]

^^^ he chose to escalate the name calling like any Radical Neocon Fundamentalist - He picked the NoocUlar Option

 

[tommywishbone]

Guten aben... Your papers please!!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: techs
"Public Intoxication"?
Is there a blood alcohol level that determines this?
Is it the same as the drunk driving level?

Basically you would have to literally shut down all bars if this policy is allowed to continue.

While a bar may be a "public place" by certain definitions, this is as wacky a police idea as I have ever heard of.

Folks have asked me if Prohibition is coming back.

No it won't because they (Republicans) make a ton of money off alcohol.

Also this in bar round up is a money making scam because they make a ton of money arresting and processing the people they round up.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Fscking Texas:thumbsdown:

Unreal. Pre-emptive drunk driving arrests is what this amounts to. I guess "fsckin idiotic ideas" is something that trickles down from the highest levels of our government.

BTW, there's no legal compulsion to take a field sobriety test. You're well within your rights to refuse it.

ok.. i just KNEW that somehow, some way, someone here was going to tie this to Bush!! That's just amazing...

And I just knew a Bush butt li9cker would draw this conclusion to that post and come whining about it.

i wasnt whining. i was actually commending them on their incredible ability to exagerate! It's amazing! Excellent even!

I never said Bush, but nice of you to associate "stupid fscking ideas" with your little paper hero. So quick to knee-jerk and come to his defense -- what? Are you bucking for a promotion or something?

lol.. so now you'll play it like that isnt what you meant?! damn, you're good!

dont you have a NAMBLA meeting to attend, or something?

Nambla? WTF is wrong with you?

it's a perfectly logical question. he's a self-proclaimed card-carrying member of the ACLU, who, among all of their other nefarious dealings, are proud supporters of NAMBLA.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
You Have the Right to Remain Sober . .

Anything you drink inside a tavern will be held against you in a court of law.

Even if you're just sitting there drinking with your friends, and uninvited guests.

Undercover police enter bars, mix with the crowd, and decide who they should arrest.
'Public Intoxication' can be anything that they want it to be.

When will the Thought Police get near you.

Mods this thread deserves a P&N sticky

Mods said "No way Jose" on the sticky.

No alcohol for you.

You drink, you go to jail.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

it's a perfectly logical question. he's a self-proclaimed card-carrying member of the ACLU, who, among all of their other nefarious dealings, are proud supporters of NAMBLA.

Are you just trolling or are you that misinformed on how the first amendment works?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
So.....how do they know that any of these people wouldn't have TAKEN A FREAKIN CAB home instead?

Also, isn't it a PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENT?

nothing private about a bar...unless it has a sign outside that states for members use only...

Just like any other store that the public uses a bar is no different!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: palehorse74

it's a perfectly logical question. he's a self-proclaimed card-carrying member of the ACLU, who, among all of their other nefarious dealings, are proud supporters of NAMBLA.

Are you just trolling or are you that misinformed on how the first amendment works?

oh, i'm sorry, i must have missed the part of the 1st Ammendment that extends toward protecting groups of Adults who enjoy molesting children. my bad...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
So.....how do they know that any of these people wouldn't have TAKEN A FREAKIN CAB home instead?

Also, isn't it a PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENT?

nothing private about a bar...unless it has a sign outside that states for members use only...

Just like any other store that the public uses a bar is no different!

so you honestly think that it's ok to arrest people for drinking more than 1 beer an hour in a bar or restaurant? seriously?

i can understand if they are being unruly, fighting, vandalizing, etc, but just for being there with a buzz!? come on... be serious!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
WoWZA~~~Finally the law is being applied fairly.
No where does it say you have the right to be intoxicated in a bar!!!
You go there to have a drink or 2.....
Not drink or 12 and then drive home.

The irving Police are well within there right to enter bars looking for intoxicated people which quite literally is against the law even in bars!!

I see no exceptions ot exemptions that state its ok to be drunk in a bar.....

Good Job Irving Police!!!!!

How about in your own home? Is that permissible, Mister Nanny Stater? Or are we limited to 1 or 2 drinks there as well.... :roll:

Thats kind of a stoopid statement don`t you think...
no way can you compare a public drinking establishment to your home.....

but I will say the Police can arrest you in your own front yard or even on your porch if you are drunk...

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
how are private establishments considered "public"? I know where I live, they cant get you until you step outside... I've seen them wait until soemone tried to walk to a waiting cab, and nailed them there, but inside the bar?! no way... that's just plain evil.

I don't know? how come they make these bars allow blacks in? Just rediculous for a private establishment.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

it's a perfectly logical question. he's a self-proclaimed card-carrying member of the ACLU, who, among all of their other nefarious dealings, are proud supporters of NAMBLA.

Are you really a moron or just trying to get the ire of him? Please show even the slightest bit of proof that the ACLU supports NAMBLA. Oh, and before you try to pull that bullshite right-wing propaganda piece out about them defending them in a court case, I think that you should read this:

ACLU statement on NAMBLA case

ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (8/31/2000)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

Please try to contain your talking points to a minimum.

 

[palehorse]

I believe that the ACLU should be condemned for simply respresenting them, especially doing so volunteerily. now, if they were forced to respresent them, that would be an entirely different matter. (such as a public defender being forced to defend a rapist). but that is not the case. The ACLU sought out the "privilege" of defending NAMBLA in court. To me, that makes them guilty by association, and it shows me that the ACLU lacks any/all decency. And NAMBLA is just one of a thousand examples wherein the ACLU has volunteerily defended sick and immoral people...

but this is all OT... start an ACLU/NAMBLA thread if you wish to debate this further. plz. ty.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I believe that the ACLU should be condemned for simply respresenting them, especially doing so volunteerily. now, if they were forced to respresent them, that would be an entirely different matter. (such as a public defender being forced to defend a rapist). but that is not the case. The ACLU sought out the "privilege" of defending NAMBLA in court. To me, that makes them guilty by association, and it shows me that the ACLU lacks any/all decency. And NAMBLA is just one of a thousand examples wherein the ACLU has volunteerily defended sick and immoral people...

but this is all OT... start an ACLU/NAMBLA thread if you wish to debate this further. plz. ty.

Do you mean like Rush Limbaugh?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I believe that the ACLU should be condemned for simply respresenting them, especially doing so volunteerily. now, if they were forced to respresent them, that would be an entirely different matter. (such as a public defender being forced to defend a rapist). but that is not the case. The ACLU sought out the "privilege" of defending NAMBLA in court. To me, that makes them guilty by association, and it shows me that the ACLU lacks any/all decency. And NAMBLA is just one of a thousand examples wherein the ACLU has volunteerily defended sick and immoral people...

but this is all OT... start an ACLU/NAMBLA thread if you wish to debate this further. plz. ty.

Do you mean like Rush Limbaugh?

that guy is a pig... then again, i never said that ALL of the ACLU's cases were of sick/demented/immoral purpose...

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I believe that the ACLU should be condemned for simply respresenting them, especially doing so volunteerily. now, if they were forced to respresent them, that would be an entirely different matter. (such as a public defender being forced to defend a rapist). but that is not the case. The ACLU sought out the "privilege" of defending NAMBLA in court. To me, that makes them guilty by association, and it shows me that the ACLU lacks any/all decency. And NAMBLA is just one of a thousand examples wherein the ACLU has volunteerily defended sick and immoral people...

but this is all OT... start an ACLU/NAMBLA thread if you wish to debate this further. plz. ty.

When you advocate defending robust free speech rights in this country, you sometimes end up siding with individuals you do not agree with because in the big picture, free speech and the defense of free speech, is much more important than the subject matter or views of the client.

Of course, I'd never expect you to understand any of that. And "guilt by association" is equally lame as "I have nothing to hide." Lame, lame, beyond lame. And yet you keep using those lame arguments. Don't you ever learn? Ever?

:roll:

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I believe that the ACLU should be condemned for simply respresenting them, especially doing so volunteerily. now, if they were forced to respresent them, that would be an entirely different matter. (such as a public defender being forced to defend a rapist). but that is not the case. The ACLU sought out the "privilege" of defending NAMBLA in court. To me, that makes them guilty by association, and it shows me that the ACLU lacks any/all decency. And NAMBLA is just one of a thousand examples wherein the ACLU has volunteerily defended sick and immoral people...

but this is all OT... start an ACLU/NAMBLA thread if you wish to debate this further. plz. ty.

I think neocons are just as bad as child molestors and you vote Republican and Republicans are neocons supporters.. NOW WHAT.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I believe that the ACLU should be condemned for simply respresenting them, especially doing so volunteerily. now, if they were forced to respresent them, that would be an entirely different matter. (such as a public defender being forced to defend a rapist). but that is not the case. The ACLU sought out the "privilege" of defending NAMBLA in court. To me, that makes them guilty by association, and it shows me that the ACLU lacks any/all decency. And NAMBLA is just one of a thousand examples wherein the ACLU has volunteerily defended sick and immoral people...

but this is all OT... start an ACLU/NAMBLA thread if you wish to debate this further. plz. ty.

Do you mean like Rush Limbaugh?

that guy is a pig... then again, i never said that ALL of the ACLU's cases were of sick/demented/immoral purpose...

No.. but your Radical Mindset did say that ACLU members are = NAMBLA members.