Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About rjkdb8

  • Rank
    Poker Forum Regular

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Poker Game

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. Hblask: thoughtful poster, libertarian and masochist.
  2. I can't speak on behalf of the entire crack selling community, but when I sell crack, I rarely ask for ID unless the buyer appears to be middle school age or younger. I am starting to fear I may lose my crack dealing license.
  3. Whoa. I can't believe that none of the posts in this thread addressed this point. You just blew my mind. Thanks for adding such an insightful viewpoint.
  4. We have established some pretty important shit in this thread.
  5. Some people believe police should have the right to search anyone for any reason and if that makes people that engage in illegal activity uncomfortable, then too bad. The only problem with that belief and your bottom line is well settled SCOTUS precedent.Laws that mandate classification on the basis of race are subjected to the most stringent standard of judicial review, which is generally fatal. I think CaneBrain correctly implied that the AZ legislature likely appreciated the obvious equal protection issue when the law in question was enacted.
  6. I never said the state cannot require identification under any circumstances. You seemed to have forgotten the following claim of yours, despite the fact that I've quoted it several times already: You claimed state law mandates that Arizona citizens must carry identification at all times and that police can demand it from anyone at any time for no reason at all. Then, apparently as support for this claim, you posted the link to some random municipal ordinance that purportedly requires cyclists to provide identification if an officer observes a traffic violation. If police can articulate the
  7. The details of your understanding are unclear. The hell you say.
  8. By violating the 4th and 5th Amendments. Do you believe police have the constitutional right to demand identification absent suspicion of wrongdoing? Can you imagine a scenario where the criminalization of silence would violate the self incrimination privilege? Notwithstanding obvious constitutional concerns, the erosion of freedom associated with compulsory identification legislation should be self apparent. False choice. Do you believe the desire to conceal wrongdoing is the sole reason privacy is valued? Incorrect. Oh. See, i didn't realize that.
  9. Content or viewpoint based censorship is very rare. Lots of very smart people have carefully considered issues relating to the application of the first amendment. Thankfully, these efforts have resulted in guidelines that are formulated on the basis of relatively well defined tests as opposed emotional reactions. If only there was a way to know for sure.
  10. The hell you say. agnosticism is making an epistemological claim and atheism/theism are making existential claims.
  11. this looks promising:http://screencrave.com/2009-10-26/matt-dam...join-true-grit/
  12. I respect you enough to think you're being purposefully dense here, but that assumption is eroding quickly. If you really had any interest in actual debate you would have grasped this most fundamental point long ago. Let's take the approach made popular by Good Will Hunting:NO ATHEIST HERE BELIEVES THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD IS STRICTLY IMPOSSIBLE. THEY BELIEVE ONLY THAT CURRENTLY THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR BELIEF.NO ATHEIST HERE BELIEVES THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD IS STRICTLY IMPOSSIBLE. THEY BELIEVE ONLY THAT CURRENTLY THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR BELIEF.NO ATHEIST HERE BELIE
  13. Did you hear the one about the agnostic dyslexic insomniac? He lay awake at night wondering if there is a Dog.
  • Create New...