Since: Feb 10

Dallas, TX

#1103 Oct 15, 2010
bduares wrote:
<quoted text>
No it is not. Federal law not only allows, but REQUIRES, a law enforcement officer to ask for identification from anyone they have stopped, detained, etc, in the course of their duties.
Federal law also requires the immediate detaining of anyone found to NOT be able to provide proper identification, and for the person detained to be fingerprinted and held until they are identified.
Federal law also requires valid documentation showing legality of residency in the country in order to be issued with any federal or state ID, driver license, etc, in the first place.
Okay, we know we have to provide legal documentation showing you are a legal resident to GET the drivers license. After that, the drivers license IS your ID that the police officer can ask for when you are detained for speeding. The officer cannot detain you, ask for your drivers license, and then once you produce a valid drivers license, the officer cannot then ask for "papers". That is where the Az law went wrong. The only way they can ask is if you've been arrested. For example, the officer can detain you because you don't have a license, and THEN he can ask for papers.

Since: Apr 10

United States

#1104 Oct 15, 2010
I feel is a better candidate... has Texas 1st and will help more with immigration and the border problem.
Heaven help us

Wichita Falls, TX

#1105 Oct 15, 2010
God save us from Reagan and Bush, as for any one day dreaming about any of these Democrats or Republican's really caring about any of our poor asses.
Well dream on, watch how they vote. Check their record and just do the best you can.

By the time they get that high in office, they are all crooked.
Do you really think anyone who has every graced a bed at the white house lost a night sleep worrying his pretty little head about a voter.
UNTIL elections..........

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#1106 Oct 15, 2010
texas vet wrote:
<quoted text>
if you did not serve in a conflict you are not a veteran of foriegn wars so therefor your not a vet. i had people in my unit that did not fight because of medical reasons and they are not considered vets!!
Government definition of "veteran" requires meeting one of 3 qualifications:

1) You have at least 180 days of regular active duty service and you were honorably discharged or released.

2) You have at least 90 days of active duty service, at least one day of which was during wartime per the chart below, and you were honorably discharged or released.

3) You served in wartime and were awarded a Purple Heart or service-connected disability, or died, regardless of whether you completed the minimum length of active duty service

Since: Feb 10

Dallas, TX

#1107 Oct 15, 2010
texas vet wrote:
<quoted text>
your right not all of the muslims in this country are radicals! on the other hand if the families of those that died on 9/11 ask that the mosque not be built near ground zero then they should move it elsewhere. it's a slap in the face!!!!
You're absolutely right! And that's what Obama said. He said that the people building the Mosque have every right to build there. I agree. They have every right to build there. That being said, I don't think they SHOULD build there. But them being morally wrong on the issue, doesn't make what they are doing illegal.

A great portion of America is pissed because Obama won't STOP them from building there, but he CAN'T. Our constitution protects their freedom to worship wherever and whenever. We cannot trump the constitution for one group of people without trumping it for EVERY group of people.

America, IMO, is correct to be angry that they are building there. But to be angry at Obama for THIS issue is misdirected.
Sunrise

Duncanville, TX

#1108 Oct 15, 2010
Absolute Arrogance wrote:
<quoted text>
That was a lie originally reported by Limbaugh, then backed up by Beck. That lie was followed up by the preposterous declaration by Limbaugh that Obama was going to ban fishing in the US!
I'm surprised that you listen to Limbaugh and watch Beck. I don't.
Sunrise

Duncanville, TX

#1109 Oct 15, 2010
SamDem wrote:
<quoted text>
Perry can call up the National Guard anytime he wants to protect the border. He just doesn't want to pay for it. He is Commander in Chief of the three branches of the Texas Military Forces and can deploy them just like the President does for the military.
The former governor of Arizona called up the Arizona National Guard during both her terms to protect the border.
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story...
diane77

Fresno, TX

#1110 Oct 15, 2010
when Bill White was mayor of Houston he did a lot for this he gave more to metro bus that improved metro more buses some bigger buses and built the rail. he brought more contracts and more to the city during the superbowl in Houston.

Since: Feb 10

Dallas, TX

#1111 Oct 15, 2010
Sunrise wrote:
<quoted text>I'm surprised that you listen to Limbaugh and watch Beck. I don't.
I don't. When I was a republican, I used to. Although I NEVER listened to Limbaugh, I LOVED Beck. But when Obama got voted in, Beck went straight weird!

My mother had a stroke and moved in with us for two years. She LOVES Beck! During that time, Beck announced on TV that Obama was going to dictate what was to be preached from the pulpit. I walked into the room and found my elderly mother in tears! She's a devout Catholic. She was terrified at what was going to happen to her religion once Obama was sworn in. It took me an entire hour to calm her down and explain to her that the President can't and won't - Freedom of Religion. She said that Beck said that the President could arbitrarily make those decisions! I had to explain to her that he has to get Congress to repeal Freedom of Religion first, and even if they did, he would still then have to repeal Freedom of Speech!!!

It's ridiculous crap like that which has our country in an uproar!!! I get that Fox can do what they are doing because of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, but at some point there should be limitations on the Press when it comes to reporting outright lies. They are not doing this country any favors!

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#1112 Oct 15, 2010
SamDem wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, he can. The National Guard isn't part of the Federal forces. It's part of the Texas Military Forces.
Congressional Acts specify that only those specifically empowered by the immigration law acts may enforce immigration law. The US military, of which the National Guard is a part, is barred from doing so, which is why when any National Guard is sent to the border they are only there for intelligence and surveillance purposes to aid the federal immigration officers who ARE empowered to enforce immigration law, and are usually unarmed. Those which are armed are only allowed to use their weapons if fired upon.

The National Guard of the United States is a reserve military force composed of state National Guard militia members or units under federally recognized active or inactive armed force service for the United States. The National Guard of the United States is a joint reserve component of the United States Army, the United States Air Force and maintains two sub-components: the Army National Guard of the United States for the Army and the Air Force's Air National Guard of the United States.

Established under Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code, state National Guard serves as part of the first-line defense for the United States. The state National Guard is divided up into units stationed in each of the 50 states and U.S. territories and operates under their respective state governor or territorial adjutant general.

The National Guard may be called up for active duty by state governors or territorial adjutant general (ONLY) to help respond to domestic emergencies and disasters, such as those caused by hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes, in their respective states "upon declaration of a state of emergency by the governor of the state or territory in which they serve", but the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the National Guard.

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 Pub.L. 109-364

Federal law was changed so that the Governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of their state's National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States will now be able to take total control of a state's National Guard units without the governor's consent. In a letter to Congress all 50 governors opposed the increase in power of the president over the National Guard.

The National Defense Authorization Act 2008 Pub.L. 110-181

Enables the President to call up the National Guard of the United States for active federal military service during Congressionally sanctioned national emergency or war. Places the National Guard Bureau directly under the Department of Defense as a joint activity. Promoted the Chief of the National Guard Bureau from a three-star to a four-star general.

Since: Aug 10

Killeen, TX

#1113 Oct 15, 2010
BETTER MAN.

Since: Apr 10

Texas

#1114 Oct 15, 2010
Absolute Arrogance wrote:
<quoted text>
I NEVER said that illegals aren't contributing to the bad economy!!! I'm just saying that racial profiling is not the answer. Our FREE country will no longer be free! In order to find out who DOESN'T belong here, making everyone carry and show papers will produce a police state ... therefore, America will no longer be FREE! I will be the first to admit that I don't know what the answer is, but racially profiling Hispanics is not the answer. And why are we ONLY racially profiling Hispanics? There are people here illegally from ALL OVER THE WORLD! If you think Hispanics are our biggest problem, then you've forgotten 9/11
You, who approve the building of the victory mosque, telling us that we have forgotten 911?
You and the Muslims haven't forgotten, hence, the mosque.

This says a lot about you.

Since: Oct 10

United States

#1115 Oct 15, 2010
Sunrise wrote:
Your article was from Jan. 2007. This is as of Sept. 18, 2010.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropoli...

From the Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#1116 Oct 15, 2010
Absolute Arrogance wrote:
Our constitution protects their freedom to worship wherever and whenever. We cannot trump the constitution for one group of people without trumping it for EVERY group of people.
The Constitution also protects the right of private property owners to build whatever they want, wherever they want, as long as the area is properly zoned for the type of building/establishment, and this civic center, blocks away from the WTC site had been bought and zoned for this purpose long before 9/11, not that it matters as far as anyone's constitutional rights are concerned.

Of course the Constitution, and the USA itself, was created and the country was colonized as a place specifically for religious freedom and tolerance.
Eagle II

Houston, TX

#1117 Oct 15, 2010
Texans & Texas FIRST. White will open another Pandora's box of socialism.

Since: Apr 10

Texas

#1118 Oct 15, 2010
Jack from Bedias wrote:
If a redhead robs a store, why would the cops be looking at anyone else. The whole idea of racial profilig is PC BS.
Ignorant Arrogance is just that.
He is Pro-Victory mosque, pro-illegal immigration.
I sure hope he can't vote.
more thugs

AOL

#1119 Oct 15, 2010
Absolute Arrogance wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't. When I was a republican, I used to. Although I NEVER listened to Limbaugh, I LOVED Beck. But when Obama got voted in, Beck went straight weird!
My mother had a stroke and moved in with us for two years. She LOVES Beck! During that time, Beck announced on TV that Obama was going to dictate what was to be preached from the pulpit. I walked into the room and found my elderly mother in tears! She's a devout Catholic. She was terrified at what was going to happen to her religion once Obama was sworn in. It took me an entire hour to calm her down and explain to her that the President can't and won't - Freedom of Religion. She said that Beck said that the President could arbitrarily make those decisions! I had to explain to her that he has to get Congress to repeal Freedom of Religion first, and even if they did, he would still then have to repeal Freedom of Speech!!!
It's ridiculous crap like that which has our country in an uproar!!! I get that Fox can do what they are doing because of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, but at some point there should be limitations on the Press when it comes to reporting outright lies. They are not doing this country any favors!
If you think big 'O' can't bypass congress, you better get informed. He has 34..-34, positions he has created to dictate over positions that congree normally has to approve. Congress has not approved these dictator positions and only complains while 'O' continues to undermine our country! If you believe in 'O', you believe in the downfall of America.

Since: Oct 10

United States

#1120 Oct 15, 2010
bduares wrote:
<quoted text>
Congressional Acts specify that only those specifically empowered by the immigration law acts may enforce immigration law. The US military, of which the National Guard is a part, is barred from doing so, which is why when any National Guard is sent to the border they are only there for intelligence and surveillance purposes to aid the federal immigration officers who ARE empowered to enforce immigration law, and are usually unarmed. Those which are armed are only allowed to use their weapons if fired upon.
The National Guard of the United States is a reserve military force composed of state National Guard militia members or units under federally recognized active or inactive armed force service for the United States. The National Guard of the United States is a joint reserve component of the United States Army, the United States Air Force and maintains two sub-components: the Army National Guard of the United States for the Army and the Air Force's Air National Guard of the United States.
Established under Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code, state National Guard serves as part of the first-line defense for the United States. The state National Guard is divided up into units stationed in each of the 50 states and U.S. territories and operates under their respective state governor or territorial adjutant general.
The National Guard may be called up for active duty by state governors or territorial adjutant general (ONLY) to help respond to domestic emergencies and disasters, such as those caused by hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes, in their respective states "upon declaration of a state of emergency by the governor of the state or territory in which they serve", but the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the National Guard.
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 Pub.L. 109-364
Federal law was changed so that the Governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of their state's National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States will now be able to take total control of a state's National Guard units without the governor's consent. In a letter to Congress all 50 governors opposed the increase in power of the president over the National Guard.
The National Defense Authorization Act 2008 Pub.L. 110-181
Enables the President to call up the National Guard of the United States for active federal military service during Congressionally sanctioned national emergency or war. Places the National Guard Bureau directly under the Department of Defense as a joint activity. Promoted the Chief of the National Guard Bureau from a three-star to a four-star general.
There's a difference between the National Guard of the United States and the Texas Army National Guard.

I'm referring to the Texas Army National Guard.
BBHC

Houston, TX

#1121 Oct 15, 2010
texas vet wrote:
<quoted text>
if you did not serve in a conflict you are not a veteran of foriegn wars so therefor your not a vet. i had people in my unit that did not fight because of medical reasons and they are not considered vets!!
Wrong. If you did not serve in combat, you are not cosidered to be a combat veteran, that's all. You are still considered to be a veteran.

Since: Feb 10

Dallas, TX

#1122 Oct 15, 2010
daminvasion wrote:
<quoted text>
You, who approve the building of the victory mosque, telling us that we have forgotten 911?
You and the Muslims haven't forgotten, hence, the mosque.
This says a lot about you.
Come on, read my statement in CONTEXT. I said, "There are people here illegally from ALL OVER THE WORLD! If you think Hispanics are our biggest problem, then you've forgotten 9/11"

So, DO you think Hispanics are our biggest problem?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Schertz Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
moveing to cibolo (help) (Nov '11) Feb 23 shelia 2
SCUCISD Cuts Police Force (Apr '11) Feb 17 mtmom 4
Who do you support for State Board of Education... (Oct '10) Feb 16 Farts 779
the music thread (May '12) Feb 13 texas pete 23
Universal City Police are writing bogus traffic... (Oct '08) Feb 5 david carmona 164
Who do you support for State Board of Education... (Oct '10) Feb 4 Farts 614
Selma and Schertz Police Ticketing At Same Time... Jan 30 Really Curious Ab... 1
Schertz Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Schertz People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:42 pm PST

NFL 4:42PM
Brian Cushing had three different offseason surgeries
ESPN 5:10 PM
Cowboys tell Bryant's agent they will tag WR
Bleacher Report 6:34 PM
Cowboys to Use Franchise Tag on Dez
NBC Sports 8:58 PM
Reports: Dez Bryant set to receive franchise tag
Yahoo! Sports 8:44 AM
Cowboys could franchise Dez Bryant, allow DeMarco Murray to test market