Political Hippo Circle Jerk - America, farg YEAH!

Started by PoopyfaceMcGee, December 11, 2006, 01:30:30 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

PhillyPhreak54

QuoteBreaking Politics ‏@breakingpol 7m

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, says he plans to file a lawsuit against the White House for use of executive actions

Rome

Just when you think they can't get any dumber they go ahead and outdo themselves.

ice grillin you

Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on June 25, 2014, 12:12:53 PM
QuoteBreaking Politics ‏@breakingpol 7m

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, says he plans to file a lawsuit against the White House for use of executive actions by a black president
i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous


rjs246

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

In six years Obama has issued less than Ford did in 2, never mind Reagan and Bush II. These farging iceholes.

Is rjs gonna have to choke a bitch?

Let them eat bootstraps.

General_Failure

Massachusetts SWAT teams claim they're private corporations, immune from open records laws

QuoteAs it turns out, a number of SWAT teams in the Bay State are operated by what are called law enforcement councils, or LECs. These LECs are funded by several police agencies in a given geographic area and overseen by an executive board, which is usually made up of police chiefs from member police departments. In 2012, for example, the Tewksbury Police Department paid about $4,600 in annual membership dues to the North Eastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council, or NEMLEC. (See page 36 of linked PDF.) That LEC has about 50 member agencies. In addition to operating a regional SWAT team, the LECs also facilitate technology and information sharing and oversee other specialized units, such as crime scene investigators and computer crime specialists.

Some of these LECs have also apparently incorporated as 501(c)(3) organizations. And it's here that we run into problems. According to the ACLU, the LECs are claiming that the 501(c)(3) status means that they're private corporations, not government agencies. And therefore, they say they're immune from open records requests. Let's be clear. These agencies oversee police activities. They employ cops who carry guns, wear badges, collect paychecks provided by taxpayers and have the power to detain, arrest, injure and kill. They operate SWAT teams, which conduct raids on private residences. And yet they say that because they've incorporated, they're immune to Massachusetts open records laws. The state's residents aren't permitted to know how often the SWAT teams are used, what they're used for, what sort of training they get or who they're primarily used against.

I think I do an okay job of not being an icehole about politics and keeping my opinions to myself, but can anybody really be okay with this kind of shtein? I'd think real hard about going upside someone's head if they were.

The man. The myth. The legend.

PhillyPhreak54

Yeah...I have a HUGE problem with that.

Somehow that has to be stopped...has anyone challenged it in the State Supreme Court?

Eagles_Legendz

Quote from: General_Failure on June 28, 2014, 01:11:25 PM
Massachusetts SWAT teams claim they're private corporations, immune from open records laws

QuoteAs it turns out, a number of SWAT teams in the Bay State are operated by what are called law enforcement councils, or LECs. These LECs are funded by several police agencies in a given geographic area and overseen by an executive board, which is usually made up of police chiefs from member police departments. In 2012, for example, the Tewksbury Police Department paid about $4,600 in annual membership dues to the North Eastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council, or NEMLEC. (See page 36 of linked PDF.) That LEC has about 50 member agencies. In addition to operating a regional SWAT team, the LECs also facilitate technology and information sharing and oversee other specialized units, such as crime scene investigators and computer crime specialists.

Some of these LECs have also apparently incorporated as 501(c)(3) organizations. And it's here that we run into problems. According to the ACLU, the LECs are claiming that the 501(c)(3) status means that they're private corporations, not government agencies. And therefore, they say they're immune from open records requests. Let's be clear. These agencies oversee police activities. They employ cops who carry guns, wear badges, collect paychecks provided by taxpayers and have the power to detain, arrest, injure and kill. They operate SWAT teams, which conduct raids on private residences. And yet they say that because they've incorporated, they're immune to Massachusetts open records laws. The state's residents aren't permitted to know how often the SWAT teams are used, what they're used for, what sort of training they get or who they're primarily used against.

I think I do an okay job of not being an icehole about politics and keeping my opinions to myself, but can anybody really be okay with this kind of shtein? I'd think real hard about going upside someone's head if they were.

I haven't read up on what they're saying beyond that blurb, but if that's correct, I don't see how a court can label them private actors.  You can actually be a nominally private actor but if you're sufficiently entwined with a public purpose then for you're treated as a public entity legally.  I'm not sure how you can be considered to not at the least meet that test when you are functioning as a state sponsored police force.

General_Failure

Before Shooting in Iraq, a Warning on Blackwater

QuoteWASHINGTON — Just weeks before Blackwater guards fatally shot 17 civilians at Baghdad's Nisour Square in 2007, the State Department began investigating the security contractor's operations in Iraq. But the inquiry was abandoned after Blackwater's top manager there issued a threat: "that he could kill" the government's chief investigator and "no one could or would do anything about it as we were in Iraq," according to department reports.

The man. The myth. The legend.

Rome

SCOTUS is about to give corporations religious exemptions.

Well, they are people, after all...


PhillyPhreak54

How did the vote go? Which justices voted for it?

I have heard of Conestoga Wood...we don't deal with them directly but I think some customers buy their doors from them.

Rome

5-4 down the line.  All the religious douchebags voted for it.

Christian Taliban FTL.

Munson

What's amazing to me is Hobby Lobby isn't forced to directly provide contraception...insurance companies are. How the farg does it violate Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs (A company with religious beliefs, super) when a 3rd party that they're paying provides this? It's no different then giving an employee cash, which they then go and spend on..birth control.
Quote from: ice grillin you on April 01, 2008, 05:10:48 PM
perhaps you could explain sd's reasons for "disliking" it as well since you seem to be so in tune with other peoples minds

ice grillin you

FINALLY someone is looking out for corporations
i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous