Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Hey, his homiez does.
Hey, his homiez does.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Police perform background check on ... Obama, are suspended
- Thread starter Repeater
- Start date
coolusername2007
Regular Member
imported post
smoking357 wrote:
smoking357 wrote:
How about a little "transparency"?! I should be able to see if any checks where done on me. And if so, I should be able to challenge the legitimacy of the check.
imported post
coolusername2007 wrote:
But I do not think Obama is in any position or need to personallyask all the states who ran a check on him for his own information just out of curiosity.
I suspect his name is added to the list of "celebs" and other important people (a group I am going to guess you do not belong to) because there are people who are going to attempt to get informationfor evil purposes.
I suspect that if you knew the right people... you can get your name added and you can be informed when your name is checked.
But what would you do when you are told?
So you find out John Q Public ran your name. Are you going to send your agent or assistant to his house and survail him? Do a background check and threat assessment on him to see if he has ever proposed to cause you harm?
Are you that important and well known that people want to seek you out and create problems for you?
You may not be entitled to view criminal records and checks on you maintained by the state. Go ask the FBI to see your file too while you are at it. :lol:
coolusername2007 wrote:
Interesting thought.
But I do not think Obama is in any position or need to personallyask all the states who ran a check on him for his own information just out of curiosity.
I suspect his name is added to the list of "celebs" and other important people (a group I am going to guess you do not belong to) because there are people who are going to attempt to get informationfor evil purposes.
I suspect that if you knew the right people... you can get your name added and you can be informed when your name is checked.
But what would you do when you are told?
So you find out John Q Public ran your name. Are you going to send your agent or assistant to his house and survail him? Do a background check and threat assessment on him to see if he has ever proposed to cause you harm?
Are you that important and well known that people want to seek you out and create problems for you?
You may not be entitled to view criminal records and checks on you maintained by the state. Go ask the FBI to see your file too while you are at it. :lol:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
This. Maybe one of the few times where the smack down actually lands, too.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
smoking357 wrote:
smoking357 wrote:
This is the meat of the issue.
coolusername2007
Regular Member
imported post
This can't be the first time an officer attempted to pull up the president's file...could it?
This can't be the first time an officer attempted to pull up the president's file...could it?
imported post
marshaul wrote:
They probably have reporting tools in place to kick out suspicious activity they can act on and report to the proper authorities.
marshaul wrote:
Actually... I do not think it is the USSS reaching into data. I suspect it is a database admin reporting the query directly to them out of concern.
They probably have reporting tools in place to kick out suspicious activity they can act on and report to the proper authorities.
stormchaser
Regular Member
imported post
Nutczak wrote:
Nutczak wrote:
just another reason for staying out of Illinos when possible
imported post
Nutczak wrote:
The tags belong to the state DMV. Police are allowed to run tags at random to verify they are valid. Some people steal the renewal stickers and use them to extend the duration of their tags. Some people affix tags that belong to other cars. Some people steal tags. Some people steal cars.
So the reason to run the tags has a valid use. Now the registered ownersmay be unlicensed, have an expired license, be suspected, be revoked for DWI, or even have outstanding warrants.
So there is another reason to run the tags.
Keeping in mind... there are a limited number of government employees that are permitted to do this and have access. You are not supposed to run tags of cute girls to see how much they weigh and where the live. Nor are you supposed to run tags of cars in front of the ex-girlfriend or wife's house to see who is calling on her.
So there is no legitimate reason to just run Obama's tags and name unless he is right there in front of you and you can arrest him.
The same rules would apply for a background check... Unless Obama is right in front of you buying a gun... why are you running his name?
I am sure names have been checked and they did not buy a gun... but who would know. But we know Obama is not buying a gun today or it would have been in on the news. So it is easy to conclude the check being performed is not legit.
Same thing for hospital records. There will be staff that needs access to YOUR records or the records or famous people. But there will be staff that want to take a peek and see what the actor is in the hospital and they have no legitimate reason for doing so.
So the access query is done on famous people to see who took a look that would have had no reason. They cannot do this for every patient... there are just far too many. And besides... the information on the rest of usis meaningless to the public anyway. Everyone knows Obama. Nobody knows Jane Stillwater.
Nutczak wrote:
The tags belong to the state DMV. Police are allowed to run tags at random to verify they are valid. Some people steal the renewal stickers and use them to extend the duration of their tags. Some people affix tags that belong to other cars. Some people steal tags. Some people steal cars.
So the reason to run the tags has a valid use. Now the registered ownersmay be unlicensed, have an expired license, be suspected, be revoked for DWI, or even have outstanding warrants.
So there is another reason to run the tags.
Keeping in mind... there are a limited number of government employees that are permitted to do this and have access. You are not supposed to run tags of cute girls to see how much they weigh and where the live. Nor are you supposed to run tags of cars in front of the ex-girlfriend or wife's house to see who is calling on her.
So there is no legitimate reason to just run Obama's tags and name unless he is right there in front of you and you can arrest him.
The same rules would apply for a background check... Unless Obama is right in front of you buying a gun... why are you running his name?
I am sure names have been checked and they did not buy a gun... but who would know. But we know Obama is not buying a gun today or it would have been in on the news. So it is easy to conclude the check being performed is not legit.
Same thing for hospital records. There will be staff that needs access to YOUR records or the records or famous people. But there will be staff that want to take a peek and see what the actor is in the hospital and they have no legitimate reason for doing so.
So the access query is done on famous people to see who took a look that would have had no reason. They cannot do this for every patient... there are just far too many. And besides... the information on the rest of usis meaningless to the public anyway. Everyone knows Obama. Nobody knows Jane Stillwater.
smoking357
Banned
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Lie.
imported post
smoking357 wrote:
You pay the same price each year when you renew. If you paid for the tag when you registered the vehicle.... why is the renewal price not much lower?
The price is the same because you are not paying for a tag!! You are paying for the ability to operate the vehicle on the road.
The tag proves your did so and the number can be checked to be sure your ability has not expired or been revoked.
The DMV may not ask for the tags back... sometimes they do... but the tag is still the property of the DMV.
smoking357 wrote:
Really... :lol:
You pay the same price each year when you renew. If you paid for the tag when you registered the vehicle.... why is the renewal price not much lower?
The price is the same because you are not paying for a tag!! You are paying for the ability to operate the vehicle on the road.
The tag proves your did so and the number can be checked to be sure your ability has not expired or been revoked.
The DMV may not ask for the tags back... sometimes they do... but the tag is still the property of the DMV.
stormchaser
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
in ky. your renewal price is based on how old your car is,if you bought
a new car in 08 then every year your renewal rate lowers because your
car is worth less to day then it was back when you bought it,however when i lived in
fl.years ago my renewal rate was the same every year,because the go by
weight and not age.
LEO 229 wrote:
in ky. your renewal price is based on how old your car is,if you bought
a new car in 08 then every year your renewal rate lowers because your
car is worth less to day then it was back when you bought it,however when i lived in
fl.years ago my renewal rate was the same every year,because the go by
weight and not age.
imported post
stormchaser wrote:
In my post.. the point I was making was you do not one pricefor the tag and some other price annually for the ability to operate the tagged vehicle on the road.
You are not purchasing a tag...The tag is not for your use. It is for the state's use to identify you paid.
stormchaser wrote:
Understood...
In my post.. the point I was making was you do not one pricefor the tag and some other price annually for the ability to operate the tagged vehicle on the road.
You are not purchasing a tag...The tag is not for your use. It is for the state's use to identify you paid.
smoking357
Banned
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
So, do they send you around to BBQ shacks and TGI Fridayses to yank the plates off the wall, being state property, and all?
LEO 229 wrote:
That is an excellent piece of authoritarian circular nothingspeak.
So, do they send you around to BBQ shacks and TGI Fridayses to yank the plates off the wall, being state property, and all?
imported post
smoking357 wrote:
Here is another tip for you.
That operators license in your pocket... it also property of the DMV. They may take it from you at any time. It is the same as the tags on your car.
If you are stopped by the police and you are driving privileges have been suspended.... your license it kept and returned to the DMV. You do NOT get it back. You can demand all you like buy it does not belong to you.
In regards to state tags being in so many garages and restaurants.... it does not mean they are the property of someone else. It simply means the true owner, the DMV, has no interest is asking for them to be returned.
If you do not have insurance the DMV can mark the tags inactive on the car. They send a letter demanding you return them. If you are stopped and the officer notices the inactive status, the officer will remove them and return them to the DMV.
smoking357 wrote:
I am not really sure why you are on this forum.. you are simply too stupid to understand anything. :lol:
Here is another tip for you.
That operators license in your pocket... it also property of the DMV. They may take it from you at any time. It is the same as the tags on your car.
If you are stopped by the police and you are driving privileges have been suspended.... your license it kept and returned to the DMV. You do NOT get it back. You can demand all you like buy it does not belong to you.
In regards to state tags being in so many garages and restaurants.... it does not mean they are the property of someone else. It simply means the true owner, the DMV, has no interest is asking for them to be returned.
If you do not have insurance the DMV can mark the tags inactive on the car. They send a letter demanding you return them. If you are stopped and the officer notices the inactive status, the officer will remove them and return them to the DMV.
Sheriff
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
I have never understood why you need to insult people when engaging in a civil discussion.
LEO 229 wrote:
Why are you here? To repeatedly insult people day in and day out?
I have never understood why you need to insult people when engaging in a civil discussion.
Sheriff
Regular Member
imported post
coolusername2007 wrote:
It could be the first time a cop has leaked anincident like this to the media.
That's my best guess. :lol:
coolusername2007 wrote:
It could be the first time a cop has leaked anincident like this to the media.
That's my best guess. :lol:
smoking357
Banned
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
So if I buy an old license plate at an antique shop, can the State void the transaction or prosecute the shopkeep for fraud?
imported post
smoking357 wrote:
Why are you so fixated on tags? This has gone way beyond where it was intended.
I made my points about the tags, the validity, and necessity of cops to run them at random. Your discussion on purchase and what not contributes nothing. But this is the norm for you.
smoking357 wrote:
Why are you so fixated on tags? This has gone way beyond where it was intended.
I made my points about the tags, the validity, and necessity of cops to run them at random. Your discussion on purchase and what not contributes nothing. But this is the norm for you.
imported post
Sheriff wrote:
Day in and out, huh? :lol:
Sorry, that is how often you bash cops here.
I am not insulting anyone... I am pointing out the obvious. You, on the other hand... insult and degrade law enforcement day in and day out.
A man that hates the job and people so much that he spent almost 3 decades doing it. Strange to stay that long in a profession you now loath.
Sheriff wrote:
Day in and out, huh? :lol:
Sorry, that is how often you bash cops here.
I am not insulting anyone... I am pointing out the obvious. You, on the other hand... insult and degrade law enforcement day in and day out.
A man that hates the job and people so much that he spent almost 3 decades doing it. Strange to stay that long in a profession you now loath.