RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


thompsonx -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/8/2008 11:21:19 PM)

quote:


If anything, the Supreme Court will be restoring the right to bear arms later this year after the fascist-left-wingers tried to ban them by rewriting the constitution.

Shara and Jim Brady are both hard core Republicans.  How can you call them left wing liberals?
thompson









McKwaig -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/8/2008 11:28:36 PM)

First of all, in response to DomKen, while what you state is true, hyou seem to completely miss what I was saying.  (Perhaps that is why you said that it is so rediculious it is pathetic.)  I fully understand that immigrants set up enclaves, and why they do so, but that is not what I was talking about.  The immigrants that I have had contact with, which I will admit is a small group, but these individuals refuse to even attempt to assimilate, and expect me to adapt to their culture. 

I have met several legal immigrants, and they hate the illegals.  Their response toward them is, "I came to this country legally, why didn't they?"  And each and every single one of these legal immigrants has done as I state in my original post, they have learned the language and adapted.  Not a single one of them expected me to adapt to their culture.  They were proud of it, but they were more proud of the fact that they were trying to make a better life for themselves and that they were doing it legally.  They obviously plan to remain here, and not return home once the money dries up.

As for cyberdude611, I hate to ask, but what cave have you been hiding in?  You state that the Supreme court will restore the right to bear arms later this year, and this may be so, but as of right now, the 4th, 5th, 6th and 10th Amendments have been destroyed, and mean nothing.

Right now, in 44 states the police have the right to stop you for no other reason than you are driving a car.  The 4th Amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

What ever happend to probable cause?

As for the 5th, have a drink and then drive.  It has been ruled that Miranda does not have to be read at the time of arrest, as it is in other cases.  A person can be questioned without having the benifit of having an attorney present.  As of right now, DUI/DWI is the only type of criminal charge where this is allowed, but how long before it is applied to other charges?

The 6th Amendment, well the last time I checked, a DUI/DWI costs around $800 for the offender.  Um, that seems a little more than the $20 stated in this amendment, and since everyone "knows" that all people arrested for DUI/DWI are guilty, why waste time with a jury trial?

Ronald Reagan was a good president, but he allowed the MADD proopaganda to sway him, and he circumvented the 10th, by tying federal highway funds to raising the drinking age to 21.  MADD claims that this has saved thousands of lives each year, but it is interesting to note that traffic fatalities have not decreased significantly since 1984, a couple of years before the federally mandated drinking age requirement.

I firmly believe that MADD and their ideals, are the single most dangerous threat to this country.  No terrorist group in the world has the power that MADD has!




TheHeretic -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/9/2008 12:08:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You let me know when the minutemen start watching the canadian border, the longest unsecured border in the world. I'm still waiting for any calls to sweep Milwaukee Ave. in Chicago which is well known to have a huge percentage of illegals from Poland working there. The same thing applies to Irish neighborhoods in New York, Boston and Chicago.



         Maybe when the guy on the offramp says, "would you like to buy some flowers, ay?"

     




Hippiekinkster -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/9/2008 1:51:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

DomKen, you're the one who said it was a "rancher's group."
Go back and look.
And I'm a contributor to The Minutemen and they've been patrolling the Canadian border for quite some time now and the Border Patrol up there is grateful for their help, but the *real problem* is on that Mexican Border as everyone knows.
And as for illegal Poles, Germans, Irish, sweep them all!
And we're all created equal and we have the right to the persuit of happiness but that persuit doesn't have to take place in the U.S.
That's not a requirement.
There are billions of people persuing happiness all over the world!
I've been to Ireland 3 times and I can assure you that they're very happy over there.
In countries where they're not happy they need to change their governments or do other things but that's really none of our business is it?
Contributor to Minutemen, eh? Means you contribute to Stormfront. http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=725
"
Gilchrist, meanwhile, stressed to reporters the legality of his non-confrontational tactics and the non-racist motivations of his volunteers, including the boys from Texas. Maybe he really believes that.
And maybe he believes that "Stormfront patriots" cited on the Texas Minutemen's blog refers to amateur meteorologists born on the Fourth of July."

Somehow, we all knew all that about the Minutemen and those that support them. 




Hippiekinkster -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/9/2008 1:57:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So you admit you made it up.


Nope. I read it in a Minuteman newsletter.
Also, the head of the Border Patrol has said on many news shows like O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs whose shows I'm sure you watch all the time, that the Border Patrol is "gratefull" for the Assistance of the Minutemen.
Now stop nit-picking and start grabbing for straws again.

Uh-huh. So, if you read it and saw it on TV, you should be able to find the text or a videoclip, right?
Nobody I know is dumb enough to watch O'Lielly.

[Mod Note:  quotes trimmed]




kittinSol -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/9/2008 4:22:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

Somehow, we all knew all that about the Minutemen and those that support them. 



Hold on a second, are these midgetmen going to protect America's constitutional rights[sm=club.gif] ? Has it truly come down to this? I think we should be told.




Hippiekinkster -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/9/2008 4:31:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

Somehow, we all knew all that about the Minutemen and those that support them. 



Hold on a second, are these midgetmen going to protect America's constitutional rights[sm=club.gif] ? Has it truly come down to this? I think we should be told.
Well, they all have their big guns, or gun magazines, so I guess that as soon as they figure out that Habeus Corpus has been suspended, due process too, bye bye freedom of speech, the right to be secure in our homes and persons is gone, the Fifth amendment is history, et cetera and so on, yeppers, as soon as they twig to all that, I expect we'll be seeing them take our government back any day now.




kittinSol -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/9/2008 4:32:33 AM)

Are they some kind of vigilante group? From Texas?!




Hippiekinkster -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/9/2008 4:36:26 AM)

They gonna proteck us from them evil taco-eatin' savages from down Mexico way.




kittinSol -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/9/2008 4:52:03 AM)

Right. Just what we need.




Hippiekinkster -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/9/2008 9:39:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Right. Just what we need.

Eggzactly so. Funny how they aren't guarding the northern border against The Irish or Czechs. They aren't brownskins, though, are they? 




farglebargle -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/10/2008 3:34:34 AM)

quote:

If a person or person's come to the USA in a non legal manner do they get the same constitutional rights as a US citizen


You used the words "constitutional rights" improperly, as nothing called "constitutional rights" exists.

Rights come from YOUR CREATOR, and do not come from either the Constitution or Government.

"Constitutionally PROTECTED Rights" exist. What the gov't can give and take are called "PRIVILEGES"

Unless authority is specifically and explicitly delegated to restrict any privileges to the Government then it does not exist.

Ignoring the lack of precision in constructing the inquiry, he answer to a properly phrased question is, "Yes, Of Course -- UNLESS there is a specific and explicit delegation to the Government to restrict the privilege in question to Citizens."




lusciouslips19 -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/10/2008 3:42:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: McKwaig

I firmly believe that MADD and their ideals, are the single most dangerous threat to this country.  No terrorist group in the world has the power that MADD has!


Mothers against drunk drivers are the single most biggest threat to this country? Really? Mothers who have usually lost a child becuase of a drunk driver behind the  wheel is a threat to this country?

Dude, you are either a drunk who likes to drive, certifiable or[sm=alien.gif].




thompsonx -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/10/2008 7:30:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19

quote:

ORIGINAL: McKwaig

I firmly believe that MADD and their ideals, are the single most dangerous threat to this country.  No terrorist group in the world has the power that MADD has!


Mothers against drunk drivers are the single most biggest threat to this country? Really? Mothers who have usually lost a child becuase of a drunk driver behind the  wheel is a threat to this country?

Dude, you are either a drunk who likes to drive, certifiable or[sm=alien.gif].


MADD is a double edged sword.
It's premise is well intentioned and I have no problem with using the law to get drunks out from behind the wheel.
What has happened is that politicians and law enforcement(revenue agents) have teamed up to subvert the constitution in an effort to suck more money out of the pockets of citizens.

http://www.duiblog.com/2005/11/17/police-using-prewritten-dui-reports/


The way that the law has been subverted allows the courts to convict virtually anyone of drunk driving.
When I drink I am a pedestrian.
thompson





lusciouslips19 -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/10/2008 3:15:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19

quote:

ORIGINAL: McKwaig

I firmly believe that MADD and their ideals, are the single most dangerous threat to this country.  No terrorist group in the world has the power that MADD has!


Mothers against drunk drivers are the single most biggest threat to this country? Really? Mothers who have usually lost a child becuase of a drunk driver behind the  wheel is a threat to this country?

Dude, you are either a drunk who likes to drive, certifiable or[sm=alien.gif].


MADD is a double edged sword.
It's premise is well intentioned and I have no problem with using the law to get drunks out from behind the wheel.
What has happened is that politicians and law enforcement(revenue agents) have teamed up to subvert the constitution in an effort to suck more money out of the pockets of citizens.

http://www.duiblog.com/2005/11/17/police-using-prewritten-dui-reports/


The way that the law has been subverted allows the courts to convict virtually anyone of drunk driving.
When I drink I am a pedestrian.
thompson




Its not the organization with all its mothers thats a double edged sword. Its the unscrupulous law enforcement and politicians that use it. So you should blame the real parties, not MADD.




thompsonx -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/10/2008 4:10:14 PM)

quote:


Its not the organization with all its mothers thats a double edged sword. Its the unscrupulous law enforcement and politicians that use it. So you should blame the real parties, not MADD.

luciouslips:
Actually it is.  MADD uses its lobbyist in cahoots with unscrupulous law enforcement and politicians to further its agenda.  The bigger the club the easier it is to push ones agenda.  Please read the cite I posted.  Not just the one page but the writers whole blog.  In it he details how they work together.  Again please do not misunderstand me I am not in favor of drunks operating motor vehicles and I felt just as you did about MADD until I read this blog.  If MADD were to divorce itself from the money vacuums and concentrate on the issue and not how to make more money I would go back to supporting them.
thompson





lusciouslips19 -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/11/2008 11:50:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:


Its not the organization with all its mothers thats a double edged sword. Its the unscrupulous law enforcement and politicians that use it. So you should blame the real parties, not MADD.

luciouslips:
Actually it is.  MADD uses its lobbyist in cahoots with unscrupulous law enforcement and politicians to further its agenda.  The bigger the club the easier it is to push ones agenda.  Please read the cite I posted.  Not just the one page but the writers whole blog.  In it he details how they work together.  Again please do not misunderstand me I am not in favor of drunks operating motor vehicles and I felt just as you did about MADD until I read this blog.  If MADD were to divorce itself from the money vacuums and concentrate on the issue and not how to make more money I would go back to supporting them.
thompson




My issue is with the statement that they are a worse threat than terrorism. That is a rediculously crazy statement . That statement is even more extremist than MADD could ever be.




thompsonx -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/11/2008 12:38:50 PM)

quote:

My issue is with the statement that they are a worse threat than terrorism. That is a rediculously crazy statement . That statement is even more extremist than MADD could ever be.


lusciouslips:
I see your point.  Lets consider what the actual threats are.
How real is the threat of terrorism?  There is significant evidence that there is no real threat of terrorism but rather one created by the government.
On the other hand MADD and co. have already destroyed several significant parts of the constitution vis-a-vis drunk driving protocol...essentially guilty till proven innocent.
That is not to say that the government's war on terror has not seriously eroded many of our constitutional protections...habeus corpus being the one that comes to mind first.
I am not sure which is the bigger threat.  Both seem to be pretty scary to me.  By both I do not mean MADD and terrorism but rather MADD and the government's assault on our freedoms under the guise of the war on terrorism.
thompson





lusciouslips19 -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/11/2008 2:12:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

My issue is with the statement that they are a worse threat than terrorism. That is a rediculously crazy statement . That statement is even more extremist than MADD could ever be.


lusciouslips:
I see your point.  Lets consider what the actual threats are.
How real is the threat of terrorism?  There is significant evidence that there is no real threat of terrorism but rather one created by the government.
On the other hand MADD and co. have already destroyed several significant parts of the constitution vis-a-vis drunk driving protocol...essentially guilty till proven innocent.
That is not to say that the government's war on terror has not seriously eroded many of our constitutional protections...habeus corpus being the one that comes to mind first.
I am not sure which is the bigger threat.  Both seem to be pretty scary to me.  By both I do not mean MADD and terrorism but rather MADD and the government's assault on our freedoms under the guise of the war on terrorism.
thompson




There are still threats to this country from terrorists. Instead of adressing this our boys are in Iraq. Osama bin Laden is still at large and the thought that there is no threat of terrorism against us in this country, well this complacency caught us very off guard on 9/11.




farglebargle -> RE: constitutional rights , are they for all ? (4/11/2008 3:11:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19
There are still threats to this country from terrorists. Instead of adressing this our boys are in Iraq. Osama bin Laden is still at large and the thought that there is no threat of terrorism against us in this country, well this complacency caught us very off guard on 9/11.



No. Obeying the STUPIDEST POLICY EVER is what let us down on 9/11/2001.

"Co-operate with the hijackers" What fucking cracksmoking public servant dreamed that shit up.

At least it's not a valid attack vector anymore. Which is why it's safe hiring all the incompetents into the TSA.





Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
5.078125E-02