Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Btw, does Obama officially suck?Follow

#327 Aug 04 2012 at 11:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Just to nit-pick, Lake Michigan is completely within the US border so cities along the Lake (most notably Chicago but also Milwaukee, Gary, Green Bay, etc) aren't within 100 miles from the national border, coastal or otherwise.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#328 Aug 05 2012 at 4:23 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
I think the law specifies land borders, I'd have to double check.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#329 Aug 07 2012 at 8:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
I guess it's time for a new topic.

So, how do you guys feel about the 4th amendment not applying to almost 2/3 of US citizens?


Wait. So law enforcement can simply walk into your house and search it without a warrant or probable cause? No? Bit of an exaggeration, isn't it? Citizenship checkpoints (some distance from the border even) have been legal (and constitutional) since long before 9/11 and the Patriot Act btw. This is not really anything new.

Quote:
Hilariously enough, ~90% of NE, (which is indirectly the source of the 4th amendment via the quartering act) is covered by the unlimited search and seizure region.


More hilarious than confusing the 3rd and 4th amendments?

Edited, Aug 7th 2012 7:13pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#330 Aug 08 2012 at 7:32 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Bit of an exaggeration, isn't it?
Welcome to the joke.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#331 Aug 09 2012 at 9:01 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
gbaji wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
I guess it's time for a new topic.

So, how do you guys feel about the 4th amendment not applying to almost 2/3 of US citizens?


Wait. So law enforcement can simply walk into your house and search it without a warrant or probable cause? No? Bit of an exaggeration, isn't it? Citizenship checkpoints (some distance from the border even) have been legal (and constitutional) since long before 9/11 and the Patriot Act btw. This is not really anything new.

Quote:
Hilariously enough, ~90% of NE, (which is indirectly the source of the 4th amendment via the quartering act) is covered by the unlimited search and seizure region.


More hilarious than confusing the 3rd and 4th amendments?

Edited, Aug 7th 2012 7:13pm by gbaji


Sorry, the Excise Act, not the Quartering Act.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#332 Aug 09 2012 at 2:00 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Bit of an exaggeration, isn't it?
Welcome to the joke.


It would be a lot funnier as a joke if the ACLU got it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#333 Aug 10 2012 at 7:20 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
It was humorous enough that you didn't.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#334Palpitus1, Posted: Oct 04 2012 at 4:36 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Uh, obviously not. The NDAA and other various FISA etc. laws give you absolutely no Constitutional protections if even one appropriate leader in government decides you're a terrorist. Hell, this was happening during Bush. Folks incarcerated, and according to Patriot Act not allowed to speak to anyone about their detention.
#335 Oct 04 2012 at 8:15 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
Pro-tip: vote for neither.
That'll work out.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#336 Oct 04 2012 at 8:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
More like AMATEUR Tip, amirite?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#337 Oct 04 2012 at 6:55 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Not sure I should even bother, but:

Palpitus1 wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Wait. So law enforcement can simply walk into your house and search it without a warrant or probable cause? No? Bit of an exaggeration, isn't it?


Uh, obviously not. The NDAA and other various FISA etc. laws give you absolutely no Constitutional protections if even one appropriate leader in government decides you're a terrorist.


And all the other laws we have give you absolutely no Constitutional protections if the local police decide you're the guy who just robbed a bank, took a 6 year old girl hostage, and are holed up in your home. Guess what? They're going to come storming into your house, guns out and potentially blazing if you make the slightest wrong move. Do mistakes happen like this? Yeah. Are they extremely rare? Yeah. Does this mean that the constitution no longer applied? Not at all.

Quote:
Hell, this was happening during Bush. Folks incarcerated, and according to Patriot Act not allowed to speak to anyone about their detention.


Convenient. It's happening to all sorts of people, but there are no clearly documented cases or lawsuits because they aren't allowed to speak about it! No conspiracy theory going on here at all! Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#338 Oct 05 2012 at 7:50 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
And all the other laws we have give you absolutely no Constitutional protections if the local police decide you're the guy who just robbed a bank, took a 6 year old girl hostage, and are holed up in your home.
Of course, if you take her from a playground, take her to another state, and have her get an abortion there's nothing illegal about that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#339 Oct 16 2012 at 4:50 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
326 posts
gbaji wrote:
Not sure I should even bother, but:

And all the other laws we have give you absolutely no Constitutional protections if the local police decide you're the guy who just robbed a bank, took a 6 year old girl hostage, and are holed up in your home. Guess what? They're going to come storming into your house, guns out and potentially blazing if you make the slightest wrong move. Do mistakes happen like this? Yeah. Are they extremely rare? Yeah. Does this mean that the constitution no longer applied? Not at all.


This BS is not extremely rare in the Obama Administration. Hell, Obama doesn't even need a warrant or charge to assassinate someone. Good luck challenging an NDAA hit order on you before you even know it exists, so thus are dead. Or a FISA where you have no idea your records were subpeonaed--and not by any judge's warrants or decisions.

Quote:
Convenient. It's happening to all sorts of people, but there are no clearly documented cases or lawsuits because they aren't allowed to speak about it! No conspiracy theory going on here at all! Smiley: oyvey


Are you willfully ignorant or just plain ignorant? Google "Patriot Act + Gag Order" to inform yourself. Hey, here's an early hit:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/patriot-act-gag/

Quote:
On Tuesday, a New York judge ruling in the lawsuit brought by the anonymous ISP president, declined to lift the gag placed on him, despite the new gagging standards announced by the 2nd Circuit. The lower court judge’s decision was based on secret evidence the FBI provided.

The judge said the government claimed national security (.pdf) was at issue. Lifting the gag, he wrote, “could tip off the target of an ongoing investigation as well as other individuals who are under investigation.”

The plaintiff’s lawyers, of the American Civil Liberties Union, were not privy to what the government told U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in private while urging him not to lift what is now a 5-year-old gag.


What is the charge, exactly? Well, we don't know, since the defendant and his lawyers are legally required to never say what it is.

Quote:
“To my knowledge, there’s three recipients who have ever challenged the NSL gag. That’s of the hundreds of thousands that have been issued,” said Melissa Goodman, an ACLU attorney on the case decided Tuesday.


While you're on Google, also look up "National Security Letter".

eta: quote fix






Edited, Oct 16th 2012 6:53am by Palpitus1
#340 Oct 16 2012 at 6:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Not sure I should even bother, but:

And all the other laws we have give you absolutely no Constitutional protections if the local police decide you're the guy who just robbed a bank, took a 6 year old girl hostage, and are holed up in your home. Guess what? They're going to come storming into your house, guns out and potentially blazing if you make the slightest wrong move. Do mistakes happen like this? Yeah. Are they extremely rare? Yeah. Does this mean that the constitution no longer applied? Not at all.


This BS is not extremely rare in the Obama Administration.
It's not rare in any administration. Dimwit.

You need to do some soul-searching to figure out why it is that when Obama does presidential type stuff it pisses you off so badly (hint: It has nothing to do with Obama).
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#341 Oct 16 2012 at 3:45 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Not sure I should even bother


You're catching on.
#342 Oct 16 2012 at 10:57 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Sure, except for everything after that sentence fragment.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#343 Oct 18 2012 at 2:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
This BS is not extremely rare in the Obama Administration. Hell, Obama doesn't even need a warrant or charge to assassinate someone. Good luck challenging an NDAA hit order on you before you even know it exists, so thus are dead. Or a FISA where you have no idea your records were subpeonaed--and not by any judge's warrants or decisions.


You're conflating like three or more completely different legal issues though. I was originally talking about search and seizure requirements. You know, like a police officer being able to search your car or your person if he has probable cause that you're in violation of the law? Cause that's what this was originally about. Get back to me when someone is picked up by the government for speeding and hidden away in a secret jail without legal recourse.

Quote:
Quote:
Convenient. It's happening to all sorts of people, but there are no clearly documented cases or lawsuits because they aren't allowed to speak about it! No conspiracy theory going on here at all! Smiley: oyvey


Are you willfully ignorant or just plain ignorant? Google "Patriot Act + Gag Order" to inform yourself. Hey, here's an early hit:


No. I understand the issues better that you do and am not alarmed by a jumble of facts which don't really mean what people like you think they do.

Case in point:

Quote:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/patriot-act-gag/

Quote:
On Tuesday, a New York judge ruling in the lawsuit brought by the anonymous ISP president, declined to lift the gag placed on him, despite the new gagging standards announced by the 2nd Circuit. The lower court judge’s decision was based on secret evidence the FBI provided.

The judge said the government claimed national security (.pdf) was at issue. Lifting the gag, he wrote, “could tip off the target of an ongoing investigation as well as other individuals who are under investigation.”

The plaintiff’s lawyers, of the American Civil Liberties Union, were not privy to what the government told U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in private while urging him not to lift what is now a 5-year-old gag.


What is the charge, exactly? Well, we don't know, since the defendant and his lawyers are legally required to never say what it is.


It's a gag order. As far as I can tell no one has been arrested or charged with a crime. There is no charge. Did you just fail to read the article, or did you fail to understand what it said? This does not mean that someone can be arrested or detained and not be able to speak about it (which is what you suggested earlier). It means that if the police use some information you have in a sensitive investigation, they can require that you not speak about that. Those are not even remotely the same thing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#344 Oct 18 2012 at 4:52 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Get back to me when someone is picked up by the government for speeding and hidden away in a secret jail without legal recourse.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/30/man-held-in-solitary-two-years-without-trial-cannot-remember-ordeal/

DWI, not speeding, but same result. The fact that he was finally able to get retribution does not negate the failure of the justice system in this case.
#345 Oct 18 2012 at 5:23 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Get back to me when someone is picked up by the government for speeding and hidden away in a secret jail without legal recourse.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/30/man-held-in-solitary-two-years-without-trial-cannot-remember-ordeal/

DWI, not speeding, but same result. The fact that he was finally able to get retribution does not negate the failure of the justice system in this case.


So basically what I said earlier:

gbaji wrote:
And all the other laws we have give you absolutely no Constitutional protections if the local police decide you're the guy who just robbed a bank, took a 6 year old girl hostage, and are holed up in your home. Guess what? They're going to come storming into your house, guns out and potentially blazing if you make the slightest wrong move. Do mistakes happen like this? Yeah. Are they extremely rare? Yeah. Does this mean that the constitution no longer applied? Not at all.



It's silly to make a big deal about what could happen under a given law without examining what could happen under existing law. It's like insisting that a new car is unsafe because if you fall asleep at the wheel you could crash and die. What happens if you fall asleep at the wheel of your current car? Same thing, right? All police powers carry with them the potential for abuse (or just really bad choices/mistakes). That by itself isn't sufficient argument against allowing them.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#347 Oct 18 2012 at 6:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
SwaziSpring wrote:
a vote for Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin.

Two of history's best friends.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#349 Oct 19 2012 at 5:10 AM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
It's silly to make a big deal about what could happen under a given law without examining what could happen under existing law. It's like insisting that a new car is unsafe because if you fall asleep at the wheel you could crash and die. What happens if you fall asleep at the wheel of your current car? Same thing, right? All police powers carry with them the potential for abuse (or just really bad choices/mistakes). That by itself isn't sufficient argument against allowing them.


It's also silly to give authority figures more easily abused powers under the banner of "They could already abuse the ones they have, so hey, whatever..."
#350 Oct 19 2012 at 5:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's silly to make a big deal about what could happen under a given law without examining what could happen under existing law. It's like insisting that a new car is unsafe because if you fall asleep at the wheel you could crash and die. What happens if you fall asleep at the wheel of your current car? Same thing, right? All police powers carry with them the potential for abuse (or just really bad choices/mistakes). That by itself isn't sufficient argument against allowing them.


It's also silly to give authority figures more easily abused powers under the banner of "They could already abuse the ones they have, so hey, whatever..."

Yea, I'm confused by gbaji here. Your statement would typically be his, seeing as he wants as small a government as possible and as little regulation as possible. This just seems so opposite of his typical stance. I haven't been following this, so did a Republican propose this?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#351 Oct 19 2012 at 7:28 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
SwaziSpring wrote:
A vote for the Greens is basically a vote for Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin.
They're both dead. Smiley: confused
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 326 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (326)