Nobody was worried about losing jobs when manufacturing jobs were outsourced out of the country. Nobody was/is worried about losing jobs when major IT and support services are outsourced, or when lower wage workers are imported to do those jobs. Nobody seems really worried about all the auto workers who have lost their jobs.
But whenever it comes to energy, the issues are somehow all suddenly related to jobs. The right wing suddenly becomes part of the labor movement when it comes to energy workers. I've seen it multiple times.
As someone who lost his job and career in electronics manufacturing, and has been laid off from IT jobs, I really have to wonder what makes the energy workers so special that his job, career, and family are so much more important than mine.
Yes I do think the left has a much better record. Especially when it comes to public dissent.
Clinton had non-screened town hall meetings throughout his presidency, where he took questions from everybody.
Bush had screened fund raising events composed primarily of supporters, while any opposition was at a 'free speech zone' 3 to 5 miles away, or if you try to represent yourself as supporters, but then have the wrong bumper sticker on your car, then you get unceremoniously ejected. Even Fox news reported on this. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153720,00.html
With Obama, you again have non-screened town hall meetings, and people think it's cool to bring a weapon. And if you have the proper paperwork for that gun, they let you stay.
All of Hewlett Packard's 9800 Series computers I/O systems were on ROM, with a few exceptions that ran HP-UX. You could expand many of them to run HP-Basic and Fortran, and all of them could utilize assembly code. To contrast their code with the code you find today, nobody has found a bug on their first computer with a qwerty keyboard (the 9825) to this day. While there might be a stray HP 9800 series computer controlling some industrial equipment out there somewhere, I think it's safe to say that those OS's are dead.
So now you are claiming that there is no political bias in judicial opinions despite a SCOTUS made up of 7 Republican appointees and 2 Democratic appointees during DC vs Heller, and for the last 32 years as well as clear Republican dominance of the appellate courts over that same period of time?
And then you claim you know more about the law than a supreme court justice?
And, finally, you are likening judicial OPINIONS to scientific facts?
They lost the case. In other words, Dissent is little more then sore losers spouting off because the already did the important thing. I do not know why you seem to insist that the dissent is the only thing that matters, it's like saying the losing guy in the case won when they didn't.
Against my better judgement I am going to change my mind and reply to you one last time. I am not trying to state that dissent is the only thing that matters, I am pointing out that my point of view is backed up by the dissenting minority. The bottome line, and the point you refuse to acknowledge is that over the last 30 years, we have had 20 years of Republican Presidents and thus right wing appointees to the courts as opposed to 10 years that Democrats have had to appoint Judges. Depite that, your view on the 2nd amendment was upheld by a scant 5-4 margin. Furthermore, even if the right held a larger majority, it would not make the left's view any less legitimate. Just because the right has had the political power to make these rulings, it does not make those rulings correct. You make the common mistake of those on the right that power is everything, and might makes right. This has been and will continue to be your downfall. The tragedy is that you will likely drag this great country down with you.
Actually, yes it does. The courts deem customs officials may also search "any trunk or envelope, wherever found," in which they have "reasonable cause to suspect"9 there is merchandise imported contrary to law. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted "any trunk or envelope" to include all international mail entering the United States.
I suggest you read that pdf you linked to more carefully:
Although most federal circuits addressing this issue have held that expressive materials are not exempt from the border search exception,forceful countervailing arguments have been made. For example, in his dissent in Seljan, Judge Alex Kozinski argued that the Fourth Amendment provides heightened protections for expressive materials at the border.143 He made two arguments to support this proposition. The first is based on the Fourth Amendmentâ(TM)s text, which contains a specific prohibition against the unreasonable search and seizure of âoepapers.â Judge Kozinski argued that this specific prohibition signals the Framersâ(TM) desire to insulate expressive content, and the personal thoughts contained therein, from unnecessary government search.
What is it with you and your inane lack of ability to do the slightest bit of searching for historically correct information. [wikia.com] Now listen to me carefully, it's not hard to do a google search and you should at least attempt to find out if you are wrong before [loc.gov] showing the world that you are.
Are you REALLY using wiki as an academic source to claim 'historically accurate information'? Ridiculous. No academic institution in the United States accepts wiki. I think that's what your supposed 'knowledge' boils down to. You can read wiki and google things. For your information, it was a trick question, and you fell, hook, line, and sinker. They did NOT make any exception to the 4th amendment. They ruled that border searches were 'reasonable'. There is a distinct difference, but subtleties are obviously not your strong point.
The phrase isn't regulate or regulated. It's "well regulated" (and you can add militia to it too), it's a prefatory clause, and it has the meaning I said. It's explained competently in the DC Heller case. [supremecourtus.gov] I suggest you spend a few minute reading it before charging at windmills again.
Why should I? I support Justice Stephen's dissent and reject Scalia's idiocy. The only reason Scalia's side prevailed is because the current iteration of the Supreme Court is obviously slanted to the right. It is pretty easy to reverse a 5-4 ruling. If the balance of the SCOTUS shifts left, then guess what? There's a good chance my view becomes the law.
What the hell is your point?
My point was that you spent the last two posts denying that what I said was true, saying I didn't pay attention, etc., etc. and now since I proved you wrong without a doubt, you change the subject and ask what is my point. Typical.
That gives me great insight into what type of person you are. Thanks, I'm not going to sleep better now knowing I am a better person then you by your own admission, but it's always nice to know the character and convictions of the people you meet. Perhaps when you grow up, you will be able to lose the chip on your shoulder and look at what is important instead of concentrating on someone's name or skin color or religion or whatever else makes you the piece of shit your want people to see.
Ah, the sanctimonious hypocrisy. I'd bet you picked your name just to bait people so you could trot out your sanctimonious crap and make yourself feel good. And by the way, you PICKED your name. It's not like it was assigned to you or your parents gave it to you.
The bottom line is, I'm done with this conversation. As far as I'm concerned you debate in bad faith, and would never concede a point even if it was the one on the top of your head.
Nice try, but the comment was hardly terse, much less concise. At the least it was a horribly flawed analogy. Why are you guys hassling me, anyway? I'm largely sympathetic to your ideals, I just try to temper them with common sense. A majority of the same people who defend their perceived rights to wield firearms any time at any place are so frightened and ignorant of technology they would not hesitate to do exactly what the anonymous coward suggested. Besides, in this instance erring on the side of caution was locating the gun, talking to Bungie, and warning them to be more careful... how is that in any way analogous to heavy handed regulation and the shaking down of computer programmers?! Maybe sophistic would have been a little more apt.
Well said. And Jim Webb is a politician I can respect. Unfortunately my respect for Obama is on the decline. I always knew he'd govern from the center, and that I would disagree with him about some things, but I really thought he'd have the backbone to stand up to the corporate interests. Recent events are making me doubt.
First off, the fourth amendment border search exemption does not include correspondence, and only applies to people or cargo coming into the country, which was the reason for my pretzel logic comment.
It was the same people who wrote the constitution and signed or ratified it who did this. It isn't just one administration or one iteration of a court, it's something that has been here since the very first year our country has existed and used by all administrations since Washington.
I call BS. I think you pulled that out of your ass. Specifically established exceptions to the 4th amendment did not enter into law until the Rehnquist court. Please cite specifically any other legislation or rulings that establish exceptions. I'm thinking you can't.
The closest thing I can find to even come close to backing your claims is this:
Title 19 U.S.C. 482 and implementing postal regulations authorize customs officials to inspect incoming international mail when they have a "reasonable cause to suspect" that the mail contains illegally imported merchandise, although the regulations prohibit the reading of correspondence absent a search warrant.
This was even written by Rehnquist.
The constitution doesn't contain the word regulate. It contains the word regulated and in the DC gun control case, the ruling referenced that specific definition several times. I do not understand why you haven't even read the ruling yet think you are intelligent enough to make blatantly false statements about it which was contained in the ruling. Perhaps if you hang around ignorant people, you can appear smart stating your falsehoods, but we all have at least an Average intelligence here and you will be called on it.
When it comes to the DC gun case, Justice Stephens pretty much tore the ruling opinion apart with his dissenting opinion. Remember, this was a contested ruling. The right wing activists won 5-4.
He states things most eloquently: "The preamble to the Second Amendment makes three important points. It identifies the preservation of the militia as the Amendmentâ(TM)s purpose; it explains that the militia is necessary to the security of a free State; and it recognizes that the militia must be âoewell regulated.â In all three respects it is comparable to provisions in several State Declarations of Rights that were adopted roughly contemporaneously with the Declaration of Independence.5 Those state provisions highlight the importance members of the founding generation attached to the maintenance of state militias; they also underscore the profound fear shared by many in that era of the dangers posed by standing armies.6 While the need for state militias has not been a matter of significant public interest for almost two centuries, that fact should not obscure the contemporary concerns that animated the Framers."
At the very least, no matter how much you say you think you know about civics and the law, I'm going to take a supreme court justices word over yours every time.
The bottom line is that Obama's only significant action concerning gun control up to now was to expand your rights.
I admit that statement was wrong. I definitely screwed the pooch on that one. I meant to say:
The bottom line is that Obama's only significant action as president concerning gun control up to now was to expand your rights.
I know history, civics and simply paying attention is not your strong point. But in this case, you really need to apply a smidgen of effort because even though you feel the need to support you positions with insults instead of facts,
You still did not show where in the fourth amendment there is an exemption for international correspondence. Fail.
Just because one administration or iteration of the supreme court makes a decision contrary to the constitution, contrary to their oaths of office, does not make that decision right. Especially our current crooked court. Scalia is a neoconservative activist judge. Slappy Thomas is his ignorant bitch. These assholes APPOINTED a president while stating "counting the votes would hurt petitioner Bush". The Rehnquist Court was a complete fucking joke and a black spot on our great country. Every decision made by that court is suspect. While Roberts is probably better, it is not by much.
Look up the word regulate. Nowhere in that definition does it mention the ability to shoot straight.
You are using fucking tortured pretzel logic that anyone with an independent brain can see through. I am sorry you are such an ignorant sheep that needs to be told how it is and what to do.
And I love how you assholes somehow think you can read Obama's mind and tell us what he's thinking and what he's going to do.
The bottom line is that Obama's only significant action concerning gun control up to now was to expand your rights. To spell it out for you, that is the executive branch's job, to implement and enforce laws. He has relatively no power over what makes it to his desk to implement. Maybe you should be bitching about Dick Lugar, he has much more power over the creation of bills than the president does, moron.
Such is the price we pay for not living in anarchy. Besides, in this day and age there is likely a camera phone recording the incident, which would vindicate you.
Furthermore, I have never stated on this or any other board that I wish guns to be outlawed or banned. But they should definitely be regulated. My son owns a 12 gauge for hunting, I own a 9mm Glock for personal protection at home, and a Russian SKS for target shooting, which I will give to my son soon. Crazily enough, my views on gun control actually fall to the right of such left wing radicals like Lynyrd Skynnyrd (Saturday Night Special).
Your monicker says it all, sumdumbass. First off, please show where in the fourth amendment there is an exemption for international correspondence. There are none.
Secondly, FISA was a necessary evil because it prevented our country against invasion, which is one of the two conditions for extra constitutional actions, the other being rebellion. News flash for fear mongers and the afraid: Terrorists pose no threat of invasion whatsoever.
As for Obama expanding gun rights, yes he did, dumbass. He signed the bill into law. Period. End of argument.
The video you linked to was the idiot Lou Dobbs (a birther dumbass, among other things). It is concerning a bill that applies to manufacturers and dealers of guns, not gun owners. Coincidentally, one minute in, you have Republican Senator (the one who sponsored the gun provision that was tacked onto the credit card legislation no less) Dick Lugar URGING PASSAGE.
The link to guncite.com shows reasonable statements about gun issues. The first one on the page has Obama saying that firearms should not be unregulated. Well, buh! Even the second amendment you idiots so fervently cling to starts out: "A WELL REGULATED Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Funny how the gun loving idiots always forget how that amendment starts. If you want to get down to brass tacks, one, a Militia is no longer necessary for the security of our free states. And the whole amendment is clearly hinged upon that necessity. And two, if you really think some idiots with guns could fight any nation that would invade us, much less fight off our own military, you are living in fantasy land. Sumdumbass indeed. Fucking moron is more like it.
I went to the right wing blog you linked, I heard nothing from any nonexistent 'hidden microphone'. Please enlighten me about this 'hidden microphone', so I may 'get learned'.
I will go so far as to agree that no 4th amendment rights were violated, but to say there was a 'hidden microphone' is batshit crazy, thus I assumed the poster was likely to be a Glenn Beck fan, with cause.
Having said all that, it WAS a clear case of false arrest, because one, there was no reason to believe that Gates was going to harm himself or others, and two, because merely yelling is not sufficient cause for the charge of disorderly conduct. Which is why the charges were DROPPED.
So, please give me proof of this 'hidden microphone' or STFU you ignorant fuck.
Yeah, how could ANYONE think that someone who ignorantly opposes Obama while spouting BS that's only spread on right wing talk radio and by right wing idiots on Fox was a Bush supporter, I mean, that's a HUGE leap.
If you have some kind of facts supporting your viewpoint, then I might consider that you might not be some Bush worshiper or closet neoconservative (Libertarian). Until then, I'll go with the odds.
If, so, it was very small compared to the ridiculousness we've seen lately. And it's funny how you left out warrant less wiretapping, data mining, and other expansions of government powers that dwarf any perceived expansion by Obama, and that's all it is, is perceived. Obama EXPANDED gun owners rights, you imbeciles!
The whole Obama anti-gun bullshit was a myth from the very beginning. Only the very ignorant and gullible (Glen Beck/Lush Bimbo fans, mostly) people believed that to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
That's only illegal when Microsoft does it.
Nobody was worried about losing jobs when manufacturing jobs were outsourced out of the country. Nobody was/is worried about losing jobs when major IT and support services are outsourced, or when lower wage workers are imported to do those jobs. Nobody seems really worried about all the auto workers who have lost their jobs.
But whenever it comes to energy, the issues are somehow all suddenly related to jobs. The right wing suddenly becomes part of the labor movement when it comes to energy workers. I've seen it multiple times.
As someone who lost his job and career in electronics manufacturing, and has been laid off from IT jobs, I really have to wonder what makes the energy workers so special that his job, career, and family are so much more important than mine.
Yes I do think the left has a much better record. Especially when it comes to public dissent.
Clinton had non-screened town hall meetings throughout his presidency, where he took questions from everybody.
Bush had screened fund raising events composed primarily of supporters, while any opposition was at a 'free speech zone' 3 to 5 miles away, or if you try to represent yourself as supporters, but then have the wrong bumper sticker on your car, then you get unceremoniously ejected. Even Fox news reported on this. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153720,00.html
With Obama, you again have non-screened town hall meetings, and people think it's cool to bring a weapon. And if you have the proper paperwork for that gun, they let you stay.
And yet you specifically mention public dissent.
All of Hewlett Packard's 9800 Series computers I/O systems were on ROM, with a few exceptions that ran HP-UX. You could expand many of them to run HP-Basic and Fortran, and all of them could utilize assembly code. To contrast their code with the code you find today, nobody has found a bug on their first computer with a qwerty keyboard (the 9825) to this day. While there might be a stray HP 9800 series computer controlling some industrial equipment out there somewhere, I think it's safe to say that those OS's are dead.
So now you are claiming that there is no political bias in judicial opinions despite a SCOTUS made up of 7 Republican appointees and 2 Democratic appointees during DC vs Heller, and for the last 32 years as well as clear Republican dominance of the appellate courts over that same period of time?
And then you claim you know more about the law than a supreme court justice?
And, finally, you are likening judicial OPINIONS to scientific facts?
These are not rational arguments.
They lost the case. In other words, Dissent is little more then sore losers spouting off because the already did the important thing. I do not know why you seem to insist that the dissent is the only thing that matters, it's like saying the losing guy in the case won when they didn't.
Against my better judgement I am going to change my mind and reply to you one last time. I am not trying to state that dissent is the only thing that matters, I am pointing out that my point of view is backed up by the dissenting minority. The bottome line, and the point you refuse to acknowledge is that over the last 30 years, we have had 20 years of Republican Presidents and thus right wing appointees to the courts as opposed to 10 years that Democrats have had to appoint Judges. Depite that, your view on the 2nd amendment was upheld by a scant 5-4 margin. Furthermore, even if the right held a larger majority, it would not make the left's view any less legitimate. Just because the right has had the political power to make these rulings, it does not make those rulings correct. You make the common mistake of those on the right that power is everything, and might makes right. This has been and will continue to be your downfall. The tragedy is that you will likely drag this great country down with you.
Actually, yes it does. The courts deem customs officials may also search "any trunk or envelope, wherever found," in which they have "reasonable cause to suspect"9 there is merchandise imported contrary to law. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted "any trunk or envelope" to include all international mail entering the United States.
I suggest you read that pdf you linked to more carefully:
Although most federal circuits addressing this issue have held that expressive materials are not
exempt from the border search exception,forceful countervailing arguments have been made. For
example, in his dissent in Seljan, Judge Alex Kozinski argued that the Fourth Amendment
provides heightened protections for expressive materials at the border.143 He made two arguments
to support this proposition. The first is based on the Fourth Amendmentâ(TM)s text, which contains a
specific prohibition against the unreasonable search and seizure of âoepapers.â Judge Kozinski
argued that this specific prohibition signals the Framersâ(TM) desire to insulate expressive content, and the personal thoughts contained therein, from unnecessary government search.
What is it with you and your inane lack of ability to do the slightest bit of searching for historically correct information. [wikia.com] Now listen to me carefully, it's not hard to do a google search and you should at least attempt to find out if you are wrong before [loc.gov] showing the world that you are.
Are you REALLY using wiki as an academic source to claim 'historically accurate information'? Ridiculous. No academic institution in the United States accepts wiki. I think that's what your supposed 'knowledge' boils down to. You can read wiki and google things. For your information, it was a trick question, and you fell, hook, line, and sinker. They did NOT make any exception to the 4th amendment. They ruled that border searches were 'reasonable'. There is a distinct difference, but subtleties are obviously not your strong point.
The phrase isn't regulate or regulated. It's "well regulated" (and you can add militia to it too), it's a prefatory clause, and it has the meaning I said. It's explained competently in the DC Heller case. [supremecourtus.gov] I suggest you spend a few minute reading it before charging at windmills again.
Why should I? I support Justice Stephen's dissent and reject Scalia's idiocy. The only reason Scalia's side prevailed is because the current iteration of the Supreme Court is obviously slanted to the right. It is pretty easy to reverse a 5-4 ruling. If the balance of the SCOTUS shifts left, then guess what? There's a good chance my view becomes the law.
What the hell is your point?
My point was that you spent the last two posts denying that what I said was true, saying I didn't pay attention, etc., etc. and now since I proved you wrong without a doubt, you change the subject and ask what is my point. Typical.
That gives me great insight into what type of person you are. Thanks, I'm not going to sleep better now knowing I am a better person then you by your own admission, but it's always nice to know the character and convictions of the people you meet. Perhaps when you grow up, you will be able to lose the chip on your shoulder and look at what is important instead of concentrating on someone's name or skin color or religion or whatever else makes you the piece of shit your want people to see.
Ah, the sanctimonious hypocrisy. I'd bet you picked your name just to bait people so you could trot out your sanctimonious crap and make yourself feel good. And by the way, you PICKED your name. It's not like it was assigned to you or your parents gave it to you.
The bottom line is, I'm done with this conversation. As far as I'm concerned you debate in bad faith, and would never concede a point even if it was the one on the top of your head.
Funny you should ask this. Cell technology came from... wait for it... Bell Labs.
Nice try, but the comment was hardly terse, much less concise. At the least it was a horribly flawed analogy. Why are you guys hassling me, anyway? I'm largely sympathetic to your ideals, I just try to temper them with common sense. A majority of the same people who defend their perceived rights to wield firearms any time at any place are so frightened and ignorant of technology they would not hesitate to do exactly what the anonymous coward suggested. Besides, in this instance erring on the side of caution was locating the gun, talking to Bungie, and warning them to be more careful... how is that in any way analogous to heavy handed regulation and the shaking down of computer programmers?! Maybe sophistic would have been a little more apt.
Wrapping in brown paper is a lot different than 'tossing in a paper bag'. Brown paper is a commonly used shipping/packaging item.
Well said. And Jim Webb is a politician I can respect. Unfortunately my respect for Obama is on the decline. I always knew he'd govern from the center, and that I would disagree with him about some things, but I really thought he'd have the backbone to stand up to the corporate interests. Recent events are making me doubt.
So would you at least admit that precedence was set concerning the suspension of rights in the US Constitution which states:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
?
I can't think of any greater precedence than that.
But then I don't claim to be some genius when it comes to civics.
First off, the fourth amendment border search exemption does not include correspondence, and only applies to people or cargo coming into the country, which was the reason for my pretzel logic comment.
It was the same people who wrote the constitution and signed or ratified it who did this. It isn't just one administration or one iteration of a court, it's something that has been here since the very first year our country has existed and used by all administrations since Washington.
I call BS. I think you pulled that out of your ass. Specifically established exceptions to the 4th amendment did not enter into law until the Rehnquist court. Please cite specifically any other legislation or rulings that establish exceptions. I'm thinking you can't.
The closest thing I can find to even come close to backing your claims is this:
Title 19 U.S.C. 482 and implementing postal regulations authorize customs officials to inspect incoming international mail when they have a "reasonable cause to suspect" that the mail contains illegally imported merchandise, although the regulations prohibit the reading of correspondence absent a search warrant.
This was even written by Rehnquist.
The constitution doesn't contain the word regulate. It contains the word regulated and in the DC gun control case, the ruling referenced that specific definition several times. I do not understand why you haven't even read the ruling yet think you are intelligent enough to make blatantly false statements about it which was contained in the ruling. Perhaps if you hang around ignorant people, you can appear smart stating your falsehoods, but we all have at least an Average intelligence here and you will be called on it.
FYI, the word regulated is the inflected form of regulate.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulated
When it comes to the DC gun case, Justice Stephens pretty much tore the ruling opinion apart with his dissenting opinion. Remember, this was a contested ruling. The right wing activists won 5-4.
He states things most eloquently:
"The preamble to the Second Amendment makes three important points. It identifies the preservation of the militia as the Amendmentâ(TM)s purpose; it explains that the militia is necessary to the security of a free State; and it recognizes that the militia must be âoewell regulated.â In all three respects it is comparable to provisions in several State Declarations of Rights that were adopted roughly contemporaneously with the Declaration of Independence.5 Those state provisions highlight the importance members of the founding generation attached to the maintenance of state militias; they also underscore the profound fear shared by many in that era of the dangers posed by standing armies.6 While the need for state militias has not been a matter of significant public interest for almost two centuries, that fact should not obscure the contemporary concerns that animated the Framers."
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html
At the very least, no matter how much you say you think you know about civics and the law, I'm going to take a supreme court justices word over yours every time.
The bottom line is that Obama's only significant action concerning gun control up to now was to expand your rights.
I admit that statement was wrong. I definitely screwed the pooch on that one. I meant to say:
The bottom line is that Obama's only significant action as president concerning gun control up to now was to expand your rights.
I know history, civics and simply paying attention is not your strong point. But in this case, you really need to apply a smidgen of effort because even though you feel the need to support you positions with insults instead of facts,
I hate them just as much, and have written many letters to that effect to all my congressional representatives as well as to the White House.
You still did not show where in the fourth amendment there is an exemption for international correspondence. Fail.
Just because one administration or iteration of the supreme court makes a decision contrary to the constitution, contrary to their oaths of office, does not make that decision right.
Especially our current crooked court. Scalia is a neoconservative activist judge. Slappy Thomas is his ignorant bitch. These assholes APPOINTED a president while stating "counting the votes would hurt petitioner Bush". The Rehnquist Court was a complete fucking joke and a black spot on our great country. Every decision made by that court is suspect. While Roberts is probably better, it is not by much.
Look up the word regulate. Nowhere in that definition does it mention the ability to shoot straight.
You are using fucking tortured pretzel logic that anyone with an independent brain can see through. I am sorry you are such an ignorant sheep that needs to be told how it is and what to do.
And I love how you assholes somehow think you can read Obama's mind and tell us what he's thinking and what he's going to do.
The bottom line is that Obama's only significant action concerning gun control up to now was to expand your rights. To spell it out for you, that is the executive branch's job, to implement and enforce laws. He has relatively no power over what makes it to his desk to implement. Maybe you should be bitching about Dick Lugar, he has much more power over the creation of bills than the president does, moron.
Such is the price we pay for not living in anarchy. Besides, in this day and age there is likely a camera phone recording the incident, which would vindicate you.
Yeah, at least my blade is sharper than your wit.
Furthermore, I have never stated on this or any other board that I wish guns to be outlawed or banned. But they should definitely be regulated. My son owns a 12 gauge for hunting, I own a 9mm Glock for personal protection at home, and a Russian SKS for target shooting, which I will give to my son soon. Crazily enough, my views on gun control actually fall to the right of such left wing radicals like Lynyrd Skynnyrd (Saturday Night Special).
Your monicker says it all, sumdumbass. First off, please show where in the fourth amendment there is an exemption for international correspondence. There are none.
Secondly, FISA was a necessary evil because it prevented our country against invasion, which is one of the two conditions for extra constitutional actions, the other being rebellion. News flash for fear mongers and the afraid: Terrorists pose no threat of invasion whatsoever.
As for Obama expanding gun rights, yes he did, dumbass. He signed the bill into law. Period. End of argument.
The video you linked to was the idiot Lou Dobbs (a birther dumbass, among other things). It is concerning a bill that applies to manufacturers and dealers of guns, not gun owners. Coincidentally, one minute in, you have Republican Senator (the one who sponsored the gun provision that was tacked onto the credit card legislation no less) Dick Lugar URGING PASSAGE.
The link to guncite.com shows reasonable statements about gun issues. The first one on the page has Obama saying that firearms should not be unregulated. Well, buh! Even the second amendment you idiots so fervently cling to starts out: "A WELL REGULATED Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Funny how the gun loving idiots always forget how that amendment starts. If you want to get down to brass tacks, one, a Militia is no longer necessary for the security of our free states. And the whole amendment is clearly hinged upon that necessity. And two, if you really think some idiots with guns could fight any nation that would invade us, much less fight off our own military, you are living in fantasy land. Sumdumbass indeed. Fucking moron is more like it.
I went to the right wing blog you linked, I heard nothing from any nonexistent 'hidden microphone'. Please enlighten me about this 'hidden microphone', so I may 'get learned'.
I will go so far as to agree that no 4th amendment rights were violated, but to say there was a 'hidden microphone' is batshit crazy, thus I assumed the poster was likely to be a Glenn Beck fan, with cause.
Having said all that, it WAS a clear case of false arrest, because one, there was no reason to believe that Gates was going to harm himself or others, and two, because merely yelling is not sufficient cause for the charge of disorderly conduct. Which is why the charges were DROPPED.
So, please give me proof of this 'hidden microphone' or STFU you ignorant fuck.
Yeah, how could ANYONE think that someone who ignorantly opposes Obama while spouting BS that's only spread on right wing talk radio and by right wing idiots on Fox was a Bush supporter, I mean, that's a HUGE leap.
If you have some kind of facts supporting your viewpoint, then I might consider that you might not be some Bush worshiper or closet neoconservative (Libertarian). Until then, I'll go with the odds.
If, so, it was very small compared to the ridiculousness we've seen lately. And it's funny how you left out warrant less wiretapping, data mining, and other expansions of government powers that dwarf any perceived expansion by Obama, and that's all it is, is perceived. Obama EXPANDED gun owners rights, you imbeciles!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/21/credit-bill-okd-with-gun-provision/
...because the increased buying was caused first by Obama's anti-gun tendencies...
I hate to break this to you, but Obama expanded the rights of gun owners more than any Republican in recent history.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/21/credit-bill-okd-with-gun-provision/
The whole Obama anti-gun bullshit was a myth from the very beginning. Only the very ignorant and gullible (Glen Beck/Lush Bimbo fans, mostly) people believed that to begin with.
No, it would look like a long, cylindrical parcel that was fatter on one end. Just as likely to be a 6ft graphix.
Ok Orwell. Though I am grateful for the EFF.
You have x-ray vision?