Yes, and he pushed for one, the pubs blocked it and made it politically impossible.
Bullshit. This never happened, and you can't produce a citation that says otherwise.
Obama CLAIMED HE WAS GOING TO PUSH FOR ONE, then did fuckall.
Which is his SOP, which is why sycophantic trolls like you continually try to blame other people for Obama's stunning lack of actual action.
You people, and your messiah, always blame everyone else. It's been Bush's fault every time you're are caught doing nothing, or when your actions make things worse, for 4 years.
The Minimum wage, poorly trained, high turn over, private screening companies where determined to be un-fixable after 9/11. It was decided only a government run professional service would do.
What "Minimum wage, poorly trained, high turn over, private screening companies" are you talking about, considering there was essentially no screening at all pre-9/11?
You're talking about a group of people that doesn't exist, and using that fabricated group to forward your entirely ridiculous "Apparently private industry did not do everything better" stupidity.
NOTHING like the TSA existed pre 9/11. Stop making shit up to take cheap shots at ideology you otherwise can't assail.
If you don't know the difference, you don't know or value freedom anyways, so why complain?
If you don't know the difference between an adult and a young child, and how their perception of authority is different, then why are you commenting on this subject?
We're not talking about how adults perceive a recommendation here, so stop pretending we are.
Strange, I thought it showed an intolerance to mistreatment.
So if I called a black person a N*gger and they decided to punch me in the face I should accuse them of intolerance to mistreatment.
Stupid analogy? No...Its exactly what you said simply the wording was changed...
See that's funny because I never mentioned force, and the subject we're discussing was calling cops "pigs", which is Constitutionally protected speech, not punching them in the face.
So not only is your analogy stupid, it's absolutely NOT "exactly what [I] said simply the wording was changed", as I never mentioned using force, but YOU DID.
Are you so ignorant to the difference between Constitutionally protected speech and force that you actually think they're the same? Really?
Now you attempt to throw insults at me for lack of a correct argument...charming.
Stupid analogy? No...Its exactly what you said simply the wording was changed...
No, it's a stupid analogy, and appears to be the inverse of what I said. That's why I asked for clarification. Don't get your panties twisted because your analogy is stupid and you can't make your point without one.
Tolerant to having my rights violated?
Yup.
Would you prefer If I were a serial rapist running around the streets with a gun? By your logic
No no sparky, not MY logic. I never said or suggested anything of the kind, you're just desperately lashing out because you realize you laid there for four hours and took it. You did the "think of the children" nonsense before, now you're on to "serial rapist" nonsense, which has nothing to do with any of my points.
I sure as shit would handcuff someone to verify they were allowed to have a gun on their waist in public,
That's because you don't realize that is a violation of your rights. Not something to be proud of.
"they don't decide if something is legal, it IS or IS NOT." OH WOW YOU ARE ENLIGHTENING ME I HAD NO IDEA!
I can only go by what you say, and what YOU SAID, yes shows you didn't know. I don't think you did, because you also think it's ok to handcuff people for 4 hours to "verify they were allowed to have a gun on their waist in public" despite there being a law that addresses that, the 2nd something or other...
My rights were not violated
YOU were the one making the claim that you were detained for four hours for a legal handgun. There's really no scenario where that isn't a violation of your rights.
I got my gun back. I got an apology.
Irrelevant to whether your rights were violated. It was YOUR gun, yet you act like they did you a favor giving it back.
I wonder how many things I could throw at you before I had to file an assault charge.
I'm didn't volunteer to be a cop and take an oath to meet the responsibilities of being a cop, so that attempt fails too, but if YOU THREW SOMETHING AT ME, IT WOULDN'T BE ASSAULT IF I STOPPED YOU. See how you try so hard but have no idea what the fuck you're talking about? YOUR PREVIOUS CLAIM was that you'd beat me more than necessary. That's got NOTHING to do with your CURRENT scenario, just like your profoundly stupid, inverted analogy has nothing to do with any of my points.
Go read a few law books, then quote the entire book back to me, Then look around for the other 500000 some odd law books and remember and quote all of those to me.
So you're saying police are stupid and can't know their job well enough to do it properly. Why are you defending them then?
In short, you've proven you don't know how the constitution works, don't know the law regarding guns, don't respect your rights, think cops decide what is and is not legal, and are a pretty piss poor citizen in general. You let cops walk all over you and then act like their legal requirement to return your gun was some benevolent gesture.
YOU are why cops abuse people and get away with it.
So if I called a black person a N*gger and they decided to punch me in the face I should accuse them of intolerance to mistreatment.
Could you clairfy this? It's a stupid analogy and doesn't apply so I need clarification.
but saying ALL THOSE DAMN PIGS...so your saying every single police officer that you've ever met has had his boot in your mouth?
They cover for each other, and protect bad apples. That's enough.
had my gun taken away from me and been in handcuffs for 4 hours while they decided whether it was legal or not
So you're much more tolerant to having your rights violated. NEWS FLASH FOR YOU chief, they don't decide if something is legal, it IS or IS NOT. Your ignorance of this, and demurring to cops opinion of the legality of your (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) legally purchased weapon is NOT a point in your favor, as you attempt to paint it, it's you being a coward and an apologist.
Had you the sack and knowledge of a proper citizen, you'd have asserted your rights. That you laid there and took it says much about you, and why you choose to defend cops against name calling.
If I had to put up with shit being thrown at me for a half hour before finally getting the call to go in, I would probably hit you a bit harder than I should have
So it's the population's fault that cops are unprofessional goons, got it. "YOU PISSED ME OFF SO I'M GONNA BATTER YA!" or somesuch? Why would anyone ever be ok with that like you are?
I don't know what point you were trying to make, but unless it was to prove you're an unrepentant cop apologist, you've failed.
You mean the exact mentality the police ADMIT they have?
they are accountable to us, they are accountable to YOU
No, this is a lie. They are accountable to their supervisors, and to accountability boards that are staffed by ex-police, and to Internal Affairs, who are also police.
NOWHERE in that process can a citizen bring accountability. Qualified Immunity prevents lawsuits except in the most egregious, and rare, circumstances. If IA and the accountability boards don't hold a cop responsible, you're out of luck.
You can't elect them out, you can't vote them out, so this "they are accountable to you" tripe is just blatantly false.
not the entirety of the police force
The entirety of the force colludes in protecting the bad apples. And you make excuses for them because they "kiss their kids at night" or some other "think of the CHILDREN" sappy bullshit.
stop talking about them like they invasive inscrutable species out to hurt you for no reason
I will when they stop living up to the description.
FTFA "WALDORF, Md. -Two Prince George's County police officers are under criminal investigation in Charles County for allegedly handcuffing, detaining and assaulting a teenager in order to teach him a lesson."
Now, that's two cops plus every other cop who covered for them. You forget, they have a responsiblity to uphold the law, so every single officer who knew about that incident and didn't turn those cops in is legally culpable. But you ignore that in your rush to paint a portrait even more distorted than the one you're crying about.
maybe you'll actually get something accomplished about their behavior
No, the current "Fuck the Police" attitude has done more to bring attention to these issues than the copsucking you're suggesting ever did. That, and ubiquitous cameras. However, I don't fault you, collaborators always suggest collaboration, it's easier than resistance and you collaborators tend toward laziness and cowardice.
I appreciate your opinion, but as you can see, you really have absolutely no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Frankly, you take a startlingly similar line to cops themselves, and I have to wonder if you have a bit of Stockholm Syndrome.
You're a citizen. It's your DUTY to resist tyranny. Not sit by and defend it because it kisses it's kids forehead at night.
I however treat them with respect deserved by a fellow human being.
So you're saying you're a fool? Or ignorant?
They will get the respect human beings deserve when they start acting like human beings, and by that I mean, the end of the "Blue Wall of Silence".
When cops police themselves the same way they police you, and when they turn in their offending brothers the way the law requires, and when they stop using collective bargaining and Unions to avoid responsibility for their behavior, THEN they get human status.
But hey, you want to ignore all that, that's your party.
Frankly your name calling to justify a point just shows immaturity.
Strange, I thought it showed an intolerance to mistreatment.
YOU may personally find it OK to spend time bootlicking, but others don't respond to mistreatment the same way you do. I doubt, for example, if you were the children of the man killed in the proceeding diatribe, that you would find nearly as much fault with his use of "pig" as you do now.
But hey, you go on raging about people calling cops pigs, that's certainly a constructive use of your time.
JUST AS, thanks to the Supreme Court, corporations are required by law to maximize profits.
That's wrong.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the business has to act in the best interest of the shareholder which has been interpreted to mean, in general, pursuing profit, since profit is an easy proxy for business success. There has not ever been any SC ruling stating that a company MUST pursue profit above all else, and if your company could forward a legitimate argument that profit was not your primary goal as a company, you may have a case.
Sick people cost more money than healthy people which means your taxes go up paying for smokers and soda drinkers.
That's your fault for voting for policies that require you to pay for those people. There's something tyrannical about using the majority to force people to accept healthcare from you, then using the healthcare you forced them to accept as a tool to change their behavior.
the cops show up at your door saying "we think you're planning to kill someone and you'll be the first person we talk to if someone is killed",
That would be harassment, and actionable. Any evidence they had would be subject to scrutiny under the 4th, and since it was gathered without cause or warrant, would be thrown out.
Google is not a person? Not according to the Supreme Court. Corporations have been using the 14th amendment to claim personhood since the late 1800's.
Except for 5th amendment cases, where the SC hasn't recognized that corporations are entitled to 5th amendment protection, which is what a "conspiracy" charge would have to deal with.
So, NO, Google is not a person, even according to the Supreme Court.
I'm glad I could totally destroy your ill-informed idea of the laws you pretend to understand.
I didn't ask about his *affiliation*, I asked for his *stance*
I can't ever recall anyone asking for this information for any other reason than to use it to smear someone.
You don't need to know because it doesn't matter, you WANT to know because you think you can then go "AHA YOU SUPPORT TEAM BLUE YOU'RE A _____" or "I KNEW IT, YOU SUPPORT TEAM RED, YOU ARE A _______"
You want to know because it will allow you to avoid addressing the actual issues, and frankly, YOU and those like YOU are what's wrong with politics in this country.
It's entirely possible to address his position without knowing anything else about him.
Republicans attack their own when they do something as unbelievable as suggesting that, hey, maybe gay marriage won't destroy the nation, or that maybe taxing the people who have all the money isn't socialism.
Drink that Kool Aid chief, then educate yourself about Cory Booker, the man who denounced Obama's perpetuation of the drug war.
Seriously though, the fact that you ran off about this subject literally days after such a high profile refutation of your claim speaks to how grossly uninformed you are.
"I'm not a lawyer, but nothing is being seized or searched"
Again, this is incorrect.
I have to assume you "nothing is being searched"ers simply haven't read the GPS decision, which clearly discusses why a warrant is required.
From the GPS decision
"“We hold that the government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search,’”
They had a problem with monitoring a persons location without a warrant.
"“I think it’s fair to say, the use of a a GPS device like this requires a warrant where they are tracking him for a long time,” Thomas Goldstein, who has argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court, said in a telephone interview.
Alito wrote that Scalia’s opinion was “unwise” and said it should have examined “whether respondent’s reasonable expectations of privacy were violated by the long-term monitoring of the movements of the vehicle he drove.”
“For these reasons, I conclude that the lengthy monitoring that occurred in this case constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment,” Alito wrote.
"Except that surveillance, simply having an approximate idea where you are, is not now, and never was a search."
Incorrect, if you read the decision on GPS, the problem was not with knowing where people were, either very specifically, or generally, but with the amount of time that knowledge was available.
The previous decision makes it quite clear that even a general knowledge, over anything other than an incidental period of time, is a violation.
Slashdot Mirror
chunk of rubber has been made into a ball does not change the fact that it's a 30 inch chunk of rubber
All of my basketballs are leather with a synthetic polyethylene bladder.
No rubber anywhere, but don't let that stop you from being wrong.
Yes, and he pushed for one, the pubs blocked it and made it politically impossible.
Bullshit. This never happened, and you can't produce a citation that says otherwise.
Obama CLAIMED HE WAS GOING TO PUSH FOR ONE, then did fuckall.
Which is his SOP, which is why sycophantic trolls like you continually try to blame other people for Obama's stunning lack of actual action.
You people, and your messiah, always blame everyone else. It's been Bush's fault every time you're are caught doing nothing, or when your actions make things worse, for 4 years.
Grow up.
The Minimum wage, poorly trained, high turn over, private screening companies where determined to be un-fixable after 9/11. It was decided only a government run professional service would do.
What "Minimum wage, poorly trained, high turn over, private screening companies" are you talking about, considering there was essentially no screening at all pre-9/11?
You're talking about a group of people that doesn't exist, and using that fabricated group to forward your entirely ridiculous "Apparently private industry did not do everything better" stupidity.
NOTHING like the TSA existed pre 9/11. Stop making shit up to take cheap shots at ideology you otherwise can't assail.
If you don't know the difference, you don't know or value freedom anyways, so why complain?
If you don't know the difference between an adult and a young child, and how their perception of authority is different, then why are you commenting on this subject?
We're not talking about how adults perceive a recommendation here, so stop pretending we are.
Really makes a case against libertarianism, though.
No, it really doesn't.
Strange, I thought it showed an intolerance to mistreatment.
So if I called a black person a N*gger and they decided to punch me in the face I should accuse them of intolerance to mistreatment.
Stupid analogy? No...Its exactly what you said simply the wording was changed...
See that's funny because I never mentioned force, and the subject we're discussing was calling cops "pigs", which is Constitutionally protected speech, not punching them in the face.
So not only is your analogy stupid, it's absolutely NOT "exactly what [I] said simply the wording was changed", as I never mentioned using force, but YOU DID.
Are you so ignorant to the difference between Constitutionally protected speech and force that you actually think they're the same? Really?
Now you attempt to throw insults at me for lack of a correct argument...charming.
Stupid analogy? No...Its exactly what you said simply the wording was changed...
No, it's a stupid analogy, and appears to be the inverse of what I said. That's why I asked for clarification. Don't get your panties twisted because your analogy is stupid and you can't make your point without one.
Tolerant to having my rights violated?
Yup.
Would you prefer If I were a serial rapist running around the streets with a gun? By your logic
No no sparky, not MY logic. I never said or suggested anything of the kind, you're just desperately lashing out because you realize you laid there for four hours and took it. You did the "think of the children" nonsense before, now you're on to "serial rapist" nonsense, which has nothing to do with any of my points.
I sure as shit would handcuff someone to verify they were allowed to have a gun on their waist in public,
That's because you don't realize that is a violation of your rights. Not something to be proud of.
"they don't decide if something is legal, it IS or IS NOT."
OH WOW YOU ARE ENLIGHTENING ME I HAD NO IDEA!
I can only go by what you say, and what YOU SAID, yes shows you didn't know. I don't think you did, because you also think it's ok to handcuff people for 4 hours to "verify they were allowed to have a gun on their waist in public" despite there being a law that addresses that, the 2nd something or other...
My rights were not violated
YOU were the one making the claim that you were detained for four hours for a legal handgun. There's really no scenario where that isn't a violation of your rights.
I got my gun back. I got an apology.
Irrelevant to whether your rights were violated. It was YOUR gun, yet you act like they did you a favor giving it back.
I wonder how many things I could throw at you before I had to file an assault charge.
I'm didn't volunteer to be a cop and take an oath to meet the responsibilities of being a cop, so that attempt fails too, but if YOU THREW SOMETHING AT ME, IT WOULDN'T BE ASSAULT IF I STOPPED YOU. See how you try so hard but have no idea what the fuck you're talking about? YOUR PREVIOUS CLAIM was that you'd beat me more than necessary. That's got NOTHING to do with your CURRENT scenario, just like your profoundly stupid, inverted analogy has nothing to do with any of my points.
Go read a few law books, then quote the entire book back to me, Then look around for the other 500000 some odd law books and remember and quote all of those to me.
So you're saying police are stupid and can't know their job well enough to do it properly. Why are you defending them then?
In short, you've proven you don't know how the constitution works, don't know the law regarding guns, don't respect your rights, think cops decide what is and is not legal, and are a pretty piss poor citizen in general. You let cops walk all over you and then act like their legal requirement to return your gun was some benevolent gesture.
YOU are why cops abuse people and get away with it.
So if I called a black person a N*gger and they decided to punch me in the face I should accuse them of intolerance to mistreatment.
Could you clairfy this? It's a stupid analogy and doesn't apply so I need clarification.
but saying ALL THOSE DAMN PIGS...so your saying every single police officer that you've ever met has had his boot in your mouth?
They cover for each other, and protect bad apples. That's enough.
had my gun taken away from me and been in handcuffs for 4 hours while they decided whether it was legal or not
So you're much more tolerant to having your rights violated. NEWS FLASH FOR YOU chief, they don't decide if something is legal, it IS or IS NOT. Your ignorance of this, and demurring to cops opinion of the legality of your (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) legally purchased weapon is NOT a point in your favor, as you attempt to paint it, it's you being a coward and an apologist.
Had you the sack and knowledge of a proper citizen, you'd have asserted your rights. That you laid there and took it says much about you, and why you choose to defend cops against name calling.
If I had to put up with shit being thrown at me for a half hour before finally getting the call to go in, I would probably hit you a bit harder than I should have
So it's the population's fault that cops are unprofessional goons, got it. "YOU PISSED ME OFF SO I'M GONNA BATTER YA!" or somesuch? Why would anyone ever be ok with that like you are?
I don't know what point you were trying to make, but unless it was to prove you're an unrepentant cop apologist, you've failed.
but as long as you have this "us" versus "them"
You mean the exact mentality the police ADMIT they have?
they are accountable to us, they are accountable to YOU
No, this is a lie. They are accountable to their supervisors, and to accountability boards that are staffed by ex-police, and to Internal Affairs, who are also police.
NOWHERE in that process can a citizen bring accountability. Qualified Immunity prevents lawsuits except in the most egregious, and rare, circumstances. If IA and the accountability boards don't hold a cop responsible, you're out of luck.
You can't elect them out, you can't vote them out, so this "they are accountable to you" tripe is just blatantly false.
not the entirety of the police force
The entirety of the force colludes in protecting the bad apples. And you make excuses for them because they "kiss their kids at night" or some other "think of the CHILDREN" sappy bullshit.
stop talking about them like they invasive inscrutable species out to hurt you for no reason
I will when they stop living up to the description.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/18722525/2012/06/06/prince-georges-county-police-officers-under-criminal-investigation?obref=obinsite
FTFA "WALDORF, Md. -Two Prince George's County police officers are under criminal investigation in Charles County for allegedly handcuffing, detaining and assaulting a teenager in order to teach him a lesson."
Now, that's two cops plus every other cop who covered for them. You forget, they have a responsiblity to uphold the law, so every single officer who knew about that incident and didn't turn those cops in is legally culpable. But you ignore that in your rush to paint a portrait even more distorted than the one you're crying about.
maybe you'll actually get something accomplished about their behavior
No, the current "Fuck the Police" attitude has done more to bring attention to these issues than the copsucking you're suggesting ever did. That, and ubiquitous cameras. However, I don't fault you, collaborators always suggest collaboration, it's easier than resistance and you collaborators tend toward laziness and cowardice.
I appreciate your opinion, but as you can see, you really have absolutely no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Frankly, you take a startlingly similar line to cops themselves, and I have to wonder if you have a bit of Stockholm Syndrome.
You're a citizen. It's your DUTY to resist tyranny. Not sit by and defend it because it kisses it's kids forehead at night.
I however treat them with respect deserved by a fellow human being.
So you're saying you're a fool? Or ignorant?
They will get the respect human beings deserve when they start acting like human beings, and by that I mean, the end of the "Blue Wall of Silence".
When cops police themselves the same way they police you, and when they turn in their offending brothers the way the law requires, and when they stop using collective bargaining and Unions to avoid responsibility for their behavior, THEN they get human status.
But hey, you want to ignore all that, that's your party.
Frankly your name calling to justify a point just shows immaturity.
Strange, I thought it showed an intolerance to mistreatment.
YOU may personally find it OK to spend time bootlicking, but others don't respond to mistreatment the same way you do. I doubt, for example, if you were the children of the man killed in the proceeding diatribe, that you would find nearly as much fault with his use of "pig" as you do now.
But hey, you go on raging about people calling cops pigs, that's certainly a constructive use of your time.
I'm not a Luddite either.
Yeah, you are. Own it.
That's wrong.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the business has to act in the best interest of the shareholder which has been interpreted to mean, in general, pursuing profit, since profit is an easy proxy for business success. There has not ever been any SC ruling stating that a company MUST pursue profit above all else, and if your company could forward a legitimate argument that profit was not your primary goal as a company, you may have a case.
That's your fault for voting for policies that require you to pay for those people. There's something tyrannical about using the majority to force people to accept healthcare from you, then using the healthcare you forced them to accept as a tool to change their behavior.
the cops show up at your door saying "we think you're planning to kill someone and you'll be the first person we talk to if someone is killed",
That would be harassment, and actionable. Any evidence they had would be subject to scrutiny under the 4th, and since it was gathered without cause or warrant, would be thrown out.
But it isn't entirely without merit.
Yes it is.
Google is not a person? Not according to the Supreme Court. Corporations have been using the 14th amendment to claim personhood since the late 1800's.
Except for 5th amendment cases, where the SC hasn't recognized that corporations are entitled to 5th amendment protection, which is what a "conspiracy" charge would have to deal with.
So, NO, Google is not a person, even according to the Supreme Court.
I'm glad I could totally destroy your ill-informed idea of the laws you pretend to understand.
I can't ever recall anyone asking for this information for any other reason than to use it to smear someone.
You don't need to know because it doesn't matter, you WANT to know because you think you can then go "AHA YOU SUPPORT TEAM BLUE YOU'RE A _____" or "I KNEW IT, YOU SUPPORT TEAM RED, YOU ARE A _______"
You want to know because it will allow you to avoid addressing the actual issues, and frankly, YOU and those like YOU are what's wrong with politics in this country.
It's entirely possible to address his position without knowing anything else about him.
"So if you don't give any answers and instead just bitch about everyone ELSE'S answers, then you don't deserve derision?"
Not when the purpose of commenting is itself, to deride something worthy of derision.
And since when does "having an answer" make a fucking bit of difference? Newt Gingrich wants to KILL drug dealers.
That's fucking stupid. Does not forwarding a solution myself make it any less stupid? Nope.
Drink that Kool Aid chief, then educate yourself about Cory Booker, the man who denounced Obama's perpetuation of the drug war.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/cory-booker-drug-war_n_1541082.html
http://news.yahoo.com/cory-booker-walks-back-criticism-obama-campaign-bain-105420351--abc-news-politics.html
Seriously though, the fact that you ran off about this subject literally days after such a high profile refutation of your claim speaks to how grossly uninformed you are.
You're posting AC because you're afraid of the karma hit. Not really "no effect" like you claim there guy.
I disagree, without "fiscal sense" Apple wouldn't exist to go green in the first place.
It's coal and oil all the way down...
Is there any phrase more overused and insulting, when brought up in a discussion about rights? Maybe "think of the children"?
Again, this is incorrect. I have to assume you "nothing is being searched"ers simply haven't read the GPS decision, which clearly discusses why a warrant is required. From the GPS decision
They had a problem with monitoring a persons location without a warrant.
"Except that surveillance, simply having an approximate idea where you are, is not now, and never was a search." Incorrect, if you read the decision on GPS, the problem was not with knowing where people were, either very specifically, or generally, but with the amount of time that knowledge was available. The previous decision makes it quite clear that even a general knowledge, over anything other than an incidental period of time, is a violation.