Disband Republican Party

[SteelChip]

So, you are saying he is a lying PoS who knows jack sit about which he speaks?

You are correct. Nothing new.

Just another goofy Libtard that had his husband arrested for drug possession, leave him be, he's gone through enough stress.

 

[Rod Farva]

I love these ridiculous, out of context quotes people throw out there.

Conservatives are completely full of **** with regards to the Constitution. They only care about it when it comes to taxes or guns. But try having a conversation about the Constitutionality of drug prohibition, gay marriage, gambling, ethnic profiling, or our current Soviet style NSA domestic surveillance, and most conservatives are MORE THAN HAPPY to live in a police state.

Civil Libertarians are the only ones who aren't flaming hypocrites.

A few things. One, if you actually knew anything about the majority of the conservatives here, especially the ones that profess libertarian leanings, you would understand that most of us would actually love to have the "conversation" you propose. So maybe be around more before you shoot your wad like that.

Second, please explain why the quote you cite as "ridiculous" and "out of context" is?

Third, you mad, Bro?

 

[SteelChip]

They are all gutless, self interest oriented careerists. So yes, traitors. There are maybe two or three that have an actual interest in preserving the Constitutional republic. Far too few and I fear we are lost.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

I love these ridiculous, out of context quotes people throw out there.

Conservatives are completely full of **** with regards to the Constitution. They only care about it when it comes to taxes or guns. But try having a conversation about the Constitutionality of drug prohibition, gay marriage, gambling, ethnic profiling, or our current Soviet style NSA domestic surveillance, and most conservatives are MORE THAN HAPPY to live in a police state.

Civil Libertarians are the only ones who aren't flaming hypocrites.

Lemme guess. You think there is a constitutional right to call two homos shacking up marriage, a constitutional right to do drugs, a constitutional right to gamble, a constitutional restriction on common sense policing, and you don't think conservatives care about the constitutional implications of the Patriot Act. Is that about right?

 

[hamster]

Just another goofy Libtard that had his husband arrested for drug possession, leave him be, he's gone through enough stress.

Son of Elfie suddenly appears.

 

[DBS1970]

Lemme guess. You think there is a constitutional right to call two homos shacking up marriage, a constitutional right to do drugs, a constitutional right to gamble, a constitutional restriction on common sense policing, and you don't think conservatives care about the constitutional implications of the Patriot Act. Is that about right?

The Constitution is mute on all that so therefore all of those things are rights. 9th and 10th Amendments reserve everything not specifically delegated to the states and the people. He is wrong on profiling though profiling is police work and it is not a protected right. The thing that is a protected right is being able to be fee of unreasonable search and seizure and to freely travel without police check points.

 

[Steel Vanguard]

The Constitution is mute on all that so therefore all of those things are rights. 9th and 10th Amendments reserve everything not specifically delegated to the states and the people. He is wrong on profiling though profiling is police work and it is not a protected right. The thing that is a protected right is being able to be fee of unreasonable search and seizure and to freely travel without police check points.

The 14th Amendmennt:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That's not ambiguous language. Ethnic profiling is unconstitutional.

 

[DBS1970]

The 14th Amendmennt:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That's not ambiguous language. Ethnic profiling is unconstitutional.

Says nothing about ethnic profiling. If you are a white person in a black neighborhood late at night you are going to be looked at as suspicious. Same thing if you are black person in a white neighborhood late at night. Police can watch you and even follow you, the just can't detain or search you without cause.

 

[Steel Vanguard]

Says nothing about ethnic profiling. If you are a white person in a black neighborhood late at night you are going to be looked at as suspicious. Same thing if you are black person in a white neighborhood late at night. Police can watch you and even follow you, the just can't detain or search you without cause.

WTF?

No one cares about "watching" and "following". Profiling cases DO involve detaining and searching. Otherwise, nobody would give a damn. The cops can watch and follow anyone they want at any time without any cause at all. That is a given. So I have no idea what you point is.

 

[DBS1970]

WTF?

No one cares about "watching" and "following". Profiling cases DO involve detaining and searching. Otherwise, nobody would give a damn. The cops can watch and follow anyone they want at any time without any cause at all. That is a given. So I have no idea what you point is.

My point is profiling in and of its self is of no consequence. Stop and frisk and traffic checkpoints are patently violations of our rights.

 

[Steel Vanguard]

You are lumping a lot of people together, and portraying a lot of conservatives inaccurately.

Nothing new.

I was about to post some poll numbers of conservatives on the issues stated. Conservatives, by and large, are authoritarian by nature and DESPISE civil liberties with the gun and tax exceptions noted. But thankfully, Mr. Davenport shone the true colors of conservatism, sparing me the effort:

Lemme guess. You think there is a constitutional right to call two homos shacking up marriage, a constitutional right to do drugs, a constitutional right to gamble, a constitutional restriction on common sense policing, and you don't think conservatives care about the constitutional implications of the Patriot Act. Is that about right?

Liberty means accepting OTHER PEOPLE'S freedom. Conservatives are largely incapable of this. They thing the law exists to control the personal lives of other people. As such, Conservatism and Libertarianism are mutually exclusive concepts.

My point is profiling in and of its self is of no consequence. Stop and frisk and traffic checkpoints are patently violations of our rights.

But you're not addressing the real issue. If that's all profiling was, if there was no enforcement action, it wouldn't be an issue. Every profiling case I know of involves enforcement actions. So again, WTF are you even talking about?

 

[CharlesDavenport]

The Constitution is mute on all that so therefore all of those things are rights. 9th and 10th Amendments reserve everything not specifically delegated to the states and the people. He is wrong on profiling though profiling is police work and it is not a protected right. The thing that is a protected right is being able to be fee of unreasonable search and seizure and to freely travel without police check points.

So you think that anything that the Constitution is mute on is a right? Wow.

 

[DBS1970]

So you think that anything that the Constitution is mute on is a right? Wow.

Yes.

As I said 9th and 10th Amendments address that so clearly the founders felt the same way. A quote from Jefferson on this issue: "So long as what you do neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket it is no concern to me." I have no right to put restriction on
You freedoms any more than you do mine.

 

[Steel Vanguard]

So you think that anything that the Constitution is mute on is a right? Wow.

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". That is our creed, from the document that founded this nation.

So yes. Civil liberties are de-facto rights. I can make a direct constitutional argument for each of the issues I mentioned, but why bother when my point is made. Like MOST CONSERVATIVES you are an authoritarian who thinks the government has the right to control the personal lives of American citizens. The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves.

 

[Steelr4evr]

The founders of this country would be shooting the ***** running it now. Without any doubt. And they certainly wouldn't be embracing *** marriage, baby killing and a bunch of drugged up fuckwads completely destroying any type of decent society. We're spinning down the toilet fast. Stay well armed it's just a matter of time.

 

[SteelChip]

" The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves.

INDEED, LIKE........

OR......

 

[Rod Farva]

The 14th Amendmennt:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That's not ambiguous language. Ethnic profiling is unconstitutional.

You make it difficult to be civil but I'll try. Profiling is observation.....the very "watching" and "following" you claim below that no one cars about. As long as it doesn't constitute a warrantless search it is 100% within the Constitutional mandates.

WTF?

No one cares about "watching" and "following". Profiling cases DO involve detaining and searching. Otherwise, nobody would give a damn. The cops can watch and follow anyone they want at any time without any cause at all. That is a given. So I have no idea what you point is.

His point is just as I said above. The question is what it YOUR point......and what do you REALLY believe? Troll.

I was about to post some poll numbers of conservatives on the issues stated. Conservatives, by and large, are authoritarian by nature and DESPISE civil liberties with the gun and tax exceptions noted. But thankfully, Mr. Davenport shone the true colors of conservatism, sparing me the effort:



Liberty means accepting OTHER PEOPLE'S freedom. Conservatives are largely incapable of this. They thing the law exists to control the personal lives of other people. As such, Conservatism and Libertarianism are mutually exclusive concepts.



But you're not addressing the real issue. If that's all profiling was, if there was no enforcement action, it wouldn't be an issue. Every profiling case I know of involves enforcement actions. So again, WTF are you even talking about?

Really? EVERY profiling case you know of? How many is that? List a few for conversation sake. I'll bet that they all show that profiling led to reasonable suspicion and quite probably that reasonable suspicion was used to develop probable cause which led to the enforcement action. You're being dishonest.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Yes.

As I said 9th and 10th Amendments address that so clearly the founders felt the same way. A quote from Jefferson on this issue: "So long as what you do neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket it is no concern to me." I have no right to put restriction on
You freedoms any more than you do mine.

The 9th Amendment was not put in there to grant blanket rights to things not specifically listed. It was protecting against the gov interpreting that those listed are the only protected rights. Interesting topic and we won't agree on this. Plenty of precedent to check out if anyone interested.

 

[DBS1970]

The 9th Amendment was not put in there to grant blanket rights to things not specifically listed. It was protecting against the gov interpreting that those listed are the only protected rights. Interesting topic and we won't agree on this. Plenty of precedent to check out if anyone interested.

Yes it was. It is also why there is a specific ban against bills of attainder in the Constitution so those in power can't declare you an "outlaw" simply because they don't like what you are doing. This is the essence of liberty, being able to live as you please and do what you want so long as it imposes on no one else's rights.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Yes it was. It is also why there is a specific ban against bills of attainder in the Constitution so those in power can't declare you an "outlaw" simply because they don't like what you are doing. This is the essence of liberty, being able to live as you please and do what you want so long as it imposes on no one else's rights.

Like I said. We will disagree.

 

[DBS1970]

Like I said. We will disagree.

Thats cool. I would suggest you read some more of the founders writings on personal liberties though.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Thats cool. I would suggest you read some more of the founders writings on personal liberties though.

I think I'm good there. You might read about the 9th Amendment and how it was not intended to moot the Bill of Rights.

 

[DBS1970]

I think I'm good there. You might read about the 9th Amendment and how it was not intended to moot the Bill of Rights.

It Doesn't moot the bill of rights it is a catch all for protecting things that might have been missed. The founders did not trust anyone in politics not to trample the rights of the individual, not even themselves which is why they codified it into the law that personal rights are invioate.

 

[steel dino]

The founders of this country would be shooting the ***** running it now. Without any doubt. And they certainly wouldn't be embracing *** marriage, baby killing and a bunch of drugged up fuckwads completely destroying any type of decent society. We're spinning down the toilet fast. Stay well armed it's just a matter of time.

Just curious here Steelr..

And of course strictly hypothetical...

what would you do if you had a gay son or daughter and they were to be married?

Or a daughter that had an abortion, or possibly a child hooked on drugs?

You obviously wouldn't shoot them? I hope..

Just curious, and I am not trying to be confrontational here....its an honest question that I am curious to know, not just from you, but from others on this board who have some very strong, over-the-top responses to these current societal issues..

 

[deljzc]

The founders of this country would be shooting the ***** running it now. Without any doubt. And they certainly wouldn't be embracing *** marriage, baby killing and a bunch of drugged up fuckwads completely destroying any type of decent society. We're spinning down the toilet fast. Stay well armed it's just a matter of time.

LOL.

"Grab your guns! Stockpile food in your shelter! The apocalypse is coming and the WRATH OF GOD will spite those evil doers and sinners!"

I love it.... Can't get enough. And you guys think Muslims are crazy....