Of the Bill of Rights?

[LuvRPgrl]

And the Dems are suppose to be the party
that is so much pro civil rights

Senator on the Intel committe says that there are SECRET interpretations of the the patriot act that the justice dept uses.
do you think they follow the constitution more closely or less?

OsamaBinZombie gonna get us, if you don't give up your rights.

I'm almost numb with frustration from this type of news.
the country in a heap a trouble.


http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...t-patriot-act/

[revelarts]

Here's a follow up video of the Cops fishing for dollars on the interstate.

Shows the cops don't have any legal excuses to pull most of them over, that they make up excuses as they go along. Then use those lies in court as legal cover for the stop. And that they are lying to get people to permission to search.

But there own cameras and SKY 5 cameras catch them on tape.


<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XzUjF7HNFo4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&versi on=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XzUjF7HNFo4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&versi on=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[LuvRPgrl]

Where the hell is the ACLU?? I mean, those guys have been stretching for years to continue to validate their existence since the EQUAL civil rights thing has been pretty much moot the last few decades.
Now we have an instance when they REALLY should be getting involved, as EVERYONE EQUALLY is losing their civil rights on this one...

Here's a follow up video of the Cops fishing for dollars on the interstate.

Shows the cops don't have any legal excuses to pull most of them over, that they make up excuses as they go along. Then use those lies in court as legal cover for the stop. And that they are lying to get people to permission to search.

But there own cameras and SKY 5 cameras catch them on tape.


<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XzUjF7HNFo4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&versi on=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XzUjF7HNFo4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&versi on=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[revelarts]

Cops using Facebook to fish for crimes from you facebook account?
then charging people?

what the heck?

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XpsKClzEp3g?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XpsKClzEp3g?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[LuvRPgrl]

Cops using Facebook to fish for crimes from you facebook account?
then charging people?

what the heck?

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XpsKClzEp3g?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XpsKClzEp3g?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

we got a cop here in San Diego charged with raping a hooker,,,,and for every one caught, there are at least 10 bad ones out there,,,,

[revelarts]

Police have a hard job and PLENTY of legit work to do.
Which most try to do everyday.
But for some reason we've got a big thread of stupid/corrupt activity with police all over the the country too.

Here's a SWAT team BUSTING into A home to Enforce a delinquent student loan. Only the Perp wasn't there, so they dragged out the estranged husband and kept him handcuffed in his underwear in the back seat of a patrol car for 6 hours.


<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JU_MpXRD2-E&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JU_MpXRD2-E&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[Gaffer]

Police have a hard job and PLENTY of legit work to do.
Which most try to do everyday.
But for some reason we've got a big thread of stupid/corrupt activity with police all over the the country too.

Here's a SWAT team BUSTING into A home to Enforce a delinquent student loan. Only the Perp wasn't there, so they dragged out the estranged husband and kept him handcuffed in his underwear in the back seat of a patrol car for 6 hours.


<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JU_MpXRD2-E&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JU_MpXRD2-E&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

It was a federal swat team sent by the dept of education. I'm still not sure what agency they actually came from. The local police had a car there as is required but took no part in it. As usual nobodies talking so getting facts is hard to do.

[revelarts]

There was Followup Memorial march by Oath Keepers for the Marine gunned down by the Swat team.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SN35GLxmk1E?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SN35GLxmk1E?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[J.T]

Can you give us a summary? I can't see videos due to a firewall at work.

(Yeah, I know, get to work you lazy bum!)

Basically, it says:
-gays are evil
-religion is under attack
-God's marriage (polygamy) is a sin
-We need to install a theocracy to restore the Constitution


He needs to read his bible. There is no freedom of religion. All who worship other gods are to be slain under his god's law.

incest where it is actually bad in a provable sense (creates mutations in the genetic code, that sort of thing).

Wrong.

1) Incest does not create mutations. It merely increases the odds that regressive or rare genes will become common and be expressed through homogeneity. This is why we inbreed or horses and hounds when they have desirable traits.

2) It generally takes multiple generations of incest to become a real problem.

3) Yours is a eugenic argument. You claim we should limit who can reproduce with whom based on the expected genetic fitness of their progeny. How far are you willing to go with this line of argument? Should those who carry the alleles for genetic illnesses to forbidden from reproducing? Prevented through sterilization? It can be shown that letting the genetically flawed continue to reproduce causes demonstrable harm at a greater rate than incest can cause significant harm when taking place among the general population. Therefore, by your argument, they must be prevented from reproducing.

The man in the video is spot-on-correct to compare homosexuality with incest and pedofilia.

I hadn't pegged you for a fan or Sharia

elevating sexual perversion to an inalienable right and it's possibly significance in future U.S. policies.

So you're not a fan of Loving v. Virginia?

Yes, the bible does mention incest back in Genesis

God chose incest twice: once at creation and once after the flood, when a small number of people had to commit incest in order to populate the earth.

The bible mentions, specifically, incest as a sin? I'd like to see that.

Read Leviticus.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...18&version=NIV

(NOT the 10 commandments, of which we are no longer bound per se)

So... where are incest and homosexuality forbidden in the NT?

I agree with your point DMP but not quite how you get there.

perversion = against or twisting of nature. Homosexuality fits the bill.

Fail
http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exu.../dp/0312192398

<object fro="1" height="385" width="480">


<embed fro="1" style="width: 476px ! important; height: 385px ! important; z-index: 820695213 ! important; float: left ! important;" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u6H63CD7uQA&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="476">⃕

</object>

good stuff plain and simple

America never thrived under capitalism. It thrived under something more akin to social democracy.

Then your AgitProp toon talks about ism forbidding unions. This is hilarious, as it was the capitalists who hired the mafia to gun down union members and their families to break the strikes and the very concept of the union grew out of socialist and communist thought.

Then it talks about yellow unions- a product of the capitalists.

Your ism sounds like corporatism.

the gov't, any gov't derives it's just powers from the consent of the governed.

So the gov't has no authority over Charles Manson?

The rights I enjoy ARE derived from the COTUS .

So If I change COTUS...?

[TheShadowKNows]

Here's a story about hearsay-

I was in college and had a late night call (3AM) from lady in waiting, colloquially, "a booty call." So I borrowed a friends car (a new Z28) and, upon passing through a gutter onto a heavily crowned roadway, entered into a lateral drift. I soon regained positive traction and the roadway was clear of any traffic so I wasn't overly concerned until I remembered the campus police usually wait in the adjacent parking lot-- so I proceeded with caution and in observance of all traffic laws. Well, not long after a patrol car exits the parking lot with haste and proceeds to stop me. After the usually niceties of "whose car is this?", "does he know you have it?", "please step out of the car." and "Have you been drinking. Breathe on my hand." he then informs me of why he stopped me.
"I stopped you because I heard you burn out back there."
"Oh. Well there was some water in the gutter and I don't know if you've ever driven a car like this..."
"NO" he interjects.
"Well its fast! And it lost traction but I got it under control as soon as I could." (All true BTW, Don't lie, deny)
"That's not what happened-- you stood on it!"
I just shrugged, thinking that's my story and sticking to it.
He proceeds to give me a lecture on the punishment for misdemeanor wreckless driving- exhibition of speed, to which I listened, in silence. Frustrated, he had no choice but to release me as his evidence was based on what he heard, not saw, to which little doubt was cast upon my version of what occurred.

With that said- did I intentionally stand on it? - I'll plead the fifth!

That level of law enforcement, is what we on my corner use to refer to as "Potato Chip Police". There is no arguing with them, as usually even a word in your defense would be construed as an affront to their authority. Of which they have little of, and desperately hold on to for dear life.
You did exactly the right thing in so abandoning any attempt at "correcting" his perception, after interceding with a brief description of the rightful scenario.
Giving him pause to question how well a Campus Court would interpret his synopsis, in considering an unfounded presumption with no resulting physical damage.
PS: Now tell the truth...............You did "stand on it" didn't you?
I certainly would have !

"As the Duck lay dying from the lethal sting of the Scorpion after having saved the Scorpions life, he gasped in the throes of death......... why did you attack me after promising me that if I saved your life you would not, when the Scorpion replied.......... BECAUSE THATS WHAT SCORPIONS DO" !!!!!!!!!

[logroller]

That level of law enforcement, is what we on my corner use to refer to as "Potato Chip Police". There is no arguing with them, as usually even a word in your defense would be construed as an affront to their authority. Of which they have little of, and desperately hold on to for dear life.
You did exactly the right thing in so abandoning any attempt at "correcting" his perception, after interceding with a brief description of the rightful scenario.
Giving him pause to question how well a Campus Court would interpret his synopsis, in considering an unfounded presumption with no resulting physical damage.
PS: Now tell the truth...............You did "stand on it" didn't you?
I certainly would have !

"As the Duck lay dying from the lethal sting of the Scorpion after having saved the Scorpions life, he gasped in the throes of death......... why did you attack me after promising me that if I saved your life you would not, when the Scorpion replied.......... BECAUSE THATS WHAT SCORPIONS DO" !!!!!!!!!

I was 18 in a borrowed sports car-- Res ipsa loquitur.

[revelarts]

Man doing what's legal gets trumped up charged into jail and fines.

Some Police somehow feel they need COMPLETE control of everyone they come in contact with and can charge people with something to make that point and courts are agreeing with them.


Put Down Your Rights and No One Needs to Get Hurt!
by Wendy McElroy, July 13, 2011

The case of John Kurtz
...On January 1, 2011, Kurtz was in downtown Orlando when he observed police officer Adam Gruler arresting a man on a domestic-violence charge. The arrest involved “the use of tasers, a violent take-down and the pepper spraying of a man already subdued and in handcuffs.” Kurtz announced himself, stood to one side, and began recording the incident. Florida law allows in-person recordings in public places where there is no expectation of privacy; it further allows the recording of police officers as long as it does not obstruct the enforcement of law. Nevertheless, Gruler demanded Kurtz cease recording. When Kurtz informed Gruler that he “knew his rights,” the officer threw Kurtz to the ground and arrested him as well.

Kurtz was charged with three offenses: obstruction of a law-enforcement officer; battery on a law-enforcement officer; and resisting arrest without violence. The latter charge can refer to any nonviolent “resistance” to arrest, from running the other way to asking, “What am I charged with?” Resisting arrest without violence is another increasingly popular intimidation tactic used by many police departments. Of the Orange County, Florida, police department that conducted the Kurtz arrest, local news channel WFTV reported as early as 2006,

Defense attorney David Bigney says he rarely sees a case now where resisting isn’t a charge. “All these people want is to know why, what’s going on here, but the officer decides I’m just going to arrest you," said Bigney. And often it’s the only charge. In more than 25-percent of the 4000-plus cases Eyewitness News tracked, resisting was the only charge. That begs the question: if there’s no arrest for something else how could they be resisting arrest?

Kurtz had an advantage, however; he taped the entire incident. But, somehow, during his subsequent processing at the police station, Kurtz’s camera went missing and never showed up either in evidence or in his returned belongings. Fortunately, a Big Brother street camera captured the incident; it discredited the police account and agreed with several witnesses who claimed Gruler committed the only violence that occurred. The camera evidence was most fortunate because Kurtz faced a 6-year prison sentence for the three charges and, in the absence of hard evidence, the court tends to believe police officers. Gruler’s initial report on the arrest stated that Kurtz was too close as he and another officer restrained the first man (obstruction) and that Kurtz pushed him (assault). With the street camera evidence, however, Gruler’s initial account of the event changed significantly. But, as a press release noted, the street camera “effectively disproves all three versions of arresting officer Adam Gruler’s story as to where, when and how the supposed battery took place."

Thus, on June 30, a jury found Kurtz not guilty of battery on a law-enforcement officer but guilty of resisting arrest without violence. (The obstruction charge had been dropped.) The judge imposed the stiffest penalty possible upon the unrepentant Kurtz: 30 days in jail (less 7 days served), a one-year probation, and a 12-month restraining order to stay at least 100 feet from police officers engaged in duty. Typically, resisting arrest without violence receives a slap on the wrist; a sentence such as Kurtz’s is almost unheard of. Moreover, Kurtz commented, “In the multiple plea deals I was offered, jail time was never mentioned, in fact my last plea offer didn’t even include probation and this is when I was charged with a felony, as well as resisting arrest without violence.”

Punished for his activism
The stiff sentence had been foreshadowed by the judge’s attitude in court, which Kurtz — an activist for jury nullification — described as “statist bull-crap.” For example, the judge refused to allow disciplinary reports or other evidence of Gruler’s extensive history of police misconduct and brutality.
In 2006, the Orlando Sentinel reported, “Adam Gruler is a hunter. That’s one of the nicknames given inside the Orlando Police Department to the young, aggressive cops.... Their job: create a "no-tolerance zone" for crime of all kinds.... He also has become one of the department’s top Taser users….” Gruler has had dozens of complaints lodged against him for behavior similar to that captured in a YouTube of 2007 unlawful arrest by Gruler of another man who had been legally recorded him....

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1107k.asp

[fj1200]

Man doing what's legal gets trumped up charged into jail and fines.

Some Police somehow feel they need COMPLETE control of everyone they come in contact with and can charge people with something to make that point and courts are agreeing with them.

How is overzealous policing a Bill of Rights issue? What is your opinion of public cameras?

[revelarts]

Over zealous or criminal?

1st and 4th amendments, if I have to shoe horn in amendments to fit this particular kind of police abuse.

"peaceable assembly"
"freedom of speech"
"Secure in our persons"

cops shouldn't be harassing people just watching them work and taking their cameras. And they've made illegal possibly any verbal response other than yes officer no officer.

Smell the freedom there?


I've got mixed feeling about cameras. But I think any city that wants to put them up should 1st put them in every police car in every court room and city council meetings in the treasures, school principals office school lounges, at seriffs and police stations, and city legal offices etc. in other words let the cameras start by observing city officials/employees and the people in the city have full access to it via cable and the internet at any time. THEN think about the city putting it up for other law enforcement purposes.

[fj1200]

Over zealous or criminal?

...

Smell the freedom there?

OK, I wasn't quite sure where you were going there but some of that is the overzealous/criminal? actions of the police and some is the laws overweighted to the police which allows them to take it too far.

I've got mixed feeling about cameras. But I think any city that wants to put them up should 1st put them in every police car in every court room and city council meetings in the treasures, school principals office school lounges, at seriffs and police stations, and city legal offices etc. in other words let the cameras start by observing city officials/employees and the people in the city have full access to it via cable and the internet at any time. THEN think about the city putting it up for other law enforcement purposes.

Well, you have no expectation of privacy when you're in public and in this case actually worked to the citizens advantage. I don't have too much problem with them but I haven't heard too many arguments against.