Democrats from Illinois use Drug War as an excuse to spy on you.

bedspirit

bedspirit

Active Member
ChesusRice said:
They been doing that for years?
Where in the hell have you been?
Click to expand...
Sure, I've been a victim of it multiple times. A lot of people in this country have no idea that it happens, so the fact that this trekkie nerd put together a slick video to get the word out is awesome. Message to law enforcement: Don't fuck with a geek.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
bedspirit said:
Sure, I've been a victim of it multiple times. A lot of people in this country have no idea that it happens, so the fact that this trekkie nerd put together a slick video to get the word out is awesome. Message to law enforcement: Don't fuck with a geek.
Click to expand...
I got searched even after the k-9 didnt hit
I have also been asked to step out of the car on another occasion and when i tried to close the door the woman cop told me I was assaulting her and she and her partner were going to taze me (she positioned herself with her back against the inside of my drivers door when i opened it)
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
One more reason to vote for the guy who would put a judge in SCOTUS that is not like Scalia or Alito or Thomas. We need all the leverage we can get when it comes to LEO's misdirected enforcement.


One of the reasons we have the laws we do with regard to police proceedure is because of the Conservative side of the court.
Click to expand...

Holy cow, Canndo, you finally wised up and decided to vote Gary Johnson!!! Way to go.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
Holy cow, Canndo, you finally wised up and decided to vote Gary Johnson!!! Way to go.
Click to expand...


I like Johnson, and have had my eye on him for a while. Knowing that my state is solid in the Obama column, maybe I will.


I notice however that you are unwilling to debate me on the past and future course of a conservative SCOTUS.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
I like Johnson, and have had my eye on him for a while. Knowing that my state is solid in the Obama column, maybe I will.


I notice however that you are unwilling to debate me on the past and future course of a conservative SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

You mean like John Roberts?

You seem to be implying that all justices appointed by liberal presidents are "good", and that all justices appointed by conservative presidents are "bad", i.e. you are arguing to convince conservative to set aside their beliefs because "SCOTUS is too important, we must fill the Supreme Court with liberal justices". Do you really think that is a convincing argument to conservatives, or do you just enjoy the sound of your own voice echoing around inside your head?

Edit: What I want out of a supreme court is to simply apply the US Constitution uniformly. I don't want a supreme court that writes, or rewrites, laws from the bench. I don't want a "living constitution", I want a constitution that means what it says and not one whose meaning is twisted to meet the temporal goals of either liberals or conservatives.
 
S

spandy

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
I got searched even after the k-9 didnt hit
I have also been asked to step out of the car on another occasion and when i tried to close the door the woman cop told me I was assaulting her and she and her partner were going to taze me (she positioned herself with her back against the inside of my drivers door when i opened it)
Click to expand...
Really? Wow thats weird that a cop would put themselves in that close of proximity to someone exiting their vehicle to actually be trying to share the space around the door panel while you were getting out. They are trained to use your door as a shield until they are able to turn you around and search you, also allows for them to quickly dive to the front of your vehicle again to use it as a shield.

You had to of allowed her to get there, if your hand remains on the back edge of your door while you open it (next to the b-pillar) how is any cop going to get their back against your door panel without first breaking your arm or ducking and spinning under your arm (that would be funny to see)? Left hand holds the door, right hand pulls door handle and then use right hand to hit the locks and roll the window up that first inches you had it dropped to slip your info out. this all happens while the door is being opened and takes less than 2 seconds to complete. Remember to lock your doors when you are pulled over so they can't surprise you by opening it for you.

If you roll the windows up BEFORE opening the door, you can bet they are gonna be all over that because they will know what you are doing. Gotta do it all in one motion cause they are looking for anything that can hurt them while you are moving out of the vehicle and this is your only chance to have a couple seconds to yourself. After you get out they own you and the entire situation.

Make sure you have a hidden key or a vehicle with key pads on teh door cause getting locked out wouldn't be fun lol.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
You mean like John Roberts?

You seem to be implying that all justices appointed by liberal presidents are "good", and that all justices appointed by conservative presidents are "bad", i.e. you are arguing to convince conservative to set aside their beliefs because "SCOTUS is too important, we must fill the Supreme Court with liberal justices". Do you really think that is a convincing argument to conservatives, or do you just enjoy the sound of your own voice echoing around inside your head?

Edit: What I want out of a supreme court is to simply apply the US Constitution uniformly. I don't want a supreme court that writes, or rewrites, laws from the bench. I don't want a "living constitution", I want a constitution that means what it says and not one whose meaning is twisted to meet the temporal goals of either liberals or conservatives.
Click to expand...
I mean like Roberts yes.

I do not imply such a thing but I do rely on odds in this situation. The odds of a conservative or a mock conservative like Romeny puting an acceptable justice on the bench are far more slim than Obama putting one there.

nor do I claim that we should pack the court with liberals. Yet conservative not only claim that they should, they are actively engaged in it at every level.

We can talk about the results of conservative justice's rulings and see how things have worked out.

Re - your edit.

It is impossilbe. It is the conservative mantra of the justice as umpire. The Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Should a case regarding this come before the court, the judges will have to decide what constitutes cruel or unusual punishment - they will be writing law. As an example.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
spandy said:
Really? Wow thats weird that a cop would put themselves in that close of proximity to someone exiting their vehicle to actually be trying to share the space around the door panel while you were getting out. They are trained to use your door as a shield until they are able to turn you around and search you, also allows for them to quickly dive to the front of your vehicle again to use it as a shield.

You had to of allowed her to get there, if your hand remains on the back edge of your door while you open it (next to the b-pillar) how is any cop going to get their back against your door panel without first breaking your arm or ducking and spinning under your arm (that would be funny to see)? Left hand holds the door, right hand pulls door handle and then use right hand to hit the locks and roll the window up that first inches you had it dropped to slip your info out. this all happens while the door is being opened and takes less than 2 seconds to complete. Remember to lock your doors when you are pulled over so they can't surprise you by opening it for you.

If you roll the windows up BEFORE opening the door, you can bet they are gonna be all over that because they will know what you are doing. Gotta do it all in one motion cause they are looking for anything that can hurt them while you are moving out of the vehicle and this is your only chance to have a couple seconds to yourself. After you get out they own you and the entire situation.

Make sure you have a hidden key or a vehicle with key pads on teh door cause getting locked out wouldn't be fun lol.
Click to expand...
I open the door she puts her hand on top of it and "assists" in gently opening it with me
as my foot goes out she slides in
Her ass was touching the inside 3 inches of the edge of my door
I tired to close the door (gently)
She didnt budge
She said what are you doing?
" I am closing my door"
When I tried to nudge (and i mean finesse) the door close
She started saying I was assaulting her and how dare i touch her and she and her partner where going to taze me and all kinds of other evil shit
The Cuffs went on
I went in the back of the police car and my shit was tossed

After they found nothing I was told what my "crime" was

You see I was in a neighborhood at the wrong time of night and I was the wrong color
Not my fualt I was working second shift and the shop I was in was in an "urban" area
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
I mean like Roberts yes.

I do not imply such a thing but I do rely on odds in this situation. The odds of a conservative or a mock conservative like Romeny puting an acceptable justice on the bench are far more slim than Obama putting one there.

nor do I claim that we should pack the court with liberals. Yet conservative not only claim that they should, they are actively engaged in it at every level.

We can talk about the results of conservative justice's rulings and see how things have worked out.

Re - your edit.

It is impossilbe. It is the conservative mantra of the justice as umpire. The Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Should a case regarding this come before the court, the judges will have to decide what constitutes cruel or unusual punishment - they will be writing law. As an example.
Click to expand...
And that is a good example, and is a case where the constitution "lives". I would agree that times and mores change. What was considered cruel in 1800 might not be today and vice versa. Interpretation of the commerce clause, not so much.
 
bedspirit

bedspirit

Active Member
canndo said:
I like Johnson, and have had my eye on him for a while. Knowing that my state is solid in the Obama column, maybe I will.


I notice however that you are unwilling to debate me on the past and future course of a conservative SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
I would have pegged you for a green party guy. I like Jil Stein but her presentation has been awful. They post videos of her stuttering and rambling. They need to polish the image a little, like the libertarians have done with Gary Johnson.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
And that is a good example, and is a case where the constitution "lives". I would agree that times and mores change. What was considered cruel in 1800 might not be today and vice versa. Interpretation of the commerce clause, not so much.
Click to expand...

My point is indeed that the document is "alive" and beyond that, legislation is inherent in interpretation. Even the concept of commerce is subject to evolving society and science. Tell the founders about this system of tubes that allow us to type to each other from very far away and they might have a problem labeling it "commerce"
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
desert dude said:
You mean like John Roberts?

You seem to be implying that all justices appointed by liberal presidents are "good", and that all justices appointed by conservative presidents are "bad", i.e. you are arguing to convince conservative to set aside their beliefs because "SCOTUS is too important, we must fill the Supreme Court with liberal justices". Do you really think that is a convincing argument to conservatives, or do you just enjoy the sound of your own voice echoing around inside your head?

Edit: What I want out of a supreme court is to simply apply the US Constitution uniformly. I don't want a supreme court that writes, or rewrites, laws from the bench. I don't want a "living constitution", I want a constitution that means what it says and not one whose meaning is twisted to meet the temporal goals of either liberals or conservatives.
Click to expand...
I don't think that is possible ... not merely politically, but at a deeper epistemological level. Words are imperfect imprecise mirrors of thoughts, which are also lacking in precision and perfection. To ask that a document, once written, be sealed in lucite ... is a deliberate repudiation of change, which I consider a universal feature of the human condition.
In real situations, interpreting the document is unavoidable. In six thousand years, nobody has found a way to render the law objective ... without invoking the reality-distorting deus ex machina of doctrinaire totalitarianism. cn
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I don't think that is possible ... not merely politically, but at a deeper epistemological level. Words are imperfect imprecise mirrors of thoughts, which are also lacking in precision and perfection. To ask that a document, once written, be sealed in lucite ... is a deliberate repudiation of change, which I consider a universal feature of the human condition.
In real situations, interpreting the document is unavoidable. In six thousand years, nobody has found a way to render the law objective ... without invoking the reality-distorting deus ex machina of doctrinaire totalitarianism. cn
Click to expand...

The argument, however, is that the document is mumified and we can only go back to the time of its writing in order to determine meaning. Or we are to go back and try to figure out what was running through their minds when they wrote this or that.

Or finally, that every new shade of meaning can only be tacked on to the tail of the document in amendment, making the constitution an ongoing set of snapshots, a running history of meanings.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
My point is indeed that the document is "alive" and beyond that, legislation is inherent in interpretation. Even the concept of commerce is subject to evolving society and science. Tell the founders about this system of tubes that allow us to type to each other from very far away and they might have a problem labeling it "commerce"
Click to expand...
When you "interpret" yes to mean "no", then you have taken things beyond "alive".
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I don't think that is possible ... not merely politically, but at a deeper epistemological level. Words are imperfect imprecise mirrors of thoughts, which are also lacking in precision and perfection. To ask that a document, once written, be sealed in lucite ... is a deliberate repudiation of change, which I consider a universal feature of the human condition.
In real situations, interpreting the document is unavoidable. In six thousand years, nobody has found a way to render the law objective ... without invoking the reality-distorting deus ex machina of doctrinaire totalitarianism. cn
Click to expand...
In principle, I agree. You have freedom of speech, but you can't yell fire in a theater in the absence of fire, etc, and I have no problem with that.

When you reinterpret the commerce to mean the federal government can regulate every aspect of human life, then things get a little dicey.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
desert dude said:
In principle, I agree. You have freedom of speech, but you can't yell fire in a theater in the absence of fire, etc, and I have no problem with that.

When you reinterpret the commerce to mean the federal government can regulate every aspect of human life, then things get a little dicey.
Click to expand...
That's why i pay attention to canndo when he says that the key to the constitution is SCOTUS, and the key to that court's makeup is the president. It's why i am loath to vote for a minority candidate. cn
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
When you "interpret" yes to mean "no", then you have taken things beyond "alive".
Click to expand...
That isn't how it works though, case law works more like.


Yes, in most cases
Yes in fewer cases
Yes and no
Almost never yes
No


the problem is that SCOUTS is the last stop - except for SCOTUS.

What you stated you wanted from a justice isn't possible, no justice can keep his opinions out of the cases. Some work very hard at trying, some do not. I have found that conservatives wind up injecting their opinions into cases more than liberals, or at least they let those opinions be known, or it could be that I agree with liberal opinions more. Regardless, what we see is conservatives rendering opinions that do violence to the concept of individual liberty far more than liberals.



Takes a couple of decades and some broad decisions.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
That's why i pay attention to canndo when he says that the key to the constitution is SCOTUS, and the key to that court's makeup is the president. It's why i am loath to vote for a minority candidate. cn
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with the point that SCOTUS is the key to the constitution. As a good friend of mine (an arch liberal) tells me, "the constitution says whatever the God Damn hell they say it says". That is a true statement. If SCOTUS says the commerce clause mean Filburn can't grow wheat on his farm and feed it to his cattle, then by God that's what it says. That, of course, is the road to hell.

Canndo implies that only a liberal-packed SCOTUS is a good thing. Do you think we would have had the Heller or McDonald decisions if SCOTUS was filled up with Sotomayors? Now, maybe you, dear reader, are a gun-hater and you shudder at the those decisions but I, as a reader of the constitution, take a little bit of delight in them.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
That isn't how it works though, case law works more like.


Yes, in most cases
Yes in fewer cases
Yes and no
Almost never yes
No


the problem is that SCOUTS is the last stop - except for SCOTUS.

What you stated you wanted from a justice isn't possible, no justice can keep his opinions out of the cases. Some work very hard at trying, some do not. I have found that conservatives wind up injecting their opinions into cases more than liberals, or at least they let those opinions be known, or it could be that I agree with liberal opinions more. Regardless, what we see is conservatives rendering opinions that do violence to the concept of individual liberty far more than liberals.



Takes a couple of decades and some broad decisions.
Click to expand...
In general, but not always, I agree with you regarding case law. Wickard V Filburn turned the commerce clause on its head in one fell swoop, though, and we have suffered as a consequence ever since.

"[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"

It is not possible to "interpret" the commerce clause to mean the federal government has authority to regulate INTRA-state commerce without a dark intent on the fed's part. Oh, the intentions were "good" when SCOTUS did it. That's what a "living constitution" gets you: tyranny!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top