kelpdiver 2 #26 June 1, 2010 Quote Do you think loonies and felons should be allowed to have guns by right? We're still waiting for you to tell us your solution that will prevent loonies from getting guns, but still allow citizens to exercise their 2nd Amendment right by default, without requiring an explicit request. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #27 June 1, 2010 Quote Quote My understanding is that they only have to stop asking when you say , "I want a lawyer" then all questions must stop! Well, yeah; but most people's understanding is from the outside looking in! A significantly large portion of the population's perception of their "rights comes from watching Law and Order or Judge Judy or Cops. At least that's been my personal experience with people!--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #28 June 2, 2010 I'm just sick to death of morons thinking that they have to be read their miranda rights before they can be handcuffed or arrested. I watched a deputy have to throw around and eventually taser a dumbass drunk State student because of this. Oi.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #29 June 2, 2010 Quotebut dang -- he did answer some questions during that time. It sounds like he was tricked into answering an incriminating question. And here is another great opportunity to re-post these videos.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=related---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #30 June 2, 2010 QuoteI'm just sick to death of morons thinking that they have to be read their miranda rights before they can be handcuffed or arrested. I watched a deputy have to throw around and eventually taser a dumbass drunk State student because of this. Oi. Morons have rights too, and need MORE protection than the average person.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #31 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuote Do you think loonies and felons should be allowed to have guns by right? We're still waiting for you to tell us your solution that will prevent loonies from getting guns, but still allow citizens to exercise their 2nd Amendment right by default, without requiring an explicit request. Can't answer the question, I see. Do you think loonies and felons should be allowed to have guns by right?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #32 June 2, 2010 Quote It sounds like he was tricked into answering an incriminating question. Of course! I believe police are allowed to lie to and trick the suspect in order to get information including confessions.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #33 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteHe was told of his right to remain silent, I think that is accepted to have happened, however he didn't remain silent. What is the controversy? He slipped up and in effect confessed, so it is good that he got caught. It seems like they are saying that if you say, "I want to remain silent" that the cops have to stop questioning you. I wasn't aware of that, I thought the cops could keep asking even if you say nothing.Quote Of Course they can! They can even waterboard until they get the answers they want. What's wrong with that? Blue Skies, dj123 Depends on the situation doesn't it? Where do you draw the line when your children or family is in jeopardy?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #34 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuote We're still waiting for you to tell us your solution that will prevent loonies from getting guns, but still allow citizens to exercise their 2nd Amendment right by default, without requiring an explicit request. Can't answer the question, I see. funny, I was thinking the same thing! After pondering it for an hour, you had nothing, so you retreated to this stale classic of your's. It's simple - your declared preference for rights to exist by default is not consistent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #35 June 2, 2010 Do you think loonies and felons should be allowed to have guns by right?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,118 #36 June 2, 2010 >Where do you draw the line when your children or family is in jeopardy? Exactly. I saw an episode of 24 where Jack Bauer tortured some guy and saved like the whole world. Who doesn't want to save the whole world? Probably some communist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #37 June 2, 2010 Quote>Where do you draw the line when your children or family is in jeopardy? Exactly. I saw an episode of 24 where Jack Bauer tortured some guy and saved like the whole world. Who doesn't want to save the whole world? Probably some communist. Not necessarily. Could be a Marxist.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #38 June 2, 2010 QuoteSupreme Court decisions so often are not what the headlines in the paper make them to be. It takes analyzing the whole written decision to really understand what happened and how it will affect the future. The SCOTUS will usually submit a "bright-line rule" with these decisions, so as to give layman interpretation. QuoteIt seems like they are saying that if you say, "I want to remain silent" that the cops have to stop questioning you. I wasn't aware of that, I thought the cops could keep asking even if you say nothing. I think the former bright-linr rule was that if the suspect/detainee asks for a lawyer, all questioning must then stop or be inadmissable. Does the new decison chamge/modify that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #39 June 2, 2010 QuoteI'm just sick to death of morons thinking that they have to be read their miranda rights before they can be handcuffed or arrested. I watched a deputy have to throw around and eventually taser a dumbass drunk State student because of this. Oi. They don't have to be, they only have to be Mirandized if the cops/prodsecutor wants to admit evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #40 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuote It sounds like he was tricked into answering an incriminating question. Of course! I believe police are allowed to lie to and trick the suspect in order to get information including confessions. Yes, they can lie, they can't promise things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #41 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteI'm just sick to death of morons thinking that they have to be read their miranda rights before they can be handcuffed or arrested. I watched a deputy have to throw around and eventually taser a dumbass drunk State student because of this. Oi. They don't have to be, they only have to be Mirandized if the cops/prodsecutor wants to admit evidence. Correct. If there's no incriminatory statement, or if a conviction is not based (at all) on one, then Miranda rights are irrelevant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #42 June 2, 2010 QuoteDirtbags have rights too. His dirtbaginess is not relevant. He should have his rights by default. He should not have to claim them explicitly QuoteThe controversy is that under the new rules our rights are denied by default. Professor, he is not being denied his rights. That's where your word choice makes your objection irrelevant. He is not being denied his rights. He still has the right. But he must exercise them in order to benefit from them. Let's use your little hijack. If a person does not go buy a gun, is he being denied teh right to own guns? No. However if he goes to buy a gun and is stopped, then he is being denied his right. Again, apply your logic to the right to counsel. If we went by your standard, then no interviews could ever take place. You have the right to an attorney. If you don't request one, the police are not going to assume you want one. You have to specifically request one. You are not being denied. The police interviewing you have told you about your right. It's up to you to put it into effect. QuoteQuoteHe answered the questions. He's an idiot. He deserves the time he got. It is even more important to ensure the rights of idiots, since they are generally unable to stand up for themselves. Don't get me wrong. As frustrating as it is, and as much as it is abused, the bueatiful thing about our criminal court system is thtat the most important thing is the defendant's rights. My point was that the dirtbag in question made statements and then wanted to go back and change the story to "right to remaing silent" was denied. It wasn't denied. He just didn't make the best decision (a common trait of crimainls everywhere). And seeing as he was guilty as sin, I feel pretty good about him being behind bars. And seeing as this decision places remaining silent on par with having counsel present, I feel pretty good about that, too.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #43 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteI'm just sick to death of morons thinking that they have to be read their miranda rights before they can be handcuffed or arrested. I watched a deputy have to throw around and eventually taser a dumbass drunk State student because of this. Oi. They don't have to be, they only have to be Mirandized if the cops/prodsecutor wants to admit evidence. Close but not quite. A suspect only has to be mirandized if (A) they are in custody and (B) the police want to ask them questions about the crime. Anything the dirtbag says can still be submited into evidence even if he was not Mirandized as long as it was said (1) before he was in custody or (2) the police do not ask question to bring about incriminating statments.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #44 June 2, 2010 Quote Quote Quote I'm just sick to death of morons thinking that they have to be read their miranda rights before they can be handcuffed or arrested. I watched a deputy have to throw around and eventually taser a dumbass drunk State student because of this. Oi. They don't have to be, they only have to be Mirandized if the cops/prodsecutor wants to admit evidence. Close but not quite. A suspect only has to be mirandized if (A) they are in custody and (B) the police want to ask them questions about the crime. Anything the dirtbag says can still be submited into evidence even if he was not Mirandized as long as it was said (1) before he was in custody or (2) the police do not ask question to bring about incriminating statments. Shouldn't that be ALLEGED Dirtbag????? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #45 June 2, 2010 In the USA, dirtbags have rights too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #46 June 2, 2010 Are you feeling lazy or something today? Generally you at least read a post and respond. You're getting repetative. Yes, they have rights. It's their own responsibility to exercise them. For another example (that att htis point I'm guessing you will just ignore): If you stay home and never go out and talk about your position, and never write anyone about your position, and never in any way broadcast or otherwise make your position known, are you being denied your right to freedom of speech? No. You are simply not excerising it. Same thing goes for requesting a lawyer at a custodial interview. Same thing goes for remaining silent and ending an interview. Why does only one of them bother you?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #47 June 2, 2010 Quote Let's use your little hijack. If a person does not go buy a gun, is he being denied teh right to own guns? No. However if he goes to buy a gun and is stopped, then he is being denied his right. that was my hijack, not his. It's rare that he steps over his tongue with such an exact, non vague statement like 'rights should be preserved by default.' Which we all know he doesn't actually believe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #48 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteI'm just sick to death of morons thinking that they have to be read their miranda rights before they can be handcuffed or arrested. I watched a deputy have to throw around and eventually taser a dumbass drunk State student because of this. Oi. They don't have to be, they only have to be Mirandized if the cops/prodsecutor wants to admit evidence. Correct. If there's no incriminatory statement, or if a conviction is not based (at all) on one, then Miranda rights are irrelevant. Right, excluding inevitabld discovery and the sort. Miranda was still convicted even tho some statements were excluded; Miranda is overblown in most cases, often there is enough other evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #49 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteI'm just sick to death of morons thinking that they have to be read their miranda rights before they can be handcuffed or arrested. I watched a deputy have to throw around and eventually taser a dumbass drunk State student because of this. Oi. They don't have to be, they only have to be Mirandized if the cops/prodsecutor wants to admit evidence. Close but not quite. A suspect only has to be mirandized if (A) they are in custody and (B) the police want to ask them questions about the crime. Anything the dirtbag says can still be submited into evidence even if he was not Mirandized as long as it was said (1) before he was in custody or (2) the police do not ask question to bring about incriminating statments. I didn't say anything to the contrary. Mine was a brief statement about Miranda; if it is required and not given, you can still arrest, you just can't admit any answers to questions. >>>>>>>>> A suspect only has to be mirandized if (A) they are in custody and... A reasonable person must feel detained (JUS 101) >>>>>>>>>(B) the police want to ask them questions about the crime. And still, the suspect doesn't have to be Mirandized, as you said they must before arrest. As I replied to you before, they can still be arrested, it's just that answers to police questions cannot be admitted. >>>>>>>>Anything the dirtbag says... Why even have a trial, you've already convicted him. Hey, here's a dirtbag murderer who spent 10 years in prison, 3 of which on DR after 2 trials: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/raykrone.html He was/is a good guy, a veteran, no prior arrests, etc. But a dirtbag to you. Good thing we have guys like you keeping us safe, deciding who's a dirtbag and who's a good guy. >>>>>>>>>Anything the dirtbag says can still be submited into evidence even if he was not Mirandized as long as it was said (1) before he was in custody or (2) the police do not ask question to bring about incriminating statments. Sure, and it goes much deeper, as with inevitable discovery and others. You made a simple statement that you must Mirandize a suspect before arrest, I simply stated that you do not, but what you were getting at is this concept of downplaying the contact and keeping the suspect off guard by not arresting him/her. We covered all kinds of cases such as Escobedo vs Illinois where the cops shuttled the suspect around the huge police complex in an attempt to delay the suspect and lawyer from finding each other and hope the suspect would talk. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #50 June 2, 2010 Quote In the USA, dirtbags have rights too. I can't understand why the Republicans have such a problem with dirtbags having rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 2 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kelpdiver 2 #34 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuote We're still waiting for you to tell us your solution that will prevent loonies from getting guns, but still allow citizens to exercise their 2nd Amendment right by default, without requiring an explicit request. Can't answer the question, I see. funny, I was thinking the same thing! After pondering it for an hour, you had nothing, so you retreated to this stale classic of your's. It's simple - your declared preference for rights to exist by default is not consistent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #35 June 2, 2010 Do you think loonies and felons should be allowed to have guns by right?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #36 June 2, 2010 >Where do you draw the line when your children or family is in jeopardy? Exactly. I saw an episode of 24 where Jack Bauer tortured some guy and saved like the whole world. Who doesn't want to save the whole world? Probably some communist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #37 June 2, 2010 Quote>Where do you draw the line when your children or family is in jeopardy? Exactly. I saw an episode of 24 where Jack Bauer tortured some guy and saved like the whole world. Who doesn't want to save the whole world? Probably some communist. Not necessarily. Could be a Marxist.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #38 June 2, 2010 QuoteSupreme Court decisions so often are not what the headlines in the paper make them to be. It takes analyzing the whole written decision to really understand what happened and how it will affect the future. The SCOTUS will usually submit a "bright-line rule" with these decisions, so as to give layman interpretation. QuoteIt seems like they are saying that if you say, "I want to remain silent" that the cops have to stop questioning you. I wasn't aware of that, I thought the cops could keep asking even if you say nothing. I think the former bright-linr rule was that if the suspect/detainee asks for a lawyer, all questioning must then stop or be inadmissable. Does the new decison chamge/modify that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #39 June 2, 2010 QuoteI'm just sick to death of morons thinking that they have to be read their miranda rights before they can be handcuffed or arrested. I watched a deputy have to throw around and eventually taser a dumbass drunk State student because of this. Oi. They don't have to be, they only have to be Mirandized if the cops/prodsecutor wants to admit evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #40 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuote It sounds like he was tricked into answering an incriminating question. Of course! I believe police are allowed to lie to and trick the suspect in order to get information including confessions. Yes, they can lie, they can't promise things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #41 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteI'm just sick to death of morons thinking that they have to be read their miranda rights before they can be handcuffed or arrested. I watched a deputy have to throw around and eventually taser a dumbass drunk State student because of this. Oi. They don't have to be, they only have to be Mirandized if the cops/prodsecutor wants to admit evidence. Correct. If there's no incriminatory statement, or if a conviction is not based (at all) on one, then Miranda rights are irrelevant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #42 June 2, 2010 QuoteDirtbags have rights too. His dirtbaginess is not relevant. He should have his rights by default. He should not have to claim them explicitly QuoteThe controversy is that under the new rules our rights are denied by default. Professor, he is not being denied his rights. That's where your word choice makes your objection irrelevant. He is not being denied his rights. He still has the right. But he must exercise them in order to benefit from them. Let's use your little hijack. If a person does not go buy a gun, is he being denied teh right to own guns? No. However if he goes to buy a gun and is stopped, then he is being denied his right. Again, apply your logic to the right to counsel. If we went by your standard, then no interviews could ever take place. You have the right to an attorney. If you don't request one, the police are not going to assume you want one. You have to specifically request one. You are not being denied. The police interviewing you have told you about your right. It's up to you to put it into effect. QuoteQuoteHe answered the questions. He's an idiot. He deserves the time he got. It is even more important to ensure the rights of idiots, since they are generally unable to stand up for themselves. Don't get me wrong. As frustrating as it is, and as much as it is abused, the bueatiful thing about our criminal court system is thtat the most important thing is the defendant's rights. My point was that the dirtbag in question made statements and then wanted to go back and change the story to "right to remaing silent" was denied. It wasn't denied. He just didn't make the best decision (a common trait of crimainls everywhere). And seeing as he was guilty as sin, I feel pretty good about him being behind bars. And seeing as this decision places remaining silent on par with having counsel present, I feel pretty good about that, too.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #43 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteI'm just sick to death of morons thinking that they have to be read their miranda rights before they can be handcuffed or arrested. I watched a deputy have to throw around and eventually taser a dumbass drunk State student because of this. Oi. They don't have to be, they only have to be Mirandized if the cops/prodsecutor wants to admit evidence. Close but not quite. A suspect only has to be mirandized if (A) they are in custody and (B) the police want to ask them questions about the crime. Anything the dirtbag says can still be submited into evidence even if he was not Mirandized as long as it was said (1) before he was in custody or (2) the police do not ask question to bring about incriminating statments.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #44 June 2, 2010 Quote Quote Quote I'm just sick to death of morons thinking that they have to be read their miranda rights before they can be handcuffed or arrested. I watched a deputy have to throw around and eventually taser a dumbass drunk State student because of this. Oi. They don't have to be, they only have to be Mirandized if the cops/prodsecutor wants to admit evidence. Close but not quite. A suspect only has to be mirandized if (A) they are in custody and (B) the police want to ask them questions about the crime. Anything the dirtbag says can still be submited into evidence even if he was not Mirandized as long as it was said (1) before he was in custody or (2) the police do not ask question to bring about incriminating statments. Shouldn't that be ALLEGED Dirtbag????? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #45 June 2, 2010 In the USA, dirtbags have rights too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #46 June 2, 2010 Are you feeling lazy or something today? Generally you at least read a post and respond. You're getting repetative. Yes, they have rights. It's their own responsibility to exercise them. For another example (that att htis point I'm guessing you will just ignore): If you stay home and never go out and talk about your position, and never write anyone about your position, and never in any way broadcast or otherwise make your position known, are you being denied your right to freedom of speech? No. You are simply not excerising it. Same thing goes for requesting a lawyer at a custodial interview. Same thing goes for remaining silent and ending an interview. Why does only one of them bother you?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #47 June 2, 2010 Quote Let's use your little hijack. If a person does not go buy a gun, is he being denied teh right to own guns? No. However if he goes to buy a gun and is stopped, then he is being denied his right. that was my hijack, not his. It's rare that he steps over his tongue with such an exact, non vague statement like 'rights should be preserved by default.' Which we all know he doesn't actually believe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #48 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteI'm just sick to death of morons thinking that they have to be read their miranda rights before they can be handcuffed or arrested. I watched a deputy have to throw around and eventually taser a dumbass drunk State student because of this. Oi. They don't have to be, they only have to be Mirandized if the cops/prodsecutor wants to admit evidence. Correct. If there's no incriminatory statement, or if a conviction is not based (at all) on one, then Miranda rights are irrelevant. Right, excluding inevitabld discovery and the sort. Miranda was still convicted even tho some statements were excluded; Miranda is overblown in most cases, often there is enough other evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #49 June 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteI'm just sick to death of morons thinking that they have to be read their miranda rights before they can be handcuffed or arrested. I watched a deputy have to throw around and eventually taser a dumbass drunk State student because of this. Oi. They don't have to be, they only have to be Mirandized if the cops/prodsecutor wants to admit evidence. Close but not quite. A suspect only has to be mirandized if (A) they are in custody and (B) the police want to ask them questions about the crime. Anything the dirtbag says can still be submited into evidence even if he was not Mirandized as long as it was said (1) before he was in custody or (2) the police do not ask question to bring about incriminating statments. I didn't say anything to the contrary. Mine was a brief statement about Miranda; if it is required and not given, you can still arrest, you just can't admit any answers to questions. >>>>>>>>> A suspect only has to be mirandized if (A) they are in custody and... A reasonable person must feel detained (JUS 101) >>>>>>>>>(B) the police want to ask them questions about the crime. And still, the suspect doesn't have to be Mirandized, as you said they must before arrest. As I replied to you before, they can still be arrested, it's just that answers to police questions cannot be admitted. >>>>>>>>Anything the dirtbag says... Why even have a trial, you've already convicted him. Hey, here's a dirtbag murderer who spent 10 years in prison, 3 of which on DR after 2 trials: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/raykrone.html He was/is a good guy, a veteran, no prior arrests, etc. But a dirtbag to you. Good thing we have guys like you keeping us safe, deciding who's a dirtbag and who's a good guy. >>>>>>>>>Anything the dirtbag says can still be submited into evidence even if he was not Mirandized as long as it was said (1) before he was in custody or (2) the police do not ask question to bring about incriminating statments. Sure, and it goes much deeper, as with inevitable discovery and others. You made a simple statement that you must Mirandize a suspect before arrest, I simply stated that you do not, but what you were getting at is this concept of downplaying the contact and keeping the suspect off guard by not arresting him/her. We covered all kinds of cases such as Escobedo vs Illinois where the cops shuttled the suspect around the huge police complex in an attempt to delay the suspect and lawyer from finding each other and hope the suspect would talk. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #50 June 2, 2010 Quote In the USA, dirtbags have rights too. I can't understand why the Republicans have such a problem with dirtbags having rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
