Trent

I admit, that's me trying to piss people off. But they do choose cases based on their socialistic left-wing agenda quite frequently, don't they? Typical lawyerly condescension noted and appreciated. I think it's funny that people actually think that you need a degree in law to understand the constitution and the bill of rights. I guess everyone has to find their way to squeeze a living out of the world. Anyway... how does defending child-molesters, pushing for legalized abortion, and suing for rights for illegals NOT guaranteed by the Constitution amount to defending the Constitutional rights of anyone? How does giving due process and basic human rights translate into suing against things like proposition 187? Preventing access to public schools, drivers licenses and even local voting? My point, cupcake, is not about illegals, it just seems to have been the magic button for you guys, but is about the ACLU and their agenda riddled, hypocritical bullshit work. For every legitimate good they've done... there's more crap. I mean... what did the founder say? I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. Nice. Glad to see some of you guys are in love with that kind of organization. Oh, hello again!

Okay, my sincere apologies... please, in your infinite wisdom and humble knowledge of everything... educate me. Tell me how the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are too complicated for a simpleton like myself to understand. You do such a good job explaining... give it a shot. OR, just keep up your arrogant attitude and avoid an actual discussion if it helps you feel smarter. Oh, hello again!

It appears you're quite an expert on misunderstanding. Read the thread dude. Great, you agree. See? It's not that hard to read. Oookay, so where does the ACLU get off insisting that illegal immigrants have a "right" to public schooling, drivers' licenses, and other social services? Where's that in the Constitution? "Protection of the laws" and an entitlement to due process don't give them those "rights." Are you a lawyer? The reason I ask is that it seems many lawyers think that the Constitution is a complex, flexible document that is somehow difficult for the layperson to read. It's those people that try to "interpret" things that aren't written there. So, when you cease to have an opinion on any subject that you don't equate to the level equal to Constitutional scholar, I'll consider taking your bullshit advice. Until then, I'll be enjoying my 1st amendment right, how's that sound? Oh, hello again!

I thought that dude in CA was the biggest... the one in jail now. Or how about we see how much bribe money that moron from Louisiana has hidden in his wife's panty drawer too. I seriously doubt that $500,000 is the biggest payoff any of these scumbags have taken. But like I said, if it feels good to blame just one party... Oh, hello again!

So what you're saying is... "but but... YOU did it first!!" Right? I thought the left was supposed to be better than their enemies?? Oh well, at least some of us can see that the turd's different, but the stink is the same. You sound like a bumper sticker or a protest sign. Your arguments would be better if you didn't. All stuff like that will do is get you the same in return most of the time. Oh, hello again!

Yeah, 500,000 is HUGE when compared to 50 Million! Wow, I wonder where the pittance of the other 49.5 Million went? Oh well, not important... we can just bash on Delay and whatever other Republicans we don't like. At least you can justify when "your boys" come up dirty by saying "Delay did it too!" That should make you feel better. Oh, hello again!

So is "citizen" different than person? Or is it different than "people of the United States"? Do you think that the founders just arbitrarily used "person", "people of the US" and "citizen" interchangeably? Right, basic human rights... who's saying illegals or non-citizens should be killed? How does "protection" of the laws" mean that someone who is just here, has access to all rights and priveleges of citizens? Do you think that illegal immigrants and non-citizens should get to vote too? I think people on one side say they just want the constitution upheld in all cases... then go on to interpret (misinterpret) what is really written there. Oh, hello again!

No no... Bill, I'm disappointed. You have to read the next few words in the constitution... it really says, "We the People of the United States..." What do you suppose that last part means? Hey, you brought it up. Creative editing doesn't work anymore. So, you're cool with illegal immigrants getting guns under the 2nd amendment? What you can't understand is the difference between immigrant and illegal immigrant. As many "illegal rights" supporters, you equate not wanting illegals getting handouts, voting, special incentives, etc with racism. Makes it easier to argue your side, so I understand. It is my opinion, that "illegal immigrants" don't LOSE any basic human rights, but are simply NOT AFFORDED those rights that we as citizens (people OF the United States) have... such as voting, access to public schools, etc. Is that hard to understand? Oh, hello again!

I'm proud to be an American for many reasons. One of the things I'm proud of are the rights we have as citizens. Voting, public schools, I could go on. Tell me, since you feel the "rights" extend to everyone, can illegals buy weapons here? I mean, it's our 2nd amendment right... if they can't, should they be afforded that right? Yes, and criminals tend to lose their rights... I mean, is that constitutional?? They're IN the US, they should be able to buy guns, vote from jail, and travel wherever they want, right? The point wasn't about criminals, it was about illegals being "given rights" that they just don't deserve to have... see my list from the other post. I know you want to ignore it and make it sound like I'm for the jailing, abuse, and whatever else of people not like me... but it's bullshit and you know it. ...and your point is? The ACLU is defending non-citizens who they feel should be afforded every right and privelege of a citizen. At least we agree on something... but you'd be right more often if you were! Oh, hello again!

So then, are you acknowledging that having the ACLU defend "rights" like those I mentioned is total bullshit and a waste of court time? Does the right to NOT be hurt (another HUMAN right) extend into illegals being provided with ethnically sensitive food? That's the ACLU domain. Outside of BASIC human rights, they shouldn't be afforded any American rights. THAT'S part of the incentive to come here. If it were more dangerous for them, they'd have less incentive. The ACLU comes in consistently on the side of giving away the store. It's obvious where they stand on everything... just pick the side that hurts the US the most. So their actual position is AS hypocritical as an imaginary example of giving up rights for racism? Thanks, I thought it was pretty bad too. Hypocrites. Oh, hello again!

Might want to rethink your attempt to twist what I did (didn't) say! I'm getting tired of that shit, Bill. A HUMAN right to life, is different from the "right" to attend schools not paid for or the "right" to vote in local elections or the "right" to not be deported on sight or the "right" to have a driver's license and no consequences for not having insurance. THESE are non-existent rights, Bill. Did I really have to explain that, or were you just trying to get in a "gotcha"? So... they have a pretty literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment... but all the others are "flexible, living-breathing amendments"? It's a hypocritical position. Oh, hello again!

Here's where your logic is again flawed... who would ever think that the opposite of the ACLU is Falwell and Limbaugh. I'd think the opposite would be level-headed lawyers with no agenda.... either that, or people who aren't insane with their own egos to the point they think they have a duty to always end up on the wrong side of a fight. Oh, hello again!

And they defend the non-existent rights of illegal immigrants as well. In fact, they try to overturn legitimate votes, through judge shopping, since it just isn't what they want the world to be. They had a chance to do many good things, they just got carried away with their own arrogance and became the bleeding heart legal mafia. Their hypocritical stance on gun control is just an easy way to show how full of shit they are. The bad thing about this situation is that all of these "Phelps" suits will tie up our legal system in the name of something that almost all Americans know is wrong. Oh, hello again!

They won't run out of money.... the ACLU will defend the bastards for free I'll bet! We should all get behind the ACLU since they defend our rights... well, except for second amendment rights. Never mind. They're trash, just like the Phelps family. Oh, hello again!

From your other conversations in this thread... I think you need to calm down on the rhetoric a bit. In THIS specific situation, step back and ask yourself why a bunch of bloodthirsty, marauding, Marines would leave survivors that would implicate them in this "massacre?" Why would they do that if they're the heartless murderers people are claiming? Doesn't make one lick of sense. Now, ask yourself, "If I was an Iraqi terrorist... how could I get publicity, kill a few Americans, and make the US look terrible in one fell swoop?" Would, "Let's hide behind women and kids so that they get killed when we attack," or "Let's kill some women and kids and make it look like they did it," or "let's convince some women and families to detonate IED's and shoot at troops when they come by, then claim massacre when they get killed," be an answer? Like I said, anything is possible and PLENTY of people have reason to WANT this to really be a massacre. Throwing your hat into the ring of convicting these boys before any trials... is pure and plain ignorance. Oh, hello again!

Something smells like shit with this whole story. Right now, I see 2 possibilities: 1. These Marines went nuts and killed everyone they saw, but had a sudden change of heart and shipped a handful of their "victims" to a hospital, knowing they were witnesses to this "massacre." 2. This is a setup to further tarnish the US and the dead were either fighting, purposely put in a crossfire by the real bad guys, or killed prior to the troops' arrival. I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt for case #1... I don't think that our Marines are that bloodthirsty, or at a minimum... stupid enough to not finish off any "witnesses". Anything's possible I guess... but something stinks bad. Oh, hello again!

Speaking of... I think canopy warning labels should say something like: "This parachute is NOT intended for skydiving purposes." Not that that'd keep dumbasses from suing for their incompetence and ignorance anyway. Oh, hello again!

Good, it's even easier to get a warrant to search their houses I bet. This just shows that some people don't want to be accountable. Vote 'em all out. Oh, hello again!

Is that a personal attack agains rocks? You're right. It's pointless. Oh, hello again!

Oookay dude. My opinion is that you can summarize your position by saying most cops have a dirty side. Did I get it wrong? You can post however you want, and I can think whatever I want about it. It wasn't a form of protest at the time. It was legal and the supervisor confirmed it, as well as the judge. I never said everyone should do it. I said it worked at that time, in that city. Are you trying to make it sound like I said something that I didn't? By the way, that second sentence there is a huge tell on your motivations here. Those your own words, which are clearly different than mine. Hey, you asked. It's a nice try at weaseling out of it. Tell me, if I said, "Most people who do what you do are, to some degree, retards," would you consider it a personal attack? If not, then fine. Then you'll have to accept that my "wacko" comment was not a personal attack since you clearly don't ONLY think that the plate frame things is the issue. Right? Okay, so then if you're not a wacko who's only against the plate law... then you have no grounds to be offended either. Who's grandstanding now? You seem to be on a real crusade here... not against plate laws, but against "most" cops. Nice attack on "most" cops again, btw. It would appear that YOU are having a problem with cops more than the plate laws. As I've said a few times now in this thread... it isn't the plate law that is the problem... if there is a cop who wants to get you for something... he'll find a reason with or without a plate frame law. It's no different than a seatbelt law, lights out, or not having a plate in front (in some states). To rail against 1 law is silly. No, I didn't call you nuts. I mean "nuts" in the "bullshit" sense. If I wanted to call you nuts, I would have. Is your only argument going to be that people are picking on you instead of talking about the issue? It's crap and not true. And just so you know... I don't know how they do things where you're from, but here you don't get your plates until a week or so AFTER you buy the car. Usually you put them on yourself. But hey, since you're having fun trying to put words in my mouth... go with it.... *sigh* again... this is not about one law in one municipality or state. If you're going to complain about a plate frame law, you might as well complain about the other silly vehicle laws that exist. Acting like this one law is a big deal is ridiculous. Some states require 2 plates, some don't. Some plates require lights on when wipers are on, some don't. Some states require a frame NOT cover any part of the plate, some don't. Dude, your argument is OUT THERE!! Wow! Not only is this a personal attack according to your definition (sensitive card played!), but it's completely off topic and doesn't have any relevance to anything in this thread. But hey... that's just my opinion... not telling you how to post or anything. Oh, hello again!

I'm not confused. I just don't think they're gonna be using a 500mW laser in a pinpoint on a retina. First, find out what kind of lasers they'll use. Then find out if it is similar to what I've seen before (diffusing the beam to cover more "real estate"). THEN I'll let you shoot one at me.

You clearly have something to say seeing as how you feel the need to respond to every post in a thread. The only problem is that you could have just said that you think most cops are corrupt and been done with it. No, I'm not in high school and laws DO change. They also change from city to city. In the city that I was "jaywalking", at the time, that was the policy on not signing. That's actually not what I wrote, and it was further clarified in a later post. Deal with it. So it's similar to you calling cops corrupt when you're talking to someone who's married to a cop? Or when there are cops responding to you? Or is it like when you try to pin the "corruption conspiracy" on conservatives? Is that what you mean? Gimme a break. I can speak up for people I know when I know what some dude on the internet says is crap. You'd do well to take your own advice here. Are you a cop? Is that how you "know" they're all so corrupt? Thought not. Thanks. I know what a slippery slope is. That's why it's so funny that you're all about it here. The problem with using the "slippery slope" argument is that you're speculating on what will happen given what is happening now. To turn around and say that the slippery slope started HERE, is being naive. I can prove to you that if there were no cops, there would be no cop corruption, can't I? Let's not forget we're talking about a license plate frame here. Don't want to get pulled over? Don't use one. Think you're having your rights violated since you can't have a frame?? Nuts. Why don't people bitch about their right to have a taillight out? As long as one's working, people know you're stopping! Why not bitch about the fact that you can't paint "Police" on your car... I mean... free speech and all... Nevermind, easier just to assume all cops are corrupt and that it's the fascist conservatives' fault. Oh, hello again!

I don't think the SSN/VA thing is bad, other than a retard took the records home against the rules and got them stolen. I mean, the government gives us SSNs and runs the VA so it's only naturaly that the government would have our records there. As far as the data mining, I can see both sides of the argument. I just don't think it's the "big brother" thing that people are making it out to be. Oh, hello again!

Nice job on switching the conversation by the way. No one has clarified how stolen SSN's and VA records is similar to a phone call database though. To respond to Livendive... would it be probable cause to tap my phone or look closer at me if I'd been called by a terrorist suspect? You don't think they'd have to get a warrant to hold up a legal case against me? Like I said before... the Patriot Act (from my reading of it) still requires warrants for this stuff. Oh, hello again!

I'd be willing to bet that they'll have to set up a pretty large computing center to stay on top of every phone call that was made every day. Hell, even smaller companies have rooms full of servers to keep their records straight and you're talking about billions of phone calls A DAY. I'd be willing to bet that they'd have to get a warrant to pull 1 individual's call list. If they went public with that, they'd be sued to no end without a warrant. Contrary to popular belief... the Patriot Act still requires warrants, and even then it wouldn't excuse hunting down political enemies... WHICH, by the way, can be done without using a national database at this very moment. Nope, I'm clean. But if you really want to know... you can find out on your own... without government help. Your phone records aren't secret. How many people are "got" because of it? Is it even doing its job? Oh, hello again!