when do we build our own iron curtain?

[leojoeyjoe]

well, I have a B.A. in English so if you wanna go we can...we can also just discuss rhetoric...we can start with Boethius if you'd like...

but here's one flawed sentence..can't even tell WHAT you intended...

Who's hands does the power belong in Constitutionally?

here's another:

You need to look again and realize the ends DOES NOT justify the means.

Ends is plural so "do not" is appropriate...

 

[leojoeyjoe]

Care to show me where stop signs are in the consitution?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
:

Seriously.....You can see many references to modern day power grabs and unConstitutional acts in original documentation by our founders. They warned us what WOULD happen, and its inevitable consequences, -which we are seeing come about, in the instance of ignoring such tyranny.

Just because you think it is justified, the reality is what it is regardless of the excuse given to justify the action.

In some cases I'm sure I'd agree with you. I' m fine with the "slippage" we've had on police collecting I.D. I think it leads to a better society.

Focus on some real abuses.

Use your own judgement sometimes on thinking about what might be "better". You're just condemning yourself to a society that can't evovle with your niggling strictarianisic interpretations of the constitution.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
well, I have a B.A. in English so if you wanna go we can...we can also just discuss rhetoric...we can start with Boethius if you'd like...

Fine with me.

You may want to round up some other board members and have them get some popcorn and pull up a chair.

Generally when someone challenges me like this, they don't know what they are asking for.

but here's one flawed sentence..can't even tell WHAT you intended...

That, my friend is reading comprehension. Shall I state it another way? Both are gramatically correct, but here is one you may understand better:

Constitutionally, who's hands does the power belong in?

here's another:

Ends is plural so "do not" is appropriate...

"the ends justifies the means" is a well known statement.

The statement of "the ends DOES NOT justify the means" would be a gramatically correct way of stating a corollary to the wording of the statement in its original meaning. Being gramatically correct by changing the wording as you suppose, changes the original in context meaning of the statement and dismisses the original point therefore rendering the corollary pointless.

You stand corrected on two counts.

Strike one and two.

Methinks yer BA is BS.

 

[leojoeyjoe]

Who's hands does the power belong in Constitutionally?

This sentence is NOT grammatically correct...In whose hands does the power belong, constitutionally? Is. The word is "whose" not "who's"...it should begin with '"in" and you need a comma before "constitutionally"...just because you can type ANY argument doesn't mean you typed the right one...and the popular phrase is the ends justify the means...notice it is justifY...not justifies...which is the form you implied by using "ends does"...this is gramatically incorrect by any measure....I see you interpret the rules of grammar as loosely as you interpret the constitution.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
My right to safety trumps your right to not get charged 250 for not coughing up i.d. like a responsible citizen...if it'll save children from getting blasted at a busstop by some druglord who got pulled over the night before for a burnt out taillight and got a warning and sent on his way, then i'm for it...if we're gonna play the "nightmare scenario" game you won't win..

Your right to safety? what about my rights? Do I not have the right to walk peacably down the sidewalk without the gestapo, excuse me, the police stopping me because I have long hair or black skin and asking for my ID?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
This sentence is NOT grammatically correct...In whose hands does the power belong, constitutionally? Is.

Incorrect. Either are fine.

The word is "whose" not "who's"

Correct. That is what I get for being in a hurry while I am working and on the board at the same time.

...it should begin with '"in" and you need a comma before "constitutionally"...just because you can type ANY argument doesn't mean you typed the right one

The sentence can read either way depending on style. All of your education and you missed the versatility of the language altogether.

...and the popular phrase is the ends justify the means

No, it is not.

Niccolo Machiavelli is one of history’s most enduring characters. A staple in high school history books and a standard question on the European History Advanced Placement exam, Machiavelli is forever remembered for his political commentary, The Prince, and its amoral philosophy that “the ends justifies the means”.

...notice it is justifY...not justifies...which is the form you implied by using "ends does"...this is gramatically incorrect by any measure....I see you interpret the rules of grammar as loosely as you interpret the constitution.

Interpretation is not possible when taken in context.

-As proven by the point above about how both ways of stating things can be correct. -IF TAKEN IN CONTEXT.

I guess that explains how you can have a degree in English and still not be able to read it.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
we're not talking about jews...we're talking about i.d. as a weapon to stop CRIMINALS....MURDERERS....why do you support them? Stop being intellectually dishonest when you KNOW that's the real point of the law...

theres a fallacious argument if ever I heard one. because we think you're wrong, you accuse us of supporting and defending murderers. thats laughable.

 

[leojoeyjoe]

Incorrect. Either are fine

No..this sentence is just wrong...it would be marked wrong on any test. The sentence is not intelligible if you are not its author....and it is the addition of "does" to the "ends" statement that makes it incorrect...though it is not so bad as the first sentence which is just WROOONNNGGGG!

but this is not the big deal....I understand the meaning of your flawed sentence and I, simply, disagree with it...
You would benefit from reading a copy of "The Little Brown Handbook"..it would make your arguments more lucid and ACTUALLY gramatically correct.

Keep up the good fight against law and order, though.

 

[leojoeyjoe]

theres a fallacious argument if ever I heard one. because we think you're wrong, you accuse us of supporting and defending murderers. thats laughable.

No I accuse you of pretending we are talking about Nazi Germany every time you are losing another argument.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
No..this sentence is just wrong...it would be marked wrong on any test.

Now we come to the truth of the matter. You think schools are the authority of what is correct. Not only that, but you think YOU know what is correct even when proven wrong.

You got your money's worth on THAT degree.

The sentence is not intelligible if you are not its author....

Standing by its self, without context, most English IS. You forgot about that too. I suggest getting a refund on your education.

and it is the addition of "does" to the "ends" statement that makes it incorrect...

It is the original wording. Your desire to change it doesn't make it wrong, it makes you an idiot.

but this is not the big deal....I understand the meaning of your flawed sentence and I, simply, disagree with it...
You would benefit from reading a copy of "The Little Brown Handbook"..it would make your arguments more lucid and ACTUALLY gramatically correct.

We have just proven that I was quite correct, and you are the little Hitler that could.

Suggest all you want, reality does not bend to your liking simply because you can get a test graded that way by uneducated socialists.

Keep up the good fight against law and order, though.

Thanks!

I will!

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
No I accuse you of pretending we are talking about Nazi Germany every time you are losing another argument.

Did you get a history education from the same box of crackerjacks your English one came in?

You ought to look at the history of governmental tyranny.

 

[DKSuddeth]

you want to know how tyrannys develop from free societies?

say it with me - "one step at a time".

removing the 'probable cause' just made it one step closer.

 

[leojoeyjoe]

You've been outsmarted and outclassed so you resort to insults....I'm guessing that you're no graduate student...basic skill like spelling matter there.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
You've been outsmarted and outclassed so you resort to insults....I'm guessing that you're no graduate student...basic skill like spelling matter there.

tell me how we were outsmarted and outclassed by someone who freely gives up their rights afforded to them by the constitution so they can FEEL safer?

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by NewGuy
As has been said, this is a clear cut case of intrusion.

Lets take a look at the Constitution:



Notice the punctuation giving the Amendment context.

Demanding information such as a name is illegal unless a document has written oath indicating things, places and PERSONS to be searched.

In other words, there can be NO PROACTIVE INVESTIGATION.

-ONLY REACTIVE INVESTIGATION IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

The punctiation in the Amendment makes it clear what it means. Our law has been formed by unConstitutional means and is thus invalid.

I do not recognize such a ruling as law.

If I am to believe our Constitution, I cannot.

An odd thought just occurred to me. Airline Security are federal employees. Is what your saying mean that according to the fourth Ammendment it would be illegal for the security officials at the airlines to ask for IDS?

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
you want to know how tyrannys develop from free societies?

say it with me - "one step at a time".

removing the 'probable cause' just made it one step closer.

Exactly DK. Been reading this thread on and off for awhile now. I have mixed feelings. I agree with the tyranny statement above. I also agree that the police agencies-which covers a multitude of departments-need to streamline redtape, which I believe is what the Patriot Act was supposed to help with.

I've yet to see the police reaching out their long arm to the libraries, bookstores, etc., yet that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. The only ones I have read about, concerned possible terror links, but then again, it could be a kid or someone like me that tends to get into info that isn't the norm.

I'm unsure where I want the decisions to go, I feel defense of our country is the #1 job for the Federal Government. I believe protecting our civil rights is our #1 job, after families, etc.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
You've been outsmarted and outclassed so you resort to insults....I'm guessing that you're no graduate student...basic skill like spelling matter there.

MMMMM......outsmarted?

I guess so. -If you consider my speed in typing causing an error of "who's" in place of "whose".

Outclassed?

Not really. I seem to recall you evaded the point of discussion to attack grammar because you couldn't adress the topic.

This kind of invalidates the outsmarted part as well.

No graduate student?

Since when is a student of ANYTHING a measure of knowledge?

......and now we come to spelling.

You paid for a degree in something rendered more useless everyday by all of American society in various dialects and occupations. It is taught by lazy socialists supplanting "cultural literacy" for spelling and reading comprehension skills while nobody in the nation cares and uses spell checkers in place of mental capacity.

I was doing the work you graduated with when I was in JR high.

-That was in '87.

Don't make me show your incompetence again.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
An odd thought just occurred to me. Airline Security are federal employees. Is what your saying mean that according to the fourth Ammendment it would be illegal for the security officials at the airlines to ask for IDS?

this is not the case as flying is only one means to travel. If you dont' want comply, you dont' have to fly, you can drive, or walk, or swim, etc.....

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
An odd thought just occurred to me. Airline Security are federal employees. Is what your saying mean that according to the fourth Ammendment it would be illegal for the security officials at the airlines to ask for IDS?

If they are government, isn't that what it says?