Don't Catch The Rapist

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Your notion of me is quite wrong.

incorrect, YOUR notion of YOU is quite wrong.

The arguments presented are quite clear and convincing for those that can see the facts even when it supports something they don't agree with.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Man! this "ignore" feature is COOL!

You are prone to ignorance, aren't you. Ostriches just stick their head right into the sand. Try that. You'll feel more comfortable, as your idiotic worldview will no longer be threatened by truth.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
You wrote a lot of crap. None of it convincing.


Bush or kerry?

RWA how can you say that all of those reasons and examples given by New Guy are crap? Are you that blind that you think that you're claptrap is the only truth? I too am against the Patriot Act for reasons given by DK and New Guy, its an erosion of freedom and liberty no to mention giving way too much authority to the FBI and likeminded organizations. Its bullshit! Nothing more than a power grab using 9/11 as an excuse.

How do you feel about cameras being posted on light poles and receiving speeding tickets in the mail. This happens now and nobody says anything, I hope you like your new America, or should I say Soviet Union?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
incorrect, YOUR notion of YOU is quite wrong.

The arguments presented are quite clear and convincing for those that can see the facts even when it supports something they don't agree with.

I disagree with your assessment of me.

 

[TN_Independent]

I support the Constitution of the United States. For that reason, I would be opposed to this type of widespread DNA swab type gathering of "information".

The fourth amendment protects against this. Period.


<b>
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

</b>

I have broken no laws. I am not fearful of the police. Should I then be subject to being stopped on the street to contribute DNA? No.

There are instances where this is acceptable, but not in public. I am in favor, for instance, of mandatory drug testing in the workplace. Hell, I'm even in favor of testing everyone who receives any (and I do mean any) government funding - be it through employment, welfare, grants, etc. Not drug free, lose your funding....

You see, I am not afraid of drug testing because I am drug free. I would not want, however, to be stopped in the Wal-Mart and asked to piss in a jar. That would be unconstitutional.

Just my $0.02 worth.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I disagree with your assessment of me.

Well surprise surprise! As Gomer Pyle would say. Man you are so deep into your psychosis its sad.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
Well surprise surprise! As Gomer Pyle would say. Man you are so deep into your psychosis its sad.

Wrong, tyke.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by OCA
How do you feel about cameras being posted on light poles and receiving speeding tickets in the mail. This happens now and nobody says anything, I hope you like your new America, or should I say Soviet Union?

I have no problem with intersection cameras to catch red light runners and speeders, its the lack of oversight on the extra uses, or abuses, that these functions contain.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by TN_Independent
I support the Constitution of the United States. For that reason, I would be opposed to this type of widespread DNA swab type gathering of "information".

The fourth amendment protects against this. Period.


<b>
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

</b>

I have broken no laws. I am not fearful of the police. Should I then be subject to being stopped on the street to contribute DNA? No.

There are instances where this is acceptable, but not in public. I am in favor, for instance, of mandatory drug testing in the workplace. Hell, I'm even in favor of testing everyone who receives any (and I do mean any) government funding - be it through employment, welfare, grants, etc. Not drug free, lose your funding....

You see, I am not afraid of drug testing because I am drug free. I would not want, however, to be stopped in the Wal-Mart and asked to piss in a jar. That would be unconstitutional.

Just my $0.02 worth.

What if you match a description of a perp? Then is it wrong ? What if someone alleged it was you under affirmation or oath. What about then?

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Wrong, tyke.

Present 1, just 1 valid argument on this subject and I for one will retract my assessment of you. But rather lets see what you will say when you are stopped randomly by cops on your way to 7-11 to cash your food stamps for a 40oz.

 

[TN_Independent]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
What if you match a description of a perp? Then is it wrong ? What if someone alleged it was you under affirmation or oath. What about then?

That is already covered under present law. If sufficient evidence exists, search warrants may be obtained and the DNA gathered. As the law, and Constitution, allow.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by OCA
Present 1, just 1 valid argument on this subject and I for one will retract my assessment of you. But rather lets see what you will say when you are stopped randomly by cops on your way to 7-11 to cash your food stamps for a 40oz.

:cof:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
Present 1, just 1 valid argument on this subject and I for one will retract my assessment of you. But rather lets see what you will say when you are stopped randomly by cops on your way to 7-11 to cash your food stamps for a 40oz.

Which argument?

I receive no welfare. Never will. I'd beg in the street first. Or just die. If I can't be a human being, I choose not to be a parasite.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I have no problem with intersection cameras to catch red light runners and speeders, its the lack of oversight on the extra uses, or abuses, that these functions contain.

Red light runners I have no problem with cause they cause accidents but getting a ticket in the mail from some camera for going 32 in a 25 is a little extreme. Yes that happened to me.

Expound on the oversights I didn't quite catch where you were going with that, please?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
What if you match a description of a perp? Then is it wrong ? What if someone alleged it was you under affirmation or oath. What about then?

I can hear the conversation now, "excuse me sir, but you match the classified description of the suspect in a classified criminal investigation so we need a DNA swab that will remain classified in a classified database that may or may not be used later but we can't give you any more info on that because its classified. open please."

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by TN_Independent
That is already covered under present law. If sufficient evidence exists, search warrants may be obtained and the DNA gathered. As the law, and Constitution, allow.

Just for the record, TN_, I totally agree and the Constitution DOES clearly cover the issue.

I have spent long enough here to know RWA and others like him don't read it, and therefore don't care what it says. For this reason I have taken to other measures in illustrating the point.

I SHOULD have been responsible enough to post the reference you did though.

Thanks.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by OCA
Present 1, just 1 valid argument on this subject and I for one will retract my assessment of you. But rather lets see what you will say when you are stopped randomly by cops on your way to 7-11 to cash your food stamps for a 40oz.

buying alcohol with food stamps would be considered fraud of the states benefits and will get you disqualified for future benefits. :

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Which argument?

I receive no welfare. Never will. I'd beg in the street first. Or just die. If I can't be a human being, I choose not to be a parasite.

Slick I was busting your balls about welfare dumbass. Present 1 convincing argument on why the Patriot Act is indispensible to America.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Which argument?

I receive no welfare. Never will. I'd beg in the street first. Or just die. If I can't be a human being, I choose not to be a parasite.

so much for that 'self interest' argument you presented in another thread, eh?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Just for the record, TN_, I totally agree and the Constitution DOES clearly cover the issue.

I have spent long enough here to know RWA and others like him don't read it, and therefore don't care what it says. For this reason I have taken to other measures in illustrating the point.

I SHOULD have been responsible enough to post the reference you did though.

Thanks.

Isn't an eyewitness description of the perp an oath or affirmation? It is. It's constitutional. Do you need help remounting your high horse?(from behind.)