Ooops! There Goes Another Freedom!

[Mojo2]

The author of this thread needs to attempt to understand the principle of presumption of innocence,

aka innocent until proven guilty.

The author of your post needs to attempt to understand the principle of reading only what is on the page. But read it completely and faithfully and interpret it accurately.

No one has mentioned NOT trying him. We all just know he is guilty and we are certain the jury proceedings will confirm our suspicions and he will have gotten justice.

Then he will be sentenced.

 

[Sallow]

Another inane PC cut and paste thread.

What time is it? I do believe she missed an hour.

What does 'cut and paste' mean?


Why do you consider it a pejorative.

Seems to be one of those meaningless phrases that the inept use in trying to be relevant.


To me, it means that you object to the OP, dislike its import, yet haven't the ability or knowledge to contest it.



True?

Why would I 'object' to the OP.

It's amusing.

Like you.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoMjeOWzC0g]crazy old man singers - YouTube[/ame]

Boy howdy..real amusing!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So the Federal Government does not possess the power to enforce the protections of your rights provided in the Constitution?

Are you mad?

Forgive me for engaging you seriously for a moment; I realize you are just a KOS kiddie spewing mindless party slogans...

BUT!

I have the right of free speech. Do I need Federal Overlords to enforce that right? No, I only need them not to INFRINGE that right. The right exists of its own volition, up until the moment that an agent of the state infringes it.

So your talking point is idiocy.

Actually not.

Although our rights are inalienable they are not absolute, as government is authorized to place reasonable restrictions on our rights predicated on a rational basis pursuant to a legitimate legislative end.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)), and all acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until such time as a Federal court rules otherwise (US v. Morrison (2000)).

And state and local laws are subject to the Federal Constitution where incorporated by the 14th Amendment (Gitlow v. New York (1925)), and state or local laws determined to be offensive to the Constitution by Federal courts can be invalidated accordingly.

Therefore, if a person perceives his civil liberties violated by Congress or a given state or local jurisdiction, he is at liberty to file suit in Federal court to seek relief, and he must abide by the rulings of the Federal courts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another inane PC cut and paste thread.

What time is it? I do believe she missed an hour.

What does 'cut and paste' mean?


Why do you consider it a pejorative.

Seems to be one of those meaningless phrases that the inept use in trying to be relevant.


To me, it means that you object to the OP, dislike its import, yet haven't the ability or knowledge to contest it.



True?

Why would I 'object' to the OP.

It's amusing.

Like you.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoMjeOWzC0g]crazy old man singers - YouTube[/ame]

Boy howdy..real amusing!

Why is it you are never able to respond to any of the OPs?


Could it possibly be related to this incident....

Remember the first thing you heard the paramedics say after your accident…”there must be another cerebral hemisphere around here somewhere…”
Sorry they couldn’t come up with it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually not.

Although our rights are inalienable they are not absolute,

No one said they were absolute.

And you are late with your straw man, it has already been deployed by a different lefty.

as government is authorized to place reasonable restrictions on our rights predicated on a rational basis pursuant to a legitimate legislative end.

Not entirely accurate. While Kelo V. New London did indeed subvert civil rights in favor of legislative desires, the constitutionality is beyond questionable.

Further, there is generally a distinction between property rights and civil rights, with the question here whether said civil rights require the prophylactic action of government to manifest. Clearly no such affirmative action is needed, rather an absence of restriction is all that is necessary for civil rights to manifest.

Simply put, I may engage in free speech unless the state acts to infringe my speech. Notice this does not say that there is never an instance where the state is justified in acting, only that the speech will manifest absent action by the state.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)), and all acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until such time as a Federal court rules otherwise (US v. Morrison (2000)).

And state and local laws are subject to the Federal Constitution where incorporated by the 14th Amendment (Gitlow v. New York (1925)), and state or local laws determined to be offensive to the Constitution by Federal courts can be invalidated accordingly.

Therefore, if a person perceives his civil liberties violated by Congress or a given state or local jurisdiction, he is at liberty to file suit in Federal court to seek relief, and he must abide by the rulings of the Federal courts.

All very nice, and very irrelevant.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What does 'cut and paste' mean?


Why do you consider it a pejorative.

Seems to be one of those meaningless phrases that the inept use in trying to be relevant.


To me, it means that you object to the OP, dislike its import, yet haven't the ability or knowledge to contest it.



True?

Why would I 'object' to the OP.

It's amusing.

Like you.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoMjeOWzC0g]crazy old man singers - YouTube[/ame]

Boy howdy..real amusing!

Why is it you are never able to respond to any of the OPs?

Did you meant to ask why he was unable to respond to any of YOUR OP's? I suppose, if I may speak for another, that all of your threads can be summarized in this way: "Ain't (Obama, W. Wilson, Clinton, Carter, liberals, progressives, Democrats) awful (Commies, Marxists, Stalinists, Maoists, brain dead)....


Could it possibly be related to this incident....

Remember the first thing you heard the paramedics say after your accident…”there must be another cerebral hemisphere around here somewhere…”
Sorry they couldn’t come up with it.

...and you always defend your threads with a personal attack on anyone who doesn't bow down and praise you for being erudite. Of course you're not, for anyone learned or scholarly and armed with a great deal of knowledge is rarely as dogmatic as you; most intelligent men and women have open minds and the ability to see and understand the opinions of others from their perspective without defaulting to ad hominem attacks.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

how does one create a "stamped" when yelling fire?

Well, if you had some imagination you might realize yelling "fire" in a crowd might create a stampede, and a number of people will have the stamp of the shoe manufacturer embedded on their body. Or, that typo's and misspellings are a product of those of us who are not perfect. And you, as a perfect asshole, don't every make mistakes, and if you did it would be the fault of someone or something else.

uhm, i hate to point this out to you but you just defamed my character. in post #62 you claimed no on had the right to do that. Why are you such a hypocrite? why can't you walk your own talk? why the double standards? you know you have just totally exposed yourself as a sham.

Hate to point this out to you, but you’re on an anonymous message board – there’s nothing to ‘defame.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

....what a warning to others who might try to avail themselves of that misnomer, 'freedom of speech.'

Speak out about opposition to government policy.....and the IRS is used to silence you.

There is no evidence that the government is seeking to ‘deny’ anyone his free speech. This thread is clearly ignorant partisan idiocy.

 

[WelfareQueen]

So the Federal Government does not possess the power to enforce the protections of your rights provided in the Constitution?

Are you mad?

Forgive me for engaging you seriously for a moment; I realize you are just a KOS kiddie spewing mindless party slogans...

BUT!

I have the right of free speech. Do I need Federal Overlords to enforce that right? No, I only need them not to INFRINGE that right. The right exists of its own volition, up until the moment that an agent of the state infringes it.

So your talking point is idiocy.

Actually not.

Although our rights are inalienable they are not absolute, as government is authorized to place reasonable restrictions on our rights predicated on a rational basis pursuant to a legitimate legislative end.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)), and all acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until such time as a Federal court rules otherwise (US v. Morrison (2000)).

And state and local laws are subject to the Federal Constitution where incorporated by the 14th Amendment (Gitlow v. New York (1925)), and state or local laws determined to be offensive to the Constitution by Federal courts can be invalidated accordingly.

Therefore, if a person perceives his civil liberties violated by Congress or a given state or local jurisdiction, he is at liberty to file suit in Federal court to seek relief, and he must abide by the rulings of the Federal courts.

Federal Courts have no authority under the Constitution to invalidate any Law by declaring it Unconstitutional. The Courts gave itself that authority (see Marbury vs Madison). That is not how our system of Government works. All Law is derived directly from the people and only the people. Not the Courts. Ever.

Presidents have routinely ignored the Courts rulings of Unconstitutionality in the past and will likely do so again. Liberals love to talk about the power of the Courts. Their power is very limited. Here is exactly what they can do.

Article III

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

 

[manifold]

You wake up and live pissed off. You have merely defined your nasty disposition as "normalcy".

Now, aren't there some neighbor kids you can go chase off your lawn?

Helen, you have Wry all wrong!

He has no lawn, he lives in a Condo in an association, with a communal lawn that has very strict rules on use. He doesn't chase kids off the lawn, he informs on them to the Homeowners Association. He spends his days looking on his neighbors patios to see if there is a potted plant out of place or they hung curtains. or some other infraction he can report to the association.

Don't need to do any of that of late, we have hired our own George Zimmerman, he has a holstered .45, and struts his stuff throughout the complex. Yesterday he found a kid with ice tea and candy, kicked the little punks ass right good. His cub scout uniform was all bloody and the hood on his sweatshirt was coated in his tears and snot he cried so hard. Serves the little shit right, he cut through Mrs. Chamberlain's flower bed. Little bastard, never could understand why they let black kids into the cub scouts, that's un-American.

When the **** did this guy gain possession of a sense of humor?

Are they giving those out with food stamps now?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why would I 'object' to the OP.

It's amusing.

Like you.

crazy old man singers - YouTube

Boy howdy..real amusing!

Why is it you are never able to respond to any of the OPs?

Did you meant to ask why he was unable to respond to any of YOUR OP's? I suppose, if I may speak for another, that all of your threads can be summarized in this way: "Ain't (Obama, W. Wilson, Clinton, Carter, liberals, progressives, Democrats) awful (Commies, Marxists, Stalinists, Maoists, brain dead)....


Could it possibly be related to this incident....

Remember the first thing you heard the paramedics say after your accident…”there must be another cerebral hemisphere around here somewhere…”
Sorry they couldn’t come up with it.

...and you always defend your threads with a personal attack on anyone who doesn't bow down and praise you for being erudite. Of course you're not, for anyone learned or scholarly and armed with a great deal of knowledge is rarely as dogmatic as you; most intelligent men and women have open minds and the ability to see and understand the opinions of others from their perspective without defaulting to ad hominem attacks.

First...you are correct that I have and will continue to attack the 'awful' Liberal/Progressive/communists.....

You know what I stand for, and I promise never to hide same:
I, the individual...you, the collective.


'To embrace tolerance is to cease to believe in anything.'
Chesterton



Now, once you have revealed the reason for our disagreements....

...how seriously should I take ' a personal attack on anyone who doesn't bow down and praise you for being erudite..."

Y' think?



Ready?


You're so dumb your dog teaches you tricks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

wrong, we elect the members of the federal government they work for us. they are not an all powerful entity that can make decisions in a vaccuum and go against our will, change our rights or infringe on them.

So the Federal Government does not possess the power to enforce the protections of your rights provided in the Constitution?

Are you mad?

enforce them, not change them.

In order to enforce the protection of our rights, the federal government has to have the power to determine what they are exactly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The author of this thread needs to attempt to understand the principle of presumption of innocence,

aka innocent until proven guilty.

The author of your post needs to attempt to understand the principle of reading only what is on the page. But read it completely and faithfully and interpret it accurately.

No one has mentioned NOT trying him. We all just know he is guilty and we are certain the jury proceedings will confirm our suspicions and he will have gotten justice.

Then he will be sentenced.

One cannot be justly found guilty of a crime unless there is credible evidence against him. The OP offers no credible evidence, nor do you.

Therefore your assumption of guilt is without merit or justice.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tell us, for the record, did Nixon use the IRS against his enemies or not? Since you're on record once that he did, and once that he didn't, as I documented,

I do believe a clarification would be in order.

Either way, we know for a fact that Obama did, and continues to.

But you have no problem that that, because your party is above the law.

You have no evidence whatsoever that Obama did. A fact cannot be so without evidence to establish it as fact, therefore you are wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So the Federal Government does not possess the power to enforce the protections of your rights provided in the Constitution?

Are you mad?

Forgive me for engaging you seriously for a moment; I realize you are just a KOS kiddie spewing mindless party slogans...

BUT!

I have the right of free speech. Do I need Federal Overlords to enforce that right? No, I only need them not to INFRINGE that right. The right exists of its own volition, up until the moment that an agent of the state infringes it.

So your talking point is idiocy.

If you don't need the federal government to enforce your rights, why is it that gun rights advocates run to the Supreme Court every time they believe some state or local government has passed a law taking away their gun rights?

 

[kwc57]

You are mad. You have no right to engage in defamation of someone's character, nor do you have the right to yell, "Fire" to create a stamped. You have no right to commit perjury, nor the right to engage in an oral contract and not fulfill your obligations.

how does one create a "stamped" when yelling fire?

Well, if you had some imagination you might realize yelling "fire" in a crowd might create a stampede, and a number of people will have the stamp of the shoe manufacturer embedded on their body. Or, that typo's and misspellings are a product of those of us who are not perfect. And you, as a perfect asshole, don't every make mistakes, and if you did it would be the fault of someone or something else.

We aren't discussing Obama are we?

 

[kwc57]

So the Federal Government does not possess the power to enforce the protections of your rights provided in the Constitution?

Are you mad?

enforce them, not change them.

In order to enforce the protection of our rights, the federal government has to have the power to determine what they are exactly.

Power? To read the constitution? It's pretty cut and dried.

 

[NYcarbineer]

enforce them, not change them.

In order to enforce the protection of our rights, the federal government has to have the power to determine what they are exactly.

Power? To read the constitution? It's pretty cut and dried.

So why did the city of Chicago pass a law banning handguns? And why did gun rights advocates need the power of the federal government to overturn that law?

And what would gun rights advocates have done if we did not grant the federal government that power?

 

[NYcarbineer]

enforce them, not change them.

In order to enforce the protection of our rights, the federal government has to have the power to determine what they are exactly.

Power? To read the constitution? It's pretty cut and dried.

It is? Then where in the Constitution's reading is it cut and dried that publishing child pornography is not protected by the 1st Amendment as freedom of the press?

 

[Moonglow]

I'm into collectivism, why I've been a numismatist for many years.