#OWS Signs

[daveman]

I don't wonder why wingnuts and radical extremists laugh in my face, no.

Me? A radical extremist? You've been programmed well by the Obama Administration. Stupid sheep. Perhaps you should denounce me to ATTACKWATCH!!

If you haven't already, that is.

Corporations are people? That's radical and extreme.

Corporations are made of people. Just like unions.

Funny how you never seem to object to union money in campaigns, huh? And by funny, I mean "hypocritical".

 

[daveman]

Me? A radical extremist? You've been programmed well by the Obama Administration. Stupid sheep. Perhaps you should denounce me to ATTACKWATCH!!

If you haven't already, that is.

And besides? If Following the Constitution is being extremist? Report me too!

Only, you don't.

You hate the 14th amendment.
You support violating the 4th amendment.
You want to curtail voting rights.
You want to spy on Americans.
You think the 16th amendment is a fraud.


For starters.

ETA:

trying suspected terrorists in military tribunals rather than in civilian courts
racial profiling



Wingnuts hate the Constitution.

Provide links to posts of his advocating those positions.

 

[Full-Auto]

I don't wonder why wingnuts and radical extremists laugh in my face, no.

Me? A radical extremist? You've been programmed well by the Obama Administration. Stupid sheep. Perhaps you should denounce me to ATTACKWATCH!!

If you haven't already, that is.

Corporations are people? That's radical and extreme.

We understand pussies like you.

You insist on the right to assembly while bitching about the right to assembly.

 

[Liability]

Me? A radical extremist? You've been programmed well by the Obama Administration. Stupid sheep. Perhaps you should denounce me to ATTACKWATCH!!

If you haven't already, that is.

And besides? If Following the Constitution is being extremist? Report me too!

Only, you don't.

You hate the 14th amendment.
You support violating the 4th amendment.
You want to curtail voting rights.
You want to spy on Americans.
You think the 16th amendment is a fraud.


For starters.

ETA:

trying suspected terrorists in military tribunals rather than in civilian courts
racial profiling



Wingnuts hate the Constitution.

There is, of course, no truth to the spew just offered by the dishonest SimplyAssholic.

Neither the T nor conservatives in general oppose the 14th Amendment. We just don't read it the way you idiots of the far left insist on deliberately misconstruing it. That's a significant difference.

Nobody supports violating the 4th Amendment.

The T and I and all other conservatives support curtailing voting rights for felons. And non-U.S. citizens. And the dead. You don't. This doesn't make you liberal, it just underscores your fundamental dishonesty.

The ones who support spying on Americans, generally, are you libs. This is the basic premise of the IRS and lots of insidious so-called tax laws.

The 16th Amendment is part of the law of the land. It's not a fraud. It may have been a mistake. It should be repealed and replaced by rational, fair and logically consistent alternatives.

Trying those "suspected" of acts of war in military tribunals is proper. Pretending that their behavior is merely a criminal law issue is the kind of stupid thinking that helped get us into this mess.

You letwingnuts hate the Constitution and rationality.

You, SimplyAssholic, remain an idiot.

 

[Liability]

I don't wonder why wingnuts and radical extremists laugh in my face, no.

Me? A radical extremist? You've been programmed well by the Obama Administration. Stupid sheep. Perhaps you should denounce me to ATTACKWATCH!!

If you haven't already, that is.

Corporations are people? That's radical and extreme.

Wrong.

The denial of the legal fiction that, for certain basic purposes, Corporations are "people" is radical, extreme and ridiculous.

 

[The T]

Me? A radical extremist? You've been programmed well by the Obama Administration. Stupid sheep. Perhaps you should denounce me to ATTACKWATCH!!

If you haven't already, that is.

And besides? If Following the Constitution is being extremist? Report me too!

Only, you don't.

You hate the 14th amendment.
You support violating the 4th amendment.
You want to curtail voting rights.
You want to spy on Americans.
You think the 16th amendment is a fraud.


For starters.

ETA:

trying suspected terrorists in military tribunals rather than in civilian courts
racial profiling



Wingnuts hate the Constitution.

You may dispense with the facade. And you may stop telling us what we think. Only Statists put words in people's mouths, and last time I checked? I am not a Statist. When you educate yourself on the Constitution? Come back and see us.

 

[Synthaholic]

And besides? If Following the Constitution is being extremist? Report me too!

Only, you don't.

You hate the 14th amendment.
You support violating the 4th amendment.
You want to curtail voting rights.
You want to spy on Americans.
You think the 16th amendment is a fraud.


For starters.

ETA:

trying suspected terrorists in military tribunals rather than in civilian courts
racial profiling



Wingnuts hate the Constitution.

Provide links to posts of his advocating those positions.

Wingnuts support those positions which are contrary to the Constitution.

 

[Liability]

Only, you don't.

You hate the 14th amendment.
You support violating the 4th amendment.
You want to curtail voting rights.
You want to spy on Americans.
You think the 16th amendment is a fraud.


For starters.

ETA:

trying suspected terrorists in military tribunals rather than in civilian courts
racial profiling



Wingnuts hate the Constitution.

Provide links to posts of his advocating those positions.

Wingnuts support those positions which are contrary to the Constitution.

Thus, by your own definition, you and all libs tend to be wingnuts.

Thanks for flailing.

 

[Synthaholic]

And besides? If Following the Constitution is being extremist? Report me too!

Only, you don't.

You hate the 14th amendment.
You support violating the 4th amendment.
You want to curtail voting rights.
You want to spy on Americans.
You think the 16th amendment is a fraud.


For starters.

ETA:

trying suspected terrorists in military tribunals rather than in civilian courts
racial profiling



Wingnuts hate the Constitution.

There is, of course, no truth to the spew just offered by the dishonest SimplyAssholic.

Neither the T nor conservatives in general oppose the 14th Amendment. We just don't read it the way you idiots of the far left insist on deliberately misconstruing it. That's a significant difference.

Nobody supports violating the 4th Amendment.

The T and I and all other conservatives support curtailing voting rights for felons. And non-U.S. citizens. And the dead. You don't. This doesn't make you liberal, it just underscores your fundamental dishonesty.

The ones who support spying on Americans, generally, are you libs. This is the basic premise of the IRS and lots of insidious so-called tax laws.

The 16th Amendment is part of the law of the land. It's not a fraud. It may have been a mistake. It should be repealed and replaced by rational, fair and logically consistent alternatives.

Trying those "suspected" of acts of war in military tribunals is proper. Pretending that their behavior is merely a criminal law issue is the kind of stupid thinking that helped get us into this mess.

You letwingnuts hate the Constitution and rationality.

You, SimplyAssholic, remain an idiot.

Your general "no, YOU!!!" obviously doesn't cut it, so let's take one:

Please point to Rightwingers bringing legislation in the House - which they completely control - that protects citizens from having their phones searched by police, without a warrant.

It's been going on for quite a while, so they have no excuse for not addressing it in some way, with some bill.

 

[Liability]

Only, you don't.

You hate the 14th amendment.
You support violating the 4th amendment.
You want to curtail voting rights.
You want to spy on Americans.
You think the 16th amendment is a fraud.


For starters.

ETA:

trying suspected terrorists in military tribunals rather than in civilian courts
racial profiling



Wingnuts hate the Constitution.

There is, of course, no truth to the spew just offered by the dishonest SimplyAssholic.

Neither the T nor conservatives in general oppose the 14th Amendment. We just don't read it the way you idiots of the far left insist on deliberately misconstruing it. That's a significant difference.

Nobody supports violating the 4th Amendment.

The T and I and all other conservatives support curtailing voting rights for felons. And non-U.S. citizens. And the dead. You don't. This doesn't make you liberal, it just underscores your fundamental dishonesty.

The ones who support spying on Americans, generally, are you libs. This is the basic premise of the IRS and lots of insidious so-called tax laws.

The 16th Amendment is part of the law of the land. It's not a fraud. It may have been a mistake. It should be repealed and replaced by rational, fair and logically consistent alternatives.

Trying those "suspected" of acts of war in military tribunals is proper. Pretending that their behavior is merely a criminal law issue is the kind of stupid thinking that helped get us into this mess.

You letwingnuts hate the Constitution and rationality.

You, SimplyAssholic, remain an idiot.

Your general "no, YOU!!!" obviously doesn't cut it, so let's take one:

Please point to Rightwingers bringing legislation in the House - which they completely control - that protects citizens from having their phones searched by police, without a warrant.

It's been going on for quite a while, so they have no excuse for not addressing it in some way, with some bill.

Let's pretend that you have the first ******* clue about whatever the **** it is you are babbling about.

No. Let's not.

Take it a step back, stupid.

Try to FIRST establish that your "claim" has even the first blush of truth to it.

What basis do you actually HAVE to contend that there is any legislation required to stop police from searching phones (whatever the **** that phrase might mean to you)? How exactly do "police" presently engage in searches of your "phone" without a "warrant?"

Who is getting targeted for these alleged "searches?'

I bet I know what kind of tripe you're gonna come back with. And I take this opportunity to laugh at you in advance.

But I will refrain from attempting to speak FOR you. Carry your burden, child.

Provide some hint of a factually verifiable contention, first, so we can all know whatever it is you imagine you are talking about.

 

[Sunshine]

I don't wonder why wingnuts and radical extremists laugh in my face, no.

Me? A radical extremist? You've been programmed well by the Obama Administration. Stupid sheep. Perhaps you should denounce me to ATTACKWATCH!!

If you haven't already, that is.

Corporations are people? That's radical and extreme.

A corporation is not a 'person.' A corporation is an 'entity' that has some of the same rights and responsiblities that a person has.

A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity that has privileges and liabilities that are distinct from those of its members.[1] There are many different forms of corporations, most of which are used to conduct business. Early corporations were established by charter (i.e. by an ad hoc act passed by a parliament or legislature). Most jurisdictions now allow the creation of new corporations through registration.

An important (but not universal) contemporary feature of a corporation is limited liability. If a corporation fails, shareholders may lose their investments, and employees may lose their jobs, but neither will be liable for debts to the corporation's creditors.

Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like natural persons ("people"). Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[2] and they can themselves be responsible for human rights violations.[3] Corporations are conceptually immortal but they can "die" when they are "dissolved" either by statutory operation, order of court, or voluntary action on the part of shareholders. Insolvency may result in a form of corporate 'death', when creditors force the liquidation and dissolution of the corporation under court order,[4] but it most often results in a restructuring of corporate holdings. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offenses, such as fraud and manslaughter.[5]

Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Synthaholic]

There is, of course, no truth to the spew just offered by the dishonest SimplyAssholic.

Neither the T nor conservatives in general oppose the 14th Amendment. We just don't read it the way you idiots of the far left insist on deliberately misconstruing it. That's a significant difference.

Nobody supports violating the 4th Amendment.

The T and I and all other conservatives support curtailing voting rights for felons. And non-U.S. citizens. And the dead. You don't. This doesn't make you liberal, it just underscores your fundamental dishonesty.

The ones who support spying on Americans, generally, are you libs. This is the basic premise of the IRS and lots of insidious so-called tax laws.

The 16th Amendment is part of the law of the land. It's not a fraud. It may have been a mistake. It should be repealed and replaced by rational, fair and logically consistent alternatives.

Trying those "suspected" of acts of war in military tribunals is proper. Pretending that their behavior is merely a criminal law issue is the kind of stupid thinking that helped get us into this mess.

You letwingnuts hate the Constitution and rationality.

You, SimplyAssholic, remain an idiot.

Your general "no, YOU!!!" obviously doesn't cut it, so let's take one:

Please point to Rightwingers bringing legislation in the House - which they completely control - that protects citizens from having their phones searched by police, without a warrant.

It's been going on for quite a while, so they have no excuse for not addressing it in some way, with some bill.

Let's pretend that you have the first ******* clue about whatever the **** it is you are babbling about.

No. Let's not.

Take it a step back, stupid.

Try to FIRST establish that your "claim" has even the first blush of truth to it.

What basis do you actually HAVE to contend that there is any legislation required to stop police from searching phones (whatever the **** that phrase might mean to you)? How exactly do "police" presently engage in searches of your "phone" without a "warrant?"

Who is getting targeted for these alleged "searches?'

I bet I know what kind of tripe you're gonna come back with. And I take this opportunity to laugh at you in advance.

But I will refrain from attempting to speak FOR you. Carry your burden, child.

Provide some hint of a factually verifiable contention, first, so we can all know whatever it is you imagine you are talking about.

You really are a ******* imbecile who fills the screen with deflective insulting (and your monitor with spittle) to hide the fact that you are clueless as to recent news.

If you don't have an answer, just say so.

If you are too lazy to look up anything to see what another poster is talking about, just say so.

No one will think anything worse about you than they already do.

Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops

Ruling lets California police search your phone without a warrant - CNN

The first is Michigan. The second is California.

And you claim to be a lawyer.

 

[daveman]

Only, you don't.

You hate the 14th amendment.
You support violating the 4th amendment.
You want to curtail voting rights.
You want to spy on Americans.
You think the 16th amendment is a fraud.


For starters.

ETA:

trying suspected terrorists in military tribunals rather than in civilian courts
racial profiling



Wingnuts hate the Constitution.

Provide links to posts of his advocating those positions.

Wingnuts support those positions which are contrary to the Constitution.

Repeating leftist horseshit is not proof. Well, all it proves is you're an idiot.

 

[Liability]

Your general "no, YOU!!!" obviously doesn't cut it, so let's take one:

Please point to Rightwingers bringing legislation in the House - which they completely control - that protects citizens from having their phones searched by police, without a warrant.

It's been going on for quite a while, so they have no excuse for not addressing it in some way, with some bill.

Let's pretend that you have the first ******* clue about whatever the **** it is you are babbling about.

No. Let's not.

Take it a step back, stupid.

Try to FIRST establish that your "claim" has even the first blush of truth to it.

What basis do you actually HAVE to contend that there is any legislation required to stop police from searching phones (whatever the **** that phrase might mean to you)? How exactly do "police" presently engage in searches of your "phone" without a "warrant?"

Who is getting targeted for these alleged "searches?'

I bet I know what kind of tripe you're gonna come back with. And I take this opportunity to laugh at you in advance.

But I will refrain from attempting to speak FOR you. Carry your burden, child.

Provide some hint of a factually verifiable contention, first, so we can all know whatever it is you imagine you are talking about.

You really are a ******* imbecile who fills the screen with deflective insulting (and your monitor with spittle) to hide the fact that you are clueless as to recent news.

If you don't have an answer, just say so.

If you are too lazy to look up anything to see what another poster is talking about, just say so.

No one will think anything worse about you than they already do.

Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops

Ruling lets California police search your phone without a warrant - CNN

The first is Michigan. The second is California.

And you claim to be a lawyer.

LOL. Nice try.

Next time, though, try harder.

Instead of pretending that a decision that "permits" cops to search a cell phone is some horrifying new invasion of your Constitutional rights, try to figure out what the decision actually says.

Also, you ******* moron, try to imagine something about the real world where lawyers don't immediately download and memorize every incident, news item or case that affects one narrow area of one realm of the law.

Then, try to imagine that this is a world where a GOP controlled House of Representatives of the the U.S. Congress would have some reason to propose any legislation about such matters.

You really do remain a dickweed.

 

[Liability]

By the way, the Michigan police capability does seem somewhat alarming.

If Michigan Courts cannot deter that alleged practice, then maybe the Federal Courts can. It might require no Federal legislation.

But if it does, where are the liberal Democratics in Congress?

Where's the outrage from the House Minority?

For that matter, what has the Dim Controlled Senate done in proposing legislation about this Michigan police capability?

 

[Liability]

The California ruling is less disturbing.

A search "incident to a lawful arrest" has long been considered an exception to any warrant requirement.

The California decision might expand the scope of that search, and how far it goes is worthy of at least a second look.

But again, the appeals process is not exhausted, Chicken Dipshit -- err -- Little. So stop wetting your panties, SimplyAssholic.

 

[Contumacious]

Your general "no, YOU!!!" obviously doesn't cut it, so let's take one:

Please point to Rightwingers bringing legislation in the House - which they completely control - that protects citizens from having their phones searched by police, without a warrant.

It's been going on for quite a while, so they have no excuse for not addressing it in some way, with some bill.

Let's pretend that you have the first ******* clue about whatever the **** it is you are babbling about.

No. Let's not.

Take it a step back, stupid.

Try to FIRST establish that your "claim" has even the first blush of truth to it.

What basis do you actually HAVE to contend that there is any legislation required to stop police from searching phones (whatever the **** that phrase might mean to you)? How exactly do "police" presently engage in searches of your "phone" without a "warrant?"

Who is getting targeted for these alleged "searches?'

I bet I know what kind of tripe you're gonna come back with. And I take this opportunity to laugh at you in advance.

But I will refrain from attempting to speak FOR you. Carry your burden, child.

Provide some hint of a factually verifiable contention, first, so we can all know whatever it is you imagine you are talking about.

You really are a ******* imbecile who fills the screen with deflective insulting (and your monitor with spittle) to hide the fact that you are clueless as to recent news.

If you don't have an answer, just say so.

If you are too lazy to look up anything to see what another poster is talking about, just say so.

No one will think anything worse about you than they already do.

Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops

Ruling lets California police search your phone without a warrant - CNN

The first is Michigan. The second is California.

And you claim to be a lawyer.

The morale of the story is that we are being governed by criminal scumbags.

But the stupid ***** will soon find out what the KGB found out . Human ingenuity will outsmart the motherfuckers:

SECURED CELL PHONES

.

 

[Liability]

Let's pretend that you have the first ******* clue about whatever the **** it is you are babbling about.

No. Let's not.

Take it a step back, stupid.

Try to FIRST establish that your "claim" has even the first blush of truth to it.

What basis do you actually HAVE to contend that there is any legislation required to stop police from searching phones (whatever the **** that phrase might mean to you)? How exactly do "police" presently engage in searches of your "phone" without a "warrant?"

Who is getting targeted for these alleged "searches?'

I bet I know what kind of tripe you're gonna come back with. And I take this opportunity to laugh at you in advance.

But I will refrain from attempting to speak FOR you. Carry your burden, child.

Provide some hint of a factually verifiable contention, first, so we can all know whatever it is you imagine you are talking about.

You really are a ******* imbecile who fills the screen with deflective insulting (and your monitor with spittle) to hide the fact that you are clueless as to recent news.

If you don't have an answer, just say so.

If you are too lazy to look up anything to see what another poster is talking about, just say so.

No one will think anything worse about you than they already do.

Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops

Ruling lets California police search your phone without a warrant - CNN

The first is Michigan. The second is California.

And you claim to be a lawyer.

The morale of the story is that we are being governed by criminal scumbags.

But the stupid ***** will soon find out what the KGB found out . Human ingenuity will outsmart the motherfuckers:

SECURED CELL PHONES

.

They may not be all that terribly secure.


,

 

[thereisnospoon]

Or

"The loan officer should have done his homework and checked my situation more carefully and found that I really couldn't afford the property based on my income and other obligations and turned me down."

Ridiculous. That implies the prospective borrower was forced to engage the deal to borrow.

 

[Contumacious]

You really are a ******* imbecile who fills the screen with deflective insulting (and your monitor with spittle) to hide the fact that you are clueless as to recent news.

If you don't have an answer, just say so.

If you are too lazy to look up anything to see what another poster is talking about, just say so.

No one will think anything worse about you than they already do.

Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops

Ruling lets California police search your phone without a warrant - CNN

The first is Michigan. The second is California.

And you claim to be a lawyer.

The morale of the story is that we are being governed by criminal scumbags.

But the stupid ***** will soon find out what the KGB found out . Human ingenuity will outsmart the motherfuckers:

SECURED CELL PHONES

.

They may not be all that terribly secure.


,

They must be - cellcrypt software is being used by the military.

I guarantee that after the California ruling entrepreneurs will have reliable , affordable software in time for the Xmas stockings..

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Thomas Jefferson

.




.