Protesters have no free-speech rights on Supreme Court’s front porch

[paddymurphy]

In America, your freedom is your luck.

No. You are freer here than in most other places on earth. That you don't realize that is a product of your own ignorance.

In America, your freedom is your luck, period. If not, please explain why not. Thanks. ........... Remember, we have many innocent citizens in our prisons and jails. We have a very corrupt judicial system. We have a very corrupt government. We do not have freedom of privacy. We can't own anything. Everything we have is subject to taxes, and if we don't pay our taxes, the government takes what they want to take. Law enforcement can stop you for no reason, you can be searched for no reason, your property can be seized without being charged with a crime, you must carry identification on your person to prove who you are, you're not allowed the freedom to carry a weapon without a permit, and you're not allowed to have cash and assets that are not known, reported, or revealed for tax purposes. So, what real freedoms do you have other than to die and pay taxes?

Every thing you posted in support of your claim is false. We have very few innocent people in jail and have the best system in the world to prevent that. No system of justice is perfect. Ours isn't, but is better than all others. We have privacy. I own a house, commercial property, three cars and tons of frivolous toys. Taxes are not an imposition on freedom. It is what pays for the government that helps to preserve our freedom. Police cannot stop you fir no reason; they have to have specific facts that you may be engaged in a crime. Mother cannot search your home without a warrant. You confuse freedom with license and a complete abdication of responsibility. No one knows how much cash I have in my home and elsewhere. No government agency can get access to my bank records without a warrant. The only limits on your freedom are your delusions and paranoia.

FYI - You do NOT own a house. If you think that you own your home, miss paying your property taxes and see how fast it's auctioned off on the courthouse steps. We have many innocent citizens in our jails and prisons ( The Innocence Project ). Taxation is a fraud in this country. I have listed how your tax dollars are spent many times already on USMB. Yes, citizens are stopped by cops all the time for no reason. Have you ever heard of "quota tickets", "police harassment", "mentally disturbed cops", cops given desk duty for improper stops and behavior, and a lot of other things?

They can search your home simple because some informant gave them bogus information. It happens all the time. The government can access any records on you anytime they feel like it, don't kid yourself. Have you been keeping up with the news concerning AT&T and others that freely allow the government to gather information? Have you been keeping up with wiretaps and surveillance since 9 /11?

I was stopped by a cop the other night and he asked me if I knew why. I said I didn't have a clue as to why. He said I was weaving between the lines. Yep, that is twice I got stopped for the same BS. He followed me for what could have only been a minute. He was fishing because I was actually going the speed limit and I bet he wondered why, he sure wasn't when he pulled up on me.

Not bs. It is a traffic violation to not stay within your lane. It is a sign you might be drunk. He stopped you. Briefly detained you to see if you were ok and let you go on your way. If you keep getting stopped for weaving all over the road, you have a problem.

 

[paddymurphy]

I

We're free to die and pay taxes, and that's about it.

Oh you still have the right to protest, just not where those you are protesting can hear.

So, moving ten feet further away, onto the public area of the court, means no one inside is aware of the protest? What does it matter if the Court hears you? Judges are not permitted to be influenced by anything outside the record of the matter being heard.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA not allowed by whom????? What a freakin' joke you made my day start out with a good belly laugh. If what you said is true then at least two of the SCOTUS would have to had to have recluse themselves from the decision concerning gay marriage. But they did not. Do you really think that the Dred Scott decision was based on anything but societal bias? The making of law in the ACA rulings?

What you said is true in the abstract or in an ideal world but it is far from the reality of the situation.

You do realize that we are talking about a place that YOU own as a tax payer, not the supreme court.

No justices would had to have recused. Your insinuation that because of Clarence Thomas's wife's partisan activity against gay marriage should have caused him to recuse is unfair. And that has nothing to do with maintaining security and decorum at a courthouse. What is the difference if the protestors are fifty feet away versus up against the front doors? Do yourself a favor and read a time and place free speech case.

oh how damn cute you are. When did Thomas's wife join the court?

From the following site, a rational look as to why they could have stepped down in this case. Not because their significant other held a view but because of what THEY themselves did.

3. In addition, Justices Ginsburg and Kagan have officiated at highly publicized homosexual marriages that would potentially be affected by the ruling in these cases. That supports a predisposition to vote in these cases to validate the marriages they have performed.

4. Moreover, four weeks after this Court granted certiorari in these cases, Justice Ginsburg was asked whether parts of the country might not accept homosexual marriage being constitutionalized. She answered: "I think it's doubtful that it wouldn't be accepted. The change in people's attitudes on that issue has been enormous. ... It would not take a large adjustment ...." Bloomberg News interview, Feb. 12, 2015. These extrajudicial comments about a matter pending before the Court violate Canon 3A (6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges: "A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court ...."

5. Additionally, by performing homosexual weddings, Justices Ginsburg and Kagan have improperly lent the prestige of their judicial office to a cause that is now before them for decision. See Canon 2B, Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

6. Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) mandates that any justice of the United States "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." See Pilla v American Bar Ass'n, 542 F.2d 56, 58 (8th Cir. 1976) (explaining that 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) applies to members of the U.S. Supreme Court).

7. Section 455(b) (4) requires recusal when a Supreme Court Justice has "any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding."

Two Supreme Court Judges Should Recuse themselves from Same Sex Marriage Debate | Virtueonline – The Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism

I said Justice Thomas did not have a conflict. Pay attention. And they presided over marriages where they were already legal. The outcome of the case before them would have had no effect on those marriages. And she did not comment on a matter before her. Offering an opinion on whether certain parts of the country would or would not accept gay marriage is not commenting on the merits of the case before the court. That is an idiotic claim.

 

[Freewill]

No. You are freer here than in most other places on earth. That you don't realize that is a product of your own ignorance.

In America, your freedom is your luck, period. If not, please explain why not. Thanks. ........... Remember, we have many innocent citizens in our prisons and jails. We have a very corrupt judicial system. We have a very corrupt government. We do not have freedom of privacy. We can't own anything. Everything we have is subject to taxes, and if we don't pay our taxes, the government takes what they want to take. Law enforcement can stop you for no reason, you can be searched for no reason, your property can be seized without being charged with a crime, you must carry identification on your person to prove who you are, you're not allowed the freedom to carry a weapon without a permit, and you're not allowed to have cash and assets that are not known, reported, or revealed for tax purposes. So, what real freedoms do you have other than to die and pay taxes?

Every thing you posted in support of your claim is false. We have very few innocent people in jail and have the best system in the world to prevent that. No system of justice is perfect. Ours isn't, but is better than all others. We have privacy. I own a house, commercial property, three cars and tons of frivolous toys. Taxes are not an imposition on freedom. It is what pays for the government that helps to preserve our freedom. Police cannot stop you fir no reason; they have to have specific facts that you may be engaged in a crime. Mother cannot search your home without a warrant. You confuse freedom with license and a complete abdication of responsibility. No one knows how much cash I have in my home and elsewhere. No government agency can get access to my bank records without a warrant. The only limits on your freedom are your delusions and paranoia.

FYI - You do NOT own a house. If you think that you own your home, miss paying your property taxes and see how fast it's auctioned off on the courthouse steps. We have many innocent citizens in our jails and prisons ( The Innocence Project ). Taxation is a fraud in this country. I have listed how your tax dollars are spent many times already on USMB. Yes, citizens are stopped by cops all the time for no reason. Have you ever heard of "quota tickets", "police harassment", "mentally disturbed cops", cops given desk duty for improper stops and behavior, and a lot of other things?

They can search your home simple because some informant gave them bogus information. It happens all the time. The government can access any records on you anytime they feel like it, don't kid yourself. Have you been keeping up with the news concerning AT&T and others that freely allow the government to gather information? Have you been keeping up with wiretaps and surveillance since 9 /11?

I was stopped by a cop the other night and he asked me if I knew why. I said I didn't have a clue as to why. He said I was weaving between the lines. Yep, that is twice I got stopped for the same BS. He followed me for what could have only been a minute. He was fishing because I was actually going the speed limit and I bet he wondered why, he sure wasn't when he pulled up on me.

Not bs. It is a traffic violation to not stay within your lane. It is a sign you might be drunk. He stopped you. Briefly detained you to see if you were ok and let you go on your way. If you keep getting stopped for weaving all over the road, you have a problem.

As usual you changed what I posted so you would have something to argue. I didn't get pulled over for weaving across the lines, he said I was weaving BETWEEN the lines. As soon as he pulled up on me I sensed he was a cop and was driving carefully. I really think he thought that because I was being careful and not violating the speed limit, which everyone does, I must be hiding something. I was not weaving at all. Both times I was stopped I knew a cop was behind me, who weaves in such a situation?

This happened before so I knew I should pull over and not let him follow me but the time was too short there was no where to really pull over. So he turned on his lights I put on my four ways and was going to drive to where we could pull off the road and was well lit. He sounded his siren so I pulled into a driveway on a bend where only I could get off the road.

 

[Sonny Clark]

In America, your freedom is your luck, period. If not, please explain why not. Thanks. ........... Remember, we have many innocent citizens in our prisons and jails. We have a very corrupt judicial system. We have a very corrupt government. We do not have freedom of privacy. We can't own anything. Everything we have is subject to taxes, and if we don't pay our taxes, the government takes what they want to take. Law enforcement can stop you for no reason, you can be searched for no reason, your property can be seized without being charged with a crime, you must carry identification on your person to prove who you are, you're not allowed the freedom to carry a weapon without a permit, and you're not allowed to have cash and assets that are not known, reported, or revealed for tax purposes. So, what real freedoms do you have other than to die and pay taxes?

Every thing you posted in support of your claim is false. We have very few innocent people in jail and have the best system in the world to prevent that. No system of justice is perfect. Ours isn't, but is better than all others. We have privacy. I own a house, commercial property, three cars and tons of frivolous toys. Taxes are not an imposition on freedom. It is what pays for the government that helps to preserve our freedom. Police cannot stop you fir no reason; they have to have specific facts that you may be engaged in a crime. Mother cannot search your home without a warrant. You confuse freedom with license and a complete abdication of responsibility. No one knows how much cash I have in my home and elsewhere. No government agency can get access to my bank records without a warrant. The only limits on your freedom are your delusions and paranoia.

FYI - You do NOT own a house. If you think that you own your home, miss paying your property taxes and see how fast it's auctioned off on the courthouse steps. We have many innocent citizens in our jails and prisons ( The Innocence Project ). Taxation is a fraud in this country. I have listed how your tax dollars are spent many times already on USMB. Yes, citizens are stopped by cops all the time for no reason. Have you ever heard of "quota tickets", "police harassment", "mentally disturbed cops", cops given desk duty for improper stops and behavior, and a lot of other things?

They can search your home simple because some informant gave them bogus information. It happens all the time. The government can access any records on you anytime they feel like it, don't kid yourself. Have you been keeping up with the news concerning AT&T and others that freely allow the government to gather information? Have you been keeping up with wiretaps and surveillance since 9 /11?

So, you want to be a deadbeat? You lose your house if you don't pay your mortgage or if you run up huge credit card debts and they sue you. Since when is being made to pay your ******* bills an imposition on freedom? How do you think they pay for the roads that let you get to your house? The fire department you call if your house burns? The police you call when someone breaks into your house? The zoning department that will prevent your neighbor fro turning his backyard into a hazardous weight dump? You really ought to seek help for your paranoia. No one is listening to you phone calls, reading your emails or checking your bank balances. M

Don't be so friggin stupid. THINK. No, I'm NOT a deadbeat, and never have been one. What I have said has absolutely NOTHING to do with being a deadbeat. Please do NOT twist what I say around to make it something else. FYI- I have NO problem paying taxes for the fire department, schools, national security, roads, bridges, highways, etc.. And. I have never ever said nor implied otherwise. Again, please do NOT try to twist what I say to mean something that I did NOT say. Thanks.

And, don't be silly and stupid.

It has everything to do with being a deadbeat. The only way you can lose your home is if you don't pay your bills. Wanna keep your house? Pay your damn bills. Your house is yours. You get tax notices. If you don't pay, you get more. If you still don't pay, they lien your property. Every step of the way, you are notified and have the chance to pay or to challenge your obligation to pay. They give you access to agencies that can help if you are in financial distress. Only when you refuse to pay, can they sell your house on the courthouse steps. If I am wrong about any of this, you point it out.

It has absolutely nothing to do with being a deadbeat, nothing. How can you own a home when the government can take it through eminent domain laws, failure to pay property taxes, and seized in a government raid? Your property is subject to rules, regulations, and local restrictions. The government can tell you what you can put on your property, where you can put it, and even restrict the display of the American flag on your property ( Vet in Florida was told to remove the American flag from his front yard ).

 

[Freewill]

I

Oh you still have the right to protest, just not where those you are protesting can hear.

So, moving ten feet further away, onto the public area of the court, means no one inside is aware of the protest? What does it matter if the Court hears you? Judges are not permitted to be influenced by anything outside the record of the matter being heard.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA not allowed by whom????? What a freakin' joke you made my day start out with a good belly laugh. If what you said is true then at least two of the SCOTUS would have to had to have recluse themselves from the decision concerning gay marriage. But they did not. Do you really think that the Dred Scott decision was based on anything but societal bias? The making of law in the ACA rulings?

What you said is true in the abstract or in an ideal world but it is far from the reality of the situation.

You do realize that we are talking about a place that YOU own as a tax payer, not the supreme court.

No justices would had to have recused. Your insinuation that because of Clarence Thomas's wife's partisan activity against gay marriage should have caused him to recuse is unfair. And that has nothing to do with maintaining security and decorum at a courthouse. What is the difference if the protestors are fifty feet away versus up against the front doors? Do yourself a favor and read a time and place free speech case.

oh how damn cute you are. When did Thomas's wife join the court?

From the following site, a rational look as to why they could have stepped down in this case. Not because their significant other held a view but because of what THEY themselves did.

3. In addition, Justices Ginsburg and Kagan have officiated at highly publicized homosexual marriages that would potentially be affected by the ruling in these cases. That supports a predisposition to vote in these cases to validate the marriages they have performed.

4. Moreover, four weeks after this Court granted certiorari in these cases, Justice Ginsburg was asked whether parts of the country might not accept homosexual marriage being constitutionalized. She answered: "I think it's doubtful that it wouldn't be accepted. The change in people's attitudes on that issue has been enormous. ... It would not take a large adjustment ...." Bloomberg News interview, Feb. 12, 2015. These extrajudicial comments about a matter pending before the Court violate Canon 3A (6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges: "A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court ...."

5. Additionally, by performing homosexual weddings, Justices Ginsburg and Kagan have improperly lent the prestige of their judicial office to a cause that is now before them for decision. See Canon 2B, Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

6. Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) mandates that any justice of the United States "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." See Pilla v American Bar Ass'n, 542 F.2d 56, 58 (8th Cir. 1976) (explaining that 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) applies to members of the U.S. Supreme Court).

7. Section 455(b) (4) requires recusal when a Supreme Court Justice has "any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding."

Two Supreme Court Judges Should Recuse themselves from Same Sex Marriage Debate | Virtueonline – The Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism

I said Justice Thomas did not have a conflict. Pay attention. And they presided over marriages where they were already legal. The outcome of the case before them would have had no effect on those marriages. And she did not comment on a matter before her. Offering an opinion on whether certain parts of the country would or would not accept gay marriage is not commenting on the merits of the case before the court. That is an idiotic claim.

You are a real piece of work. You said this: "Your insinuation that because of Clarence Thomas's wife's partisan activity against gay marriage should have caused him to recuse is unfair."

Which I didn't say at all it was your attempt to be cute.

Let's see, someone goes fishing and then has to rule if fishing is legal and you think there would be no bias? Really?

 

[paddymurphy]

I

So, moving ten feet further away, onto the public area of the court, means no one inside is aware of the protest? What does it matter if the Court hears you? Judges are not permitted to be influenced by anything outside the record of the matter being heard.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA not allowed by whom????? What a freakin' joke you made my day start out with a good belly laugh. If what you said is true then at least two of the SCOTUS would have to had to have recluse themselves from the decision concerning gay marriage. But they did not. Do you really think that the Dred Scott decision was based on anything but societal bias? The making of law in the ACA rulings?

What you said is true in the abstract or in an ideal world but it is far from the reality of the situation.

You do realize that we are talking about a place that YOU own as a tax payer, not the supreme court.

No justices would had to have recused. Your insinuation that because of Clarence Thomas's wife's partisan activity against gay marriage should have caused him to recuse is unfair. And that has nothing to do with maintaining security and decorum at a courthouse. What is the difference if the protestors are fifty feet away versus up against the front doors? Do yourself a favor and read a time and place free speech case.

oh how damn cute you are. When did Thomas's wife join the court?

From the following site, a rational look as to why they could have stepped down in this case. Not because their significant other held a view but because of what THEY themselves did.

3. In addition, Justices Ginsburg and Kagan have officiated at highly publicized homosexual marriages that would potentially be affected by the ruling in these cases. That supports a predisposition to vote in these cases to validate the marriages they have performed.

4. Moreover, four weeks after this Court granted certiorari in these cases, Justice Ginsburg was asked whether parts of the country might not accept homosexual marriage being constitutionalized. She answered: "I think it's doubtful that it wouldn't be accepted. The change in people's attitudes on that issue has been enormous. ... It would not take a large adjustment ...." Bloomberg News interview, Feb. 12, 2015. These extrajudicial comments about a matter pending before the Court violate Canon 3A (6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges: "A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court ...."

5. Additionally, by performing homosexual weddings, Justices Ginsburg and Kagan have improperly lent the prestige of their judicial office to a cause that is now before them for decision. See Canon 2B, Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

6. Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) mandates that any justice of the United States "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." See Pilla v American Bar Ass'n, 542 F.2d 56, 58 (8th Cir. 1976) (explaining that 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) applies to members of the U.S. Supreme Court).

7. Section 455(b) (4) requires recusal when a Supreme Court Justice has "any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding."

Two Supreme Court Judges Should Recuse themselves from Same Sex Marriage Debate | Virtueonline – The Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism

I said Justice Thomas did not have a conflict. Pay attention. And they presided over marriages where they were already legal. The outcome of the case before them would have had no effect on those marriages. And she did not comment on a matter before her. Offering an opinion on whether certain parts of the country would or would not accept gay marriage is not commenting on the merits of the case before the court. That is an idiotic claim.

You are a real piece of work. You said this: "Your insinuation that because of Clarence Thomas's wife's partisan activity against gay marriage should have caused him to recuse is unfair."

Which I didn't say at all it was your attempt to be cute.

Let's see, someone goes fishing and then has to rule if fishing is legal and you think there would be no bias? Really?

We are not talking about bias; we are talking about whether a suprem court justice should recuse. Of course they all have their biases. They all have things in their lives that influences their view of the law and the constitution. They all pay taxes. Does that mean they can never rule on a case thainvolves the tax code? You are wholly ignorant about the law regarding recusal and the ethical rules governing judges. You mistake having an opinion on a issue with being unable to fairly decide any cas e that touches upon an issue. Should a devout Catholc be allowed to decide an abortion case? Most justices wer practicing attorneys before they joined the bench. Should they be barred from any case that involves an issue they took a position on as a lawyer?

 

[paddymurphy]

W

In America, your freedom is your luck, period. If not, please explain why not. Thanks. ........... Remember, we have many innocent citizens in our prisons and jails. We have a very corrupt judicial system. We have a very corrupt government. We do not have freedom of privacy. We can't own anything. Everything we have is subject to taxes, and if we don't pay our taxes, the government takes what they want to take. Law enforcement can stop you for no reason, you can be searched for no reason, your property can be seized without being charged with a crime, you must carry identification on your person to prove who you are, you're not allowed the freedom to carry a weapon without a permit, and you're not allowed to have cash and assets that are not known, reported, or revealed for tax purposes. So, what real freedoms do you have other than to die and pay taxes?

Every thing you posted in support of your claim is false. We have very few innocent people in jail and have the best system in the world to prevent that. No system of justice is perfect. Ours isn't, but is better than all others. We have privacy. I own a house, commercial property, three cars and tons of frivolous toys. Taxes are not an imposition on freedom. It is what pays for the government that helps to preserve our freedom. Police cannot stop you fir no reason; they have to have specific facts that you may be engaged in a crime. Mother cannot search your home without a warrant. You confuse freedom with license and a complete abdication of responsibility. No one knows how much cash I have in my home and elsewhere. No government agency can get access to my bank records without a warrant. The only limits on your freedom are your delusions and paranoia.

FYI - You do NOT own a house. If you think that you own your home, miss paying your property taxes and see how fast it's auctioned off on the courthouse steps. We have many innocent citizens in our jails and prisons ( The Innocence Project ). Taxation is a fraud in this country. I have listed how your tax dollars are spent many times already on USMB. Yes, citizens are stopped by cops all the time for no reason. Have you ever heard of "quota tickets", "police harassment", "mentally disturbed cops", cops given desk duty for improper stops and behavior, and a lot of other things?

They can search your home simple because some informant gave them bogus information. It happens all the time. The government can access any records on you anytime they feel like it, don't kid yourself. Have you been keeping up with the news concerning AT&T and others that freely allow the government to gather information? Have you been keeping up with wiretaps and surveillance since 9 /11?

I was stopped by a cop the other night and he asked me if I knew why. I said I didn't have a clue as to why. He said I was weaving between the lines. Yep, that is twice I got stopped for the same BS. He followed me for what could have only been a minute. He was fishing because I was actually going the speed limit and I bet he wondered why, he sure wasn't when he pulled up on me.

Not bs. It is a traffic violation to not stay within your lane. It is a sign you might be drunk. He stopped you. Briefly detained you to see if you were ok and let you go on your way. If you keep getting stopped for weaving all over the road, you have a problem.

As usual you changed what I posted so you would have something to argue. I didn't get pulled over for weaving across the lines, he said I was weaving BETWEEN the lines. As soon as he pulled up on me I sensed he was a cop and was driving carefully. I really think he thought that because I was being careful and not violating the speed limit, which everyone does, I must be hiding something. I was not weaving at all. Both times I was stopped I knew a cop was behind me, who weaves in such a situation?

This happened before so I knew I should pull over and not let him follow me but the time was too short there was no where to really pull over. So he turned on his lights I put on my four ways and was going to drive to where we could pull off the road and was well lit. He sounded his siren so I pulled into a driveway on a bend where only I could get off the road.

Why would I believe you over the officer? And weaving is weaving? Maybe you did not commit a violation, but he saw you were having trouble controlling your car so he stopped to investigat. Was he justified? I don't know but your uncorroborated claim that you were twice pulled over for no reason proves nothing. I have been driving for 35 years. I have been pulled over three or four times and each time it was justified. So my experience proves that no one is ever pulled over improperly as much as your experience proves it happens all of the time.

 

[paddymurphy]

Every thing you posted in support of your claim is false. We have very few innocent people in jail and have the best system in the world to prevent that. No system of justice is perfect. Ours isn't, but is better than all others. We have privacy. I own a house, commercial property, three cars and tons of frivolous toys. Taxes are not an imposition on freedom. It is what pays for the government that helps to preserve our freedom. Police cannot stop you fir no reason; they have to have specific facts that you may be engaged in a crime. Mother cannot search your home without a warrant. You confuse freedom with license and a complete abdication of responsibility. No one knows how much cash I have in my home and elsewhere. No government agency can get access to my bank records without a warrant. The only limits on your freedom are your delusions and paranoia.

FYI - You do NOT own a house. If you think that you own your home, miss paying your property taxes and see how fast it's auctioned off on the courthouse steps. We have many innocent citizens in our jails and prisons ( The Innocence Project ). Taxation is a fraud in this country. I have listed how your tax dollars are spent many times already on USMB. Yes, citizens are stopped by cops all the time for no reason. Have you ever heard of "quota tickets", "police harassment", "mentally disturbed cops", cops given desk duty for improper stops and behavior, and a lot of other things?

They can search your home simple because some informant gave them bogus information. It happens all the time. The government can access any records on you anytime they feel like it, don't kid yourself. Have you been keeping up with the news concerning AT&T and others that freely allow the government to gather information? Have you been keeping up with wiretaps and surveillance since 9 /11?

So, you want to be a deadbeat? You lose your house if you don't pay your mortgage or if you run up huge credit card debts and they sue you. Since when is being made to pay your ******* bills an imposition on freedom? How do you think they pay for the roads that let you get to your house? The fire department you call if your house burns? The police you call when someone breaks into your house? The zoning department that will prevent your neighbor fro turning his backyard into a hazardous weight dump? You really ought to seek help for your paranoia. No one is listening to you phone calls, reading your emails or checking your bank balances. M

Don't be so friggin stupid. THINK. No, I'm NOT a deadbeat, and never have been one. What I have said has absolutely NOTHING to do with being a deadbeat. Please do NOT twist what I say around to make it something else. FYI- I have NO problem paying taxes for the fire department, schools, national security, roads, bridges, highways, etc.. And. I have never ever said nor implied otherwise. Again, please do NOT try to twist what I say to mean something that I did NOT say. Thanks.

And, don't be silly and stupid.

It has everything to do with being a deadbeat. The only way you can lose your home is if you don't pay your bills. Wanna keep your house? Pay your damn bills. Your house is yours. You get tax notices. If you don't pay, you get more. If you still don't pay, they lien your property. Every step of the way, you are notified and have the chance to pay or to challenge your obligation to pay. They give you access to agencies that can help if you are in financial distress. Only when you refuse to pay, can they sell your house on the courthouse steps. If I am wrong about any of this, you point it out.

It has absolutely nothing to do with being a deadbeat, nothing. How can you own a home when the government can take it through eminent domain laws, failure to pay property taxes, and seized in a government raid? Your property is subject to rules, regulations, and local restrictions. The government can tell you what you can put on your property, where you can put it, and even restrict the display of the American flag on your property ( Vet in Florida was told to remove the American flag from his front yard ).

Eminent domain does not allow them to take your property without paying you just compensation for it. So you think one person should be allowed to prevent the erection of a highway that a city needs; or the construction of a damn that is needed to control flooding? And if you fail to pay the taxes that fund the police, fireman, jails, schools, sewers, etc then you are a deadbeat; a freeloader and I want the city to take your house, sell it, pay your bills and then give you whatever is left over. Why should your neighbors support you by paying their taxes when you don't? And yes, your property is subject to restrictions; restrictions that are a matter of public record when you buy your property. You have a problem with zoning laws that prevents someone from turning their house in a residential neighborhood into a Garbage dump? A strip club open all night? Finally, the vet in Florida was not told by the government to remove his flag. When he moved into his community, he was aware that there were covenants among the property owners regarding things like that. Those covenants are contracts among private individuals. If he did not want to abide by the covenants, he should not have agreed to abide by them by signing a deed that specifically referenced them. You really don't think people should be responsible for anything, do you? Not paying their bills, not honoring their agreements, not knowing what the property they are buying is zoned for..

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The founders would have hated the current version of our country more than the shackles of the british crown.

 

[paddymurphy]

The founders would have hated the current version of our country more than the shackles of the british crown.

They would be amazed that the tiny, little agrarian nation they founded has become the largest, richest, most powerful nation on earth. And they would be hugely satisfied that we have used the Constitution they wrote as they intended; as a framework that would need to be applied consistent with our current values. They would laugh at the claims of folks like you about what they intended.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The founders would have hated the current version of our country more than the shackles of the british crown.

They would be amazed that the tiny, little agrarian nation they founded has become the largest, richest, most powerful nation on earth. And they would be hugely satisfied that we have used the Constitution they wrote as they intended; as a framework that would need to be applied consistent with our current values. They would laugh at the claims of folks like you about what they intended.

No they wouldn't. They would despise our corrupt govt. Hamilton would probably be proud of our massive huge govt.

 

[paddymurphy]

The founders would have hated the current version of our country more than the shackles of the british crown.

They would be amazed that the tiny, little agrarian nation they founded has become the largest, richest, most powerful nation on earth. And they would be hugely satisfied that we have used the Constitution they wrote as they intended; as a framework that would need to be applied consistent with our current values. They would laugh at the claims of folks like you about what they intended.

No they wouldn't. They would despise our corrupt govt. Hamilton would probably be proud of our massive huge govt.

We have been in debt since 1835. Hamilton would be as clueless about modern economics as you are. And our government is no more or less corrupt than it was back then.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The founders would have hated the current version of our country more than the shackles of the british crown.

They would be amazed that the tiny, little agrarian nation they founded has become the largest, richest, most powerful nation on earth. And they would be hugely satisfied that we have used the Constitution they wrote as they intended; as a framework that would need to be applied consistent with our current values. They would laugh at the claims of folks like you about what they intended.

No they wouldn't. They would despise our corrupt govt. Hamilton would probably be proud of our massive huge govt.

We have been in debt since 1835. Hamilton would be as clueless about modern economics as you are. And our government is no more or less corrupt than it was back then.

If it's the feds chunking 80 billion a month into wall street for six years to inflate a corpse is your idea of modern economics, I want no part of it. Clearly, you're quite ignorant of the most basic economics.

 

[paddymurphy]

The founders would have hated the current version of our country more than the shackles of the british crown.

They would be amazed that the tiny, little agrarian nation they founded has become the largest, richest, most powerful nation on earth. And they would be hugely satisfied that we have used the Constitution they wrote as they intended; as a framework that would need to be applied consistent with our current values. They would laugh at the claims of folks like you about what they intended.

No they wouldn't. They would despise our corrupt govt. Hamilton would probably be proud of our massive huge govt.

We have been in debt since 1835. Hamilton would be as clueless about modern economics as you are. And our government is no more or less corrupt than it was back then.

If it's the feds chunking 80 billion a month into wall street for six years to inflate a corpse is your idea of modern economics, I want no part of it. Clearly, you're quite ignorant of the most basic economics.

And your degree in Economics is from where? Trump university?

 

[CowboyTed]

So the RWer want the Westbro church twits protesting 10 feet from the graves...