>> ^Ryjkyj:

Right exactly.
When the public decodes the signal, it's "highjacking", but when the cops decode the signal, it's called "listening".
Just like when a cop is sitting in a red zone in his car it's called "observing". And when a citizen does it, it's called "illegally parking".
I can't believe you thought you just won that argument. I'm not a troll just because I have what I feel is a legitimate point to make.


The officer has to have legal authority (Warrant) to decode the secure traffic because of the many number of laws which calls lawful authority to decode encrypted traffic. The 4th ammendment, and the Computer Intrusion acts, wiretapping laws, even postal laws. An officer simply cannot make that decision it warrants a Judge take a look and be sure that the act is lawful.

I assumed you were trolling, based on this comment "C'mon, let's hear it...?".

I can't believe you actually think that an officer of the law has the legal right to decode anyone's encrypted traffic without sufficient evidence of wrong doing.

I guess I need a Union to get Due Process. I guess I really didn't need that 14th ammendment anyway.

This isn't an argument about the misuse of government property this is an argument of abuse of power, granted to him via the people. It's an argument of unlawful activity, crime. The whole idea that police actually police themselves is suspect, given that they are the police. I sometimes question the whole idea of Internal Affairs given that they are police themselves; hardly independent how can they be trusted to do what is Just? This is most often called Conflict of Interests.

Fuck the officers Union. They're cooperative lies rarely tell the whole story.



When I wrote the statement above I meant that a police union is hardly an unbiased organization from which uncorrupted truth can be found. It's a cop-out to accept either perspectives in this video as truth. More often then not the truth is much more complicated. I was never decrying the use of a Union to protect the working officer's wages or hours; things as such. But they cannot, and should not protect them from the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_affairs_%28law_enforcement%29

There should have been an ammendment to the constitution similar to the establishment clause.

"The US Government shall make no law that supports nor favors one race over the other."

A government should be indifferent to race, credo, and religion. Therefore any law that subjugates a race, religion, or credo will support all other race, religions, or credo; is inherently unconstitutional.

Alas, I do not know of any ammendment or clause that states that no race shall be extolled over another.

You got a problem with authority if you end up in jail in the first place.

Yea, fuck you. You end up in jail because you broke a law, that was created by the people; for the people.

I have a problem with authority. I express that by using the 1st ammendment.

Do these people even know what the SS did? How insidious they were? They fell into their roles so easily; without so much of a thought for wrong or right. Honor? Honor is to stand up against tyranny, even when it is the majority movement.

These guys will rise in violence, and they will lead everyone else to ruin. The US Civil Rights will be destroyed by these idiots. They need to be stopped, but it must be done with protection of the 1st ammendment.

I can't even make a cognitive argument against the NSM because it pisses me off so much; fucking murderers.

>> ^Golgi:

do these hearings ever lead to people getting indicted? seems more like a trip to the principal's office.


No but they can be used as evidence in court. That is why people take the 5th ammendment.

The vast majority of average gay folks aren't. But there is a fringe that looks on the gay movement as more of a societal prybar. As with the comment above, they look on this as a chance to 'change' religion/society/attitudes/people as opposed to obtaining simple secular rights.

Again, you reveal substantial ignorance of gay activism and advocacy. Most gay advocacy is directed toward fighting societal attitudes that harm LBGT folk. We don't want people to yell "faggot" or "dyke" at us, seek to have us fired from our workplaces for our orientation or sexual identity, or beat or even kill us for being open about who we are. We don't like being treated like dirt, so we try to change people's minds.

I don't see what's so radical about this.

However, the primary means for achieving these ends are education and persuasion. I'm unaware of any significant group that seeks to achieve that sort of change through the force of law; the notion is reprehensible, and the results would in fact be counter-productive.

But let's be hypothetical and say no-one currently is voicing these radical positions(it's untrue, but let's go with it). Laws have a nasty way of generating unintended consequences - and religious groups are rightfully concerned over the vague language in gay marriage legislation. Ask someone in the 60's whether anti-discrimination laws would be used to put girls in all-male schools, and they'd say "Don't be ridiculous... That isn't the intent!" And yet - that's what happened. Laws get passed, and then the law gets PUSHED in unintended ways. I think religious groups are more than justified in being concerned that these vague gay marriage laws (which contain no specific language to protect them) would be used in future legislation against them - 1st Ammendment or not.

All I'm saying is that if we're going to do this - let's take the time to do it right. Give gay couples their civil unions that extend all the secular benefits of marriage. Craft the law so it has concrete, specific language limiting the law to ONLY extend to secular standing. Let each church make it own rules for 'marriage' as they see fit, with protections that allow churches to refuse gay marriages without being sued for it.

First, I'd like to see an example of all-male schools being forced to accept girls. If it is happening, it must be a state or local issue; single-sex educational institutions, both public and private, are perfectly allowable under Federal law.

Second, I don't see how worries that churches would be forced to perform same-sex marriages are at all well-founded. Churches cannot be forced to accept female or black pastors, and cannot be forced to perform interracial marriages. Yet legal protections for the equality of women and racial minorities are far stronger and more firmly entrenched in the American legal system than protections for LGBT people.

There are simply no plausible legal avenues by which churches might be forced to perform same-sex marriages.

Who's talking about forcing churches to perform gay marriages if it's against their values?

The vast majority of average gay folks aren't. But there is a fringe that looks on the gay movement as more of a societal prybar. As with the comment above, they look on this as a chance to 'change' religion/society/attitudes/people as opposed to obtaining simple secular rights.

But let's be hypothetical and say no-one currently is voicing these radical positions(it's untrue, but let's go with it). Laws have a nasty way of generating unintended consequences - and religious groups are rightfully concerned over the vague language in gay marriage legislation. Ask someone in the 60's whether anti-discrimination laws would be used to put girls in all-male schools, and they'd say "Don't be ridiculous... That isn't the intent!" And yet - that's what happened. Laws get passed, and then the law gets PUSHED in unintended ways. I think religious groups are more than justified in being concerned that these vague gay marriage laws (which contain no specific language to protect them) would be used in future legislation against them - 1st Ammendment or not.

All I'm saying is that if we're going to do this - let's take the time to do it right. Give gay couples their civil unions that extend all the secular benefits of marriage. Craft the law so it has concrete, specific language limiting the law to ONLY extend to secular standing. Let each church make it own rules for 'marriage' as they see fit, with protections that allow churches to refuse gay marriages without being sued for it.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

What a "civil union" might be is rather nebulous, and civil union and domestic partnership statutes as enacted thus far in the US often do not approach the breadth of rights accorded to married couples, and are in legal limbo regarding state reciprocity agreements. Accordingly, the only way to guarantee equivalent rights to married couples is for LGBT unions to have the same legal identity.
It is an issue - and one I appreciate. However - see above. You can't just say, "OK - gay marriage is legal" and ignore the fact that there are thousands of churches who will refuse to perform the ritual, and who happen to have 1st Ammendment rights protecting that stance. Civil unions are the best solution here, even though they are not perfect.

Who's talking about forcing churches to perform gay marriages if it's against their values? I'm not aware of any prominent gay rights advocates who oppose people's right to dissent from such actions or conscientiously decline to involve themselves in such ceremonies. Churches can't even be forced to perform interracial marriages, if the members of the church are opposed.

I am aware that some opposed to the legalization of gay marriage have claimed that churches conscientiously opposed to gay marriages would be forced to perform them, but such claims do not have legal justification, and misrepresent the goals of gay rights advocates. We don't want to force people by law to accept us--we just want to be able to live our lives with the same freedoms and privileges everyone else has.

Further, it must be noted that there is no shortage of churches actively supportive of gay marriage. There are plenty of them even right here in Oklahoma, in the middle of the Bible Belt. Surely, if freedom of religion is that important to you, you would want to defend the rights of these churches to affirm same-sex unions as marriage.

>> ^dannym3141:

How do you get to be kinda gay? Not that i'm interested or anythin.....


Short answer: Being born that way.

Long answer: Sexuality's complicated sometimes. I like girls enough that, if I met just the right one, I might be interested in making a go of it. But not enough that, generally speaking, I'm terribly interested in more than appreciating a woman's good looks sometimes. I sort of fall between the cracks between "bisexual" and "gay."

Things such as "gay marriage being accepted by the church" isn't radical, it's just asking for equal treatment.

Simple, basic rulings that say gays can visit relatives in hospitals and such are fine. These things deal with secular rights. I've never met a single person opposed to these kinds of issues. But gay 'marriage' as a concept is inherently tied to the marriage ritual, which is a sectarian ordinance that confers secular benefits. That's where the radicalism enters in...

Human society developed in such a way that Churches are where marriages tend to be performed, while secular laws were passed to promote marriage because the nuclear family unit was beneficial to society. So on the one hand if you want marriage you (as often as not) are going to a religious organization. But when you want the societal benefits of marriage, you are talking about secular rules.

So if you tell the gay community they can get 'married', then they are going to go to churches and demand the sectarian ritual to obtain the secular benefits. But many churches are highly opposed to homosexuality as a moral violation. To ask them to perform such a ritual for a gay couple would be highly offensive - the equivalent of marching into a vegan's house and DEMANDING that they personally butcher a cow and chow down on the resulting BBQ.

So when advocates demand gay marriage and DO NOT account for these distinctions, then the legislation moves from sensible to radicalism. Most gay couples just want the secular benefits. Most religions have no problem with that. But when marriage laws are proposed, they MUST contain concrete language protecting the rights of those who oppose the lifestyle on a sectarian level. Without that language, the proposal is radical because it violates 1st Ammendment protections - no matter how many 'sensible' things it may confer. This is what the bruhaha over Prop-8 was all about.

What a "civil union" might be is rather nebulous, and civil union and domestic partnership statutes as enacted thus far in the US often do not approach the breadth of rights accorded to married couples, and are in legal limbo regarding state reciprocity agreements. Accordingly, the only way to guarantee equivalent rights to married couples is for LGBT unions to have the same legal identity.

It is an issue - and one I appreciate. However - see above. You can't just say, "OK - gay marriage is legal" and ignore the fact that there are thousands of churches who will refuse to perform the ritual, and who happen to have 1st Ammendment rights protecting that stance. Civil unions are the best solution here, even though they are not perfect.

Then you can attempt to tackle the argument of forcing a religion to change its core values

The fact that there are people IN AMERICA saying these kinds of things is why religious groups are so sensitive on the subject. "Forcing a religion to change its core values" is the language of a totalitarian regime, not the USA. I know it's hard to tell with Obama in office, but it's still a free country...

I see this show, and then look down and see those stock exchange ticker tabs; I am disheartened. Not only does government need to be limited but corporations need to be limited, yet again.

Citizens United, the Conservative lobby, has successfully convinced the SCOTUS to overturn the laws that limited their political contributions, or "1st ammendment rights".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United

Every president I ever know of was out to get my guns.

I support the second ammendment simply because I admire Jeffersonian politics.

I despise gun shows.

When I'm not carrying a weapon I keep it locked up, anyone who does carry should always carry a less then lethal option. Just like the cops.

You should always abide by your laws in your state. Know them back and forth, upside down and right side up.

Remember, those bullets are yours even when they leave the bore. You fuck up, it's your ass on the line.

More two party bullshit.

Look at it this way.

One problem down, a million to go. There's still the FED, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, taxes, Wall Street and a would suppose a whole slew of other things that the Administration needs to get to work on.

Pat yourself on the back, we may or may not have better health care; that remains to be seen in statistical evidence. I for one hope it helps, even if it only helps a little bit. But I get the feeling it only made things worse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/22/us-healthcare-bill-passes-congress

The bill is not final, the Democratic House is to pass another with revisions.

Here is a link to the documents. The introduced document and the one that got passed.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3962/text

The most important part of this bill to me is Section 501 "Tax On Individuals Without Acceptable Coverage." Which is an ammendment to Section 59b of the Internal Revenue Code. In my mind this is exactly the problem with our system of Governance. They make up a law then they add, in this case, 5 exceptions to the law. Then they add more hoops to jump through by saying what is Acceptable Coverage.

Which still doesn't resolve my problem with the bill, the punishment of those who do not have health care. It is hardly a step forward when the government makes it compulsory to have health care coverage. It is the same as forcing everyone to have a gun, eat a certain diet, or have sex in missionary under the coercive punishment of taxation; moreover in drastic cases civil litigation, and prosecution.

With all due respect to the other parts of the bill that put restrictions not allowing care for preexisting conditions, discrimination of abortion, and any other good part I missed, this bill and the voters can get fucked. Damn the republicans for not working to revise section 501, and damn the democrats for letting that pass. I guess we never really had freedom of choice.

Roll Call:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml

                  Ayes    Noes    PRES    NV
Democratic    219    39
Republican    1      176
Independent   
TOTALS         220   215

Global warming is one thing, but the Carbon Credits is a fucking scam.

Penn & Teller couldn't say that global warming was bullshit, they might like to, but they couldn't. However they did call the Carbon Credit scams bullshit. Honestly, I have a hard time accepting the science that is pushing people to pay to clear their consciences while not actually doing anything to help.

All of these carbon sanctions are excellent right? Until the third world countries cannot industrialize and are forced by UN mandate to stay third world. What is the carbon footprint left by manufacturing several thousand solar panels; as it turns out very low. But does it pay for itself? Not if you consume shit-loads of energy.

I don't know if anything came of the whole COP15 Kyoto Protocol ammendment, but that is besides the point. I am explicitly opposed to any sort of rubbish such as this Al Gore founded carbon forgiveness bullshit. Science is one thing, warming has happened, I would argue on par with peak oil; but making a profit off of the stupidity of gullible people is fucking dastardly. It gives skeptics and nay-sayers more reason to froth at the mouth.

http://www.cchange.net/2009/12/09/hell-breaks-loose-at-cop15-ambitious-legal-treaty-now/

But hey, what does Stanhope say about it? There's only one way to save the world, condoms and sodomy.



Carbon Credit Scams Articles:
http://newsbusters.org/node/12314

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/04/police-hunt-carbon-trading-fraudsters

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/05/business/05online.html

<sigh>
Let the flame wars begin
</sigh>

>> ^littledragon_79:
Wow, the y/t poster is a paranoid moron. He should try reading the law as to how/where CBP are allowed to operate. And if he doesn't like it write his reps or run for office. Since the checkpoint is inland, he would be fine then with the local SO or State Police running it? Or maybe the FBI or military? And an illegal working for CBP? Nice try.
I know there's a lot of anti-establishment, the cops are always wrong, we live in a police state mentality here, but don't get too paranoid folks. The cops aren't always wrong, sometimes they need to use force (but F tasers), we don't live in Nazi Germany, and we should be vigilant in keeping government in check. But harassing these guys is like harassing a Walmart greeter because you don't like their policies. Dick move.
As for the whole camera thing, who cares if the guy has a camera. Do your job, and don't be a dick about it. Although, my instructors old us not to advertise that we were BP Agents and try not to have pics taken...since some cartels have bounties out for killing Agents.


You've not been inconvenienced by them have you? Their searches are haphazard, and they cause massive backups on the road for miles. They make a bad situation worse, and fuck that. You have the right to tape any fucking peace officer you wish. Paranoid or not. They should be afraid of the US citizen we should not be afraid of them. The moment he reached his hand into that car he violated the 4th ammendment.

Seeing as to how the US citizen did not have anyone there to save his ass I think he was quite in the right to do what he did. You reach your hand into my car without proper protocol you may come back with a stump. The video proves that the cop did not have Probable Cause to enter the vehicle ergo; he should be removed from duty as he is a danger to the public.

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.