Your rights are disappearing.

[cadet]

Freedom of speech is next I tell you.

Guns need permits. And who knows how long until you have to give them up.
NYC signed into law that you must allow same sex marriages (There goes your freedom of religion)
You must be politically correct (freedom of speech)
You can't petition or protest. (bikers refused ability to, but did it anyway :D )
Your stuff can be searched without a warrent. (Nowadays they just hold you until they get one, and there's probable cause if you refuse)
Double jeopardy. (Past crimes are brought up when something new happens)
Speedy public trial (zimmermans was in no way speedy)
the ninth, you may as well throw privacy right out the window.

And this last one just appalls me that it's been flat out thrown out the window.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

[Larrymc]

Freedom of speech is next I tell you.

Guns need permits. And who knows how long until you have to give them up.
NYC signed into law that you must allow same sex marriages (There goes your freedom of religion)
You must be politically correct (freedom of speech)
You can't petition or protest. (bikers refused ability to, but did it anyway :D )
Your stuff can be searched without a warrent. (Nowadays they just hold you until they get one, and there's probable cause if you refuse)
Double jeopardy. (Past crimes are brought up when something new happens)
Speedy public trial (zimmermans was in no way speedy)
the ninth, you may as well throw privacy right out the window.

And this last one just appalls me that it's been flat out thrown out the window.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the peopleYour right Cadet, its disheartening to see it happen, i think the Bikers and the Truckers have the right idea, but will Americans in general get behind them?

[Arbo]

Freedom of speech is next I tell you.

Guns need permits. And who knows how long until you have to give them up.

Never.


NYC signed into law that you must allow same sex marriages (There goes your freedom of religion)

How does what two other people do affect your 'freedom of religion' exactly?


You must be politically correct (freedom of speech)

I don't see a law anywhere that says you must be PC.


You can't petition or protest. (bikers refused ability to, but did it anyway :D )

If they did it anyway, then it seems they were able to protest. So it appears this 'right' is intact.

[cadet]

Never.



How does what two other people do affect your 'freedom of religion' exactly?



I don't see a law anywhere that says you must be PC.



If they did it anyway, then it seems they were able to protest. So it appears this 'right' is intact.

I feel like I'm not going to have to fight you on any of those points. Cause everyone here will go off on you :laugh:

But here you go, guns are already ILLEGAL in certain areas of the united states.

Marriage is a religious term. I don't care if gays get together, let them be misserable together. But calling it MARRIAGE is a slap to the face of every good religious person and they know it. Just call it what it is, a union. Calling it marriage is an abomination to most every religion. People should not be FORCED into accepting that lifestyle. Because as soon as it's totally legal, and churches start saying "No." There's going to be court cases that lead us into HAVING to do the ceremony in church. You know as well as the rest of us that these things tend to just expand upon eachother.

Try saying fag in a courthouse.

And the bikers "broke the law" by showing up anyway. If they could, I'm sure uncle sam would arrest, or at least charge, each and every one of them. the only reason they can't is because so damn many showed up.

[aboutime]

As long as Congress, and the President have not been successful in making the Constitution, and the amendments go away.

I, as an American citizen, with every other American citizen STILL HAVE OUR RIGHTS our Constitution provides to all of us.

Yes. They are being threatened, and almost daily. Some idiot between the Pacific, and Atlantic ocean's tries to destroy, or annul the Laws granted by our Constitution. But...they are not taking MY RIGHTS as long as I have a heartbeat, and the means to resist.

[Arbo]

But here you go, guns are already ILLEGAL in certain areas of the united states.

You asked how long until we must give them up. My response was 'never'. Don't move the goal posts. Any guns I may or may not have are going nowhere, no matter what the law says.


Marriage is a religious term. I don't care if gays get together, let them be misserable together. But calling it MARRIAGE is a slap to the face of every good religious person and they know it. Just call it what it is, a union. Calling it marriage is an abomination to most every religion. People should not be FORCED into accepting that lifestyle. Because as soon as it's totally legal, and churches start saying "No." There's going to be court cases that lead us into HAVING to do the ceremony in church. You know as well as the rest of us that these things tend to just expand upon eachother.

So because someone uses the word 'marriage', it violates your freedom of religion how? I haven't seen an answer. I've seen a 'leftist like' appeal to emotion, but no facts.

By your logic, anyone that is not religious should not be 'married', and anyone that does not have their ceremony performed in a church or by a religious leader should not be 'married' either. Is this the case or do you lack consistency?


Try saying fag in a courthouse.

Ah, I see, you are confused about freedom of speech and being held accountable for your words. You want the ability to 'speak' freely and have no consequences for your speech. Again some real 'leftist like' thought patterns there.


And the bikers "broke the law" by showing up anyway.

A shitload of them road their motorcycles through the city. No law against that.

[cadet]

You asked how long until we must give them up. My response was 'never'. Don't move the goal posts. Any guns I may or may not have are going nowhere, no matter what the law says.

Ok, I'll give you props for that :laugh:


So because someone uses the word 'marriage', it violates your freedom of religion how? I haven't seen an answer. I've seen a 'leftist like' appeal to emotion, but no facts.

By your logic, anyone that is not religious should not be 'married', and anyone that does not have their ceremony performed in a church or by a religious leader should not be 'married' either. Is this the case or do you lack consistency?

Yeah. As far as I'm concerned though, the gov't should flat out drop any and all benefits to marriage. And just let it be religious. There's no real point in them having their fingers in it. But most people disagree with me :rolleyes:


Ah, I see, you are confused about freedom of speech and being held accountable for your words. You want the ability to 'speak' freely and have no consequences for your speech. Again some real 'leftist like' thought patterns there.

Wanting to ability to say whatever the hell I want is leftist? :slap:


A shitload of them road their motorcycles through the city. No law against that.

But there is a law against the gov't having the power to deny a protest.
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/09/78006-2-million-bikers-d-c-rally-denied-permit-protest-million-muslim-march-911/

[Arbo]

Yeah. As far as I'm concerned though, the gov't should flat out drop any and all benefits to marriage. And just let it be religious. There's no real point in them having their fingers in it. But most people disagree with me :rolleyes:

Marriage is only one of the thousands of things government should not have it's hands in, at all. No tax benefits, no nothing. At least not at a federal level. Considering states rights, such an issue SHOULD be left to the states.


Wanting to ability to say whatever the hell I want is leftist?

Wanting to say whatever you want and have no consequences for it is 'leftist'.


But there is a law against the gov't having the power to deny a protest.

The bikers where there, they drove through DC and had their protest. So whatever 'government' had to say about it was invalid. It happened and they didn't stop it.

[cadet]

Marriage is only one of the thousands of things government should not have it's hands in, at all. No tax benefits, no nothing. At least not at a federal level. Considering states rights, such an issue SHOULD be left to the states.

there we go. We've reached agreement here.


Wanting to say whatever you want and have no consequences for it is 'leftist'.

It's my soap box and I can say whatever the hell I want. This country was founded on FREEDOM. And I can express my opinion wherever I want. The gov't should have NO say in what I can and cannot say.


The bikers where there, they drove through DC and had their protest. So whatever 'government' had to say about it was invalid. It happened and they didn't stop it.

The point is that the gov't thought they had the ability to say "no." Their heads have swollen far to much. And they think they have far more power than they actually do. They need kicked down to size.

I'd like to see someone go to the supreme court and be the defendant of the founders. All they'd have to do is post quotes from the constitution and the bill of rights, next to what the gov't does. And tell them they don't have those rights.

[cadet]

http://constitution.org/grossack/bivens.htm


Suing Your Federal Government for Civil Rights Violations
On the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the Bill Of Rights, many attorneys may not realize that these rights each contain within them an intrinsic enabling authority for the purpose of redressing violations of these rights by those federal employees entrusted to uphold and protect them.
It is worth remembering that the authors of the Bill Of Rights were heavily influenced by Anglo-Saxon legal theorists such as Sir William Blackstone, who declared that there were "three absolute rights ... the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty and the right of personal property. [1] Blackstone believed the principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of these absolute rights which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature. [2]

[aboutime]

http://constitution.org/grossack/bivens.htm

[h=1][SIZE=6][/FONT][/COLOR]


cadet. We all know you are angry, and we all feel just about the same way.

Fact is. The Constitution IS STILL in effect.

Before anyone can go before the Supreme Court to argue any case.
They must first have something they can prove...has happened.
Seems like SCOTUS has no reason to defend anyone Defending the Constitution.

THAT IS....after all. THEIR JOB.

[Larrymc]

there we go. We've reached agreement here.



It's my soap box and I can say whatever the hell I want. This country was founded on FREEDOM. And I can express my opinion wherever I want. The gov't should have NO say in what I can and cannot say.



The point is that the gov't thought they had the ability to say "no." Their heads have swollen far to much. And they think they have far more power than they actually do. They need kicked down to size.

I'd like to see someone go to the supreme court and be the defendant of the founders. All they'd have to do is post quotes from the constitution and the bill of rights, next to what the gov't does. And tell them they don't have those rights.Cadet do yourself a favor and ignore Arbo, His a first class educated idiot, he has a lot of knowledge but his arrogance, doesn't allow him to use it constructively, he only seeks to find or start an argument, in some twisted effort to show what is in his mind a higher education.

[aboutime]

Cadet do yourself a favor and ignore Arbo, His a first class educated idiot, he has a lot of knowledge but his arrogance, doesn't allow him to use it constructively, he only seeks to find or start an argument, in some twisted effort to show what is in his mind a higher education.


Great advice Larrymc. And for you cadet. Keep this in mind when Arbo challenges you. 5609 He operates on a SPACE AVAILABLE program for vacuum cleaners.

[cadet]

Cadet do yourself a favor and ignore Arbo, His a first class educated idiot, he has a lot of knowledge but his arrogance, doesn't allow him to use it constructively, he only seeks to find or start an argument, in some twisted effort to show what is in his mind a higher education.

I was put on earth to fix people,
And I believe we came to an agreement right there at the end. :cheers2:

[cadet]

cadet. We all know you are angry, and we all feel just about the same way.

Fact is. The Constitution IS STILL in effect.

Before anyone can go before the Supreme Court to argue any case.
They must first have something they can prove...has happened.
Seems like SCOTUS has no reason to defend anyone Defending the Constitution.

THAT IS....after all. THEIR JOB.

I'm just sayin, it's about time someone sued the federal gov't on behalf of the founding fathers.
They need to be shown that their breaking the laws set upon them.

[aboutime]

I'm just sayin, it's about time someone sued the federal gov't on behalf of the founding fathers.
They need to be shown that their breaking the laws set upon them.


We agree with you, and would also like to see that take place. BUT...the big problem is.

When you say SUE the Federal Gov't.

You must first remember WHO you, and WE THE PEOPLE would be SUING.

Seems like it would be a case of SUING ourselves since we elect those we SHOULD be suing.

[Arbo]

there we go. We've reached agreement here.

Not really. Because I understand the term used for the joining of two people in no way violates your religious freedom.


It's my soap box and I can say whatever the hell I want. This country was founded on FREEDOM. And I can express my opinion wherever I want. The gov't should have NO say in what I can and cannot say.

You are FREE to say whatever you damn well please. You are not free to incite violence, slander others, etc, and nor are you free from someone kicking your ass if you call them an n-bomb or 'fag'. So again, we see the leftist sort of view that you want to be able to say whatever you want and not be responsible for your words. Doing the DNC proud man, doing the DNC proud.


The point is that the gov't thought they had the ability to say "no." Their heads have swollen far to much. And they think they have far more power than they actually do. They need kicked down to size.

No, the point is you said that we lost the right to protest. Yet the bikers you mention had a protest. So from the start your point was invalid.

[Arbo]

Cadet do yourself a favor and ignore Arbo, His a first class educated idiot, he has a lot of knowledge but his arrogance, doesn't allow him to use it constructively, he only seeks to find or start an argument, in some twisted effort to show what is in his mind a higher education.

Oh look, it's like a mini-Abouttime. OT 100%. How cute! :laugh:

[Arbo]

Great advice Larrymc. And for you cadet. Keep this in mind when Arbo challenges you. 5609 He operates on a SPACE AVAILABLE program for vacuum cleaners.


Oh look, more OT from mr. OT himself! Such an honor! The guy that BRINGS NOTHING to the forum but drive by comments on other users instead of content. And he is let run free, so funny! LOL. :laugh:

[Larrymc]

Oh look, it's like a mini-Abouttime. OT 100%. How cute! :laugh:Aaaw i know the truth hurts, and you must lash out in Desperation, Its Ok

[Arbo]

Aaaw i know the truth hurts, and you must lash out in Desperation, Its Ok

The 'truth' would be that I proved you wrong. We saw you try and duck and dodge and divert, but it was all for naught. The butthurt is strong in you.

[Larrymc]

The 'truth' would be that I proved you wrong. We saw you try and duck and dodge and divert, but it was all for naught. The butthurt is strong in you.The only thing you have prove is, that my assessment of you as a Foolish, Arrogant, Educated Idiot, was spot on. and i thank you for it.

[Arbo]

The only thing you have prove is, that my assessment of you as a Foolish, Arrogant, Educated Idiot, was spot on. and i thank you for it.

You keep thinking that, and I'll keep laughing at your posts. :laugh:

[Larrymc]

You keep thinking that, and I'll keep laughing at your posts. :laugh:And yet your laughter only serves to further prove my point:laugh:

[aboutime]

And yet your laughter only serves to further prove my point:laugh:



Larrymc. And, it would be a Proud Honor to join you in laughing at Arbo. Can't laugh with him since there is no sense of humor involved when children keep making accusations, and demands they aren't capable of keeping themselves. But the Defense mechanism of Arbo is operational, and unable to cease.

[Arbo]

And


And

Either of you care to comment on the topic of the thread? That's rights and if they are going away or not.

[Larrymc]

Either of you care to comment on the topic of the thread? That's rights and if they are going away or not.See my first reply to Cadet.

[jimnyc]

Oh look, it's like a mini-Abouttime. OT 100%. How cute! :laugh:


Oh look, more OT from mr. OT himself! Such an honor! The guy that BRINGS NOTHING to the forum but drive by comments on other users instead of content. And he is let run free, so funny! LOL. :laugh:

You quoted 2 of his posts, and added the 2 replies I just quoted above. If his are OT and bring nothing to the forum, can you explain to the community how your responses like this add to the forum?

Quite frankly, off topic is off topic, and posts like his AND yours are equally screwing up threads. But only one of you is doing so while complaining that the other is doing it. Chasing him like he's your lost puppy doesn't make you better than him nor does it help the community.

With that said, it would be appreciated if both of you would ignore one another, so as to save the rest of the community from having to deal with this crap. But as per usual, I'm sure that won't happen.

[Arbo]

With that said, it would be appreciated if both of you would ignore one another, so as to save the rest of the community from having to deal with this crap. But as per usual, I'm sure that won't happen.

There is a real easy solution, they quit making snide remarks about users rather than discussing topics. To ignore them is to condone their behavior, from my point of view. To ignore them doesn't make them stop.

[jimnyc]

There is a real easy solution, they quit making snide remarks about users rather than discussing topics. To ignore them is to condone their behavior, from my point of view. To ignore them doesn't make them stop.

To reply in kind is to perform the same behavior, and veers topics of course equally. Fighting with others and going back and forth will NEVER solve the problem. The ONLY way problems like this are solved is when some take the higher road, use the ignore button or simply not add to the OT crap that infests so many threads.

If someone called me an asshole, and I simply ignored them as it's not worth my time and I didn't want to assist in degrading a thread - that in no way at all means one is condoning such behavior, and I honestly can't see how that connection is made. And like said to both already, the option for both to post in the cage is there, and both equally bypass that option. Face it, so long as you are engaging in the toe to toe, you're 100% equally guilty of what you protest.

[Arbo]

The ONLY way problems like this are solved is when some take the higher road, use the ignore button or simply not add to the OT crap that infests so many threads.

That doesn't take care of the idiots that offer nothing but drive by comments on users instead of content.

[fj1200]

Freedom of speech is next I tell you.

You have freedom and you are also free to suffer consequences.


Guns need permits. And who knows how long until you have to give them up.

No one. :slap:


NYC signed into law that you must allow same sex marriages (There goes your freedom of religion)[/QUOTE]

Your religious freedom is intact. If marriage weren't all over the Federal Register you might have a point but the religious aspect of it is long gone.


You must be politically correct (freedom of speech)

You don't have to be anything.


You can't petition or protest. (bikers refused ability to, but did it anyway :D )

They were refused a permit to close the streets or some such thing.


Your stuff can be searched without a warrent. (Nowadays they just hold you until they get one, and there's probable cause if you refuse)

What stuff?


Double jeopardy. (Past crimes are brought up when something new happens)

Were you tried on them in the first place? Nevertheless past behavior is usually inadmissible in a current trial.


Speedy public trial (zimmermans was in no way speedy)

Meh. It seemed to work in his favor.


the ninth, you may as well throw privacy right out the window.

The ninth?


And this last one just appalls me that it's been flat out thrown out the window.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

The 1800's called, or at least 1913, they want their argument back. The States haven't been truly represented in 100 years.

[fj1200]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

The States haven't been truly represented in 100 years.

That last one interests me. If the States are represented in the Senate and the States allow a particular expansion of Federal power, via Senate approval of legislation, has the State in effect delegated that power to the Federal???? The 17th was a backdoor gutting of the 10th if that's the case.

[cadet]

Here, I found someone else who managed to put it into clearer terms.
And I really like how he put it.


Is your Constitution toasted enough for ya?

Oh yeah, sure, it's a question asked only by those right-wing, constitutionalist, conservative worry-warts. Everything's cool, right?

And besides, silly, if you keep your nose clean, it doesn't matter how many constitutional rights the government overrides. Only lawbreakers need to worry. Right?

Of course, most people misunderstand the reason our Founders initially created the Bill of Rights. The Madisons and Jeffersons weren't allocating rights to citizens. They acknowledged that all citizens had the God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, however skewed the latter has become.

The Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions placed on the powers of government. But hey, American history and civics ... pretty boring stuff. And, but hey again, keep your nose clean, and it's all academic anyway, right?

Besides, clean-nosed ostriches point out, we're at war. We're fighting "people" who, if they are successful, will subdue us and remove our freedom and our rights. So, it behooves us to do away with our freedoms and our rights, in the interest of protecting them, right?

Well, on that account, Bush and Congress have done a fine job. Here's the score as I see it:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Well, so far, so good, but utterings to the contrary from highly placed individuals are heard. Dedicated political internet users have seen it, have seen an AP story critical of the administration simply ... disappear. So, the First is on the chopping block, but so far, for the most part, so good.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Not so good. Our state militias, the National Guard, is being spent in Iraq. The rounding up of guns - in middle-class, white neighborhoods - following Katrina shows that the government already has made clear, that if it's "necessary" for _______ (fill in the blank), THEY reserve the "right" to confiscate guns.

Totally unconstitutional.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


See, we're in a war, so, clearly, by declaring a war with no foreseeable end, the government explicitly has this right. Your house. And, they know it.

A side benefit of "holy," "patriotic," unending war.

Amendment IV

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


This one's toast, history, slain by the Patriot Act (PA) and the Military Commissions Act (MCA). Never heard of those, or, if you have, no problem, just keep a clean nose? Wrong. We are witnesses to - those of us who are awake anyway - the Bill of Rights being incrementally repealed. The repealers are counting on citizen ignorance, and indifference. If you haven't, examine the PA and MCA; see what experts in constitution law - liberals and conservatives - have to say.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


The MCA outlines how a citizen can be declared a non-citizen, how it requires no disclosure of evidence (ooo, it's top secret) or identification of incriminating witnesses (gotta protect sources), as it specifies which forms of torture are acceptable. Yep, parts of this one are suspended, because ... yep, we're at war.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


More toast please? See Amendment V. The Patriot Act and the MCA the culprits, again. Your trial could be speedier than you imagined.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Good for now, I think. I better blow my nose, though, keep it clean....

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Hmmm. Makes me wonder, are all of the approved methods of torture noted in the MCA now considered "usual" punishments? I'm not really an expert on torture.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Oh yeah. This one applies only if people are paying attention. Otherwise, your rights are indeed subject to denial, and disparagement. Happens all the time. Busy people with clean noses are positive: no problem here. All's well, you pessimist.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.


In theory. In practice, the states and the people have been forced to aggressively defend their rights. Today, the usurpation of rights by the federal government, by and large, is considered "normal." Oh and hey, when the country's at war, well, you know, the feds are compelled to take away our rights, to defeat enemies who'd take away our rights.


Sigh ... slow torture....

Please forgive me for repeating myself, but take clear note: If the government declares you or me a terrorist, a power unambiguously assigned to the president and the secretary of defense by the MCA, you or I would be stripped of citizenship, and thus lose all protection from government power, as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The majority of people seem OK with the eviscerations so far imposed upon our Bill of Rights, because everybody knows the ranks of government are populated with people of high moral standards and impeccable integrity, and besides, the truth is, if you keep a clean nose, you're cool anyway. Just be a good American citizen, and please, stop saying all those mean things about our beloved president and our exemplary Congress, you pessimist.

Sure ... I'm just kidding. As the damage done by termites often doesn't show until severe structural damage has occurred, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, are being slowly, incrementally, eroded. All looks good now to the clean-nose crowd, but ... it's not.

[fj1200]

Meh, you did just as well. It sounds like everything he's upset about can be boiled down to about two laws. And he's probably a lib because he complains about Bush and likely happy with BO. :poke:

[Arbo]

I would think when posting so much of someone else's work, one would include a link.