Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Soros has ties to over 30 Major News Organizations

Page 4 of 7 [ 105 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

16 May 2011, 12:35 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Yeah, don't take it personally. You're not responsible for Glenn Beck.


Actually I have every right to take it personally and all you two have proven is Glenn Beck is right, the two of you have conducted a * Saul Alinski style smear campaign, and got caught lieing.

[/quote]

proven? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
* a jew and a good guy (what universe do you live in?)
are we talking about smears against Saul or by Saul?

you know what your right.
I am tricking you because I am a Jeeeeeeeeeew.
we are tricksey by nature.
puppetmasters if you will.

maybe people would not think you are antisemitic
if all the people you demonize weren't Jewish.
just saying.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

16 May 2011, 9:47 am

(Post moderated. By mods)



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

16 May 2011, 11:08 am

Inuyasha wrote:
No, you read it right. That’s what the Indiana Supreme Court decided in what would be a laughable finding if it wasn’t so serious:
Quote:
Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

The author of the story reporting this is right – somehow the ISC managed, in one fell swoop, to overturn almost 900 years of precedent, going back to the Magna Carta.
Quote:
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry. [emphasis mine]

Or said another way, your home is no longer your castle.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/14/i ... by-police/

Unless a Federal Court possibly the US Supreme Court overturns this we effectively no longer have our 4th Amendment rights.

The interpretation that court is taking is probably that you are supposed to seek legal redress against unlawful police action, but that you are not allowed to act physically against them in the moment, since the determination of "unlawful entry" by police is not always completely unambiguous at the precise moment, and the courts would rather see that dispute arbitrated later on (and appropriate penalties imposed on the officer if necessary) than risk violent confrontations when a cop enters someone's house. Basically, if you believe a government agent has acted improperly, you are required to deal with that through the legal system, not as a vigilante in your own home. It is not necessarily an interpretation I'd take, but it is hyperbole to say that they have overturned the 4th Amendment or the Magna Carta (which, incidentally, is not a part of America's legal system and is thus irrelevant here).


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

16 May 2011, 12:12 pm

Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
No, you read it right. That’s what the Indiana Supreme Court decided in what would be a laughable finding if it wasn’t so serious:
Quote:
Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

The author of the story reporting this is right – somehow the ISC managed, in one fell swoop, to overturn almost 900 years of precedent, going back to the Magna Carta.
Quote:
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry. [emphasis mine]

Or said another way, your home is no longer your castle.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/14/i ... by-police/

Unless a Federal Court possibly the US Supreme Court overturns this we effectively no longer have our 4th Amendment rights.

The interpretation that court is taking is probably that you are supposed to seek legal redress against unlawful police action, but that you are not allowed to act physically against them in the moment, since the determination of "unlawful entry" by police is not always completely unambiguous at the precise moment, and the courts would rather see that dispute arbitrated later on (and appropriate penalties imposed on the officer if necessary) than risk violent confrontations when a cop enters someone's house. Basically, if you believe a government agent has acted improperly, you are required to deal with that through the legal system, not as a vigilante in your own home. It is not necessarily an interpretation I'd take, but it is hyperbole to say that they have overturned the 4th Amendment or the Magna Carta (which, incidentally, is not a part of America's legal system and is thus irrelevant here).


The 4th amendment is based off of the Magna Carta, and Orwell if they don't have a warrent they are committing a crime.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

16 May 2011, 12:37 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
No, you read it right. That’s what the Indiana Supreme Court decided in what would be a laughable finding if it wasn’t so serious:
Quote:
Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

The author of the story reporting this is right – somehow the ISC managed, in one fell swoop, to overturn almost 900 years of precedent, going back to the Magna Carta.
Quote:
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry. [emphasis mine]

Or said another way, your home is no longer your castle.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/14/i ... by-police/

Unless a Federal Court possibly the US Supreme Court overturns this we effectively no longer have our 4th Amendment rights.

The interpretation that court is taking is probably that you are supposed to seek legal redress against unlawful police action, but that you are not allowed to act physically against them in the moment, since the determination of "unlawful entry" by police is not always completely unambiguous at the precise moment, and the courts would rather see that dispute arbitrated later on (and appropriate penalties imposed on the officer if necessary) than risk violent confrontations when a cop enters someone's house. Basically, if you believe a government agent has acted improperly, you are required to deal with that through the legal system, not as a vigilante in your own home. It is not necessarily an interpretation I'd take, but it is hyperbole to say that they have overturned the 4th Amendment or the Magna Carta (which, incidentally, is not a part of America's legal system and is thus irrelevant here).


The 4th amendment is based off of the Magna Carta, and Orwell if they don't have a warrent they are committing a crime.


well 4 of the Justices were appointed by republicans and one by Evan Bayh (a fox news contributor)
so which party is undermining the constitution again I keep losing track.
a good heuristic is if it has to do with increasing police powers conservatives are behind it.
they loves them some blue.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

16 May 2011, 2:18 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
The 4th amendment is based off of the Magna Carta,

Loosely, but the Magna Carta itself has exactly 0 standing in any US court.

Quote:
and Orwell if they don't have a warrent they are committing a crime.

I know. The decision appears to be saying that if a cop commits a crime, citizens have to deal with that through the legal system rather than taking matters into their own hands. Now, this decision quite obviously leaves open the possibility for abuse and/or corruption, but it is not "overturning" the 4th Amendment. The court recognized that a police officer entering a home unlawfully is a problem, but they put forward rules on exactly how such transgressions should be dealt with.

And assuming JakobVirgil is presenting correct information, this case doesn't bolster your argument no matter what anyone's opinion of the verdict.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


dionysian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 921
Location: Germantown, MD

16 May 2011, 2:32 pm

Is it impossible for a police officer to have probable cause to enter your home? If they get a distressed 911 call, they're not going to bring it before a judge before they take action. They will not have a warrant every single time they lawfully force entry into a home.

And Jakob is right, of course...

Quote:
a good heuristic is if it has to do with increasing police powers conservatives are behind it.
they loves them some blue.


Right wingers like to campaign as libertarians, and rule as authoritarians.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

16 May 2011, 4:01 pm

dionysian wrote:
Is it impossible for a police officer to have probable cause to enter your home? If they get a distressed 911 call, they're not going to bring it before a judge before they take action. They will not have a warrant every single time they lawfully force entry into a home.

And Jakob is right, of course...


And if a cop decides to break in just cause they feel like it...

dionysian wrote:
Quote:
a good heuristic is if it has to do with increasing police powers conservatives are behind it.
they loves them some blue.


Right wingers like to campaign as libertarians, and rule as authoritarians.


Last I checked Chicago is run by Democrats.



dionysian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 921
Location: Germantown, MD

16 May 2011, 4:06 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Last I checked Chicago is run by Democrats.

Totally different state, dude.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

16 May 2011, 4:09 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
dionysian wrote:
Is it impossible for a police officer to have probable cause to enter your home? If they get a distressed 911 call, they're not going to bring it before a judge before they take action. They will not have a warrant every single time they lawfully force entry into a home.

And Jakob is right, of course...


And if a cop decides to break in just cause they feel like it...

dionysian wrote:
Quote:
a good heuristic is if it has to do with increasing police powers conservatives are behind it.
they loves them some blue.


Right wingers like to campaign as libertarians, and rule as authoritarians.


Last I checked Chicago is run by Democrats.


and Texas by republicans.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

16 May 2011, 4:09 pm

dionysian wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Last I checked Chicago is run by Democrats.

Totally different state, dude.


Pointing out the attempt to trample the 2nd Amendment.



dionysian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 921
Location: Germantown, MD

16 May 2011, 4:16 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
dionysian wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Last I checked Chicago is run by Democrats.

Totally different state, dude.


Pointing out the attempt to trample the 2nd Amendment.

Ah, OK. I thought that was a different thread.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

16 May 2011, 4:26 pm

dionysian wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
dionysian wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Last I checked Chicago is run by Democrats.

Totally different state, dude.


Pointing out the attempt to trample the 2nd Amendment.

Ah, OK. I thought that was a different thread.


lets agree to limit this discussion to 4th amendment abuse.
Are liberal judges more or less likely to limit police powers?
are cops in Texas or Mississippi given more or less powers than New York or Massachusetts?
what is behind the steady encroachment of police powers?
hippies or squares?


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

16 May 2011, 4:28 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
dionysian wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
dionysian wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Last I checked Chicago is run by Democrats.

Totally different state, dude.


Pointing out the attempt to trample the 2nd Amendment.

Ah, OK. I thought that was a different thread.


lets agree to limit this discussion to 4th amendment abuse.
Are liberal judges more or less likely to limit police powers?
are cops in Texas or Mississippi given more or less powers than New York or Massachusetts?
what is behind the steady encroachment of police powers?
hippies or squares?


Just because a Judge is appointed by a Conservative, does not mean the Judge is actually a conservative. Same thing for a liberal appointing a Judge. You just have their past track records to go off of.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

16 May 2011, 4:33 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
dionysian wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
dionysian wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Last I checked Chicago is run by Democrats.

Totally different state, dude.


Pointing out the attempt to trample the 2nd Amendment.

Ah, OK. I thought that was a different thread.


lets agree to limit this discussion to 4th amendment abuse.
Are liberal judges more or less likely to limit police powers?
are cops in Texas or Mississippi given more or less powers than New York or Massachusetts?
what is behind the steady encroachment of police powers?
hippies or squares?


Just because a Judge is appointed by a Conservative, does not mean the Judge is actually a conservative. Same thing for a liberal appointing a Judge. You just have their past track records to go off of.


Why do you assume they are liberal?


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

16 May 2011, 4:37 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
dionysian wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
dionysian wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Last I checked Chicago is run by Democrats.

Totally different state, dude.


Pointing out the attempt to trample the 2nd Amendment.

Ah, OK. I thought that was a different thread.


lets agree to limit this discussion to 4th amendment abuse.
Are liberal judges more or less likely to limit police powers?
are cops in Texas or Mississippi given more or less powers than New York or Massachusetts?
what is behind the steady encroachment of police powers?
hippies or squares?


Just because a Judge is appointed by a Conservative, does not mean the Judge is actually a conservative. Same thing for a liberal appointing a Judge. You just have their past track records to go off of.


Why do you assume they are liberal?


Simple, this flies in the face of everything a Conservative stands for. While one can argue the Judges may be RINOs, point remains they are definately not Conservatives.