What is everyone working on now that its cold and windy?

Jan 04, 2005 441 Replies

So you're saying that it's such a good thing to "catch as many drunk drivers as possible" that it's OK for police to disregard the Constitutional boundaries on the powers of government?

We see the same twisted logic in the rhetoric of the "anti-terrorists" at the Federal level.

Wouldn't you rather live in an America where the government was genuinely constrained to remain within Constitutional limits, even if it meant that the Enforcers had to work a little harder to protect us against Terrorists and Drunk Drivers and whatnot?

There's a famous proverb that goes something like: "What does it profit a man to gain the world if he loses his soul?" In a similar vein: what good does it do to "Keep The Nation Safe" if, in so doing, we transform it into a travesty of all that the American Republic was supposed to stand for?

-dave w

He's got his and that's ALL he cares about.

Jerry

I guess if you do not believe in the concept, you will not except the fact it is needed. I never experienced a sobriety check point, that took more than 240 seconds of my time, even in the state of Kalifornia.

Fred

So your criterion for an "acceptable" clear violation of civil rights is that it take less than a few minutes of your time. I get that.

Why should your standard of inanity be applied to everyone universally, especially to those who believe a right is a right? Not a privelidge revokable without notice by any and every local constable and subjected to a wide range of "reasonable" and unreasonable searches WHILE THOSE RIGHTS ARE FULLY 100% VIOLATED.

Jerry

I thought you were the only one on RMR that had their own FAQ. If I have one, I wonder who the administrator is?? (:-)

OK, you don't believe in the concept: I get that also..(:-) I believe actions in private or in my casual, so to speak, should get less or little scrutiny than my actions in public. Can you dig it Jerry?

Free Fred

Correct. I do not believe in the concept that any enforcement action, no matter how desirable, is more important than not having the government violate the Constitution. I do not accept that the government "needs to do so"...

The Constitution was intended to provide the framework within which we wage war and fight crime as well as carry on the ordinary civil business of the nation. An American government, by definition, does not need to operate outside the Constitution.

Why do you claim that we need an un-American government?

-dave w

"I claimed"?? Once again, do not attempt to put words in my mouth.. It's so amateur of you.

No his point is valid.

Your failure to engage the point YOU made and HE called you on reminds me of Dave Grayvis.

==

Jerry

Your exact words were that I "do not accept that it is needed", where "it" referred to government acti Please explain why you would think such a thing is "needed"...

-dave w

You must be fixated.. (:-)

Yes ... for t w o whole days! I know - I picked those 2 days to be in Boston. For the other 363 days it was warmer in Big D.

Gotta go now, I'm tired after playing 18 holes today. :-)

Poor shipping violator jerry!

I did not refer "it" to be outside the scope of the powers authorized by the constitution. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. It's starting to appear as a fetish.

Simple, I do not believe that paticular action is outside the scope of government and also, "is not outside the scope of the powers authorized by the constitution".

Fred

He does not "believe" the scope IS limited.

See my prior post. I told you so!!!

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required