Teapartiers: What an outrage!

page: 22
33
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bigdaddy7ftr
 




I highlighted the term "lawful contact" for a reason...what does it mean to you? or better yet, what does it mean to the courts?


According to LEO, it means an ARS contact. In other words, a probable cause existed to contact that individual. It does NOT mean a hunch.

AFAIK, there is no single definition claimed by the courts.


This bill takes it one BIG step further, however, granting police with the power of unlawful search and seizure as prohibited by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. It allows the police officers to pry into the lives of private citizens without suspecting an offense of crime has been committed.


Totally untrue, and one of the reasons so many people are uneducated about this bill. You may not like it but it is, in fact, disinfo.




posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
This is a link to the text of AZ SENATE BILL 1070, for those who want to read it:

www.azleg.gov...



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by bigdaddy7ftr
 




I highlighted the term "lawful contact" for a reason...what does it mean to you? or better yet, what does it mean to the courts?


According to LEO, it means an ARS contact. In other words, a probable cause existed to contact that individual. It does NOT mean a hunch.

AFAIK, there is no single definition claimed by the courts.


This bill takes it one BIG step further, however, granting police with the power of unlawful search and seizure as prohibited by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. It allows the police officers to pry into the lives of private citizens without suspecting an offense of crime has been committed.


Totally untrue, and one of the reasons so many people are uneducated about this bill. You may not like it but it is, in fact, disinfo.



Again, what is untrue about what I said? You can't call it disinfo simply because you don't agree...

Look, the very wording of "Lawful Contact" being a reason to "search and seize" an individual...detaining them for purposes of establishing citizenship, is part of the very same reason this bill is destined to be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. There's nothing disinfo about it.

By the way, as for your first point, "Lawful Contact" does NOT only include suspicion of a crime...As I can tell you from my own experience, police in this state already routinely harass citizens under the guise of "courtesy checks", which is nothing more than a cover for them to pry into your business. Now, under this so-called "Lawful Contact" they are being granted the authority to take it one step further and detain you until proof of citizenship is established; if they deem it necessary to do so.

It really isn't that difficult to understand how the wording of this bill COULD (capitalized for emphasis) be misused to contradict the freedoms guaranteed to every citizen in The Fourth Amendment.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
It is not an outrage. Illegal citizens have no rights in this country. NONE. They are criminals who steal, kill, and cost money. That is it.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by bigdaddy7ftr
 






Again, what is untrue about what I said? You can't call it disinfo simply because you don't agree...


This entire paragraph is untrue:


This bill takes it one BIG step further, however, granting police with the power of unlawful search and seizure as prohibited by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. It allows the police officers to pry into the lives of private citizens without suspecting an offense of crime has been committed.


Next:



It really isn't that difficult to understand how the wording of this bill COULD (capitalized for emphasis) be misused to contradict the freedoms guaranteed to every citizen in The Fourth Amendment.


I agree, it *could* be abused. Doesn't mean it will, however. The same argument could be stated this way:

If we arm our LEO, then they will use this new power to arbitrarily shoot anyone they want to.

Absurd.

You act as if every LEO is just chomping at the bit, waiting to haul every brown-skinned person into jail. :shk:



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


I guess we are at an impasse then...

See, the very argument you make alluding to the idea that I'm paranoid, are the same reasons that made this country great to begin with...an inherent distrust of our government. Why do you think such protections were put into place to begin with? Why are there checks and balances put into place to prevent any branch, person, or group from becoming tyrannical?

The constitution guaranteed against such abuses of power for a reason. There is absolutely nothing untrue about the paragraph that I wrote, and you continuously fail to argue any of the points I made beyond a general assertion of it being wrong....That's a fallacious argument by it's very definition.

However, your contention that the wording means that the power COULD be misused is good enough for me...This is exactly why I believe it is important to fight against such legislation, rather than allowing the further incrementalism that has been degrading our basic freedoms one-by-one.



[edit on 3-5-2010 by bigdaddy7ftr]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by bigdaddy7ftr
 




You say


This bill takes it one BIG step further, however, granting police with the power of unlawful search and seizure as prohibited by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.


I say you're wrong. Common sense tells us they wouldn't write that into the bill.

And you haven't shown where it is written into the bill.

Impasse? I suppose so.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by skunknuts
 


These people (Tea[partiers]) don't know/understand what the Constitution or the Bible says. And yet, they boldly proclaim to support and defend both.

The new Arizona law is both unconstitutional (violating both the Supremacy clause and the Equal Protection clause) and non-Biblical [(Leviticus 19:33-34) When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt.]

 


edited term with vulgar double meaning

[edit on 6/5/10 by masqua]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by EastCoastKid
 



These people (Teabaggers) don't know/understand what the Constitution or the Bible says. And yet, they boldly proclaim to support and defend both.


Your use of the term Teabaggers to describe members of the Tea Party Movement is insulting and degrading. Please stop using it.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


Hey - I didn't make it up.


I guess its easier to make me out to be a bad guy over my insensitivity than to actually argue against the truth of my above statement (that members of that silly movement don't know anything about the constitution or the Bible).



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by EastCoastKid
 


No, I'm pretty sure some middle-school kid somewhere made it up. But hey, if you want to keep referring to grown adults by a term used as a sexual euphemism just because you don't agree with them, it just shows your own maturity level.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by EastCoastKid
 



We have separation of church and state. Your reference to the Bible is thus meaningless; that's why nobody has responded to it. Not every TPM is a Christian, either. You seem to want to pigeonhole TPM members into conservative white Christians. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As for your statement regarding the Supremacy Clause...


Under the Supremacy Clause, everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law.

www.lectlaw.com...

Since the AZ law is almost a carbon copy of the federal law (which the feds refuse to enforce due to cowardice), that part of your argument is also shot down.

Finally, it's your ignorance more than your insensitivity that is objectionable.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 01:48 AM
link   
To the OP,

Star and flag for you!

Yet, more proof that the Tea Group is racist. Both the KKK and the Tea Groups are against anyone who isn't a white and wealthy.

The reason why they aren't saying anything because this is the true agenda exposed. To trick us with ultra right wing racism and to try to incite some kind of racial conflict, ie, "The Race War".

They wanted to end taxes but not a single peep over The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, I wonder why?

The Tea Group is now irrelavant. They have been called out and identified for what they truly are : A Racist group under the guise of what once was a highly respected organization.

Yet another well respected and good group of people to be conned and tricked by the Neo Con ultra racist right wing of the GOP. Once again you've been had. You were told 2 yrs back to stay away but for a fleeting second on tv news you've sacrificed what makes you you once again.


[edit on 5-5-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Didn't read all 22 pages did you? And I suppose it would be too much to ask for if I asked for your proof that all supporters of the tea parties are racist.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:17 AM
link   
"Anytime you sacrifice liberty for security, you lose both", according to Ron Paul. Surely this legislation will help get illegals out, which is a good thing, but it also could open doors for a precedent of legal abuse, which is a bad thing. I think that the easiest way to deal with illegal immigration from Mexico would be either to annex it, or follow a 3 step process that proceeds as follows: 1. build a wall along the US Mexican border, 2. secure that wall with patrol. 3. Shoot to kill anyone who tries to breech it. That would set the tone for illegal entry, although I think its too logistically complex. The situation is just too out of control in my opinion.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Nathwa
 


Exactly my point Nathwa...

Great post! Ron Paul and all of the true patriots of this country have always strongly cautioned the populous against giving up personal liberties for supposed safeguards, and this very scenario is exactly what makes SB 1070 so dangerous for us all.

Regardless on our personal views on immigration, there are better ways to enforce protecting our borders. If not for the utter failure of our federal government to do so in the first place, we wouldn't even be having this discussion about the AZ state bill.

Let's not make the same mistake as we did when the Patriot Act was hastily pushed through with nary a voice of opposition to be heard; due to the panic over a perceived threat that may or may not have ever materialized without it. We should stand up and demand better from our legislators on the federal and state levels, and accept no compromises on our freedoms whenever a new bill is introduced.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Didn't read all 22 pages did you? And I suppose it would be too much to ask for if I asked for your proof that all supporters of the tea parties are racist.


By their blatant failure to stand up for the people dealing with this Arizona law. If they aren't racist they should take up this as a cause but since it doesn't protect rich white people they don't care.

Proof :
www.youtube.com...

1,730 videos on YouTube focusing on Tea Group Racism. Those who won't watch one vid is as much in the closet as the entire group as a whole.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Have you read the thread and noted the people who have spoken on this site in support of the tea parties and against this particular law? Have you watched every single one of those videos to determine how many are just duplicates, how many are showing the claim is false, and how many truly show instances of racism committed by confirmed tea party supporters?



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Have you read the thread and noted the people who have spoken on this site in support of the tea parties and against this particular law? Have you watched every single one of those videos to determine how many are just duplicates, how many are showing the claim is false, and how many truly show instances of racism committed by confirmed tea party supporters?


Each of the videos listed is proof.

The average sentence uttered by a Tea Groupie is :

"Umm, You know, like, uhh, Obama's gonna take away our freedoms" and "You know like, ohh Obama's a Muslim right?"!

The vast groups knows nothing, is nothing and will always be nothing. Intelligence is one thing this group is surely lacking. The inability to make a decision for themselves is sickening.

Not one is willing to debate about the issues, not to mention or even hint around to the confirmed aspect the group has racist elements. Sidestepping a tv host, attempt to "drown out" a host on their own show when the very question is asked reaks to me of racists extrodinaires. The term, "Action speaks louder then words" here more then applies, but is amended to read as "inaction".

If there was any radical element amongst any of my ranks you better be darn sure they'd be identified, purged, expelled and reported to the proper authourities.

Does DHS, FBI, State Police have to knock down a chapter's doors in order for them to get the message? Once those muzzles are released only a Federal District Court Judge can put it back on. You do not want to unleash them especially now.

It is just a matter of time before someone in this radicalia group goes off and sheds blood. Pray that it never gets to that point.

BTW, according to USA Patriot Reauthorization Act Of 2006 any person, group, entity decreeing or identifing themselves, their movement, their family and associates as and/or with the cohabitations by either family, marriage, business relationships with known and suspected terrorists and groups (regardless of faith, ethnicity of the group/person) instantly decrees them terrorists. There are no special provisions signaling anyone from any particular background out but becomes nullified once a group(s) of like background (race, religion, hometown) becomes a direct threat to the citizens of The United States Of America. Read the fine print and learn. Not listed word for word, this is what the "read between the lines" reads as.

Basically, stay away from and associating with those that are either known or potential terrorists as you will instantly be decreed and reclassified a terrorist by associating with a terrorist, The old "guilt by association" becomes active.

A provision I happen to support and endorse. Installed to help the US Dept Of Homeland Security to help keep close eye and to be able to monitor politically sensitive orgnaizations (such as this one) to enable the Government to closely monitor activities and actions.

Doesn't encroach or threaten the 4th as acc to the Govt while remaining adherent to Network Neutrality provisions and The Constitution, "All information posted in a public medium such as this becomes apart of the public record and no law is to be passed denying a person these rights.".




[edit on 6-5-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


So the short answer is no to both my questions. Cherry picked clips in cherry picked videos are no more representative of all tea party supporters than Olbermann is representative of all Democrats or Limbaugh is representative of all Republicans. It's an excuse used to paint everyone in a group with the same large brush and avoid having to learn anything about said group. If a group can be dismissed, it can be ignored.

That is all you are accomplishing by painting all tea party supporters with the racist brush. In doing so, you avoid having to learn anything about any of them or what they actually stand for. While easier, it is the complete opposite of forming an educated opinion on any given topic whether it's the tea parties, a political candidate, or whatever you care to name.





new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join