No one was talking about those things, the subject was the Republican appointment of a candidate who has a track record of disregarding the 4th amendment, and archer here said: "This is all about the left wanting to eliminate the constitution".
That statement remains wrong, as the democrats haven't even fucking done anything here. On the other hand the republicans are playing to get a guy who wipes his ass with the constitution on highest court in the land which is chiefly concerned with constitutional issues. You yourself admitted this, your deluded party bias has somehow convinced you to contradict yourself because god forbid someone on the left who isn't even a democrat say something bad about the republicans without you getting on your high horse and rattling off a list of irrelevant grievances.
Fuck you all, you're the reason our political system is a pile of shit. I hope trump gets us into a nuclear war and all you north american dipshits suck a giant irradiated cock.
The constitution (the document) is basically bones. It’s been filled in over time with interpretation and precedent.
No illegal search and seizure...
The precedent is clause for imminent danger. As in: -finny grabs your mom,pulls her In a building,begins to vigorously rape her (or your dad)-
The imminent danger clause allows for police to enter the building without warrant or identifying ownership to save Mom (or dad) from finny’s Disgusting cock.
I believe that was the guise and precedent used for the patriot act. It was partisan and a slippery slope,there were guidelines and checks and balances for it. I remember that Time vividly, and ppl were scared shitless. It was really about Muslims,but of course had to be more larger scope due to the liberals crying racial profiling (same reason us white ppl and our grandmas get “random” searches at the airport,instead of dudes names Mohammed)
I remember reading various papers from different constitutional scholars on the subject at the time (it’s been a while) might have to revisit those.
I wonder if kav wrote anything?
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
The so-called "Patriot" Act wasn't written for terrorists, it was written for Americans, under the pretense of being written for terrorists. And the only way they could pull it off was setting up 9/11 so all the sheeple would fall right in line. And they did pull it off. But it's not going to stay that way.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Originally posted by Speedy Parker
It's scary how brainwashed your generation is.
It's scary how you can't imagine people disagreeing with you unless it's because of brainwashing.
Originally posted by Archer513
“Wipes ass with constitution”
Is a bit far.lol.
The constitution (the document) is basically bones. It’s been filled in over time with interpretation and precedent.
No illegal search and seizure…
The precedent is clause for imminent danger. As in: - -finny grabs your mom,pulls her In a building,begins to vigorously rape her (or your dad)-
The imminent danger clause allows for police to enter the building without warrant or identifying ownership to save Mom (or dad) from finny’s Disgusting cock.
I believe that was the guise and precedent used for the patriot act. It was partisan and a slippery slope,there were guidelines and checks and balances for it. I remember that Time vividly, and ppl were scared shitless. It was really about Muslims,but of course had to be more larger scope due to the liberals crying racial profiling (same reason us white ppl and our grandmas get “random” searches at the airport,instead of dudes names Mohammed)
I remember reading various papers from different constitutional scholars on the subject at the time (it’s been a while) might have to revisit those.
I wonder if kav wrote anything?
Has the patriot act every been used in an "imminent danger" situation? Obviously the point was that the spying that was conducted under that patriot act needed to be conducted without warrants because there was not probable cause and spying on political opponents is difficult to dress up as anti-terrorism when it has to go before a court, not because the spying had to be conducted to prevent "imminent danger".
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
It's scary how you can't imagine people disagreeing with you unless it's because of brainwashing.
Has the patriot act every been used in an "imminent danger" situation? Obviously the point was that the spying that was conducted under that patriot act needed to be conducted without warrants because there was not probable cause and spying on political opponents is difficult to dress up as anti-terrorism when it has to go before a court, not because the spying had to be conducted to prevent "imminent danger".
I don’t know off hand. I wonder how many terroristsic threats it stopped,cells it found. Obviously got abused per fisa and trump,but technically patriot act expired in 2015 and I’m not educated enough on the new revision to know what kav was responsible for and what carried over.
The “throw the baby out with the bath water” or “it was abused,so it’s bad” could apply to any law,right,constitutional protection. I don’t think that’s a good argument.
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING 2.0 - The GMO Reckoning
You mean anything honest. We both know he's written toilet rolls full of platitudes and excuses.
Yeah and it's stuck to shit paper Trump's shoe lol
Originally posted by Archer513
I don’t know off hand. I wonder how many terroristsic threats it stopped,cells it found. Obviously got abused per fisa and trump,but technically patriot act expired in 2015 and I’m not educated enough on the new revision to know what kav was responsible for and what carried over.
The “throw the baby out with the bath water” or “it was abused,so it’s bad” could apply to any law,right,constitutional protection. I don’t think that’s a good argument.
Now I gotta read up on this shit. Thanks 😢
If America didn't want muslim terrorists, it wouldn't allow Muslims to mass immigrate.
Muslim terrorists are handy.
You can justify any crap you feel like when you can point out the Muslims running around raping and blowing shit up left right and centre.
Originally posted by -SpectraL
The so-called "Patriot" Act wasn't written for terrorists, it was written for Americans, under the pretense of being written for terrorists. And the only way they could pull it off was setting up 9/11 so all the sheeple would fall right in line. And they did pull it off. But it's not going to stay that way.
Objectively true. 911 was Tuesday, and they had the Patriot Act ready to go on Thursday.
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING 2.0 - The GMO Reckoning
You mean anything honest. We both know he's written toilet rolls full of platitudes and excuses.
You've not read one paragraph of one of his opinions on a ruling.
Originally posted by Speedy Parker
I just like to read the information and keep my own counsel. BTW the dem delay party is over. Joe Manchin (Senator D-WV) has crossed the aisle. …
They're ALL traitors, Speedy. Sad truth. Just because they decide to shine once in awhile in no way negates that fact.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Originally posted by Speedy Parker
On that we can agree. There are very few on Capitol Hill that are patriots, my country and yours.
There really is no two parties. There's just one party: the corrupt establishment - the swamp. That's it. And as you say, there are a few diamonds in the rough, but that's not near enough to change the situation. Only way to actually change anything is have them all tried quickly for treason by military tribunal and sentenced to hang. Then ask the rest of the parasites whether they want to play, too.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
