Posted on 06/09/2006 7:38:19 AM PDT by VRing
"The unlawful use of or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.--FBI definition of terrorism."
Wow! No knock raids are acts of terrorism according to the FBI's own definition of terrorism.
bttt
Yes, I agree with you on this point. However, there is nothing in the article stating this is the case here, so that theory is based on nothing more than conjectures and assumptions.
OK, I get the last word? I choose - Idiot.
And that does somenthing about Mckinney how?
Duh, this is gonna get tiresome real quick if I have to spell out everything for you. You complained about not having equality, because a small percentage were paying the majority of the taxes, but not getting an equal amount of vote. MOVE! What part of that is so freaking difficult to understand? Move to a different district where 90% of the people aren't riding welfare while 10% are living in mansions. Pack up and find someplace where there are more people in the same income level. I can't believe you are having trouble understanding this concept. Either you are intentionally being dense for the sake of being argumentative, or you have somethng seriously wrong going on inside your cranium.
Easily said - I can say if you just try hard enough you can float up in the air. District lines were set by legislature at direction of judges.
Yes, and I say that somone who actually wants to do something besides sit around whining can actually do something about it. I guess that leaves you out. District lines are moved. It happens. It happened just a couple of years ago in Texas. Wanna know how? A bunch of people here got tired of the way things were going, so they got off their butts and did something about it instead of crying. They worked to get people elected who would appoint judiciary that agreed with them, and the district lines got moved. It wasn't easy. It didn't happen over night. But it did happen. Perserverance pays off.
Done that had a black republican female candidate - lost about 83% to 17% of the vote.
waaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!!!! Well go ahead and cry. Try once and fail, so you give up? Ever here the saying "If at first you don't succeeed, try and try again."???? Gimme a break.
Hey, I need to mow my lawn today. But I guess if my lawnmower doesn't start the first time I pull the start cord, then I'll just give up and sit on the porch complaining that my mower is broken, while I wait for a miracle, or for someone else to come along and volunteer to mow my yard for me.
The Feds already confiscates all their wealthy if they are dealing drugs.
In case you didn't read that part, here it is again. The word responsible means a determination has been made; that was admitted by the Chief of Police or don't you believe him? You are too quick to take the side of the law for the sake of what their job is, and one day, let's hope you don't end up on the wrong side of that trust (as the couple sleeping in their beds at that house did when the police broke in).
And you addressed your logic to me? Perhaps you, also along with geezerwheezer, didn't read the second sentence in my post. I don't see where there's any part of what I said that's different than your last sentence....
cc gaffer only, not intended for gaffer...sorry for any confusion.
"I simply don't blame police doing the jobs they have to do."
Hypothetically, suppose they were "doing their job" in violation of the Constitution of these United States?
Would you now have any objections when they go about "just doing their jobs?"
Right. However, civil suits awards in that case should then be awarded from any assets confiscated.
The point being: the taxpayer is no more guilty in this case than the drug dealer, but Civil Suits don't get filed by Lawyers against drug dealers (they are afraid of the hunt). Taxpayers are always an easy target, and the Lawyer doesn't risk his life like he would trying to appropriate the funds from a drug dealer.
I didn't know civil suits could do that in this case.
Sounds like a fair deal to me.
Thanks for the education on that issue.
I think that the police are a little too quick to use "no-knock" warrants.
Sure, if its a terrorist cell, or the suspects have a history of violence to the police, there are circumstances when "no-knock" warrants are called for.
It just seems to be a weapon in the police's arsenal that is used too often.
As I mentioned, look at everything mechanical, electrical, or most tools. The warning labels plastered all over them are all the result of civil suits. Imagine hitting your thumb with a hammer, and suing the dealer, the manufacturer, the designer, etc., etc. for your error, because no one told you you could do damage to yourself if you mis-use the tool. That's the state of the Tort situation today...
"I think the Constitution was never meant to be a suicide pact. Quote from Abraham Lincoln"
At least you are openly anti-Constitution...what do you liberals call it? A living breathing document?
Whatever, Abe Lincoln should have known better and so should you. Amendments were provided for in our Constitution in order to prevent your feared suicide pacts.
Regardless, any law enforcer, congress, president, and judge etc. acting in violation of the Constitution is committing a crime...as did Lincoln when he went sent troops to attack the confederate states. Which is most likely what prompted him to say, "the constitution was never meant to be a suicide pact."
You guessed right, Lincoln suspected he was acting in violation of the Constitution.
I'm not anti constitution, but am against trying to use the constitution to allow crime and vice on our nation.
"I'm not anti constitution, but am against trying to use the constitution to allow crime and vice on our nation."
Then you are obviously conflicted. In that case I recommend a strong dose of Jefferson. Perhaps his words and deeds might help you begin the process of understanding the legitimacy as well as the revelancy of our Constitution. Others would also suggest that you include a complete study of the federalist papers.
Either way "pal," you can't have it both ways. You can't pick and choose the laws to uphold and defend and those to ignore when it comes to our Constituion. The
Constitution is not the Bible to be picked apart by religious zealouts with their own agenda. The Constitution of these United States is the Supreme Law of this Land.
"Do you think all laws **stopped** at the Constitution or do you believe the Constitution still allowed people to vote in representatives who are allowed to make other laws as needed for safety and peace?"
All laws are subject to be scrutinized by the SC to determine their constitutionality. Have you taken and passed any US history course anywhere at anytime? We were taught this process in 7th grade civics class.
Moreover, the SC, according to our constitution is obligated to determine the constitutionality of any law so challenged in it's court. According to some constitutional scholars, the court has been known to err. Take Roe v. Wade for example...many today continue to argue that the Roe v. Wade decision was unconstitutional. Since they correctly believe that such matters should be left to the individual states as laid out in our Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.