Skip to comments.
LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE SPITS IN FACE OF TALK SHOW HOST ON THE AIR
DFU listening to KABC in Los Angeles
| 9-8-02
| Doug from Upland
Posted on 09/08/2002 9:22:43 PM PDT by doug from upland
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580, 581-600, 601-620 ... 681-689 next last
To: realpatriot71
For people who are quiet, there is no issue, after all, who would know.
For folks to get busted doing drugs, distributing drugs or developing drugs, they have to be less than quiet, so it's their own fault in that regard as well.
Same thing.
To: Cultural Jihad
It's immaterial to the point, CJ.
The 'Prohibition' of property is unconstitutional, whether local, state, or federal.
582
posted on
09/17/2002 8:10:57 PM PDT
by
tpaine
To: tpaine
It's immaterial to the point, CJ. Not at all. You were the one who wrongly characterised simple marijuana possession as a 'felony.' In point of fact it is not a felony in California nor an arrestable offense, but a misdemeanor subject to a hundred dollar fine.
To: tpaine
The 'Prohibition' of property is unconstitutional, whether local, state, or federal.
![](http://www.sundazed.com/artists/artistpage_gfx/artist_pics/raiderspic.jpg)
That famous melodious group "Banned in Boston"
played live before the Continental Congress
[Intaglio etching courtesy of LP Historical Revisionism, Inc]
To: Cultural Jihad; Roscoe
Immaterial to a
felon convicted in Calif on federal charges of 'possession' under an unconstitutional law.
You are advocating unconstitutional actions by ALL levels of government, CJ. Can you admit it? -- Are you aware that Roscoe does not argue the point anymore?
585
posted on
09/17/2002 8:25:52 PM PDT
by
tpaine
To: Cultural Jihad
Your inanity makes my point. - Thanks.
586
posted on
09/17/2002 8:27:11 PM PDT
by
tpaine
To: tpaine
Immaterial to a felon convicted in Calif on federal charges of 'possession' under an unconstitutional law. Name one such person in California who was ever convicted of a felony for an ounce or less of marijuana on their own property, say, within the last 30 years. We can wait all week if need be.
To: tpaine
[[ crickets ]]
To: tpaine
So you are claiming that spitting in another person's face is perfectly Constitutional?
To: realpatriot71
You could always move to a third world facist country where any immoral action is subject to stoningI thought getting stoned was what you libertarians were all about.
To: Cultural Jihad
Wait all year, CJ. I'm not gonna play the 'cite' game.
The fact remains.
You support unconstitutional prohibitions on 'dangerous' property. These prohibitory type laws are tearing this country apart.
- Your same socialistic advocacies are tearing free republic apart.
As JR once wrote:
Free Republic is a place for people to discuss our common goals regarding the restoration of our constitutionally limited republican form of government. If people have other agendas for FR, I really wish they would take them elsewhere.
Thanks, Jim
226 posted on 2/7/02 4:01 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson
591
posted on
09/17/2002 8:47:54 PM PDT
by
tpaine
To: tpaine
Wait all year, CJ. I'm not gonna play the 'cite' game.
Little wonder when there are no such cites to be cited. Thanks for admitting you were using hyperbole and dissembling.
To: Cultural Jihad
You are advocating unconstitutional actions by ALL levels of government, CJ. Can you admit it?
"So you are claiming that spitting in another person's face is perfectly Constitutional?" CJ
-- You have the option of taking me to court to prove that I'm "spitting in another person's face", CJ. We'll let the jury decide if it's "perfectly Constitutional".
593
posted on
09/17/2002 8:56:41 PM PDT
by
tpaine
To: tpaine
So according to the looneytarians, assault becomes a civil matter. Interesting, but vetoed.
To: Cultural Jihad
Whatever.
Imagine, if you must, that 'cites' have any bearing on your conduct here at FR. You reject our constitutional principles with every WOD advocating post, and with every hate rant at your 'fellow' freepers.
595
posted on
09/17/2002 9:03:08 PM PDT
by
tpaine
To: tpaine
You can't back up your allegation of felony law, so you decide to ignore your own statement, too. Welcome to the club, tpaine.
To: Cultural Jihad
Ignore what statement?
597
posted on
09/17/2002 9:08:16 PM PDT
by
tpaine
To: tpaine
Which statement? Why, this statement of yours:
Immaterial to a felon convicted in Calif on federal charges of 'possession' under an unconstitutional law.
People who pay a hundred dollar fine are not called "felons." Otherwise, we'd have "felonious jaywalkers," or "felonious double-parkers," or "felonious sidewalk-spitters."
To: Cultural Jihad
~ Federal~ charges of
'possession' were felonies, last time I heard CJ. You have new info? Let me know sometime in the next year or two, when someone might care.
The facts remain, you advocate a war on drugs, -- in reality, -- a war on the constitution, and the people of the U.S.A.
"There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the federal government to wage war against the citizens of the United States, no matter how well-meaning the intent. The Bill of Rights means just as much today, as it did on the day it was written. And its protections are just as valid and just as important to freedom today, as they were to our Founders two hundred years ago. The danger of the drug war is that it erodes away those rights. Once the fourth amendment is meaningless, it's just that much easier to erode away the first and then the second, etc. Soon we'll have no rights at all. " Jim Robinson, 5/9/01
599
posted on
09/17/2002 9:30:35 PM PDT
by
tpaine
To: tpaine
~ Federal~ charges of 'possession' were felonies, last time I heard CJ. You have new info? Get with the times, tp. The decriminalization of simple marijuana possession in California happened 29 years ago. In fact, no amount of possession in California constitutes a felony, but a misdemeanor.
Possession of 28.5 grams or less of marijuana is not an arrestable offense. As long as the offender can provide sufficient identification and promises to appear in court, the officer will not arrest the offender. Upon conviction of the misdemeanor charge the offender is subject to a fine of $100. Possession of greater than 28.5 grams is punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $500.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580, 581-600, 601-620 ... 681-689 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson