Posted on 01/27/2007 1:36:11 PM PST by tpaine
--Why would a man dig up his yard if there wasn't a problem?--
I didn't say there was no problem. But it makes it very difficult for the county to fix the problem when one will not let them on the easement to fix the problems.
"Okay, maybe this will require a little logical reasoning, but why would a man go to the trouble and expense of digging up a sewer line, if it weren't leaking?" wku man's post to UpAllNight, #495.
Post #499 was from another FReeper altogether, screen name of Chances Are.
Since you're new, I'll give you a little help in navigating the forum. Click on the "View Replies" button to see replies to a particular post. When one clicks on my post #495, one sees that your response in #503 was an irrelevant question ("was it clogged"), and therefore, I logically infer that you are merely trying to divert the debate.
Give it a rest. You're starting to remind me of the Black Knight in The Search for the Holy Grail. "Come back here, I'll bite your legs off" and so forth. Therefore, in the spirit of King Arthur, "we'll call it a draw". Good-bye.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
--Would I do the same if I were in the Missouri man's boots? I'd have to think long and hard about it, but unfortunately, he didn't have the opportunity to think, because they just showed up on his property to start digging. --
He had YEARS to think.
--When one clicks on my post #495, one sees that your response in #503 was an irrelevant question ("was it clogged"), and therefore, I logically infer that you are merely trying to divert the debate.--
Please alter my post and put it in quotes. Thank you.
-- "we'll call it a draw". Good-bye.--
Good try. I ruin the whole basis for your argument by pointing out that you made it up and you want to exit with a 'draw'?
So your argument is that if you can manage to get your employer's property in your vehicle parked on his property, your employer has lost his right to recover his property because he can't search your vehicle?
Absurd.
When you can provide a title to the lands and structures to that property, then you can make the rules on it, until that point, your access to it is controlled by the owner.
No one is forcing an employee to accept a job where they feel that their rights are being violated, or that their life is in danger as a result of the workplace policies, so there are no rights violations here. If you are not in agreement on the way a property owner exercises their rights, then don't enter their property...you don't have a right to be on it to begin with.
You are demanding a non-existent right...the right to be on someone else's property on your terms and against theirs.
You simply don't have that right.
You know, people said the same thing about emminent domain. And the court betrayed the constitution. What's the next step?
I assume you mean the Kelso decision. Many people did take their complaints to their representatives and several states have passed laws or amended their constitutions that nullify Kelso in their states.
Nor does administrating our laws give you godlike powers over your peers.--
What is "godlike" about trying to use a legal easement in the maintenance of the system for which that easement was legally granted?
From what I've read, the local officials were being absolutist's about their powers. So was Watson. -- Obviously, you back up the officials. --- I back up Constitutional restraints on ALL absolutists.
OBTW, you keep ducking my earlier concern where you called me a gun-grabber for agreeing with the GA bill.
You imagine a lot of weird things. I don't 'duck', I just ignore obsessive behavior.
Does that mean you have retracted your support for the GA bill?
We went over this not long ago:
UpAllNight wrote:
tpaine -- THIS ISSUE is much bigger than parking lots. -- I agree.
But that was the issue you put to me originally and the one we were discussing. Are you now disagreeing with the GA law? Are you saying that the GA law which is consistent with my position is a gun-grabbing law? I thought you agreed with it?
You seem obsessed with your vision of what the GA bill meant to achieve. -- Why is that, considering that you agree:
"--The issue is carrying a firearm in your private vehicle for protection of yourself and your family when you are traveling to and from work, to and from shopping and to and from any place law-abiding citizens normally go in the course of daily routines. --
-- whether I agreed with it or not even though my position as posted to you before I saw the bill agreed with the bill. I say I agree with the bill, you say you agree with it but you called me a gun grabber. I ask you again, DO YOU AGREE WITH THE GA BILL?
Asked and answered way back in the thread. Get a new obsession.
--Asked and answered way back in the thread. Get a new obsession.--
I assume you are referring to where you agreed with the GA bill and have not changed that position. You are aware that the bill allows employers to prohibit employees from bringing weapons onto the employers' private property. Is that why you called me a gun grabber for supporting the GA bill?
You continue to confuse restrictions on government with restrictions on individuals.
You don't have to agree to allow your employer to search your vehicle on the way into their property at all, then again, your employer can deny you access to their property if they don't get to search your vehicle.
Here's how that plays out:
Employer: Hello, I need you to open your trunk and so that I can search for guns before you access my parking lot, as you may recall allowing me to search your vehicle on the way and out of the property is a condition of employment.
You: No, you can't search my car.
Employer: Then you can't enter the property.
What are you going to do at that point?
"--The issue is carrying a firearm in your private vehicle for protection of yourself and your family when you are traveling to and from work, to and from shopping and to and from any place law-abiding citizens normally go in the course of daily routines. --
That was not the issue YOU raised with me. Seems you are changing your tune away from the "employees' right to bring a weapon to work with him."
--What are you going to do at that point?--
You have to ask after all the reponses on this thread? Why of course, you pull out your SKS and shoot the minimum wage, 59 year old guard.
But owning a gun does?
Absurd.
--But owning a gun does?--
Yes. Particular if they are unarmed and you ambush them from behind your truck.
You and I are discussing two private citizens interacting on a piece of privately owned land. Not a private citizens ans a representative of the government interacting over an easement.
--We've written a Constitution to guide us about abusing power. Amazing how so few of us admit we are ALL bound to honor the document.--
Where did the county violate the constitution?
--Thanks luis, you've made my point.--
Uh no. The county had LEGAL permission to be on the easement. The nutcase was trying to illegally revoke their right by denying them access.
Rather, making his living as a nationally syndicated columnist. And you are posting that he is a piece of garbage on a free board. Hmmm... Thank you for your opinion, I'll rank it with the ones above the urinal at the local library.
Loss prevention programs can include search of the employee, or any containers in the employees possession when exiting an area containing property, but not the vehicle, wnless there is probable cause.
"No one is forcing an employee to accept a job where they feel that their rights are being violated, or that their life is in danger as a result of the workplace policies, so there are no rights violations here."
That nonsense went out beginning with old common law. Biblically, violating anyone's rights was never permitted by God. Around the beginning of the 19th century, the States and the feds began to protect the rights of employees against arbitrary rights violations made possible by the employer's advantage of soverenty over the operation. Since the govm't fundamental justification for existence is to protect rights, their action on behalf of anyone whose right is being infringed w/o sufficient justification is proper.
"You are demanding a non-existent right...the right to be on someone else's property on your terms and against theirs."
Ridiculous. Whose name appears on the vehicle title?
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.