Posted on 06/03/2002 5:35:46 PM PDT by RCW2001
More likely it is because that is as close as they will ever be to a good looking chick.
My thanks to you for fixing the link.
Care to elaborate on that, please?
You wrote: "But somehow a business is supposed to trust a total stranger with an open door policy."
When I pointed out that the #2 definition of corporation is "a body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person" I intended to underscore what you said.
Since corporations are similar to single persons, it might be reasonable to think that corporations should have the same right to exclude people from their property as individuals have to exclude people from their homes.
Since corporations are similar to single persons, it might be reasonable to think that corporations should have the same right to exclude people from their property as individuals have to exclude people from their homes.
Okay. That's what I thought you meant. You're right. Also, a corporation is still headed by individuals and thus they hold themselves out as individuals and can't legitimately hide behind a corporate label. Which bogus laws now permit to some extent. Can you say ENRON?
I was a long haired phreakie character and I resembled the description. This was in the early 70's
We phreaks had pretty much stuck everything to 'the establishment' for quite a few years and got away with it because 'they' had no idea what we were, why we were nor what to do about us.
Somewhere around that time, 'they' had had just about enough of us.
I got popped.
What's the big deal ... spend a few nights in jail ... it adds to ones perspective.
Better yet ... do time as a guilty person ... that will help your thought processes tremendously.
Any rational person would totally agree.
Who is opposed to the obvious policy you outlined?
Answer: The ACLU, the DNC, Osama bin Laden and the al Queda terrorists obviously roaming freely as we speak, casing targets, dreaming up new unimaginable horrors, and every day preparing for the next attack.
I guess internment was a blessing in disguise for those particular internees, even if it seemed like it was nothing but a hardship to some other internees and their children.
It is sad, too, that some German-Americans, who were loyal to the US, felt they had to disguise their family backgrounds around the times of WWI and WWII. Otherwise they might have been ostracized, even if they weren't bothered by vigilantes.
You won't know if you should laugh or cry when you read this article "We’ll Pay Them Reparations Later" from FrontPageMagazine.com on December 27, 2001.
Or another (#26): If there was a TRUE security system in place, they would be thouroughly investigated and have their citizenship revoked and be deported if they so much as forgot to dot an "i" or cross a "t". And that would be to the merely suspicious looking ones.
Revoke citizenship! For what?
Another wrote (#53) [by a poster named “Constitutional Patriot”]: 1. Profile 2. Detain. 3. Deport This is the only policy that will protect us.
Detain for what? If the subject is a citizen, the steps had better be, (i) profile, (ii) investigate, (iii) present evidence to a grand jury, (iv) fair trial, and so on.
I'm beginning to think that James Madison and others like him were actually time travelers who knew what was coming when they wrote the Second Amendment. And I don't think they intended to limit it's usefullness as applied only to the Federal govt.
The main concern with a democracy is a problem that today we refer to as the “Tyranny of the Majority”, the possibility of more than 50% of the population using the government to take advantage of a small portion of the population. Social economics is no different today as is was 250 years ago.
If anyone is wondering why I bother to write this, it’s not because I care about Arabs, muslims or any of the plaintiffs in the above-mentioned suits; I really do not care much at all—and getting delayed or kicked off of a flight is not the biggest thing in the world (I remember flying Pan Am during the 80s, once they made me wait in a NY airport all night long). I care about US citizens and I really care about the Constitution. The protections outlined for all citizens under the Constitution are meant to apply when times are difficult, when the decisions are not popular. This "ignore the Constitution, we are in a war" language sounds a lot like the logic used by gun-control goups, "guns are killing kids, we are in a state of emergency".
Do I have a legitimate concern? Any thoughts? Really, I would enjoy other opinons.
A great deal of this talk is the result of the govt not doing the job for which it was intended and those whom we elected not living up to the oath of office. The primary purpose of a Federal govt is to protect it's citizens from foreign attack and to ensure that essential liberties and justice are protected.
IMHO, it should be apparent to anyone who gives even a cursory glance to the state of affairs in this country that we are vulnerable in the extreme and that the primary reason is the lack of effective action by our various govt agencies.
When the govt, that has sworn to protect us fails, then it is the right and duty of the citizens to provide their own protection, and in the process, remove those in power who have failed so miserably.
I guess another way of looking at this would be to observe that there are no consequences for those who would attack this country. Thus there is no deterrent. While Afghanistan is a good start, there are some avowed enemies of this country who should not still be alive. Among them Yasser Arafat and Saddam of Iraq.
That they are alive, and that we continue to "negotiate" with them continues to provide legitimacy for them with their people. If, every time one of these rogues declared war on the US, he was immediately eliminated, along with his entire squad of followers, the world would be a much safer place for Americans, and everyone in general.
The same principle applies to those who supposedly serve this country. Govt employees, our employees, continually lie, cheat, steal, commit murder and other crimes against the people of America with relative impunity. As long as that is allowed to continue, Americans are at great risk from both foreign and domestic causes. Specifically I mean the open border policy, gun control laws, asset forfeiture laws, the insane methods used to stop drugs, and the thousands of other un-constitutional laws, ad infinitum.
I think that Americans, because they recognize their history, and how this country was formed and the principles it was founded under, will only take so much. The limit, IMHO has about been reached. Americans will see that justice is done, and will rise up and protect their families and their property when the govt has failed to do so. If govt representatives get in the way of this, it will be at their peril. Some may call this "vigilantism". I would like us to look at the definition of "vigilante". They will find that first, it means: "a member of a vigilance committee." A "vigilance committee" is defined as: "an unauthorized committee of citizens organized for the maintenance of order and the summary punishment of crime in the absence of regular or efficient courts."
Due to the gross incompetence and inaction demonstrated by our govt over the last few decades, this is where I think we are headed.
Sorry this screed is a bit unorganized, but I had a long night, and you asked.
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.