Liberal actress says tea parties were racist

[bustybbwlover]

but who watches the watchmen? seriously tho i don't necessarily fear for myself cuz i know that i'm not even a blip on the governments radar but... it just seems wrong for many reasons but here's a major one for me: if we get another nixon, we won't get another bernstein and woodward

 

[Red Spyder]

http://www.spottedowlnews.com/the_s...iberals-disappointed-free-speach-remains.html

not real news, but still kind of agree with it (sort of like Dan Rather and those documents)

 

[Member2019]

More than just "staying the course" ...

The difference between you and me is I guess, I don't expect a president to complete his entire agenda after 3 months on the job. Especially when much of what he must deal with immediately are crisis situations held over from his predecessor.

You mean like the recession W. inherited from Clinton? Honestly, I wouldn't mention such things if it went both ways.

But again, we'll see if crow is served or not and to whom.

All I'm saying is that so far, he's not keeping his campaign promises. It's more than just "staying the course."

 

[ChefChiTown]

Re: It's all over ...

Wow, this is pretty much completely unverifiable.
Stupid question about this line: "What you don't see is the reality of the situation. The reality that people like you choose to ignore." Given the context of your whole post, that you know more about this reality than we do because you have seen things not published in the newspapers--well, um, how can one choose to ignore something that has been hidden from one?

Yeah, I guess I've made numerous posts about my father working for DHS on this forum for the past few years just so I could set up my ultimate plan, which was waiting until I could bring it up in a thread about wiretapping.

MWWUUUAHAHAHA, mission accomplished!!!

I'll ask you the same question that I asked Facial_King...

Have you ever actually seen what is done in order to keep you and every American safe? Have you talked to government agents who are responsible for national safety?

My father works for DHS. My aunt worked for DHS (INS at the time) for over 20 years. My cousin works for USBP. I also have a few unliked relatives that work for various government agencies that deal in national safety. My family has very strong roots in the government. I've spent plenty of time in the Anthony J. Celebreeze Federal Building in Cleveland, OH, talking to and working with various employees and agents of DHS/INS. What you read in the newspaper isn't even close to the whole story of what goes on behind closed doors.

People like you and Facial_King can sit around and act as if you know everything all you want to, but you don't. Just because some newspaper article says that wiretapping is unconstitutional and a violation of our rights and privacies as US citizens, doesn't make it true.

Yeah, that's an interesting point. I was going to go through the various problems with his entire post, but I can't even decide where to begin.

I guess we should just relax and trust the watchers and let them do their secret work, no oversight necessary. If we've done nothing wrong, we've nothing to fear, blah, blah, blah, etc....

ukey:

Since you are one to quickly re-ask your questions when you feel as though I don't answer you, I'll ask it again...

Have you ever been inside of a Federal Building? Have you ever been behind closed doors in a securely guarded government office? Have you ever talked to the people who work for the government, that are responsible for keeping our country safe? Have you ever actually seen what they do on a daily basis, just to keep you safe? Seriously, have you?

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

This thread has strayed from the topic too much.

 

[bustybbwlover]

This thread has strayed from the topic too much.

that's politics for you but were the tea parties racist? i don't necessarily believe that myself but these definitely were more protests against obama than anything else...i'd be inclined to give these people the benefit of the doubt and see it as a dispute over policy (like the protests against the war in iraq) as opposed to protests against a black president

 

[Facial_King]

Originally Posted by ChefChiTown View Post
Have you ever been inside of a Federal Building? Have you ever been behind closed doors in a securely guarded government office? Have you ever talked to the people who work for the government, that are responsible for keeping our country safe? Have you ever actually seen what they do on a daily basis, just to keep you safe? Seriously, have you?

Ok, I'll bite.
I worked in the DC-Baltimore area from '95-'98 and again from '00-'02. Yes, I have been in "securely guarded government office"(s) before, but nothing that involves special security clearance (complete with elaborate background checks and so on). I have been inside, well, more federal buildings (there's no need to capitalize federal, btw) than I can actually count from memory. While neither of my parents works in government, I have numerous friends who do, and I can think of 3 who work within agencies within DHS, 2 of them in matters of substance.
One for this dept.:
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1185203480305.shtm

and one here:
http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/

I also was a friendly acquaintance for a couple years with a guy who works for this agency:
https://www.cia.gov/offices-of-cia/intelligence-analysis/organization-1/orea.html

I've talked to a TON of people who work directly for the government. They have shared a great deal with me, but nothing that would lose them their jobs. And, like I said, there are people within the agencies with differing viewpoints on substantive matters. Your father and your visits to him at work have left you with one opinion, my discussions with those working in relevant agencies, in addition to other outlets for gaining knowledge, have left me with a different view.

I have no idea what sort of security clearance your father has, but I'm guessing (hoping?) that the DHS isn't handing out security clearances to every relative, or even all the children, of their employees. You work as a chef, right? I can't see why they would give you such a clearance, as it's unnecessary for your work. (Again, what are you, some kind of Super Spy-Chef?) So, while I can imagine you watching someone in DHS shuffling papers, stringing computer cables, making coffee, or having a low-level, non-secret discussion about something, I highly doubt you saw something terribly secret or something that any current or former DHS employee couldnt' talk to the general public (or the press) about, or anything that couldn't be described in a good article somewhere. Because if a chef who happens to be the kid of an employee can just go in there and see or hear something that substantial, that signficant, then it seems to me that represents a lapse in security of its own. Seymour Hersh, for one example, certainly has a lot of friends on The Inside, too. He's probably forgotten more straight-from-the-source info. than you've ever seen or heard.

One can know a great deal about a subject without personally witnessing every detail - and again, I have my doubts that you've witnessed that - or even knowing people in "high places" (as you seem to imply about your father). For example, did you see/hear them actually tapping/listening in on a possible terrorist phone call from outside the U.S. (or otherwise)?? If so, it strikes me as problematic that you were able to do that without clearance.

So, in the future, all of the subjects that come up here on the board in which you have not been inside the relevant government agency buildings, or don't know someone directly involved, or have physically seen them at work with your own eyes, and your knowledge is "merely" second-hand, should your views be dismissed out of hand? I think not, but if that's where you're going with this line of thinking, so be it. I've been in the main HQ for the Dept. of State (well past the zone open to the general public), for example, but I'm not going to say that my views on foreign policy necessarily trump those who haven't been there. That would be silly.

ANYONE can have a completely valid, reasonable, rational, well-informed opinion about security matters without having been inside a secured federal building.

 

[doclocke]

Re: It's all over ...

Yeah, I guess I've made numerous posts about my father working for DHS on this forum for the past few years just so I could set up my ultimate plan, which was waiting until I could bring it up in a thread about wiretapping.

MWWUUUAHAHAHA, mission accomplished!!!

I'll ask you the same question that I asked Facial_King...

Have you ever actually seen what is done in order to keep you and every American safe? Have you talked to government agents who are responsible for national safety?

My father works for DHS. My aunt worked for DHS (INS at the time) for over 20 years. My cousin works for USBP. I also have a few unliked relatives that work for various government agencies that deal in national safety. My family has very strong roots in the government. I've spent plenty of time in the Anthony J. Celebreeze Federal Building in Cleveland, OH, talking to and working with various employees and agents of DHS/INS. What you read in the newspaper isn't even close to the whole story of what goes on behind closed doors.

People like you and Facial_King can sit around and act as if you know everything all you want to, but you don't. Just because some newspaper article says that wiretapping is unconstitutional and a violation of our rights and privacies as US citizens, doesn't make it true.



Since you are one to quickly re-ask your questions when you feel as though I don't answer you, I'll ask it again...

A) Considering that I've only recently joined the boards, I think it's kind of difficult to know about the posts you've made in previous years.
B) Disagreeing with you isn't acting as though we know everything. It's having an opinion that's not yours.
C) I don't think that wiretapping in general is unconstitutional. I do, however, think that warrantless wiretapping is, and not because "some newspaper article," says so, but because of the 4th Amendment and the Supreme Court's Katz vs United States ruling. (
D) I know that the federal agents do a lot more than we know of to keep us safe and make many sacrifices to do so. (My father is a major case squad detective and, for years before that, was a deputy sheriff, so, though federal agent and local cop aren't the same, they are roughly analogous in terms of more being involved than most people know.) That notwithstanding, just because they do more than we know DOESN'T mean that we have to agree with such methods that we are aware of and just because they do more than we know DOESN'T mean that they are by necessity right and we are by necessity wrong.

 

[skechers]

Gorafalapalooza or whatever her name is, she's always had a bug up her snizz. She complains just as much as the worst conservative prick. The tea parties are Racist? No, I don't think so. I have other issues with these folks.

The Boston Tea Party wasn't just people mad about tea taxes. It was a demonstration, in protest against all taxation without representation. It came at a pivotal time in history and served to bolster the hearts of revolutionaries. It was an honorable expression of nu'patriotism in the colonies of the new world, and without it... who knows? We may still be singing God Save the Queen. That said...

New tea parties are completely hipocritical. These are the same people who complained about liberal protests during the Bush regime. Also the logic just kind of eats its self. Spend thousands of dollars on tea parties in protest to being taxed out of thousands of dollars? Do what? I mean, I guess you're putting money back through the economy, so that's good.


Mostly, they strive for that patriotic, honorable notion that the originals in Boston captured back in the 18th century. But all they get is fail on their hands.

 

[skechers]

Wire tapping and the like isn't unconstitutional because it may or may not upset someones sensibilities.

It's unconstitutional because it says not to do it in the Constitution of the United States of America. :rofl:




US Constitituon
-Article I, Section 9

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."



Bill of Rights
-Amendment IV

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."



Bill of Rights
-Amendment XIV, Section One

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Facial_King]

Haha - I don't think this is totally true, but probably a little bit true - anyway, does anyone remember the movie "They Live", with Rowdy Roddy Piper???

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w25/earbucket/theyliveteaparties.jpg

 

[BlueBalls]

Haha - I don't think this is totally true, but probably a little bit true - anyway, does anyone remember the movie "They Live", with Rowdy Roddy Piper???

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w25/earbucket/theyliveteaparties.jpg

Yes, great movie :thumbsup:

That actually feeds quite nicly into my Reptilian Hologram thread Similar sort of situation :dunno:

 

[Facetious]

On his radio program Friday, Dobbs took issue with the actress, comedian, and activist, referring to her as a "nasty piece of business" " a one woman hate event," and "an appalling human being." :1orglaugh

Dobbs also pointed fingers at the network responsible for this disgraceful broadcast, MSNBC, for thinking "their responsibility as a media is to be a conduit for the Obama administration. They think they are the bastion of the, the 21st century socialistic thought. They're as left-wing as it can get, and they apparently are hell-bound to be the conduit for the Obama administration, the venue for left-wing politics and zaniness in this country."

Shame on Lou Dobbs ! The nerve of him to criticize A WOMAN !!!!!!

Good For Lou

 

[ChefChiTown]

Wire tapping and the like isn't unconstitutional because it may or may not upset someones sensibilities.

It's unconstitutional because it says not to do it in the Constitution of the United States of America. :rofl:




US Constitituon
-Article I, Section 9

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."



Bill of Rights
-Amendment IV

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."



Bill of Rights
-Amendment XIV, Section One

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Keywords in all of that...

"PROBABLE CAUSE"

It's damn near impossible to legally debunk somebody's claim of "probable cause".

If a police officer pulls you over (for example) and you are sweating, that police officer has probable cause to believe that you are sweating because you are nervous, because you are probably trying to hide something. So, that police officer, just because you are sweating, can legally search your car.

Now, magnify that by like a million and put it on a scale of national security. How is probable cause for the potential jeopardy of our national security going to be debunked in a court of law? Answer: it's not.

Anyway, The Constitution doesn't say anything about wiretapping being illegal or unlawful.

 

[skechers]

But in so many words, it does. Of course, they didn't have wire tapping when the original constitution, or most of it's subsequent amendments were drafted. But under the fourth amendment, the song remains the same.

Probable Cause is most definately a double edged sword, but it's not indisputable, so long as we enjoy the right to Habeas Corpus. In wartime, it can get a little blurry- well, VERY blurry. Lately, some mistakes made in the past are just now being fixed. The government is a shady dealer, but it is not omnipotent; not yet, anyway. And it is most definately not infallible. Especially if you know the laws.

Break them if you must, but for god sakes, know them!

 

[doclocke]

Chef,
If a police officer pulled someone over and that person was sweating and the officer used "he was sweating, which meant he was nervous and trying to hide something," as probable cause, that officer would find himself in so much trouble it wouldn't even be funny. Maybe the person's air conditioner was broken and it was ninety-five degrees outside. Maybe he has a medical condition that makes him sweat a lot. Plus, police officers are used to people, guilty or not, being nervous around them; most people are nervous around police officers. There are so many reasons why a person could sweat and or be nervous around a police officer that those things wouldn't be even close to the realm of a reasonable suspicion.
Probable cause can be a murky issue: for instance, if I get pulled over in a neighborhood where a house has just been broken into and my car matches the description of a car seen near the house and the officer sees, say, a crowbar in my car, he'll probably search my car. But, I could always contest the search in court and the decision would depend a great deal on the character of the judge. For instance, I could have happened to be in the neighborhood at the wrong time and, though a crowbar could be used in a break-in, there are many reasons why a person could have a crowbar in his car. In this case, a judge probably would side with the officer, but, then, he might also side with me.
So, though sometimes murky, it's not almost legally impossible to debunk someone's claim of probable cause.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Chef,
If a police officer pulled someone over and that person was sweating and the officer used "he was sweating, which meant he was nervous and trying to hide something," as probable cause, that officer would find himself in so much trouble it wouldn't even be funny.

Name one time that a police officer has gotten into trouble in a scenario like that. The term "probable cause" is so loose and so open for interpretation that almost any sort of reasoning can be legally accepted as a "probable cause".

If a police officer sees you walk out of a bar, get into your car and start to drive away, that police officer can use what he witnessed as probable cause to pull you over and make you submit to field sobriety tests. Even though there is no proof that you even drank in the bar what-so-ever, that officer still has probable cause to assume that you did, allowing him to pull you over with the suspicion of a DUI.

Maybe the person's air conditioner was broken and it was ninety-five degrees outside. Maybe he has a medical condition that makes him sweat a lot. Plus, police officers are used to people, guilty or not, being nervous around them; most people are nervous around police officers. There are so many reasons why a person could sweat and or be nervous around a police officer that those things wouldn't be even close to the realm of a reasonable suspicion.

Yet, even with all of those possibilities, an officer could still claim that he/she had a probable cause to search somebody's car if they were sweating. Somebody sweating could mean that they are nervous. People usually get nervous when they are trying to hide something, especially from a police officer. There is your probable cause right there.

I said it before and I'll say it again...

It's damn near impossible to debunk somebody's claim that they had a "probable cause" to do something (in the eyes of the law, with respect to law enforcement).

Probable cause can be a murky issue: for instance, if I get pulled over in a neighborhood where a house has just been broken into and my car matches the description of a car seen near the house and the officer sees, say, a crowbar in my car, he'll probably search my car. But, I could always contest the search in court and the decision would depend a great deal on the character of the judge. For instance, I could have happened to be in the neighborhood at the wrong time and, though a crowbar could be used in a break-in, there are many reasons why a person could have a crowbar in his car. In this case, a judge probably would side with the officer, but, then, he might also side with me.
So, though sometimes murky, it's not almost legally impossible to debunk someone's claim of probable cause.

That wasn't a very good example.

If you were driving around in a car that matches the description of a car which was believed to be used in a house robbery, with a crowbar sitting in the back seat, in a neighborhood that the robbery had taken place, any police officer would DEFINITELY have a reasonable suspicion to believe that there is a big chance that you could've been involved in the robbery, which would serve as a completely defendable and justifiable example of "probable cause".

 

[doclocke]

Chef,
A) My second example was to show the murkiness of probable cause. I did say the officer would search the car, but that the search is contestable.
B) I actually ran my answers by a real, actual, live police officer before posting them, so, between your opinion and his, I'm going with his.

 

[ballzano]

without probable cause the police are powerless, unless u want the police everywhere(i know i don't, and i don't break the law).

 

[meesterperfect]

wow, this thread really gone on, and on.
Anyway, to make a long story short is a phrase whose origins are complicated and rambling...