The Stupid Arrogance Factor (Page 2): "If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet."

nimbushopper Loc: Tampa, FL

BigBear wrote:

He doesn't have answers, only stupid remarks and insults.
I have him on ignore.

"If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet." - Proverbs 29:9

Blake Loc: Alfred NY

Frank T wrote:

You're soo right. We should throw out the 5th Amendment. Then probably the 1st and the 8th. But let's keep that 2nd Amendment so we can all shoot each other.

Frank,

My friend, the Patriot Act of 2001 that was made permanent in 2003 actually nullifies the constitution. In 2003 the President said we need this law so that we have the tool to counter terrorism. Most Americans didn't even flinch at that time. So now we live with it.

Blake

Zero_Equals_Infinity Loc: Canada

Blake wrote:

Frank,

My friend, the Patriot Act of 2001 that was made permanent in 2003 actually nullifies the constitution. In 2003 the President said we need this law so that we have the tool to counter terrorism. Most Americans didn't even flinch at that time. So now we live with it.

Blake

A law cannot nullify the constitution, but it can be interpreted by the courts to not be infringing upon constitutional rights. These things get resolved through the appelate process.

qhorse Loc: north carolina

hamtrack wrote:

Fox News reported this morning that the Justice De... (show quote)

Ever have a gut feeling that we are all being set up? All the small but obvious directives of this administration that go against "We the People" will one day all come together and we will find there is no longer "We the People", only we the government.

Croce Loc: Earth

Frank T wrote:

Not a hissy fit. Just an observation that the right seams to support only the parts of the Constitution that they like for the people they like.
He may be a scumbag but he's also entitled to rights. The Public Safety doctrine was never intended to include extended interrogations so the court ruled appropriately in this case.

and of course Frank, you participation in Chit Chat discussions is never jaded but always consists of well thought out, fairly analyzed and impartially presented objective comments, right ... sorry sorry Frank, I mean correct?

SpeedyWilson Loc: Upstate South Carolina

To whom it may concern ...

You have the right to remain silent ... so please exercise that right immediately.

rcrosby825 Loc: Western Maine

Offhand, Frank, I'd say you've touched a bit of a nerve. Can't let the thread ending without a brief note of support.
All comes down to whose ox is being gored. Darn shame, though, isn't it, that we find it so hard to disagree without invoking epithets and demeaning comments?

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

Frank T wrote:

Not a hissy fit. Just an observation that the right seams to support only the parts of the Constitution that they like for the people they like.
He may be a scumbag but he's also entitled to rights. The Public Safety doctrine was never intended to include extended interrogations so the court ruled appropriately in this case.

I think that ones rights become somewhat diminished in situations like this .....

..... as far as I'm concerned these two have no rights .....

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

donrent wrote:

As long as we have a Progressive Liberal President this is what we will have....

Can we afford it ???

Of course not.................................................

He's too conservative for me, but he is smart. I know the fascists don't like him--their choice.

They look for the good old days, and the return of that mega-statesman, the Ignorant geo bush.

Me, I can wait a little longer for his return.

Tom

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

Black Bart wrote:

mooseeyes wrote:
I would love to know three things: 1. What law school did you graduate from? 2. How many years did you practice law? 3. Any actual on point cases or statutes that support one damn thing that you have stated.

YOU DID NOT ANSWER HIS QUESTION.

What law school did Any of us graduate from???

Is a law degree required toots here?

Hope so...the posts would be a lot better than they are.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

Wabbit wrote:

I think that ones rights become somewhat diminished in situations like this .....

..... as far as I'm concerned these two have no rights .....

The main message of this graphic is that the poster gives himself permission to stop thinking.

We need better.

imntrt1 Loc: St. Louis

Frank T wrote:

Not a hissy fit. Just an observation that the right seams to support only the parts of the Constitution that they like for the people they like.
He may be a scumbag but he's also entitled to rights. The Public Safety doctrine was never intended to include extended interrogations so the court ruled appropriately in this case.

Ever heard of the Quarles Exception? It was a ruling by the SCOUS in 1984 that allows interrogation sans Miranda if public safety or a life is in danger. It is rarely used. The Supreme Court basically left it up to the states to define. Here is the way it was read...

The Miranda Court held that when warnings such as these are not given prior to interrogation, the fruits of the interrogation are inadmissible. 3 Thus, Miranda created a firm rule which dictated to both law enforcement personnel and courts what the Fifth Amendment requires of police during a custodial interrogation. 4

The situation changed, however, on June 12, 1984, when the Supreme Court decided New York v. Quarles. 5 This decision recognized a public safety exception to the previously inflexible requirement of issuing Miranda warnings before custodial interrogation. 6 Although the Court described the new exception as "narrow," it failed to provide any firm rules defining its scope. 7 Furthermore, because the Supreme Court has not revisited the Quarles exception, the lower courts have been left to interpret the decision without limitations.
This is from Jim Weller from the Baylor University Baylor Law Review.

gasmandon Loc: Bentleyville, PA

hamtrack wrote:

Fox News reported this morning that the Justice De... (show quote)

It's called the Constitution you stupid arrogant git!

richard-sports Loc: New York City

It just amazes me that this site has so many reactionaries on it. You would think that people who enjoy the great art of photograhy would be more inclined to have open points of view.
NOT LIKE THAT OLD FART DON.
And the terrorist still has his Miranda rights whether they are read to him or not.
And I hope he rots in hell.

cheineck Loc: Hobe Sound, FL

When your argument can't stand on its own merits you attack the person your arguing with.

Relax... it's a typical liberal reaction. Ineffective, but typical.