ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
Looks like I remembered wrong. The details only have to be recorded and noted, not announced. Although I do know they announce them at times, for whatever reason.

Your view of liberal and conservative is just bizarre. You're surprised conservatives are opposed to state intrusion on one's life?
You think that is bizarre? The conservatives are typically "tough on crime", supporting the police and prosecutors. Police and prosecutors often push the envelope when it comes to search warrants, reasonable suspicion stops, etc. In a criminal case, the defense attorney will often file a motion to suppress evidence on 4th amendment grounds. The state opposes. It is thought that more "liberal" judges are more likely to grant those motions, while more "conservative" judges side with the state.
 
The drag queen that was at the White House you're calling groomer wasn't showing their dong to kids and you know it.
Fnb6YfQaYAE7MQX
 
Looks like I remembered wrong. The details only have to be recorded and noted, not announced. Although I do know they announce them at times, for whatever reason.

Your view of liberal and conservative is just bizarre. You're surprised conservatives are opposed to state intrusion on one's life?


Some states, like Ohio, require the announcement in advance.
 
The Dan Rather tweet going around about even if Trump beat an Angel from Heaven with a tire iron his followers would still support him is from a parody account (libs are so crazy I had to look it up to find out if it was real or fake), but this one is real. The first word in Rather's twitter bio is 'journalist' hahahaha.

 


Makes sense because they provide zero value whatsoever. Companies' productivity will also increase. Win/win.

You think that is bizarre? The conservatives are typically "tough on crime", supporting the police and prosecutors. Police and prosecutors often push the envelope when it comes to search warrants, reasonable suspicion stops, etc. In a criminal case, the defense attorney will often file a motion to suppress evidence on 4th amendment grounds. The state opposes. It is thought that more "liberal" judges are more likely to grant those motions, while more "conservative" judges side with the state.

I don't see how it's hard to reconcile both stances. Easy for me to be both tough on crime and want the government to be properly restrained by the constitution. Surprised, but not surprised, that you can't see how both can be true.

Some states, like Ohio, require the announcement in advance.

Ahhh so I was only half wrong lol
 


Makes sense because they provide zero value whatsoever. Companies' productivity will also increase. Win/win.



I don't see how it's hard to reconcile both stances. Easy for me to be both tough on crime and want the government to be properly restrained by the constitution. Surprised, but not surprised, that you can't see how both can be true.



Ahhh so I was only half wrong lol


If they gut their DEI departments, who’s going to do their February social media posts or preorder the rainbow graphics for June?

Lefties aren’t going to know where to shop.
 
I'm not aware of a requirement that road blocks be announced in advance. Maybe some states have that requirement, but I don't believe the Supreme Court decision requires that.

My first job out of law school was as a public defender. It is usually liberal activist types who object to checkpoints and other arguable 4th Amendment violations, so it is weird to see the arch-conservatives on here making these arguments.
Horseshoe theory. Average people don’t care, just those who are very engaged politically. The far left and right.
 
This is an interesting issue actually. (Not forcing people to bale cakes, but the freedom of religion issue)

There has been a push over the last 50 years to only protect freedom of religion as a "right" for those whose religion is recognized by the government. The constitution doesn't mention the gov as ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't a religion, however. I have a friend that I did bible study with years ago whose religion is not officially recognized by the gov. Over 100k people that espouse it, but still not a religion according to the US GOV.

I would understand not recognizing Islam because of its political nature that is firmly "anti" to any other religion and against any secular government at its core. That is not compatible with the laws and organization of our republic. It never has been and can't be. Allowing it, outside of government, sure, but allowing its adherents to hold office is counter to the nation itself.

There are religions that are not opposed to secular govt, that don't espouse anarchy or deception, and that can co exist within and without undermining a republic. Yet, the gov does not recognize them, while recognizing those that directly oppose this nation's structural foundation exactly as described at the beginning of this paragraph.

What this "new normal" is going to require is everyone standing up against it AND for all religions that support the freedoms/rights that the country was founded upon, even if it means supporting a religion that you don't agree with on every point. Is that still possible to defend when the govt as it exists now is OPPOSED to its own foundation?
Hah. “Freedom” of religion for Christians and cults but not Muslims. What a take. Should be expected from this cesspool I guess but even y’all being that brazenly hypocritical and bigoted is surprising.
 

It was no longer his laptop at that point. Abandoning property does not allow you to retain possession. He left it there. Refused to pay for it. Refused to claim it. It's now passed out of his custody and belongs to someone else.

Unfortunately for him, it is also part of an investigation and the contents of the laptop were made available to the public by the person with whom he abandoned it while it was not yet in the possession of the authorities.

If he's allowed to sue anyone for looking at a device he abandoned, what's to stop people from suing the government for all of the gum they left under bus seats and railings all over NYC? Are the police going to be sued for capturing crimes on tape because they looked at them or let others see them in court? Lol

We as a people need to sue the federal govt for not prosecuting HC, JB, HB, etc for known crimes they committed like espionage and treason, as well as destroying evidence, being in possession of and distributing classifed documents without the authority to do so, etc. The agencies have failed to uphold their oaths and do their jobs. They should be forced to pay back double what they were paid while on the job and surrender any additional funds and property they received during and/or as a result of their activities.
 
So it shouldn’t be covered by the First Amendment. Since it isn’t a religion. You say that’s a “big difference”. Sounds good to me. 👍
The 1st Amendment has nothing to do with my relationship with Jesus Christ. It is a personal decision and no government on earth no matter how many amendments they pass or strike down can change that.

I am grounded in my faith and even if the U.S. took away all of our Bibles like communist / socialist / Muslim countries do I would still have my faith. Man or government can not take that away. There are many people like me in China and even Cuba and Iran. It is a personal relationship. They worship God with the threat of death but they continue to worship .
 
The 1st Amendment has nothing to do with my relationship with Jesus Christ. It is a personal decision and no government on earth no matter how many amendments they pass or strike down can change that.

I am grounded in my faith and even if the U.S. took away all of our Bibles like communist / socialist / Muslim countries do I would still have my faith. Man or government can not take that away. There are many people like me in China and even Cuba and Iran. It is a personal relationship. They worship God with the threat of death but they continue to worship .
Sounds good. Will the rest of the thread join us in removing Christianity from First Amendment protections as it apparently isn’t a religion? Clears this whole cake thing right up.
 
It’s certainly not wrong. If we don’t have the right to act peacefully on our religious convictions then there is no religious liberty.

Exactly.

This is an interesting issue actually. (Not forcing people to bake cakes, but the freedom of religion issue)

There has been a push over the last 50 years to only protect freedom of religion as a "right" for those whose religion is recognized by the government. The constitution doesn't mention the gov as ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't a religion, however. I have a friend that I did bible study with years ago whose religion is not officially recognized by the gov. Over 100k people that espouse it, but still not a religion according to the US GOV.

I would understand not recognizing Islam because of its political nature that is firmly "anti" to any other religion and against any secular government at its core. That is not compatible with the laws and organization of our republic. It never has been and can't be. Allowing it, outside of government, sure, but allowing its adherents to hold office is counter to the nation itself.

There are religions that are not opposed to secular govt, that don't espouse anarchy or deception, and that can co exist within and without undermining a republic. Yet, the gov does not recognize them, while recognizing those that directly oppose this nation's structural foundation exactly as described at the beginning of this paragraph.

What this "new normal" is going to require is everyone standing up against it AND for all religions that support the freedoms/rights that the country was founded upon, even if it means supporting a religion that you don't agree with on every point. Is that still possible to defend when the govt as it exists now is OPPOSED to its own foundation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sawnee Cat
Sounds good. Will the rest of the thread join us in removing Christianity from First Amendment protections as it apparently isn’t a religion? Clears this whole cake thing right up.
Putting words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about removing the 1st Amendment protection. I said it did not have a thing to do with my faith. I support it but if your group has it removed someday I will continue to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and serve Him. Christianity is not built on man's laws. it is a personal relationship.

Read the Gospels for the reasons I believe what I believe. They are very easy to understand.
 
I'm not aware of a requirement that road blocks be announced in advance. Maybe some states have that requirement, but I don't believe the Supreme Court decision requires that.

My first job out of law school was as a public defender. It is usually liberal activist types who object to checkpoints and other arguable 4th Amendment violations, so it is weird to see the arch-conservatives on here making these arguments.
One is in response to getting caught. The other is a perspective on government intrusion. Sometimes interests overlap. When liberals realize they cannot count on law enforcement that has been ravaged by liberal policies, people realize they want guns. And, not guns with the lowest amount of rounds in the clip, but they want what they can legally get. When there is a threat to the kids’ school, they want more protection at the school. Philosophical arguments are good when the subject is someone else.
 
Putting words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about removing the 1st Amendment protection. I said it did not have a thing to do with my faith. I support it but if your group has it removed someday I will continue to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and serve Him. Christianity is not built on man's laws. it is a personal relationship.

Read the Gospels for the reasons I believe what I believe. They are very easy to understand.
The First Amendment only applies to religions though and you clarified @BC_Wader’s comment that Christianity wasn’t a religion, it’s “a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” You even stated that’s a “big difference.” If it isn’t a religion it isn’t covered.
I shake my head when people actually think Christianity is a religion.
It is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Big difference.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT