No, it most assuredly is not coming “NEXT”, this WAS Round up the usual suspects. What comes next is arresting anyone who has the audacity to object to the Rounding up of the usual suspects.

SWalker on September 24, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Well, at least they didn’t arrest the cameramen…this time…so I guess there’s still hope for our Republic.

Test your theory and don’t pay the ObamaCare tax. Let me know how that works out.

Conservative4Ever on September 24, 2012 at 10:20 PM

There’s no theory about it. Given your ignorance of the 4th Amendment, it’s no surprise you would be ignorant of the rest of the Constitution and the arguments made in the ratifying conventions.

You have this backwards. From what I remember in HS one name calls like an immature adolescent. The adult world debates with reason w/o throwing insults.

Conservative4Ever on September 24, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Being a cop, you obviously wouldn’t know how real adults act when an a$$hole with a gun threatening to arrest them isn’t standing nearby. On second though, being a cop, you should know, seeing as how your job was to clean up the mess after real adults prove that this is exactly how real adults act when not being threatened with being shot or arrested, which means, either you’re an idiot, or just dishonest, which of course would be typical behavior for a cop.

This isn’t high school, this is the real world, and in the real world, it frequently does.

SWalker on September 24, 2012 at 10:36 PM

You have this backwards. From what I remember in HS one name calls like an immature adolescent. The adult world debates with reason w/o throwing insults.

SWalker on September 24, 2012 at 9:44 PM

It generally doesn’t include calling people “d***head” or “fascist” or “thug”, either. But, I never took debate in school, so what do I know?

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 10:32 PM

NEWS FLASH… This isn’t high school, this is the real world, and in the real world, it frequently does.

debate doesn’t not constitute those of opposing viewpoint surrendering their viewpoint to dick.head authoritarians

SWalker on September 24, 2012 at 9:44 PM

It generally doesn’t include calling people “d***head” or “fascist” or “thug”, either. But, I never took debate in school, so what do I know?

SWalker on September 24, 2012 at 9:44 PM

You are not debating. You are only name calling. There is a difference.

Conservative4Ever on September 24, 2012 at 10:06 PM

See, this is something you are obviously complete ignorant of and basically incapable of comprehending, it’s called a difference of opinion. It is your opinion that all I am doing is name calling.

Being an authoritarian a$$hole who is unused to being challenged by individuals you can’t beat the hell out or arrest it is of course something you do not recognize or comprehend. In the real world, the rest of us recognize that differences of opinions are not always British tea and crumpets polite affairs.

Frequently they are marked by extremely heated rhetorical exchanges especially when one of the individuals just happens to be an ex-cop nazi thug type personality. But hey, on the other hand, maybe you can continue with your masterful application of rational and logical dissection of my childish ranting, thereby genuinely intimidating me on a profoundly intellectual level.

Oh… wait, that’s right, you’re a former cop, you couldn’t intellectually intimidate common garden fungus.

Dante on September 24, 2012 at 10:16 PM

Test your theory and don’t pay the ObamaCare tax. Let me know how that works out.

Which is a true statement since a SCOTUS case from 1925. It is commonly referred to as the “motor vehicle exception to the search warrant rule” All I did is state it as a fact. Which it is. That isn’t me offering my opinion. I’m stating a fact of which all courts must recognize it since 1925. You can look it up if have never heard of it.

Conservative4Ever on September 24, 2012 at 10:01 PM

It is not a true statement. There is no “motor vehicle exception” to be found anywhere in the 4th amendment. Government had claimed a new power for itself, and then a branch of government said it had the power to do so. That’s a pretty convenient setup, wouldn’t you say? Shocking you would defend that. Of course, nowhere in the Constitution was the Supreme Court granted the power to decide Constitutional matters. That was another power claimed by government.

And no, all courts do not have to recognize it. Further, and more importantly, the PEOPLE do not have ot recognize it. It is the people who ultimately decide what is or isn’t constitutional.

SWalker on September 24, 2012 at 9:44 PM

You are not debating. You are only name calling. There is a difference.

Dante on September 24, 2012 at 9:42 PM

I just re-read your post. So you truly believe ALL police officers are “thug(s)?” Really?

One more time, a home has more Constitutional protections for searches than a motor vehicle has.

Dante on September 24, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Which is a true statement since a SCOTUS case from 1925. It is commonly referred to as the “motor vehicle exception to the search warrant rule” All I did is state it as a fact. Which it is. That isn’t me offering my opinion. I’m stating a fact of which all courts must recognize it since 1925. You can look it up if have never heard of it.

Just like Obamacare is a tax. I don’t think it is. But since SCOTUS has said it is, it is a fact for now. You might not like that fact. I don’t like it. But it is still a true statement until another SCOTUS rules differently.

Me stating a fact is not proof of proving I’m a “thug.” If you think so then it is in fact hard to reason with a brick wall.

This sort of spittle-flecked invective and personal attack is really not conducive to the spirit of debate here at HA.

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Oh, and news flash (since I know you obviously never learned this at Nazi camp) debate doesn’t not constitute those of opposing viewpoint surrendering their viewpoint to dick.head authoritarians just because they are or were once cops. A debate is defined as a contest of idea between two or more opposing parties which often involves the exchange of heated rhetoric.

Now your next point. I never stated there is a “motor vehicle exception” in the “4th Amendment.” I stated a fact that SCOTUS has said there is one in 1925. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? (Rhetorical) That case has been used since 1925. That is a fact. I never stated support, nor did I ever say it was written in the 4th Amendment. You are projecting.

Conservative4Ever on September 24, 2012 at 6:06 PM

One more time, a home has more Constitutional protections for searches than a motor vehicle has.

Conservative4Ever on September 23, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Give specifics. Which post of mine shows me as a “thug” How can I be “defender and enabler of tyranny?” Which post proves your point. Quote me if you can.

Conservative4Ever on September 24, 2012 at 6:06 PM

The post in which you stated you are/were a cop.

Ed, AP, is SWalker actually contributing to the discussion at this point? Or, at any point? This sort of spittle-flecked invective and personal attack is really not conducive to the spirit of debate here at HA.

(More accusations of being a fascist for wanting SWalker “shut down” in 3… 2… 1…….)

(BTW, where do I go for my jackboot issue? I never got mine, and I think they would look really nifty./s )

GWB on September 24, 2012 at 9:13 PM

That wouldn’t be an accusation, given the evidence at hand, now would it. Oh, wait, you used to be a cop, ergo the term “evidence” is not one you are actually familiar with, well, unless you had it in your trunk before hand.

(More accusations of being a fascist for wanting SWalker “shut down” in 3… 2… 1…….)

(BTW, where do I go for my jackboot issue? I never got mine, and I think they would look really nifty./s )

No you won’t.

Conservative4Ever on September 24, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Of course I will, not that I’d ever have to. No such ten cops exist.

If you can find 10 cops or ex cops, out of 100, who can recite the 4th and 5th amendments to the constitution, I’ll pay $100.

rightwingyahooo on September 24, 2012 at 8:55 PM

No you won’t.

The ex cops? They love it of course. No worries at all.

MORE PLEASE!