Posts by freeeee

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • 20 Arrested, 171 Vehicles Impounded At Checkpoint

    10/24/2005 2:52:27 PM PDT · 75 of 136
    freeeee to A CA Guy
    Highway Patrol has been doing this for public safety all over the nation for I believe over 50 years now.

    Source please?

    we are not being Russia here.

    Armed agents of the state are detaining people absent probable cause during their travels to check their papers and question them about where they have been and destination.

    That's Russia. And China, Cuba, Nazi Germany, Iraq. The who's who of oppressive states all behave as such. I guess we're special, so when we do it, it's ok.

  • 20 Arrested, 171 Vehicles Impounded At Checkpoint

    10/24/2005 2:42:52 PM PDT · 72 of 136
    freeeee to A CA Guy
    Stopping people in the streets and checking out the car for highway safety has been going on for as long as cars have been on the road.

    ...in Russia.

    In America that practice was ended with the 4th Amendment which was a direct response to the British "General Warrant".

    Roadblocks in the US were resurrected in 1992 with a SCOTUS ruling that admitted roadblocks did indeed violate the 4th Amendment, but ruled that taking drunks off the road was a compelling state interest that overruled 4th Amendment protection.

    Pure, unmitigated court activism. SCOTUS has no authority to override the Constitution. Rehnquist wrote the decision, showing that "conservatives" just LOVE judicial activism when it suits their purposes. Hypocrites.

    Your historical revisionism won't fly here.

  • 20 Arrested, 171 Vehicles Impounded At Checkpoint

    10/24/2005 2:18:31 PM PDT · 65 of 136
    freeeee to A CA Guy
    Time of day is not probable cause.

    We're Americans. We travel whenever we damned well feel like it, without being detained, without explanation and without showing papers. It's our birthright.

    If you don't like it, move. There is no shortage of third world pissholes and communist hellholes that violate those rights.

  • 20 Arrested, 171 Vehicles Impounded At Checkpoint

    10/24/2005 2:08:56 PM PDT · 61 of 136
    freeeee to George_Bailey
    There was a word for these old women

    Babushkas. But in these days of outsourcing, cost cutting and hi-tech, we Americans will just have to settle for cameras.

  • 20 Arrested, 171 Vehicles Impounded At Checkpoint

    10/24/2005 1:45:17 PM PDT · 53 of 136
    freeeee to jjmcgo; vrwc0915
    His use of "comrade" implies that statement was meant as sarcasm.

    No other sentiment expressed on this site angers me more than people who think its OK to be subject to constant, random search because they "have nothing to hide."

    He's mocking them as holding communist values, and rightly so.

    It's sometimes hard to discern the sarcasm, I've made the same mistake.

  • 20 Arrested, 171 Vehicles Impounded At Checkpoint

    10/24/2005 10:26:12 AM PDT · 34 of 136
    freeeee to sheik yerbouty
    Politicians in California want a Soviet Union with sunshine.
  • 20 Arrested, 171 Vehicles Impounded At Checkpoint

    10/24/2005 10:04:28 AM PDT · 29 of 136
    freeeee to vrwc0915
    Where are the JBT boot licker cheerleaders?

    Maybe they're being detained without probable cause at roadblocks?

  • 20 Arrested, 171 Vehicles Impounded At Checkpoint

    10/24/2005 9:59:08 AM PDT · 25 of 136
    freeeee to VRing

    They're all from google. I won't post any more. I've made my point and I don't want to hog bandwidth/slow page loading.

  • 20 Arrested, 171 Vehicles Impounded At Checkpoint

    10/24/2005 9:52:10 AM PDT · 23 of 136
    freeeee to VRing
  • 20 Arrested, 171 Vehicles Impounded At Checkpoint

    10/24/2005 9:46:14 AM PDT · 20 of 136
    freeeee to VRing
  • 20 Arrested, 171 Vehicles Impounded At Checkpoint

    10/24/2005 9:35:56 AM PDT · 14 of 136
    freeeee to VRing
  • 20 Arrested, 171 Vehicles Impounded At Checkpoint

    10/24/2005 9:33:46 AM PDT · 12 of 136
    freeeee to VRing
  • 20 Arrested, 171 Vehicles Impounded At Checkpoint

    10/24/2005 9:30:33 AM PDT · 11 of 136
    freeeee to VRing
  • IRAN: BLOGGER CONDEMNED TO 30 LASHES

    10/21/2005 1:43:46 PM PDT · 17 of 37
    freeeee to RetiredArmy
    Klinton, Kerry, Kennedy and the socialist democrats WANT TO GIVE IT TO THEM! Lock, stock and barrel.

    Ahem....

    "One of the first questions asked of Condoleezza Rice during her confirmation hearing, came from Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, Richard Lugar. He asked her if the administration would support ratification of the Law of the Seas Treaty. Her answer was an unequivocal "yes." LOST Treaty

  • IRAN: BLOGGER CONDEMNED TO 30 LASHES

    10/21/2005 1:39:51 PM PDT · 16 of 37
    freeeee to RDTF
    How barbaric! Quick, invade Iran!

    Because if we ran the show, this guy wouldn't get whipped, nosiree.

    We're far more civilized (and free!) so we'd merely throw him in jail for CFR/hate crime violations.

  • Church's Anti-Halloween Flier Upsets Family

    10/21/2005 11:25:16 AM PDT · 391 of 442
    freeeee to george wythe
    I'm willing to let a truck driver sit in the SCOTUS, as long as he can read the simple language in the US Constitution

    Harry Browne was quoted as saying his first question to potential SCOTUS nominees would be "Can you read?".

    The funny thing is anyone who claims to be a constitutional originalist cannot be confirmed.

    Imagine a nominee telling the Senate that they'd roll back the interstate commerce clause to pre-New Deal extents. Imagine how bad they'd be shot down after telling the Senate that they'd have absolutely no powers outside those specifically enumerated in Artice I, Section 8, that 95% of what they do is unconstitutional and they were going to put a stop to it.

    I find it amusing when the SCOTUS quotes itself to justify its unconstitutional rulings.

    Agreed. Stare Decisis is a poor substitute for the Constitution. If SCOTUS was in charge of science instead of law, the sun would still revolve around the Earth.

  • Church's Anti-Halloween Flier Upsets Family

    10/21/2005 10:56:37 AM PDT · 385 of 442
    freeeee to george wythe
    The issue is whether religious canvassers will respect your sign and refrain from knocking on your door. After the religious missionaries wake me up, the damage is already done

    Agreed.

    they will always leave after I tell them I'm not interested and shut the door on their faces

    I agree that the vast majority behave that way. One time one of them put his hand on my shoulder (as I walked by him on my way out) after being told twice that we weren't interested. I stopped speaking, looked at his hand then looked at him and he took it off. I wasn't amused.

    Is a delivery man 'trespassing' by knocking on your door to tell you about a package for you?

    No, because I invited him onto the property (though indirectly) by ordering a package through his delivery service. If I hadn't ordered anything, yes he is most certainly trespassing.

    [What a cry baby!]

    I agree. Spineless doesn't begin to describe her.

    Do you think that a 'no soliciting/no trespassing' sign will prevent a religious pamphleteer from leaving a flyer on your fence or door?

    It has so far.

    The US Supreme Court struck down the ordinance in Stratton. Jehovah's Witnesses said they are protected by the First Amendment, and they don't need to get permission from anyone to knock on doors

    Nothing SCOTUS does surprises me. Their constitutionally ignorant decisions have made them a joke, albeit not a funny one.

    The hand distribution of religious tracts is an age-old form of missionary evangelism-as old as the history of printing presses. It has been a potent force in various religious movements down through the years. [, , ,]

    No trespassing signs are pretty old too, but both those facts are utterly irrelevent. It doesn't matter why someone trespasses, and evangelists are no more or less prohibited than anyone else: They are either invited on the property or they are not. The decision you cite is typical of the activism of the court.

    This form of religious activity occupies the same high estate under the First Amendment as do worship in the churches and preaching from the pulpits. It has the same claim to protection as the more orthodox and conventional exercises of religion.

    "High estate" under the First Amendment????!!!!!!! Apparently SCOTUS thinks some people are more equal than others! Government has no business WHATSOEVER deciding what speech is preferable, that's the entire purpose of the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment! The irony, the arrogance, UGH!

    It has the same claim to protection as the more orthodox and conventional exercises of religion.

    WHAT?!!!!!!!! The whole point of the establisment cluase of the 1st Amendment is government doesn't get to decide those things! (Please note, my anger is directed against SCOTUS, not you. I appreciate your research.)

    Once again SCOTUS makes an absurd mockery of the document it was created to uphold. Then again, if they didn't do that they probably wouldn't know what to do with themselves. After decades of decisions like that, they have undermined their legitimcy and earned contempt. The only reason one need now take them seriously is because they can back up their rulings with guns.

    Regardless, anyone thinking SCOTUS gives them the right to trespass on my property because some judge thinks they're special is in for a rude surprise.

  • Church's Anti-Halloween Flier Upsets Family

    10/21/2005 8:51:54 AM PDT · 371 of 442
    freeeee to george wythe
    Unfortunately, religious fanatics don't get the message.

    The ones around here have.

    They claim that they are not soliciting

    They are. But the sign also says "no trespassing", which makes it a lot harder for them to claim some sort of loophole.

    they're just practicing their First-Amendment right to worship and proselytize.

    Their First Amendment rights are not applicible within my yard.

    how do you enforce your sign?

    By being someone they will learn not to ignore, the hard way if they prefer. The details largely depend on their behavior. If they're respectful and polite and claim to have not seen the sign, I point it out to them and politely but firmly inform them that they are trespassing and request for them to leave.

    If they want to be less than polite and respectful or refuse to leave when I tell them, I become less than polite and respectful.

    Have you done any research on whether religious groups have ever been held accountable for ignoring "no solicitation" signs?

    No, but I know the Mormons (which are the most common solicitors in my area) are instructed by their church to respect them and so far they have.

    Since religious fanatics say that their right to knock on your door comes from God/Scriptures, they are not likely to be deterred by a homeowner getting a little upset.

    Well then they're going to learn that I don't really care what their God says. If they refuse to leave when I tell them to, they are going to have to deal with more than my being upset. I'll physically remove them myself if need be. If they resist they're just giving me a free chance to practice my aikido.

    And in the court cases I've read, the courts usually side with the religious canvassers.

    They'll learn its not a local court they have to fear.

  • Church's Anti-Halloween Flier Upsets Family

    10/20/2005 12:47:17 PM PDT · 171 of 442
    freeeee to absolootezer0
    I'd love to watch that.

    I used to answer the door partially clothed, holding a handle of whiskey, and a cat in the other hand, etc.. I'd wipe my mouth and pretend to be interupted having sex. The more outlandish the funnier it was. What a hoot! The looks I'd get would have me laughing so hard my ribs would hurt and I'd get the hiccups. Kind of like reverse trick or treating.

    Lately I guess I've mellowed out a bit. The folks that came to my house lately were respectful and polite, so I've just thanked them and sent them on their way. They seem to mean well, and want to help me in their own way.

    So far they've respected the no trespassing sign.

  • Church's Anti-Halloween Flier Upsets Family

    10/20/2005 11:35:52 AM PDT · 44 of 442
    freeeee to pa mom
    I'd be po'ed if someone came on my porch to leave a flyer of ANY kind. That's trespassing.

    I think if it's not posted as such and they don't have to go through a gate it's not legally trespassing.

    But once the no trespassing sign goes up and they ignore it, I say turn the garden hose on 'em.

  • Church's Anti-Halloween Flier Upsets Family

    10/20/2005 11:27:20 AM PDT · 27 of 442
    freeeee
    Hey lady...

    I too didn't care for local churches leaving pamphlets on my door. And waking me up to offer prayers.

    But did I cry and run to mommy like a spoiled little brat?

    No. I handled the problem myself < gasp! > through the ingenious use of a new-fangled thingamajig called a "No Tresspassing/No Solicitation" sign.

    Just imagine, you too can solve even some of your own problems without making a court case out of it! Go on, drop your mommy's apron strings and do something yourself. I know it's hard, but you can do it! Once you experience the satisfaction of doing for yourself, you may be surprised to learn all the other things you can do... like turn the channel when you see something you don't like on TV.

  • N.J. sheriff stands by remarks deriding Augusta County deputy

    10/18/2005 10:44:52 AM PDT · 25 of 61
    freeeee to Senator Bedfellow
  • N.J. sheriff stands by remarks deriding Augusta County deputy

    10/18/2005 10:16:51 AM PDT · 15 of 61
    freeeee to ncountylee
    "When the men and women of my agency -- or any law-enforcement agency -- are mistreated, all formalities go out the window,"


    "Make way for the King! Make way for the King! His Magesty is coming through your silly little berg! Move thyself, peasant or feel the sting of the lash!"

  • N.J. sheriff stands by remarks deriding Augusta County deputy

    10/18/2005 10:12:36 AM PDT · 13 of 61
    freeeee to Corin Stormhands
    In Jersey, he's known for his gelled hair and full-dress uniform, complete with star-studded epaulettes.

    Sounds familiar.

  • Eminent Domain in N.J. - Now They Just Steal Land

    10/18/2005 7:22:36 AM PDT · 28 of 51
    freeeee to WmCraven_Wk

    Third World is as Third World does.

  • ALCU sues Tampa Sports Authority over game-day pat-downs

    10/13/2005 3:08:00 PM PDT · 30 of 48
    freeeee to kjam22
    Only those chosing to submit to search in order to get into a crowded football stadium.

    The words "crowded football staduim" do not appear in the 4th Amendment.

    There are two and only two distinct possibilities:

    1. The government owns the stadium, in which case the 4th Amendment comes into play.

    2. The stadium is privately owned (and by that I mean the taxpayers didn't pay for it), in which case the stadium's owners can set whatever admission rules they like, including searches.

  • The trouble with men

    10/13/2005 12:48:14 PM PDT · 183 of 259
    freeeee to DA740
    We are up to our necks in the wreckage created by the 19th Amendment

    Therein lies a dilemma. According to the Declaration of Independence, governments derive any just powers from the consent of the governed. Women are governed, ergo, we must recognize their consent in the form of the vote. If I were a woman and I couldn't vote, I wouldn't consider myself governed, period.

    But it just kills me what they've done with their vote.

    First thing: Prohibition. Thanks, ladies!
    Then they demanded all manners of socialism, from social security to medicare.
    And gun control.
    And of course, modern divorce laws.

    The one common theme of all these things is love of the nanny state, and making government do things that the husbands they chased off aren't around to do anymore.

    From soccer moms to security moms, to MADD, to The Million Moron March, woman have as a group done some real damage.

    The need for security in women seems to be hard-wired, and concerns for liberty seem to consistently come in last place with them. I don't have a solution to this problem and I've given it a lot of thought.

    The Second Amendment Sisters are a welcome departure to this trend, and I can't thank them enough. If there is a solution to the voting trends of women, it will probably be found by discovering what made them.

    Men are AFRAID of females?

    If you look closely, men aren't afraid of females themselves. If they were, they wouldn't pursue them at all.

    Men are afraid of the combination of women and the legal system, so they aren't combining the two as often.

  • The trouble with men

    10/13/2005 11:51:46 AM PDT · 175 of 259
    freeeee to Nick Danger

    Hi Nick. I've been a long time fan of your posts here.

  • The trouble with men

    10/13/2005 11:30:34 AM PDT · 172 of 259
    freeeee to HitmanNY
    Don't forget that a man who goes into a romance fearful of losing his nest egg will likely be recognized as a weak, inferior, and fearful male.

    I recognize that they don't respect weakness. Unfortunately, a marriage license today incurs weakness no matter how the man behaves.

    The moment that contract is signed, she can come home, kick him in the b_____, s___ in the sink three times a day and there won't be a damned thing he can do about it, and she knows it, and she knows he knows it.

    If he cowers, she'll eventually become contempful of her newly created doormat.

    If he stands up, she's assumes victim status, files for divorce and takes everything he has.

    Others see this time and again. Then they stop signing marriage licenses. Today's strong sane man won't sign, he won't take s___, and he'll tell her to hit the road if she pulls these antics.

    And them Molly Watson writes mean things about him.

  • The trouble with men

    10/13/2005 11:20:25 AM PDT · 171 of 259
    freeeee to Prophet in the wilderness; Mr. Jeeves
    You're right. An immature man will only see the immediate benefit of marriage to these women. Mr. Jeeves most eloquently describes this in his post #60:

    Too many men will put up with any amount of verbal abuse and power trips from a woman they find physically attractive - will even marry her, knowing what kind of personality she has.

    A mature man won't do that. He thinks with the big head instead of the little one. He'll hold out. He'll put his long term happiness ahead of the expediency of keeping an attractive but shrill woman who demands a ring - or else.

    I would like to reiterate that I don't think all women are like this. Oh, the fine gems that defy this insanity are priceless. But too many are, and my friends have married some of them.

  • The trouble with men

    10/13/2005 11:11:11 AM PDT · 168 of 259
    freeeee to DA740
    Realistically, men can't just take control of the whole process. Women vote, and any politician wanting to make things equal in divorce court isn't going to get or stay elected. There's major money and vested interests at stake here, and that will get out the feminist vote.

    So the "marriage market" reacts as any market would to government regulation: a boycott.

    Just as minimum wage laws create unemployment,
    Just as rent control creates houseing shortages,
    So does inequality in marriage and relationships create spinsters and perpetual bachelors.

    It doesn't matter how much control women have over the process. Just like the communists couldn't control economies with guns, women cannot control relationships with judges.

    And now they're beginning to find out why.

  • The trouble with men

    10/13/2005 10:54:55 AM PDT · 163 of 259
    freeeee to Prophet in the wilderness
    we can attribute that and give thanks to FEMINISM for that cancer on society.

    The thing that really gets me is that feminism was supposedly created to counter the dominance of one sex over another.

    Yet that's precisely what I see in these marriages: domination. Only now the shoe is on the other foot.

    How ironic. And hypocritical.

    When called on this, these women will explode with anger. They'll obtusely attack the messenger, and proclaim their dogma to be unquestionable, even in the face of clear contrary evidence. The answer to men running from them is to blame the men, because someone has to take the blame for their situation, and it sure as hell isn't going to be themselves.

    But the world itself is not changed by their tantrum. They can't change the fact that for every action there is a reaction. They can't change the behavior of the "marriage market", for lack of a better term. They can't scream or belittle the backlash of boycott against marriage (pun intended), and they can't get a judge to make someone offer them a ring (yet).

    So they get mad (hey, that's what worked up 'til now!) and write angry snarky articles, one of which being the article at the top of this thread.

  • The trouble with men

    10/13/2005 8:28:13 AM PDT · 74 of 259
    freeeee to AppyPappy
    That behavior has to die.

    I see your point.

    But I have seen a repeated pattern among my peers of wives dominating a marriage. They behave one way, then when the ring goes on, they turn and suddenly think they are wearing a crown. This isn't just the old fashioned "whipped" complaint.

    The level of domineering I've witnessed in younger brides, time and again, dwarves that of years gone by. I've seen it too many times for it to just be coincidence. I think its a byproduct of entitled feminism coupled with inequitible divorce laws.

    Too many women abuse the trust given by the liability incurred by a marriage license. And when a man just can't take anymore, she gets the golden parachute. Then she repeates the process. Why shouldn't she? It was profitible the first time...

    This doesn't apply to all women of course. But it is a notable trend.

  • The trouble with men

    10/13/2005 8:07:40 AM PDT · 55 of 259
    freeeee to Eurotwit
    And not a single word of how men have seen their fathers, uncles and male friend's lives destroyed by inequitable divorce laws.

    It just couldn't be that a man sees his male friends and family's life ruined, time and again, and refuses to be the next dupe.

    Nope, it isn't cause of that. It's cause we're immature.

    Hey Molly, next time one of your friends brags about getting the house, remember that she got it at the price of YOUR marriage.

  • Sign "A citizen petition to restore Constitutional integrity to government" from Federalist Patriot

    10/12/2005 2:51:06 PM PDT · 5 of 18
    freeeee to Albion Wilde
    I appreciate the sentiment. But they don't care about petitions. Or protests. Or the Constitution.

    They care about power. Specifically, they care about money and winning elections.

    Your petition may as well be written in Greek, because you aren't speaking their language. Elections and money. That is the language they speak.

    So speak to them in their language.

    Don't elect them. Don't give them money.

    When they don't get these things, they will pay attention to you, and not one single moment sooner.

  • [BitPig]Conservative, My A--

    10/12/2005 9:29:28 AM PDT · 13 of 25
    freeeee to B-Chan
  • New Orleans officers plead not guilty

    10/11/2005 11:38:28 AM PDT · 42 of 48
    freeeee to slapshot
    Sometimes you wish the cops would "tune up" these reporter maggots

    Yeah, how dare they film something like that. It's just so... unpatriotic.

    I think the government should run the media. That way the "right" news will be reported. Maybe we can call it Pravda.

  • Landowners must yield to ballpark

    10/07/2005 7:43:59 AM PDT · 65 of 84
    freeeee to AmishDude

    Sorry 'bout that. You're quite right, it is in poor taste to not ping you.

  • Landowners must yield to ballpark

    10/06/2005 2:54:34 PM PDT · 49 of 84
    freeeee to BlackbirdSST

    Maybe he doesn't like baseball?

  • Landowners must yield to ballpark

    10/06/2005 2:32:41 PM PDT · 47 of 84
    freeeee to BlackbirdSST

    he he

  • Landowners must yield to ballpark

    10/06/2005 1:20:52 PM PDT · 44 of 84
    freeeee to Protagoras
    This decision is probably the tipping point

    I doubt it. Human beings have lived under despotism for ages. Billions do so today.

    There would have to be something different about Americans for them to not behave similarly. Once there was a difference, and we sent England packing. Now there is no difference.

    It is a mistake to assume the character of independence Americans once held is somehow hereditary. It isn't. It has to be taught. It has to be part of the culture. That's gone now. I think for good.

    The Great Experiment is over.

  • Landowners must yield to ballpark

    10/06/2005 12:25:39 PM PDT · 31 of 84
    freeeee to SpaceBar
    Bread and circuses trumped property rights in the waning days of the Roman Empire as well.

    They say Nero torched a large section of a desirable section of Rome, then proceeded to build himself a large estate on the property.

    When Nero died, his successor tore down his estate and built the Colluseum.

  • Landowners must yield to ballpark

    10/06/2005 12:19:01 PM PDT · 29 of 84
    freeeee to Pessimist
    Citing "the common good" as justification, a communist holds that the will of the people outweighs the rights of the individual, hence they will themselves to become owners of, well, pretty much anything, by collectively assigning themselves property rights by force. It is said communist governments assert this "ownership" on behalf of the people. But at least communists are honest and upfront about it: they tell you right to your face that you have no property rights.

    However a more insidious form of communism exists: government, always seeking power and therefore money may seek to take advantage of the prosperity of the free market. Government then operates under a false façade of ownership, alleging private property rights exist and doling them out in barely sufficient amounts as privileges in order to lure productive individuals to create wealth. This is properly called fascism.

  • Landowners must yield to ballpark

    10/06/2005 12:09:51 PM PDT · 18 of 84
    freeeee
    Every single last defining characteristic of the relationship between a landlord and a tenant is present between property "owners" in the US and the government.

    Tenants pay rent or they are evicted.
    Property "owners" pay property tax or they are evicted.

    Tenants can only use the premises according to conditions set in their lease.
    Property "owners" can only use their land according to conditions set by building/zoning codes.

    Landlords can decline to continue a lease, and instead rent to someone willing to pay a higher rent.
    Governments can exercise "eminent domain" (thin euphamism for 'nationalization') and give the property to someone willing to pay more taxes.

  • Landowners must yield to ballpark

    10/06/2005 12:02:19 PM PDT · 13 of 84
    freeeee to AmishDude
    They could just be holding out. Sounds like they were offering reasonable deals.

    Tough. It's their property, and they can sell or not sell at any price and for any reason or no reason at all.

    That's what it means to own something.

  • Bush wants right to use military if bird flu hits

    10/05/2005 3:13:25 PM PDT · 138 of 155
    freeeee to Nathan Zachary
    Gezz where do you get this stuff?

    From the people who went there and got the dogs out.

    And what does it got to do with a pademic anyway?

    It's a real life example in what otherwise would be a hypothetical conversation. Some dogs starved, he managed to eat. But when he was evacuated, he was exposed to a contagion. The paralells are obvious.

    Say I want to be left alone and wait the pandemic out. Suppose that's not "the plan". When PC gets repealed, the army comes and "convinces" me to come with them. I end up in some sports stadium, and instead of kennel cough I get avian flu. Or just plain murdered by the desperate dying maniacs in custody with me.

    Or none of that happens, but PC is revoked anyway and President Hillary does the unthinkable.

    The reason we have PC, and a national guard to begin with, is to prevent these types of abuses. The idea being that local control prevents excesses. This isn't an abstract untested theory, mind you. It was learned the hard way.

    Why do we want to throw this model out? Why do we want to open ourselves up to what we know is a huge potential for abuse? Why can't the national guard be brought up to speed and used for its main purpose?

  • Bush wants right to use military if bird flu hits

    10/05/2005 2:54:17 PM PDT · 136 of 155
    freeeee to Nathan Zachary

    He got kennel cough. It's extremely common in shelters, so is parvo. I'd be amazed if New Orleans dogs didn't get it, while they were crowded together by the thousands in rallying points waiting for evacuation.

  • Bush wants right to use military if bird flu hits

    10/05/2005 2:45:24 PM PDT · 131 of 155
    freeeee to Nathan Zachary
    If you take notice, it was the NO police that were disarming people

    And...
    The Oklahoma National Guard.
    The US Marshall Service.
    The DEA.

    Hope I didn't forget anyone!

    You are being completely irrational.

    I am making a logical, rational argument that the hard learned lessons of history behind Posse Comitatus be remembered.

    I am arguing that the model for disaster response in our republic be conserved, and not cast away in favor of a model more befitting China or a 3rd World pisshole.

    And I am using examples from an event that happened last month.

    That makes me irrational?

  • Bush wants right to use military if bird flu hits

    10/05/2005 2:35:30 PM PDT · 129 of 155
    freeeee to Nathan Zachary
    mould growing had no effect on the dog at all, it was obviously the fault of the other spot it was taken to

    He didn't get "mold". He got Borditello. I've seen it dozens of times. It's very contagious. The incubation time in his case matched his evacuation.

  • Bush wants right to use military if bird flu hits

    10/05/2005 2:32:20 PM PDT · 128 of 155
    freeeee to 43north
    Concentration Camp(s)?

    Yes. Concentration camps. I'm not talking about some compound at the end of a railroad line. I'm talking about the local sports arena. Remember this one?

    They put people in there and had soldiers prevent them from leaving. If that's not a concentration camp, they need to take the word out of the dictionary.

    There will be no time and no resources for anybody "in charge" to even consider that kind of wacko idea in a full-blown pandemic. In a situation like that, being "in charge" is mostly an illusion anyways.

    So, the military is going to be operating out of control, and that's supposed to be a good thing?!

    How many looters do you think you could handle by yourself, especially if they too are armed?

    Before or after the army kicks in my door and disarms me?