CattaniAFJ Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 Since you're smarter than everyone else on here, you can't be that dense to not know what he's trying to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAC Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 "This Land is my Land. This Land ain't your Land. I've got a shotgun' date=' and you ain't got one..." [/quote']These threads are better than cable. I laughed so hard I drooled on my desk. (Even though I've heard that line before.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 Since you're smarter than everyone else on here, you can't be that dense to not know what he's trying to say.You're correct.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cg2112 Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 "This Land is my Land. This Land ain't your Land. I've got a shotgun' date=' and you ain't got one..." He physically/sexually assaulted a child. He deserves exactly what he got, and then some. It's just sad that our "less-than-desirables" have to take out the garbage because our politicians won't. If you want constitutional rights, overthrow your own fucking corrupt government. Get off my lawn![/quote']I'm pretty positive that the punishment for non-sexual battery (which is very different from assault) is not retardation by beating. "Battery" can be simply putting your hand on someone's shoulder, depending on the context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CattaniAFJ Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 A-mother-fuckin-men IP.Again, I don't care what the Constitution or any other document says..........this piece of shit got what he deserves and I'm not talking about the money. That money should have been paid to the guys that fucked him up. (Yes, that's controversial as fuck and I don't care.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cg2112 Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 Oh... I'm sorry. Yeah' date=' we should definitely rehabilitate, educate, and assimilate the criminal that is in this country illegally.[/quote']That's definitely what I was getting at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cg2112 Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 A-mother-fuckin-men IP.Again, I don't care what the Constitution or any other document says..........this piece of shit got what he deserves and I'm not talking about the money. That money should have been paid to the guys that fucked him up. (Yes, that's controversial as fuck and I don't care.)Unfortunately, in cases like this, a lot of people don't care what the Constitution says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CattaniAFJ Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 Why should we when people are here illegally committing crimes and then the tax payers pay for their shit and legal counsel? Are you kidding me? Fuck "unfortunately." The only thing unfortunate here is that the inmates didn't kill him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey1 Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 Can we just write him a bad check and send him back to Mexico? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 Can we just write him a bad check and send him back to Mexico? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cg2112 Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 Why should we when people are here illegally committing crimes and then the tax payers pay for their shit and legal counsel? Are you kidding me? Fuck "unfortunately." The only thing unfortunate here is that the inmates didn't kill him.You get to say that precisely because of the Constitution. Protecting rights only when it is not distasteful renders the Constitution useless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictly Street Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 The last time citizens became disillusioned with their government, a few of them got together in a pub in Boston and started tossing around radical ideas like freedom, independence, inalienable rights and representation in government.Just throwing that one out there.Beer. Is there anything it can't do? :banana::banana: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CattaniAFJ Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 Show me where it's written that the Constitution applies to invaders from foreign land. Yes' date=' his rights should have been protected. He should have been shipped back to el Mexico in the first place.[/quote']Uh, +1 on that. He bastard came here ILLEGALLY and was a drain on society, explain to me why I should care he got beaten back to pre-kindergarden mental status? Fuck him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CattaniAFJ Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 You get to say that precisely because of the Constitution. Protecting rights only when it is not distasteful renders the Constitution useless.Being a citizen here in this country and contributing taxes makes me able to say that because of the Constitution. It may, but should NOT apply to those who are here illegally and commit crimes while here illegally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cg2112 Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 Show me where it's written that the Constitution applies to invaders from foreign land. Yes' date=' his rights should have been protected. He should have been shipped back to el Mexico in the first place.[/quote']The Constitution makes it pretty clear when it's talking about citizens of the United States, and when it isn't. For instance, the fifth amendment says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. No person. It doesn't say "no person, except for people who are not here legally." If it meant that, it would say it. This is in contrast to the 15th amendment, which specifically states that the rights of citizens to vote will not be abridged by race or color.The Supreme Court confirms this in Wong Wing v. US. It's really pretty cut and dry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cg2112 Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 Being a citizen here in this country and contributing taxes makes me able to say that because of the Constitution. It may, but should NOT apply to those who are here illegally and commit crimes while here illegally.Being a citizen here and contributing taxes has nothing to do with it. You have your rights by virtue of being born. The founders believed this very strongly, and this is the basis for our Bill of Rights. They believed very strongly in natural rights, that our rights don't come from the Constitution, they come from God. The Constitution merely protects those rights, it does not grant them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 Being a citizen here and contributing taxes has nothing to do with it. You have your rights by virtue of being born. The founders believed this very strongly, and this is the basis for our Bill of Rights.You're good up to this point. :golf clap: Then... They believed very strongly in natural rights, that our rights don't come from the Constitution, they come from God.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_AAww... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cg2112 Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 I'm not following you.This is exactly what the founders believed. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 I'm not following you.This is exactly what the founders believed. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."His point (and mine) is that Creator is a metaphor for whatever. If you choose to interpret it as God, that's fine. There's a mountain of evidence that proves this is a secular nation, despite what the fundies, Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, Pat Robertson, Glenn Beck, or zombie Jerry Falwell (just to name a few) would have you believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cg2112 Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 His point (and mine) is that Creator is a metaphor for whatever. If you choose to interpret it as God, that's fine. There's a mountain of evidence that proves this is a secular nation, despite what the fundies, Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, Pat Robertson, Glenn Beck, or zombie Jerry Falwell (just to name a few) would have you believe.Feel free to consider my use of the word "God" to be the same metaphor (the Declaration of Independence refers to both "Creator" and "God" - different words for the same idea, be it God, nature, Allah, beech nuts, whatever). My point is that the founders believed that our rights have been bestowed upon by virtue of our birth, and that all men have these rights. The Constitution doesn't give them to us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 Feel free to consider my use of the word "God" to be the same metaphor (the Declaration of Independence refers to both "Creator" and "God" - different words for the same idea, be it God, nature, Allah, beech nuts, whatever). My point is that the founders believed that our rights have been bestowed upon by virtue of our birth, and that all men have these rights. The Constitution doesn't give them to us.Noted. You can include beech nuts but you can't include the Flying Spaghetti Monster? All-Powerful Atheismo frowns on your shenanigans. You will be receiving Odin's punishment shortly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 Yes' date=' the Constitution protects rights. It doesn't grant them. However, that doesn't change the fact that this man was in the country illegally. The Constitution is clear on what the role of the FedGov is. It is their job to protect the [b']citizens of this nation from invaders that would do us harm. An invader (someone here illegally) harmed an American. If my head was just a little less screwed on I'd reasonably be able to consider than an act of war from an non-uniformed combatant... and we all know what we're supposed to do with those folks. Right?Pauly, thanks for teeing this up so well. I'll chomp right on this.First: Yes, it could be construed that people who cross the border illegally to commit crimes inside of the US (besides the crime they are already committing by the illegal crossing) are invading. However, in order to label and subsequently try them as a enemy combatant, I believe (opinion ahead) that you have to prove they are intending to cross as an invasion force. Kinda the whole habeas thing that Bush and Obama want to kick aside. So, what do you do while this guy is waiting for due process to determine his crime and combatant state? You throw him in jail. No big deal. However, the Constitution grants for EVERYONE (and habeas has been around since the 1500's) the right of innocent until proven guilty. Which means, the state has a legal and ethical requirement to ensure this guy is secure and his most basic needs are being met (3 hots and a cot should cover that) while he is in their custody. This also covers putting the guy in a environment where physical harm can come to him, not to mention looking the other way when you're pretty sure that harm is imminent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyco1 Posted July 24, 2010 Report Share Posted July 24, 2010 You will be receiving Odin's punishment shortly.You know who else received Odins punishment?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-XXESKr57s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted July 24, 2010 Report Share Posted July 24, 2010 (edited) You know who else received Odins punishment? and Odin did grin, and the people feasted upon the lambs, and sloths, and orangutans, and carp, and breakfast cereals...In all seriousness, it absolutely amazes me the things religiously "enlightened" people will do in the name of their deity. Apparently this thing originally cost 500K. 500K will not only feed the hungry, but it'll build one hell of a soup kitchen. No, these WASPs have to build another huge statue of Jesus in front of I-75. Fuck helping people, we prefer to just stroke our own egos. Edited July 24, 2010 by Cheech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted July 24, 2010 Report Share Posted July 24, 2010 I like that statue, it was built in my image. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.