Supreme Court allows strip searches for any offense

Discussion in 'Freedom of Expression' started by mongrel, Apr 2, 2012.

  1. Herro Member

    When did you show that my claim about responsibilities was utter BS or that it cannot work? Didn't you just get done saying you refused to respond to that because I was begging the question?

    And sure, only you can decide what's best for you. Whatever. That would be fine and dandy if you lived in total and complete isolation from all other human beings. But you don't. You're part of a larger group, and as I said, you are not more important than the rest of the group.

    Finally, I don't think I ever said that violence was the basis for society. I did however say that I think conflict and violence are going to be inevitable for humans. I'm not sure what makes you think otherwise, but if you want to stop talking about the cop thing and talk about that instead, go for it. Not promising I'll be interested enough to indulge you though.

    What does that logic book you keep mentioning say about ad hominem attacks?

  2. Mutante Member

    Cease wiping your assholes just in case you get strip searched. They will soon stop! And less dollar for Koch Industries!

    Everyone is a winrar.
    • Like Like x 3
  3. Your the sort of guy that says "fuck you" when being warned about a truck heading his way!

    Often in a dangerous situation the police are well equipped, due to day in day out experience, to assess what's going on and control/contain that situation, last thing a dangerous situation needs is some wild card free thinking idiot like you refusing to do as the police tell you and distract their attention away from controlling whats happening to controlling you! You do not experience life threatening situations every day so panic and fear will cloud your judgement fool.
  4. adhocrat Member

    Just saying, but you haven't understood a single position I have taken. Ever.

    That takes some talent dude, I mean the law of averages say that you'll get it right by accident, but instead you are wrong 100% of the time.

    So, why not come to a protest if SF, I'll buy you dinner and you can tell me how selfish I am in person.
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Tell me how I've got you all wrong, you won't fight for your country, you don't see why you should pay taxes, you don't think the police should tell you what to do. You want to change society because you don't think it suites you.

    I'd have no problem telling you face to face what a selfish person you are, your hardly likely to take a swing at me are you. As for dinner thanks but no thanks, hippie food is quite disagreeable.
  6. adhocrat Member

    It says they are fun sometimes. Besides, I wasn't using it in an argument so it can't be an ad hom, merely an insult. And since you thrive on insults, I thought I'd throw you a bone.

    as far as what you said, I don't mind paying my way in life. I will pay for police protection, fire, water, sewer whatever. i just don't think that using my tax dollars to murder is what the founding father intended. In fact, they didn't have income taxes, recognizing them as too dangerous to touch.

    I am selfish in not wanting to pay for Empire.
    I am selfish for not wanting to pay to subsidize rich people.
    I am selfish for not wanting cops that arrest you for selling lemonade.
    I am selfish for not wanting to buy F22 and and tanks and aircraft carriers that are used to intimidate people around the world.
    I am selfish for wanting peace and trade
    I am selfish for wanting prosperity.
    I am selfish for wanting to breathe
    I am selfish for eating
    I am selfish...

    A hint, to NSA and Herro, you are selfish. Never think you aren't.
    So consider that every time you use one of those nasty little thought stopping techniques ("you're just selfish") a scientologist smiles.
    • Like Like x 3
  7. Anonymous Member

    NSA here. We are messed up psychopathic brotherfuckers lolololol! If it wasnt for the talent of impressionable kids we would be dead in a decade! lololololol!
  8. Do you always say this when you're just about to lose an argument?
  9. Herro Member

    So some taxes are ok then? I thought it was robbery and evil though.
  10. anonymous612 Member

    Even if it wasn't intentionally done, blocking fire hydrant access is always illegal. That's a separate law.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. adhocrat Member

    again, you miss the point that all services should be voluntary, not forced. SO, while I would pay for water, sewer, protection from criminals and foreign aggression it would be through voluntary means through competing agencies. IOW competition, that great method of producing what 7 billion people want when they want it.

    You sure don't have much of a memory Herro. I've said this a dozen times. get with the program, would ya?

    It's the government that you support that tells us monopolies are really really bad, yet that very government is the biggest, most ruthless monopoly imaginable.
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Herro Member

    Wouldn't such a system just mean that those with more money get access to better basic services than those with less money? Such a system would seem to rapidly increase inequality within society. And while the government might have a monopoly on public goods like water or police, at least they are bound by law to provide those goods and services to all citizens. Do we want to replace this with a system where those who control public goods and resources are only bound to provide those to individuals with enough money? Again, such arrangements would appear to greatly worsen inequalities. Take police. You'd still have the situation you bemoan- one group of people allowed to point guns at others. But now those police wouldn't even be obligated to provide services to all citizens. They would only be bound to those who pay them. Just think, you're at a protest, and Scientology actually does own the security forces, because they out bid you for the privilege.
  13. adhocrat Member

    There is a ton of literature on this. I didn't invent it. Go read some of it. try Hayek or Rothbard, maybe von Mises, and if scholarly literature is not to your liking read Robert Heinlein's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.
    If this isn't enough to get you started, PM me and I'll send you a reading list.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Herro Member

    Hey, how come you don't have to answer my questions :(
  15. adhocrat Member

  16. adhocrat Member

    and be cause
  17. failboat Member

    Someone else invented it, and it's still untested on a state-scale. And it's only literature, because it wouldn't work. It's little more than an invention; theory without any application.

    When a popular revolution sweeps a nation of the Earth, and the revolutionaries demand private police, unequal protection and unequal basic services, based solely on the individual's ability to pay, maybe there will be some basis for comparison between your ideal system and the current one.

    Maybe you could move there and take data on whether or not it's actually better.

    Perhaps the greatest indictment of your preferred system is that all of the popular, armed revolutions in history did NOT put your preferred system into place. When the masses have fought and died to overthrow their governments, it hasn't been so that they could have anarcho-capitalism or whatever form of government it is that you are preaching.
  18. Herro Member

    Now I'm just starting to feel bad for you. :(
  19. Herro Member

    Not to mention we can make some empirical observations that severely undermine the assumptions that privatizing all the things would some how make everything better (I assume through some sort of market magick?). Compare the US to most European nations. We have a much more open and deregulated economic system and much higher levels of privatization of services. Yet we lag behind those European nations in measures of social inequality as well as in a wide variety of quality of life indicators. All of this despite having noticeably higher levels of overall wealth. Now, we're just talking about correlations here and those differences are not due solely to differences in levels of privatization. But they certainly don't support the notion that privatization would reduce inequalities. But yes I know, the invisible hand of the market is going to give us all a great big reach around and make everything dandy if we would only let it...
  20. adhocrat Member

    We didn't know what would happen after the Divine Rights of Kings disintegrated, we didn't know what would happen after slavery was abolished. We don't know what will replace governments. But it is obvious, despite your tenth grade notion of civics, that government distorts incentives, creates moral hazards, and taxes our grandchildren in order to support their friends today.

    The only way that you can argue against my position is by ignoring the principles I am proposing. Since you don't admit to your own underlying principles, why not bring them out in the open and name them.

    There are plenty of examples of how the free market works, such as the time from about 1800 until 1913 in the US. There are plenty of examples of how people cooperate (common law, for instance, eBay, frontier societies with barn raisings) without the need for formal government, simply agreements between people who respect private property.

    The thing about economic law is it is a slow operating mechanism. If you defy gravity, you fall immediately. If you defy economic law you can foist the cost off to the next generation. So all this deficit spending will be paid for by your grandchildren.
    Good luck with that.
    • Like Like x 1
  21. Anonymous Member

    SCOTUS is inconsistent in their protection of freedom. It looks like according to SCOTUS government will soon have no right to ensure that everyone has affordable healthcare because that interferes with people's decisions on how to spend their money, but government does have a right to ask anyone to strip naked, "lift their genitals", and expose their anus to the police. Anyone can be arrested for a minor offense that they are not even guilty of. Anyone. To add insult to injury, corporations are now considered people and are permitted to make unlimited donations to politicians, hijacking power away from most people and placing it in the hands of a few ridiculously wealthy individuals.

    Something is seriously wrong with this court. Thank-you Ronald Reagan for appointing douchebags to this position of power.
  22. Anonymous Member

    Well, I'd suggest submitting the SCOTUS to arrest and strip search for the felony of approving the 2000 presidential election in Bush's favor. That was a high crime if I ever saw one... and made the ones which came after easier to commit.
    • Like Like x 1
  23. failboat Member

    Of the current Justices, only Scalia and Kennedy were appointed by Reagan. Kennedy is widely considered to be a moderate.

    Clarence Thomas was nominated by GHWB.

    Clinton appointed Ginsberg and Breyer. I believe he also appointed Rehnquist and O'Connor.

    Chief Justice Rehnquist died unexpectedly of thyroid cancer.

    Justice Sandra Day O'Connor left the court because her husband had Alzheimer's. After she left, he rapidly deteriorated. In the end, she'd left her lifetime appointment on the High Court to spend only 6 weeks with him, before he completely lapsed into dementia.

    Alito and Thomas replaced them, and you know the story since then. GWB is the one who appointed those two.

    Kagen and Sotomayor were appointed by Obama.

    The Bushies nominated more of the Conservative Justices than Reagan, by 3-to-1.
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Anonymous Member

    Great, you made your hair-splitting points. Who gives a fuck.

    It isn't proper justice, is the real point.
  25. Herro Member

    How do you get that from this supreme court ruling?
  26. At least I can spell. :p
    • Like Like x 2
  27. Anonymous Member

    lrn2 study tech
  28. Herro Member

    I finally figured it out. Adhocrat wants to live here.


    Don't worry buddy. It's out there somewhere, beyond the sea.
  29. mongrel Member

    Who turned my WWP rant thread into a logical debate? That's simply unnatural to have on these forums.


    My real complaint in the OP is that this appears to be yet another straw that will eventually break the camel's back of any semblance of privacy in this nation, particularly since 9/11. We've had warrantless wiretaps, laptop searches without suspicion, the ridiculous TSA rules, "border" searches within the states, "abandoned" email claims, etc. And much of this has been done with absolutely zero oversight.

    There certainly is a time and place for searches. But it must *always* be performed under some type of accountability. We can grant "emergency" exceptions when needed. We can grant "safety" exceptions when needed. But there must be oversight. Allowing law enforcement to do whatever they want is a recipe for abuse and disaster. And that's exactly what this ruling allows. It lets the police, for any reason, perform searches that many people would find humiliating and degrading. And they don't have to answer to anyone! For example, say there were protests against police brutality, the police could arrest nonviolent protesters and humiliate them. And SCOTUS said it's perfectly legal for them to do so.

    This latest news plays to the previous thread comments about "free-markets". Apparently it is a fairly profitable business for telecoms to allow local law enforcement to spy on you, without a warrant.

    Police Are Using Phone Tracking as a Routine Tool
    • Like Like x 3
  30. Anonymous Member

    The 2nd American Revolution will be televised :)
  31. Anonymous Member

    and like the Revolution of 1861, this too will end well.
    • Like Like x 1
  32. And troll
  33. Not all new laws or changes in law are a stepping stone to abuse by authority, try looking at it without paranoid goggles on!
  34. We will when you stop looking at this issue through rose colored glasses.
    • Like Like x 1
  35. Anonymous Member

  36. mongrel Member

    You are quite correct that not all laws lead to fascism. But please, if you would deign to stoop to my level of stupidity, explain to my meager intelligence how searches without a warrant, searches that many would find humiliating, and searches without probable cause do not violate the 4th amendment? If my feeble memory serves, the original system of checks and balances was meant to prevent abuse by any single branch of the government. Of course, you may say that this isn't an abuse by a single branch, and you may be correct. But I would still like for you to explain how this is purely paranoia. Where is the system of checks and balances that prevents abuse?
    • Like Like x 1
  37. No.

    Or you may say that the judicial branch (SCOTUS in this case, highest in the land) is nominated by the executive branch and confirmed by the legislative. If one political party manages to dominate either/both of the exec and leg for long enough (or with fortunate timing, as 'premies age out of their positions) then what would stop that party from setting up a court to serve its own agenda? Unless you believe that judges (aka, lawyers in black dresses) are above partisanship, in which case $500,000 wired to my Nigerian bank account will buy you:

  38. So from your point of view the authorities are now going to start randomly crashing into anyone's lives and strip search everyone, tear property apart and humiliate people, why would they be doing this? For kicks? How can they explain the waste of manpower to their seniors? What would they be hoping to achieve?

    Manpower is limited, budgets are cut back, if they are going to raep someone they will have to prove they have good reason to do so to their superiors or they will suffer butthurt. Yes these new laws could mean uncontrolled abuse but it's highly unlikely as the authorities ain't in the business of kicks and fun!
  39. I do not own a pair of them, I'm fairly grounded, I don't scream "OMG!!!! OMG!!! The sky is falling" every time a law is changed, unlike some. No offence intended.
  40. Anonymous Member

    Of course not, and Obama is not forcing everyone to eat broccoli either. But you are wrong that the police have much to prove to their superiors in such cases. All they have to do is say that they suspected a person of committing a misdemeanor. That's it. If you are as much as suspected of a misdemeanor, SCOTUS says that it's OK for police to raep you. If they're mistaken and it turns out you were innocent, well it's too bad for you.

    Do you see how such a law can be abused to intimidate and control anyone that the police does not like? Consider the next time a protester is within his rights, but a misinformed police officer arrests them for not following orders to move away. Or consider that when Sparrow was falsely accused and arrested. The court said that in both those cases it would be OK for police to raep the suspect, even if they are innocent, even if all they are accused of is standing up for their right to free speech.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins