Liberty, Rights, and the Constitution 2

[ClearedHot]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggHWRpsMEmk

[SocialD]

Along those lines, this is running on Netflix. I'm normally not one to put on the tin foil hat, but some if this shit, if true, is pretty fucked up!

Edited May 13, 2014 by SocialD

[Seriously]

Along those lines, this is running on Netflix. I'm normally not one to put on the tin foil hat, but some if this shit, if true, is pretty fucked up!

That documentary made me feel like a fool.

My neighbor and lifelong friend is a city cop on the SWAT Team. A couple weeks ago, he stopped by and asked if I had heard of a MaxxPro because his dept was getting one along with two armored Humvees. He did acquisition process himself online through a DRMO type website. I asked why they needed it and he replied, "We don't, but it's over $2mil of FREE equipment and it's badass! Don't worry, if shit ever goes down, I'm keeping it for myself."

A video online this morning reminded me of that story. It's from a small Indiana news station I and was surprised that one the rationale for having these on rural county road is because there's an increasing amount of returning vets who "know how to build IEDs."

https://fox59.com/2014/05/12/armed-for-war-local-police-tote-pentagon-surplus/#axzz329rcuPqd

At what point does the police become the military? It seems the only thing a lot of police departments lack is a PT standard.

[HeloDude]

At what point does the police become the military?

People shouldn't be surprised...

[clouseau]

People shouldn't be surprised...

I'll be damned someone else remembered this and maybe I missed it but why the hell was he not called out during the last election about this statement?

Anyone else notice who was sitting in the crowd?

Edited May 20, 2014 by clouseau

[Vertigo]

Apparently offending someone is now a crime in the U.S.

People taking offense now trumps the 1st amendment.

A Pennsylvania man was charged Friday after he allegedly hung an American flag upside down, spray painted it and put it on display outside his home, WJACTV.com reported.

Allegheny Township Police were reportedly alerted to the flag by a number of complaints, including a military woman who police said "was very offended."

[hispeed7721]

Apparently offending someone is now a crime in the U.S.

People taking offense now trumps the 1st amendment.

This has been going on for a while...

A police chief forced to resign for using colorful racial language.

An NBA owner forced to sell his team and banned from the sport forever for the same language

If I walked up and told a group of gay guys/girls that I thought they were [insert condemning comment] then I'd be nailed to the wall for "hate speech"

The first amendment, for the most part, doesn't mean jack anymore unless you're on the side of minorities/special interest groups

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vertigo]

This has been going on for a while...

A police chief forced to resign for using colorful racial language.

An NBA owner forced to sell his team and banned from the sport forever for the same language

If I walked up and told a group of gay guys/girls that I thought they were [insert condemning comment] then I'd be nailed to the wall for "hate speech"

The first amendment, for the most part, doesn't mean jack anymore unless you're on the side of minorities/special interest groups

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1. You can't be forced to resign. Sure there was pressure, but he wasn't fired. Hence no violation by the gov.

2. The NBA is a private corporation, not a government entity. No violation of rights.

3. Hate speech is protected.

[hispeed7721]

Sigh...the forrest for the trees...you're excuses don't negate the fact that their 1st amendment was completely trampled on

I feel like your first post and your reply to my post are on contradicting "sides" of the 1st amendment issue

[Negatory]

Sigh...the forrest for the trees...you're excuses don't negate the fact that their 1st amendment was completely trampled on

I feel like your first post and your reply to my post are on contradicting "sides" of the 1st amendment issue

The first amendment only guarantees you won't go to jail or face legal repercussions for saying things. It doesn't mean you won't be judged, sometimes harshly, by the rest of the world and potentially face retribution from them.

You can still call black people the "n-word" without going for jail. Hell, you can even grab 10 of your closest buddies and their kids and go to a funeral of an army private who died in Iraq. Then, you can picket outside of said funeral with signs saying he deserved to die, is a "######," and god hates him, and your speech will be protected 8-1 by the Supreme Court. You just can't do it without having almost everyone around you think you are a piece of shit.

Sometimes, cops screw up and arrest people without legal basis. The Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that desecrating flags was legal in Texas vs Johnson, and I assure you they would rule it again.

Edited May 22, 2014 by brawnie

[Vertigo]

Sigh...the forrest for the trees...you're excuses don't negate the fact that their 1st amendment was completely trampled on

I feel like your first post and your reply to my post are on contradicting "sides" of the 1st amendment issue

Our 1A rights protect us from the government. it does not protect you from being fired from a private entity. It does not protect you from societies scorn and ridicule.

Get it?

[HeloDude]

Our 1A rights protect us from the government. it does not protect you from being fired from a private entity. It does not protect you from societies scorn and ridicule.

Get it?

I could argue that the 14th Amendment implies that a buisness should have to treat my speech as equally as it does another person's speech and thus can not fire me for what I say... (and yes, I'm making a point of a slippery slope)

So if the NBA (a buisness) can ban a person from engaging in commerce with their organization because of what that person says...then why can't a cake company ban a gay couple from engaging in commerce with their buisness because of what the gay people say?

I fully agree that scorn and ridicule from the public is where these issues should be dealt with, however, the government (ie public schools) loves to tell people what shirts can and can't be worn (ie an American flag shirt on May 5th) on certain days, all in name of 'safety'. Don't kid yourself, Vertigo, the government is very much involved in limiting the type of speech that they don't want being engaged at a certain time/place.

[Vertigo]

I could argue that the 14th Amendment implies that a buisness should have to treat my speech as equally as it does another person's speech and thus can not fire me for what I say... (and yes, I'm making a point of a slippery slope)

So if the NBA (a buisness) can ban a person from engaging in commerce with their organization because of what that person says...then why can't a cake company ban a gay couple from engaging in commerce with their buisness because of what the gay people say?

I fully agree that scorn and ridicule from the public is where these issues should be dealt with, however, the government (ie public schools) loves to tell people what shirts can and can't be worn (ie an American flag shirt on May 5th) on certain days, all in name of 'safety'. Don't kid yourself, Vertigo, the government is very much involved in limiting the type of speech that they don't want being engaged at a certain time/place.

If that speech causes them (the business) damage, then it is not protected, correct?

A cake company should be able to serve and not serve whomever they want to regardless of speech.

[HeloDude]

If that speech causes them (the business) damage, then it is not protected, correct?

A cake company should be able to serve and not serve whomever they want to regardless of speech.

I agree...however, this real example shows that a company 'can not' refuse to do buisness (ie hire, fire, refuse service) with someone because of what certain people say (even if the buisness believes the speech of their customers cause their buisness damage):

https://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_24687970/no-right-refuse-gay-couples-wedding-cake

So who makes the rules?

Edited May 22, 2014 by HeloDude

[Negatory]

So if the NBA (a buisness) can ban a person from engaging in commerce with their organization because of what that person says...then why can't a cake company ban a gay couple from engaging in commerce with their buisness because of what the gay people say?

Anti-discrimination laws don't apply to racists. They exist for groups that cannot change some aspect of themselves, be it race, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation (I understand some people think this is still up to debate), etc.

Do you really think the Ku Klux Klan and the Westboro Church need the RIGHT to be served at any private business, regardless of what the owner wants? No. Because they should be able to change their views, or at least keep their ideals to themselves.

But if you turned a woman away for her gender, an Asian for his heritage, or a veteran for his disabilities, that isn't fair. You can't change or hide those things. And I know that the first thing you are going to say is that you can hide your sexual orientation. But that's not really true if you want to get married or have a family, and in the last 3-5 years, it has become recognized - in some states and federal organizations - that it is their right to do that.

Edited May 22, 2014 by brawnie

[hispeed7721]

I fully agree that scorn and ridicule from the public is where these issues should be dealt with, however, the government (ie public schools) loves to tell people what shirts can and can't be worn (ie an American flag shirt on May 5th) on certain days, all in name of 'safety'. Don't kid yourself, Vertigo, the government is very much involved in limiting the type of speech that they don't want being engaged at a certain time/place.

Exactly. I wasn't at all trying to imply that people shouldn't expect to be scorned and ridiculed (I promise I'm not that naive or idealistic), but there is a big difference between scorn and what has happened in many situations.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

Do you really think the Ku Klux Klan and the Westboro Church need the RIGHT to be served at any private business, regardless of what the owner wants? No. Because they should be able to change their views, or at least keep their ideals to themselves.

Holy mother fvcking shit balls--really?? Or are you just trolling?

Anti-discrimination laws should 'only apply to people's physical features/sexual orientation'? Everybody else should 'change their views' (or keep them silent)? Change their views to what?? Just because you disagree with a certain faith, you are saying it is the fault of those who practice/believe that faith? The Catholic Church does not support gay marriage...do you believe that Catholics should be refused service/unemployment? Should a person wearing a t-shirt with a Catholic logo be refused service because they 'should change'? Do traditional black Baptist churches get a pass or do they have to conform as well (or never speak what is on their mind)?

As a Libertarian, philosophically I believe a private business should be able refuse employment to anyone for any reason (as well as refuse service)...but until that happens, I believe you have to protect all views, not just the 'popular' ones at the moment.

So tell us--what other faiths, organizations, groups should 'change' their views to suit a progressive agenda? Should Tea Party members have to conform to a certain view? What about Libertarians?

What's s scary is that you're probably not trolling and that there is a growing movement of a strong minority who believes everything you posted.

Edited May 22, 2014 by HeloDude

[Vertigo]

I agree...however, this real example shows that a company 'can not' refuse to do buisness (ie hire, fire, refuse service) with someone because of what certain people say (even if the buisness believes the speech of their customers cause their buisness damage):

https://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_24687970/no-right-refuse-gay-couples-wedding-cake

So who makes the rules?

Sexual orientation is speech? I guess I'm not comprehending how you're making that bridge between the two.

And yes I agree the cake maker has the right to refuse them service. If it was my cake shop 1- I wouldn't turn down the business; I'm in it to turn a profit not make a moral declaration but... 2 If I did I wouldn't divulge the reason behind it- I would simply say I'm too busy to accept their business and would recommend a competitor. There's no reason for you to divulge why you really turned down business unless you're looking for an argument.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Vertigo

[HeloDude]

Sexual orientation is speech? I guess I'm not comprehending how you're making that bridge between the two.

Sexual orientation is not speech (unless people can mind read?)...but a gay wedding is speech, just like a straight wedding. If I kiss my girlfriend in public, it is speech (expression) just like if two gay people kiss. If a person walked into a cake store and said I need a cake that looks like X and we'll be over in a week to pick it up--how would the cake maker know the sexual orientation of who it was for? But when you literally add 'speech' on the cake, asking the cake maker to hear certain things they morally disagree with, it becomes speech and expression. Unless we can force black photographers to go to a KKK rally, as a hired photographer, and have to hear all the hateful things the photographer disagrees with as they take pictures.

To me, I'm all about economics and whatever increases my profits (so I could care less about what kind of wedding it is)...but not everyone sees it this way. So if we can force businesses to do things against their conscience, where do you draw the line? And who gets to draw the line?

[Vertigo]

Ok now I'm tracking what you're trying to say.

I'm in agreement with you, we shouldn't be giving business owners to do things against their conscience (I don't think businesses have consciences as they are not living things).

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[Vertigo]

Who needs the military when you can call the SWAT team in...

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/toddler-critically-burned-during-swat-raid/nf9SJ/

Short version:

Undercover cops buy drugs from man known to have drugs and weapons.

SWAT gets a no-knock warrant, raids house at 3am and throws a flash-bang grenade in baby's crib.

Bad thing is the guy who sold the drugs didn't live there.

[Learjetter]

Bad thing is the guy who sold the drugs didn't live there.

Disagree. The BAD thing is the concept of "militarization" of civil law enforcement...and the execution of these raids w/o sufficient intel and CDA.

[Vertigo]

Disagree. The BAD thing is the concept of "militarization" of civil law enforcement...and the execution of these raids w/o sufficient intel and CDA.

That goes without saying.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[nsplayr]

I hope you guys give some thought to orders you are given, and have the courage to choose the difficult right decision.

Not this shit again...

WRT the actual article, I vote good news. AQ has specifically told its followers in the West, in English, sic "Don't come to Yemen, don't come to Pakistan, buy and/or some weapons and strike on your own wherever you happen to live." Pick up a copy of Inspire sometime, good light reading...just remember to google search on your buddy's computer.

If we're finally taking that kind of threat more seriously and trying to bring about more interagency cross-talk after Fort Hood and Boston then I say good...we should have been doing that all along.

[Herk Driver]

It is a fine line...your oath is to the Constitution and to defend it against "all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!