Fucking Pig Feds, This story has me absolutely disgusted.

Keep supporting privatization of prisons neo-con tool.

i dont support privatization of prisons. this is why I can never call myself a capital L libertarian, because i don't believe privatization is the answer to everything, and having a profit motive for people to imprison a population is not a good idea... for obvious reasons
 
i dont support privatization of prisons. this is why I can never call myself a capital L libertarian, because i don't believe privatization is the answer to everything, and having a profit motive for people to imprison a population is not a good idea... for obvious reasons

libertarians believe in the privatization of prisons?
 
let's see. WE THE PEOPLE created this government, so it's our servant. when did the government become our teacher? I think you're confused, or a communist.

I never said the government was the teacher. Circumstances, the result that transpired, was the teacher. They should have taught people a lesson. Of course, your post shows how some folks just don't get it. :palm:
 
Of course they cared, why else would the Nazis have made what they did so secretive? If you want an excellent example of that, if you've ever read "A Year in Treblinka", there was once a German woman and her kids who were sent to Treblinka by accident, the Germans at the camp looked over her documentation and she was indeed German yet still sent her to death for the obvious reason that they knew regular people WOULD care.
Comparing homeless movings to mass death is disgusting, and its not a logical comparison anyway - no one is losing their life or even their property and nor were they paying for it.

holy shit it's dano O_O

and LOL jpp awards, i forgot all about that
 
I never said the government was the teacher. Circumstances, the result that transpired, was the teacher. They should have taught people a lesson. Of course, your post shows how some folks just don't get it. :palm:
I completely get that you're being stupid. your view of the world is just wrong.
 
then I would ask you, what about blatantly unconstitutional laws? still obey them, regardless?
So you want everyone to be their own constitutional law expert? That's why we have defenses in court, presided over by people who are legal experts, courts are where the laws are hammered out, take suit against the government if you want to appeal the law. But you better have a back up plan because the Supreme Court seems to be siding with "Yes, obey the laws."

They aren't set in stone, you can change them, but until you get the majority on your side, you still have to obey or face the consequences.
 
So you want everyone to be their own constitutional law expert? That's why we have defenses in court, presided over by people who are legal experts, courts are where the laws are hammered out, take suit against the government if you want to appeal the law. But you better have a back up plan because the Supreme Court seems to be siding with "Yes, obey the laws."
here's your conundrum......you say that the 'experts' are the courts, yet we better have a back up plan because the courts side with 'obey the laws'......but if you believe a law is unconstitutional, then take suit against the government? do you know how one gets standing against the government???
 
here's your conundrum......you say that the 'experts' are the courts, yet we better have a back up plan because the courts side with 'obey the laws'......but if you believe a law is unconstitutional, then take suit against the government? do you know how one gets standing against the government???

standing against the government is, for the most part, a good idea. however, it has serious flaws.

out of curiosity, would you prefer lay people sitting on the bench? isn't that what a jury is for? while judges and lawyers certainly are educated in the law, one could argue they are 'experts' in the law. but i agree with you, simply knowing the law, does not an expert make.
 
here's your conundrum......you say that the 'experts' are the courts, yet we better have a back up plan because the courts side with 'obey the laws'......but if you believe a law is unconstitutional, then take suit against the government? do you know how one gets standing against the government???
You're missing my main point. I don't care whether you obey the laws, disobey them and fight it out in court. However when/if you lose. Don't complain that "the feds are jammin you up" you knew the law, you thought you could win your fight in court, you were wrong. You know the laws, break them at your own risk. But again, don't complain when what happens happens.

There is also, you will note, the legislative option, which is far less risky and far more permanent.
 
standing against the government is, for the most part, a good idea. however, it has serious flaws.
don't I know it.

out of curiosity, would you prefer lay people sitting on the bench? isn't that what a jury is for? while judges and lawyers certainly are educated in the law, one could argue they are 'experts' in the law. but i agree with you, simply knowing the law, does not an expert make.
when one looks at the legal system as set up by the founders, one would realize that the founders both knew that the government would abuse it's power and two, that the government was less knowledgeable about the law than we the people were.
 
You're missing my main point. I don't care whether you obey the laws, disobey them and fight it out in court. However when/if you lose. Don't complain that "the feds are jammin you up" you knew the law, you thought you could win your fight in court, you were wrong. You know the laws, break them at your own risk. But again, don't complain when what happens happens.
so you're main point isn't whether a law is constitutional or not, just that it's the law and you must obey it, constitution be damned?

There is also, you will note, the legislative option, which is far less risky and far more permanent.
yeah, we all know how well government institutes the will of the people.
 
don't I know it.

when one looks at the legal system as set up by the founders, one would realize that the founders both knew that the government would abuse it's power and two, that the government was less knowledgeable about the law than we the people were.

hence the jury system and the bar system.
 
so explain the court instructions about judging only the facts of the case and not the law except as read to us by the judge?
It is bullshit. Jury Nullification is an accepted part of our common law heritage. Court's with the consent of the federal government have denied us that right.
 
Back
Top