I'm first-again

And I'm second.

Eat that,
Democrat!

Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant! What will the Repubs do?!

In responce to this, Republicans will now be selling Presidencial Orders. You can now get your name attached to a Presidencial Order, for a small donation. Call the White House for details!

Does this mean, Terry McCauliff and the DNC, will be sponsored by Global Crossing? How about Teddy Kennedy sponsored by The Mustang Ranch in Las Vegas? 'Bubba' and Hill Clinton, by Johnnie Cochran? Henry Waxman by 'Snore-ease'? frenchman by 'Odor Eaters'? Robert Byrd by 'Depends'?

I wonder what all the fuss is about. Just about every single politician is sponsored by some special interest group, which is of course not their electorate...

LPB

The Dems. have sold us out at every opportunity, why not wh*re themselves out for a change?

All I have to say on the matter.

For now.

Asked for comment, current DNC chairperson Terry McAuliffe stated that the new policy is just a natural extension of policies enacted during the Clinton administration.

"We found that selling access to the president for coffee talks and renting the Lincoln bedroom in return for contributions was a highly successful money-making strategy. Selling sponsorships is a natural progression from this". "The bottom line is we can not allow our party to fall behind the Republicans in fund raising if we are going to protect the American people from corporate greed, special interests and tax cuts for the rich". Stated McAuliffe.

McAuliffe celebrated the inauguration of the sponsorship drive by donning a Global Crossing / DNC partnership polo shirt.

Mike:

Are you just upset that the donkeys are selling out to people you don't agree with while the elephantines are selling out to equally irrational groups, albeit whose ideas are more palpable to you? Just wondering,

LPB

Brief apology for using too many 25c words in one post.

LPB

C'mon, LPB. The fact that Republican party gets FAR MORE corporate soft money contributions than the Dems should not get in the way of a good joke.

Scott:
Is there a prize for the 1 Millionth visitor?

RBC

I know, I know... I've been ripping on the RepubliCrats for a long time now, and y'know how hard it is to get rid of habits, good or bad :)

LPB

RBC, Does that stand for, 'Rich' Bill Clinton? Maybe 'Rat' Bastard Clinton? Bastard IS a correct term for the born 'out-of-wedlock' Ex-Prez!

LPB, don't get rid of that habit.

No one is saying that both parties are for ësaleí, but I think the emphasis is that the democrats will sell and support ANY position- whether they agree with it or not!! Just a continuing saga of a political party with no integrity (or plan)!!

It is better to have a bad plan than NO plan- at least you can modify a bad plan!

H.o.D.

Oh, I long for the good ol' times of the 1990's, when jobs were plentiful and the most pressing concern for the elephantines were cigars, Rubenesque women, and the intersection of the two factors stated above...

Recap: 2.7 million jobs have been lost since Bushie II took office, almost 1 million since the last round of tax cuts (that $300 refund check sure went a long way to cover that lost job, eh?), which also led to resignation of the Bush II economic team and a stern warning from one Alan Greenspan.

Perhaps if Rummy was put in charge of the economy, it would lead to a turnaround? After all, Rummy seems quite adept at utilizing the resources that the Clinton administration built.

LPB

Lordi:

Of course the two political parties are not for sale. They've been bought and paid for already, nobody's selling them! :)

LPB

How to change campaign financing laws to stop the buying of politicians: require all contributions to be made anonymously.

How long this been a cliche: He's an honest politician, he stays bought!
I think it was painted on a wall in Preiclean Athens. Can any learned Scrapplers confirm?

This is just another step in the evolution (or creation) of politicians into fleshy muppets whose mouths are controlled by the hand of the leader of their PAC.

A shirt I own states, "Diplomacy is the Art of Lying for One's Country."

You mustn't be to hard on them! Just because they have a lot of money, doesn't mean they can't get more!

a generous portion of the $8 million dollar book deal for John Kerry's memoirs: "I once was a Vietnam Vet" written in Dr. Suess style) is expected to swell the belly of his presidential campaign piggy bank.

a tour of the glass encased NOSE OF WAXMAN is expected to draw millions of people willing to pay $100 a head (OR nose). ( although its WAXMANS schnaaz...its being billed as the nose of the SPHINX) It requires 3 tractor trailers to haul the nose from place to place and a crew of 48 to assemble and take down the display. All proceeds will go to the DNC for their continued building of their own variety of political/social "WMD's"

I Once Was a 'nam Vet, eh? Sounds interesting...

No LPB.
I'm refering to the American people, the Constution, and our rights. Just try defending yourself, and family in your own house in New York, or Washinton DC and watch what happens.
http://www.gunowners.org/alt96071.htm

****as a marketin strategy...Kerry's book deal includes a sequel: "I'm still a Vietnam Vet", etc. etc.

LPB,

Just want to point out to you that during Bushís inauguration we were already in a recession. The bubble busted at the end of the Clinton administration and I believe the current unemployment situation has less to do with who is president than it does with over-inflated projections during the ë90s, corporate scandals ala Enron, Global Crossing and the like making investors uneasy, 9/11 and the ongoing War on Terror (travel related business, strain on local budgets for added security) .Although we are technically out of that recession, growth is only at about 1% which is not enough to recover.

I donít think you can blame Bushís proposed tax cut proposal because it hasnít taken effect. Remember the plan was to be implemented over 10 years. The measley $300-600 checks we got were the tip of the tax cutting iceberg. Also, even Greenspan argued that tax cuts are an effective way to stimulate the economy. It worked for Reagan in the ë80s and Kennedy in the ë60s. What would you propose, a tax increase? Seriously, Iím not trying to be facetious, I hear so much criticism over Bushís stimulus plan, but no good alternative ideas.

BTW, when are you going to update your website?

Mike:

I'm gonna flay a dead horse here... But the 'right' that you're refering to exists nowhere in the Constitution (or 2nd Ammendment for that matter). Perhaps you should read it, some time, not just parts that NRA would like you to read.

Furthermore... Being a resident of a fairly large sized urban area, I think it's awfully silly to argue your point in this area. If you don't believe that, take the 63rd Street exit on Dan Ryan Expressway, and we'll see if your guns will protect you there... CPD doesn't have that much faith in their firepower, and I'm guessing they have a bit more than you.

Why do such areas exist? Well, one of the reasons is that it is so darn easy to obtain guns. Not hunting rifles (though I prefer hunting with bow and arrow), but handguns, semi-automatics and automatics, which have no legal use outside of practice ranges. Why is that so easy? Because of people like Charlton "from my cold dead brain" Heston and his equally thoughtless supporters.

That august group has for years stifled any kind of meaningful gun law reform, while making it ever harder to crack down on the criminal peddling of weapons. Hence, we're in catch-22 now. Criminals are getting weapons, courtesy of NRA lobbying, leaving more and more law-abiding citizens at risk. And the government is helpless to stop that flow, given budget cuts and force reductions, also courtesy of the NRA lobbying...

End of rant. I'll just recuse myself to the solitary confinement of the Logic Penalty Box now.

LPB

Well, I'll tell you about one candidate who isn't bought and won't be bought. His name is Bill Terwilliger and he will be the next Democrat President in 2004. You will vote for him, and he has not accepted money from anyone except me and I'm his campaign manager for the internet portion of his campaign. I vote for him because of the issues. I contribute money because he has the right ideas.
Now that the war on Terror is over we can move on and you big rich white men can put your little guns away and we can focus on the business at hand: Strengthen the economy Bush ruined and make America the kind of place where a diverse population has a level playing field in the game of life. We expect true Americans like LPB and the rest of you to be on board.
For our battle against America's hijackers we have adopted this patriotic slogan for Terwilliger '04. You can get it on our red white and blue bumper stickers and T-shirts soon:
"Lets Role!!"

Oh my, there I go again. This takes away some drama but I admit I spelled it wrong. It's "Lets Roll" (sorry Bill.) And I'm glad to add that Once President Terwilliger is in charge the criminals will find it's lots harder to get their guns, because it will be illegal to get them. Then LPB and other women will be able to move around her city without the constant fear. LPB, I assure you that Bill is sensitive to womens issues, and expects to be endorsed by NOW in the near future. Gun violence will be his main issue. He is against it, whether in streets or in wars. And you will still have choice. Thank you.
"Lets Roll!!"

Sorry for the long post :)

Pooke:

I've been incredibly busy at work, so haven't been able to devote much time either posting here or on my site. Believe me, I'm no less opinionated than I used to be. Probably more so, but then given the current state of the economy I can't afford to lose my job either :)

As far as the bubble recession timeline... My economics training tells me that instability, or fear/threat of thereof, is the greatest single threat to the economy. Here's how I see the events, correct me if I'm wrong :) Starting with the macro level:

The impetus for this recession truly started in mid-2000 or so when people realized that Slick Willie will no longer be there come next inauguration.
The great debacle of the 2000 election then confounded this situation, where the fate of the government hung in balance for almost a month. That, in combination with end of Y2K projects in IT, really started the stock market bubble burst
Once Bushie II took office, he further destabilized the economy with his tax cut (which Alan Greenspan argued against at the time as somewhat dubious).
Then came 9/11, Afghanistan, corporate scandals, etc, etc, etc...

It's been a continuous stream of destabilizing factors since the 2000 election, which is why the stock market has not rebounded. Furthermore, with all of these companies going out of business due to their cooking recipes, a lot of jobs simply disappeared. A lot of jobs went overseas. Companies that weren't hurting, froze a lot of ongoing projects and cancelled future capital investment until the business environment stabilized. Long-Term growth was not being emphasized by Wall Street, quarterly earnings were (one of the biggest reasons WHY those books were cooked). And in the middle of all that, we're fighting a global war with a few regional conflicts thrown in. I'm surprised that we were doing as well as we have. Until now, when the micro world has caught up with the macro world.

People who have been laid off and can't find a job, don't spend. People who haven't been laid off, but are afraid that their job security isn't the greatest, also don't spend. Add to the mix skyrocketing health insurance costs, lower profit margins in the industries (think 0% financing binge was great for Detroit?!), airline troubles, insurance troubles, etc, etc, etc... People don't have as much disposable income, less people have disposable income, and those who do worry about their future earnings potential. And oh yeah... Those people spending account for almost 70% of our economy. Yikes.

That's why you have Greenspan worrying about deflation now - totally and completely different set of economic conditions than those which existed during JFK and Reagan tax cuts, which is why you can't use those as a basis for your argument. And the current proposed tax cuts do absolutely nothing to stimulate long-term growth for the middle class, which is the backbone of this economy. Putting people's fears to rest would do a lot more for the confidence of the consumer, hence creating a better business environment, leading to more jobs, leading to growth that everyone wants.

End of economics lesson for the day :) But I still maintain that maybe putting Rummy and his purported band of neo-cons in charge of the economy would be better for all of us, since he has at least shown an aptitude for listening to the right people and implementing their suggestions.

LPB

The recession was caused by people like me reading the internet and posting comments on on Scrappleface when we're supposed to be working.

Hey LPD can you show me where the right to privacy exist in the Constitution (yes there is a I and a T in there)?

RBC - Right on! I've been less than productive today ;)

Darth - I believe that particular decision was made by the Supreme Court. If they say something exists, then it must ;) I thought I spelled it right, but I cannot be accountable for fat finger syndrome. Time to file for workman's comp...

LPB

LPB- so all of the destabilizing factors that you have previously stated are caused by GWB???

Once again- listing of the causes but NO solutions to the problemÖ

H.o.D.

lpb
I have read the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Federalist Papers several times. I have a copy on my computer, straight off the governmentís web site.

Article II.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

No where in article 2 do I see anything that gives the government the right to ban any form of firearm. Common sense tells us that a howitzer would not be a good thing for most people to have. Although if you did own one, you would probably have the politest neighbors in the world.

One of the few cases involving the second amendment to go before the Supreme Court involved a moonshiner named Miller.

United States v. Miller (1939)
Miller was a moonshiner charged with possessing a sawed off shotgun, in violation of the NFA. He claimed he had a 2nd Amendment right to have it. The Supreme Court said that the 2nd Amendment only protected militia weapons, and it hadn't been shown to the court that a sawed off shotgun was a militia weapon. The court sent the case back down to a lower court, but Miller died before any further legal action was taken. Miller and his lawyer did not appear and did not present a defense at the Supreme Court proceeding.

The Second Amendment is there to insure that the United States of America remains a free country, of the people, by the people, and for the people, not a third world dictatorship.

I have done my homework. One of the things we had to know before Mrs. Fisher let anyone advance to the seventh grade was the Preamble to the Constitution, and the first tem amendments. We had to be able to recite them, and tell her what they meant. Best teacher I ever had.

http://www.nrawestla.org/2Asupreme_court_case.htm

actually LPB you did spell it rihght, the parenthetical was for Mike S. Can't pick on just one of you, I am fair and balanced. That's right, the Supremes created the right to privacy. No where does it exist in the Constitution. But the right to own firearms does. Now I know that the anti-gun lobby argues that the 2d Amednement means an "organized" militia such as the national guard, but this argument is flawed, as they don't take into consideration that at the time the Costitution was written, the new United States had just depended on citizen farmers and workers and landowners picking up their privately owned muskets to fight off the British. That was the thinking of the 2d Amendment. It was meant to keep the government from growing too strong and becoming another empire. If the citizens have weapons, the government can't overpower them. I believe that anyone who argues against the owning of firearms by private persons wants the government to be in the position of becoming a dictatorship. Its happened before. In that case, anti-gun lobbiests are not there for safety, but are actually communist/socialists.

Personally, I read the 2nd Amendment to contain a right of individuals to owns guns -- else how could they form militias?

My question: how extensive is this right?

Most of the Amendments are not absolute. The First Amendment, for example, does not prevent the gov't from restricting child pornography, false advertising, libel, etc.

I think there's little disagreement that the government can prohibit violent convicts from owning guns. Should there be any other limits?

Owning guns are not the problem. The problem is, in some cases, the people owning the guns (inadequate checking of the stability of the prospective gun owner, etc) and the type of gun. Who really needs to own an AK-47, which is really only designed for killing people. Unless, of course you really, really want to make sure that deer is dead.

Mike S. made a comment about being unable to protect yourself in your house, etc. Those people had unregistered guns, not licensed ones. They should not have had those guns, just like the criminals should not have had them. They should have been prosecuted.

To get back to the post, just remember that the leaders of the Republicans, like the Democrats, are still politicians, and will accept any money they can get for any reason, at any time, from any body. The Republicans just don't talk so much out of their butt when they do it.

Boy will I be glad when our dimocrat/lib lies get some dims elected, then we can stop telling people we DON'T want a tax cut. That REALLY makes us look dumber than we are, (IF that's possible), right RBC?

Let me guess, NoLogic. You're a Howard Dean supporter, and you wrote that stupid post in order to make real conservatives look bad.

It is still legal to carry a (nonconcealed) weapon here in Kentucky. And if you take the class and apply for a permit, you can carry concealed weapons. I've got a permit, but I never actually packed my pistol.
Local ordinances limit the carry law: malls, schools, government buildings, and now churches (we had a preacher plug a parishoner) are off limits for concealed carry.
A sporting goods store in the local mall has a sign warning firearms purchasers not to go abck into the mall, but rather to exit at the other end of the store. Always makes me chuckle.

A tax cut! How dare the government tell I can keep more of the money I earn!

p.s. If I actually do get a refund next year, nobody tell my truck! My vehicles have a habit of needing repairs costing almost exactly as much as any refunds I've gotten in the past, (less the price of a paper-back book and a Big-Mac value meal), and they broke down about a week before the check came in. I'm not usually supersticious, but three differnt cars have done this.

****could it be, SRG, your vehicles are made by
DNC....err..it might be "code" for GMC.???...

you know what would be really cool? a website about the tax cuts where you could plug in your information and it would tell you what to expect. Anyone seen something like that?

**** RBC-----(re: tax cuts calculation website)

the closest thing to that that I'm aware of (and it may be as close as east is to west)...BUT...nonethele$$ it could be $$( should you not be aware of it) is to go to your states Treasury Dept. website and most all --if not ALL have a "property claims" type link where you can go to ...enter your name and see if some money or property owed you is awaiting your claiming it!

Its' not like the "found money" site. This is STATE biz! Ours is the Great Colorado Payback. I found $260 some there for a friend as well as $ my niece had awaiting her in the form of a paycheck, as well as $$ friends had waiting for them in other states where I had lived.!!..

It may "pay" to do that for any state you've lived in.

Hope ya find some unexpected coin$! (:~})

Darth Chef,
My fingers tend to get dyslexic and forgetful at times, and I forget to proof read things. Thanks for the correction.
Right
Bbbbbrrrrrttt
That's a raspberry by the way.

Miie S. If you look at my posts rarely would you find one without spelling errors, as I too have fat fingers and sometimes they have a mind of their own, at least thats what I tell my wife.

I was just busting on you for fun.

As to the economic downturn. the recession actuality started before the 200 election. The cause was the IPO frenzy that took place in the late 90s. Everyone jumoed into the IPO frenzy just as everyone jumped into the credit purchase of stocks that led up to the crash of 1929. As soon as a dot com offred their stock publicly theer was a mad rush to buy, regardles of the actual value of the company. the owners took the cash and the stock soon returned to its actual value from this exagerrated high level. When those who bought late started losing money, more and more stopped investing and more and more started losing money. The economic policies of Clinton nor Bush had anything to do with this. the cause was simply the same as its always been, greed. Everyone wants to be an instance millionaire. A co-worker of mine bought CISCO stock at 16.00 a share, it went up and up, split several times and his investment became worth 150,000. I told him to seel as the tock would begin to drop and normalize as business bought all the routers they needed. He didn't believe me at first and finally sold at about 60k. Losing a windfall of 90k. Of course, in reality he didn't lose anything as he only started with 1500.00 in investment moneys.

Darth Chef,
Raspberry's are fun, long as your on the givin' end.

Mike:

As far as the right to own guns, that's not in the 2nd amendment, well-REGULATED militias are... I suppose REGULATED means something different to you than other people, but we can agree to disagree about your 'creative' interpretation.

Let me re-state the fact that I'm not against gun ownership. We need to modify the process by which people today obtain firearms, by removing the loopholes (read: unregulated gun show sales, etc.), adding accountability for gun ownership (read: registration). None of this falls outside the scope of well REGULATED militia.

None of your rights are absolute, as RBC so aptly points out - you give up quite a bit of your freedom to be included in a society that provides you some incredible protections. As an aside, that's a fairly common problem, with y'all who were born here.. You have NO idea how good you have it.

LPB

Darth

You're correct, I omitted the IPO frenzy of the late 1990's, as one of destabilizing factors for the economy. I don't agree, however, that the presidents and their administrations have no impact on the economy. They have impact in one area only, but that's a very important one - confidence. Bushie's (both I and II) lost that game by appearing fairly incompetent, or worse, deceptful (read my keystrokes ;) when it came to that.

Because of that, I still stand by my analysis that the Bushie II team has done little to stabilize the economy, and it's past and current plans have been and are counter-productive to getting us back on track. I dare say, at this point, I'm more confortable with this administration's ability to run the Iraqi economy than ours.

LPB

LPD actulally 6 justices of the 9th Circuit would disagree with you. They are arguning that the 2d Amendment actually allows private gun ownership. I agree, since the militia that fought the revolution and the war of 1812 were made up of citizens who picked up their muskets and joined the war effort. That is what the founders were saying. In order to keep a goverment from becoming too strong, they wanted to make sure the citizenry had the capability to resist. The first thing dictators so is seize all the weapons. it has long been thought that the only reasons the soviets didn't invade the US in the 50s/60s was the fear of the millions of american with firearms.

Had they wanted the 2d amendment to not allow private ownership of firearms, they could have written that only militias and military can possess firearms. To say they only meant militias at that time would mean that they saw no problem with the governemt seizing all the weapons of private citizens who were not members of the militia. i thin this runs contraru to their desire to have the people control the government.

Darth:

I think the thought of a dictatorship in this country is a bit implausible. Also, 9th circuit is the most screwed up of the circuits - Supremes have been overturning their decisions like there's no tomorrow, and I believe that Supremes still have the final word.

Being indoctrinated with the Soviet position, I can assure you that even the reason Soviets didn't attack USA in the 50/60's was NOT because of gun-toting citizenry. There were many reasons, chief among them Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but gun-toting citizenry wasn't one of them.

LPB

This was a minority of the 9th Circuit so it was be logical to assume that the Supremes would agrre with them. A three judge panel ruled that the 2d amendment does not support private ownership of guns and the 6 justices could not get a majority of the court to agree to review the decision. most likely, to avoid this legal precendent in the wild west, the Supremes may take up the case on appeal next year.To reverse it would be tantamount to saying the 2d amendment does mean private ownership. it would be nice to see the Supremes finally make a legal decision on this issue that remains confusing to so many.

Darth:

At least we can agree on the fact that the Supremes need to rule one way or another. I'm thinking ownership is good, but a regulated form of ownership is better. Besides, expansion of ATF would create new jobs, wouldn't it? :)

LPB

I agree! Can you believe it! I think we should regulate ownership to make sure 1) only law abiding citizens have guns, 2) that these law abiding citizens know that if their gun is used in a crime they will be held accoutnable, so they will take the proper steps to safeguard the weapon, and 3if citizens know they will be held accountable for misues of their weapon then you will lilely see less weapons illegally on the street. There is a thought by the NRA and others that registration is bad because the government can use it as a tool to confiscate these weapons. if the Constitution clearly outlaws the government from doing that, then the argument is moot. Of course the NRA would be mmot as well. the NRA needs the gun issue as much as the NAACP needs the race issue. Alot of people have jobs that depends on these issues being in contention.

"Resistance to tyrants is duty to God."
--Benjamin Franklin

A well armed citizenty, being the surest guard against tyrannical government, it a necessity.
--Some Pontificating Guy

"In all the excitement, I can't remember if I fired five shots, or six. So you got to ask yourself, do feel lucky?"
--"Dirty" Harry Callahan

I don't mind a background check to see if I am a convicted felon, or if I have recently been in a mental institution. I don't mind a waiting period. I don't mind licensing those who wish to carry a concealed weapon. What I do mind is registering each and every weapon with some sort of central database. It smacks to much of Big Brother. The background check (through the NCIC) should be record enough.
The so-called "assault weapons" ban in California and nationwide is a real hoot. Private ownership of weapons capable of fully-automatic fire has been unlawful since the '30s. Most of what the assault weapons ban was concerned with was cosmetic.
High capacity magazines: Remember the M-1 Garand? It had a 10 round capacity. Some models of Winchester rifles have internal magazines that can hold over 20 rounds (for .22 caliber shells), but they aren't outlawed.
Folding stocks: so what? They just make it hard to aim.
Bi-pods: Why is this important? Any stable surface serves just as well, yet the anti-gun crowd wets their pants at the sight of a rifle with an attached bi-pod.

My favorite part of the Congressional Hearings was when an NRA spokesman laid two rifles on the table. One looked like a standard hunting weapon. The other had an extended magazine, folding stock, recoil compensator, all the bells and wistles (the A-Team guys would have loved it, telegenic as he##). He said that the fancy rifle is what was banned under the proposed bill. Then he pointed out that the ordinary rifle was mechanically identical to the fancy one. They were both Ruger mini-14s. One just had a few fancy add-ons.
We have enough gun-control and registration laws. They just need to be enforced.

All gun control laws passed by congress are nothing more than political fodder. There are more gun laws on the books that are not prosecuted thanthere are drug laws. They pass them to satisfy the special interest groups knowing they will only be enforced if it is politically expediant.

LPB, I agree with just about everything that you wrote, with the exception that the only thing a president can do is prop up consumer confidence. IMHO, confidence is has an effect, but is not a sole cause of economic conditions. But I am not an economist, so I'll leave that at that.I do However think that you can encourage investment by cutting taxes, and hey I never met a tax-cut I didn't like :)

LPB has a really good point, talking about consumer confidence. One of the major causes of the stock market crash was lack of confidence. People stopped trusting the system, tried to sell out, and the whole thing spiralled out of control. If they'd rather trust their money to under the matress, or in a mason jar out back, than the market, or banks, the economy is going to ramain depressed.

>>>Boy will I be glad when our dimocrat/lib lies get some dims elected, then we can stop telling people we DON'T want a tax cut. That REALLY makes us look dumber than we are, (IF that's possible), right RBC?

Posted by: NoLogicBoxHead on May 12, 2003 08:51 PM
Let me guess, NoLogic. You're a Howard Dean supporter, and you wrote that stupid post in order to make real conservatives look bad.

Posted by: RBC on May 12, 2003 09:28 PM

I stand corrected RBC, you and LPB, ARE, as dumb as you look!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a Dimocrat/Liberal says, "These Bush tax cuts will put us in a deeper resession, Bush doesn't know what he is doing!"

What a Dimocrat/Liberal REALLY means, "If we can block Bush from turning the economy around, (even if it means hurting America AND Americans), then we can get Hillary The Great elected, and she can tax the Millionaire's and Billionaire's, (EXCEPT for Hill and Bill, and their friends like Marc Rich), to death, to pay for BIGGER GOVERNMENT! Then we, (LIBERALS) can change laws and make her and bubba, king and queen of amerika!

>>>All gun control laws passed by congress are nothing more than political fodder. There are more gun laws on the books that are not prosecuted thanthere are drug laws. They pass them to satisfy the special interest groups knowing they will only be enforced if it is politically expediant.Posted by Darth Chef

Good point Darth, as we speak, Our Government is starting a program, (Nationwide), to ticket everyone in a vehicle not wearing a seat belt. While I think wearing a seat belt is the right thing to do, is it the Governments JOB to tell us what is in our best interest?

Will they next tell us eating at McDonald's is prohibited because it makes us obese, and costs heathcare Millions? Maybe give us a ticket for riding a motorcycle because they are more dangerous than cars?

It is a shame they are not as concerned for the health and well being of Millions of aborted Babies every year! It is a shame that they, (law enforcement) are not so, ENTHUSIASTIC, about going after the real criminals, maybe because they pose a bigger threat to police, than does Grandma and Grandpa who didn't buckle up because it would squeeze their colostomy bag! Also the REAL Criminals might shoot back!

I feel uncomfortable riding in a vehicle without wearing a seatbelt. That's because I got in the habit of wearing them while driving on post. MPs are NOT easy to talk out of a ticket.
But while it is the law that seat-belts must be worn on military posts, should it be Federal law that they must be worn? Or will Congress use the Transportation Cabinet to black-mail the states again (55 mph or loose all your Federal highway $$)?
What ever happened to states' rights?
I remember when the Republican party used to believe in them.
Want an example of how things have changed? Look at Comrade Ashcroft and his reaction to the medical marijuana cases in California. I realize it is a flaky place but the state legislature and the courts both said "this is legal." Ashcroft comes in and arrests a guy for trafficking when he was the state government appointed and monitored source for medical weed. The guy gets paid by the state government to supply weed for the program, and now the KGB...sorry, the Justice Department wants to put the guy in prison for life.
And this is coming from an Attorney General who is a member of the party that used to support the right of the states to regulate themselves; the party that was for smaller federal government (hello Dept. of Homeland Security that can't stop a 7 year-old autistic kid from crossing the border). What happened to the party that believed strongly enough in civil liberties for all equally before the law, that they overwhelmingly supported the Civil Rights Act of '64. Now they can tap your phone on suspicion, no warrant needed. You can be detained indefinitely without being charged, or permitted to see counsel.

Where are the real Republicans?

Bambi:
Whaddya mean put our guns away? Listen cupcake, we just got started. And where it ends nobody knows.

****yo! thr. killer!
....you called Bambi "cupcake". Bambi is a male...Based on his posts---"crabcake" would work!

I'll put my guns away just as soon as I run out of targets, or bullets.
Whichever comes first.

Nothing like the sweet sting of wearing a blister on your trigger finger.

Darth Chef,
The Right to Privacy, as such, is in the fourth and fifth amendment with unlawful and unwarranted searches and siezures (that would also include some scrapplets who have gone into spasms over the news)
and self incrimination.

However, since I am merely a lowly insect, who chirps on occasion, and not a lawyer, SRG would be the one to tell you. I hearby designate him the scrappleface pet shark when it comes to questions regarding the constitution.

IOW, iffen I wanna check out something that is no one's bidness but mine, then okay. However, I also resent the inference that social workers, teachers and other semi glorified beings infer that people would naturally let them in or spill the beans if they have nothing to hide.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. I have nothing to hide and if someone came to my door without a warrant, they would have to force their way in. Define 'reasonable'. Tell me who tattled. Have I no right to confront my accuser? This is all what happened in Hitler's Germany. Has it happened here? Yeah. I can even tell you that star chambers really do exist. I know of several, and I know the people who chair them and what they discuss. And the information is about you and you have no right to it under FOIA.

The right to be secure in our homes and our material is second to the issue of owning property.
IMHO. And according to the Constitution.

As a criminal prosecutor (former)I can tell you that you have made the mistake of so many others in our society. The Constitution does not confer rights, it confers limitaions on government action based on what the founders believe the people have a right to be free from. The 4th and 5th Amendments do not confer a right of privacy at all. What they do do, just like the other Amendments, is limit what the govnerment can do. They don't say for example you have a right to privacy in your home, they say that the government cannot enter your home without a properly authorized warrant. they don't say you have a right to say whatever you want (freedom of speech) they say the government cannot stop the people from peaceful protests or the government cannot restrict the press.

The Constitution provides protestions to the people from an overreaching government. they wrote these provisions because of the abuses they suffered under British rule.

You do have a right to face your accuser, but not at the time the warrant is served. That right takes plce at trial. A warrant is not the accusation, a warrant is part of the investigation. until criminal charges are filed, you have not been accused. You are only under suspicion.

As to a violation of these "rights", what do you think happens when the police enter your home and search it without a warrant. We hear all the time how they should charge them for violating your civil rights. That is not the remedy or sanction at all. The sanction is any evidence gained from that warrantless entry (the term illegal is always misused) cannot be used against you in trial. Think about this, you are a police ofrficer and you know that SRG has 10 pounds of heroin in is house. You have no probable cause to get a warrant. You enter the house anyway and seize the cocaine. You don't arrest or charge SRG with the possession. No legal issues exist unless the feds could stretch to find a civil rights violation, which they won't do. You are out 10 pounds of heroin and the world is a better place.

Gratefully the police in this country want you to be prosecuted so they want that evidence to be admissable.

I use the term "you" generically not specifically.

Attorney-at-Law, MD, 4th Cir., US Supreme Court.

See,
I told you I would get sandbagged! However, while I believe in the limitations imposed by the people on government, the strict definition that you gave does not apply. There are confidentiality clauses in most state laws that protect tipsters, even at trial.

So, if SRG had ten pounds of contraband, and during the search waived his right to silence, or during the 'interview/interrogation' what happens to the evidence then? Can it be used?

Can his admission be used?

Inquiring minds...

Actually no, as it would be fruit of the poisonous tree. Since his confession would flow from the warrantless search, it is banned as well. Now if he consents to the search then no problem. there is a legal questions as to ex post facto consent, Say the police found the drugs and then asked SRG for his consent to search, although they already did, does this constitute a waiver to his claim of a bad search. I would again argue no, as the consent is fruit of the poisonous tree and it could be argued that the finding of the contraband acted as a coersive device to get the consent. Believe, criminals are not always that smart.

As for laws protecting informants, generally, (we have them in Mayrland as well, and as a fed I dealt with them on a national level, even in california) the rule is, if you have to have them to prove the case (not the warrant) but the evidence at trial, and you have no other evidence without them, they will either be exposed or charges dismissed. Accuser is a legaly term of art, but what it boils down to is that a defendant as a right to confront those who testify against them. It does not mean that a defendant has a right to confront all those who said bad things about him, because in many cases, several witnesses will not be called. The informant, only used for a warrnt, may not have to testify at trial. Warrants are considered valid on their face because they have been reviewed and signed by a magistrate/judge. Only probably cause is needed for a warrnat, not a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. To toss a warrant the warrant is only considered within the four corners of the document. The only way to dump it is to have evidence that the information provided in the affidavit, which is the requesting officers affidavit, was knowingly and intentionally misleading.

That's how informants are protected.

Ahhhh. I understand. Thanks for the explanation.
And see, I did ask a good question, didn't I?
Now, iffen I do pass that LSAT, I just might make it.

thanks for the mentoring.

I have SOOOO much to learn. Me and Johnny five! More Input!

I have a case I am working on right now with a lawyer. It concerns my house and remodeling and flooding. Rather cut and dried, but I have contracts and codes, so this might be over with administratively, I HOPE, but I am trying to do as much research into local codes etc. before my appointment.