moochman wrote:Welcome to the new democracy ... Does that now mean that undercover agents can arrest people just for talking about crime? When we copromise the constitution for law enforcement we open the door for totalitarism.
Mooch, but let it go. Apparently we are much more interested in the image of bending over for some soap than the turn this country's now taking. Go ahead. Laugh now. I know. If you don't take charge and make some sort of stand - it'll be you in prison or dying in Iran. And just how funny is that? Can't happen here? Just ask Japanese-Americans who wound up in barbed wire concentration camps. Ahh ... forget it. Don't pick up the soap, Jamal.
Under the illnamed Patriot act US officials can grab you off of the street, hold you for as long as they want and never even have to tell you why they're doing it. So I have as hard a time letting go of it as Jamal will have letting go of the soap.
And with the mood of the crowd in this thread I'm not dropping anything
I think, therefore I am. I think fantasy, therefore I am unreal?
moochman
Hall of Fame Hero
Posts: 16215
(Past Year: 847)
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Yards this season: 568
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living in the shame only a Lions fan knows
josebach wrote:Jamal Lewis was recorded trying to set up a multi-million dollar drug deal with an undercover federal officer. He pleaded guilty.
And you dimwits are blaming it on the government and talking about the patriot act?
I guess by your logic, I can attempt to hire a hitman and should only get in trouble if the hit was actually carried out.
Unbelievable.
or MAYBE if the investigation was carried out in a legal matter? Last time I checked, I did have my right to privacy. Or I did. Until the Patriot Act.
Here's a fun fact... the second we let "dimwits" like you run the country, who would sacrifice our rights as Americans for drug busts, is the day when he lose sight of why we founded this country. Give me one good reason why this isnt true, and you can argue some more. Until that... leave it for a political forum.
Where's Count Rugen when you need him? (seriously... where did he go?)
and accidently catch the bottle with his anus. No not good hands. But better cheeks. ouch!!! Koren's face after accidently squat-catching the body wash!--->
Help me earn my Cafe Helper Blinking Ambulance stripes. If you want off the wall thorough answers to your team questions...Hit me up. PM me a link. See you around.
josebach wrote:Jamal Lewis was recorded trying to set up a multi-million dollar drug deal with an undercover federal officer. He pleaded guilty.
And you dimwits are blaming it on the government and talking about the patriot act?
I guess by your logic, I can attempt to hire a hitman and should only get in trouble if the hit was actually carried out.
Unbelievable.
or MAYBE if the investigation was carried out in a legal matter? Last time I checked, I did have my right to privacy. Or I did. Until the Patriot Act.
Here's a fun fact... the second we let "dimwits" like you run the country, who would sacrifice our rights as Americans for drug busts, is the day when he lose sight of why we founded this country. Give me one good reason why this isnt true, and you can argue some more. Until that... leave it for a political forum.
Where's Count Rugen when you need him? (seriously... where did he go?)
I don't get it. Should the federal officer have told Jamal Lewis he was a federal officer and that the phone conversation was being recorded? Blaming Jamal Lewis's arrest and incarceration on anybody but Jamal Lewis is completely ridiculous.
"Lose sight of why we founded this country"? Are you kidding me? I hate to tell you, but "our rights as Americans" don't include being able to sell cocaine. If that's the America you want, let's just say I'm glad you're in the minority. Quick question for you. What percentage of violent crime in America is drug related?
What about child pornography? Should people be able to look at illegal child pornography on the internet and not get in trouble? Aren't their privacy rights being violated? What about the children's?
It's this type of mentality that asks why crime is so high on one hand and wants more lenient prison sentences on the other. It's just not logical.
You are right about one thing. This topic isn't appropriate for the fantasy football forum, but I wasn't the one that brought up the Patriot act and absolved Jamal Lewis of guilt.
josebach wrote:I don't get it. Should the federal officer have told Jamal Lewis he was a federal officer and that the phone conversation was being recorded? Blaming Jamal Lewis's arrest and incarceration on anybody but Jamal Lewis is completely ridiculous.
"Lose sight of why we founded this country"? Are you kidding me? I hate to tell you, but "our rights as Americans" don't include being able to sell cocaine. If that's the America you want, let's just say I'm glad you're in the minority. Quick question for you. What percentage of violent crime in America is drug related?
What about child pornography? Should people be able to look at illegal child pornography on the internet and not get in trouble? Aren't their privacy rights being violated? What about the children's?
It's this type of mentality that asks why crime is so high on one hand and wants more lenient prison sentences on the other. It's just not logical.
You are right about one thing. This topic isn't appropriate for the fantasy football forum, but I wasn't the one that brought up the Patriot act and absolved Jamal Lewis of guilt.
When you are prosecuting people for thinking, talking and even planning a crime you are violating their rights according to the constituion. In America it used to be that you had to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. How could there not be doubt when the crime was never perpetrated? You remove the person's right to change their mind.
Though that is not likely to happen, it is a possibility, especially when you are planning as oppose to carrying out the crime. If I could use your wayward child porn example it would be like me talking to an undercover agent about how hot a underage girl was and how much I would like to have sex with her. Then getting busted for statutary rape. I could go into great detail about what I might want to do without ever thinking of acting on it. But to jail I go in your example.
Thought police. 1984. Read the book and draw the comparisons.
I think, therefore I am. I think fantasy, therefore I am unreal?
moochman
Hall of Fame Hero
Posts: 16215
(Past Year: 847)
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Yards this season: 568
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living in the shame only a Lions fan knows
moochman wrote: When you are prosecuting people for thinking, talking and even planning a crime you are violating their rights according to the constituion. In America it used to be that you had to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. How could there not be doubt when the crime was never perpetrated? You remove the person's right to change their mind.
Though that is not likely to happen, it is a possibility, especially when you are planning as oppose to carrying out the crime. If I could use your wayward child porn example it would be like me talking to an undercover agent about how hot a underage girl was and how much I would like to have sex with her. Then getting busted for statutary rape. I could go into great detail about what I might want to do without ever thinking of acting on it. But to jail I go in your example.
Thought police. 1984. Read the book and draw the comparisons.