Freepers lament our growing police state

[rumguy]

This thread is about a Supreme Court case,that came out today, ruling that no constitutional right exists to refuse to give police your identity.

They just can't believe (gasp!) that conservatives would do such a thing. God, they are such fuckin' tards. They've allowed themselves to be so effectively lied to they believe that liberals and Democrats are the ones who are coming after their personal freedoms!

Fuck 'em - it makes you want to reach into their cesspool and start knocking heads - they are so fuckin' deluded.

"Well, so much for the right to privacy."

3 posted on 06/21/2004 7:39:12 AM PDT by Lunatic Fringe"

"I'd think this was more of a Conservative issue than a liberal one. I've never met a liberal politician that had a problem with the state getting more authority.

32 posted on 06/21/2004 7:57:31 AM PDT by af_vet_rr "

"So in this case the conservatives on the court are idiots. I can't believe this.
5
8 posted on 06/21/2004 8:10:27 AM PDT by Gone GF "


"Interesting. The liberals were for privacy rights in this case while the conservatives were against it.

61 posted on 06/21/2004 8:11:45 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1157307/posts?q=1&&page=51

[qanda]

1. You want to tell them

Welcome to the world YOU created. IDIOTS!

[Scairp]

21. What the hell are they smoking?

Liberals DO ( at least I do and I'm a liberal) believe in the Constitutional right to privacy, more so than right-wingers IMO. I certainly have a myriad of mixed feelings about cops. I don't always trust them, but that is also who you call when you're in trouble. Cops should not be allowed to force you to identify yourself. We don't have compulsory ID cards here (at least, not YET) and no one is under obligation to tell the cops who they are.

Somebody should clue these freepers in on the old adage "You reap what you sow".

[GainesT1958]

2. Well, they VOTED for him...

And they just LOVE Ashcroft, and Dino, and Clarence...when you sleep with the elephants, you get BIG ticks!:eyes:

B-)

[Carolina]

5. big ticks

and a whole lotta shit ... LOL

[RickyRicardo]

24. What does that have to do with the Supreme Court?

[Piperay]

41. Well gee,

EVERYTHING.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. They should have been paying closer attention to Scalia.

It's not like the man has been hiding his agenda. He leaves prolific dicta in the briefs. Perhaps those Freepers should be listening to Liberal lawyers who will interpret where Scalia is headed.

[amber dog democrat]

7. Scalia is very scarey.

and next to Thomas, probably the most anti democratic justice on the Court.
He has a serious agenda towards limiting civil rights.

[lanparty]

23. Thomas isn't anti-democratic ...

He's just a dog. Pure and simple. He's an overseer. HE does what the right wing tells him. He has no independent capability to judge the law. Thats why he's never written very many decisions.

[lanparty]

25. I'd like to apologize ...

... to any dogs who were offended by my implying that Clarence Thomas was like them. In fact, Clarence Thomas is much lower than a dog. He's more like a rat trained to run through a maze.

[amber dog democrat]

27. I read a disturbing article on him yesterday

That stated he takes his guidence from the org. 18th C. Constitution.
Before -
Plessey vs Fergusson
Brown vs Board,
Near vs Minnesota
Ex Parte Milligan

Before the 4th Amendments protections against illeagal search and siezure were set.
( though this is a moot point now ) .

or Roe v Wade.

It is as if the last 180 years of change, or the Civil War never happened.

This was in Sunday's Austin American Statesman.

My guess is that he supported Roger B Tawney's decision in the Dred Scott case,
so long as it did not apply to him.

In a very real sense, the Court is a machine that follows the Law.
or does it ?

[lanparty]

34. What Clarence should realize ...

... is that his blackness is his only asset. He is the #1 benificiary of affirmative action in this nation. At the same time, he's one of the biggest opponents of affirmative action.

Clarence Thomas is a half-witted fool. He wouldn't be ANYWHERE if he was white. He was promoted through the ranks because he's a "servile nigger" that can be trotted about by the right wing.

[amber dog democrat]

36. I always thought Bush 41 appointing him was an act of vandalism.

Advocating Thomas was yet another example of contempt Bush 41 had for the court and any of the civil rights we have garnered since the end of the Civil War.

[amber dog democrat]

4. Well I guess the good news is that they don't like it either.

I will work with anyone to put a halt to this trend. Even a freeper.
I only hope more of them start thinking about this.

[lovedems]

6. My, my, how they have managed to twist this Franklin quote is astounding

To: sheltonmac
"There is a war on. We should cooperate fully with the government. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who are not willing to give up essential liberty for temporary safety are not true patriots."

This is sarcasm, I hope!



75 posted on 06/21/2004 8:18:04 AM PDT by busterspam
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies >

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

With a freeper you never know if it sarcasm or not!

[LoZoccolo]

8. A common delusion of the far-right...

...is that they've let themselves get convinced by propagandists that fascism is a left-wing philosophy. The earliest place I've seen this idea is the book None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen. Once you understand this, a lot of their rhetoric gains at least internal consistency.

[rumguy]

11. exactly...

that's it...they've been brainwashed to think that we on the left want some kind of fascistic state, while their masters are inching us toward it every day...

fucking freepers - I hate them because they've allowed themselves to be lied to....they have no personal responsibility...

one idiot freep actually started blaming Stevens for this opinion until a fellow freep pointed out to him that it was Stevens who wrote the dissenting opinion!!!

[kerry-is-my-prez]

9. Wow! Only one person agreed with the policy and someone smacked them

down. They all sound like us - scary!

[Beetwasher]

10. Those People Are Fucking Retarded

"Interesting. The liberals were for privacy rights in this case while the conservatives were against it."

This guy thinks Liberals are against privacy rights??? What fucking planet is this guy on? Interesting????

[rumguy]

13. You can thank angry white man radio for their delusion

[FlaGranny]

14. Planet Limbaugh

from the solar system Delusion, galaxy Insanity.

[NoPasaran]

33. That would be one of the gaseous giants, eh? n/t

[colonel odis]

12. bless their hearts .....

just a saying we have in the south that covers a range of ills. in this case, they're so stupid that they voted for a guy who's going to screw them just as hard as he screws everyone else.

so dimwitted that it never occurred to them that as we move toward a complete police state, they won't be exempt from the curtailments of freedom. duh.....

then they get all whiney and apoplectic. you can almost see the spittle gathering in the corners of their mouths.

bless their hearts.

[rumguy]

15. lol

[TX-RAT]

16. I believe failure to identify has been on the books for a long time.

[Cat Atomic]

17. What do you expect from people can demand

"small government" while cheering for Ashcroft and Bush? I hope you weren't expecting consistency.

[Purrfessor]

18. I'm changing my name to F**K U. Peckerhead

That'll teach 'em to screw around with me.

[Mnemosyne]

19. LOLOLOLOL

think I'll change mine too, how about: I don't recall?

[TX-RAT]

20. That will look great on

Your booking sheet.

[Purrfessor]

26. Think of the benefits I can derive from such a name change:

The plaintiff, F**k U. Peckerhead, testifies about his treatment at the hands of the Sugarland Police Dept.

F. U. Peckerhead: Your Honor, I didn't really want to sue the police department, but after half a dozen times of them asking my name, and me providing it, they suddenly accused me of being uncooperative and then beat me up.

I might add that it seemed odd to me that while they were beating me nearly unconscious, they kept repeating my first name and middle initial, almost like they knew who I was but didn't seem to care.

[lanparty]

22. Technically ...

There is no explicitely enumerated right to privacy. Though, the courts have generally held that such a right is implied under as a non enumerated right retained by the people.

But think about it for a second. This really isn't dealing with the right to privacy. It's dealing with a right to anonymity. And I don't think that ANYONE has the right to be anonymous when dealing with people in a civil setting.

Think about the implications if people don't have to legally identify themselves to law enforcement. It would be CHAOS.

I fall back on my "Small Town" rule of privacy rights. If it's a privacy that would be afforded to you living in a "small town" than it should be maintained. If it's something that others would generally know in a "small town" than it shouldn't be protected.

[kskiska]

28. Compare the Freeps replies

to those at lucianne.com. These people are as hard core as they come.

http://lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=148565

Comments:
The police are sworn to uphold the law and are empowered to conduct investigations in that pursuit.
If you refuse to identify yourself you are engaging in a per se obstruction of justice.
This is a good ruling, but upsetting that it was this close.

(snip)

Reply 2 - Posted by: logiclogger, 6/21/2004 10:46:04 AM

#1, give me one valid reason why you would not give your name to a police officer when asked.

Reply 3 - Posted by: Stymie, 6/21/2004 10:47:07 AM

This isn't the Police just walking up to someone and demanding their name. The Officer needs to be able to articulate "reasonable suspicion" to justify the request. This is what Police are supposed to do folks. Its part of conducting an investigation, as long as it is warranted and not unreasonable.

Reply 4 - Posted by: Packard Man, 6/21/2004 10:54:41 AM

Very disconcerting that it was 5 to 4!

(snip)

Reply 10 - Posted by: James Beam, 6/21/2004 11:32:46 AM

I trust honest policemen who are trying to make their community safer.
I wouldn't trust those with an agenda. Or someone else's agenda. Problem is, this kind would masquerade as the other.

[rumguy]

30. the L-Dotters are the brownshirts of our modern era

[Jabbery]

29. They helped CREATE the police state

I guess Dr. Frankenstein now regrets building that monster, huh?

[Swamp Rat]

31. Ok DUers, let's help the Freepers

I agree with everyone about these Freeps, "reap what you sew," etc., but let's go for the Achilles heel. They are finally scared about THIS administration for a good reason. I know some DUers post at Freepville and this would be a good time to create dissension amongst their ranks.

This is for our benefit as well as theirs.

Bush&Co = Big Brother/Big Government/New World Order

[seabeyond]

32. this is my favorite, a real duh

Interesting. The liberals were for privacy rights in this case while the conservatives were against it.


what assholes. tis the liberal for protecting consitution, personal civil rights, fiscal responsibility.....as they all sit there and pick their noses collectively.

lordy, this is what i have been saying to all my repugs, they are going after constitution, they are ruining the economy with fiscal irresponsibility, and our right for our vote to be counted, you all are the ones that should be outraged

such doofusses

[DaveSZ]

35. AMBER,

Here is the article you were talking about from the LA Times on Thomas.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1823839

Let's give to Kerry to keep our country free from fascism:

https://contribute.johnkerry.com/contribute.html?team=53


I don't think most people realize how important this election truly is.

[DavidMS]

37. I think we have a wedge issue here!

All we need to do is scare the freepers into thinking that republicans infrenge on their rights! This could completely change the electorial map!

At the minimum we have some common ground with the apes.

[Zorra]

38. Wow. They really don't get it. Amazing.

Some people can't figure out that they are being hung until the rope is around their neck.

[rumguy]

39. oh god...

"..serves important government interests...(cited by the court)

There it is in a nutshell. The Leftist point of view that the government's interests supersede the rights of the individual triumphs yet again in our courts. Nevermind that the original purpose of the Constitution was to protect the interests of the states and individuals from the federal government. Inch, by inch, by relentless inch, the Left marches onward.

279 posted on 06/21/2004 10:14:11 AM PDT by Wolfstar"

Hey Wolfstar - it's your conservative brethren who are doing this, idiot....

[greekspeak]

40. Underscores the hypocracy

Why are they suprised that conservatives strike yet another blow to privacy rights. Liberals want to take away people's rights? Is it liberals who cannot stay out of other people's bedrooms? Is it liberals who implimented the Patriot Act? Is it liberals that want to control women's bodies? Is it liberals who want to amend the constitution to make gay people second class citizens? NO!!! Its conservatives that love all this!