Azalin Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 That's a fine line to draw and probably the crux of most of the arguments. No one stopped because of probable cause ever thinks they were doing something suspicious. And not all people stopped and frisked are done so under legitimate probable cause. I personally would prefer we err on the side of liberty, and if that allows a few criminals to slip through in the process, then so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 And not all people stopped and frisked are done so under legitimate probable cause. I personally would prefer we err on the side of liberty, and if that allows a few criminals to slip through in the process, then so be it. Of course they're not. I've told the story before, during the stop and frisk days I was stopped several times in NYC while walking with friends. They were searched, I wasn't. The only difference between us wasn't clothing, or attitude, just skin tone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 Of course they're not. I've told the story before, during the stop and frisk days I was stopped several times in NYC while walking with friends. They were searched, I wasn't. The only difference between us wasn't clothing, or attitude, just skin tone. You must take care of your skin very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 You must take care of your skin very well. You gotta moisturize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 Oh. I am sure you will say something Tell me where I'm wrong, instead of just snarking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 3, 2016 Author Share Posted October 3, 2016 (edited) I'm not name calling. I'm stating that anyone who believes the Constitution makes clear way for the practice of a Religion which subjugates the Constitution itself to a religious text which demands it's be the guiding rule of law (Sharia), is an idiot. I'll ask you again: explain how the Constitution doesn't address this issue. Pretty hard to address something that isn't there unless you want to go through the whole text and sift through every word only to find nothing. Enlighten me on where it addresses the issue. That's a fine line to draw and probably the crux of most of the arguments. No one stopped because of probable cause ever thinks they were doing something suspicious. And on the flip side innocent people don't like getting harassed because of probable cause. Since this country is void of leadership, we'll just kick this on down the road and publicize any events that support the point of view we're trying to portray at the moment. This. Of course they're not. I've told the story before, during the stop and frisk days I was stopped several times in NYC while walking with friends. They were searched, I wasn't. The only difference between us wasn't clothing, or attitude, just skin tone. Hey... You got something wrong w/a "heavy jawline" and a "rest full b*tch face." Skin color? Nah, never skin color. LoL... On a funny note. I knew an older fella years back. He went to Catholic school. He said the Nuns would whoop his azz for having "shifty eye"... Holy good moly! We all chuckled, including him. He swore off The Church and became BornAgain... LMAO. What I am trying to get at is the inherent biases that may be in people's subconscious. Yeah, like it doesn't happen with people in authority like Catholic Nuns & cops on the street. Edited October 3, 2016 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 Pretty hard to address something that isn't there unless you want to go through the whole text and sift through every word only to find nothing. Enlighten me on where it addresses the issue. It addresses the issue through it's very existence. The Constitution was intended as the High Law in the United States. There is no law higher, which is why all other laws must appeal to it in their creation. As such, only laws which submit to the strict Constitutional guidelines are permissible. Islam is not only a religion. It is a culture and a way of life. Sharia Law, which is the cornerstone of Islamic culture and religion, is set forth as the only permissible High Law for Muslims. This is incompatible with the Constitution, as the Constitution expressly forbids state sponsored religion, and Religion as State. The Constitution, through is basic construction, was an absolute rebuke of the Divine Right of Kings; as it separated America from such rulership in favor of the philosophies of the enlightenment; specifically Lockean philosophy as pertains to The Rights of Man and self determination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 You gotta moisturize. And this coming from a rhino, a creature with arguably the crappiest, most cracked & pitted complexion on Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 And this coming from a rhino, a creature with arguably the crappiest, most cracked & pitted complexion on Earth. I'm a walking contradiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 I'm a walking contradiction. I've seen plenty of the David Attenborough shows where he observes primates picking mites from each others' coats, and was trying to remember if I had seen a segment where he was observing rhinos slathering lotion on each others' backs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 I've seen plenty of the David Attenborough shows where he observes primates picking mites from each others' coats, and was trying to remember if I had seen a segment where he was observing rhinos slathering lotion on each others' backs. Like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 Like this? ...Mom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 3, 2016 Author Share Posted October 3, 2016 It addresses the issue through it's very existence. The Constitution was intended as the High Law in the United States. There is no law higher, which is why all other laws must appeal to it in their creation. As such, only laws which submit to the strict Constitutional guidelines are permissible. Islam is not only a religion. It is a culture and a way of life. Sharia Law, which is the cornerstone of Islamic culture and religion, is set forth as the only permissible High Law for Muslims. This is incompatible with the Constitution, as the Constitution expressly forbids state sponsored religion, and Religion as State. The Constitution, through is basic construction, was an absolute rebuke of the Divine Right of Kings; as it separated America from such rulership in favor of the philosophies of the enlightenment; specifically Lockean philosophy as pertains to The Rights of Man and self determination. Then you better hope Donald Trump is not elected: "On September 22, 2016 Republican presidental canidate Donald Trump changed his mind and said in a press release, "If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths." Even Muslims Donald? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 I think you are on Hillary's payroll, Mister 377. How many posts do you have on the Stadium Wall? "Mister 377" is your comeback? Post count doesn't have anything to do with credibility boy blunder. Get him the yellow wrist corsage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Then you better hope Donald Trump is not elected: "On September 22, 2016 Republican presidental canidate Donald Trump changed his mind and said in a press release, "If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths." Even Muslims Donald? You really don't understand the issue, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 He looks horny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 I never said anything about it not being probable cause if it looked as if you had a concealed weapon or were hanging out on a street corner known for it's drug activity. Situations like that can reasonably be considered to be probable cause. Simply looking "out of place" shouldn't be. Fair enough, but the infuriating thing is the bullsh-- arguments that police didn't use probable cause which were made by people who simply want police to enforce laws against minorities less often. And on a personal note, I was once racially profiled in high school by cops simply for being out of place in a neighborhood. They accused us of driving through the black neighborhood only because we were looking to buy pot. One guess what we were doing in the black neighborhood..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 (edited) Then you better hope Donald Trump is not elected: "On September 22, 2016 Republican presidental canidate Donald Trump changed his mind and said in a press release, "If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths." Even Muslims Donald? What you just posted doesn't make a lick of sense, other than the "don't vote for Trump" part. The First Amendment does not protect individuals who seek to impose many of the tenants of Sharia, which stand in opposition the First Amendment itself. As such, your argument here is that The First Amendment protects the government violating the First Amendment. So, by all means, please enjoy some mustard with that pretzel. Edited October 4, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 4, 2016 Author Share Posted October 4, 2016 What you just posted doesn't make a lick of sense, other than the "don't vote for Trump" part. Yes it does. "...which is why all other laws must appeal to it in their creation." Please explain how the FADA will pass the constitutionality test. Do you believe it should? I hope you don't! The FADA surely will open up a can of worms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts