Slippery Slope, Increased Security at Malls and Hotels.

• BGFalcons82

  

  Unless I'm mistaken, breathing isn't taxable.
  
  Oh shit...yes it is....my bad.
• believer

  

  ^^^No...It's the exhaling that's taxable. Exhaling carbon dioxide is a key component of global warming and subject to cap & tax.
• BGFalcons82

  

  believer;619433 wrote:^^^No...It's the exhaling that's taxable. Exhaling carbon dioxide is a key component of global warming and subject to cap & tax.

  
  Dammit, man. You are right! I was referring to Obamakare's tax on breathing, but you nailed it with the EPA's edict on CO2 being a poison. Happy New Year!!
• I Wear Pants

  Doesn't mean they can do whatever they want.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I Wear Pants;619451 wrote:Doesn't mean they can do whatever they want.

  Yes, they (meaning politicians in power past/present) can.
  
  They've been doing whatever they want so far, and will continue to do so. There's just way too many placaters, pacifists, and people who try too hard to be "centrists" (in other words, talking out of both sides of their collective mouths - as long as it benefits them to do so).
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;619273 wrote:So that's it? Just put anything out there, regardless of the Constitution/Bill of Rights? Trample, stomp, stampede, ignore, disdain, and run over our rights....all in the name of safety?

  
  It's not running over your rights if you agree to waive them. The reason that fine print is on there is because of Constitutional concerns. When you agree to obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle in florida you agree to waive any rights that may be contravened by unsolicited sobriety tests.
• BGFalcons82

  

  CenterBHSFan;619495 wrote:Yes, they (meaning politicians in power past/present) can.
  
  They've been doing whatever they want so far, and will continue to do so. There's just way too many placaters, pacifists, and people who try too hard to be "centrists" (in other words, talking out of both sides of their collective mouths - as long as it benefits them to do so).

  
  Center...you have claimed allegiance to the Democratic Party before, yet you write like a conservative. I always enjoy your perspective. Happy New Year!
• BGFalcons82

  

  BoatShoes;619500 wrote:It's not running over your rights if you agree to waive them. The reason that fine print is on there is because of Constitutional concerns. When you agree to obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle in florida you agree to waive any rights that may be contravened by unsolicited sobriety tests.

  
  We're going to disagree about what constitutes a police state no matter how much we try. I'll keep looking for examples, though. I understand the privilege of driving, but I am extremely concerned about our rights as granted by our founders.
  
  You should know this, and I'm certain it won't be a surprise, but if I'm pulled over and stone sober, I'm not submitting to shit. If they ask me to receive a mark to state whom I am, I will not. If they want to put a GPS in me, I will refuse. We aren't there yet, but it's coming...likely in my lifetime, what is left of it.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  BGFalcons82;619598 wrote:Center...you have claimed allegiance to the Democratic Party before, yet you write like a conservative. I always enjoy your perspective. Happy New Year!

  I AM socially liberal in alot of ways. Conservative doesn't always equal republican, just like liberal doesn't always equal democrat. Plus, I have no idea where the hell the democratic party is going but I'm likely not going to just go blindly with them. In all honestly I don't think they know how to drive the car anymore. I'm happy walking
• I Wear Pants

  I don't think either party knows how to drive their car.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Happy New Years to all! Waiting on the dude to come so we can take off to Pittsburgh and enjoy the night.
  Until tomorrow!
• tk421

  

  dwccrew;616539 wrote:You don't really believe this, do you?

  
  In 10 years or less, that's pretty much where we will be. TSA will be in all large public buildings, x-rays and searches will be mandatory, those who refuse or oppose will be locked up, the internet will have been censored, thousands of government vans will roam the streets illegally x-raying and looking inside houses and cars. Not to mention the dollar will be worthless, the government will have bankrupted, gas prices will be 10$/gallon or over. Bread, milk, eggs, and other necessities will cost close to $10. This country doesn't have any hope of a bright future, despite what all the optimistics would like everyone to believe.
  
  https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/us-government-seizes-82-websites-draconian-future
  http://www.eff.org/coica
  http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/08/24/full-body-scan-technology-deployed-in-street-roving-vans/
• Glory Days

  

  tk421;619726 wrote:In 10 years or less, that's pretty much where we will be. TSA will be in all large public buildings, x-rays and searches will be mandatory, those who refuse or oppose will be locked up, the internet will have been censored, thousands of government vans will roam the streets illegally x-raying and looking inside houses and cars. Not to mention the dollar will be worthless, the government will have bankrupted, gas prices will be 10$/gallon or over. Bread, milk, eggs, and other necessities will cost close to $10. This country doesn't have any hope of a bright future, despite what all the optimistics would like everyone to believe.
  
  https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/us-government-seizes-82-websites-draconian-future
  http://www.eff.org/coica
  http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/08/24/full-body-scan-technology-deployed-in-street-roving-vans/

  
  I take it your fallout shelter is stocked and ready to go? I bet you said the same thing 10 years ago...and 10 before that....
• I Wear Pants

  Says the guy with an avatar showing an officer hitting a woman with a nightstick.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I Wear Pants;621402 wrote:Says the guy with an avatar showing an officer hitting a woman with a nightstick.

  BURN!
• dwccrew

  

  BGFalcons82;619273 wrote:So that's it? Just put anything out there, regardless of the Constitution/Bill of Rights? Trample, stomp, stampede, ignore, disdain, and run over our rights....all in the name of safety?

  Driving is not a protected right under the Constitution, it is, however, a state privelege. If you can provide a link proving that is it, I will concede.
  
  I'm curious if you are against the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. One of the worst pieces of legislation ever that was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican president. I find it strange that R's usually are against more government control, yet these R's passed this shit act claiming we needed it to be safe. What a crock of shit. Your last statement explains my thoughts on the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.
  

  stlouiedipalma;619407 wrote:Unless I'm mistaken, driving isn't a right, it's a privilege.

  
  Exactly.
  

  BGFalcons82;619600 wrote:We're going to disagree about what constitutes a police state no matter how much we try. I'll keep looking for examples, though. I understand the privilege of driving, but I am extremely concerned about our rights as granted by our founders.
  
  You should know this, and I'm certain it won't be a surprise, but if I'm pulled over and stone sober, I'm not submitting to shit. If they ask me to receive a mark to state whom I am, I will not. If they want to put a GPS in me, I will refuse. We aren't there yet, but it's coming...likely in my lifetime, what is left of it.

  
  I don't think the sky will fall that soon. At least I hope not.
  

  tk421;619726 wrote:In 10 years or less, that's pretty much where we will be. TSA will be in all large public buildings, x-rays and searches will be mandatory, those who refuse or oppose will be locked up, the internet will have been censored, thousands of government vans will roam the streets illegally x-raying and looking inside houses and cars. Not to mention the dollar will be worthless, the government will have bankrupted, gas prices will be 10$/gallon or over. Bread, milk, eggs, and other necessities will cost close to $10. This country doesn't have any hope of a bright future, despite what all the optimistics would like everyone to believe.
  
  https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/us-government-seizes-82-websites-draconian-future
  http://www.eff.org/coica
  http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/08/24/full-body-scan-technology-deployed-in-street-roving-vans/

  
  I already explained what I was asking him. I was asking if he really believed we should accept it, not if we were becoming a police state.
  

  I Wear Pants;621402 wrote:Says the guy with an avatar showing an officer hitting a woman with a nightstick.

  
  +1
• Glory Days

  

  I Wear Pants;621402 wrote:Says the guy with an avatar showing an officer hitting a woman with a nightstick.

  
  Serious business internet is.
• I Wear Pants

  Excruciatingly serious.
• BGFalcons82

  

  dwccrew;622585 wrote:Driving is not a protected right under the Constitution, it is, however, a state privelege. If you can provide a link proving that is it, I will concede.
  
  I'm curious if you are against the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. One of the worst pieces of legislation ever that was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican president. I find it strange that R's usually are against more government control, yet these R's passed this shit act claiming we needed it to be safe. What a crock of shit. Your last statement explains my thoughts on the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.

  
  1. I'm not going to argue that driving is a privilege. But do privileges give the government the right to stick needles in you to obtain evidence against your consent, without proper representation? You say it's in the law and because of driving regulations. Hhmmm...I agree, but let's suppose owning a house is considered a privilege. Does that give the police the right to come in, take what they want, search your belongings, and throw you in jail if you refuse? Balderdash you say? Maybe....but with the Left's non-ending attack on the evil rotten dastardly rich and their class-warfare shtick, nothing they propose surprises me. Before you stop rolling your eyes, remember this....these same Lefty's ruled last year that carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring substance on earth, is a poison and must be regulated. If they can rule something like the air we exhale is a poison and subject to taxation and regulation, why wouldn't they legislate against their sworn enemy....the evil rich? Think about it.
  
  2. Yes, I was, and still am, against the Patriot Act. It is another example to go along with my paragraph above and previous post. Just because Congress passes a law and takes rights away doesn't make it Constitutional in my opinion. Hell, the 111th Congress and Obama passed a massive overhaul of our health care system and levied a tax against being alive. NOTHING is beyond the elitist garbage in DC.
• I Wear Pants

  They didn't say it was a poison. They said that they believe it is adding to the warming effect.
  
  And yeah, Patriot Act is garbage.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;622984 wrote:They didn't say it was a poison. They said that they believe it is adding to the warming effect.

  
  Yeah...poison was not the stated word. Here they are from Time Magazine -
  The major U.N. summit on climate change opened Monday in Copenhagen, but the big environmental news was made across the Atlantic in Washington. In an afternoon press conference, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson announced that the agency had finalized its finding that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, pose a threat to human health and welfare.
  
  The connection has been made that a "threat to human health and welfare" is indeed a poison, but you are correct. I stand corrected. I was wrong. Stupid BG, stupid. I can admit when I'm wrong. There...I feel better now.
• I Wear Pants

  They think it's a threat to human health and welfare because they believe it is one of the gases contributing to global warming.
  
  You can disagree with that or the notion of global warming entirely but it isn't a poison and the EPA isn't worried about it because they think it's a poison.
• dwccrew

  

  BGFalcons82;622941 wrote:1. I'm not going to argue that driving is a privilege. But do privileges give the government the right to stick needles in you to obtain evidence against your consent, without proper representation?

  What? Where are you going with this? The gov't can't do this and to compare it to a breathalyzer in FL (which I assume is why you brought it up, otherwise you're really out in right field) is a horrible comparison. When you sign for your license in FL you are consenting to to future sobriety tests. Not saying I agree with it, but I also don't see anything unconstitutional about it.
  

  BGFalcons82;622941 wrote:You say it's in the law and because of driving regulations. Hhmmm...I agree, but let's suppose owning a house is considered a privilege. Does that give the police the right to come in, take what they want, search your belongings, and throw you in jail if you refuse?

  Let's stop right there. We shouldn't "suppose" anything. There are property rights and you are protected in the Bill of Rights from unlawful Search and Seizure, so why are you even posing this hypothetical?
  

  BGFalcons82;622941 wrote:Balderdash you say? Maybe....but with the Left's non-ending attack on the evil rotten dastardly rich and their class-warfare shtick, nothing they propose surprises me.

  I don't think it is limited to the left. As I pointed out earlier, the right is just as guilty of trying to take rights away from us under the cloak of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.
  

  BGFalcons82;622941 wrote: Before you stop rolling your eyes, remember this....these same Lefty's ruled last year that carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring substance on earth, is a poison and must be regulated. If they can rule something like the air we exhale is a poison and subject to taxation and regulation, why wouldn't they legislate against their sworn enemy....the evil rich? Think about it.

  I get the idea that you are making the assumption that I lean left, which is far from the truth. I don't know why you feel the need to point out all the wrongdoings of the left here. I agree with you in this instance, although I think your rationale is a bit misguided. They are not trying to tax what we exhale, but what certain industries emit. Big difference. However, I digress.
  

  BGFalcons82;622941 wrote:2. Yes, I was, and still am, against the Patriot Act. It is another example to go along with my paragraph above and previous post. Just because Congress passes a law and takes rights away doesn't make it Constitutional in my opinion.

  Then we can agree that we are both against the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. Although the examples in your above paragraph only knocks the left, feel free to knock the right as well since they are the ones who were in power when the act was passed.
  
  I also agree, as have federal judges, that just because a law is passed that limits or takes away our rights doesn't make it constitutional. Parts of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act have been deemed unconsitutional and it is still under review and revision.
  

  BGFalcons82 wrote: NOTHING is beyond the elitist garbage in DC.

  
  I agree, on both sides.
• BGFalcons82

  

  dwccrew;624035 wrote:What? Where are you going with this? The gov't can't do this and to compare it to a breathalyzer in FL (which I assume is why you brought it up, otherwise you're really out in right field) is a horrible comparison. When you sign for your license in FL you are consenting to to future sobriety tests. Not saying I agree with it, but I also don't see anything unconstitutional about it.

  
  I didn't make it up. Go back to the linked article. What Florida is going to do, is set up a judge along the roadside roadblock. If someone refuses to take a breathalyzer test, then the police will march the accused over to the judge, who will then judge whether or not he feels a blood draw is necessary. If he deems it necessary, then the accused will be strapped down against his will, a needle inserted, and evidence removed in the form of blood. They will test it and if the driver is deemed over the limit, off to jail he/she goes. What they have done, is essentially stated that you cannot refuse a breathalyzer test, even if the machine fails at times to record the proper BAC. The machine is king and the people are slaves to it and their Constitutional Rights do not exist, because they are privileged to drive an automobile (sic). Safety first...rights not so much.
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;619660 wrote:I don't think either party knows how to drive their car.

  It's evened out since Teddy passed.