@Suzianne saidYou see here is another symptom of 'too retarded to realise your own retardedness', you can't come up with anything original so you steal my post, the very post you're responding to.
Even better, the irony of what you say is totally lost on you.
You're lack-witted and it shows when you pay homage to my posts by aping them.
Classic Dunning Kruger.
@AverageJoe1 saidAbout 250 years ago, the "liberals" of the day said what the purpose of government was:
With all due respects, all one need do is apply a modicum of common sense to A) and C) above, and consider that this is a society which must have rules. Witness a liberal-trained poster, Sue, who mentions Natural Rights and Public Property above, implying everything belongs to everybody, for lack of a better way to put it.
But there must be rules about vagrancy, sle ...[text shortened]... y Jane? What about order? If you had to say, which of the two parties is the most orderly? Right.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Criminalizing a homeless person sleeping on public property when there is no place else available for them to sleep is criminalizing being homeless. That is beyond the rightful power of the State; a person sleeping is no threat to the public order or to anyone else.
BTW, the SCOTUS ruled more than 50 years ago that vagrancy laws are unconstitutional (with no dissents): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/156/
As for the second, the Congress wrote a plain and direct law making it a crime to obstruct or attempt to obstruct an official proceeding. This lawless SCOTUS, for purely political reasons, read into that section language from another section to limit its application to favor the January 6th insurrectionists. That you seem incapable of understanding what was done but like it because it might help Trump (it probably won't for complex legal reasons and the fact he is facing many other serious charges) is rather pathetic.
@no1marauder saidFree Nick Ochs, this must have been what he was hinting at,
About 250 years ago, the "liberals" of the day said what the purpose of government was:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Criminalizing a homeless person sleeping on public property when the ...[text shortened]... for complex legal reasons and the fact he is facing many other serious charges) is rather pathetic.
Edit: ...and about 1400 other political prisoners.
166d
@Wajoma saidHe'll be freed when he completes the sentence for the crime he admitted in open court to committing.
Free Nick Ochs, this must have been what he was hinting at,
Edit: ...and about 1400 other political prisoners.
He's hardly a "political prisoner" though he now whines that he is rather than accepting the consequences of his own decisions and misdeeds.
@no1marauder saidToo early to say but there's a chance of being released with no criminal record.
He'll be freed when he completes the sentence for the crime he admitted in open court to committing.
He's hardly a "political prisoner" though he now whines that he is rather than accepting the consequences of his own decisions and misdeeds.
We hope what is right wins out in the end.
@no1marauder saidYou know where this comes from No.1?
He'll be freed when he completes the sentence for the crime he admitted in open court to committing.
He's hardly a "political prisoner" though he now whines that he is rather than accepting the consequences of his own decisions and misdeeds.
"alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;"
It's from Enron days when the law was closing in and they were shredding docs.
Obviously that does not apply to Jan 6ers.
You should be celebrating the undoing of this injustice.
166d
@no1marauder saidI’m incapable of understanding the learned SCOTUS……but you Marauder have them down pat, and all of their deliberations flowing therewith and therefrom. You have pored over the midnight oil to arrive at your conclusions, which are different than those of nine Supreme Court justices. I just wanna be sure to get that straight as we publish it out here over the forum.
About 250 years ago, the "liberals" of the day said what the purpose of government was:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Criminalizing a homeless person sleeping on public property when the ...[text shortened]... for complex legal reasons and the fact he is facing many other serious charges) is rather pathetic.
166d
@Wajoma saidNo it doesn't, but that's not the section of the law that some of the January 6th insurrectionists were convicted of.
You know where this comes from No.1?
"alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;"
It's from Enron days when the law was closing in and they were shredding docs.
Obviously that does not apply to Jan 6ers.
You should be celebrating the undoing of this injustice.
166d
@Wajoma saidMarauder says anyone can sleep wherever they want to. Ask him if I can take the 50 people attending a party at my house on a bus to Park Avenue, where we will all spend the night sleeping peacefully on the sidewalk. Second question would be can we do that for like five months every night?
You know where this comes from No.1?
"alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;"
It's from Enron days when the law was closing in and they were shredding docs.
Obviously that does not apply to Jan 6ers.
You should be celebrating the undoing of this injustice.
This is another great example of liberals who do not close their post. He just sort of leaves the various unintended consequences…hanging.
I can’t wait for his learned answer, as he is so well-versed in Supreme Court deliberations.
166d
@no1marauder saidExactly, but it will be a consequence of removing the word 'or'.
No it doesn't, but that's not the section of the law that some of the January 6th insurrectionists were convicted of.
166d
@AverageJoe1 saidThat's not what I said.
Marauder says anyone can sleep wherever they want to. Ask him if I can take the 50 people attending a party at my house on a bus to Park Avenue, where we will all spend the night sleeping peacefully on the sidewalk. Second question would be can we do that for like five months every night?
This is another great example of liberals who do not close their post. He jus ...[text shortened]... ng.
I can’t wait for his learned answer, as he is so well-versed in Supreme Court deliberations.
Try having a reasonably intelligent ten year old read what I wrote and explain it to you.
166d
@no1marauder saidWell, then we can parse those words all day long....like, what If a guy, who HAS a home, (it could be in Arizona), sleeps on the street. And is it harassment for a cop to wake up the guy sleeping? And we have to ask Sonhouse what the judges were thinking when they interpreted the situation at hand.
That's not what I said.
Try having a reasonably intelligent ten year old read what I wrote and explain it to you.
We could do all that, but it is better for our sanity for us to live under the rules which have been decided by SCOTUS, more learned than we. And, since we elect to live in this society, the society tells us to do what SCOTUS decides. You for one like to interpret in a contrarian manner, and you may have good points, but why discuss it if it is what it is.
My POV is that we don't want our streets to look like Bankok, have you ever witnessed squalor such as that? How bout your kids? Have they seen it, and stepped over feces. You know, there is no end to your liberalism. Everybody do what Shav purports to do, and do it in the road. All good.
165d
@AverageJoe1 saidYou, like the right wing justices on the SCOTUS, either don't understand or reject the philosophy this country was founded on.
Well, then we can parse those words all day long....like, what If a guy, who HAS a home, (it could be in Arizona), sleeps on the street. And is it harassment for a cop to wake up the guy sleeping? And we have to ask Sonhouse what the judges were thinking when they interpreted the situation at hand.
We could do all that, but it is better for our sanity for us to live ...[text shortened]... no end to your liberalism. Everybody do what Shav purports to do, and do it in the road. All good.
No law violating the Natural Rights of Man is valid because no government is legitimately empowered to make such laws. Governments that do are tyrannies and such laws need not be obeyed. And that is true regardless of what 6 clowns on a court say.
Here's a crazy idea; if you're soooooooooooooooooooooooo concerned that it looks bad to have homeless people on the streets, give them a place to live or at least a bed to sleep in.
165d
@AverageJoe1
'Do it' in the streets? You are FINE with those asssholes literally pooping in our capitol building and you ask if it is ok if people do 'it' in the streets?
165d
@no1marauder saidI agree, we take care of the 50M destitute, whatever, and shut down all other social programs. It seems like you want to support people who are not part of the destitute, just losers who could work but don't? Just how liberal should it be?
You, like the right wing justices on the SCOTUS, either don't understand or reject the philosophy this country was founded on.
No law violating the Natural Rights of Man is valid because no government is legitimately empowered to make such laws. Governments that do are tyrannies and such laws need not be obeyed. And that is true regardless of what 6 clowns on a court ...[text shortened]... bad to have homeless people on the streets, give them a place to live or at least a bed to sleep in.
Can you seriously tell us how far you would go with your silly Natural Law concept? Tell us, if I am living a normal life with my family, minding my own business, what natural law could one of those people, who want to live a 'Natural Law ' life (Brrrrr), impose on me ? What would be an impact from such people that I woudl find unbelieveable........AND, would not want to be part of?
C'mon, you can let your hair down, set aside your LexNex and socialist philosophy, and give us a practical answer.
Hint: It has to be something. Your proposal has to do with someone wanting something. Tell us about it.