The slippery slope is alive and well.

On Jun 9, 11:46 pm, "Fred G. Mackey" > wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
> >>Reading expands one's mind. And it exposes one to ideas not normally
> >>experienced during one's workaday existance.
>
> > non-sequitur plus how does reading and/or listening to the rantings of
> > tin foil hat kook expand your mind? Seems counter productive, that is
> > unless you think the kook is actually on to something.
>
> Ask him who he listens to (probably talk radio) that dictates his opiniobn.



Actually, I read a lot of different writers, and synthesize my own
opinion.

Not that it matters much to you.

E.P.

On Jun 9, 11:42 pm, "Fred G. Mackey" > wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Jun 9, 10:07 pm, "Fred G. Mackey" > wrote:
> > s.
>
> >>>Then you can explain carefully just why seizure laws have been found
> >>>to be constitutional.
>
> >>You should first cite the case where they have.
>
> > Ahh, so they HAVE NOT been found constitutionsal. It is either one or
> > the other.
>
> You're the one who made the claim that they
> were Constitutional.

If they aren't, then why on earth do they still occur?

The entire legal system is wrong, but you're right?

> > If they are unconstitutional, then why are folks ****ing and moaning?
>
> Because they're unconstitutional.

And yet, they still happen, with some sort of regularity. Maybe you
could explain why nobody can find adequate legal representation?

> >>>So, the rules don't apply to you? MFFY, to be sure.
>
> >>Since seizures often involve cars and traffic stops, it is relevant, but
> >>you're making quite a few posts in this thread as well.
>
> > Often?
>
> Yes, often.
>
> > What percentage is "often"?
>
> It doesn't matter - it happens enough.

By whose count? And under which conditions are the seizures
warranted? (Like a crime being committed?)

> Just the other day I saw an
> episode of COPS where they seized 4 cars in a marijuana buy sting.
> People were buying $5-10 worth of pot and their cars were seized.
>
> Interesting, huh? Even though they hadn't been convicted yet, their
> cars were seized and the fact is that even if they had been convicted,
> the penalty for purchasing marijuana is nowhere near the value of the
> cars seized.
>
> Ah, but you'll claim those were "drug crimes" so there is no due process
> required.
>
> The cops were more interested in whether the car was paid off than
> anything else. Is this what we call justice nowadays?

IIRC, pot is a controlled substance. Don't tell me the folks caught
didn't get time in front of a judge.

So, what you're saying is that those cars were sold before any
conviction happened? How do you know?

> > And in what percentage has an
> > actual crime been committed?
>
> Based upon the percentage of cases which actually involve charges
> (forget about convictions), only 20%.
>
> Read the links I posted in other posts for the citation.

"In other posts?" Sure.

> > It still isn't *about* driving - at best, it's tangential.
>
> And yet you're still replying. If this has nothing to do with cars or
> driving, you're just as guilty as I am on that charge.

Yes. Someone has to stand up to MFFYs. Otherwise they just keep on
doing it.

> >>>>We've been through this before. You failed to follow up in other
> >>>>newsgroups.
>
> >>>False.
>
> >>Not false at all.
>
> > In fact, I am *the only one* who has posted actual political content
> > in a political newgroup,
>
> ROFLMAO.

You may laugh, but it is the truth.

> > rather than post it here.
>
> >>>>But you admit it is related to driving, if only tangentially. If you're
> >>>>not interested in the topic, you are free to ignore the subject.
>
> >>>I am being charitable. And we both know it.
>
> >>As I said before - you are free to ignore posts which you think are OT.
>
> > I am also free to respond and criticize the content.
>
> Of course. But it's hypocritical to complain that my posts are off
> topic when you keep posting in the same vein.

Actually, it isn't. Look up what a meta discussion is.

> > BTW,
> > metadiscussions, by definition, are not OT.
>
> Ah, but by that defense, my posts are not OT even if they don't involve
> driving.

Completely-OT stuff is not meta discussion.


> >>>>>>What
> >>>>>>do you hope to accomplish with your posts?
>
> >>>>>The same thing you do - to "raise awareness", or whatever excuse you
> >>>>>use to rant about something OT.
>
> >>>>Try again.
>
> >>>If the excuse is aceptable for you, then it applies to me as well.
> >>>Choose.
>
> >>I know why I'm posting. If you don't know why you are, it's not my fault.
>
> > You're posting because you are MFFY.
>
> Nope.

They why, pray tell?

> > I post because I'm calling you
> > on your MFFY behavior.
>
> Ah - nice rationalization.

And of course, the *real* reason I'm posting is...?

> > After all, if you don't confront MFFYs,
> > they'll become more bold in their MFFY behavior.
>
> Right - like you're going to stop me from posting with that line of
> reasoning.

How can I stop you from doing anything? It's usenet, ferchristsake.

> > Even Brent says so.
>
> That all depends on accurately identifying MFFY behavior and how you
> confront them.

Posting OT crap in a newsgroup merely because you can is MFFY.
Rationalizing it because somehow an automobile was involved doesn't
change the fact that the topic is not in the least about driving, but
about 4th Amendment issues.

Why not discuss the tension strength of concrete? After all,
overpasses are made of concrete, right? And we drive on overpasses,
right?

Why bother having any usenet hierarchy at all? As long as *you're*
happy, that's all that matters, right?

Which, oddly, is the unoffical motto of MFFYs everywhere.

E.P.

On Jun 10, 1:56 pm, "Fred G. Mackey" > wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Jun 9, 11:26 pm, "Fred G. Mackey" > wrote:
> > Ah, OK - so the discussions elected officials have, no matter who they
> > have them with or when, should be open and public?
>
> Given a meeting such as this, the number of people involved and their
> positions, it would help the public trust if they didn't keep the
> proceedings top secret.


That wasn't the question I asked.

E.P.

In article . com>,
Ed Pirrero > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Drive through a checkpoint with $10,000 in cash on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > passenger seat.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me know how that turns out under federal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > war-against-drug
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > laws.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Why? I know how to use banks and electronic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > transfers,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > so I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > need, EVER of carrying anything more than about $2000
> > > > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > time.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice subject change, BTW.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, because you personally don't have a need to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > something,
> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > don't have a problem with it being illegal?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Strawman.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for addressing the point.
> >
> > > > > > > > > You already addressed your own point. The one where you made
> > > > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > belief for me to defend, one that I don't actually hold.
> >
> > > > > > > > > E.P.
> >
> > > > > > > > You mean that I attempted to reword your original post, and
> > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > reply saying "no, that wasn't what I meant at all" without ever
> > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > then what you really *did* mean?
> >
> > > > > > > What I wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > "Why? I know how to use banks and electronic transfers, so I
> > > > > > > have no
> > > > > > > need, EVER of carrying anything more than about $2000 at a time."
> >
> > > > > > > Your "rewording":
> >
> > > > > > > "So, because you personally don't have a need to do something,
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > don't have a problem with it being illegal? "
> >
> > > > > > > The strawman part is this:
> >
> > > > > > > "... you don't have a problem with it being illegal?"
> >
> > > > > > > As long as you are going to assign me a position, then why should
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > bother discussing it?
> >
> > > > > > He didn't assign you a position. He asked you if that *was* your
> > > > > > position...
> >
> > > > > It wasn't stated as a question, even though a question mark followed
> > > > > the sentence. Anyone who can read can see it was a statement. The
> > > > > word "because" is key, there.
> >
> > > > > E.P.
> >
> > > > Nope.
> >
> > > > It was a question. Period.
> >
> > > Look up the logical fallacy of "begging the question" for the clue you
> > > seek.
> >
> > Sorry, but the PP didn't assume the truth of a proposition in order to
> > prove that proposition. That's what "begging the question" means, you
> > know.
> >
>
> I will accept hat it's a pretty big stretch, with the assumption of
> attitude not in evidence, that this is a "begging the question"
> logical fallacy.

Gee, thanks.

What you really meant to say was, "Sorry. I was wrong."

>
> I will not, however, accept that this is not a strawman, if only
> because the PP used the word "because."

It is not a strawman. It is a yes or no question framed in the form of
him telling you what he believes you to have meant and then asking for
your to either agree that it was or tell him that it wasn't.

>
> >
> > > When there is an actual question, I'll answer. I'm not playing the
> > > "defend an assigned position" game.
> >
> > > E.P.
> >
> > There is an actual question. I'll rephrase it so that you'll stop
> > ducking and dodging:
> >
> > Do you feel that because you have no need to carry more than $2,000 in
> > cash that it should be legal for the police to seize any amount larger
> > than that without any proof that a crime has been committed?
>
> No.

Then please explain why you said, "Why? I know how to use banks and
electronic transfers, so I have no need, EVER of carrying anything more
than about $2000 at a time." in response to a discussion about whether
or not it is *right* or *wrong* to confiscate funds from those whose
needs might differ from yours.

If you didn't mean that you don't have a problem with it being illegal
because you don't have a need that would ever make you subject to such
confiscation, what did you mean?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."