The slippery slope is alive and well.

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>Alan Baker wrote:
>> In article .net>,
>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS > wrote:
>>
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/17/1779.asp
>>>>
>>>> <...>
>>>>
>>>> Beginning next month, the city of Oak Forest, Illinois will give police
>>>> the authority to seize the automobile belonging to anyone they accuse of
>>>> committing an crime, even if it the offense is completely unrelated to
>>>> the use of an automobile. People arrested for any of 37 different
>>>> infractions ranging from forgetting your driver's license to vandalism,
>>>> shoplifting and armed robbery will have their cars seized and held until
>>>> a bond payment of $500 is made.
>>>>
>>>> If an accused individual is not able to come up with $500 in cash within
>>>> sixty days, the city will sell the automobile at auction and keep the
>>>> profits. If the accused has a trial and is found not guilty, the city may
>>>> return the $500.
>>>>
>>>> <...>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In one of the few substantial public discussions of the measure on
>>>> September 12 last year, the only question Oak Forest City Council members
>>>> raised was whether add another $50 fee for anyone who was not arrested
>>>> yet still had his car impounded by police. Alderman Gregory Simos asked
>>>> why the ordinance did not include this fee.
>>>>
>>>> "We can definitely add that," replied Police Chief Dennis Olszewski.
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Due process is a thing of the past apparently. Now if you are accused of
>>>> some crime that has nothing to do with driving, they take your car.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Similar thing is done with guns. If you are merely indicted for a
>>> felony, you cannot own a gun. Been that way for years.
>>
>> Citation for that...
>>
>
>Look it up yourself, you moron.

Translation: SADDAM can't produce the information.

But that's not new.


--

We're all here
because we're not all there.

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>Alan Baker wrote:
>> In article .net>,
>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS > wrote:
>>
>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> In article .net>,
>>>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Similar thing is done with guns. If you are merely indicted for a
>>>>> felony, you cannot own a gun. Been that way for years.
>>>> Citation for that...
>>>>
>>> Look it up yourself, you moron.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Your claim: you look it up.
>>
>> Frankly, I think you're full of ****.
>>
>
>Well then, you're an idiot cause this is something everybody knows but you.
>
>http://www.coloradoprojectexile.com/Gun%20Criminals.htm
>
> In law enforcement jargon, gun criminals are called “prohibited
>people.” They’re generally people who have broken the law, like felons,
>drug users and fugitives. Federal law bars them from owning any gun,
>whether the gun itself is legal or not.
>
> The list of prohibited people includes:
>
> * Felons
> * People under felony indictment
> * Drug users or addicts
> * Illegal and some legal aliens
> * People subject to a domestic restraining order
> * People with a prior misdemeanor conviction for domestic assault
> * Fugitives
> * People dishonorably discharged from the military
> * People judged mentally incompetent
>
> The penalty for a prohibited person caught with a gun ranges from
>10 years to life, depending on the number and type of guns and the
>person’s previous criminal record.

Yup, those are the types of people I wouldn't want to own a firearm,
or vote, for that matter.


--

We're all here
because we're not all there.

Murderous Speeding Drunken Driver wrote:
> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>> In article .net>,
>>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> In article .net>,
>>>>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS > wrote:
>>>>>> Similar thing is done with guns. If you are merely indicted for a
>>>>>> felony, you cannot own a gun. Been that way for years.
>>>>> Citation for that...
>>>>>
>>>> Look it up yourself, you moron.
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Your claim: you look it up.
>>>
>>> Frankly, I think you're full of ****.
>>>
>> Well then, you're an idiot cause this is something everybody knows but you.
>>
>> http://www.coloradoprojectexile.com/Gun%20Criminals.htm
>>
>> In law enforcement jargon, gun criminals are called “prohibited
>> people.” They’re generally people who have broken the law, like felons,
>> drug users and fugitives. Federal law bars them from owning any gun,
>> whether the gun itself is legal or not.
>>
>> The list of prohibited people includes:
>>
>> * Felons
>> * People under felony indictment
>> * Drug users or addicts
>> * Illegal and some legal aliens
>> * People subject to a domestic restraining order
>> * People with a prior misdemeanor conviction for domestic assault
>> * Fugitives
>> * People dishonorably discharged from the military
>> * People judged mentally incompetent
>>
>> The penalty for a prohibited person caught with a gun ranges from
>> 10 years to life, depending on the number and type of guns and the
>> person’s previous criminal record.
>
> Yup, those are the types of people I wouldn't want to own a firearm,
> or vote, for that matter.

Well then you're a fascist. Why should someone just charged with a
felony lose their guns?
And the listed ban on drug users is incorrect. The article should have
said "illegal drug users". Hell alcohol and nicotine are drugs.

Brent P wrote:
> Due process is a thing of the past apparently. Now if you are accused of
> some crime that has nothing to do with driving, they take your car.

Another proof-by-accusation bill. It's 22 Prairial again already!

In article >, John David Galt wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> Due process is a thing of the past apparently. Now if you are accused of
>> some crime that has nothing to do with driving, they take your car.
>
> Another proof-by-accusation bill. It's 22 Prairial again already!

The legal system, the government, the economy, everything is on course
to a modern dark age, feudalism where the elite use technology to keep
the serfs in line.

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>Murderous Speeding Drunken Driver wrote:
>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> In article .net>,
>>>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>> In article .net>,
>>>>>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS > wrote:
>>>>>>> Similar thing is done with guns. If you are merely indicted for a
>>>>>>> felony, you cannot own a gun. Been that way for years.
>>>>>> Citation for that...
>>>>>>
>>>>> Look it up yourself, you moron.
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> Your claim: you look it up.
>>>>
>>>> Frankly, I think you're full of ****.
>>>>
>>> Well then, you're an idiot cause this is something everybody knows but you.
>>>
>>> http://www.coloradoprojectexile.com/Gun%20Criminals.htm
>>>
>>> In law enforcement jargon, gun criminals are called “prohibited
>>> people.” They’re generally people who have broken the law, like felons,
>>> drug users and fugitives. Federal law bars them from owning any gun,
>>> whether the gun itself is legal or not.
>>>
>>> The list of prohibited people includes:
>>>
>>> * Felons
>>> * People under felony indictment
>>> * Drug users or addicts
>>> * Illegal and some legal aliens
>>> * People subject to a domestic restraining order
>>> * People with a prior misdemeanor conviction for domestic assault
>>> * Fugitives
>>> * People dishonorably discharged from the military
>>> * People judged mentally incompetent
>>>
>>> The penalty for a prohibited person caught with a gun ranges from
>>> 10 years to life, depending on the number and type of guns and the
>>> person’s previous criminal record.
>>
>> Yup, those are the types of people I wouldn't want to own a firearm,
>> or vote, for that matter.
>
>Well then you're a fascist. Why should someone just charged with a
>felony lose their guns?

Perhaps because there's an increased possibility that someone so
charged might exhibit some antisocial behavior? You asked sometime
back why all people diagnosed with a psychiatric condition weren't
banned from owning guns; well, this is a step in the same direction.
You can't have your cake and eat it too; which side of the fence are
you going to stand on?

>And the listed ban on drug users is incorrect. The article should have
>said "illegal drug users". Hell alcohol and nicotine are drugs.

So's caffeine; who cares?


--

We're all here
because we're not all there.

On May 31, 7:39 pm, (Brent P)
wrote:
> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/17/1779.asp
>
> <...>
>
> Beginning next month, the city of Oak Forest, Illinois will give police
> the authority to seize the automobile belonging to anyone they accuse of
> committing an crime, even if it the offense is completely unrelated to
> the use of an automobile. People arrested for any of 37 different
> infractions ranging from forgetting your driver's license to vandalism,
> shoplifting and armed robbery will have their cars seized and held until
> a bond payment of $500 is made.
>
> If an accused individual is not able to come up with $500 in cash within
> sixty days, the city will sell the automobile at auction and keep the
> profits. If the accused has a trial and is found not guilty, the city may
> return the $500.
>
> <...>
>
> In one of the few substantial public discussions of the measure on
> September 12 last year, the only question Oak Forest City Council members
> raised was whether add another $50 fee for anyone who was not arrested
> yet still had his car impounded by police. Alderman Gregory Simos asked
> why the ordinance did not include this fee.
>
> "We can definitely add that," replied Police Chief Dennis Olszewski.
>
> ----------------------------
>
> Due process is a thing of the past apparently. Now if you are accused of
> some crime that has nothing to do with driving, they take your car.


Or, more likely, it's an isolated incident of over-reaching.

All kinds of folks believe stuff that's not true.

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/news/ar...eeds-on-fears/

Believing something doesn't make it real - after all, some folks
ferventy believe in astrology.

Scare-mongering blogs and websites live on presenting the extreme
cases as being the norm, or pretending that the extreme cases are "the
norm to be".

*At best* it's intellectual dishonesty. At worst, it's deliberate
misinformation.

This story does not present the norm, or anything like it. Pretending
that everyone everywhere will soon be subject to this sort of thing is
tin-foil-hat thinking. Normal for Brent, but sad from anyone else.

E.P.

In article .com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On May 31, 7:39 pm, (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/17/1779.asp
>>
>> <...>
>>
>> Beginning next month, the city of Oak Forest, Illinois will give police
>> the authority to seize the automobile belonging to anyone they accuse of
>> committing an crime, even if it the offense is completely unrelated to
>> the use of an automobile. People arrested for any of 37 different
>> infractions ranging from forgetting your driver's license to vandalism,
>> shoplifting and armed robbery will have their cars seized and held until
>> a bond payment of $500 is made.
>>
>> If an accused individual is not able to come up with $500 in cash within
>> sixty days, the city will sell the automobile at auction and keep the
>> profits. If the accused has a trial and is found not guilty, the city may
>> return the $500.
>>
>> <...>
>>
>> In one of the few substantial public discussions of the measure on
>> September 12 last year, the only question Oak Forest City Council members
>> raised was whether add another $50 fee for anyone who was not arrested
>> yet still had his car impounded by police. Alderman Gregory Simos asked
>> why the ordinance did not include this fee.
>>
>> "We can definitely add that," replied Police Chief Dennis Olszewski.
>>
>> ----------------------------
>>
>> Due process is a thing of the past apparently. Now if you are accused of
>> some crime that has nothing to do with driving, they take your car.

> Or, more likely, it's an isolated incident of over-reaching.

How many confiscation laws do you have to presented with before you
realize they aren't all that isolated? It's a very disturbing trend
not only in the US, but across the english speaking world. I only post
a fraction of the stories I come across, but you have to act like each
one is isolated and that there isn't any trend towards this. If you go
to the link, you'll note that various other chicago area towns have added
their own. Some I even drive in.

> All kinds of folks believe stuff that's not true.

Why don't you prove this is false? Nahh... that's too much for you.

> http://www.popmatters.com/pm/news/ar...eeds-on-fears/

> Believing something doesn't make it real - after all, some folks
> ferventy believe in astrology.

I see, you're just being a troll and want to change topics.
Well, I'll stand by the SPP documents, the CFR documents, the fact
that high ranking members of the current and past adminstrations
belong to the CFR and attend bilderberg meetings that have already
been presented. In the addition of the new agreement shrub made
outside the congress with the EU, and the current immigration bill
in the congress. When people in power belong to groups that want a
north american union, promote and enact policies and laws that move
towards that goal, you can call it whatever you're head in the sand
mentality wants to, but the facts speak for themselves. You do know that
the european union was started on in the 1950s in much the same way,
right? Oh wait, you never bothered to research it, did you Ed? You just
keep your head in the sand blissfully ignorant.

> *At best* it's intellectual dishonesty. At worst, it's deliberate
> misinformation.

Because you want to keep your head in the sand.

> This story does not present the norm, or anything like it. Pretending
> that everyone everywhere will soon be subject to this sort of thing is
> tin-foil-hat thinking. Normal for Brent, but sad from anyone else.

I wasn't doing any such thing Ed. But the sum of these confiscation laws
popping up _IS_ a disturbing trend. I am sorry I disturb your blissful
ignorance. The only thing dishonest here is you Ed as you attack the
messenger because it disturbs your view of the world.

In article .com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:

> http://www.popmatters.com/pm/news/ar...eeds-on-fears/
>
> Believing something doesn't make it real - after all, some folks
> ferventy believe in astrology.

I forgot something for you Ed...

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont....43b926a.html]

<...>

AUSTIN . Gov. Rick Perry is flying to Istanbul, Turkey, today to speak at
the super-secret Bilderberg Conference, a meeting of about 130
international leaders in business, media and politics.

<...>

Previous speakers at the conference have included such GOP stalwarts as
outgoing World Bank chief Paul Wolfowitz and former U.S. Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

<...>

----------------------------------------

It's nothing... they just really want to know the views of some texan...
it has nothing to do with texas having a border with mexico.... right Ed?

On Jun 3, 2:28 pm, Scott en Aztlán > wrote:
> Ed Pirrero > said in rec.autos.driving:
>
> >All kinds of folks believe stuff that's not true.
>
> >http://www.popmatters.com/pm/news/ar...egend-of-north...
>
> >Believing something doesn't make it real - after all, some folks
> >ferventy believe in astrology.
>
> >Scare-mongering blogs and websites live on presenting the extreme
> >cases as being the norm, or pretending that the extreme cases are "the
> >norm to be".
>
> >*At best* it's intellectual dishonesty. At worst, it's deliberate
> >misinformation.
>
> Sounds like a logical fallacy akin to the Strawman Fallacy, although
> I'm sure that's not the correct term for what you're describing.

Presenting the extreme or isolated case as the norm is akin to a
strawman. More like presentation of opinion as fact. Essentially
doing exactly what politicians do.

E.P.