On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:38:32 -0600, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:44:57 -0800, "Herbert John \"Jackie\" Gleason"
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:20:27 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:17:53 -0600, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:44:34 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

Bend over, here it comes...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-84125052.html

...Jim Thompson

Dick Cheney was right when he said Obama was a charlatan.

And turn off your cell phones...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html

...Jim Thompson


You would rather they hadn't caught the bank robbers?

That's poor logic. For one, it presumes there was no other way to
catch them and it further presumes the government's position is the
only procedural mechanism for accomplishing it.

As a general principle the ends do not justify the means and, to wit,
routine warrantless searches of all homes, say once a week, would
catch a lot of criminals too but would you support that idea? No?
You'd rather not catch crooks?

If the government's position really is as stated, that "any record
held by a third party about us, no matter how invasively collected, is
not protected by the Fourth Amendment" is accurate then the 4'th
amendment is effectively eviscerated since, in this day and age,
virtually everything you do shows up in some 'third party record'
somewhere.

That is a damned sight better than the way the profiling *******s
currently solve ZERO crime unless it falls in their laps, which is why
they do the profiling thing. The only way they can nab a dealer is if
they perform as many illegal searches they can. The sad part is that it
invariably ends up causing problems for the regular citizenry.