Capt Planet, Cleanup on aisle 9

Freedom of Speech thread could use some lawyering skills to explain the difference between Constitutional Rights vs Employer vs Employee rights from a law point of view.





limit the big words though.
Post edited by Mr Jimmy Pop at 12/29/2013 11:35:56 AM

Originally posted by: Mr Jimmy Pop
Freedom of Speech thread could use some lawyering skills to explain the difference between Constitutional Rights vs Employer vs Employee rights from a law point of view.





limit the big words though.

It doesn't matter, the one who needs it the most will not listen. You could have the writers of the constitution come back from the dead and explain it and he would still think he was right.

Originally posted by: Mr Jimmy Pop
Freedom of Speech thread could use some lawyering skills to explain the difference between Constitutional Rights vs Employer vs Employee rights from a law point of view.





limit the big words though.

lmao. Asking a lawyer telling us the law. You are more of an idiot that I previously thought.
_______________________________________________________________
"If guns kill people then spoons make us fat!"

You are ICFire from TW aren't you? I would recognize the "I know you are but what am I" defense anywhere.

Originally posted by: Mr Jimmy Pop
You are ICFire from TW aren't you? I would recognize the "I know you are but what am I" defense anywhere.

i feel sorry for you jimmy. You don't grasp many of our discussions. Are you not educated or simply ignorant of reality?

You remind me of our retard leftys who say the 2nd amendment doesn't give us the right to own guns. Their interpretation of things is skewed. Much like yours.
_______________________________________________________________
"If guns kill people then spoons make us fat!"

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

You remind me of our retard leftys who say the 2nd amendment doesn't give us the right to own guns. Their interpretation of things is skewed. Much like yours.

there you go doing it again, instead of dealing with the issue at hand you try to misdirect it. Just so you know, I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment, as well as the other amendments. I do not have any problem at all with law abiding Citizens owning guns in our country. The more that own them, the better. Now if a citizen uses it incorrectly, they should be punished accordingly.

threads are much better when they stay on topic imo. That is why yours gives headaches, you are all over the place.
Post edited by Mr Jimmy Pop at 12/29/2013 1:48:01 PM

Originally posted by: Mr Jimmy Pop

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

You remind me of our retard leftys who say the 2nd amendment doesn't give us the right to own guns. Their interpretation of things is skewed. Much like yours.

there you go doing it again, instead of dealing with the issue at hand you try to misdirect it. Just so you know, I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment, as well as the other amendments. I do not have any problem at all with law abiding Citizens owning guns in our country. The more that own them, the better. Now if a citizen uses it incorrectly, they should be punished accordingly.

If you care for your sanity and have ANY faith left in the human race, completely ignore Snakeypoo. He's a closet homo-loving black-supremacist.
Post edited by EclipseSix at 12/29/2013 1:48:29 PM

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

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
a dead Muslim is a peaceful Muslim. Works for me

Black power!!!!
_______________________________________________________________
"If guns kill people then spoons make us fat!"

Originally posted by: Knocks

Originally posted by: Mr Jimmy Pop
Freedom of Speech thread could use some lawyering skills to explain the difference between Constitutional Rights vs Employer vs Employee rights from a law point of view.





limit the big words though.

It doesn't matter, the one who needs it the most will not listen. You could have the writers of the constitution come back from the dead and explain it and he would still think he was right.

I think we have tried this once before.

It had exactly this outcome you describe.

You really want to trust a leftwing lunatic's opinion on Constitutional Law???

No. You have lost your fucking mind.

Just look where we are at now with the current "Constitutional Law" Retard in Office.

SS makes a great point.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/27/nsa-phone-surveillance_n_4508483.html

We might as well just ask this asshat what he thinks of this again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

/facepalm

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-


Just look where we are at now with the current "Constitutional Law" Retard in Office.

and where is that? what rights have you lost under Obama? Was Bush better from a Constitutional standpoint? How about Clinton and Bush Sr? Can you tell me where the Constitution got stronger or weaker under who and why?

or is it just typical Obama blah blah blah dey tuk ar rites blah blah rabble rabble?


btw, I didn't vote for Obama, I wanted someone with a fiscal background to make deep cuts and I still do.

Originally posted by: Mr Jimmy Pop

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-


Just look where we are at now with the current "Constitutional Law" Retard in Office.

and where is that? what rights have you lost under Obama? Was Bush better from a Constitutional standpoint? How about Clinton and Bush Sr? Can you tell me where the Constitution got stronger or weaker under who and why?

or is it just typical Obama blah blah blah dey tuk ar rites blah blah rabble rabble?


btw, I didn't vote for Obama, I wanted someone with a fiscal background to make deep cuts and I still do.

Dont try that shit with me about what Rights have been lost -they've been so severely infringed that they only have the guise of pretending to still exist. If you think they havent been, you're delusional.

and lol @ you thinking I am a bush supporter or something... thats a Snake tactic that you have the unmitigated audacity to chastise him for yet do it yourself. square yourself away before you ever try to get indignant.

My point stands: you want the opinion a leftwing lunatic despite the overwhelming evidence of how fucked they are indicates a lack of decent adjudication for yourself on at least 2 levels -one by asking for his and one for not being able to decide for yourself.

I never assumed you to be on either side, i was making the point that both sides have been equally in infringing our rights and it goes back to the beginning of our country (pledge of Allegiance in the 1950's and "In God we Trust" on money int the 1860's).

I did get defensive, that was a pre-emptive snake strike i guess. Seems like we are on same page mostly.


I wanted an opinion of someone with training in law. Now, if there is one thing our founding fathers fucked up, it was the creation of the judicial branch and its construct. It is a horrible job and a true hindrance to our country's best interest. Of course 40% of our founding fathers were lawyers, so not a real shock.
Post edited by Mr Jimmy Pop at 12/29/2013 3:52:37 PM

Originally posted by: Mr Jimmy Pop
I never assumed you to be on either side, i was making the point that both sides have been equally in infringing our rights and it goes back to the beginning of our country (pledge of Allegiance in the 1950's and "In God we Trust" on money int the 1860's).

I did get defensive, that was a pre-emptive snake strike i guess. Seems like we are on same page mostly.

While I have no desire to ever see a theocracy become our gvt (and is very unlikely to ever), I do see the incrementalism of the left right now chip away at our Rights as the greatest threat to this Nation. It never ceases to amaze me how We as a People just accept this without a revolt. We started a Revolution with a tax (and a few other things). Now look at how pathetic we have become as a Nation, unwilling to hold charlatans and scum accountable and become the leadership of the Greatest Nation the earth has ever seen.

If the gvt does not fear its populace, but the people fear the gvt, then we are doomed.

As for whose side I am on: The Dream of what America is supposed to be... a Free people able to exercise their Rights and liberties while having some gvt to keep our society protected and functioning.

A Nation that loses its culture wont stand for long.

I think you are not able to see very clearly. It is not the left or right, it is the illusion of a left and right that is eroding our rights. They are on the same side and both parties are equally guilty in my opinion. It is like a good cop bad cop drill. We think we have choices, but we do not. Universal Healthcare was coming no matter what. Gitmo type situations too. You can't pay attention to the lips moving because they only say what we want to hear. It is the actions that count, and from what I see, we have no affect on it. Even making congressional insider trading illegal was repealed and no one noticed.


As far as the Birth of the nation, most of the country was against revolution. Our founding fathers had the resources and international connections to pull off the coup. Do you think our lives would be that much different if we never revolted? Same people would be in charge, we would still have taxes. For the average working slob, no difference at all that really matters.

While I do believe the erosion of our Republic has been a process of attrition.....for centuries.

Shit has really escalated since 9/11. It's been a full on burn sale to undermine the Constitution, our Bill of Rights, ever since then. I've never seen them succeed faster, with less obstruction, since then.

Which could be my own bias ...... since I was too young, before then, to really pay as close of attention as I do today.
Post edited by Mockery at 12/29/2013 6:09:03 PM

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: Mr Jimmy Pop
I never assumed you to be on either side, i was making the point that both sides have been equally in infringing our rights and it goes back to the beginning of our country (pledge of Allegiance in the 1950's and "In God we Trust" on money int the 1860's).

I did get defensive, that was a pre-emptive snake strike i guess. Seems like we are on same page mostly.

While I have no desire to ever see a theocracy become our gvt (and is very unlikely to ever), I do see the incrementalism of the left right now chip away at our Rights as the greatest threat to this Nation. It never ceases to amaze me how We as a People just accept this without a revolt. We started a Revolution with a tax (and a few other things). Now look at how pathetic we have become as a Nation, unwilling to hold charlatans and scum accountable and become the leadership of the Greatest Nation the earth has ever seen.

If the gvt does not fear its populace, but the people fear the gvt, then we are doomed.

As for whose side I am on: The Dream of what America is supposed to be... a Free people able to exercise their Rights and liberties while having some gvt to keep our society protected and functioning.

A Nation that loses its culture wont stand for long.

sadly the liberals have destroyed our culture.
_______________________________________________________________
"If guns kill people then spoons make us fat!"

Originally posted by: Mr Jimmy Pop
I think you are not able to see very clearly. It is not the left or right, it is the illusion of a left and right that is eroding our rights. They are on the same side and both parties are equally guilty in my opinion. It is like a good cop bad cop drill. We think we have choices, but we do not. Universal Healthcare was coming no matter what. Gitmo type situations too. You can't pay attention to the lips moving because they only say what we want to hear. It is the actions that count, and from what I see, we have no affect on it. Even making congressional insider trading illegal was repealed and no one noticed.


As far as the Birth of the nation, most of the country was against revolution. Our founding fathers had the resources and international connections to pull off the coup. Do you think our lives would be that much different if we never revolted? Same people would be in charge, we would still have taxes. For the average working slob, no difference at all that really matters.

You should know by now that I see both parties as two sides of the same coin. There arent very many real conservatives in office anymore at any level. Consider this: a real conservative wouldnt advocate a theocratic type erosion of Rights because they are against gvt in the first place. As I told NBF, gvt is a necessary evil to keep our society functional until we can create something better, but until then we have to have it. However, it needs to be as limited as possible and the balance of power in the Peoples' hands by holding elected officials responsible for their actions.

Now, if you really want to entertain your "what if" scenario about the Revolution, then make sure you bear in mind that it is only "what if". So to answer your question, Yes, our lives would be different because we would still be ruled by retards with bad teeth demanding fealty to a throne and who sits on it. Sure we would have [much higher] taxes, but the oppression would be immeasurably worse. Just look at the UK today -you cant even own a firearm.

I have been to England, it isn't all that much different to be honest. Canada seems to do alright too. Not saying they are better, just saying that from a working stiff perspective it isn't all that different.

Originally posted by: Mr Jimmy Pop
I have been to England, it isn't all that much different to be honest. Canada seems to do alright too. Not saying they are better, just saying that from a working stiff perspective it isn't all that different.

I've been to South Central LA, even born there, still doesn't mean I fully grasp how much of a turdhole that place really is.

In my estimation the UK is the epicenter of not just banking ponzis that will one day implode (again).....but also the totalitarian police state all nations like it will continue to become.


This is their most recent addition.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/12/camerons-internet-filter-goes-far-beyond-porn-and-was-always-plan

Their police went from sticks to assault weapons (after fucking with guns for the rest of them).

This is what happens to people who try to protect their property rights....have rights.....or remain an individual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

They have no semblance of free speech and this is what Pat Robertson would look like in their world.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/uk-man-jailed-over-facebook-status-raises-questions-over-free-speech/

and on and on it goes



On and on it goes.....and like them we will follow.




Post edited by Mockery at 12/30/2013 2:53:55 AM

Originally posted by: Mr Jimmy Pop
I have been to England, it isn't all that much different to be honest. Canada seems to do alright too. Not saying they are better, just saying that from a working stiff perspective it isn't all that different.

Visiting is vastly different than living there.

You should know that.

You previously mentioned being a 2d A supporter and it's curious you would contradict yourself now with this "what if" scenario.

It's not a contradiction and i never said it would be better. Just saying in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't make that much of a difference. How do our crime rates compare? Probably similar.

Originally posted by: Mr Jimmy Pop
It's not a contradiction and i never said it would be better. Just saying in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't make that much of a difference. How do our crime rates compare? Probably similar.

You asked if it would be any different, not "better". Big distinction there.

Yes, it is a contradiction because you brought the what if forward as if it wouldnt be different after saying you are a 2A supporter.

So which one is it?

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Mr Jimmy Pop
I have been to England, it isn't all that much different to be honest. Canada seems to do alright too. Not saying they are better, just saying that from a working stiff perspective it isn't all that different.

I've been to South Central LA, even born there, still doesn't mean I fully grasp how much of a turdhole that place really is.

In my estimation the UK is the epicenter of not just banking ponzis that will one day implode (again).....but also the totalitarian police state all nations like it will continue to become.


This is their most recent addition.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/12/camerons-internet-filter-goes-far-beyond-porn-and-was-always-plan

Their police went from sticks to assault weapons (after fucking with guns for the rest of them).

This is what happens to people who try to protect their property rights....have rights.....or remain an individual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

They have no semblance of free speech and this is what Pat Robertson would look like in their world.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/uk-man-jailed-over-facebook-status-raises-questions-over-free-speech/

and on and on it goes



On and on it goes.....and like them we will follow.

missed this one

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/450907/Social-workers-take-children-from-families-who-overfeed-them

Seems like Capt is making $400/hr, so we will need Smiling Canadian to foot that bill too.

Late to the party, but I'll drop my 2c...

In Phil R.'s case, its probably more contractual than anything else. I'm sure in his contract A&E retains the right to suspend or cancel with or without cause.

If that is true then it also demonstrates the ability of people to waive their rights. People do it all the time. You can always waive requiring a cop to get a warrant to search your house. Equally true for employment.

As a state worker I have no "freedom of speech" in the work place. My employment contract restricts me in all sorts of ways. And my agreeing to work, signing that contract was my waiver of some constitutional protections.

BUT, as someone may have mentioned...the federal Constitution is protection of people from government action. It is not a tool to protect individual from individual. For that, you have to look at state and federal laws. For instance, Civil Rights Act (1965) provides discrimination protection against certain private business action.

That's the shortest explanation I could give, I'm probably cutting out a bunch of other details. But folks should get the gist.

Now, where's my money!?!!

Edit: likewise for the whole freedom of religion argument...it would squarely apply if A&E were a state-run entity. Being its private (or publicly traded), 1st Amend. Is inapplicable.


Post edited by CaptPlanet at 1/2/2014 8:03:08 AM

Thanks Cappy, most of us knew this, but Snake was being particularly stubborn. He probably still won't accept this, but it should successfully kill the thread.

Originally posted by: CaptPlanet
Late to the party, but I'll drop my 2c...

In Phil R.'s case, its probably more contractual than anything else. I'm sure in his contract A&E retains the right to suspend or cancel with or without cause.

If that is true then it also demonstrates the ability of people to waive their rights. People do it all the time. You can always waive requiring a cop to get a warrant to search your house. Equally true for employment.

As a state worker I have no "freedom of speech" in the work place. My employment contract restricts me in all sorts of ways. And my agreeing to work, signing that contract was my waiver of some constitutional protections.

BUT, as someone may have mentioned...the federal Constitution is protection of people from government action. It is not a tool to protect individual from individual. For that, you have to look at state and federal laws. For instance, Civil Rights Act (1965) provides discrimination protection against certain private business action.

That's the shortest explanation I could give, I'm probably cutting out a bunch of other details. But folks should get the gist.

Now, where's my money!?!!

Edit: likewise for the whole freedom of religion argument...it would squarely apply if A&E were a state-run entity. Being its private (or publicly traded), 1st Amend. Is inapplicable.

Are you implying that private enterprises have the Right to choose who they do business with?

lol, god forbid or lack thereof.

Originally posted by: CaptPlanet
Late to the party, but I'll drop my 2c...

In Phil R.'s case, its probably more contractual than anything else. I'm sure in his contract A&E retains the right to suspend or cancel with or without cause.

If that is true then it also demonstrates the ability of people to waive their rights. People do it all the time. You can always waive requiring a cop to get a warrant to search your house. Equally true for employment.

As a state worker I have no "freedom of speech" in the work place. My employment contract restricts me in all sorts of ways. And my agreeing to work, signing that contract was my waiver of some constitutional protections.

BUT, as someone may have mentioned...the federal Constitution is protection of people from government action. It is not a tool to protect individual from individual. For that, you have to look at state and federal laws. For instance, Civil Rights Act (1965) provides discrimination protection against certain private business action.

That's the shortest explanation I could give, I'm probably cutting out a bunch of other details. But folks should get the gist.

Now, where's my money!?!!

Edit: likewise for the whole freedom of religion argument...it would squarely apply if A&E were a state-run entity. Being its private (or publicly traded), 1st Amend. Is inapplicable.

lmao. Are you serious. Freedom of religion is certainly protected by law regardless if public or private entity.
Post edited by ~~Snake~~ at 1/2/2014 7:37:45 PM

_______________________________________________________________
"If guns kill people then spoons make us fat!"

Did you miss the civil rights act he posted? Freedom of religion in the constitution is in feference to with the government, not employment. The civil rights act covers employment.

Originally posted by: Mr Jimmy Pop
You are ICFire from TW aren't you? I would recognize the "I know you are but what am I" defense anywhere.

roflmao.

Originally posted by: samUwell

Originally posted by: Mr Jimmy Pop
You are ICFire from TW aren't you? I would recognize the "I know you are but what am I" defense anywhere.

roflmao.

that was a very solid reference.

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: CaptPlanet
Late to the party, but I'll drop my 2c...

In Phil R.'s case, its probably more contractual than anything else. I'm sure in his contract A&E retains the right to suspend or cancel with or without cause.

If that is true then it also demonstrates the ability of people to waive their rights. People do it all the time. You can always waive requiring a cop to get a warrant to search your house. Equally true for employment.

As a state worker I have no "freedom of speech" in the work place. My employment contract restricts me in all sorts of ways. And my agreeing to work, signing that contract was my waiver of some constitutional protections.

BUT, as someone may have mentioned...the federal Constitution is protection of people from government action. It is not a tool to protect individual from individual. For that, you have to look at state and federal laws. For instance, Civil Rights Act (1965) provides discrimination protection against certain private business action.

That's the shortest explanation I could give, I'm probably cutting out a bunch of other details. But folks should get the gist.

Now, where's my money!?!!

Edit: likewise for the whole freedom of religion argument...it would squarely apply if A&E were a state-run entity. Being its private (or publicly traded), 1st Amend. Is inapplicable.

Are you implying that private enterprises have the Right to choose who they do business with?

There are probably more restrictions than people realize. For instance, its illegal for me to choose not to rent to someone because of race. Its just that society has conformed or societal norms drove the legislation that protects certain classes of people. The sexual orientation question is a newer issue and we, as a society, are still trying to figure it all out.

Originally posted by: Mr Jimmy Pop
...Now, if there is one thing our founding fathers fucked up, it was the creation of the judicial branch and its construct...

this part is the single worst aspect of our Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

to collect taxes, general welfare clause, borrowing money and regulate commerce.

those 4 things right there and the single most destructive aspects of our life as we speak.

the sad part is when one reads the founders arguing each part and their thoughts on them. there never thought it would get as bad as it is today.

Originally posted by: CaptPlanet

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: CaptPlanet
Late to the party, but I'll drop my 2c...

In Phil R.'s case, its probably more contractual than anything else. I'm sure in his contract A&E retains the right to suspend or cancel with or without cause.

If that is true then it also demonstrates the ability of people to waive their rights. People do it all the time. You can always waive requiring a cop to get a warrant to search your house. Equally true for employment.

As a state worker I have no "freedom of speech" in the work place. My employment contract restricts me in all sorts of ways. And my agreeing to work, signing that contract was my waiver of some constitutional protections.

BUT, as someone may have mentioned...the federal Constitution is protection of people from government action. It is not a tool to protect individual from individual. For that, you have to look at state and federal laws. For instance, Civil Rights Act (1965) provides discrimination protection against certain private business action.

That's the shortest explanation I could give, I'm probably cutting out a bunch of other details. But folks should get the gist.

Now, where's my money!?!!

Edit: likewise for the whole freedom of religion argument...it would squarely apply if A&E were a state-run entity. Being its private (or publicly traded), 1st Amend. Is inapplicable.

Are you implying that private enterprises have the Right to choose who they do business with?

There are probably more restrictions than people realize. For instance, its illegal for me to choose not to rent to someone because of race. Its just that society has conformed or societal norms drove the legislation that protects certain classes of people. The sexual orientation question is a newer issue and we, as a society, are still trying to figure it all out.

Well, at least you admit that protecting certain classes of people is to segregate them.

But I will also give you credit for avoiding my trap, even though your wording on "trying to figure it out" instead of saying the truth of trying to change it in the name of Political Correctness.

It isnt hard to figure out either; your Rights do not supersede mine when it comes down whether or not I want to do business with you. Believe it or not, you dont need gvt regulation or a gvt agency to force you to do business with people you dont want to. If you choose to throw away business, then thats on you.

so, why are darkies and fags awarded all kinds of money when they are let go for who they are yet when a white christians gets let go, the leftists say, "its well within the rights of the company to do so?"

this happens all the time in this nation and you guys know it.

*edit- i mean, dark ones and fags win large settlements even if they were never even hired by claiming their rights were infringed on.

what... the... FUCK?
Post edited by samUwell at 1/3/2014 12:19:27 AM

Originally posted by: samUwell

Originally posted by: Mr Jimmy Pop
...Now, if there is one thing our founding fathers fucked up, it was the creation of the judicial branch and its construct...

this part is the single worst aspect of our Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

to collect taxes, general welfare clause, borrowing money and regulate commerce.

those 4 things right there and the single most destructive aspects of our life as we speak.

the sad part is when one reads the founders arguing each part and their thoughts on them. there never thought it would get as bad as it is today.

so true.

they should have drafted ten more pages defining and limiting what they meant with the "general welfare" statement. Along with who and what the militia actually was. So leftists can stop fucking with our gun rights.

Originally posted by: samUwell
so, why are darkies and fags awarded all kinds of money when they are let go for who they are yet when a white christians gets let go, the leftists say, "its well within the rights of the company to do so?"

this happens all the time in this nation and you guys know it.

*edit- i mean, dark ones and fags win large settlements even if they were never even hired by claiming their rights were infringed on.

what... the... FUCK?

if you are black and get fired you sue. If you are a queer who takes a dick up the ass but get fired because you suck at your job you sue. Only white male Christians are allowed to have their rights stepped on. Obama said it was ok.
_______________________________________________________________
"If guns kill people then spoons make us fat!"