SCOTUS rules on Miranda case

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

TFred wrote:

We need to be praying hard for the health and safety of these 5 sensible judges every day.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

This post is despicable. Way to ensure that large numbers of members completely lose respect for your posting judgment.

Have a nice life.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Tawnos wrote:

TFred wrote:

We need to be praying hard for the health and safety of these 5 sensible judges every day.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

This post is despicable. Way to ensure that large numbers of members completely lose respect for your posting judgment.

Have a nice life.

Click to expand...

I don't know the intent of the post of this picture but I do have an opinion on it. I Saw Jerry Clower in person several times and this is my favorite story that he would tell. It relates directly to this and people need to pay attention to his message instead of complaining about the messenger,

http://wuapinmon.blogspot.com/2005/09/late-great-jerry-clowers-words-of.html

I couldn't find a youtube version of Jerry actually telling it so you will have to read this writer's version of it.


Or as Levi Stubbs put in on The Four Tops Live album, "If ever you want your prayers answered, get up off your knees and do something about them".

imported post

eye95 wrote:

This post is despicable. Way to ensure that large numbers of members completely lose respect for your posting judgment.

Have a nice life.

Click to expand...

Because you disagree with it? What is the effect of prayer? "God's will" is the answer most commonly given. Does it alter the outcome in any measurable way? No. Hence, praying does nothing, but I'm sure it makes you feel good.

If you want to make a difference, try writing to your political elect, and ensure those of like mind do the same. Explain why you think a particular court nominee is troubling, and the way you want the representative to vote. Should the person continue to act against the country's interest, vote against, campaign against, or help campaigning against the person who does not represent your views.

Or, you know, talk to the invisible sky wizard and get angry that someone says that you're talking to yourself.

imported post

TFred's comment was:

"We need to be praying hard for the health and safety of these 5 sensible judges every day."

How is...

"...writing to your political elect, and ensure those of like mind do the same. Explain why you think a particular court nominee is troubling, and the way you want the representative to vote. Should the person continue to act against the country's interest, vote against, campaign against, or help campaigning against the person who does not represent your views."

...going to affect the health and safety of 5 justices on the supreme court?

Way to go Tawnos. You disregard the content of the thread and hijack it so you can express your disdain for another's personalbeliefs expressed in an incidental comment. Intolerant much?

imported post

God how my brain cells must be dying off, how could I not have
connected the dots till just now.
Miranda had to be overturned in support of Arizona who created it.
Now the illegals need to learn english to invoke their rights.
This was all just to get back at the WH for badmouthing logic and
adherence to the constitution at the goof talking address.
No wonder the 4 court jesters are so upset.

imported post

SlackwareRobert wrote:

God how my brain cells must be dying off, how could I not have
connected the dots till just now.
Miranda had to be overturned in support of Arizona who created it.
Now the illegals need to learn english to invoke their rights.
This was all just to get back at the WH for badmouthing logic and
adherence to the constitution at the goof talking address.
No wonder the 4 court jesters are so upset.

Click to expand...

That, if true, would be funny in awarpedsort of way. :lol:

imported post

JT wrote:

"...writing to your political elect, and ensure those of like mind do the same. Explain why you think a particular court nominee is troubling, and the way you want the representative to vote."

Click to expand...

Ha ha, now that you've said it this way... with the lack of results we've had with our "lock-step 'moderate'" Senators these days, even an Atheist has a hard time arguing that prayer is less effective than petitioning their politicians...



TFred

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

eye95 wrote:

This post is despicable. Way to ensure that large numbers of members completely lose respect for your posting judgment.

Have a nice life.

Click to expand...

Because you disagree with it? What is the effect of prayer? "God's will" is the answer most commonly given. Does it alter the outcome in any measurable way? No. Hence, praying does nothing, but I'm sure it makes you feel good.

Click to expand...

No. Because the post is deliberately and gratuitously insulting to many of the other posters here. As far as I am concerned, nothing you ever write again will matter one whit to me.

I regret that this board does not have an ignore feature. We should have the ability to wipe from our view the posts of those who show as little respect for other posters as you do.

imported post

JT wrote:

TFred's comment was:

"We need to be praying hard for the health and safety of these 5 sensible judges every day."

How is...

"...writing to your political elect, and ensure those of like mind do the same. Explain why you think a particular court nominee is troubling, and the way you want the representative to vote. Should the person continue to act against the country's interest, vote against, campaign against, or help campaigning against the person who does not represent your views."

...going to affect the health and safety of 5 justices on the supreme court?

Way to go Tawnos. You disregard the content of the thread and hijack it so you can express your disdain for another's personalbeliefs expressed in an incidental comment. Intolerant much?

Click to expand...

He is intolerant a lot. Disgustingly so.

imported post

Prayer is a good thing. There are unfortunately, some people that use it inappropriately, as an excuse not to act when they need to. If your using prayer in this way though, it can become sinful.

Prayer is not an excuse for negligence.

I have met individuals/groups of people that abuse prayer in this way. Can't pay your rent? Go to church all day as opposed to getting a job. etc etc.

With this understanding and background. I find that picture funny. But that is because I'm placing it in my own context.

In of itself, however, I think it is offensive. I feel it is inflammatory and meant to insult people solely based on religion. Therefor I request this thread be locked and the posts with the picture deleted.

imported post

JT wrote:

TFred's comment was:

"We need to be praying hard for the health and safety of these 5 sensible judges every day."

How is...

"...writing to your political elect, and ensure those of like mind do the same. Explain why you think a particular court nominee is troubling, and the way you want the representative to vote. Should the person continue to act against the country's interest, vote against, campaign against, or help campaigning against the person who does not represent your views."

...going to affect the health and safety of 5 justices on the supreme court?

Click to expand...

There are some things you can affect, and some you cannot. Their health and safety is beyond your control, but their replacement, should health and safety falter, is not. Rather than speculatively hoping for their health and safety, I suggest it is a better use of your time and energy to be teaching new people how to shoot, to write to your representatives, to positively impact your community, etc. Set up the situation so that even if all of the Heller 5 were gone, their replacements would be selected by a vote backed by a population with a positive view of firearms and self-defense.

I'm extremely tolerant; I simply disagree with the suggestion of the use of prayer for anything more than personal meditation. The concerns presented are real, the suggestions for addressing it should be effective, meaningful, and applicable across a variety of beliefs and value systems.

Tolerance is accepting that a lot of you will act in a manner I perceive to be irrational and ultimately ineffective, even while I advocate a different path and criticize the manner in which you act. It's the same way I tolerate the free speech of those who are anti-self-defense, the same way I tolerate vegetarians who argue against eating meat, etc. Being "tolerant" does not mean never insulting your belief systems, but rather, accepting that you have that system, even while disagreeing with it. You want to see intolerance? Homogenization of your worldview exposure through use of an "ignore" feature would be intolerance: you cannot even tolerate that I disagree with you, or the manner in which I do so. The fact that you, eye95, wish you could do that speaks volumes of the type of person you are, the same way that my inflammatory, brash, and outspoken viewpoints on my right to self-defense, atheism, etc does about me.

In short: I may be an asshole, but I am in no way intolerant.

imported post

My point was you hijacked the thread solelyto denounce prayer. Prayer isn't the topic;no one was advocating the mind-set or actionsyou are railing against; and your determination toopposea single off-the-cuff remark as if it was the focus of the thread does indeedmake you look intolerant.

Tawnos wrote:

You want to see intolerance? Homogenization of your worldview exposure through use of an "ignore" feature would be intolerance: you cannot even tolerate that I disagree with you, or the manner in which I do so. The fact that you, eye95, wish you could do that speaks volumes of the type of person you are, the same way that my inflammatory, brash, and outspoken viewpoints on my right to self-defense, atheism, etc does about me.

Click to expand...

No one is advocating silencing your beliefs. I'm suggesting you stay on topic. Eye95 evidently agrees withyour self-assessmentthat you"... may be an @#$%", and would rather not have to weed through your intentionally inflammatory and off topiccomments. It has nothing to do with being intolerant of your beliefs. It has to do with you wrecking a good discussion with bad behavior. So for that we are now the intolerant ones opposing your rights? Paranoid much?

imported post

JT wrote:

My point was you hijacked the thread solelyto denounce prayer. Prayer isn't the topic;no one was advocating the mind-set or actionsyou are railing against; and your determination toopposea single off-the-cuff remark as if it was the focus of the thread does indeedmake you look intolerant.

Click to expand...

Wait, I hijacked the topic? I thought the person suggesting we pray for the health and safety of the justices he liked happened before I responded to that. Or was that an acceptable off-topic response? I responded to that thread direction, pointing out that prayer is going to do nothing to guarantee their safety or health, so maybe a different course of action is better.

Tawnos wrote:

You want to see intolerance? Homogenization of your worldview exposure through use of an "ignore" feature would be intolerance: you cannot even tolerate that I disagree with you, or the manner in which I do so. The fact that you, eye95, wish you could do that speaks volumes of the type of person you are, the same way that my inflammatory, brash, and outspoken viewpoints on my right to self-defense, atheism, etc does about me.

Click to expand...

No one is advocating silencing your beliefs. I'm suggesting you stay on topic. Eye95 evidently agrees withyour self-assessmentthat you"... may be an @#$%", and would rather not have to weed through your intentionally inflammatory and off topiccomments. It has nothing to do with being intolerant of your beliefs. It has to do with you wrecking a good discussion with bad behavior. So for that we are now the intolerant ones opposing your rights? Paranoid much?

Click to expand...

Odd, if this isn't that advocacy, what is it:

I regret that this board does not have an ignore feature. We should have the ability to wipe from our view the posts of those who show as little respect for other posters as you do.

Click to expand...

imported post

If somebody's too dumb to say, "Officer, I have nothing to say without a lawyer present." there's not much I can say or do for them.

Knowing your legal rights to at least a minimal level is the DUTY of every citizen.

Hell, it's worth it just to annoy the authoritarians who think you should talk to the police without a lawyer and consent to any search.

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

Odd, if this isn't that advocacy, what is it:

I regret that this board does not have an ignore feature. We should have the ability to wipe from our view the posts of those who show as little respect for other posters as you do.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You have a right to speak. Others have the right to ignore you. This board affords no civilrights. The moderators may choose to lock or delet this thread at any time. So back on topic....

Deanimator wrote:

Knowing your legal rights to at least a minimal level is the DUTY of every citizen.

Click to expand...

True butunfortunately much ofour society looks at rights without any thought about the responsibility involved in enjoying them. The minimum responsibility inherent in any right is to know what the right is. It seems to me that the dissenting opinion is trying to uphold that very flaw. They argue that Thompkins should have his rights without any accompnying responsibility for waiving them by speaking.

imported post

JT wrote:

Tawnos wrote:

Odd, if this isn't that advocacy, what is it:

I regret that this board does not have an ignore feature. We should have the ability to wipe from our view the posts of those who show as little respect for other posters as you do.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You have a right to speak. Others have the right to ignore you. This board affords no civilrights. The moderators may choose to lock or delet this thread at any time.

Click to expand...

I was pointing out that this: "No one is advocating silencing your beliefs." is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of forcefully silencing another's posts via mute because you're intolerant of seeing a viewpoint that so offends you. Hence, eye95 was advocating silencing me.

So back on topic....

Deanimator wrote:

Knowing your legal rights to at least a minimal level is the DUTY of every citizen.

Click to expand...

True butunfortunately much ofour society looks at rights without any thought about the responsibility involved in enjoying them. The minimum responsibility inherent in any right is to know what the right is. It seems to me that the dissenting opinion is trying to uphold that very flaw. They argue that Thompkins should have his rights without any accompnying responsibility for waiving them by speaking.

Click to expand...

Agreed, back on topic:
I think that there is some value in the dissenting opinion, but I do agree with the majority's opinion. The value is that Miranda rights were meant to address a disparity between the power of officers and your perceived power as a citizen under question. Yet the majority opinion weakens the shield given to the citizens by making it so that after asking if a person to be interrogated understands his or her rights, the officers may begin a long course of questioning whereby mere silence isn't considered an affirmation of the rights. I would have much rather seen a decision focus on the fact that the defendant did not remain silent at all, but was intermittently answering, than the ruling which came out as saying one must assertively speak to claim silence. However, that said, if the defendant states they understand the rights presented, I can see how a defendant must say "I want counsel" in order to get it, which is what this decision ultimately hinged on. Not the right to be silent, but the right to ask for a lawyer.