Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Shreveport Mayor "Your rights are suspended"

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, La
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    I got this from a friend who is on the email alert list for NAGR. I found it posted in OCDO Washington forum from a month ago. It seems the story originated around June 2009, I don't know how we have missed it here on the Louisiana board.

    link to story from NAGR from June 10, 2010
    http://paracom.paramountcommunicatio...0590C3761E2DBF

    link to transcript from conservativedrink.com from June 19, 2009
    http://www.conservativedrink.com/med...0809-Text.html



    Robert Baillio: Well...I don't know if my phone broke up or what but you're saying that...As a citizen...when I am stopped by a police officer I don't have any rights?
    Mayor Cedric Glover: Your rights at that point, Mr. Baillio, have been suspended. That's part of what makes the powers and duties of a...in fact it's one of the things that I say to each and every one of the police officers who graduates from the Shreveport Police Academy since I've been mayor.









  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Anywhere but here.
    Posts
    523

    Post imported post

    I'll bet a case of ammo that this jacka$$ mayor has a D next to his name. What an obvious case of delusional self importance.
    This site has been hijacked by leftists who attack opposition to further their own ends. Those who have never served this country and attack those who do are no longer worthy of my time or attention.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Post imported post

    Cedric Glover: Keeping up the infamous tradition of Marion Barry, Bill Campbell, and Kwame Kilpatrick.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    shreveport
    Posts
    57

    Post imported post

    Yes sir thats the mayor of my town.Hes in the Mayors against handguns group with Bloomberg from new york.He is anti WHITE,GUNS andFREESPEECH.hand picked chief of police from troop g he was 4th on test results.Got the job anyways.When this hit the news only 1 station would report it.The city council raised hell but thats all.Be carefull in shreveport.Open carry gets you a ticket for disturbing the peace .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa_G5NvfyVU

  5. #5
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915

    Post imported post

    NRAMARINE wrote:
    I'll bet a case of ammo that this jacka$$ mayor has a D next to his name. What an obvious case of delusional self importance.
    I'm not taking that bet, I suspected the answer before even looking

    Cedric Bradford Glover (born August 9, 1965) is the Democratic mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana -- the first African American to hold the position.




  6. #6
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    Fallschirmjäger wrote:
    NRAMARINE wrote:
    I'll bet a case of ammo that this jacka$$ mayor has a D next to his name. What an obvious case of delusional self importance.
    I'm not taking that bet, I suspected the answer before even looking

    Cedric Bradford Glover (born August 9, 1965) is the Democratic mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana -- the first African American to hold the position.


    Fat *******. Typical. When you're stopped by the cops, your rights begin. But with his GED, this pos can't be expected to know that. What's his experience? Car wash or garbage truck?
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Well in a sense, he's right, isn't he?

    Your right to liberty is certainly suspended until the cop decides to let you go.

    Doesn't mean you don't have the right, but for the duration of the traffic stop, it's disabled. This is part of my problem with the existence of cops, government, authority, etc., but it's the way it is, as far as I can see.

    Not saying your mayor isn't a *******, I'm sure he probably is.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Hammond Area, LA, ,
    Posts
    238

    Post imported post

    IF you're suspected of a crime then your rights are not suspended per say. This is why they remind you of your rights by reading your Miranda warning that starts "You have the right to remain silent." Your rights as a human being can not be surrendered or suspended, though crotch stains like this tub of poop think differently.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    Even with all the effort we are putting forth, we still will not affect major change, untill we start change within our own families. The average family is being taught a value system that does not recognize the right to carry along with a host of other issues that work counter to a society that respects individual rights over the rights of the State or the Federal Government.

    In short, Families are all screwed up. Men letting everything under the sun advocate their God given authorty and responsibilities as men.

    Your real battle is the hearts and minds of the public, i.e. the families. No longer does, "Father know best", etc. Families are being raised much like the Europeans raise their families. See where they are? This is where we are heading fast.

    We need to take a good hard look at how we are raising our families and what our values are based on. I'm not looking to get into a very broad discussion about everything that was wrong or right a hundred years ago, but we would need to almost go back to a lot of the principles that were in place back then.

    Don't see it happening until men take a good hard look at themselves and act accordingly.

    This saying by one of our president's, pretty much sums it up:

    'We have staked the whole of all our political Institutions upon the capacity of mankind for Self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to The Ten Commandments of God.' ~ James Madison, 4th President of The United States of America

    "Upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God" You either have been raised to get this or you have not. And all the talk in the world will not get you to understand nor tolive bythese values, unless you have been given the tools to understand and teachthem when you were young. So when people, get elected into "authority" positions and they don't have the up bringing to live and govern based on these principlies, then what principlies will they govern by?

    You will have what you have in most major cities and pretty much everywhere now, that is a form of Tyranny. A suppressive and over reaching tyrannical goverment with leaders that laugh at what you think are "your rights". Sounds harsh, yeah, but its the truth!

    Which leads me to another saying:

    When they get piled upon one another in large cities as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe." --Thomas Jefferson

    You either get this or you don't!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    That's all very nice. Now reword it for people who aren't religious, or it will be lost on them.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk,

    Good, I will get back to you with an explanation that is worthy of your request. And are you a religious man?







  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Paul E. Blouin wrote:
    Tomahawk,

    Good, I will get back to you with an explanation that is worthy of your request. And are you a religious man?





    Not particularly.

    In my conversations with others who are interested in liberty-related issues, I have had arguments with some, usually christians,who told me our rights come from God.

    I told them that if that is the only basis for their belief in unalienable rights, than it won't resonate with anyone who doesn't share their beliefs.

    The usual response to that was, "So what! I know I'm right and so does God!", which completely misses the point and just sounds arrogant.

    You're not trying to convince people that god gave them their rights, you're trying to convince them that they have rights, and that those rights belong to them because they are human beings, regardless of religion.

    That's why I was intrigued by Locke and others who wrote of natural rights, the philosophical position that it is in human nature to prosper best only when our rights are respected, that our rights come to us as a function of our existence in the natural world. Basically, we are wired to be free.

    The beauty of Natural Rights theory is that it works whether you are religious or not; to the Christian, nature is God's creation and thus rights come to us from God because he made the natural world the way he did. To the athiest, rights come to us because of whatever natural forces led us to be the way we are, because the universe works under a set of rational rules, and humans are capable of being rational when we act responsibly and think. Locke himself was a Christian, some of the Founders were Diests.

    If you can get people to respect unalienable rights, you have won. You are now free to live life the way you want, including a Christian life if that's what you choose. The United States is (for now) the freest nation in the world, and it's also the most religious. Nations where religion is tied to the government are usually oppressive and the people have no freedom and go through the motions when it comes to worshipping the state religion.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    Well, I've read your reply. And I thank you for your response. You seem to have some reasoning that you feel is correct. At least it sounds as though you think it is correct.

    You said, Not particularly. Don't really know how to move forward with that. Is that a yes or no? That answer leaves one to draw aconclusion that you may be, but maybe not. Not too sure are you?

    Are you trying to hedge your bet? :-) !!

    Really don't know where to start in regard to a real thoughtful discussion regarding my email and how you replied.

    One may choose to belief whatever they like; but one cannot mistake this country's founders being Christian Men and thereby building this great country on biblical principles. There is no doubt that this nation became what is was because of it's founder's beliefs. You sir, meaning no disrespect, enjoy these freedoms and thefruits thereof because of these very beliefs and teachings that came from the Bible. Because ofsocialism, which has taken over our great country through the Democraticparty under the guise of "diversity", the very foundation of this greatness is being eroded away as we speak and live. The founders of this once great and Godly country had it right when they wrote the Consitution. The mold was set by the belief's of the framers. They were very, very clear.........this consitution and government, or WE THE PEOPLE is wholly for a religious people and let's be clear, they meant Christianity. And without that structure of belief to hold it together, to give it a living, life giving power, (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) make no mistake, it will fail. Because we have strayed away from these belief's, and our families no longer teach that which is what made us great, weno longer have proper discriminating abilities. We have become a nation ofsuch "diversified idealogies",we no longer function as a people as the founders envisioned, thereby renderingthe Consititution inaffectual, no longer being able to move us forward as a people,losing our directionas a nation.

    I don't care a about a person'scolor, height, riches, nor short hair, or long hair. I care about what our framers said and what they believed. Like I said, you will either get it or you will not!

    When you embrace liberal "Diversity", you embrace socialism!



    In short Sir, you may be knowingly or unknowingly,the product of this effort,"socialist diversity"which is our country's demise!

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Paul E. Blouin wrote:
    Tomahawk,

    Good, I will get back to you with an explanation that is worthy of your request. And are you a religious man?
    SNIP Not particularly...
    +1

    I am commenting on the Tomahawk's entire post, rather than just on his answer that he is not particularly religious, hence the ellipsis (three dots).
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Paul E. Blouin wrote:
    One may choose to belief whatever they like; but one cannot mistake this country's founders being Christian Men and thereby building this great country on biblical principles.
    Actually, many of them were Diests.

    And I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic, anyway, since we all agree we have rights. The question is, does a cop have the power to suspend your rights?

    I argue that, yes, anyone with sufficient force can compel you to stop exercising your rights. A police officer arrests you, your right to liberty has been suspended until you are released.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Covington, LA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    I broke the story about Mayor Glover on the radio show right after it happened. Robert Balio (the man who was stopped) is a friend.

    I talked with the Mayor about it. He's the typical shout-you-down politician. He held to the "your rights have been suspended" line.

    I said, "So, during the civil rights march, when police chief Bull Connor released the dogs on the marchers, he was legal to do that because their rights had been suspended?"

    He didn't much care for that.

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    barf wrote:
    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    Just remember, folks, these arsehats don't appoint themselves to power, stupid Amerikans ELECT them.

    Tom, what prevents such a person from being ARRESTED or INDICTED ? After all, why should HE get a free pass? If any of us violated the law, would we still be strutting around BRAGGING about it?

    Repeat after me: "we'd all be better off with NO government at all."
    f-u-c-k you and all that you stand for.
    completely uncalled for. totally and completely uncalled for.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Anywhere but here.
    Posts
    523

    Post imported post

    barf wrote:
    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    Just remember, folks, these arsehats don't appoint themselves to power, stupid Amerikans ELECT them.

    Tom, what prevents such a person from being ARRESTED or INDICTED ? After all, why should HE get a free pass? If any of us violated the law, would we still be strutting around BRAGGING about it?

    Repeat after me: "we'd all be better off with NO government at all."
    f-u-c-k you and all that you stand for.
    You're sinking barf. You're better than this. ___________________________-here's a line, please take it.
    This site has been hijacked by leftists who attack opposition to further their own ends. Those who have never served this country and attack those who do are no longer worthy of my time or attention.

  19. #19
    Regular Member barf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Nawlins, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    259

    Post imported post

    REMOVED BY MODERATOR

  20. #20
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Well in a sense, he's right, isn't he?

    Your right to liberty is certainly suspended until the cop decides to let you go.

    Doesn't mean you don't have the right, but for the duration of the traffic stop, it's disabled. This is part of my problem with the existence of cops, government, authority, etc., but it's the way it is, as far as I can see.

    Not saying your mayor isn't a *******, I'm sure he probably is.
    Your rights are never suspended. Otherwise, they couldn't be called "rights," could they? If they're violated, you have standing to let the courts defend them and reestablish that they are indeed 'rights.'
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  21. #21
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    DKSuddeth wrote:
    barf wrote:
    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    Just remember, folks, these arsehats don't appoint themselves to power, stupid Amerikans ELECT them.

    Tom, what prevents such a person from being ARRESTED or INDICTED ? After all, why should HE get a free pass? If any of us violated the law, would we still be strutting around BRAGGING about it?

    Repeat after me: "we'd all be better off with NO government at all."
    f-u-c-k you and all that you stand for.
    completely uncalled for. totally and completely uncalled for.
    I agree. I don't care for the "repeat after me..."line, either. But the response is as bad as the statement--if not worse.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    Well in a sense, he's right, isn't he?

    Your right to liberty is certainly suspended until the cop decides to let you go.

    Doesn't mean you don't have the right, but for the duration of the traffic stop, it's disabled. This is part of my problem with the existence of cops, government, authority, etc., but it's the way it is, as far as I can see.

    Not saying your mayor isn't a *******, I'm sure he probably is.
    Your rights are never suspended. Otherwise, they couldn't be called "rights," could they? If they're violated, you have standing to let the courts defend them and reestablish that they are indeed 'rights.'
    Okay, so the cops have the power to "violate" your rights. I don't see the difference between that and suspending, or disabling.

    I thought "disable" was the word used in the legal profession to describe what happens to your rights when you are convicted of a crime, is it not? Like when a felon is denied the right to buy a gun, don't the lawyers say "his right to bear arms has been 'disabled'"?

    Wonder if any of you lawyer guys can answer this technical question.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    SNIP I thought "disable" was the word used in the legal profession to describe what happens to your rights when you are convicted of a crime, is it not? Like when a felon is denied the right to buy a gun, don't the lawyers say "his right to bear arms has been 'disabled'"?
    Good point. Even that misses the mark, though.

    A right is a right is a right is a right. More accurate would be for the legal system to say that, "his right to buy a gun is unrecognized."

    Might be kinda fun to review the history on these words. It occurs to me that to say a person has a legal disability has a bit of a statist premise behind it. Wonder where it all started.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    No, it doesn't miss the mark.

    I am NOT saying a cop or a judge can take your rights away. Only nature or nature's god can do this, depending on your core beliefs.

    But "suspending", "disabling", "refusing to recognize", and "infringing" all mean basically the same thing: some person is keeping you from exercising your rights.

    When you are stopped by a cop in traffic, you are NOT free to leave. Therefore, your right to liberty has been suspended, infringed, disabled, unrecogized, whatever you want to call it.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    No, it doesn't miss the mark.

    I am NOT saying a cop or a judge can take your rights away. Only nature or nature's god can do this, depending on your core beliefs.

    But "suspending", "disabling", "refusing to recognize", and "infringing" all mean basically the same thing: some person is keeping you from exercising your rights.

    When you are stopped by a cop in traffic, you are NOT free to leave. Therefore, your right to liberty has been suspended, infringed, disabled, unrecogized, whatever you want to call it.
    I'm not talking about you missing the mark. I'm talking about government missing the mark for pretty much the reasons you give. I'm more in the direction of noticing the government covering-up the most apt description of what occurs--non-recognition.

    I'm thinking that ifgovernment actually usedvariations of the root word"recognize"--every single time--more people might notice all the non-recognitions and start to realize the rights that are not-recognized must, by implication, still exist.Thegovernment can't have that, I'll bet.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •