Search Results

Great idea! Send me a blank one and I'll fill it in, thanks.

I have one, thanks! A good one! 21 years today.

Ha! 58 pages and 14,000 views evidently is not nothing to those viewing and replying.

Just drop what? And who is "Tweeker"?

No. Why is that relevant? (Why do you capitalize "Mother" but not capitalize "you"? That's odd.)

A little accuracy is worth pursuing here. I asked for information and organizing thoughts; not really "advice". And we have already implemented a number of the more reasonable suggestions here. So your dubious "definition" of a word that does not really exist is not particularly apt here.

I love the passive voice there (and in your previous, similar post.) "It has been explained to you." Oh! It has been explained to me! Well that changes everything! Obviously I no longer can disagree once "it has been explained!" I even replied, "Good info?" Of course I did. I appreciate the...

It totals to years at altitude - with benefit of oxygen.

The frenzied, irrational opposition in this thread is interesting. In thumbnail, the conversation goes something like this: Me: You have the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. You: No I don't! How dare you suggest such a thing! Why do you want, emotionally want...

One of 'em!

Why continue to be unaccountably rude? If you don't like the way the discussion is going, just go elsewhere and go on about your day. No one forces you to read a thread you don't like. And why on earth do you care, anyway?

I'd be interested to read those. Please provide citations. Having reviewed Carroll v. United States and State v. Roberson, those cases actually refute the legality of this search. To be clear, I am not referring to the stop for an inoperative third brake light, but to the subsequent search with...

It is exactly his fundamental argument. Merely to gainsay is not refutation. Show how I misstated his argument.

Oh, yes I can! That is the topic at hand. I agree "unreasonable" is subjective - unless supported by further language. It is. Read all following the comma and "and".

Wow! It is simply amazing how many of you know my son! Without your input I would have no idea what he wants or does not want. Thanks for filling me in!

Ah, there we go! In 52 pages this is the first reasoned disagreement. Lots of relevant points to discuss. I don't mind disagreement on the substance. There just is no point in rudeness, which has merely the opposite of its intended effect. Understand your fundamental argument: Fundamentally you...

This current news item is interesting in its parallels: Jordan Sekulow, the executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice, took up the case of these students on the grounds that the Smithsonian violated their First Amendment rights by requiring them to remove hats with a pro-life...

Nope. That also is not entirely true. Continuing in Section XV: SECTION XV-2 Administration and filing of oath - Refusal to take - False swearing. . . . any person refusing to take said oath, or affirmation, shall forfeit his office, and any person who shall have been convicted of having sworn...

Here:

Oh, I don't think it is. I was looking only for what I stated: information. Some of you gave excellent information and references. Thanks! Now it's just a discussion. Join if you like. Don't if you don't like.