Possible Terrorist Attack at Boston Marathon

[kusai]

Your indoctrination is absolutely wrong. We have Mohammed Ali (Boxer) Malik Abdul Aziz AKA Mike Tyson, Masad Ayood. So in your opinion these guys and other 1000's of pro US hard core american citizens should not have been allowed here ? May be we should all leave the US and go to where we or our forefathers came from, and leave the country to Indians as it was.

"He went through through the proper process" is what I think is wrong. If your born in Russia, Chechnya or any of those other radical countries, there should not be a process in place that allows one to come here and become a US Citizen. This is Obama's immigration plan in it's finest hour.

 

[UncleSamsMisguidedChild]

Guess they could have launched a drone attack on the boat also if they wanted.......................

I was thinking that exact thing last night.... where are these drives we've been hearing so much about.

 

[Anger]

I was thinking that exact thing last night.... where are these drives we've been hearing so much about.

Drone schmone. They could have just riddled that boat with a properly placed grenade or two. They did get him alive, which I suppose is a good thing for intellegence as long as the obummer administration doesn't label this as another workplace violence incident.

 

[M. Sage]

The USSC has no abdicated their responsibilities.

Oh, they absolutely have. Roberts said in the Obamacare decision, "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." Really? Not the court's job to protect us from politicians passing unconstitutional laws? What an interesting approach he's taken.

Oh, and this isn't anything new. The decision where the court decided to allow DUI checkpoints (which in some states have expanded to license and insurance checkpoints) states (in not so many words) that while yes, a checkpoint is a 4th Amendment violation because it detains people without suspicion, the fact that checkpoints lower DUI rates (easy to disprove, and never has actually been proven) and that the state has an "interest" in preventing DUI overcomes the citizen's 4th Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court is a strictly political, they rarely decide on constitutionality, they decide on political expedience.

 

[Texan2]

Oh, they absolutely have. Roberts said in the Obamacare decision, "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." Really? Not the court's job to protect us from politicians passing unconstitutional laws? What an interesting approach he's taken.

Oh, and this isn't anything new. The decision where the court decided to allow DUI checkpoints (which in some states have expanded to license and insurance checkpoints) states (in not so many words) that while yes, a checkpoint is a 4th Amendment violation because it detains people without suspicion, the fact that checkpoints lower DUI rates (easy to disprove, and never has actually been proven) and that the state has an "interest" in preventing DUI overcomes the citizen's 4th Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court is a strictly political, they rarely decide on constitutionality, they decide on political expedience.

Again, because YOU think its unconstitutional does not make it so. In our system of government, the courts decide that. And if their decision is that a law is constitutional, then it is. We can agree with them or we can disagree, but the question to a law's constitutionality is decided by them, not you. So many tout the constitution but want to disregard this part when the courts disagree with their view on an issue.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[okie556]

Your indoctrination is absolutely wrong. We have Mohammed Ali (Boxer) Malik Abdul Aziz AKA Mike Tyson, Masad Ayood. So in your opinion these guys and other 1000's of pro US hard core american citizens should not have been allowed here ? May be we should all leave the US and go to where we or our forefathers came from, and leave the country to Indians as it was. [/QUOTE

Why do so called hard core american citizens choose to change their american names? C. Clay became Mohammed Ali....one of your examples. Why do all these people want to come to the US but never attempt to learn our language and our culture? If they are so hot on being US citizens...act, talk and dress like US Citizens.

 

[Texan2]

Your indoctrination is absolutely wrong. We have Mohammed Ali (Boxer) Malik Abdul Aziz AKA Mike Tyson, Masad Ayood. So in your opinion these guys and other 1000's of pro US hard core american citizens should not have been allowed here ? May be we should all leave the US and go to where we or our forefathers came from, and leave the country to Indians as it was. [/QUOTE

Why do so called hard core american citizens choose to change their american names? C. Clay became Mohammed Ali....one of your examples. Why do all these people want to come to the US but never attempt to learn our language and our culture? If they are so hot on being US citizens...act, talk and dress like US Citizens.

I believe everyone he named speaks perfect English....

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jakashh]

I speak perfect English. Of course I was born here, but my parents were not. Hell, they teach English in foreign schools. I've got cousins who've never been to America or outside Pakistan who speak better English than some Americans.

 

[kusai]

I've got cousins who've never been to America or outside Pakistan who speak better English than some Americans.

Call center lol ?

Jokes apart I totally believe Jakashh since my cousin does have a few employees in Pakistan and I have overheard their conversation and you could hardly tell the difference. The only people who I have seen reluctant to learn english are Mexicans (no offense)

 

[Younggun]

Again, because YOU think its unconstitutional does not make it so. In our system of government, the courts decide that. And if their decision is that a law is constitutional, then it is. We can agree with them or we can disagree, but the question to a law's constitutionality is decided by them, not you. So many tout the constitution but want to disregard this part when the courts disagree with their view on an issue.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

By your reasoning if firearms were completely banned in this country with out repeal of the second amendment it would not be unconstitutional unless SCOTUS said so even though it is obviously a violation of the second amendment.

The decisions made by the SCOTUS are just like any other decisions made by the government. Meaningless without the support of the people, therefore it is the people who decide what is constitutional by choosing to abide by the decisions made or ignore them.

 

[inceptor]

By your reasoning if firearms were completely banned in this country with out repeal of the second amendment it would not be unconstitutional unless SCOTUS said so even though it is obviously a violation of the second amendment.

The decisions made by the SCOTUS are just like any other decisions made by the government. Meaningless without the support of the people, therefore it is the people who decide what is constitutional by choosing to abide by the decisions made or ignore them.

Actually Obummer said in his 1st term that he was only 2 appointments away from repealing the 2A. If SCOTUS decides that Militia means military and National Guard then we are done for. The 2A is redefined and then he can ban guns from the general public.

 

[Jakashh]

Actually Obummer said in his 1st term that he was only 2 appointments away from repealing the 2A. If SCOTUS decides that Militia means military and National Guard then we are done for. The 2A is redefined and then he can ban guns from the general public.

¡Viva la revolución!

 

[Texan2]

By your reasoning if firearms were completely banned in this country with out repeal of the second amendment it would not be unconstitutional unless SCOTUS said so even though it is obviously a violation of the second amendment.

The decisions made by the SCOTUS are just like any other decisions made by the government. Meaningless without the support of the people, therefore it is the people who decide what is constitutional by choosing to abide by the decisions made or ignore them.

Thank you for demonstrating your complete absence of any type of knowledge of our legal system. You scream about the constitution, but then don't want to adhere to the format contained within it. Hilarious.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Texan2]

By your reasoning if firearms were completely banned in this country with out repeal of the second amendment it would not be unconstitutional unless SCOTUS said so even though it is obviously a violation of the second amendment.

The decisions made by the SCOTUS are just like any other decisions made by the government. Meaningless without the support of the people, therefore it is the people who decide what is constitutional by choosing to abide by the decisions made or ignore them.

Thank you for demonstrating your complete lack of any type of knowledge of our legal system. You scream about the constitution, but then don't want to adhere to the format contained within it. Hilarious.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Younggun]

Thank you for demonstrating your complete lack of any type of knowledge of our legal system. You scream about the constitution, but then don't want to adhere to the format contained within it. Hilarious.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I didn't scream about anything and you made no counter points.

Makes it very difficult to have a discussion on the subject.

 

[Texan2]

I didn't scream about anything and you made no counter points.

Makes it very difficult to have a discussion on the subject.

There is nothing to counter. Your post about how the people decide what is constitutional is funny/sad/embarrassing, if indeed that's how you think a constitutional republic works. "The people" don't decide if a law is constitutional. If your grasp of the system is that lacking, we don't have much to discuss.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Texan2]

By using your logic, if most of Boston is ok with house to house searches then they can't be unconstitutional... After all "the people decide" not the courts.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Younggun]

Actually, they did in 1861.

 

[Texan2]

Actually, they did in 1861.

and how did that work out for them???

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Younggun]

They became a sovereign nation which was invaded by the US.

Doesn't change the fact that the people decided that states rights were being violated and did something about it.

Point being, the people have the power to "override" a Supreme Court decision if their is strong and mass opposition to it. And mass does not mean 200 people mad.

I doubt you will ever be willing to see the point I'm making because it's to crazy to believe the people could ever possibly take a stand against a corrupt government blatantly violating the constitution and that's Ok.

Good to know where you stand.