Forums | MacLife

bratboy · 2007-09-20 12:51 pm

KrowMagnum wrote:
Regardless of whether or not the states agreed with the power of the bill it was still written to protect the people. The supreme court rulings were because the states were being unconstitutional.

The states were wrong.... so you are arguing that they were right ?

confused

First of all, they were not written to apply to the States. Secondly, incorporation required use of the 14th Amendment. I suppose you could say that once the 14th Amendment was ratified, everything immediately became incorporated against the States--we just didn't find out until several decades later.

The fact of the matter remains that, for much of this country's history, citizens were not protected against state police actions by the federal Constitution.

You'll note my initial statement on the matter:

bratboy wrote:
There was a time when the Bill of Rights didn't apply to state and local police forces at all.

KrowMagnum · 2007-09-20 12:55 pm

Chickenhawk wrote:
KrowMagnum wrote:
Regardless of whether or not the states agreed with the power of the bill it was still written to protect the people. The supreme court rulings were because the states were being unconstitutional.

The states were wrong.... so you are arguing that they were right ?
....
The interpretation of the bill changed over time. If you want to take an absolutist stance, then I can just start to ignore you.

Interpretation is whatever anybody wants to make it. Read it for what it is. It's not that difficult.

And using Wikipedia as a source is not a sign of intelligence.

bratboy · 2007-09-20 12:56 pm

KrowMagnum wrote:
Interpretation is whatever anybody wants to make it. Read it for what it is. It's not that difficult.

And using Wikipedia as a source is not a sign of intelligence.

Are you questioning what Wikipedia says regarding this topic? I could find any number of other texts to back it up.

KrowMagnum · 2007-09-20 12:59 pm

If you want to source something use a real source.

Phydeaux · 2007-09-20 1:00 pm

KrowMagnum wrote:
bratboy wrote:
KrowMagnum wrote:
Some people have lives outside of silly little forums.

You should try it once.........
Oh look, one person on the internet telling another person on the internet to get a life. How unexpected.

No, I'm telling the one with 24,500+ posts to get a life.....

More importantly, telling a mod.

Great troll strategy you got going there. I wish I thought of it myself.

Wait, I've got nearly 30k posts. You might not hear this one.

Chickenhawk · 2007-09-20 1:02 pm

KrowMagnum wrote:
And using Wikipedia as a source is not a sign of intelligence.

Well, EXCUSE ME. I have more going on in my life right now than to dig up a source other than wikipedia to refute some internet retard. Its obvious that you have not even ever taken a single class in civics or government or know anything at all about how our government works, and you're just trying to keep yourself from appearing more of a retard. Keep digging your hole.

KrowMagnum · 2007-09-20 1:03 pm

Phydeaux wrote:
KrowMagnum wrote:
bratboy wrote:

Oh look, one person on the internet telling another person on the internet to get a life. How unexpected.

No, I'm telling the one with 24,500+ posts to get a life.....
More importantly, telling a mod.

Great troll strategy you got going there. I wish I thought of it myself.

Wait, I've got nearly 30k posts. You might not hear this one.

Being a mod does not make 24,000 + posts. You are proof of that.

KrowMagnum · 2007-09-20 1:05 pm

Chickenhawk wrote:
KrowMagnum wrote:
And using Wikipedia as a source is not a sign of intelligence.
Well, EXCUSE ME. I have more going on in my life right now than to dig up a source other than wikipedia to refute some internet retard. Its obvious that you have not even ever taken a single class in civics or government or know anything at all about how our government works, and you're just trying to keep yourself from appearing more of a retard. Keep digging your hole.

smurf you

Chickenhawk · 2007-09-20 1:05 pm

KrowMagnum wrote:
Chickenhawk wrote:
KrowMagnum wrote:
And using Wikipedia as a source is not a sign of intelligence.
Well, EXCUSE ME. I have more going on in my life right now than to dig up a source other than wikipedia to refute some internet retard. Its obvious that you have not even ever taken a single class in civics or government or know anything at all about how our government works, and you're just trying to keep yourself from appearing more of a retard. Keep digging your hole.
smurf you

Nice retort. I think we're done here.

bratboy · 2007-09-20 1:07 pm

KrowMagnum wrote:
If you want to source something use a real source.

This is an internet message board. I'm not one that finds baseless quibbling over "sources" to be a very compelling argument, where no contradicting evidence exists....especially on a topic that I am quite certain about.

I have dozens of law texts sitting on my shelf that say exactly the same thing. If you believe the wikipedia entry is incorrect, feel free to say so.

Here's a handy chart I found if you'd like more information.

Phydeaux · 2007-09-20 1:07 pm

KrowMagnum wrote:
If you want to source something use a real source.

Prove it's not a "real source" by actually using a "real source" to discredit it.

You've not done this before, have you?

Phydeaux · 2007-09-20 1:08 pm

KrowMagnum wrote:
Phydeaux wrote:
KrowMagnum wrote:

No, I'm telling the one with 24,500+ posts to get a life.....
More importantly, telling a mod.

Great troll strategy you got going there. I wish I thought of it myself.

Wait, I've got nearly 30k posts. You might not hear this one.
Being a mod does not make 24,000 + posts. You are proof of that.

Holy crap, my post is only three lines long and you didn't even smurfing read it.

Or you have the absolutely worst reading comprehension in the world.

bratboy · 2007-09-20 1:08 pm

Lets dispense with the insults, please.

Phydeaux · 2007-09-20 1:09 pm

KrowMagnum wrote:
Chickenhawk wrote:
KrowMagnum wrote:
And using Wikipedia as a source is not a sign of intelligence.
Well, EXCUSE ME. I have more going on in my life right now than to dig up a source other than wikipedia to refute some internet retard. Its obvious that you have not even ever taken a single class in civics or government or know anything at all about how our government works, and you're just trying to keep yourself from appearing more of a retard. Keep digging your hole.
smurf you

Man, I'm glad he slipped into saying it before I did.

Does this mean gloves can come off now, or is he going to get removed from this debacle before he keeps swinging punches at himself?

Beagle/Bro. · 2007-09-20 1:10 pm

Miranda, for instance, is a fairly 'modern' interpretation:
http://www.courttv.com/archive/national … da_ap.html

A Supreme Court case from 2000 challenging Miranda based on a Federal law from 1968 that a lower court had used to throw out the Miranda requirement.

D'Eyncourt · 2007-09-20 1:38 pm

I understand that there are some UoF students who claim that this guy planned on barging into the Kerry speech so that the incident would be video-captured for YouTube--getting hit by the Taser was just a bonus (because it guaranteed that people would direct others to this incident).

Tallgeese · 2007-09-20 2:31 pm

D'Eyncourt wrote:
I understand that there are some UoF students who claim that this guy planned on barging into the Kerry speech so that the incident would be video-captured for YouTube--getting hit by the Taser was just a bonus (because it guaranteed that people would direct others to this incident).

It did look like a set-up.

Daniel · 2007-09-20 2:49 pm

bratboy wrote:
Lets dispense with the insults, please.

smurf you, pig smurfer!

Oh.

Dispense with the insults. Not dispense the insults. Sorry! blush wink

user · 2007-09-20 3:06 pm

Put a quarter in the juke

And dispense the insults until you puke.

KrowMagnum · 2007-09-29 1:57 pm

Phydeaux wrote:
KrowMagnum wrote:
If you want to source something use a real source.
Prove it's not a "real source" by actually using a "real source" to discredit it.

You've not done this before, have you?

Actually, almost anything you find on the internet is a questionable source and Wiki is one of the most idiotic "sources" anyone could use.

You may as well use YouTube or MySpace as a source. There are plenty of "official" sites out there so don't be half-assed and refer to Wiki like it's some sort of legitimate source. You do understand how Wiki works don't you ?

bratboy · 2007-09-29 1:58 pm

I thought you were done with this thread.

Did you figure out that I was correct in the interim?

bratboy · 2007-09-29 2:01 pm

...and if someone cites to Wiki and you believe then information is correct, then you can demonstrate that it isn't correct.

Baseless complaining about the use of wiki as a source for the purposes of online discussion is lame, in my opinion.

KrowMagnum · 2007-09-29 2:07 pm

bratboy wrote:
I thought you were done with this thread.

Did you figure out that I was correct in the interim?

No, I have a life remember.

Baseless complaining ? I disputed a cited sources credentials. Nothing baseless about that. I didn't read what Wiki says on the subject because it's pointless.

bratboy · 2007-09-29 2:14 pm

KrowMagnum wrote:
No, I have a life remember.

Yes, we've already gone over how terribly amusing it is to see one anonymous individual on the internet assert that they have more of a 'life' that another anonymous individual on the internet. Aren't you much too old for such pissing contests?

Baseless complaining ? I disputed a cited sources credentials. Nothing baseless about that. I didn't read what Wiki says on the subject because it's pointless.

Yep, "baseless complaining." You utterly and completely failed to demonstrate that any of the information presented was incorrect.

I offered various sources, of course.

bedstuy · 2007-09-29 3:37 pm

I love threads which resort to wikihate++

Forums | MacLife

#51 2007-09-20 12:51 pm

Re: University of Florida student tazered

KrowMagnum wrote:

bratboy wrote:

#52 2007-09-20 12:55 pm

Re: University of Florida student tazered

Chickenhawk wrote:

KrowMagnum wrote:

#53 2007-09-20 12:56 pm

Re: University of Florida student tazered

KrowMagnum wrote:

#54 2007-09-20 12:59 pm

Re: University of Florida student tazered

#55 2007-09-20 1:00 pm

Re: University of Florida student tazered

KrowMagnum wrote:

bratboy wrote:

KrowMagnum wrote:

#56 2007-09-20 1:02 pm

Re: University of Florida student tazered

KrowMagnum wrote:

#57 2007-09-20 1:03 pm

Re: University of Florida student tazered

Phydeaux wrote:

KrowMagnum wrote:

bratboy wrote:

#58 2007-09-20 1:05 pm

Re: University of Florida student tazered

Chickenhawk wrote:

KrowMagnum wrote:

#59 2007-09-20 1:05 pm

Re: University of Florida student tazered

KrowMagnum wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

KrowMagnum wrote:

#60 2007-09-20 1:07 pm

Re: University of Florida student tazered

KrowMagnum wrote:

#61 2007-09-20 1:07 pm

Re: University of Florida student tazered

KrowMagnum wrote:

#62 2007-09-20 1:08 pm

Re: University of Florida student tazered

KrowMagnum wrote:

Phydeaux wrote:

KrowMagnum wrote:

#63 2007-09-20 1:08 pm

Re: University of Florida student tazered

#64 2007-09-20 1:09 pm

Re: University of Florida student tazered

KrowMagnum wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

KrowMagnum wrote:

#65 2007-09-20 1:10 pm

Re: University of Florida student tazered

#66 2007-09-20 1:38 pm

Re: University of Florida student tazered

#67 2007-09-20 2:31 pm

Re: University of Florida student tazered

D'Eyncourt wrote:

#68 2007-09-20 2:49 pm

Re: University of Florida student tazered

bratboy wrote:

#69 2007-09-20 3:06 pm

Re: University of Florida student tazered

#70 2007-09-29 1:57 pm

Re: University of Florida student tazered

Phydeaux wrote:

KrowMagnum wrote:

#71 2007-09-29 1:58 pm

Re: University of Florida student tazered

#72 2007-09-29 2:01 pm

Re: University of Florida student tazered

#73 2007-09-29 2:07 pm

Re: University of Florida student tazered

bratboy wrote:

#74 2007-09-29 2:14 pm

Re: University of Florida student tazered

KrowMagnum wrote: