Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 23, 2014, 05:00:53 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home Help Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 256
26  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Police State - Official Thread on: July 14, 2014, 04:20:35 PM
typical of you, you seem to always throw the first punch then when you get smacked upside the head you whine about "typical cop mentality" 


It should not 'seem' that way.  I'm seriously not getting your reasoning for the special treatment.  Some things we can agree with...you need to violate traffic laws to catch crooks or no trespassing signs, etc.

But this makes no sense.  In fact, it was me who pointed out Garrity as it applies to all in the public sector, and you're protected from having to incriminate yourself, when you were conflating the two.  And if we agree that we are talking administratively only, then I would think most people would expect you to be held to the same or more stringent standards as anybody else involved in an incident.

27  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Marine to remain in Mexican prison on: July 14, 2014, 04:12:03 PM
I take a more commonsense approach to this stuff.  Laws regarding gun smugglers were designed to deter and punish gun smugglers.  They were not intended to punish people who mistakenly cross the border.  We would never take away someone's liberty for this kind of mistake in the U.S.  There also needs to be proportionality.  Fine the guy, suspend his passport, make him take a geography class, etc., but not indefinite prison in a foreign country.   

We should not allow our citizens to be locked up in a cell for this long.  Even the dumb ones. 

I make an exception for those who intentionally turn themselves over to the enemy (i.e., Bergdahl). 


He's charged with possession, not smuggling so the smuggling laws or purposes are not relevant.

25 years old, combat veteran, more than grown up to know better.  He should've behaved like a fucking adult, especially driving around with loaded weapons.  IMO, he needs to do more time.

28  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Obama enrages food world by refusing to wait and cutting line at Pork BBQ in TX on: July 14, 2014, 04:05:15 PM
You prefer the chain eateries? Even when someone else is buying?  Undecided


We don't need anything fancy.  Hell, if you wanna buy, feel free to take me to Taco Bell and cut in line.
29  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Marine to remain in Mexican prison on: July 13, 2014, 07:52:47 AM
I've driven that part of the border and it is very easy to miss the last U.S. exit and wind up in Tijuana.  I'm sure it's a common mistake.  No way this kid should be locked up for over three months. 



True...he should be locked up for much longer.

This is no different than our argument over the soldier who went into Canada with firearms.

If you're gonna have guns you act and behave like a fucking ADULT.

Know where you are.  Know where you are going.  Know the laws, rules, and regulations of all areas around you.

He can sit in that Mexican shithole which is exactly what he deserves until he grows the fuck up.

30  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Obama enrages food world by refusing to wait and cutting line at Pork BBQ in TX on: July 13, 2014, 07:40:49 AM


If any of you, including Barry, wants to buy me a free meal...feel free to cut in front of me.

Some places we like include Olive Garden, Outback Steakhouse, and Joe's Crab Shack.
31  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Police State - Official Thread on: July 13, 2014, 07:34:51 AM
Help me out here, I'm trying to figure out if you are playing stupid or your hatred really doesn't allow you to have a civil conversation


Yeah...you're calling me stupid and hateful cause you're trying to have a 'civil conversation'.  Roll Eyes

Typical cop mentality. 

But, we'll cut you some slack since the SCOTUS ripped you a new asshole with your bullshit cell phone argument.

You're asking for a special treatment...one you typically don't afford to others or even victims for that matter (could be good or bad depending).  I'm advocating you be treated with equal footing.  Make sense?

32  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Thank You!!! The Official President Barack H. Obama Appreciation Thread on: July 13, 2014, 07:30:27 AM
He set no precedent. Are you referring to the execeutive orders? the type bush used almost twice as much?





lol...gotta luv how the Canadian retard rushes to Obama's defense every time.  Is he giving it to you good?

I'm certain by now that you want to be an American so bad it's causing your vag to itch something fierce.

Why did we turn you away?  Because you're dumb?

BTW, quantity is not the issue with the Executive Orders, lol idiot.


33  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Thank You!!! The Official President Barack H. Obama Appreciation Thread on: July 02, 2014, 06:22:24 PM
haha...Beach is right, this shit is addicting.
34  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Thank You!!! The Official President Barack H. Obama Appreciation Thread on: July 02, 2014, 06:21:27 PM
Thank you for allowing all these illegal immigrants to flood in.
35  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Thank You!!! The Official President Barack H. Obama Appreciation Thread on: July 02, 2014, 06:18:27 PM
Thank you for lying about restricting lobbyists.
36  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Thank You!!! The Official President Barack H. Obama Appreciation Thread on: July 02, 2014, 06:15:04 PM
Thank you for lying to us about allowing the purchase of medicines outside the country.
37  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Thank You!!! The Official President Barack H. Obama Appreciation Thread on: July 02, 2014, 06:11:31 PM
Thank you for accepting a Nobel for doing absolutely NOTHING.
38  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Thank You!!! The Official President Barack H. Obama Appreciation Thread on: July 02, 2014, 06:10:10 PM
Thank you for lying about whether or not people could keep their doctors.
39  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Thank You!!! The Official President Barack H. Obama Appreciation Thread on: July 02, 2014, 06:09:20 PM
Thank you for having the least transparent administration ever.
40  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Cops shit7ing on Rights - SCOTUS Finally Says - NO. on: June 30, 2014, 05:58:07 PM
Do I support the ruling whereby cops need a warrant to go through someone's phone?  Absolutely.  Why wouldn't I?

Can't wait to see if how the courts will rule on the NSA spying on domestic US citizens BS if given the chance.





If given the chance, they'll avoid it.  I want them forced to confront it...though I might not like the results.  This nonsense of bending over backwards to try and find some justification to keep a law constitutional has got to go.

41  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Gazette opinion: Obama earned the low ratings on: June 30, 2014, 05:55:07 PM
- For years now, reports by watchdog organizations and journalists that have shown despite Obama's promises of being more transparent, his administration has actually cracked down on journalists, spied on citizens and retaliated against those who leak information to the press. In fact, the Obama administration has become so opaque and difficult that it has earned the reputation of being far worse than Nixon, the disgraced president whose terrible clampdown of information led to federal law being changed for more transparency.



All too sadly true.
42  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: ObamaCare Supporters Explain Hobby Lobby Case on: June 30, 2014, 04:03:48 PM
No, bad news for America too

Rather than having a private employer pay a few dollars for contraception now we can all pay more to help support all these unwanted kids.  Also, the insurance companies get to pay a lot more for pre and post natal care and of course health care for all of these kids.

Of course, maybe a black market abortion system will just crop up like is starting to happen in Texas. 




Drama Queen #2

They objected to 4 of the 20 medicines required by Obamacare.  Yes - they're irrational with their religious beliefs, but there's still 16 other options being carried.

But yeah, let's act like we'll see a bunch of unwanted children now.  Roll Eyes

43  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Pentagon Official - obama drone memo sanctions murder on: June 30, 2014, 03:57:06 PM
Pentagon Official: The Obama Drone Kill Memo Is Out And Libertarians Were Right — It’s Murder
The Daily Caller ^ | 6/24/2014 | Joseph Miller
Posted on June 25, 2014 at 8:53:03 AM EDT by Enlightened1

On Monday, the White House memo used to justify drone attacks on U.S. citizens was released, and it appears to confirm the worst suspicions of its libertarian critics. The Obama administration had sought to keep the memo secret, and now we know why: Because there are no checks and balances; there are no classified courts. Indeed, the memo reveals that the president of the United States ordered the targeting killing of U.S. citizens overseas — in violation of their constitutional right to due process — sans any type of oversight outside of the executive.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...




I see your point, but I'm not big on coming down on Obama over this.  al-Awlaki posted Jihad against the United States videos on YouTube, he counseled the Ft. Hood shooter, then he fled to Yemen and was tried for being a terrorist - and that's just what we know about him publically. 

So fuck him...I'm not gonna lose any sleep over Obama snuffing him.

Killing his son though, I think was problematic.  That's one where they are telling us that we just have to trust them on the evidence, and that I'm not comfortable with.  So, I guess it may be a double edged sword!
44  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Cops shit7ing on Rights - SCOTUS Finally Says - NO. on: June 30, 2014, 03:46:41 PM
Great ruling.


You support this?  Seriously?

45  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: ObamaCare Supporters Explain Hobby Lobby Case on: June 30, 2014, 03:44:21 PM

No, they are completely wrong about why the law is in place.  Unfortunately, every business can now claim "religious exemption" for anything....minimum wage, social security. 


Unless a business is a church...they should follow the same rules as every other business.  They shouldn't have the right to tell women how to take care of themselves as if it was Sharia Law


Settle down drama queen.  This has limited applicability.  It won't apply to all corporations, nor will they able to assert religious beliefs for anything they want.  Read the fucking opinion already...it'll take you a whopping 10 minutes.

46  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal/Conservative on: June 28, 2014, 12:06:45 PM
Rule #9
47  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Obama appointments are unconstitutional on: June 28, 2014, 11:57:30 AM
And, Barry takes a tumble.  Smiley
48  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Police State - Official Thread on: June 28, 2014, 11:52:02 AM
Again, Garrity protects what you say to IA from being used against you criminally.. not administratively. If you do not answer every question IA asks you, you will be fired. No ifs, ands or butts.. This is more you not understanding the concept than me being dishonest..

As far as why cops should have a cool down period and nobody else should, I thougt I answered it but here goes.

Everyone else in the world can refuse to talk to the cops. They have a built in 72 hrs. They have a built in "never"... So it is not a "nobody else should" issue

The cop cannot refuse to talk to the investigators (cops). They are required to on condition of employment. So they are given a 72 hr period to collect their thoughts, calm down, review their evidence before they give a statement so that the investigators get the best accurate statement possible. Because that officer will be held to that statement via fine tooth comb   



No, there's no misunderstanding, for some reason you keep dodging the issue.

If I witness a murder, I cannot refuse to talk to the cops.  If I'm suspected of murder, I can refuse.

The exact same thing applies to you.

So, if I can't have 72 hours, why should you?

If anybody at their job refuses to answer questions for administrative shit, they can get canned.  They don't get a waiting period.

You want special treatment...again.

49  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Cops shit7ing on Rights - SCOTUS Finally Says - NO. on: June 28, 2014, 11:47:42 AM
About F*cking Time.

A certain board cop is probably wetting himself, lol.
________________________ ________________________ _____


Get a warrant! Today’s cellphone privacy decision in Plain English





In 1973, the Supreme Court held that police officers did not need a warrant to look inside a pack of cigarettes that they found in the coat pocket of a man who had been arrested.  Those kinds of warrantless searches were allowed, the Court reasoned back then, to protect police officers and to prevent the destruction of evidence.

Forty years later, California and the federal government urged the Supreme Court to adopt the same rule for cellphones.  Once someone is arrested, they contended, police should be able to go through the entire contents of his phone without a warrant because cellphones are just like any other item that you can carry in your hand or pocket.  But today the Supreme Court emphatically rejected that argument.  Therefore, unless it’s an emergency, police need to get a warrant before they can search your cellphone.  Let’s talk about the decision in Riley v. California in Plain English.

As I explained in my earlier posts (here and here) on this issue, the Court was actually reviewing two cases involving cellphone privacy:  those of David Riley, a California man whose smartphone police officers searched and Brima Wurie, a Massachusetts man who was carrying an older “flip phone” when he was arrested.  The Court essentially treated the two cases as one, in a sweeping ruling which repeatedly invoked the Founding Fathers’ intense hatred of the British practice of virtually limitless searches for evidence of any crime.

In his opinion for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts began by noting that cellphones are “now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy.”  Moreover, he added, cellphones like Riley’s and Wurie’s “are based on technology nearly inconceivable just a few decades ago” when the Court had upheld the search of the arrestee’s pack of cigarettes.  Those observations would make the Court’s job seem easy.

The Court first looked at whether a search without a warrant was necessary – as in its 1973 case – to protect the police officers making the arrest.  The Court thought it was fine for police to examine the phone itself to make sure it cannot be used as a weapon.  But it decisively rejected the idea that the digital contents of a cellphone can either endanger police or help the arrestee (who, presumably, has already been handcuffed and had the phone taken away from him).  And it was unmoved by the argument that police need to look at the cellphone to make sure that, for example, the arrestee’s buddies aren’t headed to the crime scene to ambush them:  there was no real evidence that this has actually been a problem, the Court explained, but even if it were a possibility in a particular case, then police could rely on the “emergency” exception to the general rule that a warrant is always required.

The Court was equally dubious that police needed to be able to search cellphones to prevent evidence contained on the cellphone from being destroyed.  Once he has been arrested and the phone has been taken from him, the Court reasoned, the arrestee can’t destroy evidence on the phone.  Although the data on the phone could be deleted remotely, it continued, it appears that such incidents have been few and far between; in any event, police have other tools – such as turning off the phone or removing the battery – to prevent them.

The Court then turned to the second part of its analysis:  the extent to which searching the cellphone of someone who has been arrested will intrude on his privacy.  And it is here that we really get a sense that the Justices – who as recently as 2012 relied on eighteenth-century laws prohibiting trespassing to rule in a case involving the use of GPS device to track the car of a suspected drug dealer – have become keenly sensitive to issues of digital privacy, not only for arrestees but possibly also for the rest of us.  To demonstrate how cellphones differ from other items that you might be carrying in your pocket, the Court chronicled, in some detail, the many functions of cellphones – as “cameras, video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps, or newspapers” – and emphasized their “immense storage capacity.”  Having all of this information stored in one place, the Court explained, collectively provides much more information about our lives than, say, a calendar or camera would, standing alone.  In fact, the Court posited, because of the different kinds of data that can be stored on a cellphone, searching a cellphone could provide police with even more information about your life than they could get from searching your home.

The Court acknowledged that its decision today would make it a little harder for police officers to do their jobs:  “Privacy,” it conceded, “comes at a cost.”  But it took pains to make the scope of its ruling clear.  It was not saying, it emphasized, that police can never search a cellphone that they take from someone who is arrested.  Instead, all the decision means is that police generally have to get a warrant to do so – a process that, thanks to advances in technology, is easier than ever before because the police often can just make a phone call or send an email.  And, the Court added, when time is really of the essence, such as in the case of an abduction or a possible bomb threat, that could justify searching an arrestee’s cellphone without a warrant.

With today’s decision, the Court displayed a unanimity that was somewhat uncharacteristic for such a momentous case on an issue like privacy:  only Justice Samuel Alito wrote separately, although he agreed with the result in the case and much of the Court’s reasoning.  On the other hand, such a result may not be that surprising at all.  Although we tend to think of them as living a somewhat cloistered life, the Justices and their families and friends use cellphones and computers and tablets just like the rest of us, and they probably share many of our concerns about keeping our private information private.  (Indeed, as public figures they may be even more worried about these issues than the average person.)  And given how sensitive they were to issues of digital privacy today, it will be interesting to see how they might react to similar issues – including, but not limited to, the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program – in the future.  Stay tuned.



http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/get-a-warrant-todays-cellphone-privacy-decision-in-plain-english/#more-214051


50  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own on: June 05, 2014, 04:24:14 PM
Archer is making a good point:  this really shouldn't be a partisan issue.  And I'm not sure it is at this point?  The fact the president broke the law and traded terrorists for a detainee is very troubling.  That's the issue, not whether Obama will be impeached, etc.  This isn't about keeping some political scorecard. 


Agreed, this wouldn't constitute a 'high crime' by any measure.  But, the Congress would need to be united in the message they are sending, and we have to consider the micromanagement aspect over the Executive's duties....I'm not too big on that.


I was reading that this guy had gone on a walk-about twice before and came back.  It's getting really muddy as to whether or not he's a defector or an idiot.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 256
Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!