Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
August 01, 2014, 08:58:04 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 5 ... 257
51  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.
52  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.

53  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.
54  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

55  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!
56  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?

57  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.

58  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal/Conservative on: June 28, 2014, 12:06:45 PM
Rule #9
59  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
60  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.

61  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


62  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.

63  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: US Constitution: Our biggest problem on: June 05, 2014, 04:18:02 PM
We have a Constitution in place that was created in 1787 to mediate the social, cultural and economic circumstances of 1787.

Fast forward to today, 2014. Most lawyer teams have figured out the loopholes in the laws, and that which they can't get around of they get from the politicians.

System is corrupt to its core.

Do you agree on a large, HUGE, constitutional amendment?



Fuck no I don't agree.

How is anybody going to agree with that?

You're a good example.  Stupid, ignorant, racist - I don't want you even voting much less determining any government issues for me.

64  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: D Day 6/6 on: June 03, 2014, 05:57:10 PM
When I was a kid there were still bunkers you could go in and walk around.  Not sure anymore as it's been so long.  But the GI's coming up from the beach, being completely exposed and having to take out that bunker where the Germans were so well protected is just amazing to think about.
65  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own on: June 03, 2014, 05:46:32 PM
If any of the information coming out about this guy is at all accurate, it makes the Obama Administration look horribly foolish and clueless.   Im going to reserve judgement until the facts are all gathered but so far the info looks legit.   


Yes.  The evidence seems to be growing, but HH6 is dealing with this mess and he hasn't (to my knowledge) called this guy a deserter.  So, we all know how the initial press stories like this tend to roll...
66  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: "Obama clearly broke the law" - time for jail and impeachment on: June 03, 2014, 05:43:50 PM
I cited the wrong one....but this case still proves point on executive order


No, it doesn't and executive orders are not even the issue here. 
67  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Police State - Official Thread on: June 03, 2014, 04:03:44 PM

How is that different with anybody else?  If I witness somebody shooting somebody else, I can't claim 5th amendment rights and not talk.

If I'm accused of a crime I can plead the 5th, but so can you.

If you're forced to choose between self-incrimination and losing your job, the Garrity rule prevents any of your statements from being used against you.

Me thinks, you're trying to be dishonest once again.


Nice of you to ignore the question as to why cops should have a cool down period but nobody else should.  Roll Eyes


Bump for some honesty....yeah, I know - wishful thinking, lol.


I agree avxo, take the license away from those doctors.  But, I'm not sure he should have to make the point via lawsuit.  To me anyway, it's inexcusable that federal and state prosecutors are not bringing down these shitbag cops.

 
68  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own on: June 03, 2014, 04:00:13 PM
I've been watching a lot of interviews today with vet after vet who served with this guy, talking about him being a deserter.  If it turns out to be true, f_ck him.  Turn him back over.
69  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: "Obama clearly broke the law" - time for jail and impeachment on: June 03, 2014, 03:55:49 PM

Article II of the Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution


Its also been settled in previous court cases:

In the landmark decision Nixon v. General Services Administration Justice William Rehnquist, afterwards the Chief Justice, declared in his dissent the need to "fully describe the preeminent position that the President of the United States occupies with respect to our Republic. Suffice it to say that the President is made the sole repository of the executive powers of the United States, and the powers entrusted to him as well as the duties imposed upon him are awesome indeed."




Holy shit dude, you are one dumb motherf_cker.

First, Obama can't do whatever he wants.

Second, Nixon LOST the Supreme Court case.


70  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Police State - Official Thread on: June 01, 2014, 02:46:51 PM
Some comfort.

This was the guy avxo put up...one of the most egregious police abuses we've had on this board.  He won the suit, but there's no justice because nothing will happen to these shitbag cops.

http://rt.com/usa/new-mexico-anal-probes-737/

1.6 million...still suing the doctors that went along with it.
71  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Trading Terrorists for One of Our Own on: June 01, 2014, 02:30:32 PM


Good?  Bad?  Indifferent?


I'm on the fence about this one.  If it was my ass in captivity, I would want the trade, lol.  But, I also think it sends a bad message.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/01/chuck-hagel-susan-rice-defend-decision-to-trade-terror-suspects-for-bergdahl-swap/

72  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Police State - Official Thread on: June 01, 2014, 02:27:22 PM
That isn't true with IA cases. The officer is compelled to cooperate and give a statement. If not he is terminated. With criminal cases, he is afforded the same rights as a citizen.

I think we disagree to a degree on what is beyond reasonable.   


How is that different with anybody else?  If I witness somebody shooting somebody else, I can't claim 5th amendment rights and not talk.

If I'm accused of a crime I can plead the 5th, but so can you.

If you're forced to choose between self-incrimination and losing your job, the Garrity rule prevents any of your statements from being used against you.

Me thinks, you're trying to be dishonest once again.


Nice of you to ignore the question as to why cops should have a cool down period but nobody else should.  Roll Eyes
73  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: WTF!!! Lord Help Us... Another Rob Ford Video... A SEX TAPE!!!! on: May 05, 2014, 06:40:31 PM
I'll pass on the video, but from everything we're getting down here, this seems like a great guy to party with.
74  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: The Verdict is in... on: May 05, 2014, 06:38:58 PM
Reading her story doesn't put her in a good light.  The jury was mostly women, it was caught on video tape, and she claimed loss of memory over the whole incident.

Probably not somebody you want to try and hold up as an example of honesty and integrity.
75  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Orange is the New Black on: May 05, 2014, 06:36:16 PM
thanks for proving my first point about the futility of finding old posts where I criticize Obama and other Dems


True...futile for you to search for what isn't there.


Quote
Thanks for proving my other point about off topic bullshit in threads



True again, especially considering you're often the source of off topic bullshit - crying like a bitch over 33 and dangling from BeachBum's ballsack. 

Great political topic here by the way.  Obama telling jokes.  Way to start those insightful political threads.  Run along now and cry about threads started by 33.  Roll Eyes

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 257
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!