Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .2,0732,0742,0752,0762,0772,0782,079. . .2,1802,181»

Informed consent

Presumption is not fact .
This was not the Million Man March where everyone showed up for one specific purpose with marching orders in hand.
Never mind that not everyone present was there to protest, and not all of those who were protesters stormed the building.
Whatever brain fever took hold of those that did, it was a spontaneous frenzy, and the broad brush being applied with some of its almost tin foil hat worthy suppositions by the progressive establishment is neither fair or honest intellectually.

Midlands wrote:You know, I actually do respect the people who built this country and fought for it and that's why I want to preserve it for future generations. I don't know about you, but I actually swore "that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic". So I will defend the Constitution against domestic enemies like hardcore members of the Trump cult who want to overthrow the government by force. And I will call out those who give them aid and comfort.

Oh, that is rich.
Your arrogance is almost cute until your lack of self awareness sucks the air out of the room.
One day when you have the time I would like you to review your posts for the last year.
Your own comments on the dispositions of central authority and individual liberty with a very subjective cherry picking of constitutional application paints you with a stripe of authoritarianism that rivals and sometimes exceeds what has been displayed by any POTUS in recent history.
So besides preserving an entrenched academic oligarchy at the expense of civilian socioeconomic mobility, what exactly are you defending?

Kalihnagara wrote:Just like how gestapo executing a lawful search for jews i guess, idk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Seriously? And I assume that you have two legs just like Hitler.

Informed consent wrote:Presumption is not fact .
This was not the Million Man March where everyone showed up for one specific purpose with marching orders in hand.
Never mind that not everyone present was there to protest, and not all of those who were protesters stormed the building.
Whatever brain fever took hold of those that did, it was a spontaneous frenzy, and the broad brush being applied with some of its almost tin foil hat worthy suppositions by the progressive establishment is neither fair or honest intellectually.
Oh, that is rich.
Your arrogance is almost cute until your lack of self awareness sucks the air out of the room.
One day when you have the time I would like you to review your posts for the last year.
Your own comments on the dispositions of central authority and individual liberty with a very subjective cherry picking of constitutional application paints you with a stripe of authoritarianism that rivals and sometimes exceeds what has been displayed by any POTUS in recent history.
So besides preserving an entrenched academic oligarchy at the expense of civilian socioeconomic mobility, what exactly are you defending?

I am defending the right of people to elect their leaders. The January 6 traitors were trying to establish tyranny.

Informed consent

Midlands wrote:I am defending the right of people to elect their leaders. The January 6 traitors were trying to establish tyranny.

It is being established nonetheless in media, corporate, and government squares by many of the people sharing in your histrionics.
Thanks for the lookout.

Midlands wrote:I am defending the right of people to elect their leaders. The January 6 traitors were trying to establish tyranny.

You watched TV. Good for you.
Now proceed to tyrade in our rmb about your selfrighteous "defending the people, defending democracy" monolouge.

You're saving the world, aren't you?
Give yourself a gold star, valiant hero.

Kalihnagara

Midlands wrote:Seriously? And I assume that you have two legs just like Hitler.

and you assume lawful search warrant is always lawful~

Kalihnagara

in all seriousness though, i am not American law graduate, but my time spent in law school taught me how any national executive agency could be abused to release lawful papers to justify unlawful actions.

I don't know about how you guys do it in the US, but here in my country, only the assembly of supreme court judges capable of issuing order of house search to any former president, and before the house is searched there must be at least two legitimate blatant evidences of crime presented in front of the assembly, even those evidences must first be deemed legitimate in front of People's Representative Council.

and so far, the only former president went through this procedure was Soeharto, and funnily enough, the parties in people's representative council were fighting fiercely (they literally got into fistfight) about whether the evidences were legitimate or not, because most of the evidences are president's decrees (a decree can't be illegal because it is a law lol)

Midlands wrote:You know, I actually do respect the people who built this country and fought for it and that's why I want to preserve it for future generations. I don't know about you, but I actually swore "that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic". So I will defend the Constitution against domestic enemies like hardcore members of the Trump cult who want to overthrow the government by force. And I will call out those who give them aid and comfort.

if you actually Respected them then you would be able to Cleary See that the People in Government have been not been Faithful to their Vision of the Nation or the Constitution as they framed it at best or Worse, Criminals who Hide behind their Positions of Power, and that the Government has been controlled by Enemies both Foreign and Domestic for over a Century, this country has been in Decline for over Half a Century. so "Preserving it" For Future Generations isn't Possible, but because your too Trusting. and Naïve at Best, or Part of the Illegitimate Ruling Class at Worse. however that Oath is Taken by everyone form the Boy scouts to the Very Same Criminals that Undermine the Constitution. and is as Serious as the "Pledge of Allegiance" to defend the Constitution is to remove Permanent Washington.

Here are a Few Quote's I'd like everyone to Consider.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"There is no justification for taking away individuals' freedom in the guise of public safety." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"When the people are afraid of the government, that's tyranny. But when the government is afraid of the people, that's liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"A true patriot will defend his country from its government." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"When once a Republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ~ John Adams

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." ~ John Adams

"There is nothing I dread so much as the division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our constitution." ~ John Adams

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." ~ John Adams

"But if the laws are to be so trampled upon with impunity, and a minority is to dictate to the majority, there is an end put at one stroke to republican government, and nothing but anarchy and confusion is to be expected thereafter." ~ George Washington

"If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them." ~ Samuel Adams

"This [the U.S. Constitution] is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism... when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other." ~ Benjamin Franklin

Corporate Fat Cats and Kalihnagara

Informed consent wrote:It is being established nonetheless in media, corporate, and government squares by many of the people sharing in your histrionics.
Thanks for the lookout.

It is a simple fact. Trump was thoroughly rejected by voters. He tried to stay in power through violence anyway. That's tyranny by definition. The US routinely condemns foreign leaders who overstay their welcome and remain in power after losing election.

You know, I would actually have some respect for you if you admitted that you don't give a damn about America, just want your preferred policies implemented and will support a fascist dictatorship if that's what it takes. But you are too cowardly to admit that. So instead you desperately try to deflect.

I also have some respect for unabashedly pro-Trump people who actually make their case for Trump. However I have nothing but deep contempt for anti-anti-Trump people. Who are just moral cowards who know that what they do is wrong and yet do it anyway, while pretending that they don't actually do it (kind of like a shy hooker pretending she's just on a date).

Kalihnagara wrote:and you assume lawful search warrant is always lawful~

The law was adopted by Congress and signed by the president (Trump in this particular case). The FBI went to court, cited the law (and evidence of probable cause) and obtained a search warrant. The presumption is that the warrant is lawful unless serious misconduct by the FBI is proven.

Kalihnagara

Divided Wastelands of America wrote:if you actually Respected them then you would be able to Cleary See that the People in Government have been not been Faithful to their Vision of the Nation or the Constitution as they framed it at best or Worse, Criminals who Hide behind their Positions of Power, and that the Government has been controlled by Enemies both Foreign and Domestic for over a Century, this country has been in Decline for over Half a Century. so "Preserving it" For Future Generations isn't Possible, but because your too Trusting. and Naïve at Best, or Part of the Illegitimate Ruling Class at Worse. however that Oath is Taken by everyone form the Boy scouts to the Very Same Criminals that Undermine the Constitution. and is as Serious as the "Pledge of Allegiance" to defend the Constitution is to remove Permanent Washington.

Here are a Few Quote's I'd like everyone to Consider.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"There is no justification for taking away individuals' freedom in the guise of public safety." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"When the people are afraid of the government, that's tyranny. But when the government is afraid of the people, that's liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"A true patriot will defend his country from its government." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"When once a Republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ~ John Adams

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." ~ John Adams

"There is nothing I dread so much as the division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our constitution." ~ John Adams

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." ~ John Adams

"But if the laws are to be so trampled upon with impunity, and a minority is to dictate to the majority, there is an end put at one stroke to republican government, and nothing but anarchy and confusion is to be expected thereafter." ~ George Washington

"If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them." ~ Samuel Adams

"This [the U.S. Constitution] is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism... when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other." ~ Benjamin Franklin

Apart from the fact that some of your quotes are fake, it looks like your complaint is really that you don't like many decisions the voters have made over many decades. I don't like many of them either, but that does not mean we have a tyranny.

As for removing "Permanent Washington", the real danger to the Constitution is that it's too impermanent. The president has way too much power to hire and fire people. A lot more senior position shoul be filled by Civil Service (e.g. the entire Department of Justice and the second in command at each and every cabinet department - so that there are never any "acting" secretaries).

Kalihnagara

Midlands wrote:The law was adopted by Congress and signed by the president (Trump in this particular case). The FBI went to court, cited the law (and evidence of probable cause) and obtained a search warrant. The presumption is that the warrant is lawful unless serious misconduct by the FBI is proven.

geez that sounds authoritarian, an order issued by agreement, not by evidence-based necessity.

Kalihnagara wrote:geez that sounds authoritarian, an order issued by agreement, not by evidence-based necessity.

Why authoritarian? That's how all searches are done. The fact that they actually found a lot of top secret documents confirms that they were not wrong in their claims of their presence there.

Kalihnagara

Midlands wrote:Why authoritarian? That's how all searches are done. The fact that they actually found a lot of top secret documents confirms that they were not wrong in their claims of their presence there.

obviously because in that system any search warrant can be created without any presence of prior evidence supporting the search..

Kalihnagara

well, sir Midlands, after carefully reading your posts about FBI raid on trump, as a law graduate, it shocked me how current US law on house search is reminiscent of Indonesian house search law under Soeharto.

currently, i must say despite of corruption among the personnel of Indonesia's BARESKRIM (equivalent of FBI), the law itself already improved after the end of Soeharto's regime, under the current law, one's house can not be searched unless he is already a suspect and/or his house is a crime scene.

Even in a special circumstance where it is suspected that the house holds important evidence while the owner is not a suspect, there must be an order from attorney general followed by at least 2 legitimate tool of evidences* presented by the BARESKRIM to the attorney general for a search warrant to be issued.

*it is in form of witnesses testimonies and hard evidence**

**hard evidence under indo's criminal law is any item directly related to the crime.

Kalihnagara wrote:obviously because in that system any search warrant can be created without any presence of prior evidence supporting the search..

It cannot. Law enforcement has to demonstrate a probable cause and list specific crimes that are suspected. In this particular case there was witness testimony about presence of classified materials. I suspect that they also presented the discrepancy between what Trump checked out of classified storage at the White House and what he eventually returned.

Kalihnagara wrote:well, sir Midlands, after carefully reading your posts about FBI raid on trump, as a law graduate, it shocked me how current US law on house search is reminiscent of Indonesian house search law under Soeharto.

currently, i must say despite of corruption among the personnel of Indonesia's BARESKRIM (equivalent of FBI), the law itself already improved after the end of Soeharto's regime, under the current law, one's house can not be searched unless he is already a suspect and/or his house is a crime scene.

Even in a special circumstance where it is suspected that the house holds important evidence while the owner is not a suspect, there must be an order from attorney general followed by at least 2 legitimate tool of evidences* presented by the BARESKRIM to the attorney general for a search warrant to be issued.

*it is in form of witnesses testimonies and hard evidence**

**hard evidence under indo's criminal law is any item directly related to the crime.

An independent judge with a lifetime job (whose salary also cannot be cut) is better than the attorney general. There was definitely witness testimony and I assume there was hard evidence in the form of a list of still missing secret documents given to Trump.

Midlands wrote:You know, I would actually have some respect for you if you admitted that you don't give a damn about America, just want your preferred policies implemented and will support a fascist dictatorship if that's what it takes. But you are too cowardly to admit that. So instead you desperately try to deflect.

This is some crappy reverse psycology, literally trying to get someone to admit to what you want to prove in us. It's kind of patheic, really.

i see, it is interesting to know actual examples of the difference between common law and my civil law system.

it seems to me you guys believed in your judges..

Informed consent

Midlands wrote:It is a simple fact. Trump was thoroughly rejected by voters. He tried to stay in power through violence anyway. That's tyranny by definition. The US routinely condemns foreign leaders who overstay their welcome and remain in power after losing election.

You know, I would actually have some respect for you if you admitted that you don't give a damn about America, just want your preferred policies implemented and will support a fascist dictatorship if that's what it takes. But you are too cowardly to admit that. So instead you desperately try to deflect.

I also have some respect for unabashedly pro-Trump people who actually make their case for Trump. However I have nothing but deep contempt for anti-anti-Trump people. Who are just moral cowards who know that what they do is wrong and yet do it anyway, while pretending that they don't actually do it (kind of like a shy hooker pretending she's just on a date).

I do not need respect from you.
It would not count for much in any case.

I believe you are conflating my opinions about Jan 6 with a desire to overturn Biden's election, and if that is the case, then you are mistaken.
Seditious intent notwithstanding, several hundred people mobbing the legislature with the hope of preventing regime change does not even qualify as futile, and I would not stand for it anyhow.
I may not agree with how the riot has been categorized, but that does not mean I condone what the protesters did.
I want equal justice, and until the operatives of both wings of American politics are judged by the same standard in courts of law and public opinion, technocrats like you will never be more than self-righteous hypocrites.

Informed consent wrote:I do not need respect from you.
It would not count for much in any case.

I believe you are conflating my opinions about Jan 6 with a desire to overturn Biden's election, and if that is the case, then you are mistaken.
Seditious intent notwithstanding, several hundred people mobbing the legislature with the hope of preventing regime change does not even qualify as futile, and I would not stand for it anyhow.
I may not agree with how the riot has been categorized, but that does not mean I condone what the protesters did.
I want equal justice, and until the operatives of both wings of American politics are judged by the same standard in courts of law and public opinion, technocrats like you will never be more than self-righteous hypocrites.

Who says there's not the same standard?! It's just that the Dems did not try a violent overthrow of US government for over a century and a half.

Midlands wrote:Apart from the fact that some of your quotes are fake, it looks like your complaint is really that you don't like many decisions the voters have made over many decades. I don't like many of them either, but that does not mean we have a tyranny.

As for removing "Permanent Washington", the real danger to the Constitution is that it's too impermanent. The president has way too much power to hire and fire people. A lot more senior position shoul be filled by Civil Service (e.g. the entire Department of Justice and the second in command at each and every cabinet department - so that there are never any "acting" secretaries).

we do have a Tyranny. a Tyranny of Mentally Retarded Children in Adult Bodies.
also the Constitution created that System of Cabinet Departments and gave the President that Power.
so that Idea would be Un-Constitutional. also when I say Permanent Washington I am Referring to the Career Politicians, the Unelected Bureaucrats, the Lobbyists, the Party apparatchiks, the Donor Class, the Power Brokers,
and the Rest of the Swamp Creatures who aren't Subject to Elections. Even Federal Law enforcement agencies shouldn't be a career position. Federal Agents should be selected at random form Local Police Forces nation wide and then returned to that Policie Force within 3 years.

Divided Wastelands of America wrote:we do have a Tyranny. a Tyranny of Mentally Retarded Children in Adult Bodies.
also the Constitution created that System of Cabinet Departments and gave the President that Power.
so that Idea would be Un-Constitutional. also when I say Permanent Washington I am Referring to the Career Politicians, the Unelected Bureaucrats, the Lobbyists, the Party apparatchiks, the Donor Class, the Power Brokers,
and the Rest of the Swamp Creatures who aren't Subject to Elections. Even Federal Law enforcement agencies shouldn't be a career position. Federal Agents should be selected at random form Local Police Forces nation wide and then returned to that Policie Force within 3 years.

No, it would not be unconstitutional. We already have Civil Service.

Midlands wrote:No, it would not be unconstitutional. We already have Civil Service.

such a change would be ruled unconstitutional. Nor would it get past either party.
And would have to be made an amendment. Also the Civil Service sounds like another word for unelected Bureaucrat who holds the job indefinitely.
Being a "civil servant" Should be a Chore and thus Civil Servants should be selected at random form the population like the military draft.

Divided Wastelands of America wrote:such a change would be ruled unconstitutional. Nor would it get past either party.
And would have to be made an amendment. Also the Civil Service sounds like another word for unelected Bureaucrat who holds the job indefinitely.
Being a "civil servant" Should be a Chore and thus Civil Servants should be selected at random form the population like the military draft.

Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. Governing is very hard and should be done by professionals. Would you select your dentist (let alone cardio surgeon) at random from the population?

BTW the reason for creation of Civil Service (which exists in some form in all advanced societies) was tremendous corruption in the federal government before that (among other things, the winners of presidential elections were using the Treasury to finance their reelection campaigns). Just as the reason for popular election of Senators was that the Senate was a cesspool of corruption.

«12. . .2,0732,0742,0752,0762,0772,0782,079. . .2,1802,181»

Advertisement