Warrants Required Before GPS Tracking

[OldLincoln]

In a victory for those who prefer privacy, this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-warrants-needed-in-gps-tracking/2012/01/23/gIQAx7qGLQ_story.html) is cause for celebration.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that police must obtain a search warrant before using a GPS device to track criminal suspects.

[Football_Bill]

Police is the key word there, means the Feds can still do whatever they want.

[Chuck54]

Feds do stuff they would arrest local LEO's for.

[LaP]

Quote from article:

It was that question — society’s expectation of privacy in a modern world — that had animated the court’s consideration of the case. In an intense hour-long oral argument last November (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-worries-that-new-technology-creates-1984-scenarios/2011/11/08/gIQAbHdw2M_story.html), the Big Brother of George Orwell’s novel “1984” was referenced six times.


If you have never read the book 1984, you really should. It is the playbook that liberal politicians have used for decades.
Remember the old saying "Know thine enemy."

[muggsy]

It really doesn't concern me what the police do to criminals. I'm not a criminal. I think that the win goes to the criminal with this decision. I support my LEOs.

[TucsonMTB]

If you have never read the book 1984, you really should.Agreed! 100%


It is the playbook that liberal politicians have used for decades.
Remember the old saying "Know thine enemy."Actually, the Partriot Act I and II were both sponsored by Republicans. Your "enemy" list is too short. ;)

[Tilos]

muggsy:
Understood....but a SUSPECTED criminal COULD be YOU or me.

[TriggerMan]

It really doesn't concern me what the police do to criminals. I'm not a criminal. I think that the win goes to the criminal with this decision. I support my LEOs.The guy who owned the Jeep which the gov't agency attached a GPS to said the same thing.

I thought you were the Constitutional checks and balances guy. Are you now saying the check provided by the Supreme Court should be abolished?

What about "Innocent UNTIL proven guilty" by jury of peers? Toss it too?

[KMA]

Police is the key word there, means the Feds can still do whatever they want.

I am afraid you are right.

[O'Dell]

muggsy, whether or not you are a criminal is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what "they" perceive you to be.

[Longitude Zero]

As an LEO I support, but not necessarily like, the decision. My only surprise was that it was unanimous. Now they left open the question of warrantless searches of toll tag records used on turnpikes and other technologies. In my dept this is frequently used and many convicts rue the day we got them admittted.

After a careful reading of the opinion they did not specifically say anything about tracking technoogy that does not require a physical object to be attached to the vehicle.

For instance if the police need a warrant to track your GPS telephone was left unanswered.

What I fnd most enlightening is that the justices went out of their way to mention the "physicallity" of the installing the device aka tresspass. Obviously if the police can track your vehicle without placing a device on it you are probably SOL getting the evidence obtained thrown out.

It would be ignorant to hoop and holler that technology has been given a death blow. By reading and understanding this decision it is pretty obvious to me that the have very narrowly crafted a decision that if one or two facts were altered the decision would properly have gone the other way. Their decision suits the exact and narrow facts of the case and they are not readily interperable to any other case.

[muggsy]

The guy who owned the Jeep which the gov't agency attached a GPS to said the same thing.

I thought you were the Constitutional checks and balances guy. Are you now saying the check provided by the Supreme Court should be abolished?

What about "Innocent UNTIL proven guilty" by jury of peers? Toss it too?

Nope, all I'm saying is that as a law abiding citizen I have nothing to fear from LEOs.

[muggsy]

muggsy, whether or not you are a criminal is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what "they" perceive you to be.

The LEOs did a complete criminal background check on me before I received my CCW permit. The FBI and CIA did a complete background check on me before giving me a secret clearance in the military. I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear. If they want to put a GPS on my car and follow me, I have no objection. Do you have something to hide?

[TucsonMTB]

The LEOs did a complete criminal background check on me before I received my CCW permit. The FBI and CIA did a complete background check on me before giving me a secret clearance in the military. I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear. If they want to put a GPS on my car and follow me, I have no objection. Do you have something to hide?
Hang onto that "nothing to hide and nothing to fear" bit. That is exactly what the guy who was in Florida during the time a murder took place in New Yawk thought. He was so confident that his presence in Florida, with no way of getting to the crime scene would protect him, that he returned to New Yawk when charged with the crime. There is considerable concern that the court appointed defense was totally incompetent (http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/did_lawyers_fail_convicted_murder_cert_weighed_in_ case_of_nine_alibi_witnes/), or at least not effective since they did not properly introduce evidence of his alibi, but that guy is in prison now.

When "law enforcement" has a tool that could easily incriminate you with huge database of possibly erroneous or unrelated data . . . be afraid. Be very afraid.

[Longitude Zero]

Hang onto that "nothing to hide and nothing to fear" bit.

Yeah it is like the poem, "When they came for the Jews I said nothing as I was not a Jew...

[O'Dell]

The LEOs did a complete criminal background check on me before I received my CCW permit. The FBI and CIA did a complete background check on me before giving me a secret clearance in the military. I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear. If they want to put a GPS on my car and follow me, I have no objection. Do you have something to hide?

I too, had a top secret clearance because at one time I handled nuclear devices and I have a CCW permit. Doesn't matter the the police or worst, HS. Today Rand Paul, a US Senator, was detained by the TSA in an airport and missed a speech to several thousand people. The scanner gave a false beep, and they refused to recheck him. He was treated like a criminal and held in a plexiglass cage. I seriously doubt that a US Senator is going to hijack a plane. [maybe using a politician was a bad example, but he's what I had :)] Do you think that they would have cut you any slack, if they detained a Senator.

I have nothing to hide, but with our current governments, I have plenty to fear, and so does any other citizen, criminal or not. Nor do I want to be tracked by the authorities, nor do I want the fact that I bought a container of deodorant at Public's today on a government database. It's none of their business.

[Chief Joseph]

Agreed! 100%

Actually, the Partriot Act I and II were both sponsored by Republicans. Your "enemy" list is too short. ;)

Ya, liberal. There are liberal Republicans just like democrats. Ejecting the liberal progressives out of the Republican party is the only way to save the country.

[OldLincoln]

I was totally falsely accused of committing a very serious (prison serious) crime while in the service. Two detectives had me in an interrogation room and tag teamed me for quite a while. I didn't say much other than I didn't do it for that time wanting to see what they were about as it was my first time. I'll tell you they had me doing hard time for many years when I finally told them I was visiting a prominent citizen who was beyond reproach.

So, the made the call and accepted that, but then they went after me genuinely angry with me demanding to know "What were you DOING there??!" Obviously I ruined their day but walked out and wasn't bothered again.

I'm confident the "victim" picked me out of the military mug book. Turns out she was the wife of a sgt who had taken a dislike to me after I got his sgt buddy shipped to Thule as a cook for a stunt he pulled on me. Well, I didn't directly get him shipped, but I got the investigation started after he tried to court marshal me. Seems he thought I was stupider than he, but then that would have been a stretch.

The point of this ramble is had I not been visiting a friend at the time of the supposed crime, I would have spent time in Leavenworth tho just as Innocent. I like law enforcement but sometimes they are duped by others and bad things happen to good people.

SO.... don't go on the assumption that because you have nothing to hide they can do whatever they want to you.

[Chuck54]

What about vehicles equipped with onstar?

[1radman]

It really doesn't concern me what the police do to criminals. I'm not a criminal. I think that the win goes to the criminal with this decision. I support my LEOs.

The win actually goes to the innocent citizens so that we can retain our fundamental right to live with out fear of unreasonable intrusion of our private lives. Warrants can typically be obtained within a couple of hours when a reasonable suspicion exist. Everyone here appreciates our law enforcement. Even they must be held to a high standard
Beware the seemingly innocent and almost in-perceivable erosion of our liberty.

[Longitude Zero]

As of now that has not made it to SCOTUS if it ever does. If you have a toll tag in your car LEO's can, will and do get that data w/o a warrant and based upon previous SCOTUS ruling that will probably stand.

A basic rule is if you do it to your self such as onstar you have no privacy expectation and cannot complain when a system you asked for is used by law enforcement.

[TriggerMan]

What about vehicles equipped with onstar?You can, only recently, have it totally shut off. For years, OnStar captured data on your movements.

[TriggerMan]

Nope, all I'm saying is that as a law abiding citizen I have nothing to fear from LEOs.Sorry, but you are incredibly naive. What they can do to a few, they can do to many. At some point in time, your security clearances won't mean jack. You'll be dated.
Did it occur to you that the rest of us don't have CIA clearances (at least not that we can talk about). :cool:

[tv_racin_fan]

In this particular case they had a warrant. The warrant said they could install the device within a ten day period, they installed it on the 11th day. The warrant also said they could install it within the confines of DC, they went out of those confines and installed it.

"Law enforcement could have avoided the issue in 2005 if officers had more closely followed the instructions of a judge who issued a warrant authorizing the use of the GPS device. The judge said it had to be installed within 10 days while Jones’s Jeep was in Washington. Instead, it was installed after 11 days, while the vehicle was in Maryland."

[Longitude Zero]

"Law enforcement could have avoided the issue in 2005 if officers had more closely followed the instructions of a judge who issued a warrant authorizing the use of the GPS device. The judge said it had to be installed within 10 days while Jones’s Jeep was in Washington. Instead, it was installed after 11 days, while the vehicle was in Maryland."

While true the main gist of the ruling was that placing the device, no matter when or where it occurred was considered an illegal tresspass against the dope dealer. I feel very certain that if it had been installed within the confines of the warrant that the SCOTUS ruling would have been the same.

[muggsy]

I too, had a top secret clearance because at one time I handled nuclear devices and I have a CCW permit. Doesn't matter the the police or worst, HS. Today Rand Paul, a US Senator, was detained by the TSA in an airport and missed a speech to several thousand people. The scanner gave a false beep, and they refused to recheck him. He was treated like a criminal and held in a plexiglass cage. I seriously doubt that a US Senator is going to hijack a plane. [maybe using a politician was a bad example, but he's what I had :)] Do you think that they would have cut you any slack, if they detained a Senator.

I have nothing to hide, but with our current governments, I have plenty to fear, and so does any other citizen, criminal or not. Nor do I want to be tracked by the authorities, nor do I want the fact that I bought a container of deodorant at Public's today on a government database. It's none of their business.

What does any of that have to do with using a GPS to track a persons whereabouts? If the cops want to track my movements, let them. If they want to tap my phones, I don't care. If they want to read my e-mails they are welcome. I'm a law abiding citizen. I have nothing to hide. I don't see the police as my enemy.

[muggsy]

Sorry, but you are incredibly naive. What they can do to a few, they can do to many. At some point in time, your security clearances won't mean jack. You'll be dated.
Did it occur to you that the rest of us don't have CIA clearances (at least not that we can talk about). :cool:

I'd be willing to bet that if the police followed you around for a month at worst they might see you occasionally breaking the speed limit. They would probably be bored out of their socks.

[TriggerMan]

I'd be willing to bet that if the police followed you around for a month at worst they might see you occasionally breaking the speed limit. They would probably be bored out of their socks.I appreciate the confidence, and you'd be right but I want to preserve my liberties and freedom from unreasonable searches. Once you give up your rights, you won't get them back. Too much blood spilled to protect them for me to surrender what others paid the ultimate price for.

[les strat]

What does any of that have to do with using a GPS to track a persons whereabouts? If the cops want to track my movements, let them. If they want to tap my phones, I don't care. If they want to read my e-mails they are welcome. I'm a law abiding citizen. I have nothing to hide. I don't see the police as my enemy.

Dang muggsy, you are really scaring me with your trust of anyone with power. It doesn't take a historian to see that power will ALWAYS eventually be abused. And this is nanny-state big government if there ever was such a thing.

If you are so trusting, let them pass stricter gun laws on us. We have nothing to fear as they are out for our own good. Right?

Wrong.

[Football_Bill]

Nope, all I'm saying is that as a law abiding citizen I have nothing to fear from LEOs.

Are you LEO?
Are you a gun loving American?

If the answer to 1 is no and 2 is yes, you are already a suspect to the current administration.

[JFootin]

Nope, all I'm saying is that as a law abiding citizen I have nothing to fear from LEOs.

http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/ee486/John_England/Misc/alfred_e_neuman_001.jpg

[jlottmc]

While true the main gist of the ruling was that placing the device, no matter when or where it occurred was considered an illegal tresspass against the dope dealer. I feel very certain that if it had been installed within the confines of the warrant that the SCOTUS ruling would have been the same.


I'm confused here, if they went within the confines of the warrant, the ruling would have been the same? I understand that just because we get a warrant we still do not have complete and total discretion/power/right etc. The way I saw that was as a lawful search if they had stayed within the warrant. I think that would have changed the ruling entirely if they had, and probably not have been taken to court. Perhaps you could school me differently, please.

[wyntrout]

When I heard about OnStar monitoring even unsubscribed members such as I, I removed the GPS antenna and used the mounting point to mount my own GPS antenna. The cellular antenna is still there and I have a red light on the OnStar/rearview mirror panel. I leave it powered up because of the compass and auto-darkening.

I got fed up with the cost of OnStar... around $300 a year if you wanted some phone minutes to use as a cellular phone. I have bought several phones since and didn't feel the need for one in the van that I never used, either. They offered me a lower rate several times, but the "magic" was gone. The voice-activated dialer was crap and more likely to cause an accident with calling the wrong name. They also wouldn't extend the engine-monitoring service free to 2005 and later vehicles with the oil-life monitoring system installed... which mine had.:(

I don't make many trips in the van since my wife doesn't get enough time off to drive to Colorado and back... 3 days each way!

Wynn:)

[TriggerMan]

It really doesn't concern me what the police do to criminals. I'm not a criminal. I think that the win goes to the criminal with this decision. I support my LEOs.

An example of innocents getting harmed, including a Pastor.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/24/10223802-fbi-conn-cops-behaved-like-bullies-with-badges

[Popeye]

Nope, all I'm saying is that as a law abiding citizen I have nothing to fear from LEOs.

You can't really believe that. Have you never heard of police corruption?There are a lot of good honest LEO's who do there jobs to the best of there abilities with what they have to work with, but there are others that are one living cell above pond scum. There definately not the sort of people that should have the right to put tracking devices on anyones car as they see fit.

[muggsy]

The win actually goes to the innocent citizens so that we can retain our fundamental right to live with out fear of unreasonable intrusion of our private lives. Warrants can typically be obtained within a couple of hours when a reasonable suspicion exist. Everyone here appreciates our law enforcement. Even they must be held to a high standard
Beware the seemingly innocent and almost in-perceivable erosion of our liberty.

If the police put a GPS on your car exactly what do you think that they would discover? That you make frequent trips to work and back. I can't believe you guys. It wouldn't matter one wit if the cops had or didn't have a warrant. They would still find nothing if they tagged my car.

[muggsy]

An example of innocents getting harmed, including a Pastor.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/24/10223802-fbi-conn-cops-behaved-like-bullies-with-badges

I have been stopped by the police on about ten occasions in my life. In each case the police acted in a polite and respectful manner. That could possibly be because I treated them with respect and didn't get smart with them, or call them pigs. On the few occasions when I did receive a citation the officers almost apologized for having to stop me. I guess that I just have a likable face. There maybe a few bad cops out there, but there are a few bad people in every profession. If I ever do run into a bad cop it won't sour me on the rest of them.

[JFootin]

I have been stopped by the police on about ten occasions in my life. In each case the police acted in a polite and respectful manner. That could possibly be because I treated them with respect and didn't get smart with them, or call them pigs. On the few occasions when I did receive a citation the officers almost apologized for having to stop me. I guess that I just have a likable face. There maybe a few bad cops out there, but there are a few bad people in every profession. If I ever do run into a bad cop it won't sour me on the rest of them.

Your experience is that of a white man. Ever heard of DWB? Driving While Black?

[muggsy]

You can't really believe that. Have you never heard of police corruption?There are a lot of good honest LEO's who do there jobs to the best of there abilities with what they have to work with, but there are others that are one living cell above pond scum. There definately not the sort of people that should have the right to put tracking devices on anyones car as they see fit.

There may be a few cops that are one living cell above pond scum, but every criminal is pond scum. How would you like to have to deal with pond scum on a daily basis? If you want to learn about real pond scum, just watch a few episodes of Cops. The reason that you carry a gun is because of the abundance of pond scum in our society. Frankly, I'll side with the cops. There isn't a damn criminal out there looking out for my well being.

[TriggerMan]

I have been stopped by the police on about ten occasions in my life. In each case the police acted in a polite and respectful manner. That could possibly be because I treated them with respect and didn't get smart with them, or call them pigs. On the few occasions when I did receive a citation the officers almost apologized for having to stop me. I guess that I just have a likable face. There maybe a few bad cops out there, but there are a few bad people in every profession. If I ever do run into a bad cop it won't sour me on the rest of them.When you eventually run into that one bad cop, what will protect you? You seem to want to dismiss basic protections built into the Constitution.

[apheod]

When you eventually run into that one bad cop, what will protect you? You seem to want to dismiss basic protections built into the Constitution.

checks and balances will protect us all.:boink:

[Longitude Zero]

I'm confused here, if they went within the confines of the warrant, the ruling would have been the same? I understand that just because we get a warrant we still do not have complete and total discretion/power/right etc. The way I saw that was as a lawful search if they had stayed within the warrant. I think that would have changed the ruling entirely if they had, and probably not have been taken to court. Perhaps you could school me differently, please.

It frequently happens that an appellate court throws out a warrant that was legally issued by a lesser court. It happens all the time. Just because a judge issues a warrant DOES NOT MEAN that a superior court is bound to uphold it.

According to the ruling, as I understand it, they threw it out based upon the "trespass" upon the vehicle of the dope dealer. As far as I can tell they never took up the case of the being outside of the limits of the warrant. Therefore the fact they were outside the terms of the warrant is called a moot point. And I believe that since they did not take up the point of being outside the warrant the ruling would be the same since it was based upon the "trespass.

[Popeye]

muggsy
What you don't know is that I'm very Pro LEO, I have quite a few friends that are LEO's and a few neighbors. I get along fine with everyone of them. As a Patriot Guard Rider I've taken part in escourts of slain officers. I support the families of slain officers in my area and have done so for years. Having said that though I've been around long enough to know that not every officer or group of officers should have there hands on this technology to use as they see fit.
I never personally had any runins with the law but I'm not niave either.

[tv_racin_fan]

It frequently happens that an appellate court throws out a warrant that was legally issued by a lesser court. It happens all the time. Just because a judge issues a warrant DOES NOT MEAN that a superior court is bound to uphold it.

According to the ruling, as I understand it, they threw it out based upon the "trespass" upon the vehicle of the dope dealer. As far as I can tell they never took up the case of the being outside of the limits of the warrant. Therefore the fact they were outside the terms of the warrant is called a moot point. And I believe that since they did not take up the point of being outside the warrant the ruling would be the same since it was based upon the "trespass.

How did they trespass? Wouldn't the LEGAL Warrant have over ridden any such "trespass"? Thus they did rule on the basis of the warrant not being legal due to being out of date/wrong state just didn't say it that way?

[jlottmc]

I think were he is going is that the lower courts issuing the warrant to authorize the trespass is what would have been thrown out. Sort of similar to Katz and the reasonable expectation of privacy concept, if I read correctly. I think I see what he is saying now, and may not be explaining it well.

[Longitude Zero]

I think were he is going is that the lower courts issuing the warrant to authorize the trespass is what would have been thrown out. Sort of similar to Katz and the reasonable expectation of privacy concept, if I read correctly. I think I see what he is saying now, and may not be explaining it well.

Thanks. Unless someone understands the Katz ruling and its ramifications as well as I do it is difficult to properly explain the point I am trying to get across. I frequently forget that the vast majority of folks do not have the depth of understanding of SCOTUS rulings I have.

Not to brag but I have read and basically understand every SCOTUS law enforcement ruling for the past 30 years and the major decisions such as Miranda previous to that. I teach in several LEO academies about how to utilize SCOTUS decisions to maximize their crime fighting effects on the street.

[les strat]

Katz v. United States ruling would be why I would think monitoring GPS or phone conversations without a warrant is unconstitutional under the 4th Ammendment.

Just because I am not a BG doesn't mean I give them the ok for them to monitor me because I haven't done anything wrong.

[Longitude Zero]

Phone conversations are defintely a warrant situation. Using the GPS signals from your own device is not yet sufficiently ripe for SCOTUS review. Using the info from toll tags is definitely used and based upon case law I believe SCOTUS would approve 6-3.

In many cases if the perp themselves puts themselves at risk for monitoring then SCOTUS has said it is okay if the police surreptiously listen in on a device the perp installed himself/herself. For instance in my Federal Court Circuit if the perp installs a wireless baby monitor and the police sit outside and lsiten in then too bad so sad for the perp. The local/regional justices have ruled in a parallel situation that if the perp is so stupid that they plant a transmitting bug in their own crib they have given up all reasonable expectation of privacy and are just plain stupid and deserve whatever fate befalls them.

[muggsy]

muggsy
What you don't know is that I'm very Pro LEO, I have quite a few friends that are LEO's and a few neighbors. I get along fine with everyone of them. As a Patriot Guard Rider I've taken part in escourts of slain officers. I support the families of slain officers in my area and have done so for years. Having said that though I've been around long enough to know that not every officer or group of officers should have there hands on this technology to use as they see fit.
I never personally had any runins with the law but I'm not niave either.

I agree with what you said. My two best friends growing up were LEOs and I have a nephew that's a LEO. I would have been a LEO, but at the time I applied I couldn't make the height restriction. I was big enough to spend six years in the military, but not big enough to be a cop. The only point that I was trying to make is that I have nothing to fear from electronic surveillance, but that the criminals do. I don't like the idea of any judge letting any criminal off the hook because of a technicality. The job of a cop is hard enough. The LEOs are out their laying their lives on the line for our well being.

[muggsy]

checks and balances will protect us all.:boink:

Apheod, your juvenile comments have shut down several threads. Do you enjoy having your first amendment right removed from you by the moderator. Take the advice of Longitude Zero. Grow up and shut up.

[apheod]

Apheod, your juvenile comments have shut down several threads. Do you enjoy having your first amendment right removed from you by the moderator. Take the advice of Longitude Zero. Grow up and shut up.

actually your provoking of political arguments (all of which you lost... badly) against the vast majority of the forum is what shut those threads down. i was only the most vocal of the opposition.

as far as having my "first amendment rights removed..." i was simply not allowed to quote something you had said which was so stupid that you took my word for word quote as a personal insult and whined to the moderator about it, who informed me it was your call, since it was your quote. since you decided to be a little girl about it, i obliged bawanna and removed it. it wasnt my fault you decided to say something so retarded that to merely quote it would be insulting to you.

i dont believe i saw longitude zero tell me to grow up or shut up.

back on topic...

[Bawanna]

I gotta tell ya guys it's like a broken record around here lately.

Muggsy and apheod, get back to back and start walking in opposite directions, stop when I tell ya. Start now.

I'm gonna leave this open for now but I gotta question myself why at this point.

Lets try to maintain a civil discussion and above all not get personal. For some reason personal seems to get ugly fast around here and we get enough ugly in our everyday life that we don't need to create more.

Carry on civilly please.

[apheod]

I gotta tell ya guys it's like a broken record around here lately.

Muggsy and apheod, get back to back and start walking in opposite directions, stop when I tell ya. Start now.

I'm gonna leave this open for now but I gotta question myself why at this point.

Lets try to maintain a civil discussion and above all not get personal. For some reason personal seems to get ugly fast around here and we get enough ugly in our everyday life that we don't need to create more.

Carry on civilly please.

gotta warn ya, i draw REAL fast :D

6uf_ijeOOrs

[muggsy]

Dang muggsy, you are really scaring me with your trust of anyone with power. It doesn't take a historian to see that power will ALWAYS eventually be abused. And this is nanny-state big government if there ever was such a thing.

If you are so trusting, let them pass stricter gun laws on us. We have nothing to fear as they are out for our own good. Right?

Wrong.

The way to avoid the abuse of power in government is by electing people of honesty and integrity. Nothing can save the constitution and our freedom if we don't.

[apheod]

i agree with that, but how often is it that you see someone of honesty and integrity on the ballot?

not very often.

[muggsy]

actually your provoking of political arguments (all of which you lost... badly) against the vast majority of the forum is what shut those threads down. i was only the most vocal of the opposition.

as far as having my "first amendment rights removed..." i was simply not allowed to quote something you had said which was so stupid that you took my word for word quote as a personal insult and whined to the moderator about it, who informed me it was your call, since it was your quote. since you decided to be a little girl about it, i obliged bawanna and removed it. it wasnt my fault you decided to say something so retarded that to merely quote it would be insulting to you.

i dont believe i saw longitude zero tell me to grow up or shut up.

back on topic...

I'm not provoking any arguments. I'm simply expressing a viewpoint. You are free to disagree with anything I say. You are not allowed name call, or to poke me in the eye with a stick. Those are the rules of the MB. It doesn't matter how many may disagree with my viewpoints. That doesn't make my view points incorrect. A majority of the electoral college supported Barack Hussein Obama. If you would like to proceed in an orderly and polite manner we can. Or, we can go our separate ways. Your choice. Care not, I.

[muggsy]

i agree with that, but how often is it that you see someone of honesty and integrity on the ballot?

not very often.

On Super Tuesday, if he's still on the ballot, I'll be voting for Rick Santorum. He has the best conservative credentials and no baggage of which I'm aware. I had no problem in pulling the lever for Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. I considered both of then to be very good presidents. Not perfect, but very good.

[muggsy]

muggsy:
Understood....but a SUSPECTED criminal COULD be YOU or me.

You, maybe. :)

[muggsy]

Apheod, this is fast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqABkG1JpHM

[apheod]

You are not allowed name call, or to poke me in the eye with a stick. Those are the rules of the MB.


Your childish and a loser. We're done.


Apheod, since many of you are to ignorant to hold an intelligent political discussion, I'm going to take your advice and avoid them.


Once again you are letting your ignorance show.


The problem is that you expect instant gratification. Impetuous youth, have a little patience.


Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that someone isn't after you, Apheod. Like your screen name. It could stand for A FED. I'd be really cautious about anything that you say to this guy, fellas. He could be one of them. Does anyone know if paranoia is contagious?


I believe that a good psychiatrist could help you to overcome your paranoia, Apheod. Why don't you try seeing one.


I find it amusing that you are an alarmist who believes everything bad that you hear about the government without doing any real research of your own. Your paranoia is incredible.


In your infinite wisdom at the age of 16 you decided that you wanted no part of the bogus wars that your country was fighting in Bosnia and Kosovo. So, you knew more than the President of the United States and the CIA? Damn, Apheod, I guess that I should stop arguing with you. In a battle of wits I'm totally disarmed. It must be wonderful to be so sure of yourself at such a tender age. It couldn't be that you were just taken in by the socialist propaganda. You do know that you could have joined the military as a conscientious objector and served in a non-combatant capacity? The marines might have made a man of you.


Every one of those links are to a leftist organization. Are you a leftist?


Sorry, I didn't take you for a 9/11 truther. I thought that you had a little bit of sense, but were simply misguided. I can't argue with a fool. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. (even though i didn't say that 9/11 was an inside job, just that i'd researched it...


When they can't argue logic, liberals always argue semantics. (even though i'm not a liberal, and was not portraying a liberal viewpoint...)


My head isn't in the sand and I still have all of my rights. I have thirty seven year of living experience over you my young friend. I suggest that you read what someone far more knowledgeable than either of us has to say and then pull your head out of your anal canal. I offer this link.

what was that about not being able to call other members names, again?

[apheod]

Apheod, this is fast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqABkG1JpHM

bob munden doesn't draw from concealment, and you're not bob munden ;)

[Tilos]

You, maybe. :)

Wow 51 posts after mine, thanks for reading and responding...
I'm honored
Tilos:):faint2:

[OldLincoln]

Dang what numbskull started this dirty, mud slinging thread anyway? I'm embarrassed, can I delete my original post?

[LaP]

Dang what numbskull started this dirty, mud slinging thread anyway? I'm embarrassed, can I delete my original post?

And it's all being recorded in some secret hidden government server that will link all contributors to this thread with their GPS locations over the last two weeks.

There. If that don't put some fear in ya, screw it.:p:D:eek::rolleyes:

[muggsy]

(even though i didn't say that 9/11 was an inside job, just that i'd researched it...

(even though i'm not a liberal, and was not portraying a liberal viewpoint...)



what was that about not being able to call other members names, again?

Most of those were statements of fact. That's not name calling. And everyone of them came after an insult to me. I think were wasting our time hear. Don't respond to any of my posts and I won't respond to any of yours. Agreed? See ya.

[muggsy]

Dang what numbskull started this dirty, mud slinging thread anyway? I'm embarrassed, can I delete my original post?

No need Linc. I'm done.

[Tilos]

Muggsy
Apheod

The wonderful software here allows you to create a list of members in an ignore file in your profile...and BINGO you NEVER have to see each other's posts again:9:.

I have several members on MY list and I'm sure I'm on many ignore lists too :7:

Software...a wonderful thing,
Tilos

[TriggerMan]

....
what was that about not being able to call other members names, again?

Game, Set, Match! :rolleyes:

[Bawanna]

And on that happy note we shall watch the Lone Ranger and Tonto ride off into the sunset while listening to wunnerful wunnerful music wit Lawrence Welk.

Lets Polka!


Closed.