| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6 |
bajaguy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9247
Registered: 9-16-2003
Location: Carson City, NV/Ensenada - Baja Country Club
Member Is Offline
Mood: must be 5 O'clock somewhere in Baja
|
|
Names and dates, plus references or it didn't happen
Quote: Originally posted by gnukid  | | The police chief used a slim jim, he was with Secret Service, some of the people at the party were heads of state. I still disagree he should break
into cars in the parking lot but everyone is welcome to their opinion, the question is it legal and what are the limits. He was eventually removed
from office. It was an anecdotal example... |
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Lawlessness at the border by LE/BP is a topical issue that is so important a Senator wrote a letter today to DHS head and he is enacting discussion
and legislation to stop warrantless search at the border BP.
Reducing criminal lawlessness whether by BP, LE or by individuals will make us safer. In case its not clear there is a connection between lawlessness
at the border by BP, DHS, LE or military and criminal activity by gangs such as arms shipments such as Obama and Holders project to ship weapons to
criminals and guns in mexico under rah fast an furious and gun walking programs.
You can not justify lawlessness by creating more lawlessness to fight lawlessness. There is a clear connection from systemic corruption at the border
to crime issues we each experience anywhere we go.
I have seen LE and BP break the law and when confronted they will always back down, every time. The 100 mile constitution free zone, warrantless
searches are highly problematic and a core component that promotes criminal activity both inside LE, BP and outside among gangs.
The "octopus" tentacles of crime extend from corrupt policing, to prisons, to drug trafficking, money laundering, arms dealing, etc. it's all
connected. First step is to reduce opportunity for lawless criminal behavior wherever you see it and at the moment that starts at the border among DHS
and their claim they are "constitution free" 100 miles from any border.
These are tough times for criminals whether under the guise of governmental corruption which is extensive or it's extensions to criminal gangs,
technology allows us to both monitor and track criminals behavior and to demonstrate it in court and discuss it with clear evidence of the costs of
lawlessness. Hundreds of millions of people do not need to give up their basic rights just so BP can be free from following the law that our country
was founded on so they can catch a few people while systemic BP corruption runs rampant.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/draft-law-to-require-warrants-f...
[Edited on 2-21-2017 by gnukid]
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 17294
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
The GOP scare-mongers spend all day wanting to build walls and create a police-state to target foreigners.
But where is the danger? Where is the terrorist bogeyman they keep yapping about?
GOP should spend their time fixing what is killing Americans: automobiles, disease, obesity, guns.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by bajaguy | Names and dates, plus references or it didn't happen
| Quote: Originally posted by gnukid | | The police chief used a slim jim, he was with Secret Service, some of the people at the party were heads of state. I still disagree he should break
into cars in the parking lot but everyone is welcome to their opinion, the question is it legal and what are the limits. He was eventually removed
from office. It was an anecdotal example... |
|
Just do a search on "Corrupt Police Chief Resigns" and you would find it, oops there are 1,450,000 results
|
|
|
Cliffy
Senior Nomad
Posts: 984
Registered: 12-19-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
Ya that spoon in my sugar bowl makes me fat too.
You chose your position in life today by what YOU did yesterday
|
|
|
willardguy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6451
Registered: 9-19-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by David K | | Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666 | The GOP scare-mongers spend all day wanting to build walls and create a police-state to target foreigners.
But where is the danger? Where is the terrorist bogeyman they keep yapping about?
GOP should spend their time fixing what is killing Americans: automobiles, disease, obesity, guns.
|
You forgot to add: Liberal lunatics (who want a massive government to control every aspect of our life but want to do nothing the government is
actually obligated to do, namely protect its citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic. Read the U.S. constitution instead of Karl Marx).
|
 ....pauls liquor
|
|
|
BajaDreams
Newbie
Posts: 9
Registered: 1-29-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
Actually, "the border" exists for many miles into the US. Homeland Security could take pretty much every phone in almost all of Florida under the
same pretense should they desire.
Most people have no reason to fear a phone search. You are always welcome to surrender your phone, or other electronic device. And CPB has the
"right" to detain you I believe for up to 72 hours with no "cause".
So if you want to challenge CBP, by all means, go for it. you may give up a few days to do so, but hey, that's really not much.
Now all that said, if you carry crap on your electronic device you would not want your spouse or your kids to ever see or read, I suggest you carry a
2nd electronic device just for crossing the border. That way if they want to "read" it, there is nothing there to read. Of course there is the
inconvenience of no save passwords, and you have to use a browser for mail instead of an app, and of course no photos. But if you store no passwrods,
and clear your history, you have a "clean" phone.
Personally, I travel out of the country at least 2x/yr, sometimes up to 4x/yr. I have never been hassled one time by CPB. There is zero doubt in my
mind that they ave a full profile on me, as they pretty much do on everyone nowadays. I'm just not of much use to search..
Now please don't misinterpret my remarks ot say I believe what they do is OK, as I do not. But there is really nothing I can do to change that.
If anything, people should be far more worried about the random "asset forfeiture" laws in the US, or the "indefinite detention" portion of the 2012
NDAA our last supposed constitutional lawyer signed into law.
| Quote: Originally posted by JoeJustJoe | I would take any advice on this thread with a grain of salt, or do what I always do on "Baja Nomad" and that's to the opposite of what the crowd is
saying on just about any issue. And this goes my my posts here too, because on this issue, the laws, polices, and court room rulings are fluid and
are always changing.
On top of this we have a new Presidential administration that wants to bring gestapo aggressive tactics to border searches, and DHS Secretary John
Kelly, has already put out memos, he wants Americans at the border to give up cell phones and passwords, so his jackbooted thugs could look through
your smart phone, and possibly your photos in the cloud. It's not only Trump's fault, because under Obama, 4000, to 6000 Americans had their cell
phones searched according to different sources/articles.
Yes, there has been a few favorable court rulings the last couple of years that favored Americans, against these unreasonable phone or computer
searches, but the searches are still going on. WTF!
The law is clear away from the border, and cops need probably cause to search your cell phone. Of course, they usually get around this by simply
asking you permission to search your phone. The same thing at the border. All this tough talk, when you know if a custom agent, asks to search your
phone, 99% of the people are going to comply.
However, at the border, the law if different, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's policy position is pretty much that you have little to
almost no constitutional rights at the border, and they claim they are just protecting the USA against possible foreign threats. Their written
policy hasn't really changed since 2009, despite any new court rulings.
The jackbooted thugs, supposedly, aren't supposed to stop random people at the border, and then ask to see your cell phone, so they could search it.
But the bar is so low, it might as well be a random search. They can search your phone, using the lower threshold of anywhere between "reasonable
suspicion" to probably cause. Reasonable suspicion, could be such things as you looked at the agent the wrong way, or you fit his personal profile of
a pervert who might have porn on his phone, for example, you're white, round, and just don't look like the average typical tourist. ( of course it's
against the law to racially profile, but you know they do it anyway)
The jackbooted thugs, are going to ask to search your phone, and probably everybody here will comply. If not, they could detain you, and take away
your phone, especially under this Trump administration going forward.
Good luck, citing your civil rights, and a few recent court cases, because the DHS works around those new rulings, with things like the 4th amendment
exceptions/loopholes, and other things they make up like typical corrupt cops or feds.
Again, do not trust any information on this thread, unless it's backed up by current information in 2017, with a link to credible information.
Even our US Senators aren't sure what's going on with border cell phone searches with the new administration. Thank GOD, for liberal Senators, and the
ACLU, who fights these violations to our Constitutional rights, but it often takes years to get a favorable ruling in the courts.
______________________________________
First on CNN: Senator seeks answers on border cell phone searches
Can the government demand you unlock your phone at the airport? A senior Senate Democrat is demanding the Department of Homeland Security explain
reports that it's doing just that.
Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and privacy hawk, is set to send a letter to DHS Secretary John Kelly
calling reports that Americans were required to unlock their smartphones "deeply troubling," asking what legal authority allows for it.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/20/politics/border-search-cell-ph...
[Edited on 2-20-2017 by JoeJustJoe] |
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 17294
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
They don't hassle you pasty white folk. If you had brown skin and could speak a foreign language, CBP would be strip searching and water boarding you
up to 4x/yr.
|
|
|
wilderone
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3778
Registered: 2-9-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
Do you believe that the US Supreme court decisions are settled law?
They are settled law as far as that particular case and it's particular arguments presented, until subsequent cases distinguish the rulings.
Do you believe that the US Supreme court can make decisions regarding the various elements of the 4th amendment?
Absolutely, based on the set of facts presented to be decided. This is their function.
Do you believe that you can disregard any US Supreme court decision you feel is not right?
You can try, but would be a fool's game.
Do you believe the US Supreme court has jurisdiction on matters of search and seizure at the border?
"Jurisdiction?" A US Supreme Court case headnote is not going to have any impact whatsoever on whatever is happening to you at the border.
Should CBP officials ignore the decision from the US Supreme court in matters of search and seizure without warrants or probable cause in the border
area?
The CBP agents follow the law as it is on the books. They might get briefed on a regional policy matter based on a recent ruling, but individual human
agents likely don't even know ongoing decisions made on the hundreds of cases affecting search and seizure.
Should you, as a matter of your rights, ignore decisions that you feel are wrong?
YOU don't know what "decisions" there are, and the set of facts that resulted in the decision, so give it up.
Do you believe that only the US Supreme court can reverse their decisions and not some lower court?
A US Supreme Court point of law in a case can be turned on its ear in subsequent cases, all of which will be sparked in cases from federal courts of
appeal. It takes many years for other cases to develop to challenge existing case law and to be published, and it is ever evolving.
It's not difficult to do case law research and see which points of law within a particular case are on shaky ground. However, to know this is only
going to help your attorney after you have been charged with a crime and are sitting before a judge to rule on your opposition motion.
|
|
|
Cliffy
Senior Nomad
Posts: 984
Registered: 12-19-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
I know what's going to happen buy I'll ask anyway to see if anyone has a simple answer-
What does a border between countries signify? Does it have a purpose?And I'm speaking of any country in the world.
You chose your position in life today by what YOU did yesterday
|
|
|
DaliDali
Super Nomad
Posts: 1132
Registered: 4-21-2010
Location: BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by wilderone |
agents likely don't even know ongoing decisions made on the hundreds of cases affecting search and seizure.
Should you, as a matter of your rights, ignore decisions that you feel are wrong?
YOU don't know what "decisions" there are, and the set of facts that resulted in the decision, so give it up.
Do you believe that only the US Supreme court can reverse their decisions and not some lower court?
A US Supreme Court point of law in a case can be turned on its ear in subsequent cases, all of which will be sparked in cases from federal courts of
appeal. It takes many years for other cases to develop to challenge existing case law and to be published, and it is ever evolving.
|
Point #1."Likely going on"?....how do you know what the border agents know or don't know regarding their duties concerning search and seizure at the
border?
You do know that these border agents get daily briefings as needed on their actions concerning search and seizure decisions at the border don't you?
Their current prerogative is what is allowed by law and the SCOTUS has ruled that they CAN search and seize as needed WITHOUT a warrant at the border.
There should be no dispute to this....it is FACT and supported by the SCOTUS decision.
Point #2.....ONLY the Supremes can turn a prior case on it's ear.
NO appeals court has the power to overturn or "turn on it's ear" a SCOTUS decided ruling.
A case may work it's way to the SCOTUS from a lower appeals court concerning border searches and ONLY after hearing that appeal to them, will the
SCOTUS either let stand their prior ruling or "toss on it's ear" their prior ruling based on current evidence presented.
You HAVE to get it out your mind that lower courts can negate a ruling by the SCOTUS.....they CAN'T.
You HAVE to get it out of your mind that border agents are searching and seizing without legal authority to do it.
|
|
|
wilderone
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3778
Registered: 2-9-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
How many border agents are there? Do you believe that every one of these humans hear the same briefing? Learn in the same manner? Have the same
experience on the job? Attitude? Do you think that any one of them actually goes to a law library and does their own legal research on a specific
point or set of facts and then brings it to their day to day job? These are individual human beings - none the same. Some, as you know, are on the
take and assisting criminals. We know about this because some of them get caught. Several terms with broad and specific legal connotations are
brought forth here: detain, probable cause, search, seizure, warrant, no warrant. Each issue has hundreds of case law decisions that uphold the law
and associated fact set, or reverses it or distinguishes it. Appellate courts have great weight on matters that there is no US Supreme court ruling
on. US Supreme Court cases are never unpublished from the books, and even reversed decisions offer guidance and precedent. If a point of law is
reversed, it is because a lower court case was evolved to a point where it was challenged, and if successful, then that case law will supersede
existing case law. It is a federal issue, therefore, it goes through federal courts via federal appellate courts, a specific procedure. You can see
how older case law changes with simple research, see the underlying courts, etc. I did it for 25 years and had two cases go to the Supreme Court. I
haven't done recent research on the aforementioned issues - no need - I'm not a criminal. But I do know something about unlawful detainment and
probable cause. I also try to do research about specific interests pertinent to my travel in Mexico - current statute - not case law - e.g, which
coral is allowed to be brought across the border and which are protected. The law on duty on Mexican art (none). I have brought back a lot of
contraband which agents clearly saw and did nothing (antiquities, dirt, plants, sand, wine, coral). If agents were untouchable, why would there be
hundreds of court cases brought against them by plaintiffs for alleged unlawful search, seizure, detainment, etc. the border.
|
|
|
DaliDali
Super Nomad
Posts: 1132
Registered: 4-21-2010
Location: BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by wilderone | How many border agents are there? Do you believe that every one of these humans hear the same briefing? Learn in the same manner? Have the same
experience on the job? Attitude? Do you think that any one of them actually goes to a law library and does their own legal research on a specific
point or set of facts and then brings it to their day to day job? These are individual human beings - none the same. Some, as you know, are on the
take and assisting criminals. We know about this because some of them get caught. Several terms with broad and specific legal connotations are
brought forth here: detain, probable cause, search, seizure, warrant, no warrant. Each issue has hundreds of case law decisions that uphold the law
and associated fact set, or reverses it or distinguishes it. Appellate courts have great weight on matters that there is no US Supreme court ruling
on. US Supreme Court cases are never unpublished from the books, and even reversed decisions offer guidance and precedent. If a point of law is
reversed, it is because a lower court case was evolved to a point where it was challenged, and if successful, then that case law will supersede
existing case law. It is a federal issue, therefore, it goes through federal courts via federal appellate courts, a specific procedure. You can see
how older case law changes with simple research, see the underlying courts, etc. I did it for 25 years and had two cases go to the Supreme Court. I
haven't done recent research on the aforementioned issues - no need - I'm not a criminal. But I do know something about unlawful detainment and
probable cause. I also try to do research about specific interests pertinent to my travel in Mexico - current statute - not case law - e.g, which
coral is allowed to be brought across the border and which are protected. The law on duty on Mexican art (none). I have brought back a lot of
contraband which agents clearly saw and did nothing (antiquities, dirt, plants, sand, wine, coral). If agents were untouchable, why would there be
hundreds of court cases brought against them by plaintiffs for alleged unlawful search, seizure, detainment, etc. the border.
|
This isn't about the virtue of each and every border agent.....it's about the legality of those agents to conduct warrantless searches on the border.
It would be extremely foolish to even think that those agents are not trained and get updates and briefings on court rulings that affect their daily
interactions with border crossers.....is that reasonable?
While some Federal appeals court cases may make their way to the Supreme court for a ruling on the law, the law regarding search and seizure at the
border without a warrant has already been ruled on.
A Federal appeals court judge, or panel of judges, upon hearing a challenge to that ruling, would rule against the plaintiff, as the law has
previously been adjudicated by the Supremes and ruled legal as to the 4th amendment.
ONLY the Supremes can undo a previous decision made by them.
As you well know, those border agents have discretion on what they confiscate and what they don't.
It that item or items is prohibited, or a "duty" required, those agents are perfectly in their Supreme court decided ruling, to either charge that
duty or outright confiscate the contraband without further ado and without a warrant or adhering to 4th amendment rights.
Just because one agent lets you though with 6 cartons of cigs, 4 cases of vino tinto and 42 limones, another agent will confiscate those items and or
make you fork over custom duties.....and that agent who does confiscate your items, is perfectly within his duty to do so without further ado.
Someone commented earlier....YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS concerning unlawful search and seizure at the border.
One can file law suit after lawsuit on the legality of border agents to confiscate your goods, search your belongings, peer into your electronic
devices without reasonable cause or without a warrant.
The Supreme court decision allowing this practice is a matter of public fact.
The level of reported corruption of border agents has ZERO to do with duties under the law, afforded them by a US Supreme court decision.
I am not going to explain this again.....I urge you or anyone to look up the Supreme ruling and draw your own conclusions as to the intent and legal
authority border agents have.
|
|
|
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy!
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy | I know what's going to happen buy I'll ask anyway to see if anyone has a simple answer-
What does a border between countries signify? Does it have a purpose?And I'm speaking of any country in the world. |
Up until now a border likely represents at what point a prior administration or leader succeeded or failed in expanding or defending their territory,
usually with war of some kind, with resource possession as the main motivator.
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by David K | | Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666 | The GOP scare-mongers spend all day wanting to build walls and create a police-state to target foreigners.
But where is the danger? Where is the terrorist bogeyman they keep yapping about?
GOP should spend their time fixing what is killing Americans: automobiles, disease, obesity, guns.
|
You forgot to add: Liberal lunatics (who want a massive government to control every aspect of our life but want to do nothing the government is
actually obligated to do, namely protect its citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic. Read the U.S. constitution instead of Karl Marx).
|
Actually, it's the conservatives who want to control every aspect of your personal private life, and are quick to take away your constitutional rights
to privacy and will take away your rights to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. The GOP conservatives are so bad, they even want
to be able to peak in bedrooms, and see what kind of sex you're having so they can arrest you, see Lawrence v. Texas, and the overturned a Texas
anti-sodomy law. The conservatives, want to control women's rights to abortions, and if they could deny her access to birth control, which was another
court case settled many years ago, because liberals fought conservatives over this issue.
But conservatives do a great job, with laissez faire, polices for corporations they consider people, but the thing is these artificial persons, (
corporations) care nothing about it's employees, or the planet it pollutes.
Regarding this topic at the border, with searches, it's going to get worse under this ultra conservative administration, headed by John Kelly, head
of DHS.
What people are missing here, is these cases are not really settled law, or rather the Supreme Court, hasn't ruled on the most recent electronic
privacy lawsuits, and just let stand a lower court ruling from the 9th circuit, and other appeal boards. In other older cases, the Supreme Court, has
ruled, and most of these cases are favorable to US Customs, to allow these warrantless searches at the border, and the US officials also take
advantage of loopholes in the law, and 4th amendments exceptions. They also seem to interpret the law, as they see it, and wait for someone to
challenge the law, usually the ACLU.
I'm somebody that stands up to cops on the street by citing my constitutional rights, when I think I'm being pulled over for nothing, but I wouldn't
do it at the border with US Customs, because it could end up very badly for me, and who are you going to complain to?
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
Liberals - Don't Hold your Breath .......................
Your Last Resort...............The Supreme Court..............is destined to take a HARD RIGHT.
While the coming nomination won't dramatically alter court decisions given that Scalia is being replaced, the inevitable NEXT vacancy sure to come up
during the Reich WILL.
Regardless of whether the president during this term is Trump or (God Willing) Pence.
BTW, an interesting trivia question would be something I heard the other day on the 24/7 news.
How Many votes would it take to remove Trump from office ?
NINE.
|
|
|
BajaDreams
Newbie
Posts: 9
Registered: 1-29-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
Need I remind you the last POTUS is the one who actually DID take away all your rights under the 2012 NDAA "indefinite detention" provision?
Literally ALL of them. And when he signed the bill, he made it sound like he was doing so reluctantly, and then his admin went to court to fight the
challenges to it.
People who believe this is some right/left righteousness fight are deluding themselves. Both parties have been part and parcel to the erosion of our
rights for a very long time. Being a party hack or shill is a fool's game. Only fools think they win at it. the real winners are the ones with the
money and power.
| Quote: Originally posted by JoeJustJoe | | Quote: Originally posted by David K | | Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666 | The GOP scare-mongers spend all day wanting to build walls and create a police-state to target foreigners.
But where is the danger? Where is the terrorist bogeyman they keep yapping about?
GOP should spend their time fixing what is killing Americans: automobiles, disease, obesity, guns.
|
You forgot to add: Liberal lunatics (who want a massive government to control every aspect of our life but want to do nothing the government is
actually obligated to do, namely protect its citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic. Read the U.S. constitution instead of Karl Marx).
|
Actually, it's the conservatives who want to control every aspect of your personal private life, and are quick to take away your constitutional rights
to privacy and will take away your rights to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. The GOP conservatives are so bad, they even want
to be able to peak in bedrooms, and see what kind of sex you're having so they can arrest you, see Lawrence v. Texas, and the overturned a Texas
anti-sodomy law. The conservatives, want to control women's rights to abortions, and if they could deny her access to birth control, which was another
court case settled many years ago, because liberals fought conservatives over this issue.
But conservatives do a great job, with laissez faire, polices for corporations they consider people, but the thing is these artificial persons, (
corporations) care nothing about it's employees, or the planet it pollutes.
Regarding this topic at the border, with searches, it's going to get worse under this ultra conservative administration, headed by John Kelly, head
of DHS.
What people are missing here, is these cases are not really settled law, or rather the Supreme Court, hasn't ruled on the most recent electronic
privacy lawsuits, and just let stand a lower court ruling from the 9th circuit, and other appeal boards. In other older cases, the Supreme Court, has
ruled, and most of these cases are favorable to US Customs, to allow these warrantless searches at the border, and the US officials also take
advantage of loopholes in the law, and 4th amendments exceptions. They also seem to interpret the law, as they see it, and wait for someone to
challenge the law, usually the ACLU.
I'm somebody that stands up to cops on the street by citing my constitutional rights, when I think I'm being pulled over for nothing, but I wouldn't
do it at the border with US Customs, because it could end up very badly for me, and who are you going to complain to?
|
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
"the real winners are the ones with the money and power."
This is true 
|
|
|
bajaguy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9247
Registered: 9-16-2003
Location: Carson City, NV/Ensenada - Baja Country Club
Member Is Offline
Mood: must be 5 O'clock somewhere in Baja
|
|
Actually the ones with the guns and bullets...........
Mao Zedong wrote that "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 17294
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by bajaguy | Actually the ones with the guns and bullets...........
Mao Zedong wrote that "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
|
The guys with guns and bullets are pawns controlled by those with money and power.
If you got money and power, you hire dumb cops and naive teenage soldiers to hold the guns and take the bullets.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6 |
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
