Post by: Warren on December 21, 2007, 01:14:55 PM
First it was taken by the local cops and then the Feds stepped in and grabbed it saying the man could not prove he earned it.
Post by: Brad Johnson on December 21, 2007, 01:25:01 PM
Every time I see something like this I'd like to wring the necks of the big-govt crowd and the govt goons they want empower even more.
Brad
Post by: Tallpine on December 21, 2007, 02:49:21 PM
Quote
Every time I see something like this I'd like to wring the necks of the big-govt crowd and the govt goons they want empower even more.
You'd get awful tired ... that is an awful lot of necks
Post by: roo_ster on December 21, 2007, 03:11:07 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on December 21, 2007, 04:12:29 PM
Silly man. You're not allowed to secret money away, you're either supposed to have it in a BANK so it can be kept track of, or spend it on plastic electronics and consumer crap from China.
Why, what would happen to our voracious consumer-driven consumption economy if more people put away money like this?
Ahh yes. Right.
That's why.
Post by: Paddy on December 21, 2007, 04:14:36 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on December 21, 2007, 04:15:42 PM
Bullshit. NOBODY has $400k in cash in their house unless they got it illegally.
Either you're being sarcastic, or your armband is on order.
Post by: Finch on December 21, 2007, 04:28:11 PM
Bullshit. NOBODY has $400k in cash in their house unless they got it illegally.
Regardless, even if he did get it illegally the burden of proof SHOULD be on the FBI. Reminds me a lot of this story - http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=6979363&nav=AbC0
And how did the FED's seize jurisdiction over this? I don't see anything about this case (or in the constitution) that would nessecitate federal intervention. I guess cash is a lot harder to track and those thugs don't like it because it make their beloved PATRIOT act harder to use.
Post by: Paddy on December 21, 2007, 04:36:42 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on December 21, 2007, 04:38:00 PM
Post by: Paddy on December 21, 2007, 04:40:10 PM
Post by: grampster on December 21, 2007, 04:50:40 PM
Post by: Finch on December 21, 2007, 04:56:39 PM
And don't forget, the 'Patriot Act' was the work of a REPUBLICAN President and a REPUBLICAN Congress. So go ahead, vote REPUBLICAN again, ye suckers.
It's not just the republicans. The Senate nearly unanimously approved it. 98 Senators voted for it, one Dem didn't and one was absent. The House was a little wiser, but not by much 357-66. 211 Republicans and 145 Dems said yes to this piece of garbage legislation. Fortunetly out of the three House Republicans who happened to vote no on this, one of them is running for president. Smart guy I tells ya.
Post by: Dannyboy on December 21, 2007, 05:00:01 PM
Post by: De Selby on December 21, 2007, 06:19:28 PM
This confiscation thing has already been settled by the SCOTUS iirc. It's based on some obscure 18th century law of the sea. The decision came out of a deal where a man was arrested while attempting to pick up a hooker and the police confiscated his car. His wife objected because the car was titled in her name, not her husbands. Tough buns sayeth the court. I think it was in Detroit.
It's not that obscure-it's an in rem proceeding in most cases.
Ie, it's a legal action against the physical property, not the person. That isn't that obscure; it's been used in civil actions for quite some time. The law of the sea thing you're thinking of may be that in maritime law, you can sue a ship in rem and hold it liable for damages.
The best thing to do is to get politicians that pass laws forbidding the executive from doing this; unfortunately, that would be seen as "soft on drugs", and they'd lose their campaigns.
Post by: WeedWhacker on December 21, 2007, 11:23:15 PM
And don't forget, the 'Patriot Act' was the work of a REPUBLICAN President and a REPUBLICAN Congress. So go ahead, vote REPUBLICAN again, ye suckers.
It's not just the republicans. The Senate nearly unanimously approved it. 98 Senators voted for it, one Dem didn't and one was absent. The House was a little wiser, but not by much 357-66. 211 Republicans and 145 Dems said yes to this piece of garbage legislation. Fortunetly out of the three House Republicans who happened to vote no on this, one of them is running for president. Smart guy I tells ya.
This wouldn't be that doctor fella from Texas, would it?
Post by: seeker_two on December 22, 2007, 02:47:34 AM
And don't forget, the 'Patriot Act' was the work of a REPUBLICAN President and a REPUBLICAN Congress. So go ahead, vote REPUBLICAN again, ye suckers.
It's not just the republicans. The Senate nearly unanimously approved it. 98 Senators voted for it, one Dem didn't and one was absent. The House was a little wiser, but not by much 357-66. 211 Republicans and 145 Dems said yes to this piece of garbage legislation. Fortunetly out of the three House Republicans who happened to vote no on this, one of them is running for president. Smart guy I tells ya.
This wouldn't be that doctor fella from Texas, would it?
The more I hear about that guy, the more I'm tempted to vote for him......
B/t the Islamofascists & the Fedofascists, I'm not sure who I should be more afraid of. At least the IF's want to just kill me outright....
Post by: Tallpine on December 22, 2007, 06:32:09 AM
Quote
Unless one of the victims manages to get it all the way up to the supreme court, I'm not sure what can be done.
Oh, I could think of some things .....
Post by: Manedwolf on December 22, 2007, 06:36:22 AM
The more I hear about that guy, the more I'm tempted to vote for him......
Four years of Jimmy Carter with an R letting the terrorists regroup and attack us, four years of the dollar following the peso while the black-helicopter-tinfoil-nuts run gibbering in the streets, feeling validated?
No thanks.
Post by: Brad Johnson on December 22, 2007, 08:34:05 AM
Quote
Bullshit. NOBODY has $400k in cash in their house unless they got it illegally.
Your "Bullshit" is, well... Bullshit. Four hundred grand is $8000 a year for 50 years. If you live simply and keep all your extra money in cash it would be do-able.
Brad
Post by: Paddy on December 22, 2007, 09:24:40 AM
Post by: Finch on December 22, 2007, 10:42:32 AM
Four years of Jimmy Carter with an R letting the terrorists regroup and attack us
That's only if you buy into that whole "They hate us for our freedoms" B.S. And we are already letting them regroup. How does the Iraq Cluster**** stop terrorism? It doesn't. All it does is piss off more Muslims. And that is the reason we have a terrorist threat, not because of our freedoms, but because we don't mind our own damn business. /rant
four years of the dollar following the peso
Yeah, after all, our dollar is doing marvelous right now.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 22, 2007, 10:51:27 AM
Quote
And that is the reason we have a terrorist threat, not because of our freedoms, but because we don't mind our own damn business. /rant
Because that worked so well before WWII, when dealing with other expansionist agressors.
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 22, 2007, 11:28:19 AM
Bullshit. NOBODY has $400k in cash in their house unless they got it illegally.
WTF ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
It oughta be the gooberment's burden to prove he got it illegally, not the other way around.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 22, 2007, 12:05:58 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 02, 2008, 12:52:24 PM
If Ron Paul was president he'd still have it.
Post by: Paddy on January 02, 2008, 01:24:43 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 02, 2008, 01:43:17 PM
Actually, it is Bush's fault, him being the 'chief executive' and all, he is responsible for what happens in his administration. 'A fish stinks from the head'. (old Jewish saying...........)
It's actually an old Greek saying. And like most of them, highly inaccurate.To say that this didnt happen under Clinton is simply false.
Post by: Paddy on January 02, 2008, 01:50:32 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 02, 2008, 03:37:00 PM
Nobody said it didn't happen under Clinton. We're talking about Bush. Please try to stay focused.
So your thesis is that anything that happened under Clinton was Clinton's fault and anything that happened under Bush is Bush's fault?Somehow that doesn't pass the laugh test.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 02, 2008, 06:32:15 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 02, 2008, 08:02:08 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 02, 2008, 10:43:51 PM
Either way, we know that Bush supports things like this as he feels government intrustion is ok. Things like the Patriot Act are examples of this.
Maybe you should ask him whether he supported this particular action.
Post by: seeker_two on January 03, 2008, 01:58:34 AM
Nobody said it didn't happen under Clinton. We're talking about Bush. Please try to stay focused.
So your thesis is that anything that happened under Clinton was Clinton's fault and anything that happened under Bush is Bush's fault?Somehow that doesn't pass the laugh test.
fistful was around for both administrations.......
Either way, we know that Bush supports things like this as he feels government intrustion is ok. Things like the Patriot Act are examples of this.
Maybe you should ask him whether he supported this particular action.
I think Bush DID support the Patriot Act.......and he still hasn't pardoned Ramos or Campion or Libby......so much for loyalty.....
Post by: The Rabbi on January 03, 2008, 04:16:41 AM
And I dont think the patriot act has anything to do with what happened.
Post by: Paddy on January 03, 2008, 10:41:48 AM
The poor man has been constantly victimized by these groups since he took office. It's heartbreaking. {{sniff}}
Post by: The Rabbi on January 03, 2008, 01:57:26 PM
Of course Bush is not responsible. Nobody in the Bush Administration is ever responsible for anything. It's always somebody else's fault, either the terrorists, or the Democrats (who are trying to 'undermine' the 'war' effort dontcha know), or some other 'evildoers'.
The poor man has been constantly victimized by these groups since he took office. It's heartbreaking. {{sniff}}
The poor man has been constantly victimized by these groups since he took office. It's heartbreaking. {{sniff}}
Actually I think you're responsible.
Post by: Paddy on January 03, 2008, 01:59:20 PM
Quote
Actually I think you're responsible.
Actually, I am partly responsible, since I actively worked, and voted for, that disgraceful excuse for a President.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 03, 2008, 02:37:16 PM
Quote
Actually I think you're responsible.
Actually, I am partly responsible, since I actively worked, and voted for, that disgraceful excuse for a President.
If Gore had been elected none of this would ever have happened.
Post by: Paddy on January 03, 2008, 02:44:17 PM
Quote
If Gore had been elected none of this would ever have happened.
You're wrong again. Gore was elected, and it happened anyway.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 03, 2008, 03:05:47 PM
Quote
If Gore had been elected none of this would ever have happened.
You're wrong again. Gore was elected, and it happened anyway.
I suppose I should qualify that. Gore wasn't elected under the laws that govern elections. Gore was probably elected thousands of times in the imaginations of leftists and loons.
This sort of theft has happened periodically, though infrequently, throughout the history of the United States. It happens routinely outside of the US. Government is government, and always will be, regardless of who the current President is.
The noteworthy thing is that this stuff happens so infrequently here and now that it causes a quite a stir. We demand better of our government, and for the most part we get it.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on January 03, 2008, 03:13:20 PM
Post by: Tallpine on January 03, 2008, 05:26:21 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 03, 2008, 06:33:56 PM
I blame Lincoln
Oh yeah? Well, I blame John Marshall!
Post by: seeker_two on January 04, 2008, 04:54:52 AM
I blame Lincoln
Oh yeah? Well, I blame John Marshall!
Well, I blame Marshall Dillon.........and fistful......
Post by: seeker_two on January 04, 2008, 04:55:54 AM
Of course Bush is not responsible. Nobody in the Bush Administration is ever responsible for anything. It's always somebody else's fault, either the terrorists, or the Democrats (who are trying to 'undermine' the 'war' effort dontcha know), or some other 'evildoers'.
The poor man has been constantly victimized by these groups since he took office. It's heartbreaking. {{sniff}}
The poor man has been constantly victimized by these groups since he took office. It's heartbreaking. {{sniff}}
Too bad Bush didn't coat himself with as much Teflon as Clinton did.....
Post by: doc2rn on January 04, 2008, 02:25:29 PM
Quote
Too bad Bush didn't coat himself with as much Teflon as Clinton did
Nope he used more depleted uranium and tungsten. So stuff is still sticken to his Nikes.