>> Fuckhead (and you are one) miranda only applies to CRIMINAL
>> proceedings....
>> not shit you WANT

>> It is NOT remotely comperable, YOU ASSHOLE

> And just for the record, what he said there made absolutely no sense. He
> had it bass ackwards, as usual. First, of course they are comparable.
> They are both kinds of enumerated rights, and Beldin the dummy thinks
> when it comes to rights, we should just *read in* the stipulation that
> they are TOTALLY UNLIMITED and without any reasonable parameters
> whatsoever, unless the conferring document specifically states
> otherwise. This is why Beldin works in a grocery store.

> The reason I say Beldumb had it bass ackwards, again, is because it is
> trite to say that when it comes to rights, whether you are pointing to
> the Constitution or a treaty or a declaration or an ordinary statute or
> the common law or whatever, nowhere are they to be interpreted more
> liberally in favor of the right-holder than in the context of a criminal
> law setting where his personal liberty is at stake. So, if you believe
> that because a right is enumerated a United Nations declaration of human
> rights it must be totally and completely UNLIMITED in scope, beyond all
> common sense and reason (unless stipulated otherwise), then certainly
> you'd have to have the same attitude when it comes to the rights of an
> accused in a criminal law setting, where his physical liberty is in
> jeopardy.

> I know, it was just Beldumb being Beldumb, why do I bother. I'm still
> hoping susan will come around and explain, in terms even I can
> understand, why it's a bad idea to guarantee all citizens access to
> quality health care, even if it costs her absolutely nothing.