If only one of the conservative....

[Mossingen]

Justices believed in the Fourth Amendment.



http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/03/18722878-supreme-court-upholds-dna-swabbing-of-people-under-arrest?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

[popinjay999]

On Jun 3, 9:12 am, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:

> Justices believed in the Fourth Amendment.
>

> http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/03/18722878-supreme-court-uph...



If only one more of the liberal justices had.


By the way, I truly doubt if anyone on this group understands the
history of "neo-conservatism" and the difference between neo-
conservatives and conservatives. Here's a hint: "Trotsky". If
anyone here knows what I'm talking about I'll kiss your ass in the
public square.

[Dave the Clueless]

An offer of your lips on my ass is hardly an inducement to great effort on
my part.

-------
JerryFOREX the retard thinks "Cornel Ronald West (born June 2, 1953) is an
American philosopher, academic, activist, author and prominent member of
the Democratic Socialists of America" is a right-winger! LOL! HAHAHAHAH!
What a moron!!!

[popinjay999]

On Jun 3, 10:25 am, "Dave the Clueless" <a987...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:

>
> An offer of your lips on my ass is hardly an inducement to great effort on
> my part.
>

If I didn't think I had a sure thing, I would not have made the offer.

And I'm not retracting it either. I know my customers. Maybe Travel
knows what I'm talking about, but none of the rest would. James
certainly wouldn't.

[risky biz]

A number of the promininent "neo-consevatives" are former Trotskyists.
There's nothing conservative at all about "neo-conservatives". In fact, if
Trotsky had seized control of the CPSU he probably would have been an
ardent imperialist. Stalin eventually came around to contemplating
expansion of communism by force but only after WWII had concluded. He was
just more cautious about it.

Getting off the subject of communists- no true conservative would advocate
for a military as humongous as ours or it's habitual use as an instrument
of foreign policy.

Lucky for you that I'm not interested in the offer.

[risky biz]

On Jun 3 2013 9:12 AM, Mossingen wrote:

> Justices believed in the Fourth Amendment.
>
>
>
>
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/03/18722878-supreme-court-upholds-dna-swabbing-of-people-under-arrest?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

At first glance I don't disagree with this ruling. The police should be
able to positively identify someone they've arrested if it was a
legitimate arrest- meaning there was reasonable cause for the arrest.

[halfpastdead]

OH SNAP !!!!!!


*****************************************

I saw a bumper sticker about six months ago. It said: "Don't Mex with
Tejas".

---------------------------------------------------------------

[halfpastdead]

On Jun 3 2013 11:12 AM, Mossingen wrote:

> Justices believed in the Fourth Amendment.
>
>
>
>
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/03/18722878-supreme-court-upholds-dna-swabbing-of-people-under-arrest?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

This is the kind of shit you get when you applaud knee-jerk reactions to
tragedies like 9-11. All you lames who got in lockstep with the Crawford
Village idiot and applauded the Homeland Security ACT have absolutely
nothing to complain about .. you wanted to scare stupid people with
imminent dangers and you were the ones saying "if you have nothing to
hide, then you wont mind rolling over while we look up your ass"

before this is over newborn babies will be swabbed or a piece of their
umbilical cord will be kept and all who enter this country will be in a
DNA database , along with purchase records, books you read, and GPS
monitoring at will

YOU RIGHTIES ASKED FOR IT .. YOU GOT IT .. NOW BEND OVER .. they have a
swab to do .

[halfpastdead]

On Jun 3 2013 11:12 AM, Mossingen wrote:

> Justices believed in the Fourth Amendment.
>
>
>
>
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/03/18722878-supreme-court-upholds-dna-swabbing-of-people-under-arrest?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

you can kiss "probable cause " goodbye

[popinjay999]

On Jun 3, 10:52 am, "risky biz" <a31d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>
> At first glance I don't disagree with this ruling. The police should be
> able to positively identify someone they've arrested if it was a
> legitimate arrest- meaning there was reasonable cause for the arrest.

And at second glance?

[risky biz]

On Jun 3 2013 11:03 AM, halfpastdead wrote:

> On Jun 3 2013 11:12 AM, Mossingen wrote:
>
> > Justices believed in the Fourth Amendment.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/03/18722878-supreme-court-upholds-dna-swabbing-of-people-under-arrest?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1
>
> This is the kind of shit you get when you applaud knee-jerk reactions to
> tragedies like 9-11. All you lames who got in lockstep with the Crawford
> Village idiot and applauded the Homeland Security ACT have absolutely
> nothing to complain about .. you wanted to scare stupid people with
> imminent dangers and you were the ones saying "if you have nothing to
> hide, then you wont mind rolling over while we look up your ass"
>
> before this is over newborn babies will be swabbed or a piece of their
> umbilical cord will be kept and all who enter this country will be in a
> DNA database , along with purchase records, books you read, and GPS
> monitoring at will
>
> YOU RIGHTIES ASKED FOR IT .. YOU GOT IT .. NOW BEND OVER .. they have a
> swab to do .

If you don't like it don't get arrested for a good reason.

[risky biz]

No change yet but that's only an extimate.

[popinjay999]

On Jun 3, 11:25 am, "risky biz" <a31d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>
> No change yet but that's only an extimate.

Seriously, I think I'm just going to let Doggy lick himself from now
on. That "tote board estimate" shit last week just about broke the
camel's back. Just ignore him and let him silly himself out.

[halfpastdead]

ok ..let me run one by you.. suppose a guy gets arrested and swabbed, then
you find out that it was a complete misunderstanding and the guy was
unrelated to the issue he was arrested for .. do you trust the government
(cops) to COMPLETELY eliminate and destroy any record of that sample ..
cuz I will bet you that they NEVER EVER relinquish a sample once they get
one , or 100% eliminate any record of the results

[halfpastdead]

28.60 to win .. explain that MF

[poopiejay]

lol. good post, doggie

[Clave]

"halfpastdead" <aa9...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:jr4v7ax...@news.ezprovider.com...

FTR, I agree with Scalia.

Now please pardon me, I have to go take a long, LONG shower.

Jim

[Clave]

"Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:koif13$obb$1...@dont-email.me...

> Justices believed in the Fourth Amendment.
>
>
>
> http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/03/18722878-supreme-court-upholds-dna-swabbing-of-people-under-arrest?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

Scalia dissented.

Jim

[popinjay999]

On Jun 3, 12:10 pm, "poopiejay" <a477...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>
> lol.   good post, doggie



Why is it a "good post"? Only if you're just as ignorant as Doggy
is. True "righties" don't believe in this shit. Totalitarians are on
the left, and always have been. That's why we're heading toward a New
World Order, because of people on the left, no matter what they
"label" themselves as, they're on the left, on an accurate political
spectrum.

[popinjay999]

On Jun 3, 12:14 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:

>
> Scalia dissented.
>
> Jim



Surely James knows that, idiot, he posted the fucking article, didn't
he? He's a lawyer, you stupid fuck, do you think he didn't read the
article? Obviously James meant one of the pseudo-conservatives who
voted with the 5-4 majority.

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:110ad0bb-f2e0-4690...@li6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> On Jun 3, 12:14 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Scalia dissented.
>>
>> Jim
>
>
>

> Surely James knows that...

Read the OP, dumbass.

Jim

[popinjay999]

On Jun 3, 12:37 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> "popinjay999" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

I don't give a fuck what the OP says literally, you're the dumbass if
you think James didn't know that Scalia voted with the minority. It's
his job to know stuff like that, and it was HIS article he posted. He
doesn't need you "correcting" him. Just keep your fucking mouth shut
and no one will miss you.

[da pickle]

On 6/3/2013 11:12 AM, Mossingen wrote:
> Justices believed in the Fourth Amendment.
>
>
>
> http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/03/18722878-supreme-court-upholds-dna-swabbing-of-people-under-arrest?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

Actually, all nine believe in the 4th ... and Scalia is certainly a
conservative.

Do you think that finger prints and mug shots should not be taken
either? How about using facial recognition on mug shots taken of people
not convicted of any crime?

[brattt]

On Jun 3 2013 11:12 AM, Mossingen wrote:

> Justices believed in the Fourth Amendment.
>
>
>
>
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/03/18722878-supreme-court-upholds-dna-swabbing-of-people-under-arrest?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

How is this more invasive than fingerprints? And pictures with the new
facial recognition software?

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:981815e7-b9d6-423b...@pd6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> On Jun 3, 12:37 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
>> "popinjay999" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:110ad0bb-f2e0-4690...@li6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jun 3, 12:14 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Scalia dissented.
>>
>> >> Jim
>>
>> > Surely James knows that...
>>
>> Read the OP, dumbass.
>

> I don't give a fuck what the OP says literally...

Obviously, dumbass. That would get in the way of your childish anklebiting.

Jim

[popinjay999]

On Jun 3, 1:02 pm, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>
> How is this more invasive than fingerprints?  And pictures with the new
> facial recognition software?

How is taking finger prints not a violation of constitutionally
protected privacy when there has been no conviction, no due process?
Yet they do it immediately upon arrest, when still presumed innocent.
Some states do so when you get your drivers license, when you could be
squeaky clean.

Your social security number isn't supposed to be a "brand on your
forehead" either, but it is.

Inch by inch, step by step.

[risky biz]

I don't see a good reason why DNA should be differentiated from
fingerprints.

[risky biz]

On Jun 3 2013 2:31 PM, popinjay999 wrote:

> On Jun 3, 1:02 pm, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> >
> > How is this more invasive than fingerprints?  And pictures with the new
> > facial recognition software?
>
>
>
> How is taking finger prints not a violation of constitutionally
> protected privacy when there has been no conviction, no due process?
> Yet they do it immediately upon arrest, when still presumed innocent.

It's just good police practice. What if they arrest someone, the charges
don't stick, they have to be released, but additional evidence later makes
them the prime suspect again. If the mug shot, fingerprints, and DNA were
all destroyed the police couldn't prove who they arrested. DNA is no
different than fingerprints.

> Some states do so when you get your drivers license, when you could be
> squeaky clean.

That's where I draw the line. There's no justification for that because
applying for a driver's license does not provide a reasonable assumption
that you have committed a crime. I made a major scene at a DMV office when
they demanded my fingerprint. Are they still doing that?

> Your social security number isn't supposed to be a "brand on your
> forehead" either, but it is.
>
> Inch by inch, step by step.

The number of entities which demand my SSN are a major irritant to me. I
think it's even written into the original Social Security law that it is
not to be used for an identification number.

[Tim Norfolk]

On Monday, June 3, 2013 1:17:36 PM UTC-4, popinjay999 wrote:

> On Jun 3, 9:12 am, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Justices believed in the Fourth Amendment.
>
> >

> > http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/03/18722878-supreme-court-uph...
>
> If only one more of the liberal justices had.
>
> By the way, I truly doubt if anyone on this group understands the
> history of "neo-conservatism" and the difference between neo-
> conservatives and conservatives. Here's a hint: "Trotsky". If
> anyone here knows what I'm talking about I'll kiss your ass in the
> public square.

Are you perhaps referring to the fact that the well-known neocons started out as very left-wing disciples of the guy whose name I can't recall right now (I believe it started with an S)?

[Tim Norfolk]

It can get worse. They caught the 'Yorkshire Ripper' by DNA-testing every male in a town in the UK. The authorities are now defending their 'right' to keep all of that data, and in similar cases.

[popinjay999]

On Jun 3, 6:40 pm, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@aol.com> wrote:

>
> Are you perhaps referring to the fact that the well-known neocons started out as very left-wing disciples of the guy whose name I can't recall right now (I believe it started with an S)?

They didn't just "start out". This is what you libs don't get. Their
policies NOW, are left-wing. You morons think Bush was a right-winger.

[Bill Vanek]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 19:02:45 -0700 (PDT), popinjay999
<paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On Jun 3, 6:40�pm, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Are you perhaps referring to the fact that the well-known neocons started out as very left-wing disciples of the guy whose name I can't recall right now (I believe it started with an S)?
>
>
>They didn't just "start out". This is what you libs don't get. Their
>policies NOW, are left-wing.

Foreign policies, sure. Domestic & social policies, not really.

[popinjay999]

On Jun 3, 9:39 pm, Bill Vanek <bilva...@invalid.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 19:02:45 -0700 (PDT), popinjay999

>

> >They didn't just "start out".  This is what you libs don't get.  Their
> >policies NOW, are left-wing.
>
> Foreign policies, sure. Domestic & social policies, not really.

Yes, really. Neo-cons have embraced and supported the New Deal every
step of the way. Where has a neo-con fought for shrinking the size of
government and the present welfare state? Who? Bush? Nixon? Even
Reagan? "Social" spending mushroomed under all of them.

The acknowledged "godfather" of the "neo-con" movement is Irving
Kristol. In his 1995 book, Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an
Idea, Kristol wrote:

"We are conservative, but different in certain respects from the
conservatism of the Republican Party. We accepted the New Deal in
principle, and had little affection for the kind of isolationism that
then permeated American conservatism."

So neo-cons are for the New Deal, which is socialism, and they oppose
"isolationism", which means they are internationalists. They support
the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, NAFTA, WTO, Social Security,
Medicare, Food Stamps, Medicaid.

Neo-cons never challenge the growth of big government. They love big
government. And people are confused as to what "conservatism" means,
because the neo-cons have stolen the "conservative" label.

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:5a9a2edf-32dc-46af...@pd6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

<...>

> Neo-cons never challenge the growth of big government. They love big
> government. And people are confused as to what "conservatism" means,
> because the neo-cons have stolen the "conservative" label.

Incredible that such a thing could have happened, given the utter moral and
logical strength of traditional conservative ideas.

Republican voters sure are stupid, eh?

Jim

[popinjay999]

On Jun 3, 11:02 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:

>
> Republican voters sure are stupid, eh?
>
> Jim

Why are you talking to me? I was talking to Bill. Do you think I
give a fuck what you think?

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:e26b1d2f-b88b-4cdd...@ks18g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

You hang on my every word, Sweetie, and concession of all points in the
previous post has been noted.

I'll be trotting your cowardly lack of disagreement out some time real soon.

Jim

[popinjay999]

On Jun 3, 11:51 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:

> concession of all points in the
> previous post has been noted.
>

What concession? I previous stated that libs are fooled, as are
republicans. So your "republican voters sure are stupid" is only half
a point. At best it was half a concession. So what?

Look, Clave, no one wants to read our bickering. I'm sure it is just
as boring to people as watching Dutch and Beldin discuss poker hand
histories. I'm either going to limit my discussions to interesting
people like Bill V and Risky Biz, or I'm just going to stop posting
altogether.

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:4f14a648-8556-49b3...@ve4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> On Jun 3, 11:51 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
>
>> concession of all points in the
>> previous post has been noted.
>
> What concession?

I had some fun giving you a backhanded chance to disagree that traditional
conservative ideas are so unpopular that the GOP can't even get them past a
primary.

You didn't.

Then I asserted flat-out that GOP voters are stupid, even inviting you to
disagree.

You didn't -- I guess you can't in either case, really.

You're sucking at this way more than usual -- are things OK at home? I can
lighten up if you're having issues.

Jim

[popinjay999]

On Jun 4, 12:27 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> "popinjay999" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

Here's a concession for you. Liberalism is ruining the biggest
experiment in liberty that mankind has ever witnessed. Someone's got
to pay, and I'm not going out alone, trust me.

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:2a77ce3a-bd41-43a3...@ow4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Concession of all previous points accepted.

Jim

[da pickle]

No good comes from claving ... e.g., these exchanges.

[VegasJerry]

So how are you being 'searched' when they take your fingerprint, picture and DNA? The only people "harmed" by this decision are innocent arrestees guilty of other crimes.

[da pickle]

On 6/4/2013 2:08 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> So how are you being 'searched' when they take your fingerprint, picture and DNA? The only people "harmed" by this decision are innocent arrestees guilty of other crimes.

What? Is this an apology for your comments about the IRS?

[ChrisRobin]

On Jun 3 2013 2:03 PM, halfpastdead wrote:

> This is the kind of shit you get when you applaud knee-jerk reactions to
> tragedies like 9-11. All you lames who got in lockstep with the Crawford
> Village idiot and applauded the Homeland Security ACT have absolutely
> nothing to complain about .. you wanted to scare stupid people with
> imminent dangers and you were the ones saying "if you have nothing to
> hide, then you wont mind rolling over while we look up your ass"
>
> before this is over newborn babies will be swabbed or a piece of their
> umbilical cord will be kept and all who enter this country will be in a
> DNA database , along with purchase records, books you read, and GPS
> monitoring at will

This is already established law, it's called "The Patriot Act."

[popinjay999]

On Jun 4, 12:08 pm, VegasJerry <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:

> So how are you being 'searched' when they take your fingerprint, picture and DNA? The only people "harmed" by this decision are innocent arrestees guilty of other crimes.

Have you even READ the 4th Amendment, you stupid mutherfucker?

[popinjay999]

On Jun 4, 10:47 am, da pickle <jcpick...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> No good comes from claving ... e.g., these exchanges.

Wait till the Revolution comes, there's going to be some SOCIAL
FUCKING JUSTICE.

[ChrisRobin]

On Jun 3 2013 2:27 PM, risky biz wrote:

> If you don't like it don't get arrested for a good reason.

C'mon risky, you know better than that � particularly in this day and age.

Look at the direction this country is headed � the federal government is
collecting and storing as much information as they can on every single
person in this country, recording every phone call, email, and text
message. The control of data and information is being centralized at the
federal level under the guise of many different straw-boogeymen, be it
terrorism, health care "reform," money-laundering prevention... Think
through the eventual consequences of all of this.

Let's say your DNA contains certain genetic markers that are believed to
be indications that you will eventually come down with some sort of
chronic or fatal disease. You're picked up by the police for any one of a
litany of minor offenses, and your DNA is swabbed. Now given the
centralization of law enforcement records (Patriot Act) and health care
data (Obamacare), there's an awfully good chance that your insurance
company has access to this datapoint, as it's part of your "profile" as
maintained by any number of federal databases. How do you rate your
chances of maintaining your health insurance in this kind of scenario?

I can think of countless ways something like a comprehensive DNA database
could be abused/misused, just off the top of my head. I'm all in favor of
the government having as little information on its citizens as possible.
It's proven to be a malicious actor with an insatiable appetite for
information on its subjects. This needs to be stopped NOW.

Now this many not happen tomorrow, or 2 years from now... But 10? 20?
You'd better believe this kind of shit has been in the works for decades,
and it'll get done eventually. Mark my words.

[popinjay999]

Can you see the day that they're collecting our DNA at birth? I mean,
there was a day, and I think you still can, use any name you want to.
You can certainly change your name. But it cannot be for fraudulent
purposes. My point being, there was a day when it was ok to retain a
degree of privacy. But all of what we're talking about, fingerprints,
Social Security numbers, DNA swabs, this is all getting closer to the
inevitable number tattooed on our forehead. Your mail won't be
addressed to Mr.Robin at 212 N. Numbnuts Street, it will be addressed
to your NUMBER. All movement must be tracked. No vacations to the
lake or beach without first reporting to the government. Etc., etc.
And, of course, cashless society. All debits, by scanning your chip
in your arm. It's coming. If it's not coming, it's at least being
thought of coming. PLUS, every measure will first be introduced "for
your own protection".

[ChrisRobin]

On Jun 4 2013 9:48 PM, popinjay999 wrote:

> Can you see the day that they're collecting our DNA at birth? I mean,
> there was a day, and I think you still can, use any name you want to.
> You can certainly change your name. But it cannot be for fraudulent
> purposes. My point being, there was a day when it was ok to retain a
> degree of privacy. But all of what we're talking about, fingerprints,
> Social Security numbers, DNA swabs, this is all getting closer to the
> inevitable number tattooed on our forehead. Your mail won't be
> addressed to Mr.Robin at 212 N. Numbnuts Street, it will be addressed
> to your NUMBER. All movement must be tracked. No vacations to the
> lake or beach without first reporting to the government. Etc., etc.
> And, of course, cashless society. All debits, by scanning your chip
> in your arm. It's coming. If it's not coming, it's at least being
> thought of coming. PLUS, every measure will first be introduced "for
> your own protection".

You're absolutely right, popinjay, and here's the REALLY sick part: People
will welcome it with open arms.

[Clave]

"ChrisRobin" <a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:hgo28ax...@news.ezprovider.com...

Collecting and filing DNA at birth has been going on for years.

Jim

[popinjay999]

On Jun 4, 8:55 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:

>
> Collecting and filing DNA at birth has been going on for years.
>

Thanks to fucks like you. This shit is the fault of people with your
mentality.

And I'd just as soon you stayed out of this conversation, nobody
really wants you here. Your presence is detrimental to the natural
flow of discussion. You're very disruptive.

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:97cb329c-ad29-483a...@v5g2000pbv.googlegroups.com...

> On Jun 4, 8:55 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Collecting and filing DNA at birth has been going on for years.
>

> Thanks to fucks like you...

Get over yourself, you pompous, ignorant twat.

Eugenics has always been the brainchild of godbothering fascists like you.

Jim

[risky biz]

I haven't catalogued the items above but booking and fingerprinting
someone isn't something new as is almost everything else you mention. And
the items you mention are directed against the public at large whereas
fingerprinting/DNA swabs have proven to be a useful tool ro solve run of
the mill crimes. A DNA swab of an arrestee is very similar to
fingerprinting, just more efficient. As far as law enforcement publishing
that data there's probably already a law against that.

I also think it's likely that wrongly convicted innocents have been freed
when DNA evidence established the actual guilty party.

[Clave]

"risky biz" <a31...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:3jv28ax...@news.ezprovider.com...

<...>

> I haven't catalogued the items above but booking and fingerprinting
> someone isn't something new as is almost everything else you mention. And
> the items you mention are directed against the public at large whereas
> fingerprinting/DNA swabs have proven to be a useful tool ro solve run of
> the mill crimes. A DNA swab of an arrestee is very similar to
> fingerprinting, just more efficient. As far as law enforcement publishing
> that data there's probably already a law against that.

That's currently regulated at the state level.

Jim

[bub]

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 22:40:19 -0700, "risky biz"
<a31...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

> A DNA swab of an arrestee is very similar to
>fingerprinting

except dna can be planted

[popinjay999]

On Jun 4, 10:24 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:

>

> Get over yourself, you pompous, ignorant twat.
>
> Eugenics has always been the brainchild of godbothering fascists like you.
>
> Jim

I am quite sure that between the two of us it is you who most favors
looking to put control in the hands of the central government. Excuse
me, but that makes you the fascist, not I. I am also quite sure you
are a big fan of OSHA and the EPA. Zieg HEIL!

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:8a02cafa-f0a9-4ea0...@li6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> On Jun 4, 10:24 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Get over yourself, you pompous, ignorant twat.
>>
>> Eugenics has always been the brainchild of godbothering fascists like
>> you.
>
>

> I am quite sure...

Right -- who needs knowledge when you have certainty?

> that between the two of us it is you who most favors

> looking to put control in the hands of the central government...

LOL -- you're as willfully ignorant of history as the rest of your mooing,
farting bovine brethren. Which is't all that surprising, considering all
the unpleasant truths you've been repressing.

Jim

[popinjay999]

On Jun 5, 12:22 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:

>
> you're as willfully ignorant of history as the rest of your mooing,
> farting bovine brethren.

You and Beldin are real history buffs, when you're sitting there with
Wiki in front of you.

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:5ff94a6c-7688-4592...@ua8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

Like yours is broken.

You can't deny a thing.

Jim

[popinjay999]

On Jun 5, 2:26 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:

>
> Like yours is broken.
>



If this were Chile, in 1974, do you have any idea what we would do
with you, just for spoutin off like that, punk?

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:370a3d29-5483-4816...@qn4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> On Jun 5, 2:26 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:

<...Pop-Tard can't work the IntarToobz...>

>> Like yours is broken.
>
> If this were Chile, in 1974, do you have any idea what we would do
> with you, just for spoutin off like that, punk?

LOL -- I guess that's how far back Pop-Tard has to go into a whole other
country's history for history to be comfortable.

Enjoy the tar pits, you ignorant twat. We'll soon be rid of your kind.

Jim

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Pail, respectfully just for a second.
I grew up in Acton, Ma.
Go google it, I'll wait.

Ok, so now you know it's right next to Concord, that the first Minute Man
who died at the Olde North Bridge in Concord was Issac Davis, from Acton,
and if you look into Issac Davis a little you'll see they recreate the route
the Acton Minute Men took to Concord that April morning every year on
Patriots' day.

Do you IMAGINE revolutionary war history might have gotten a little extra
treatment in high school? (here's a hint : correct answer is "fuck yes")

I knew we were a democratic republic long before Wikipedia existed. I used
it because without a cite, you NEVER admit you're wrong

[da pickle]

Brave New World [order]

[risky biz]

So can something with a fingerprint on it. Do you think maybe we should
just disband all law enforcement organizations?

[popinjay999]

On Jun 5, 4:28 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
wrote:

>
> Pail, respectfully just for a second.
> I grew up in Acton, Ma.
> Go google it, I'll wait.
>
> Ok, so now you know it's right next to Concord, that the first Minute Man
> who died at the Olde North Bridge in Concord was Issac Davis, from Acton,
> and if you look into Issac Davis a little you'll see they recreate the route
> the Acton Minute Men took to Concord that April morning every year on
> Patriots' day.
>
> Do you IMAGINE revolutionary war history might have gotten a little extra
> treatment in high school? (here's a hint : correct answer is "fuck yes")
>
> I knew we were a democratic republic long before Wikipedia existed. I used
> it because without a cite, you NEVER admit you're wrong

And when are you going to admit you were wrong and didn't know the
difference between East Germany, communist, and Nazi Germany?

We're still a republic, not a democratic republic, I don't give a fuck
where you grew up, idiot.

Ben Franklin said, “A Republic, if you can keep it,” not a
"democratic republic, if you can keep it."

[bub]

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 07:38:56 -0700, "risky biz"
<a31...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>So can something with a fingerprint on it.

planting a knife with a person placing a print on it is a bit more
involved than rubbing a swab on something

> Do you think maybe we should
>just disband all law enforcement organizations?

nice troll

[risky biz]

A person's fingerprint on anything as nondescript as a coffe cup can be
placed at a crime scene. I think DNA from a cheek swab would be more
difficult.

[halfpastdead]

if you have nothing to hide, then this wont bother you


*****************************************

I saw a bumper sticker about six months ago. It said: "Don't Mex with
Tejas".

---------------------------------------------------------------

[halfpastdead]

RIGHTIES already have

[brattt]

On Jun 6 2013 6:39 AM, halfpastdead wrote:

> On Jun 4 2013 10:39 PM, ChrisRobin wrote:
>
> > On Jun 4 2013 9:48 PM, popinjay999 wrote:
> >
> > > Can you see the day that they're collecting our DNA at birth? I mean,
> > > there was a day, and I think you still can, use any name you want to.
> > > You can certainly change your name. But it cannot be for fraudulent
> > > purposes. My point being, there was a day when it was ok to retain a
> > > degree of privacy. But all of what we're talking about, fingerprints,
> > > Social Security numbers, DNA swabs, this is all getting closer to the
> > > inevitable number tattooed on our forehead. Your mail won't be
> > > addressed to Mr.Robin at 212 N. Numbnuts Street, it will be addressed
> > > to your NUMBER. All movement must be tracked. No vacations to the
> > > lake or beach without first reporting to the government. Etc., etc.
> > > And, of course, cashless society. All debits, by scanning your chip
> > > in your arm. It's coming. If it's not coming, it's at least being
> > > thought of coming. PLUS, every measure will first be introduced "for
> > > your own protection".
> >
> > You're absolutely right, popinjay, and here's the REALLY sick part: People
> > will welcome it with open arms.
>
> RIGHTIES already have

And lefties haven't? How do you explain getting the phone records of
every Verizon customer? And the White House defending it? This is today
doggie - this is Obama's NSA.

Until you can get over the fact that both parties are on the same track
you might want to research before jumping in and blaming righties for
everything.

Big Brother has been building for a long time, and it's time has finally
come.

[risky biz]

In other words, the Democratic Party shouldn't have been bothered by the
Watergate break-in if they had nothing to hide?

[popinjay999]

Why respond to his childishness?

By the way, Nixon was moving full speed ahead and wanted to usher in
The New World Order under his term. He wanted to be President of
World Government. They "Watergated" him on purpose. Some people
around him came through unscathed. Kissinger and Haig being two of
them, high ups in the New World Order hiearchy. Nixon even thought
they were going to poison him and had his food tested.

Nixon was a very ambitious man. You can't rush the New World Order.
Timing is everything.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

popinjay999 wrote:
>>
> We're still a republic, not a democratic republic, I don't give a fuck
> where you grew up, idiot.
>

Paul, stop trolling

All democratic republics are republics

> Ben Franklin said, �A Republic, if you can keep it,� not a
> "democratic republic, if you can keep it."

So he was general, not specific

[popinjay999]

On Jun 8, 11:08 pm, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
wrote:

>

> All democratic republics are republics
>

Can you find the word "democratic" in the Constitution, the Federalist
Papers, or any of the major writings of our Founders?