Will you get the vaccine?

[Winchester]

On 9/9/2021 at 4:07 PM, Peace said:

Well lets see about this.

1) It is not "on a whim". It must be based upon a belief that the property in question was involved with crime or illegal activity.

2) Two years ago the Supreme Court held that the excessive fines clause of the 8th amendment is applicable to civil forfeitures.

So it is simply not true that the "government can take anything that it wants on a whim, legally."

Certainly police officers can lie or otherwise abuse the procedure to confiscate property where there is no purported belief in criminal activity, but that would be an illegal action, and if you google you will find that there are lawsuits pending against officers who have abused the procedures.

3) As you note above, the person from whom the property was seized can prove that his home was not used as a crack-house, the government has to give the property back to it's rightful owner. So it is simply not true that "That means you don't have private property in the US, as far as the government is concerned." What we have is private property ownership that is subject to a condition - the condition being that the private property is proven not to be involved in illegal activity.

Now for the record I do find the procedure troubling and I will be glad to see success in the lawsuits and other actions that have been challenge its constitutionality and practical abuses of it, although your argument that the presence of this procedure and the abuses of it means that the government does not recognize private property utterly fails as noted above.

You seem to be living in a fantasy-land totalitarian state of some sort. Maybe you do. Are you writing from North Korea by any chance?

You seem to think of  "states" and "governments" as though they are sentient beings that have a mind, will, and capacity to act on their own. Exactly who are the "they" when you write "Modern states are no different to marauding bandits. They claim total power over law"?

The "government" and the "state" that you rail against is composed of actual flesh-and-blood human beings just like me and you. And those flesh-and-blood human beings who comprise the "government" and the "state" serve at the pleasure of the public (you and me). If you don't like them, find other like-minded people like yourself, convince others that they are unworthy of office, and vote them out of office.

It's not like we live in a totalitarian state whereby political officers rule by physical force. You, me, and every other person in a democratic society is the "limiting power" - not the legislators that WE elect. If you want your taxes reduced, vote for someone who pledges to reduce taxes. That is exactly what happened during the Reagan years.

 

Here's more information about this topic you're completely ignorant of. I know you don't read, but it's fun to put articles up here an imagine you ignoring them.

[Peace]

46 minutes ago, Winchester said:

Here's more information about this topic you're completely ignorant of. I know you don't read, but it's fun to put articles up here an imagine you ignoring them.

There is nothing in that article that I am completely ignorant of.

And the fact that you have resorted to insults such as "I know you don't read" indicates that you have nothing of substance to say.

[Winchester]

51 minutes ago, Peace said:

There is nothing in that article that I am completely ignorant of.

And the fact that you have resorted to insults such as "I know you don't read" indicates that you have nothing of substance to say.

That doesn't follow, at all.

You've already demonstrated that you don't know anything about civil asset forfeiture. You did it immediately after I brought it up. Then you accused me of lying about it.
 

Like most state idolaters, you know nothing at all about your gods.

[Peace]

1 minute ago, Winchester said:

That doesn't follow, at all.

You've already demonstrated that you don't know anything about civil asset forfeiture. You did it immediately after I brought it up. Then you accused me of lying about it.

Nonsense.

1 minute ago, Winchester said:

Like most state idolaters, you know nothing at all about your gods.

More personal insults, because you have nothing of substance to say.

[Winchester]

1 minute ago, Peace said:

Nonsense.

More personal insults, because you have nothing of substance to say.

You literally denied that the state steals without providing evidence of wrongdoing. You hadn't heard about civil asset forfeiture until I brought it up. Instead of learning, you assumed your gods would never violate due process.

 

It's an evaluation, and it still doesn't follow that insults mean someone has nothing of substance to say. It's just that I really hate bootlickers. It's a character flaw.

[Peace]

1 minute ago, Winchester said:

You literally denied that the state steals without providing evidence of wrongdoing.

False.

1 minute ago, Winchester said:

You hadn't heard about civil asset forfeiture until I brought it up.

False.

1 minute ago, Winchester said:

Instead of learning, you assumed your gods would never violate due process.

More insults, because you have nothing of substance to say.

1 minute ago, Winchester said:

It's an evaluation, and it still doesn't follow that insults mean someone has nothing of substance to say. It's just that I really hate bootlickers. It's a character flaw.

That does not logically follow in every case, but it follows in your particular case because you offer no substance.

[Winchester]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

False.

False.

More insults, because you have nothing of substance to say.

That does not logically follow in every case, but it follows in your particular case because you offer no substance.

True.

 

True.

 

Where I come from, you get what you give. You decided to be a jerk, so you got what you gave. I'm just better at it than you.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Winchester said:

You decided to be a jerk, so you got what you gave. I'm just better at it than you.

Congratulations. I always knew you would make something of yourself.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Peace

[Winchester]

55 minutes ago, Peace said:

Congratulations. I always knew you would make something of yourself.

Thank you for your faith in me.

[chrysostom]

I figured Peace needed someone on the board who would needle him right back. A credit to you both. Love to see it.

[Peace]

9 hours ago, chrysostom said:

I figured Peace needed someone on the board who would needle him right back. A credit to you both. Love to see it.

Come now. I've admitted when I've been wrong on this forum numerous times. This ain't one of them.

[chrysostom]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Come now. I've admitted when I've been wrong on this forum numerous times. This ain't one of them.

Oh, it wasn't about you being wrong or not. I'm just enjoying the brawl.

Edited September 23, 2021 by chrysostom

[Peace]

40 minutes ago, chrysostom said:

Oh, it wasn't about you being wrong or not. I'm just enjoying the brawl.

Cheap thrills my friend.

[Winchester]

On 9/23/2021 at 7:28 AM, Peace said:

Come now. I've admitted when I've been wrong on this forum numerous times. This ain't one of them.

You haven't admitted it, but you are.

[little2add]

  Updated Wednesday, Oct. 13 at 3:40 p.m. to include statements from Surgeon General of the Army Lt. Gen. R. Scott Dingle.

Catholic U.S. troops should be allowed to refuse the COVID-19 vaccine based solely on conscientious objection and regardless of whether abortion-related tissue was used in its creation or testing, the archbishop for the military declared in a new statement supporting service members who are seeking religious exemptions.