i like it... She's running for VP. She HAS to talk to people who want to misquote her. She HAS to talk to people who just drug her 17-year-old daughter through the mud. She HAS to talk to people who just insinuated that she faked a pregnancy.

You know what? Maybe the fucking press should have THOUGHT ABOUT THAT before they did that shit.

9/5/2008 5:12:53 PM

Quote :

"so you completely avoid the topic (the transparent strategy to hide Sarah Palin from any sort of situation where she'll actually be tested), and switch to another attack about Obama's lack of experience. nice"

so you just conveniently ignore all my points in my last post to point out how you didnt think i addressed your point...here i'll address it specifically

Quote :

"the transparent strategy to hide Sarah Palin from any sort of situation where she'll actually be tested"

nobody is hiding Sarah Palin...the huffington post (faux news Left) has apparently convinced you that she is not going to answer any questions based on an out of context advisor quote that implied that she didnt need to talk to one dumbass reporter...she'll be at the VP debates talking with Biden

btw how come it only took Obama a year to finally go on Faux News? Since the Huffington Post criticizes Palin and speculates she will probably only go on conservative outlets, how come it took Obama A YEAR to go on a conservative outlet?

9/5/2008 5:15:56 PM

Well, Fox News isn't a real news source

9/5/2008 5:18:56 PM

Quote :

"btw how come it only took Obama a year to finally go on Faux News? Since the Huffington Post criticizes Palin and speculates she will probably only go on conservative outlets, how come it took Obama A YEAR to go on a conservative outlet?"

well, unlike her, Obama has been in the public eye for the last 3 or so years. he has travelled the country meeting people, done town hall meetings, been on several news/entertainment programs.. it's not like he has shied away from attention.. he probably hasn't been on Fox News because they have attacked him in ridiculous ways (before you say that Sarah Palin has received the same sort of abuse from other channels, it's not even close).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouKJixL--ms
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2672540/Rupert-Murdoch-broked-truce-between-Fox-and-Barack-Obama.html
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/07/foxnews-ed-hill-on-obamas-fist-bump-a-terrorist-fist-jab/

the point is, she is refusing to give any interviews right now. America has had plenty of opportunity to see and hear what Barack thinks over the last few years. He hasn't avoided the media.

No one knew who the fuck Palin was a week ago, and we still don't, aside from one or two carefully orchestrated and coached speeches. can you not see why people would want to see if she can actually answer some questions on her own?

[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 5:31 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 5:34 PM. Reason : ..]

9/5/2008 5:29:31 PM

Quote :

"he probably hasn't been on Fox News because they have attacked him in ridiculous ways (before you say that Sarah Palin has received the same sort of abuse from other channels, it's not even close)."

i'll bet they didn't attack his children

Quote :

"she is refusing to give any interviews right now"

thats simply not true...you did read the "article" and watch the youtube video on that link and not just the headline, correct? you probably also think she wants creationism in school and wants to ban books too based on some intentionally misleading far left news source headlines

Quote :

"No one knew who the fuck Palin was a week ago, and we still don't, aside from one or two carefully orchestrated and coached speeches. can you not see why people would want to see if she can actually answer some questions on her own?"

i can certainly see how everyone wants to see if that dumb woman can get out of the kitchen for long enough to prove she has a brain and can answer some questions...i also think the liberal marching orders you're following are pathetic

and yes mainstream america might not have known who palin was a week ago, but all i know about obama is he wants change, he was a senator for a couple years who never authored a bill, and his greatest executive experience is running a city a state a presidential campaign

9/5/2008 5:34:29 PM

Quote :

"well, unlike her, Obama has been in the public eye for the last 3 or so years."

Obama has been adored by the media since he gave that speech, dude. Not at all comparable. Of course he wants to go talk to the press. They fucking love him. They practically give him a handjob every time he meets them! In fact, the only thing that has kept his campaign going has been the constant fellating of Obama. If people had to actually look for some substance from Obama, he would have never made it out of the primaries.

Quote :

"the point is, she is refusing to give any interviews right now."

Refusing to give interviews to whom? And according to whom? Again, would you go out and talk to someone who had just talked shit about YOUR daughter? I know I sure as fuck wouldn't.

Quote :

"America has had plenty of opportunity to see and hear what Barack thinks over the last few years."

And he hasn't really told us anything...

Quote :

"He hasn't avoided the media."

Actually, the media hasn't avoided him. I mean, look at his historic round-the-world trip that took caravans of media people with it.

Quote :

"No one knew who the fuck Palin was a week ago, and we still don't"

Isn't that reason enough to be selective in who talks with her? Given the media frenzy that has already played itself out, the last thing the repubs want to do is let the media trap her or misquote her. I don't blame them one bit for telling the MSM to go fuck itself. The MSM earned it, basically. Maybe next time they won't go apeshit on a candidate's DAUGHTER.

9/5/2008 5:40:44 PM

Quote :

"i can certainly see how everyone wants to see if that dumb woman can get out of the kitchen for long enough to prove she has a brain and can answer some questions"

damn dude, you just keep coming with these bullshit spin tactics. i don't know where you got this from my posts, but i never mentioned the fact that she is a woman. i don't think it has anything to do with the topic at hand.

you can keep ghost editing and adding stuff about how Obama doesn't have experience to every one of your posts to try to change the subject, but all i am saying is this - should it not concern people that the next potential VP (or possible president) will not go out on her own accord and talk to people and show people that she knows anything about foreign policy, the economy, healthcare.. issues that actually matter? i, for one, would like to see how she handles herself in a real interview. i guess we won't find out until the debates

^ can you blame them? if Obama, Biden or McCain had a 17 year old daughter get knocked up by some Alaskan hillbilly, every single network would go crazy in the same way they did with Bristol Palin. is it right or fair? who knows, but it would happen regardless of who the candidate was.

[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 5:54 PM. Reason : .]

9/5/2008 5:50:27 PM

let me try to keep the focus here and be direct

Quote :

"should it not concern people that the next potential VP (or possible president) will not go out on her own accord and talk to people"

i would answer this but its based on a false assumption...it seems to me, and maybe i'm wrong, but it seems to me you read the huffington post headline and immediately thought Palin herself refused to talk to the media or something like that...she's gonna talk to the media in Wisconsin tonight...so I can't really answer your question about why the Repubs are hiding her from answering questions, when thats simply not whats happening

again, maybe this isnt what you've been doing, but a number of people on TWW in the last day or two have thought Palin was for teaching creationism in school and for banning library books...those 2 particular false assumptions were based on media headline spins intended to discredit her...yet plenty of TWWers just thought "she wants to ban books" without reading the details that thats not at all what she wanted

so I can only assume that you're going off the huffington headline implying that she refuses to talk to the media, and not anything of any substance

[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 5:57 PM. Reason : look i didnt ghost edit..wow]

9/5/2008 5:55:25 PM

it would happen regardless of the candidate. and i don't think the point is that she is pregnant. the point is that she is the daughter of a republican. republicans traditionally hold themselves out as morally superior and try to push their values on everyone else. they reject sex education in school. some even reject the notion of contraceptives all together. they want to outlaw abortion even though sex education in schools could theoretically reduce the number of abortions (by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies).

her daughter being pregnant just highlights the conservative viewpoint on sex and the glaringly obvious flaws in our country's stance on sex education in public schools.




[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 6:00 PM. Reason : .]

9/5/2008 5:58:59 PM

Quote :

"republicans traditionally hold themselves out as morally superior and try to push their values on everyone else"

you talked to any democrats lately? holy shit talk about thinking they're superior and pushing values

9/5/2008 6:00:53 PM

yea i don't really think you understand at all what i'm talking about

9/5/2008 6:02:25 PM

Quote :

"should it not concern people that the next potential VP (or possible president) will not go out on her own accord and talk to people and show people that she knows anything about foreign policy, the economy, healthcare.. issues that actually matter? i, for one, would like to see how she handles herself in a real interview."

I again ask why in the hell she would want to talk to someone who has so seriously slandered her! Address this! Would you cuddle with someone who had just raped you? Why is she going to go out and talk to the wolves who are only interested in showing her in a bad light? Again, if the press wanted her to talk to them, they shouldn't have thrown her in the mud. They made their bed, now they can fucking lay in it. What's that? She's a VP candidate? All the more reason for the press to BE FUCKING CIVIL.

Quote :

"can you blame them? if Obama, Biden or McCain had a 17 year old daughter get knocked up by some Alaskan hillbilly, every single network would go crazy in the same way they did with Bristol Palin."

The hell they would. They won't even report on all of the money that went missing from Obama's highly-touted education commission, for crying out loud. They won't even report on Obama's relationship with a self-avowed, unrepentant terrorist who BOMBED THE US CAPITOL and SAYS HE WISHES HE HAD GONE FARTHER.

Quote :

"they want to outlaw abortion even though sex education in schools could theoretically reduce the number of abortions"

non-sequitur much?

Quote :

"her daughter being pregnant just highlights the conservative viewpoint on sex and the glaringly obvious flaws in our country's stance on sex education in public schools."

no. her daughter being pregnant is just a fantastic story that the media can use to sell newspapers while supporting their golden-god, Barack Obama.

Quote :

"yea i don't really think you understand at all what i'm talking about"

I'm not entirely convinced that you understand what you are talking about.

9/5/2008 6:05:45 PM

Quote :

"Wallace's bash-the-media exercise has its merits as a campaign tactic. It certainly rallies the base. But the base won't lift McCain to 50% in November. More importantly, in her smug dismissal of the media's role in asking questions of the candidates, Wallace was really showing contempt not for reporters, but for voters. I bet there are a lot of undecided voters out there who were intrigued by Sarah Palin last night, but who don't yet know enough about her -- what she believes, what she knows -- to be comfortable with the idea of her as vice president of the United States. It's important to them to know if Palin can handle herself in an environment that isn't controlled and sanitized by campaign image makers and message mavens. Maybe she can, maybe she can't. As far as Wallace is concerned, it's none of their -- or your -- business."

http://time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/no_questions_please_were.html

and if you seriously think that Obama's (or anyone else on either presidential ticket) daughter getting pregnant wouldn't get a shitload of coverage, you are pretty delusional

9/5/2008 6:17:28 PM

well, given the other massive issues that the media is ignoring about Obama, I think we should just agree to disagree about just how fucking blind you are. But OK.

9/5/2008 6:24:07 PM

Quote :

"non-sequitur much? "

OMG REALLY??? that is probably why i used the word theoretically. besides, it isn't an illogical inference anyway. if people actually knew more about sex and stds then maybe they would be having safer sex...no? you're right, i guess that doesn't make sense at all. and we do have evidence that abstinence only education doesn't work. which was kind of the point of my post.

and you're right. no one would care if obama's daughters were pregnant. i bet the news wouldn't even cover it. it would go completely unnoticed. ooooh the evil media. so evil. so liberal.

i don't know how conservatives manage to sleep at night with all the scary scary evil things in the world. i bet there are terrorists plotting to come attack you RIGHT NOW. probably should get off tww and start preparing.

ps. did you know that there's a term for governments and parties who use fear (of fucking everything) as a motivational tool? ahhh sex is bad and immoral. oh no don't let the mexicans in they'll steal all of our jobs and eat all our food. and our babies!!! DON'T let the gays get married---it will open the floodgates for people to marry their dogs. terrorists are all around us---one is probably watching YOU right NOW---sleep with one eye open!

if only i could think of the term. sigh.

[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 6:32 PM. Reason : .]

9/5/2008 6:31:02 PM

ummm. Even using the word "theoretically" doesn't keep it from being a non-sequitur.

You said:
They want to outlaw abortion...
even though sex ed...

Sex-ed is only barely related to abortion in that both deal with pregnancy. But they aren't related enough to go from one to the other like that. That's why it's a non-sequitur. It'd be like saying "I don't like oranges even though I eat steak." Wat? I understand the connection, but it's still a non-sequitur. How about this: "They want to outlaw abortion. Maybe they could avoid the issue of abortion, though, by pushing for better sex-ed programs." THAT would not be a non-sequitur.

Quote :

"ps. did you know that there's a term for governments and parties who use fear (of fucking everything) as a motivational tool?"

You mean like "OMG FOUR MORE YEARS OF DUBYA!!!"?

Quote :

"i don't know how conservatives manage to sleep at night with all the scary scary evil things in the world. i bet there are terrorists plotting to come attack you RIGHT NOW. probably should get off tww and start preparing."

I don't know how liberals manage to sleep at night knowing that there might be a child somewhere who actually lost a soccer game and didn't get a trophy!

9/5/2008 6:40:48 PM

ummm what you typed was pretty much implied by my post i just had the sentences suggesting better sex ed PRIOR to my statement on abortion. obviously it was implied in my post that better sex ed programs could help reduce abortion. only you would pick it apart like the two things were totally irrelevant and not related. it is not like your example with oranges and steak AT ALL, actually. i'm sure most other people reading it understood what it was insinuating.

and second, as far as the term, that isn't what i'm thinking of. but if you want to keep guessing, go ahead. i doubt you'll get it though.

^ nah. i'm usually kept up thinking that somewhere there is a child that is hungry and doesn't have anything to eat. or a child that is hurt but has parents who don't have insurance. i guess they should have gotten a job though, if they wanted things like food and insurance.

[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 6:47 PM. Reason : .]

9/5/2008 6:46:28 PM

ummm. the connection between steak and oranges is they are both food. Thus the non-sequitur. Just look it up, baby.

And yes, what I posted was what you meant. Doesn't mean that you didn't have a non-sequitur, darling.

Quote :

"nah. i'm usually kept up thinking that somewhere there is a child that is hungry and doesn't have anything to eat. or a child that is hurt but has parents who don't have insurance. i guess they should have gotten a job though, if they wanted things like food and insurance."

Hmmm, sounds like you should go out and feed that child instead of sleeping. Man, you are selfish. Or, sounds like you should go out and argue that the government should stop driving up the price of healthcare. or, if the parent doesn't have a job, then he SHOULD go out and get a fucking job so I don't have to pay for his lazy fucking self.

9/5/2008 6:47:55 PM

not all people with jobs can afford things. i don't have a job. therefore i cannot afford things.

but i was actually talking about the kid getting a job. you know...to pay for his own food? and in all seriousness, not all people that work can live comfortably. just because someone is poor does not mean they are lazy (though some people do take advantage. i guess since some people take advantage we should punish those actually working?? and their children. i forgot you are a child hater. hey!!! i have an idea. maybe if we punish the poor people's children by not giving them food it will DETER the parents from being poor)

9/5/2008 6:54:40 PM

Quote :

"not all people with jobs can afford things. i don't have a job. therefore i cannot afford things. "

The entire world is dumber for you having posted that, btw.

Quote :

"but i was actually talking about the kid getting a job."

Quote :

"or a child[singular] that is hurt but has parents[plural] who don't have insurance. i guess they[plural pronoun] should have gotten a job though, if they wanted things like food and insurance."

hmm....

Quote :

"just because someone is poor does not mean they are lazy"

If they don't have a job, I'd say it might help any argument that said poor person is lazy. Doesn't seal the deal, of course.

Quote :

"i guess since some people take advantage we should punish those actually working?? and their children."

Like, you know, by taxing the hell out of them so they have less money.

Quote :

"maybe if we punish the poor people's children by not giving them food it will DETER the parents from being poor"

It might actually work. What motivation is there to pull yourself out of poverty when even your own children are taken care of? Maybe, just maybe, a starving child might be a motivation. And if it isn't enough of a motivation to get you off your ass, then at least your genes won't pollute the rest of the pool.

But seriously, way to bring out the THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!! argument. It's a real classic, man. "Hey, I don't have any really solid arguments, so I'll just bring up children, ok?"

9/5/2008 7:01:04 PM

You're not for tax hikes that go to strangers?

WHY DO YOU HATE CHILDREN

9/5/2008 7:03:47 PM

Quote :

"Wow. GrumpyGOP thinks that Palin is the worst VP ever."

No. I don't. I think that's clear enough from what I said, but maybe I'm wrong.

What I was attempting to get across was that, in the context of this thread, it doesn't really matter much even if John McCain did make a terrible choice, because there's not really a check on his ability to pick his VP. He can basically announce anybody who is qualified (Constitutionally speaking) to be President, and to the best of my knowledge nobody can say boo. I suppose the convention could refuse to nominate her, but they wouldn't break tradition to do that unless he picked Hillary Clinton or that homeless chick with the fucked up voice on Hillsborough Street. If McCain gets to pick SCOTUS justices (or just about any other major appointed position), his choice will have to make it past Congress, making any bad judgment in those regards irrelevant.

"Palin COULD be the worst choice in the entire country, it's really irrelevant to SCOTUS picks." That's what I said. What if I were to say, "Socks`` could be dying of thirst, I wouldn't give him any water." Would you derive from that statement that I was accusing you of being on fire?

So never mind that both of us are McCain fans this election. Never mind that I don't have a problem with Sarah Palin and have never expressed such an opinion. You'll still do your usual -- digging up some shit I said on an unrelated topic three years ago, posting in it a thread where it doesn't belong, drawing a nonexistent connection between the two and then insulting me.

Good fucking job, Socks``. Good fucking job.

9/5/2008 7:05:53 PM

Sorry for the double.

[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 7:06 PM. Reason : ]

9/5/2008 7:05:53 PM

I am so confused right now... GOP supporting a conservative. Socks`` bashing GOP for attacking a conservative. Really. this makes no sense to me

9/5/2008 7:08:06 PM

Socks`` would be an excellent staffer for a campaign marketing team. He keeps better tabs on what people say than the people who say it. I never would've thought that I'd written that quote -- not because of the content, which I still essentially stand by, but because of the lack of punctuation and proper capitalization. Then I realized that it was something I had said in June of 200fucking5, when I was in Peru, probably on an internet cafe computer with a fucked up shift-key system that I never bothered to figure out.

Unfortunately, the fact that he would be an excellent staffer for a campaign marketing team means he's pretty much a lowlife pile of human sewage who would rather distract his audience with outdated and irrelevant quotations and events than actually rebut the accusation or deal with the issue.

9/5/2008 7:21:03 PM

Quote :

"I never would've thought that I'd written that quote -- not because of the content, which I still essentially stand by, but because of the lack of punctuation and proper capitalization."

That was my immediate reaction. I didn't believe it until I clicked on the link.

9/5/2008 7:24:10 PM

^^ He's just good at using the search function.

9/5/2008 7:52:55 PM

haha i love the raw emotion.

9/5/2008 9:12:00 PM

Quote :

"And I agree. The problem comes in when the government invents a right in order to actually suppress other rights. And that is what they did with the "right to privacy." They invented a right in order to suppress the 10th Amendment. Which right would be more important? A ghost-right, one that isn't mentioned, or one that is explicitly stated? If anything, the 9th Amendment allows the People to create more explicitly stated rights as needed and gives them the support that "not all rights have been stated.""

This argument would be totally appropriate if the Court had come up with some new positive right - the right to healthcare or education or some other bullshit "right." Your argument would be perfectly appropriate.

But this is not the case - the right to privacy is clearly a negative, individual right. ("Negative" in the sense that it imposes no demand upon other individuals for its execution, unlike an entitlement). Your argument that it suppresses the 10th only applies in that it suppresses a state power, and even this is debatable. Namely - your qualm really is with the Incorporation Clause of the 14th Amendment and its interpretation. Absent that, a Constitutional right to privacy would impact nothing with respect to the states.

Meanwhile, the Ninth is not simply an open window to create new rights - if that were the case, the Amendment process should be sufficient. Again - read the Federalist Papers. The Ninth explicitly is to satisfy the objection that it would be impossible to quantify common law rights.

Even if we reject the idea that privacy was a common-law right implied by the Fourth (which I will still vehemently contest), the thing about common law - and again, note I am referring to common law and not the Constitution itself - is that common law can evolve through precedent. One can therefore make the argument that privacy was an outgrowth from the evolution of common law in the 150 years following the Constitution.

Regardless of where privacy takes its origins from, the fact is, the Ninth Amendment explicitly puts the rest the notion that all rights held by citizens must be explicitly enumerated in order to have protection of the laws.

Quote :

"That is hardly what I am doing. I'm not saying that the government can do something because it isn't forbidden from doing so. Rather, i'm saying the government can't say that the States can't do something based on something the federal government just invented as a right. Do you not see that as a problem? Do you not see how it could be bad that the federal government comes out and says, without following the Amendment process, that people have an additional right of the federal government's choosing?"

I'm not so sure it's the "Federal Government" you have an issue with so much as the Supreme Court. That distinction aside - let's put aside the issue of the states for a moment. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the decision did not apply to states, and only bound the Federal Government. Would you still complain of the Court finding rights embedded from common law in the Ninth Amendment?

Now, coming back to your complaint - the Tenth doesn't simply reserve powers to the states, but to the states and people respectively. Even if we buy your logic in total that the right to privacy restricts the right of a state to act, it does not restrict the right of an individual. It simply pushes the right a little further down the line that is enumerated in the Tenth.

Meanwhile, again - your whole complaint comes down to the interpretation of the Fourteenth. Absent that, your whole objection comes apart at the seams.

Quote :

"Speaking of rhetorical sophistry. The right. (What right?) The right to be secure. (Secure in what?) The following. Shall not be violated. The right is security in what follows. Sorry, man, that is pretty explicit in its own right (no pun intended)."

By that logic, should the Fourth Amendment apply to e-mail? (Not papers, not persons - in fact, can be traced and intercepted quite outside any of the bounds of the Fourth). Phone conversations? (Not enumerated at all). Why should the protections of the Fourth apply to these cases, even though the FF could clearly never have forseen them? Is it possible that a reasonable context - common law, even - treats them as similar objects to persons and papers? That the security of an individual from unreasonable search constitutes a de facto right to privacy?

9/5/2008 9:34:53 PM

Quote :

"He's just good at using the search function."

A mentally deficient capuchin monkey could manage the search function. The problem is his apparently insatiable desire to use it, whether or not the situation calls for it.

9/5/2008 9:45:33 PM

Quote :

"Namely - your qualm really is with the Incorporation Clause of the 14th Amendment and its interpretation."

Oh, I certainly do have a problem with that, and I thought about actually mentioning that, too, but that is a separate issue. Good work

Quote :

"Meanwhile, the Ninth is not simply an open window to create new rights - if that were the case, the Amendment process should be sufficient."

Oh, I agree. But that is certainly one of its reasons for existence, among the others you have noted.

Quote :

"I'm not so sure it's the "Federal Government" you have an issue with so much as the Supreme Court."

Is the Supreme Court not a component of the Federal Government?

Quote :

"Why should the protections of the Fourth apply to these cases, even though the FF could clearly never have forseen them?"

Because they are clear analogs of what is specifically mentioned. Papers certainly cover letters. An email is, frankly, a letter. A phone conversation is similar, as well. BUT, that is NOT analogous to an overarching idea of "privacy." The afore-mentioned right in my quote still is those items and their analogs, NOT the nebulous concept of "privacy."

One other thing you should know is that I am not a fan of nebulous concepts being enumerated as a "right," as that concept is easily distorted to suit whatever the needs of the current powers may be. Which certainly would encompass the ridiculous parallel to abortion. We argue that a woman has a right to privacy between herself and her doctor on the topic of abortion, but NOT on the topic of medicinal marijuana. Where is the consistency in that? BUT, that's another topic of conversation entirely.

9/5/2008 9:46:56 PM

In fairness, the right to privacy you describe preceded Roe v. Wade - it was Griswold v. Connecticut. And the issue at hand in that case was the legality of contraception - another issue of a woman and her doctor, but nonetheless - not abortion. (In fact, it still stands up for debate whether Roe was well-decided, even taking Griswold as a given - and regardless of one's own position on abortion. The whole decision was simply a mess.)

I don't think along those lines a right to privacy has to be nebulously constructed any more than the right against search and seizure is nebulously constructed. The state is prohibited from arbitrary interference - not from any interference. The right to privacy simply constrains the state against legislating in cases where there is no discernible "victim" - i.e., between consenting adults.

In theory, this wouldn't just apply to medical marijuana (although the Tenth should be enough for that), but whether any adult smokes marijuana in the privacy of their own home. (Which, incidentally, is how the Alaskan Supreme Court legalized possession small amounts of marijuana).

9/5/2008 10:01:02 PM

I know, but I just used medicinal marijuana because the parallel to abortion is stunningly obvious.

Quote :

"I don't think along those lines a right to privacy has to be nebulously constructed any more than the right against search and seizure is nebulously constructed."

But you do have to admit that, as it currently stands, that right is nebulous, at best.

9/5/2008 10:34:37 PM

As the current jurisprudence stands, yes. But that is not the way such a right must exist, simply the way it has.

9/5/2008 10:40:49 PM