Trump: Boycott Apple

[WinterBorn]

Bullshit. A cop is only allowed to shoot someone who is an imminent danger to kill someone. Speeding motorcyclists do not present that. Cops are not allowed to shoot people to enforce traffic laws.

I was TALKING ABOUT people being in imminent danger. You think the motorcyclist is the only one on the road ? I was careful to specify the relation to other motorists, so you don't now get to pretend it's a different scenario. YOU are talking the bullshit.

No, you advocated shooting a motorcyclist for speeding. That is enough. There is no imminent danger. There is an increased CHANCE of an accident, but no threat to other motorists.

 

[WinterBorn]

Then keep pushing it up the line until it is decided by the 9 judges on the US Supreme Court. That will be the final word on what is, or is not, constitutional.

Bullshit. They shouldn't be going against the people's will and the voting, and trying to twist the law how they want it. Shouldn't be ANY court case, > like Proposition 187 in California, that dragged on for years. Justice delayed is justice DENIED.

The "people's will" does not trump the US Constitution. If you do not understand that you need to go back and take a basic civics class.

 

[protectionist]

huh?

You ever serve kid?

I did. During the Vietnam War period...junior.

 

[protectionist]

I am committing treason? LMAO!! You are perfectly willing to trash the US Constitution, and then have the gall to accuse others of treason? That is truly sad.

I'm not trashing the constitution. Apple was give a court order. And treason isn't about the Constitution. It's about WHAT YOU ARE DOING. Yes, you absolutely are committing treason. Try reading the definition of it in the federal statutes >>

1. U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2381 - TREASON

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

You adhere to the enemies of the US, by helping them conceal their jihadist war against the US, by helping them keep the cell phones encrypted. This gives them aid and comfort. That was easy.

 

[protectionist]

Bullshit. A cop is only allowed to shoot someone who is an imminent danger to kill someone. Speeding motorcyclists do not present that. Cops are not allowed to shoot people to enforce traffic laws.

I was TALKING ABOUT people being in imminent danger. You think the motorcyclist is the only one on the road ? I was careful to specify the relation to other motorists, so you don't now get to pretend it's a different scenario. YOU are talking the bullshit.

No, you advocated shooting a motorcyclist for speeding. That is enough. There is no imminent danger. There is an increased CHANCE of an accident, but no threat to other motorists.

That's a LIE! Here is a reprint of the OP >>

"If cops don't shoot the jerk, rampaging through traffic at 100 MPH (or even at much lesser speeds), then a number of motorists might get killed, or badly injured. At some points in a high speed chase, the motorcylist may have full control of his vehicle (as on straightaways where traffic is absent). But as soon as he gets into traffic, everyone there is at huge risk."

Calm down - I'm still posting here.

The OP also says >> "At some points in a high speed chase, the motorcylist may have full control of his vehicle (as on straightaways where traffic is absent). But as soon as he gets into traffic, everyone there is at huge risk.
Question is why ? Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic "

So we're talking about a looney motorcyclist who is rampaging through traffic at 100 MPH and engaging police in a HIGH-SPEED CHASE, which can change from an open road to crashing into another vehicle in SECONDS, before anyone has time to react.

 

[protectionist]

The "people's will" does not trump the US Constitution. If you do not understand that you need to go back and take a basic civics class.

There is no trumping of the US Constitution. Stop trying to hide behind the Constitution. And also, your avatar gives me the creeps.

 

[WinterBorn]

I am committing treason? LMAO!! You are perfectly willing to trash the US Constitution, and then have the gall to accuse others of treason? That is truly sad.

I'm not trashing the constitution. Apple was give a court order. And treason isn't about the Constitution. It's about WHAT YOU ARE DOING. Yes, you absolutely are committing treason. Try reading the definition of it in the federal statutes >>

1. U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2381 - TREASON

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

You adhere to the enemies of the US, by helping them conceal their jihadist war against the US, by helping them keep the cell phones encrypted. This gives them aid and comfort. That was easy.

Bullshit. I am not adhering to anyone. I am refusing to allow YOUR fear to trash the US Constitution. Yes, there is a court order for the one phone. But what they want Apple to do requires writing code which will unlock any iphone. That is what we do not want to happen. The gov't can already intercept cell signals. And while you are happy to give the gov't access to all your electronics, the rest of us are not.

 

[WinterBorn]

The "people's will" does not trump the US Constitution. If you do not understand that you need to go back and take a basic civics class.

There is no trumping of the US Constitution. Stop trying to hide behind the Constitution. And also, your avatar gives me the creeps.

Your comments about my avatar are "OFF TOPIC!!!!" lol

I am not hiding behind anything. Perhaps you forget the oath you took when you joined the military?? I was never told it expired. Perhaps you should stop hiding behind your fear.

 

[protectionist]

Bullshit. I am not adhering to anyone. I am refusing to allow YOUR fear to trash the US Constitution. Yes, there is a court order for the one phone. But what they want Apple to do requires writing code which will unlock any iphone. That is what we do not want to happen. The gov't can already intercept cell signals. And while you are happy to give the gov't access to all your electronics, the rest of us are not.

Bullshit yourself! You ARE adhering to the jihadists who want to be protected from FBI scrutiny and from the scrutiny of the American people. You are aiding and comforting them, in one of the things that is most important to them > keeping their terrorist plots secret, so they don't get stopped.

And if and when they don't get stopped (as in the San Bernardino attack), all those who fight to keep cell phones encrypted, are partially to blame. Aid and comfort to the enemy (AKA TREASON). And as long as you are not happy to give the gov't access to all your electronics, and stupidly have no fear of the jihad, and argue in favor of encrypted phones and computers, you will be complicit in everything done by these uncivilized, barbaric savages.

 

[protectionist]

Your comments about my avatar are "OFF TOPIC!!!!" lol

I am not hiding behind anything. Perhaps you forget the oath you took when you joined the military?? I was never told it expired. Perhaps you should stop hiding behind your fear.

Perhaps you should stop trying to portray the WAR we're in right now (even though Obama isn't really fighting it) as something trivial. That is very stupid, and does nothing but have you lose credibility. Nobody is going to buy the dumbbell idea that we have little to fear.. This is a NUCLEAR age. "Our" ports aren't even ours - they're foreign owned, and shipping containers arriving, are 95% not inspected.

Combine all that with immensely wealthy ISIS moving in with Syrian refugees, who "our" screwball president is allowing to immigrate in.

Couldn't be a better recipe for the annihilation of the country, if a fiction writer was writing this.

 

[WinterBorn]

Bullshit. I am not adhering to anyone. I am refusing to allow YOUR fear to trash the US Constitution. Yes, there is a court order for the one phone. But what they want Apple to do requires writing code which will unlock any iphone. That is what we do not want to happen. The gov't can already intercept cell signals. And while you are happy to give the gov't access to all your electronics, the rest of us are not.

Bullshit yourself! You ARE adhering to the jihadists who want to be protected from FBI scrutiny and from the scrutiny of the American people. You are aiding and comforting them, in one of the things that is most important to them > keeping their terrorist plots secret, so they don't get stopped.

And if and when they don't get stopped (as in the San Bernardino attack), all those who fight to keep cell phones encrypted, are partially to blame. Aid and comfort to the enemy (AKA TREASON). And as long as you are not happy to give the gov't access to all your electronics, and stupidly have no fear of the jihad, and argue in favor of encrypted phones and computers, you will be complicit in everything done by these uncivilized, barbaric savages.

So you think being able to hack a my phone will enable the authorities to prevent an attack? Do you think the plans are stored in iPhones?

Lol

 

[Jarlaxle]

huh?

You ever serve kid?

I did. During the Vietnam War period...junior.

How long ago was that Section 8?

 

[Dot Com]

huh?

You ever serve kid?

I did. During the Vietnam War period...junior.

o rlly? So you're 70+ yrs old like boedicca Bonzi Valerie DarkFury etc,,,?

 

[WinterBorn]

huh?

You ever serve kid?

I did. During the Vietnam War period...junior.

o rlly? So you're 70+ yrs old like boedicca Bonzi Valerie DarkFury etc,,,?

The war in Vietnam ended in 1975. I was 15 years old. If someone was 5 years older than me, they would have been 20 and could have been drafted. They could have served 2 years in combat before the end of the war. They would be 61 right now.

 

[protectionist]

So you think being able to hack a my phone will enable the authorities to prevent an attack? Do you think the plans are stored in iPhones?

Lol

Sure they're stored in iPhones. And laptops. Of course. Why do do think the FBI wants the access.? Don't tell me you been listening to some jibberish on the liberal media now.

Why would would you ask such a silly question ?

 

[protectionist]

How long ago was that Section 8?

You can't count ?

 

[protectionist]

o rlly? So you're 70+ yrs old like boedicca Bonzi Valerie DarkFury etc,,,?

I'll be 70 in April 2016. Why do you ask ? What's it to ya ?

 

[WinterBorn]

So you think being able to hack a my phone will enable the authorities to prevent an attack? Do you think the plans are stored in iPhones?

Lol

Sure they're stored in iPhones. And laptops. Of course. Why do do think the FBI wants the access.? Don't tell me you been listening to some jibberish on the liberal media now.

Why would would you ask such a silly question ?

Oh, so you think "because the FBI wants access" is proof that terrorists store plans on iPhones, and we should surrender our 4th amendment rights because the FBI needs us to do that in order to stop the terrorists? Nice circular logic.

Still no proof that eliminating the 4th amendment (without a constitutional amendment) will prevent more terrorist attacks? The worst one ever was planned in a cave. Did they use iPhones?

 

[protectionist]

Oh, so you think "because the FBI wants access" is proof that terrorists store plans on iPhones, and we should surrender our 4th amendment rights because the FBI needs us to do that in order to stop the terrorists? Nice circular logic.

Still no proof that eliminating the 4th amendment (without a constitutional amendment) will prevent more terrorist attacks? The worst one ever was planned in a cave. Did they use iPhones?

It wouldn't matter if terrorists were storing on cell phones, information that the FBI needs, or not. Simple fact is, the terrorists COULD do that, and they should not have that opportunity to use that advantage to kill Americans.

As for the 4th Amendment, have you noticed it does have the word "unreasonable in it ? Nothing unreasonable about doing what is necessary to PROTECT the American people from lunatics trying to kill us. And the current iPhones in question are under court order, just as the 4th amendment specifies. Future searches can be also. I see nothing wrong happening here on the part of the FBI.

If Apple keep going on the way they are, they may find themselves out of business, before they know what hit them. They thought they were too big to be challenged? They thought wrong.

 

[WinterBorn]

Oh, so you think "because the FBI wants access" is proof that terrorists store plans on iPhones, and we should surrender our 4th amendment rights because the FBI needs us to do that in order to stop the terrorists? Nice circular logic.

Still no proof that eliminating the 4th amendment (without a constitutional amendment) will prevent more terrorist attacks? The worst one ever was planned in a cave. Did they use iPhones?

It wouldn't matter if terrorists were storing on cell phones, information that the FBI needs, or not. Simple fact is, the terrorists COULD do that, and they should not have that opportunity to use that advantage to kill Americans.

As for the 4th Amendment, have you noticed it does have the word "unreasonable in it ? Nothing unreasonable about doing what is necessary to PROTECT the American people from lunatics trying to kill us. And the current iPhones in question are under court order, just as the 4th amendment specifies. Future searches can be also. I see nothing wrong happening here on the part of the FBI.

If Apple keep going on the way they are, they may find themselves out of business, before they know what hit them. They thought they were too big to be challenged? They thought wrong.

"Unreasonable" is one of the important words in the 4th amendment. But if you choose to ignore the part about issuing warrants, your reading comprehension is pitiful. Want access to someone's private "... persons, houses, papers, and effects...", you have to get a warrant. That is the law.