Citizen of Israel vs Nazi Checkpoint

[Yamato]

I dont believe in civil disobedience so much. Not basing my opinion on history though I've studied, just that if you have an opinion and you feel strongly about it, then I think you should express it somehow strongly. Like:

A=) Boycot. Avoid whatever it is where you feel things ain't all right.

B=) Just do your thing, as if you were walking down the street. Just tell them what you want, do what you want, and dont be unnatural about it.

C=) Break the rules properly, dont walk a line-in-sand. In that checkpoint case, if I had disagreed and would had shut out my primary options A & B, in which case I'd had disagreed vehemently (which I dont btw but an example), I'd had either done everything by the book but driven off the road after the checkpoint and popped their tires, or just speeded away off-road, or made an U-turn. Breaking the law doesn't have to mean you'd harm other people, but it can mean expressing you agree so vehemently you think breaking the law is a justified act, a sign of you believing in your cause so much and a sign of your devotion to your cause to risk the consequences. In a lot of things I disagree with I think to myself "not worth it" when it comes to this option.

But it's a matter of taste. I do have to give it to the pastor guy for standing his ground despite tazer-cop bullies too, in another checkpoint.

I think the author in the OP is doing B=) already, he can't do A=) because he uses these roads to travel to and from California, and doing C=) misses the point because he doesn't have the right to do pop their tires or hurt anyone so the entire point of this exercise would be lost.

The 'Citizen of Israel' checkpoint refusal occurred three years after the tazer-mugging refusal so he's got a lot of courage to stand up to these papers checkers.

[Beckys_Mom]

One? This whole thread is a big joke to you obviously.

Finally, you get it.. Summed up, The nazi thing and mention of torture and other dramatic things on top of that, is a joke.. This is why you have been hammered all throughout the thread.. If you don't wish for anyone to look at your thread as a joke, next time pick something better, and leave out the over the top drama words like - Nazi... I saw nothing nazi about the OP video..

Hence you get the lecture on rights.

I didn't waste my time on it.. And before you run off grabbing yet another wrong ball and run with it, I am not against peoples rights, I am against over the top drama over such things like the waste of time video in your OP... Many called it just what it is, and they called it nothing more than a waste of time... .People are all for rights, but not things that waste their time and energy..

Edited July 24, 2013 by Beckys_Mom

[some new guy]

I'm so disappointed the word Sheeple didnt appear until page 8 - you'd think that would have been used prominently for all who disagree with a righteous opinion

I dont think of myself as a Sheeple, I'm more of a Steeple as my opinion towers above all others

BEST - Ron

[Mikko-kun]

I think the author in the OP is doing B=) already, he can't do A=) because he uses these roads to travel to and from California, and doing C=) misses the point because he doesn't have the right to do pop their tires or hurt anyone so the entire point of this exercise would be lost.

The 'Citizen of Israel' checkpoint refusal occurred three years after the tazer-mugging refusal so he's got a lot of courage to stand up to these papers checkers.

I dont advocate hurting people for a cause. Only self-defense if you can't do that without hurting and must do it to save your life or save you from wheelchair or something like that. Or save someone else. But not pre-emptively. To break the law is one thing, and to break the people is another for me.

To me what he did ain't a waste of time. But still it seems like being a jackass (the same what you call a drama there in that video) to me, even if his cause was there. I wouldn't use my time like that, and I wouldn't be a jackass about it (at least I hope I wouldn't be, you never know though), but I can nonetheless appreciate the man. Not his style but his thing behind it.

[Yamato]

I dont advocate hurting people for a cause. Only self-defense if you can't do that without hurting and must do it to save your life or save you from wheelchair or something like that. Or save someone else. But not pre-emptively. To break the law is one thing, and to break the people is another for me.

To me what he did ain't a waste of time. But still it seems like being a jackass (the same what you call a drama there in that video) to me, even if his cause was there. I wouldn't use my time like that, and I wouldn't be a jackass about it (at least I hope I wouldn't be, you never know though), but I can nonetheless appreciate the man. Not his style but his thing behind it.

Being a jackass isn't against the law.

Videotaping himself saying the same thing over and over again would be boring. He changes it up and remains successful, so the important lesson there is that it doesn't even really matter how you assert your rights, just so long as you do.

Not sure what hurting people has to do with this, unless you mean the agents hurting him. How friendly do these agents deserve to be treated after so many unsuccessful attempts at violating his rights (or one violent successful attempt), really?

[Kowalski]

Yamato, I bet you would appreciate this video. I recently found these guys on Youtube, and they do these skits, like on SNL, but their skits are for what you would call "awake" Americans and they are funny as hell. My favorite is their "drone spotting" app....LOL...

But here's the video. Pretty funny. And it shows you how to respectfully, exercise your rights:

[+Paranoid Android]

In a checkpoint they can stop you and question you, but they must have grounds for suspicion or you don't have to show them anything.

But surely you can see that not showing them anything is actually suspicious behaviour? Edited July 24, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[Mikko-kun]

No, I dont mean anyone hurting anyone, sheez, especially not because of agendas. But that's just my way, I dont assume the agents or some people who drive through those checkpoints feel the same. We just have to agree to disagree about that important lesson, because while rights are important to assert, isn't it important to also do it in a way that encourages others to do the same? I was more appalled than encouraged to follow his example because of the way he did it, as seems to be the case with a lot of people on this thread, though it's sitll a matter of taste. I just dont see how you can consider it a good taste, and I dont see how you can consider it as something which intends to encourage enforcing your rights when you know people dont like stuff like that. I'm not saying he should be nice to officers, but the way he was is a turn-off.

Sure, he may have won a court-case, and he may make a point every time he does that, but how many people he encourages to do the same? I've watched that kind of behavior in closer range than I'd like for years, though a lot of it wasn't directed at me, and I've learned that while you may have yourself heard that way and make your point across, you dont win people to your side that way. Maybe it has it's uses, I dont know, but it's not all rosy for your cause either.

[Yamato]

Finally, you get it.. Summed up, The nazi thing and mention of torture and other dramatic things on top of that, is a joke.. This is why you have been hammered all throughout the thread.. If you don't wish for anyone to look at your thread as a joke, next time pick something better, and leave out the over the top drama words like - Nazi... I saw nothing nazi about the OP video..

I didn't waste my time on it.. And before you run off grabbing yet another wrong ball and run with it, I am not against peoples rights, I am against over the top drama over such things like the waste of time video in your OP... Many called it just what it is, and they called it nothing more than a waste of time... .People are all for rights, but not things that waste their time and energy..

What is the waste of time Becky? If this wastes your time, go do something with your time that isn't a waste of your time.

The Nazi analogy isn't silly at all. Some of these liberals didn't mind it when republicans were doing it in Arizona. But when it's these stupid federal agents that a Christian is making fools of, well you've got to throw japes at me for that, I get it.

It's silly to you because you don't respect rights. I think you are against rights. But I'll give you another chance to vindicate yourself. Give me some serious examples of exercising your rights that you can respect without your abusive japes, don't just give me empty rhetoric claiming you do. Give me some examples of exercising our Fourth Amendment right that isn't a big silly joke to you.

[Yamato]

But surely you can see that not showing them anything is actually suspicious behaviour?

Exercising your right isn't grounds for suspicion. Why can't you understand that dude?

[Yamato]

No, I dont mean anyone hurting anyone, sheez, especially not because of agendas. But that's just my way, I dont assume the agents or some people who drive through those checkpoints feel the same. We just have to agree to disagree about that important lesson, because while rights are important to assert, isn't it important to also do it in a way that encourages others to do the same? I was more appalled than encouraged to follow his example because of the way he did it, as seems to be the case with a lot of people on this thread, though it's sitll a matter of taste. I just dont see how you can consider it a good taste, and I dont see how you can consider it as something which intends to encourage enforcing your rights when you know people dont like stuff like that. I'm not saying he should be nice to officers, but the way he was is a turn-off.

Sure, he may have won a court-case, and he may make a point every time he does that, but how many people he encourages to do the same? I've watched that kind of behavior in closer range than I'd like for years, though a lot of it wasn't directed at me, and I've learned that while you may have yourself heard that way and make your point across, you dont win people to your side that way. Maybe it has it's uses, I dont know, but it's not all rosy for your cause either.

Okay, can you give me a better example of asserting your rights in a checkpoint? I've presented other examples here. Maybe those are more palatable for you? How about instead of just criticism, we find even better examples of asserting your rights? That would be a good progression for this thread since the jackass Christian pastor with the Bible talking about Israel is rubbing everyone's ass cheeks so raw.

[Yamato]

Here's a compilation of more examples of successfully asserting one's rights at a checkpoint.

Anderson leads off the montage:

[+Paranoid Android]

Exercising your right isn't grounds for suspicion. Why can't you understand that dude?

Q: Excuse me, sir, can I see some ID?

A: No, I don't want to show you.

Automatically the first question I think of is, "why not"? "Have you got something to hide"?

Honestly, being asked to see some ID is not an infringement on Rights, But you have the Right to refuse. And if you do, you have to understand that there are consequences for that. If I'm 24 years old and I go to the pub, but I look younger, the bouncer can ask me for ID (actually, in my State, a bouncer is legally required to ask me for ID if I look under 25, even though the legal drinking age is 18). I can refuse and I won't be admitted in, or I could show them my ID and prove I'm old enough to drink alcohol. What I CANNOT do is play the "I'm exercising my Rights" card. I've exercised my Rights not to show my ID, I cannot therefore demand that they accept my word for it that I'm old enough to drink at the pub.

Why is it so hard to see that not showing identification or not answering questions is suspicious in the eyes of those who have a job to do, and that job involves asking questions. As I said, you have the Right not to respond, but by choosing to exercise that right you have to accept that you are acting suspiciously ("Suspicious behaviour" according to that link, refers to (among other things): "The first and most obvious suspicious person is someone behaving strangely. Strangely may mean that someone is doing something unexpected". Quote unquote. When you are stopped by an immigration checkpoint and you are asked to a secondary location (because you've said you're an Israeli citizen), and they ask to see ID, what do most people do? 99.9% of people give their driver's license and/or Passport details. If you say "I don't want to answer that question", you are *to quote the link I gave* "doing something unexpected". According to the definition I linked, that is the very model of "suspicious behaviour". It may be a legally correct application of your Rights, but the fact that most people would hand over a license and Passport to prove who they are means that if you don't, you are "doing something unexpected". Ergo, suspicious behaviour. It doesn't mean you can't assert your Rights, but those who do assert their Rights in these minor issues are either "trolling" the system, or they have something to hide. Most normal people accept that these people are here to stop illegal immigrants from coming to America, and therefore don't mind showing ID to those who ask for it.

Well is my #80 yours?

Just an FYI, but I just went through the videos around the #80 mark, and found nothing that referred to people being buried alive. There was an 8-minute video around the #58 mark that I stopped watching after fifteen seconds because it was made by the same guy in the OP video, and I'm not wasting another 8 minutes of my life on that guy. Around the post #80 number I found a "comedy" video from a dude named Stanhope. Not only was it unfunny, but it was also highly offensive, so I deleted it. Other than that, I can honestly say I did not find the link you were referring to.

Could you please point out where a person at an Immigration checkpoint was "burned alive". If it was in the video where that pastor was claiming to be tasered, can you elaborate? I refuse to waste my time on a video that said basically nothing the first time around.

[Beckys_Mom]

What is the waste of time Becky? If this wastes your time, go do something with your time that isn't a waste of your time.

Sometimes when you see a train wreck, you just have to watch..

This is what I mean by you running out to grab the wrong ball and as usual run with it just to get attention...

I said previously...

And before you run off grabbing yet another wrong ball and run with it, I am not against peoples rights

And as per usual you blank anything that doesn't suit ..Blank out all and you then plump for this below..

It's silly to you because you don't respect rights. I think you are against rights.

See? This rubbish about me being against rights was predictable coming from you.. Even though I can support peoples rights to bare arms and defend their constitution... But there is no pleasing the guy sitting here with his you tube video calling it nazi, is there?

Give me some serious examples of exercising your rights that you can respect without your abusive japes

I respect your right to remain silent, and pay attention to what it is you say to others, and the junk you accuse people of...What I mean is, look at the posts on here, most people saying the same thing... Pay attention for once and think to yourself, why are so many saying the same thing to me over and over? Do you think they might see things you don't?

If I wanted to post up a video on someones rights being taken, I would use a much better video than the one posted in the OP... If however, I see that the majority of people on here all say the same things to me, then I would have the sense to know that they have it right, and I need to look at how I construct my own thread....

Yamato, me saying the OP video was a waste, it only echo's what so many others have said directly on here... Now you can take this like a man or sit complaining about it over and over and hope someone will listen to your complaining.. Hey why not accuse me other saying other things, knock yourself out, it wont make any difference...

Edited July 24, 2013 by Beckys_Mom

[Yamato]

Q: Excuse me, sir, can I see some ID?

A: No, I don't want to show you.

Automatically the first question I think of is, "why not"? "Have you got something to hide"?

Honestly, being asked to see some ID is not an infringement on Rights, But you have the Right to refuse. And if you do, you have to understand that there are consequences for that. If I'm 24 years old and I go to the pub, but I look younger, the bouncer can ask me for ID (actually, in my State, a bouncer is legally required to ask me for ID if I look under 25, even though the legal drinking age is 18). I can refuse and I won't be admitted in, or I could show them my ID and prove I'm old enough to drink alcohol. What I CANNOT do is play the "I'm exercising my Rights" card. I've exercised my Rights not to show my ID, I cannot therefore demand that they accept my word for it that I'm old enough to drink at the pub.

Why is it so hard to see that not showing identification or not answering questions is suspicious in the eyes of those who have a job to do, and that job involves asking questions. As I said, you have the Right not to respond, but by choosing to exercise that right you have to accept that you are acting suspiciously ("Suspicious behaviour" according to that link, refers to (among other things): "The first and most obvious suspicious person is someone behaving strangely. Strangely may mean that someone is doing something unexpected". Quote unquote. When you are stopped by an immigration checkpoint and you are asked to a secondary location (because you've said you're an Israeli citizen), and they ask to see ID, what do most people do? 99.9% of people give their driver's license and/or Passport details. If you say "I don't want to answer that question", you are *to quote the link I gave* "doing something unexpected". According to the definition I linked, that is the very model of "suspicious behaviour". It may be a legally correct application of your Rights, but the fact that most people would hand over a license and Passport to prove who they are means that if you don't, you are "doing something unexpected". Ergo, suspicious behaviour. It doesn't mean you can't assert your Rights, but those who do assert their Rights in these minor issues are either "trolling" the system, or they have something to hide. Most normal people accept that these people are here to stop illegal immigrants from coming to America, and therefore don't mind showing ID to those who ask for it.

Just an FYI, but I just went through the videos around the #80 mark, and found nothing that referred to people being buried alive. There was an 8-minute video around the #58 mark that I stopped watching after fifteen seconds because it was made by the same guy in the OP video, and I'm not wasting another 8 minutes of my life on that guy. Around the post #80 number I found a "comedy" video from a dude named Stanhope. Not only was it unfunny, but it was also highly offensive, so I deleted it. Other than that, I can honestly say I did not find the link you were referring to.

Could you please point out where a person at an Immigration checkpoint was "burned alive". If it was in the video where that pastor was claiming to be tasered, can you elaborate? I refuse to waste my time on a video that said basically nothing the first time around.

Buried alive? Burned alive? WTH are you talking about now? If you refuse to waste your time, then I suggest finding something else to do. I'm not spoon feeding you. I already said that once, believe it the first time.

Why is it so hard to see that not showing identification or not answering questions is suspicious in the eyes of those who have a job to do, and that job involves asking questions

It's not hard to see at all but it's a moot point because we have the right to remain silent. They can stop you and ask you whatever they want. What is so hard for you to understand that the right to remain silent relieves you of any duty to answer questions? You couldn't cite the law that we have to answer questions. You keep repeating yourself about their job and about asking questions and brother, for the last time already, I'm not contesting what their job is or that they can ask questions.

Most people would hand over their papers, but our rights are not determined by most people. Anything else, just ask.

[Yamato]

Sometimes when you see a train wreck, you just have to watch..

This is what I mean by you running out to grab the wrong ball and as usual run with it just to get attention...

I said previously...

And as per usual you blank anything that doesn't suit ..Blank out all and you then plump for this below..

See? This rubbish about me being against rights was predictable coming from you.. Even though I can support peoples rights to bare arms and defend their constitution... But there is no pleasing the guy sitting here with his you tube video calling it nazi, is there?

I respect your right to remain silent, and pay attention to what it is you say to others, and the junk you accuse people of...What I mean is, look at the posts on here, most people saying the same thing... Pay attention for once and think to yourself, why are so many saying the same thing to me over and over? Do you think they might see things you don't?

If I wanted to post up a video on someones rights being taken, I would use a much better video than the one posted in the OP... If however, I see that the majority of people on here all say the same things to me, then I would have the sense to know that they have it right, and I need to look at how I construct my own thread....

Yamato, me saying the OP video was a waste, it only echo's what so many others have said directly on here... Now you can take this like a man or sit complaining about it over and over and hope someone will listen to your complaining.. Hey why not accuse me other saying other things, knock yourself out, it wont make any difference...

Okay you've kicked the dead horse enough expressing your opinions about me already.

Use a much better video then. That's what I'm asking for. Instead of running your mouth about me, show me up with something better. AGAIN, Give me some serious examples of exercising your rights that you can respect without your abusive japes, don't just give me empty rhetoric claiming you do.

If you can't demonstrate a better way to assert an American's rights at a checkpoint and all you have are insults and jokes here, you're worthless to me for the sake of discussion and debate.

So please, if you can't find better examples, then go find something valuable to do with your time and leave the instruction to me. Thank you.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Yamato

[Kowalski]

Some good information here:

What are my rights at various “checkpoints”?

There are four general types of checkpoints you might encounter: DUI checkpoints, US border checkpoints, drug checkpoints, and TSA checkpoints. In a legal sense, they are not all created equal. So depending on which one you encounter, you’ll want to be prepared to flex your rights appropriately.

DUI Checkpoints

Sobriety checkpoints — also known as DUI checkpoints — are the most common roadblocks you might encounter. They function as a general purpose investigatory tactic where police can get a close look at passing motorists by detaining them briefly. A roadblock stop is quick, but it gives police a chance to check tags and licenses, while also giving officers a quick whiff of the driver’s breath and a chance to peer into the vehicle for a moment.

Remember that your constitutional rights still apply in a roadblock situation. Though police are permitted to stop you briefly, they may not search you or your car unless they have probable cause that you’re under the influence or you agree to the search. As such, you are not required to answer their questions or admit to breaking the law.

Now what is "probable cause"?

Probable cause is the legal standard by which a police officer has the right to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or obtain a warrant for arrest. While many factors contribute to a police officer’s level of authority in a given situation, probable cause requires facts or evidence that would lead areasonable person to believe that a suspect has committed a crime.

Common examples of probable cause include the sight or smell of contraband in plain view or plain smell, or an admission of guilt for a specific crime. The presentation of any of these facts would allow an officer to perform a search and make an arrest.

Be aware that minor traffic violations (e.g. speeding, broken tail-light, or expired registration) are notconsidered probable cause.

What probable cause means to you

While there are certain situations where police need a warrant to search you or your property — during a traffic stop, police only need probable cause to legally search your vehicle.

The major exception to the probable cause requirement for vehicle searches is consent. Most vehicle searches don’t occur because police have probable cause. They occur because people get tricked or intimidated into consenting to search requests.

Consenting to a search request automatically makes the search legal in the eyes of the law. And the 4th Amendment doesn’t require officers to tell you about your right to refuse. So if you’re pulled over, don’t try to figure out whether or not the officer has probable cause to legally search you. You always have the right to refuse search requests by stating, “Officer, I don’t consent to any searches.” Repeat, if necessary.

If you refuse consent but the officer searches you anyway and finds illegal items, your lawyer can file a motion to suppress — or throw out — the evidence in court. If the judge agrees that the officer’s search violated the 4th Amendment’s probable cause requirements, she’ll grant the motion. Unless the prosecution has other evidence, your charges would be dismissed.

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Illinois v. Caballes police have more leeway to use drug-sniffing dogs in roadblock situations. There’s no need to waive your rights simply because dogs are present. But be advised that your legal options are limited if you’re arrested as a result of a dog sniff during a roadblock.

Also keep in mind that police closely monitor cars approaching the roadblock. So you’re not likely to have any success trying to evade it.

Sobriety checkpoints are generally permitted by the courts, but only if conducted properly. If you’re arrested at a police roadblock always consult an attorney before confessing or agreeing to a plea bargain. There might be some legal options that your lawyer can pursue.

US Border Checkpoints

Be aware that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents — which are part of the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) — are permitted to search you and your belongings at the U.S. border without <a href="http://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/probable-cause/" style="color: rgb(0, 126, 179); text-decoration: none;">probable cause or a search warrant. So anytime you cross the border, you consent to a search.

CBP may generally stop and search the property of anyone entering or exiting the U.S. If agents have reasonable suspicion to believe you’re concealing contraband, they may search your body using pat-down, strip, body cavity, or involuntary x-ray searches.

Searches of Electronic Devices

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that Homeland Security border agents must have reasonable suspicion before they can legally conduct a forensics search of laptops, mobile phones, camera memory cards, and other electronic devices.

Unfortunately, this limited ruling still permits agents to conduct a “quick look” laptop search, such as asking you to turn on your laptop to peek at open windows. So always password protect your files before crossing the border. And, of course, never voluntarily give agents your password.

Checkpoints Near the Border

Be aware that DHS agents have recently set up constitutionally-questionable “security checkpoints” up to 100 miles inside U.S. territory. If you should drive into one of these roadblocks, you are not required to answer the agent’s questions (usually starting with “Are you a United States citizen?”). Nor are you required to consent to any searches.

Visit www.checkpointusa.org/blog to learn more about this program and check out the video below. By actively “flexing” their rights, these brave citizens expose the techniques DHS agents (and police in general) use to trick and intimidate citizens into compliance. Also take note of the practical necessity of flexing your rights repeatedly.

Link: http://www.flexyourr...at-checkpoints/

Edited July 24, 2013 by Kowalski

[+Paranoid Android]

Anything else, just ask.

To be honest, I really couldn't give a flying fork to asking (or answering) further questions. I've said what I've needed to say, and I've made my point several times. I won't ever waste my time again with the creator of that video, he's the real life version of the Internet Troll, out there to make a point while ignoring common sense.

At best I'll accept he has the Right to make these horrible youtube videos. More than that, if you don't want to understand, that is your choice. I rid myself of this discussion and bid you the best life can offer you

~ Regards, PA

[Yamato]

Not only was it unfunny, but it was also highly offensive, so I deleted it.

Demands answers and then deletes my posts? Well there's another self-fulfilling prophecy, PA. I refer you to the answer to your question and you delete it. So now you can keep harassing me with the same question already answered for you and wasting your own time. You're wasting my time now and it's starting to get trollish. I'm a human being here too brother, have some respect.

Doug Stanhope on Illegal Immigration is hardly offensive, and it's available on Youtube for adults with a sense of humor. This foreigners' trust of the USG to solve all our insignificant little problems for us in total insolence of the Constitution and our Bill of Rights is becoming absurd when this is the quality of the participation.

[Beckys_Mom]

If you can't demonstrate a better way to assert an American's rights at a checkpoint and all you have are insults and jokes here, you're worthless to me for the sake of discussion and debate.

Oh quit with your drama, you don't suffer from PMS, so quit acting like it... No one has insulted you.. Saying the OP video is a waste of time, is not insulting you, its the video itself, UNLESS you are the guy in the video? lol Hardly likely.. I couldn't care how worthless I was to someone who cannot conduct a civil debate, instead he throws tantrums at anyone who calls a you tube video a waste of time...

Now please, quit trying to make this thread all about you.. I have news for you - Nicolas Copernicus called, he said you are not the centre of the universe...The thread is about the OP video, not you personally..Unless you are in the video, then that is a whole different matter..

To be honest, I really couldn't give a flying fork to asking (or answering) further questions. I've said what I've needed to say, and I've made my point several times. I won't ever waste my time again with the creator of that video, he's the real life version of the Internet Troll, out there to make a point while ignoring common sense.

At best I'll accept he has the Right to make these horrible youtube videos. More than that, if you don't want to understand, that is your choice. I rid myself of this discussion and bid you the best life can offer you

Watch this space Yamato, more will follow PA's lead and leave you to wallow in your own discussion.... Listening and understanding is the key..

Edited July 24, 2013 by Beckys_Mom

[Yamato]

To be honest, I really couldn't give a flying fork to asking (or answering) further questions. I've said what I've needed to say, and I've made my point several times. I won't ever waste my time again with the creator of that video, he's the real life version of the Internet Troll, out there to make a point while ignoring common sense.

At best I'll accept he has the Right to make these horrible youtube videos. More than that, if you don't want to understand, that is your choice. I rid myself of this discussion and bid you the best life can offer you

~ Regards, PA

You've made your self-fulfilling prophecy several times: Asserting your rights leads to suspicion which gets your rights taken away.

And you think I wonder why nobody including you can provide any better examples of asserting their rights.

I'll be sure to continue liking your posts about Christianity on the Religion board. Peace.

[Yamato]

Oh quit with your drama, you don't suffer from PMS, so quit acting like it... No one has insulted you.. Saying the OP video is a waste of time, is not insulting you, its the video itself, UNLESS you are the guy in the video? lol Hardly likely.. I couldn't care how worthless I was to someone who cannot conduct a civil debate, instead he throws tantrums at anyone who calls a you tube video a waste of time...

Now please, quit trying to make this thread all about you.. I have news for you - Nicolas Copernicus called, he said you are not the centre of the universe...The thread is about the OP video, not you personally..Unless you are in the video, then that is a whole different matter..

Watch this space Yamato, more will follow PA's lead and leave you to wallow in your own discussion.... Listening and understanding is the key..

How many more times do you have to repeat yourself that this is a waste of time before you go and do something valuable with your time? You have no clue how to better assert your rights, you're just here for a great big p***ing contest and you already talked about me personally multiple times. Seriously, stop trolling my thread. If you have nothing better to offer than the examples I've provided, then my examples are the best there is by default.

[+Paranoid Android]

Demands answers and then deletes my posts? Well there's another self-fulfilling prophecy, PA. I refer you to the answer to your question and you delete it. So now you can keep harassing me with the same question already answered for you and wasting your own time. You're wasting my time now and it's starting to get trollish. I'm a human being here too brother, have some respect.

Since the video was unrelated to your torture comment then demanding answers then deleted your post/s is not a self-fulfilling prophecy, you're just trying to play the "I'm being censored/I'm the victim" card. Won't work, my friend.

Doug Stanhope on Illegal Immigration is hardly offensive, and it's available on Youtube for adults with a sense of humor. This foreigners' trust of the USG to solve all our insignificant little problems for us in total insolence of the Constitution and our Bill of Rights is becoming absurd when this is the quality of the participation.

Yes, it was offensive. And yes, it is available on youtube. But remember, this forum includes people of all ages, not just adults. We are here to provide a family-friendly service for children as young as 13. And in my opinion, the video I deleted was not appropriate for 13-year old's. Or to put it another way, if I had a 13-year old child I wouldn't think it acceptable for them to watch the video that I did. On those terms, I deleted them. If you think I was wrong to do so, please contact the Administrator to protest. Edited July 24, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[aztek]

lol, don't be dumb man, just screaming i have my rights, isn't actually exercising them. and if you ever get arrested for it, don't be surprised.

your main right is a right not to be dumb and not to get arrested.

as for border patrol, iirc you are the once screaming "throw illegals out" how do they supposed to do it? afaik you have to be American citizen to have the rights, and they need to know if you are. now imagine every illegal will pull that, and not only they will never leave, they will bring their family's here, and thanks to you they will exercise your rights, that they don't have, and that will sure get an attention, and possibly removing them rights, and none of your screaming, and moning will do anything about it.

you are not doing anyone a favor, especially yourself. i have driven thru check points thousands of time in my life, guess how many times i've been detained??? 0. most of the times, i was not even asked a single question, but i have a feeling you'd be arrested after the first one.

but you know, don't let me lecture you, you will learn it the hard way yourself.

Edited July 24, 2013 by aztek

[Yamato]

Since the video was unrelated to your torture comment then demanding answers then deleted your post/s is not a self-fulfilling prophecy, you're just trying to play the "I'm being censored/I'm the victim" card. Won't work, my friend.

Yes, it was offensive. And yes, it is available on youtube. But remember, this forum includes people of all ages, not just adults. We are here to provide a family-friendly service for children as young as 13. And in my opinion, the video I deleted was not appropriate for 13-year old's. Or to put it another way, if I had a 13-year old child I wouldn't think it acceptable for them to watch the video that I did. On those terms, I deleted them. If you think I was wrong to do so, please contact the Administrator to protest.

It wasn't just a video you deleted. But whatever your question still is, the answer is still there after your hatchet job which could have edited the post to be 13-yr old friendly instead of deleting the whole thing.

I don't report people. Never have. Still don't. I let things slide. I've never seen someone pull this crap where they'll ask the same question over and over again but refuse to view the answer when they're pointed to it but for the 3rd and final time, I am not going to spoon feed you. Watch it or don't watch it, but stop harassing me with your nonchalance.