Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Yamato

Citizen of Israel vs Nazi Checkpoint

599 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Yamato

"I am a citizen of Israel"? One would have to be a dedicated basher of the Good book to realise that he was talking about being one of God's Children rather than, say, a citizen of Israel.

Until he opened the book and started reading the scripture "that says I am a citizen of Israel." If the agents were so dumb not to understand what he meant at that point, then it's just an IQ problem on them. And maybe on people here too as it's looking.

I have a question. Do you support illegal immigration in the United States?

No, do you support the Bill of Rights? How?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanato

Until he opened the book and started reading the scripture "that says I am a citizen of Israel." If the agents were so dumb not to understand what he meant at that point, then it's just an IQ problem on them. And maybe on people here too as it's looking.

No, do you support the Bill of Rights? How?

Oh kay so you dont support illegal immigration but you refuse to do anything about those already in the United States. So by you inaction or rather wanted inaction you do support illegal immigrants in the united states.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikko-kun

Such things as double citizenships exist, in case you were wondering. I'm not sure whether it applies to US. citizenship too, but it's certainly not unheard of in the world. Those on border patrol ought to be aware of these kinds of laws, and if they're not, it's either the trained, trainer, or those who plan the training, who are to blame of that. If you can have an US-Israel double passport, then they didn't have a 100% proof reason to assume he wasn't a citizen of the USA even if he hadn't opened the book.

The guy was obviously jerking around, but he had a right to do that. The way he did that though, had a taunting tone to it. No law's against that but as a person that gets me p***ed off. He's the one to blame himself for being a jerk, but if it's his right then it's his right. I can understand the checkpoint being there because your Mexico border leaks much, and pretty much everything else what happened, except that why the officers delayed so much before taking action. Ask once, the guy speaks english and understands you but refuses. Warn him of consequences and ask twice, final time. Then consequences. No need for delay. And if you ain't got a right to detain him on the basis of what you had there, then let him go. It's that simple. The officers' superiors should had coached them that kinda basics, but why not? That's I think the real question.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Oh kay so you dont support illegal immigration but you refuse to do anything about those already in the United States. So by you inaction or rather wanted inaction you do support illegal immigrants in the united states.

It's not my responsibiIity as a federal taxpayer to "do anything" about those already in the United States. I support secure borders, not endless vats of excuses from both parties to excuse why they're here in the first place, along with measures in the interior that infringe on our rights. The illegals become the scapegoats for the dirty scumbag politicians on both sides of the aisle. That's not good enough. I support Sheriff Arpaio enforcing his own state however he sees fit and not a gang of federal goons stepping on his state telling him how to police it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Such things as double citizenships exist, in case you were wondering. I'm not sure whether it applies to US. citizenship too, but it's certainly not unheard of in the world. Those on border patrol ought to be aware of these kinds of laws, and if they're not, it's either the trained, trainer, or those who plan the training, who are to blame of that. If you can have an US-Israel double passport, then they didn't have a 100% proof reason to assume he wasn't a citizen of the USA even if he hadn't opened the book.

The guy was obviously jerking around, but he had a right to do that. The way he did that though, had a taunting tone to it. No law's against that but as a person that gets me p***ed off. He's the one to blame himself for being a jerk, but if it's his right then it's his right. I can understand the checkpoint being there because your Mexico border leaks much, and pretty much everything else what happened, except that why the officers delayed so much before taking action. Ask once, the guy speaks english and understands you but refuses. Warn him of consequences and ask twice, final time. Then consequences. No need for delay. And if you ain't got a right to detain him on the basis of what you had there, then let him go. It's that simple. The officers' superiors should had coached them that kinda basics, but why not? That's I think the real question.

He runs these checkpoints deliberately. Is he taunting them? Of course, it's called Civil Disobedience. Check it out, it's cool. :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikko-kun

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

Yeah it's called the First Amendment. Different right. Stop acting like he can't exercise it. He can.

And you're telling me there should be no ramifications to what someone says because of the first amendment?

If you're outside the US coming in? That's the reason for suspicion, duh. That makes all the difference when compared to the OP video. They were slack jawed stupid as to why they were suspicious of him. Why doesn't that matter to you? Why can you not understand rights or laws correctly?

So my *location* can be reason for suspicion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chooky88

After he is gassed, shot or worked to death he can complain about it being a Nazi check point. This video shows just an idiot with an agenda

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Here in the US we even leave matters of life and death to the states. Whether or not the government is going to KILL YOU for something you did wrong is left to the states. And nobody bats an eye. When it comes to someone doing nothing more than driving down the street, and suddenly holy friggin fruckballs but we need the federal government to be in that state and checking out those papers! Really? Yes, the sky will fall if the feds don't do it! Seriously people? Are we so succumbed to the greasy Washington DC politics of every issue that we can't have some relativity and perspective here. If the federal government wants to take responsibility for this issue then the federal government deserves the blame for its epic failure for all these years. The ridiculous back and forth between parties and everyone wants to secure the border so they're going to have permanent static checkpoints that never move that any and every Mexican with internet access already knows about and thus avoids? This is an example of effective policy to secure our border and deal with illegals? It's partisan, bloody dumb! So far nobody else but Gummug has bothered to make a statement about whether what the federal government is doing is even effective. And he's right. It's not. It's a multi-decades long consummated failure.

I've got a solution that nobody in Washington DC ever wants to exercise. It's called the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Oh God Yamato please stop with the rights already I just want to pull my hair out and scream vicious words of contempt at you when you do that!

tumblr_lqpkdd1Moh1r0dbb6o1_500.jpg

Just show him your damned papers already! *AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!"

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

tumblr_lqpkdd1Moh1r0dbb6o1_500.jpg

Just watch my you tube videos already *AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!"

Yamato on a good day lol :P

Edited by Beckys_Mom
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kowalski

Here in the US we even leave matters of life and death to the states. Whether or not the government is going to KILL YOU for something you did wrong is left to the states. And nobody bats an eye. When it comes to someone doing nothing more than driving down the street, and suddenly holy friggin fruckballs but we need the federal government to be in that state and checking out those papers! Really? Yes, the sky will fall if the feds don't do it! Seriously people? Are we so succumbed to the greasy Washington DC politics of every issue that we can't have some relativity and perspective here. If the federal government wants to take responsibility for this issue then the federal government deserves the blame for its epic failure for all these years. The ridiculous back and forth between parties and everyone wants to secure the border so they're going to have permanent static checkpoints that never move that any and every Mexican with internet access already knows about and thus avoids? This is an example of effective policy to secure our border and deal with illegals? It's partisan, bloody dumb! So far nobody else but Gummug has bothered to make a statement about whether what the federal government is doing is even effective. And he's right. It's not. It's a multi-decades long consummated failure.

I've got a solution that nobody in Washington DC ever wants to exercise. It's called the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Oh God Yamato please stop with the rights already I just want to pull my hair out and scream vicious words of contempt at you when you do that!

tumblr_lqpkdd1Moh1r0dbb6o1_500.jpg

Just show him your damned papers already! *AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!"

LOL...I can understand your frustration.

Really, though, when the politicians start talking about "securing the border" I just want to laugh....

I doubt these checkpoints ever even catch illegals, so why have them? Just another example of government out of control. I guess they want us to be used to driving down the road, and being stopped by the Stazi asking for our papers...Maybe we all need to get the lube and bend over....

Edited by Kowalski
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

LOL...I can understand your frustration.

Really, though, when the politicians start talking about "securing the border" I just want to laugh....

I doubt these checkpoints ever even catch illegals, so why have them? Just another example of government out of control. I guess they want us to be used to driving down the road, and being stopped by the Stazi asking for our papers...Maybe we all need to get the lube and bend over....

I assume because they're bipartisan politically-correct substations of annoyance that do nothing to prevent illegal immigration but serve as wonderful little implements for government to troll our citizens and for statists to poke a stick in Americans' eyes as if they can't exercise their rights. Can you imagine having to drive through these corridors on a regular basis like Anderson has to and have to deal with these brainless drones on a regular basis? I'm sure they have no memory either and no matter how many times he drives through they have to follow regulations and get his papers for the rest of his life.

I'm not frustrated at all, that was for my detractors who can't seem to find a right exercised by an American they wouldn't deny. This battle never ends, and never should, but it must never be cast aside for undeserved trust in government or disrespectful decadence in society. Rights don't assert themselves and arguments like many foreigners made here must never be allowed to master us or our rights are truly lost. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Don't bother asking the detractors for examples of eternal vigilance. It would be like Anderson asking a border patrol agent his reasons for suspicion. ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Yamato on a good day lol :P

This is the easiest way to assert my rights I can think of. Don't even have to leave the house. And I do that too, and I've seen the people out there aren't any wiser let me tell you. Just surrender to whatever nonsense the federal government raises up the flagpole and "God Bless America, The End." If hypothetical suspicion for a theoretically infinite number of reasons (the "whatever" argument) is enough grounds to throw the Fourth Amendment in the garbage, the Fourth Amendment is in the garbage. I'm disappointed there aren't more people willing to take it out of that garbage bin of government apologism and defend it here.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

This is the easiest way to assert my rights I can think of.

You tube it... Bet you wonder how they managed to do the same in the days before you tube and the net ? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikko-kun

You tube it... Bet you wonder how they managed to do the same in the days before you tube and the net ? lol

Do what, assert their rights? Do you need to assert rights if you dont have much ones to begin with? Money and law, both given by certain people, give you rights. What do you do if they dont give you rights? Money-slave or just a slave.. there were still slaves before, if you look at it like this, much of the time they didn't assert their rights despite bad conditions.

Back then it was violent a lot of times, assertion of rights. Why ain't it now? Everyone's got guns, fairly new thing to have more and so handy guns, semi-automatics ain't been that long in widespread use, a bit over half a century I reckon. When my dad was in the army they still didn't have even semiautomatic rifles there, and I'm 29, and we ain't a poor country and need to have defense. The thing with semiautomatics is, they kill far more efficiently and surely than flintlocks and whatyouhad before them, because you don't have to spend half a minute reloading after a single shot. Nor even seconds. You simply kill those who are too violent to threaten national security in any way if they can't be otherwise detained, and they usually can these days. Police have vests, shields and all nice gadgets like sprays, water cannons, nightsticks, rubber bullets... soon or even now sonar weapons too. They dont even need to kill rioters. Rioters ain't a threat anymore, the most they can do is break some windows and loot a little stuff. If it escalates, just ante up the counterviolence police uses, and punishments too.

So what ways do you have to assert your rights today? Rioting ain't so easy anymore. How about refusing to work as a part of the society? Who cares if you do that? Most jobs ain't necessary for survival, and those few that are, they can always find a replacement if you want, such is the job market. And you quit your job, you dont eat so much anymore. Every country doesn't have a good social security. My country I think is rumored to have a good one, but still so many people go hungry here too, even some of the working class. You dont want to quit your job to what, make a statement? A statement nobody will hear? Strikes, those things are controlled by the unions mostly, unless workers unite, which I only wish would happen.

If you want to make an impact by asserting your rights, how are you going to do it except by being excessively violent or destructive towards property? Or just a damn good speaker who can climb up to be a politician? If you ask these questions from strangers, do you think they can think of good answers for these? I doubt it, they only trust in nothing happening or have their limited means which they believe would have an effect, because that's all they can think of.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

Ohh good gravy on a stick, I post one joke and I get a lecture on rights...*Shakes head *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikko-kun

Oh, sorry, wasn't in on it. Take it as a lecture if you want, but you could think of that stuff too you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Ohh good gravy on a stick, I post one joke and I get a lecture on rights...*Shakes head *

One? This whole thread is a big joke to you obviously. Hence you get the lecture on rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

lol he shoud try it with nypd. he'll be in a slammer in no time. by talking b.s. he already gave them probable cause. enough to pull him out of the car search him and his car.

this is a good example how NOT to exercise your rights

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

lol he shoud try it with nypd. he'll be in a slammer in no time. by talking b.s. he already gave them probable cause. enough to pull him out of the car search him and his car.

this is a good example how NOT to exercise your rights

So because NYPD is more interventionist and statist than wannabe peace officers in Arizona, he's not doing it right? Okay you're in a checkpoint. Exercise your rights for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

driving is not a right., but a privilege, and you also must have proper papers, like driver license, at least. if you refuse to show papers you already give cops probable cause. you can refuse to search, or to answer questions, but you can't refuse to show proper papers while driving a car. i mean you can try but don't be surprised if you end up in a slammer, any lawyer would tell you that.

those cops were either armatures\actors, or too scared of the camera. they had every reason to pull him out, and search him and the car, at least.

as for check points, we have them everywhere here, always had, this is something new yorkers learn to deal with before learning streets, and roads. exercising your right, doesn't mean talk ****, but it means keep your mouth shut most of the time, and when you need to talk, say no more than few words and only as an answer if asked a question.

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

driving is not a right., but a privilege, and you also must have proper papers, like driver license, at least. if you refuse to show papers you already give cops probable cause. you can refuse to search, or to answer questions, but you can't refuse to show proper papers while driving a car. i mean you can try but don't be surprised if you end up in a slammer, any lawyer would tell you that.

those cops were either armatures\actors, or too scared of the camera. they had every reason to pull him out, and search him and the car, at least.

as for check points, we have them everywhere here, always had, this is something new yorkers learn to deal with before learning streets, and roads. exercising your right, doesn't mean talk ****, but it means keep your mouth shut most of the time, and when you need to talk, say no more than few words and only as an answer if asked a question.

So don't ask any questions and only answer theirs? That's not a way to exercise your rights that's a way to submit to authority in the most convenient way possible for them. No, again, if they don't have grounds for suspicion, cops don't even have the authority to pull you over in the first place. 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. If we didn't have millions of submissives bending over to authority in this country we wouldn't be suffering the roadblocks and checkpoints in New York and across the country that you speak of. Your advice, which amounts to cooperation not exercising rights, accomplishes nothing to achieve the result of ending said checkpoints.

I'll give you another way of exercising rights in the example of beating checkpoints. Using your freedom of speech to warn motorists ahead of time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

Warp 7, number one. Engage.

Only warp 7?

Don't be a wuss. WARP 9 and damn the engines!

Edited by Sir Wearer of Hats
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome

Here in the US we even leave matters of life and death to the states. Whether or not the government is going to KILL YOU for something you did wrong is left to the states. And nobody bats an eye. When it comes to someone doing nothing more than driving down the street, and suddenly holy friggin fruckballs but we need the federal government to be in that state and checking out those papers! Really? Yes, the sky will fall if the feds don't do it! Seriously people? Are we so succumbed to the greasy Washington DC politics of every issue that we can't have some relativity and perspective here. If the federal government wants to take responsibility for this issue then the federal government deserves the blame for its epic failure for all these years. The ridiculous back and forth between parties and everyone wants to secure the border so they're going to have permanent static checkpoints that never move that any and every Mexican with internet access already knows about and thus avoids? This is an example of effective policy to secure our border and deal with illegals? It's partisan, bloody dumb! So far nobody else but Gummug has bothered to make a statement about whether what the federal government is doing is even effective. And he's right. It's not. It's a multi-decades long consummated failure.

I've got a solution that nobody in Washington DC ever wants to exercise. It's called the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Oh God Yamato please stop with the rights already I just want to pull my hair out and scream vicious words of contempt at you when you do that!

<pic del>

Just show him your damned papers already! *AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!"

You said earlier, I believe, that I was afraid, although I forget about what exactly, but surely your agenda, if I may call it that, as expressed here, is that, basically, you seem to have a deep antipathy towards central government, which seems to influence the way you see everything.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

You said earlier, I believe, that I was afraid, although I forget about what exactly, but surely your agenda, if I may call it that, as expressed here, is that, basically, you seem to have a deep antipathy towards central government, which seems to influence the way you see everything.

That's fair and I'd have an antipathy for myself too if I went around the world committing violent acts against other people thousands of miles away over political disagreements, printed endless amounts of paper money in my basement, ran up enormous debts for my own selfish interests and then made other people pay for it, etc. This is supposed to be a representative government and yet this government doesn't represent anything I do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.