🚀 go-pugleaf

Are you sure that these road blocks aren't just to check for intoxicated
drivers, and hand out information to drivers from MADD?

"zeptepe" <zeptepe@neap.net> wrote in message
news:_JJK9.226388$C8.631533@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> While i haven't experienced one of these new "super" police roadblocks, i
> have a big, big problem with them. Is anyone else a little bit troubled by
> them?  Has anyone gone through one yet and can fill me in on what they're
> like?  Now some people might say that we need for these in the "War
against
> Terrorism" (ya right) or the other standard "If you're not doing anything
> wrong, then don't worry".    The only thing i see is random searches of
the
> general public.   Gives me the feeling of being in some country that's
ruled
> by the military.  What next, checkpoints at Pizza Corner?  Travel papers
> needed to get to Truro?  Probably a bit extreme i realize but it feels
like
> Canadian's rights are really going downhill lately.  Do we really want to
> pay taxes for the luxury of someday being randomly searched just because
> you're going to visit family in another city?   Personally, i'd rather my
> tax dollars go to things that really matter to me, like the health care
> system.
>
>

"Pat H." wrote:

> Are you sure that these road blocks aren't just to check for intoxicated
> drivers, and hand out information to drivers from MADD?

Police can catch more drunk drivers if they patrol the highways and byways
instead of sitting back and running roadblocks. Savvy DUI-types or others who
have something to hide will find ways to evade those roadblocks.

Wylbur says the whole thing smacks of a police state and has no business in an
alleged free society. He's right.

The 'war on terrorism' does not equate to a 'war on civil liberties'. Of course
here in the Peoples Republic of Canada, our civil liberties have been steadily
eroded away for more than a decade, not that you'll ever hear anybody talk about
it on the CBC.

Mr. Ed

"The FAMOUS Mr. Ed"

>
>
> "zeptepe" <zeptepe@neap.net> wrote in message
> news:_JJK9.226388$C8.631533@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> > While i haven't experienced one of these new "super" police roadblocks, i
> > have a big, big problem with them. Is anyone else a little bit troubled by
> > them?  Has anyone gone through one yet and can fill me in on what they're
> > like?  Now some people might say that we need for these in the "War
> against
> > Terrorism" (ya right) or the other standard "If you're not doing anything
> > wrong, then don't worry".    The only thing i see is random searches of
> the
> > general public.   Gives me the feeling of being in some country that's
> ruled
> > by the military.  What next, checkpoints at Pizza Corner?  Travel papers
> > needed to get to Truro?  Probably a bit extreme i realize but it feels
> like
> > Canadian's rights are really going downhill lately.  Do we really want to
> > pay taxes for the luxury of someday being randomly searched just because
> > you're going to visit family in another city?   Personally, i'd rather my
> > tax dollars go to things that really matter to me, like the health care
> > system.
> >
> >

From what i've heard and saw on the news, they seem to be more of a
checkpoint,...dogs circling cars, etc.  I've got no problem with a couple of
cops quickly handing out MAD info on a city street.  But to be stopped and
checked out by a dog.  Am i in Canada?  May i have your papers please,..and
why are you travelling today Sir?  :-)

"Pat H." <pat@synsecurity.com> wrote in message
news:5SJK9.226391$C8.631578@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> Are you sure that these road blocks aren't just to check for intoxicated
> drivers, and hand out information to drivers from MADD?
>
> "zeptepe" <zeptepe@neap.net> wrote in message
> news:_JJK9.226388$C8.631533@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> > While i haven't experienced one of these new "super" police roadblocks,
i
> > have a big, big problem with them. Is anyone else a little bit troubled
by
> > them?  Has anyone gone through one yet and can fill me in on what
they're
> > like?  Now some people might say that we need for these in the "War
> against
> > Terrorism" (ya right) or the other standard "If you're not doing
anything
> > wrong, then don't worry".    The only thing i see is random searches of
> the
> > general public.   Gives me the feeling of being in some country that's
> ruled
> > by the military.  What next, checkpoints at Pizza Corner?  Travel papers
> > needed to get to Truro?  Probably a bit extreme i realize but it feels
> like
> > Canadian's rights are really going downhill lately.  Do we really want
to
> > pay taxes for the luxury of someday being randomly searched just because
> > you're going to visit family in another city?   Personally, i'd rather
my
> > tax dollars go to things that really matter to me, like the health care
> > system.
> >
> >
>
>

Just listen to Alex Jones (Radio Host from Texas about the "New World Order"
and the other Government cover-ups) from the United States.
They seem to be getting it way worse down there, but eventually it'll all
head up North to us.

Hell, we don't even have the right to free speech here..

"Mr Ed" <Ed@w3source.net> wrote in message
news:3DFB6B38.A915CB93@w3source.net...
>
> Police can catch more drunk drivers if they patrol the highways and byways
> instead of sitting back and running roadblocks. Savvy DUI-types or others
who
> have something to hide will find ways to evade those roadblocks.
>
> Wylbur says the whole thing smacks of a police state and has no business
in an
> alleged free society. He's right.
>
> The 'war on terrorism' does not equate to a 'war on civil liberties'. Of
course
> here in the Peoples Republic of Canada, our civil liberties have been
steadily
> eroded away for more than a decade, not that you'll ever hear anybody talk
about
> it on the CBC.
>
> Mr. Ed

>

Hrm that sounds scary!
I haven't heard a thing about this on the news.

Canada == Russia ?

"zeptepe" <zeptepe@neap.net> wrote in message
news:X_JK9.226394$C8.631539@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> From what i've heard and saw on the news, they seem to be more of a
> checkpoint,...dogs circling cars, etc.  I've got no problem with a couple
of
> cops quickly handing out MAD info on a city street.  But to be stopped and
> checked out by a dog.  Am i in Canada?  May i have your papers
please,..and
> why are you travelling today Sir?  :-)
>

Pat H. (pat@synsecurity.com) wrote:
: Hrm that sounds scary!
: I haven't heard a thing about this on the news.

: Canada == Russia ?

The local papers had writeups on it last week. All very positive, comments
from drivers quoted like "it doesn't bother me". Later in the week there
was at least one letter to the editor questioning the coverage and raising
some of the same rights questions mentioned here. Apparently each car was
subject to an external check by drug-sniffing dogs. They managed to catch
at least one car with some pot in the ashtray.

I am also troubled by it. Probable cause is one thing, but blanket
surveillance is quite another. I would think the police would have had
better things to do.

--
Greg Beaulieu    ab348@chebucto.ns.ca    Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada

What, you guys got something to hide. They should have done this a long time
ago.....especially with the # of K-cars still rattling on the
road.....unless you got nothing to hide....I say bring it on.....nice
doggy......


"zeptepe" <zeptepe@neap.net> wrote in message
news:_JJK9.226388$C8.631533@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> While i haven't experienced one of these new "super" police roadblocks, i
> have a big, big problem with them. Is anyone else a little bit troubled by
> them?  Has anyone gone through one yet and can fill me in on what they're
> like?  Now some people might say that we need for these in the "War
against
> Terrorism" (ya right) or the other standard "If you're not doing anything
> wrong, then don't worry".    The only thing i see is random searches of
the
> general public.   Gives me the feeling of being in some country that's
ruled
> by the military.  What next, checkpoints at Pizza Corner?  Travel papers
> needed to get to Truro?  Probably a bit extreme i realize but it feels
like
> Canadian's rights are really going downhill lately.  Do we really want to
> pay taxes for the luxury of someday being randomly searched just because
> you're going to visit family in another city?   Personally, i'd rather my
> tax dollars go to things that really matter to me, like the health care
> system.
>
>

please....in Russian prison I doubt you would get cable T.V. in your cell
and the right to vote.....
 Canada == Russia ?

 "zeptepe" <zeptepe@neap.net> wrote in message
 news:X_JK9.226394$C8.631539@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
 > From what i've heard and saw on the news, they seem to be more of a
 > checkpoint,...dogs circling cars, etc.  I've got no problem with a couple
 of
 > cops quickly handing out MAD info on a city street.  But to be stopped
and
 > checked out by a dog.  Am i in Canada?  May i have your papers
 please,..and
 > why are you travelling today Sir?  :-)
 >

Nothing to hide,...just looking at the larger picture, ie random
checkpoints.  The "nothing to hide" arguement is well,.....i dont' know how
to put it,..stupid i guess.  :-)

"Halifax" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:k7LK9.226409$C8.631767@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> What, you guys got something to hide. They should have done this a long
time
> ago.....especially with the # of K-cars still rattling on the
> road.....unless you got nothing to hide....I say bring it on.....nice
> doggy......
>
>
> "zeptepe" <zeptepe@neap.net> wrote in message
> news:_JJK9.226388$C8.631533@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> > While i haven't experienced one of these new "super" police roadblocks,
i
> > have a big, big problem with them. Is anyone else a little bit troubled
by
> > them?  Has anyone gone through one yet and can fill me in on what
they're
> > like?  Now some people might say that we need for these in the "War
> against
> > Terrorism" (ya right) or the other standard "If you're not doing
anything
> > wrong, then don't worry".    The only thing i see is random searches of
> the
> > general public.   Gives me the feeling of being in some country that's
> ruled
> > by the military.  What next, checkpoints at Pizza Corner?  Travel papers
> > needed to get to Truro?  Probably a bit extreme i realize but it feels
> like
> > Canadian's rights are really going downhill lately.  Do we really want
to
> > pay taxes for the luxury of someday being randomly searched just because
> > you're going to visit family in another city?   Personally, i'd rather
my
> > tax dollars go to things that really matter to me, like the health care
> > system.
> >
> >
>
>

actually more than traffic cops there--drug squad with dog--motor vechicle
inspection teams and wildlife for firearms--in paper today that this may
challenged in court due to a search warrant as there needs to be probable cause
for a search.  Where is probable  cause in random checks and before the search
was the person rights read to them and given the chance to seek legal
advice--NOPE so all those cats they busted for stolen ATVS the other week and 2
guys with a bit of dope in the ashtray will problay walk.. Hope everyone looked
good on TV doing it  traffic was all backed up------like USSR in the 70's

"Pat H." wrote:

> Hrm that sounds scary!
> I haven't heard a thing about this on the news.
>
> Canada == Russia ?
>
> "zeptepe" <zeptepe@neap.net> wrote in message
> news:X_JK9.226394$C8.631539@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> > From what i've heard and saw on the news, they seem to be more of a
> > checkpoint,...dogs circling cars, etc.  I've got no problem with a couple
> of
> > cops quickly handing out MAD info on a city street.  But to be stopped and
> > checked out by a dog.  Am i in Canada?  May i have your papers
> please,..and
> > why are you travelling today Sir?  :-)
> >

    They don't bother me much.

    I don't drink and drive and my car is up to snuff.  The whole foul of
civil liberties cry is kind of odd.  The police can and will stop and search
you at any time.  There are laws that are carefully detailed about search
and siezure.

    If it gets the guy that is about to wipe me and my family off the face
of the earth just because he has one or two too many, so be it.

    Nice, doggy, here's a scooby snack.
"zeptepe" <zeptepe@neap.net> wrote in message
news:_JJK9.226388$C8.631533@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> While i haven't experienced one of these new "super" police roadblocks, i
> have a big, big problem with them. Is anyone else a little bit troubled by
> them?  Has anyone gone through one yet and can fill me in on what they're
> like?  Now some people might say that we need for these in the "War
against
> Terrorism" (ya right) or the other standard "If you're not doing anything
> wrong, then don't worry".    The only thing i see is random searches of
the
> general public.   Gives me the feeling of being in some country that's
ruled
> by the military.  What next, checkpoints at Pizza Corner?  Travel papers
> needed to get to Truro?  Probably a bit extreme i realize but it feels
like
> Canadian's rights are really going downhill lately.  Do we really want to
> pay taxes for the luxury of someday being randomly searched just because
> you're going to visit family in another city?   Personally, i'd rather my
> tax dollars go to things that really matter to me, like the health care
> system.
>
>

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:11:23 -0400, "Jacko" <jacko@jacko.com> wrote:

>
>Paul Morgan <here@home.net> wrote in message
>> I'm curious. By what means do you think we have the right to change
>> government?
>
>its a fundamental stipulation of democracy that if the people are
>dissatisfied with the current government that they can expel it and impose a
>new type... remember, democracy's definition is government of the people by
>the people for the people. Just everyone isnt aware of this and well most
>people are scared to get off their butts and do anything about it. Remember,
>most nations were born of despotisms, then moved to feudalisms, to
>monarchys, to socialist states, some to dictatorships, with most all
>eventually ending up in a democracy. Governments have changed like this
>before, why do it have to stop evolving now?
>
>J
>

Good of you to jump in and answer for Ed.

Anyway Ed, by what means do you think we have the right to change
government? Do you propose violence or wait till next election?

On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 11:18:50 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:

>
>
>Richard Collins wrote:
>
>> "Popeye" <popeye_37@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Y3ZK9.5947$cN6.231329@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>> > Keep in mind, driving is a privilege, not a right. If you want to avoid
>> the
>> > roadblocks, walk.
>> >
>> Keep in mind the laws are there as much to restrain the State as to control
>> the populace.
>
>Exactly Richard. That flawed logic of  'if you want to avoid roadblocks, walk'
>would never fly if it was applied (for example), 'if you want to avoid the
>police coming into your home and searching without a warrant, don't own or rent
>a house', or perhaps 'if you don't want the police randomly stopping and
>searching you on the street, don't walk down the street'. It is a bogus
>argument.
>
>The fiction of 'driving is a privilege not a right' has been rammed down the
>throat of the motoring public for decades, and that is an authoritarian and
>dictatorial view that should be rejected and renounced by any free people. The
>right to drive a vehicle should be limited only by the physical/mental ability
>of the operator to safely operate their vehicle, their ability to pay the
>applicable fees (driver permit, registration, insurance, etc), and once those
>fees are paid, their ONLY obligation is to proceed in a safe and responsible
>manner. They have PAID for their right to drive, and that right should not be
>infringed by faux 'sobriety checkpoints' that catch only a handful of DUI
>offenders while the rest of such offenders drive on through the night (or day)
>with impunity. The right to drive should not be limited by police-state
>roadblocks and throwing wide nets over public highways without probable cause.
>
>Mr. Ed
>
>"The FAMOUS Mr. Ed"


The big point is the same as photo radar, if you are doing nothing
wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Why don't you get up in arms
over the small percentage of drivers that are causing the response?

"Paul Morgan" <here@home.net> wrote in message
news:3s1svucpnhv2ttoeqmig4lghcdl2d1k0ki@4ax.com...

> I'm curious. By what means do you think we have the right to change
> government?

By any means necessary.

Also, the government that governs best, governs least.

The checks and balances that were put into place to control, and prevent the
misuse of power by the elected officials have been circumvented, and jumped
over so many times now as to be effectually non-existent. The result of
course is a government that no longer represents the people, but vested
private interest.

The worst of it again is that we continue to suffer under this ludicrous
system and fail to do anything except complain about it. Hell, half of the
people don't even vote anymore because they are convinced that one crook is
as bad as another. While this may be true, the politicians have created
requirements that almost guarantee that normal people can't seek public
office.

Somebody once said that a little revolution every now and then is good for
the soul. I for one am beginning to agree.

Frank E. Spencer

Paul Morgan wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 22:28:10 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Manuel Noriega wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 19:46:27 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Paul Morgan wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 11:06:12 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Popeye wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Keep in mind, driving is a privilege, not a right. If you want to avoid the
> >> >> >> roadblocks, walk.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That is socialistic clap-trap. In the absence of any viable public transportion
> >> >> >province wide, and when it is *your* tax dollars that build and maintain those
> >> >> >highways, it IS a right, however like all rights, it comes with
> >> >> >responsibilities. Those responsibilities however, do not mean that your civil
> >> >> >liberties should be surrendered to an authoritarian government, be it federal,
> >> >> >provincial or local.
> >> >>
> >> >> If it is your right to drive on the roads, do it without a license,
> >> >> registration and insurance.
> >> >> Your arguement is stupid.
> >> >
> >> >Not at all. My argument is based upon the fact that if a government is going to
> >> >collect taxpayer dollars for the purpose of building highways, building the
> >> >infrastructure of licensing, driver permits, and the required insurance that must be
> >> >obtained, that it becomes a RIGHT by virtue of the fact that each taxpayer has the
> >> >right to avail themselves of the services and products that their tax dollars are
> >> >allocated for.  I am not advocating the lawless operation of motor vehicles, your
> >> >counter argument is a straw man and I think that should be readily apparent to most
> >> >people.
> >>
> >> The fact that you draw a logical conclusion from the payment of taxes,
> >> does not mean the government draws that same conclusion. The fallicy
> >> in your argument is the "it becomes a right" statement. Just because
> >> maybe it SHOULD become a right, does not mean it actually does become
> >> a right. 1) the law is an ass, 2) the government is a big huge ass.
> >> --------------------------------
> >
> >Point taken. I recall a saying to the effect "any government that is big enough to give
> >you everything, is big enough to take everything away".
> >
> >When the government no longer serves the common interest of the people, it is the right
> >of the people to change their government.
> >
>
> I'm curious. By what means do you think we have the right to change
> government?

Preferably by legal means.

Mr. Ed

"The FAMOUS Mr. Ed"

Paul Morgan wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:11:23 -0400, "Jacko" <jacko@jacko.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Paul Morgan <here@home.net> wrote in message
> >> I'm curious. By what means do you think we have the right to change
> >> government?
> >
> >its a fundamental stipulation of democracy that if the people are
> >dissatisfied with the current government that they can expel it and impose a
> >new type... remember, democracy's definition is government of the people by
> >the people for the people. Just everyone isnt aware of this and well most
> >people are scared to get off their butts and do anything about it. Remember,
> >most nations were born of despotisms, then moved to feudalisms, to
> >monarchys, to socialist states, some to dictatorships, with most all
> >eventually ending up in a democracy. Governments have changed like this
> >before, why do it have to stop evolving now?
> >
> >J
> >
>
> Good of you to jump in and answer for Ed.

It's an open thread, anyone is free to jump in and offer their opinion. That's
what democracy is all about, isn't it Paul?

> Anyway Ed, by what means do you think we have the right to change
> government? Do you propose violence or wait till next election?

I certainly do not advocate violence. I advocate peaceful and legal change when
possible, and if that isn't practical, then I believe in the approach advocated
by  Mahatma Gandhi, which includes civil disobedience. Gandhi said "Civil
disobedience is the assertion of a right which law should give but which it
denies...  Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with
good...  All through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have
been tyrants. . . and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they
always fall, always."

Of course *if* a government responds with violence towards it's citizens, the
natural right of self-defence mandates that the citizens resist such violence by
any means at their disposal, IMHO.

Does that answer your question Paul?

Mr. Ed

"The FAMOUS Mr. Ed"

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 17:20:57 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:

>
>
>Paul Morgan wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 22:28:10 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Manuel Noriega wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 19:46:27 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Paul Morgan wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 11:06:12 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Popeye wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Keep in mind, driving is a privilege, not a right. If you want to avoid the
>> >> >> >> roadblocks, walk.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >That is socialistic clap-trap. In the absence of any viable public transportion
>> >> >> >province wide, and when it is *your* tax dollars that build and maintain those
>> >> >> >highways, it IS a right, however like all rights, it comes with
>> >> >> >responsibilities. Those responsibilities however, do not mean that your civil
>> >> >> >liberties should be surrendered to an authoritarian government, be it federal,
>> >> >> >provincial or local.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If it is your right to drive on the roads, do it without a license,
>> >> >> registration and insurance.
>> >> >> Your arguement is stupid.
>> >> >
>> >> >Not at all. My argument is based upon the fact that if a government is going to
>> >> >collect taxpayer dollars for the purpose of building highways, building the
>> >> >infrastructure of licensing, driver permits, and the required insurance that must be
>> >> >obtained, that it becomes a RIGHT by virtue of the fact that each taxpayer has the
>> >> >right to avail themselves of the services and products that their tax dollars are
>> >> >allocated for.  I am not advocating the lawless operation of motor vehicles, your
>> >> >counter argument is a straw man and I think that should be readily apparent to most
>> >> >people.
>> >>
>> >> The fact that you draw a logical conclusion from the payment of taxes,
>> >> does not mean the government draws that same conclusion. The fallicy
>> >> in your argument is the "it becomes a right" statement. Just because
>> >> maybe it SHOULD become a right, does not mean it actually does become
>> >> a right. 1) the law is an ass, 2) the government is a big huge ass.
>> >> --------------------------------
>> >
>> >Point taken. I recall a saying to the effect "any government that is big enough to give
>> >you everything, is big enough to take everything away".
>> >
>> >When the government no longer serves the common interest of the people, it is the right
>> >of the people to change their government.
>> >
>>
>> I'm curious. By what means do you think we have the right to change
>> government?
>
>Preferably by legal means.
>
>Mr. Ed
>
>"The FAMOUS Mr. Ed"


But not limited to?

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 17:28:17 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:

>
>
>Paul Morgan wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:11:23 -0400, "Jacko" <jacko@jacko.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Paul Morgan <here@home.net> wrote in message
>> >> I'm curious. By what means do you think we have the right to change
>> >> government?
>> >
>> >its a fundamental stipulation of democracy that if the people are
>> >dissatisfied with the current government that they can expel it and impose a
>> >new type... remember, democracy's definition is government of the people by
>> >the people for the people. Just everyone isnt aware of this and well most
>> >people are scared to get off their butts and do anything about it. Remember,
>> >most nations were born of despotisms, then moved to feudalisms, to
>> >monarchys, to socialist states, some to dictatorships, with most all
>> >eventually ending up in a democracy. Governments have changed like this
>> >before, why do it have to stop evolving now?
>> >
>> >J
>> >
>>
>> Good of you to jump in and answer for Ed.
>
>It's an open thread, anyone is free to jump in and offer their opinion. That's
>what democracy is all about, isn't it Paul?
>

Usual manners are that when a question is directed at an individual,
you wait for the reply.

>> Anyway Ed, by what means do you think we have the right to change
>> government? Do you propose violence or wait till next election?
>
>I certainly do not advocate violence. I advocate peaceful and legal change when
>possible, and if that isn't practical, then I believe in the approach advocated
>by  Mahatma Gandhi, which includes civil disobedience. Gandhi said "Civil
>disobedience is the assertion of a right which law should give but which it
>denies...  Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with
>good...  All through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have
>been tyrants. . . and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they
>always fall, always."
>
>Of course *if* a government responds with violence towards it's citizens, the
>natural right of self-defence mandates that the citizens resist such violence by
>any means at their disposal, IMHO.
>
>Does that answer your question Paul?


But the citizen must give violence first as the governments action is
a response.

>
>Mr. Ed
>
>"The FAMOUS Mr. Ed"

Paul Morgan wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 17:28:17 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Paul Morgan wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:11:23 -0400, "Jacko" <jacko@jacko.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Paul Morgan <here@home.net> wrote in message
> >> >> I'm curious. By what means do you think we have the right to change
> >> >> government?
> >> >
> >> >its a fundamental stipulation of democracy that if the people are
> >> >dissatisfied with the current government that they can expel it and impose a
> >> >new type... remember, democracy's definition is government of the people by
> >> >the people for the people. Just everyone isnt aware of this and well most
> >> >people are scared to get off their butts and do anything about it. Remember,
> >> >most nations were born of despotisms, then moved to feudalisms, to
> >> >monarchys, to socialist states, some to dictatorships, with most all
> >> >eventually ending up in a democracy. Governments have changed like this
> >> >before, why do it have to stop evolving now?
> >> >
> >> >J
> >> >
> >>
> >> Good of you to jump in and answer for Ed.
> >
> >It's an open thread, anyone is free to jump in and offer their opinion. That's
> >what democracy is all about, isn't it Paul?
> >
>
> Usual manners are that when a question is directed at an individual,
> you wait for the reply.
>
> >> Anyway Ed, by what means do you think we have the right to change
> >> government? Do you propose violence or wait till next election?
> >
> >I certainly do not advocate violence. I advocate peaceful and legal change when
> >possible, and if that isn't practical, then I believe in the approach advocated
> >by  Mahatma Gandhi, which includes civil disobedience. Gandhi said "Civil
> >disobedience is the assertion of a right which law should give but which it
> >denies...  Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with
> >good...  All through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have
> >been tyrants. . . and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they
> >always fall, always."
> >
> >Of course *if* a government responds with violence towards it's citizens, the
> >natural right of self-defence mandates that the citizens resist such violence by
> >any means at their disposal, IMHO.
> >
> >Does that answer your question Paul?
>
> But the citizen must give violence first as the governments action is
> a response.

Are you saying that a government would never initiate violence towards it's citizens?

> >
> >Mr. Ed
> >
> >"The FAMOUS Mr. Ed"

(signature recycled in the interesting of saving bandwidth, one of our dwindling
resources ;)

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:34:50 GMT, Paul Morgan <here@home.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 11:18:50 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Richard Collins wrote:
>The big point is the same as photo radar, if you are doing nothing
>wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Why don't you get up in arms
>over the small percentage of drivers that are causing the response?

You really don't get it, do you? It's not about whether somebody is
doing something right or wrong, it's whether the police have the right
to act in the manner they are. Common belief is the police are there
to catch the 'bad guys', whoever they may be. In actuality, they are
supposed to be there to uphold the rights of the citizens and of the
state. They should be upholding our right to privacy, safety, and
security via trained police work, not fishnet tactics that ensnare the
whole to catch a few. 

If you aren't doing anything wrong, would you submit to a strip search
to prove it? Why should you have to prove your innocence - it's the
police and crown's job to prove guilt and we are under no obligation
to make their job easier.

"Jacko" <jacko@jacko.com> wrote in message news:atl8oc$nbg$1@News.Dal.Ca...
>
> Paul Morgan <here@home.net> wrote in message
> > I'm curious. By what means do you think we have the right to change
> > government?
>
> its a fundamental stipulation of democracy that if the people are
> dissatisfied with the current government that they can expel it and impose
a
> new type... remember, democracy's definition is government of the people
by
> the people for the people. Just everyone isnt aware of this and well most
> people are scared to get off their butts and do anything about it.
Remember,
> most nations were born of despotisms, then moved to feudalisms, to
> monarchys, to socialist states, some to dictatorships, with most all
> eventually ending up in a democracy. Governments have changed like this
> before, why do it have to stop evolving now?

You didn't answer his question. _How_ would we change the Government is the
question. "By what means", in other words. An armed mod demanding the
current bunch resign - or something less dramatic?

"gman" <gman99@canada.com> wrote in message
news:a82f1ece.0212161127.4246ef31@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Good luck proving the officer did not have "reasonable and probable
> > grounds".
>
> I think you watch too much TV...unless you are a known criminal you
> shouldn't have anything to worry about. I'm quite confident that if I
> ever had to go to court and challenge a police officer that my word
> would suffice.

well, I'm not sure what planet you're curently occupying.... but it is far
more likely the Court would accept the statement of the officer over yours.
Your statement would be "self-serving", while his (arguably) would not.

> If you are a convicted criminal or otherwise shady
> character then you probably wouldn't make it through court.

I guess you don't understand the legal system. Assuming a "perfect" system,
the fact that I have a criminal record _cannot be used_ to determine
innocence or guilt in a matter before the Court.

> Contrary to popular belief, cops aren't out to harass people in general.

No-one said they were. They're also not stupid. If they pull you over, they
will have already addressed the "probable cause" issue in their own minds
and concluded that something you did (or failed to do) was sufficient
"cause" for further action.

> I've
> been pulled over before, I got one ticket and one warning. I didn't
> get pissed, I was clearly in the wrong both times....I've been pulled
> over at road blocks several times...no problems, even had an expired
> safety sticker once...4 days expired...politely told me to get it
> taken care of.

What's your point?

> If you are driving a motor vehicle you can be pulled over at any time
> at the discretion of a peace officer so that they can verify your
> liscense / registration / insurance and safety...no excuse necessary !

Wanna bet?

Hint: the business of RIDE (the drunk-driving blitz that occurs annually)
went to the Supreme Court for a ruling. That ruling was positive - the
police may stop vehicles as part of RIDE - but not _every_ vehicle - though
they do not need specific "probable cause" in the selection of vehicles to
stop. Now, if they had the "right" to stop a vehicle "without cause" to
check license, registration, etc, the RIDE case would never have gone to the
Supremes in the first place.

"GC" <assistant_madman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bepsvukpjmu2jono5mnmf98h21es4avs7q@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:34:50 GMT, Paul Morgan <here@home.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 11:18:50 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>Richard Collins wrote:

No, I didn't. :-)

> >The big point is the same as photo radar, if you are doing nothing
> >wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Why don't you get up in arms
> >over the small percentage of drivers that are causing the response?
>
> You really don't get it, do you? It's not about whether somebody is
> doing something right or wrong, it's whether the police have the right
> to act in the manner they are. Common belief is the police are there
> to catch the 'bad guys', whoever they may be. In actuality, they are
> supposed to be there to uphold the rights of the citizens and of the
> state. They should be upholding our right to privacy, safety, and
> security via trained police work, not fishnet tactics that ensnare the
> whole to catch a few.

Maybe it's the penalty you pay to live in a relatively "safe" society. Once
you agree to a "polic force", you tacitly agree to some loss of freedom. The
two go hand in hand.

> If you aren't doing anything wrong, would you submit to a strip search
> to prove it? Why should you have to prove your innocence - it's the
> police and crown's job to prove guilt and we are under no obligation
> to make their job easier.

The police have no requirement to "consider you innocent until proven
guilty". They are completely free to consider you "guilty" from the get-go.

And, guess what? By and large, they do.

Richard Collins wrote:

> "Jacko" <jacko@jacko.com> wrote in message news:atl8oc$nbg$1@News.Dal.Ca...
> >
> > Paul Morgan <here@home.net> wrote in message
> > > I'm curious. By what means do you think we have the right to change
> > > government?
> >
> > its a fundamental stipulation of democracy that if the people are
> > dissatisfied with the current government that they can expel it and impose
> a
> > new type... remember, democracy's definition is government of the people
> by
> > the people for the people. Just everyone isnt aware of this and well most
> > people are scared to get off their butts and do anything about it.
> Remember,
> > most nations were born of despotisms, then moved to feudalisms, to
> > monarchys, to socialist states, some to dictatorships, with most all
> > eventually ending up in a democracy. Governments have changed like this
> > before, why do it have to stop evolving now?
>
> You didn't answer his question. _How_ would we change the Government is the
> question. "By what means", in other words. An armed mod demanding the
> current bunch resign - or something less dramatic?

You mean like an 'armed model'?

My vote is for Kathy Ireland in camo clothes with an Uzi over her shoulder. ;)

Sorry Richard, just couldn't resist.

Seriously, violence is something which should be avoided if at all possible.
However if a government becomes so oppressive that peaceful and orderly change
is not possible, then the citizens beneath that government must take whatever
steps they believe necessary to remove that government.

Mr. Ed

"The FAMOUS Mr. Ed"

"Frank E. Spencer" <romstar.orion@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:k5qL9.557$A17.17719@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>
> "Paul Morgan" <here@home.net> wrote in message
> news:3s1svucpnhv2ttoeqmig4lghcdl2d1k0ki@4ax.com...
>
> > I'm curious. By what means do you think we have the right to change
> > government?
>
> By any means necessary.
>
Illogical. The "government" in that case would be picked by the guy with the
greatest firepower.

"Richard Collins" <r..collins@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:5iaL9.1484$pS6.216317@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "Lester" <wtfo1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f%6L9.226822$C8.636120@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> > Correct my if I am wrong but I have never believed it to be a "privlege"
> to
> > travel as a passenger in a vehicle.
>
> Who can correct what you state you believe?
>
> I can only say "you have no "right" to be carried as a passenger in any
> vehicle".

Yes you can say that, but can you present any facts to support it?
The law is explicit in stating that it is a privlege to hold a drivers
license but
can you provide any references that will support your above statement which
appears to
be presented as a fact?

BTW  YOU can "correct" or maybe change what I believe if you can present a
logical argument based in fact
that will "correct" my mind...I mean change my mind.

>
> > If this were true, it would be a "privlege" for you to transported to a
> > hospital when the old ticker becomes erratic.
>
> If you wish to look at it that way. You certainly don't have a "right". If
> there were no ambulances available could you sue the State under the
Charter
> for "denial of rights"? No.


Would you point out where I implied that  the state is obligated to supply
ambulances?
I only suggested that it is a right to be permitted passage over a roadway
that was
built and paid for with tax dollars.
If you can show me that it is in fact a privlege, I will have to accept
that.

A self righteous rant does not qualify as fact.

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:51:46 -0400, GC <assistant_madman@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:34:50 GMT, Paul Morgan <here@home.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 11:18:50 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Richard Collins wrote:
>>The big point is the same as photo radar, if you are doing nothing
>>wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Why don't you get up in arms
>>over the small percentage of drivers that are causing the response?
>
>You really don't get it, do you? It's not about whether somebody is
>doing something right or wrong, it's whether the police have the right
>to act in the manner they are. Common belief is the police are there
>to catch the 'bad guys', whoever they may be. In actuality, they are
>supposed to be there to uphold the rights of the citizens and of the
>state. They should be upholding our right to privacy, safety, and
>security via trained police work, not fishnet tactics that ensnare the
>whole to catch a few.

I think you should find out just what the police are out there for,
then come back.
If fishnet tactics is what it takes to get impaired drivers off the
road, then I'm all for it. These are the ones that force the results
we have now. Jesus, it isn't brain surgery, once the idiots that break
the law are off the streets, then the check-stops go away.

>
>If you aren't doing anything wrong, would you submit to a strip search
>to prove it? Why should you have to prove your innocence - it's the
>police and crown's job to prove guilt and we are under no obligation
>to make their job easier.


And the way to prove guilt is through strip search, etc. see how far
you get through an airport by refusing a search of luggage, person,
etc. Don't forget to claim your rights though.
Do you read and believe the drivel you are posting? "We are under no
obligation to make their job easier" is the biggest pile of shit I
have read here since Amero left. Why do you think the police are so
frustrated now, because of wanna-be lawyers like yourself. We are all
oppressed under the police state until something happens to you.

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 23:06:44 -0400, "Lester" <wtfo1@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Richard Collins" <r..collins@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:5iaL9.1484$pS6.216317@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>
>> "Lester" <wtfo1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:f%6L9.226822$C8.636120@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>> > Correct my if I am wrong but I have never believed it to be a "privlege"
>> to
>> > travel as a passenger in a vehicle.
>>
>> Who can correct what you state you believe?
>>
>> I can only say "you have no "right" to be carried as a passenger in any
>> vehicle".
>
>Yes you can say that, but can you present any facts to support it?

Read the charter of rights and freedoms?

>The law is explicit in stating that it is a privlege to hold a drivers
>license but
>can you provide any references that will support your above statement which
>appears to
>be presented as a fact?
>
>BTW  YOU can "correct" or maybe change what I believe if you can present a
>logical argument based in fact
>that will "correct" my mind...I mean change my mind.
>
>>
>> > If this were true, it would be a "privlege" for you to transported to a
>> > hospital when the old ticker becomes erratic.
>>
>> If you wish to look at it that way. You certainly don't have a "right". If
>> there were no ambulances available could you sue the State under the
>Charter
>> for "denial of rights"? No.
>
>
>Would you point out where I implied that  the state is obligated to supply
>ambulances?
>I only suggested that it is a right to be permitted passage over a roadway
>that was
>built and paid for with tax dollars.
>If you can show me that it is in fact a privlege, I will have to accept
>that.
>
>A self righteous rant does not qualify as fact.
>
>
>
>
>

Paul Morgan wrote:

<edited for space not spite>

> I think you should find out just what the police are out there for,
> then come back.
> If fishnet tactics is what it takes to get impaired drivers off the
> road, then I'm all for it. These are the ones that force the results
> we have now. Jesus, it isn't brain surgery, once the idiots that break
> the law are off the streets, then the check-stops go away.

In that case they'll -never- go away. But what will you say Paul, when at
some point one of those dragnet-style roadblocks stops you, and you and
your vehicle are searched, and while alcohol, drugs, or illegal weapons are
not found, the police note that you have books and papers which advocate a
political position (doesn't matter which one) that is out-of-favour with
the government (either provincial or federal), so at the very least they
make a record of that and flag you for 'further investigation' at some
future time, or at the worst they cart you downtown while they notify CSIS
that they just might have a terrorist suspect for them to interrogate.

Of course you'll say it's far fetched, until it happens to you, but that is
where these 'roadblocks' will ultimately lead, whether you wish to believe
it or not.

Mr. Ed

"The FAMOUS Mr. Ed"

"Lester" <wtfo1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pxwL9.227299$C8.641769@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>
> "Richard Collins" <r..collins@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:5iaL9.1484$pS6.216317@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> > "Lester" <wtfo1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:f%6L9.226822$C8.636120@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> > > Correct my if I am wrong but I have never believed it to be a
"privlege"
> > to
> > > travel as a passenger in a vehicle.
> >
> > Who can correct what you state you believe?
> >
> > I can only say "you have no "right" to be carried as a passenger in any
> > vehicle".
>
> Yes you can say that, but can you present any facts to support it?

Sure. I have a car. You can't ride in my car - beacsue I won't let you.
Try to sue me.

You can be denied passage on a commercial aircraft for any number of
reasons. You have no "right" to fly.

> The law is explicit in stating that it is a privlege to hold a drivers
> license but
> can you provide any references that will support your above statement
which
> appears to
> be presented as a fact?

If that's what the law states. then that's what it is. Notice the wording -
you have no "right" to a drivers license. That says nothing about "driving".
You can drive you car on your own property without a license, or insurance,
you know.

> BTW  YOU can "correct" or maybe change what I believe if you can present a
> logical argument based in fact
> that will "correct" my mind...I mean change my mind.

The "logical argument" is "my car" - and I decide who rides in it.

> >
> > > If this were true, it would be a "privlege" for you to transported to
a
> > > hospital when the old ticker becomes erratic.
> >
> > If you wish to look at it that way. You certainly don't have a "right".
If
> > there were no ambulances available could you sue the State under the
> Charter
> > for "denial of rights"? No.
>

> Would you point out where I implied that  the state is obligated to supply
> ambulances?

They aren't. Therefore, no "right".

> I only suggested that it is a right to be permitted passage over a roadway
> that was
> built and paid for with tax dollars.

That's not what you said.

> If you can show me that it is in fact a privlege, I will have to accept
> that.

You've changed your argument.

On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:10:16 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:

>
>
>Paul Morgan wrote:
>
><edited for space not spite>
>
>> I think you should find out just what the police are out there for,
>> then come back.
>> If fishnet tactics is what it takes to get impaired drivers off the
>> road, then I'm all for it. These are the ones that force the results
>> we have now. Jesus, it isn't brain surgery, once the idiots that break
>> the law are off the streets, then the check-stops go away.
>
>In that case they'll -never- go away. But what will you say Paul, when at
>some point one of those dragnet-style roadblocks stops you, and you and
>your vehicle are searched, and while alcohol, drugs, or illegal weapons are
>not found, the police note that you have books and papers which advocate a
>political position (doesn't matter which one) that is out-of-favour with
>the government (either provincial or federal), so at the very least they
>make a record of that and flag you for 'further investigation' at some
>future time, or at the worst they cart you downtown while they notify CSIS
>that they just might have a terrorist suspect for them to interrogate.
>

Depends on the books and papers. Do they spread the word that it is
time for another Hitler to come to power? Do they advocate the
overfall of the elected government by violence? 
In spite of what you think and what the voices are telling others, the
roadblocks will only get impaired drivers off the road. When your son
or daughter is killed by one you will think this is a good thing.

>Of course you'll say it's far fetched, until it happens to you, but that is
>where these 'roadblocks' will ultimately lead, whether you wish to believe
>it or not.
>
>Mr. Ed
>
>"The FAMOUS Mr. Ed"
>

Do you not think that the stand you are taking here on the ng has not
been noted and documented by the authorities??

Paul Morgan wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:10:16 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Paul Morgan wrote:
> >
> ><edited for space not spite>
> >
> >> I think you should find out just what the police are out there for,
> >> then come back.
> >> If fishnet tactics is what it takes to get impaired drivers off the
> >> road, then I'm all for it. These are the ones that force the results
> >> we have now. Jesus, it isn't brain surgery, once the idiots that break
> >> the law are off the streets, then the check-stops go away.
> >
> >In that case they'll -never- go away. But what will you say Paul, when at
> >some point one of those dragnet-style roadblocks stops you, and you and
> >your vehicle are searched, and while alcohol, drugs, or illegal weapons are
> >not found, the police note that you have books and papers which advocate a
> >political position (doesn't matter which one) that is out-of-favour with
> >the government (either provincial or federal), so at the very least they
> >make a record of that and flag you for 'further investigation' at some
> >future time, or at the worst they cart you downtown while they notify CSIS
> >that they just might have a terrorist suspect for them to interrogate.
> >
>
> Depends on the books and papers. Do they spread the word that it is
> time for another Hitler to come to power? Do they advocate the
> overfall of the elected government by violence?
> In spite of what you think and what the voices are telling others, the
> roadblocks will only get impaired drivers off the road. When your son
> or daughter is killed by one you will think this is a good thing.

The good law enforcement officers will catch *more* of those impaired drivers by
increasing the numbers of road patrols, and observing the behaviour of drivers
rather than sitting around a roadblock in vain hopes of catching a miniscule
number of such offenders, while the majority of them escape notice.

> >Of course you'll say it's far fetched, until it happens to you, but that is
> >where these 'roadblocks' will ultimately lead, whether you wish to believe
> >it or not.
> >
> >Mr. Ed
> >
> >"The FAMOUS Mr. Ed"
> >
>
> Do you not think that the stand you are taking here on the ng has not
> been noted and documented by the authorities??

I sincerely hope it has. I have advocated legal and peaceful change, and have
stated that violence should be avoided if at all possible, and I have stated I
believe that the civil liberties we enjoy should not be sacrificed upon the
altar of 'safety enforcement', or whatever slogan du jour happens to be in
place.

Mr. Ed

"The FAMOUS Mr. Ed"

On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:18:30 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:

>
>
>Paul Morgan wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:10:16 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Paul Morgan wrote:
>> >
>> ><edited for space not spite>
>> >
>> >> I think you should find out just what the police are out there for,
>> >> then come back.
>> >> If fishnet tactics is what it takes to get impaired drivers off the
>> >> road, then I'm all for it. These are the ones that force the results
>> >> we have now. Jesus, it isn't brain surgery, once the idiots that break
>> >> the law are off the streets, then the check-stops go away.
>> >
>> >In that case they'll -never- go away. But what will you say Paul, when at
>> >some point one of those dragnet-style roadblocks stops you, and you and
>> >your vehicle are searched, and while alcohol, drugs, or illegal weapons are
>> >not found, the police note that you have books and papers which advocate a
>> >political position (doesn't matter which one) that is out-of-favour with
>> >the government (either provincial or federal), so at the very least they
>> >make a record of that and flag you for 'further investigation' at some
>> >future time, or at the worst they cart you downtown while they notify CSIS
>> >that they just might have a terrorist suspect for them to interrogate.
>> >
>>
>> Depends on the books and papers. Do they spread the word that it is
>> time for another Hitler to come to power? Do they advocate the
>> overfall of the elected government by violence?
>> In spite of what you think and what the voices are telling others, the
>> roadblocks will only get impaired drivers off the road. When your son
>> or daughter is killed by one you will think this is a good thing.
>
>The good law enforcement officers will catch *more* of those impaired drivers by
>increasing the numbers of road patrols, and observing the behaviour of drivers
>rather than sitting around a roadblock in vain hopes of catching a miniscule
>number of such offenders, while the majority of them escape notice.


Now you are not making sense. A lot more can be determined about a
driver by looking at them face to face and smelling alcohol than
looking at driving habits.  Do you hunt at all? Why do all the work of
the animal when you can just sit still and have it come to you. If a
roadblock is in place, all vehicles must past through it, not just the
few that are followed and observed by patrols.

>
>> >Of course you'll say it's far fetched, until it happens to you, but that is
>> >where these 'roadblocks' will ultimately lead, whether you wish to believe
>> >it or not.
>> >
>> >Mr. Ed
>> >
>> >"The FAMOUS Mr. Ed"
>> >
>>
>> Do you not think that the stand you are taking here on the ng has not
>> been noted and documented by the authorities??
>
>I sincerely hope it has. I have advocated legal and peaceful change, and have
>stated that violence should be avoided if at all possible, and I have stated I
>believe that the civil liberties we enjoy should not be sacrificed upon the
>altar of 'safety enforcement', or whatever slogan du jour happens to be in
>place.
>
>Mr. Ed
>
>"The FAMOUS Mr. Ed"
>

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 20:51:35 -0500, "Richard  Collins"
<r..collins@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>
>"GC" <assistant_madman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:bepsvukpjmu2jono5mnmf98h21es4avs7q@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:34:50 GMT, Paul Morgan <here@home.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 11:18:50 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Richard Collins wrote:
>
>No, I didn't. :-)

Whoops - snipped at the wrong place. Shoulda left you out and kept
Paul in... :)

>
>> >The big point is the same as photo radar, if you are doing nothing
>> >wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Why don't you get up in arms
>> >over the small percentage of drivers that are causing the response?
>>
>> You really don't get it, do you? It's not about whether somebody is
>> doing something right or wrong, it's whether the police have the right
>> to act in the manner they are. Common belief is the police are there
>> to catch the 'bad guys', whoever they may be. In actuality, they are
>> supposed to be there to uphold the rights of the citizens and of the
>> state. They should be upholding our right to privacy, safety, and
>> security via trained police work, not fishnet tactics that ensnare the
>> whole to catch a few.
>
>Maybe it's the penalty you pay to live in a relatively "safe" society. Once
>you agree to a "polic force", you tacitly agree to some loss of freedom. The
>two go hand in hand.

You're correct - there is definitely a balance to be maintained
between upholding the rights of the citizens vs. the rights of the
state. And in some circumstances personal rights may be inconvenienced
to allow for the rights of society and the state as a whole to
function properly. However, whenever this happens we should demand a
damn good reason to allow it lest the state get too comfortable with
their demands over our rights.

>> If you aren't doing anything wrong, would you submit to a strip search
>> to prove it? Why should you have to prove your innocence - it's the
>> police and crown's job to prove guilt and we are under no obligation
>> to make their job easier.
>
>The police have no requirement to "consider you innocent until proven
>guilty". They are completely free to consider you "guilty" from the get-go.
>
>And, guess what? By and large, they do.

And that scares me.

On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:32:13 GMT, Paul Morgan <here@home.net> wrote:
>Do you not think that the stand you are taking here on the ng has not
>been noted and documented by the authorities??

Bloody hell - are you really that paranoid? And if it's true, why
doesn't it scare the hell out you?

On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 06:54:42 GMT, Paul Morgan <here@home.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:51:46 -0400, GC <assistant_madman@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:34:50 GMT, Paul Morgan <here@home.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 11:18:50 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Richard Collins wrote:
>>>The big point is the same as photo radar, if you are doing nothing
>>>wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Why don't you get up in arms
>>>over the small percentage of drivers that are causing the response?
>>
>>You really don't get it, do you? It's not about whether somebody is
>>doing something right or wrong, it's whether the police have the right
>>to act in the manner they are. Common belief is the police are there
>>to catch the 'bad guys', whoever they may be. In actuality, they are
>>supposed to be there to uphold the rights of the citizens and of the
>>state. They should be upholding our right to privacy, safety, and
>>security via trained police work, not fishnet tactics that ensnare the
>>whole to catch a few.
>
>I think you should find out just what the police are out there for,
>then come back.

I think you should read this and come back when you understand what it
means: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

>If fishnet tactics is what it takes to get impaired drivers off the
>road, then I'm all for it. These are the ones that force the results
>we have now. Jesus, it isn't brain surgery, once the idiots that break
>the law are off the streets, then the check-stops go away.

Will they? Are you absolutely sure about that? I suppose you also
believe that privatizing healthcare will cause the gov't to lower
taxes. 

>>
>>If you aren't doing anything wrong, would you submit to a strip search
>>to prove it? Why should you have to prove your innocence - it's the
>>police and crown's job to prove guilt and we are under no obligation
>>to make their job easier.
>
>
>And the way to prove guilt is through strip search, etc. see how far
>you get through an airport by refusing a search of luggage, person,
>etc. Don't forget to claim your rights though.

You really have no concept of public vs. private, do you?

>Do you read and believe the drivel you are posting? "We are under no
>obligation to make their job easier" is the biggest pile of shit I
>have read here since Amero left. Why do you think the police are so
>frustrated now, because of wanna-be lawyers like yourself. We are all
>oppressed under the police state until something happens to you.

Great argument 'biggest pile of shit'. Care to back that up with a
flush?

On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:32:13 GMT, Paul Morgan <here@home.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:10:16 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:

>>In that case they'll -never- go away. But what will you say Paul, when at
>>some point one of those dragnet-style roadblocks stops you, and you and
>>your vehicle are searched, and while alcohol, drugs, or illegal weapons are
>>not found, the police note that you have books and papers which advocate a
>>political position (doesn't matter which one) that is out-of-favour with
>>the government (either provincial or federal), so at the very least they
>>make a record of that and flag you for 'further investigation' at some
>>future time, or at the worst they cart you downtown while they notify CSIS
>>that they just might have a terrorist suspect for them to interrogate.
>>
>
>Depends on the books and papers. Do they spread the word that it is
>time for another Hitler to come to power? Do they advocate the
>overfall of the elected government by violence? 

Funny - isn't that what happened to the United States 225 years ago?
They fought to overthrow an oppressive gov't and are revered (at least
in the States) as founders of their country. Today, they would be
considered terrorists for even discussing the concenpt.

>In spite of what you think and what the voices are telling others, the
>roadblocks will only get impaired drivers off the road. When your son
>or daughter is killed by one you will think this is a good thing.

I don't disagree with you on the fact that drunk drivers et. al.
should be taken off the streets. But talk to a cop or a mountie and
they will tell you they catch more impaired drivers via routine
highway patrols than they do with dragnet safety stops.

On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 23:25:24 GMT, Paul Morgan <here@home.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 11:06:12 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Popeye wrote:
>>
>>> Keep in mind, driving is a privilege, not a right. If you want to avoid the
>>> roadblocks, walk.
>>
>>That is socialistic clap-trap. In the absence of any viable public transportion
>>province wide, and when it is *your* tax dollars that build and maintain those
>>highways, it IS a right, however like all rights, it comes with
>>responsibilities. Those responsibilities however, do not mean that your civil
>>liberties should be surrendered to an authoritarian government, be it federal,
>>provincial or local.
>
>If it is your right to drive on the roads, do it without a license,
>registration and insurance.
>Your arguement is stupid.

The argument is not about whether you necessarily have a right to
drive or not, but whether you have a right to be free from
unreasonable search and seizure while minding your own business on
public roadways.

"Richard Collins" <r..collins@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:hwvL9.2677$pS6.530150@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "Frank E. Spencer" <romstar.orion@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:k5qL9.557$A17.17719@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> >
> > "Paul Morgan" <here@home.net> wrote in message
> > news:3s1svucpnhv2ttoeqmig4lghcdl2d1k0ki@4ax.com...
> >
> > > I'm curious. By what means do you think we have the right to change
> > > government?
> >
> > By any means necessary.
> >
> Illogical. The "government" in that case would be picked by the guy with
the
> greatest firepower.

Well, I don't think that would be the result at all. There is nothing
illogical about it.
Further, if we today rose in arms against the government, who has the most
fire power?
Unless something radical happens, and the people on the government side
agree with the people, the only way to beat the government in armed conflict
is by guerilla means. As you well know, in the eyes of some people that
makes the people terrorists.
I can think of another group that fits this bill perfectly, the founding
fathers of the USA.

Often times, people in power use force to protect that power. In that event,
the force must be met with force when peaceful change is no longer possible.
The greatest firepower argument assumes that the fight is not for freedom,
but only for someone else's personal power.

"Paul Morgan" <here@home.net> wrote in message
news:tgitvugm1j8nsj4qhl3bgtu4vc0ajfnu9i@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 23:06:44 -0400, "Lester" <wtfo1@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Richard Collins" <r..collins@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >news:5iaL9.1484$pS6.216317@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >>
> >> "Lester" <wtfo1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:f%6L9.226822$C8.636120@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> >> > Correct my if I am wrong but I have never believed it to be a
"privlege"
> >> to
> >> > travel as a passenger in a vehicle.
> >>
> >> Who can correct what you state you believe?
> >>
> >> I can only say "you have no "right" to be carried as a passenger in any
> >> vehicle".
> >
> >Yes you can say that, but can you present any facts to support it?
>
> Read the charter of rights and freedoms?

You are correct in that there is nothing in the charter of rights a freedoms
that specifically states that travel by roadway as a vehicle passenger is a
right,
however there is nothing to state that it is not.

The charter does however guarantee the right not to be arbitrarily detained.
The charter does not state that being detained means being transported to a
police station.
When the police set up roadblocks, every individual in ever vehicle is
arbitrarily detained.
Most if not all of these road blocks are set up in such a manner that traps
travellers in a line of traffic
with no way out. The detainees do not have an option to leave. What is the
difference between being
held immobile in your vehicle awaiting search and being held without cause
at the police station awaiting search.
In your opinion would it be ok for the police to set up a check point on a
busy city sidewalk to detain and search pedestrians in attempt to
catch law breakers?
Actually according to your logic, those pedestrians have no right to be on
the street.



>
> >The law is explicit in stating that it is a privlege to hold a drivers
> >license but
> >can you provide any references that will support your above statement
which
> >appears to
> >be presented as a fact?
> >
> >BTW  YOU can "correct" or maybe change what I believe if you can present
a
> >logical argument based in fact
> >that will "correct" my mind...I mean change my mind.
> >
> >>
> >> > If this were true, it would be a "privlege" for you to transported to
a
> >> > hospital when the old ticker becomes erratic.
> >>
> >> If you wish to look at it that way. You certainly don't have a "right".
If
> >> there were no ambulances available could you sue the State under the
> >Charter
> >> for "denial of rights"? No.
> >
> >
> >Would you point out where I implied that  the state is obligated to
supply
> >ambulances?
> >I only suggested that it is a right to be permitted passage over a
roadway
> >that was
> >built and paid for with tax dollars.
> >If you can show me that it is in fact a privlege, I will have to accept
> >that.
> >
> >A self righteous rant does not qualify as fact.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

"Richard Collins" <r..collins@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:DtGL9.3288$pS6.654842@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "Lester" <wtfo1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pxwL9.227299$C8.641769@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> >
> > "Richard Collins" <r..collins@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:5iaL9.1484$pS6.216317@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > >
> > > "Lester" <wtfo1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:f%6L9.226822$C8.636120@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> > > > Correct my if I am wrong but I have never believed it to be a
> "privlege"
> > > to
> > > > travel as a passenger in a vehicle.
> > >
> > > Who can correct what you state you believe?
> > >
> > > I can only say "you have no "right" to be carried as a passenger in
any
> > > vehicle".
> >
> > Yes you can say that, but can you present any facts to support it?
>
> Sure. I have a car. You can't ride in my car - beacsue I won't let you.
> Try to sue me.
>

You are very correct that I have no right to travel in your car. That is
your private property, but that hardly translates to
"I can only say "you have no "right" to be carried as a passenger in any
vehicle".

> You can be denied passage on a commercial aircraft for any number of
> reasons. You have no "right" to fly.

Air travel is a different situation. The skies are not built and paid for
with tax dollars.

>
> > The law is explicit in stating that it is a privlege to hold a drivers
> > license but
> > can you provide any references that will support your above statement
> which
> > appears to
> > be presented as a fact?
>
> If that's what the law states. then that's what it is. Notice the
wording -
> you have no "right" to a drivers license. That says nothing about
"driving".
> You can drive you car on your own property without a license, or
insurance,
> you know.

I cannot quite determine what point you are attempting to make here. I think
everybody is in agreement that
holding a drivers license is considered a privlege under the law.

>
> > BTW  YOU can "correct" or maybe change what I believe if you can present
a
> > logical argument based in fact
> > that will "correct" my mind...I mean change my mind.
>
> The "logical argument" is "my car" - and I decide who rides in it.

Thats just wonderful, but your car and your decisions are hardly worthy of
debate on a newsgroup.

> > >
> > > > If this were true, it would be a "privlege" for you to transported
to
> a
> > > > hospital when the old ticker becomes erratic.
> > >
> > > If you wish to look at it that way. You certainly don't have a
"right".
> If
> > > there were no ambulances available could you sue the State under the
> > Charter
> > > for "denial of rights"? No.
> >
>
> > Would you point out where I implied that  the state is obligated to
supply
> > ambulances?
>
> They aren't. Therefore, no "right".

The vehicle and who owns it is not the issue, it is the right of passage
that is at issue.
>
> > I only suggested that it is a right to be permitted passage over a
roadway
> > that was
> > built and paid for with tax dollars.
>
> That's not what you said.
>
> > If you can show me that it is in fact a privlege, I will have to accept
> > that.
>
> You've changed your argument.
>
My argument remains absolutely unchanged, you however are all over the map.
Your argument has gone from "all" vehicles to only "your" vehicle and
then...to airplanes.

>

"Frank E. Spencer" <romstar.orion@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:EaPL9.2032$A17.87194@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> > > > I'm curious. By what means do you think we have the right to change
> > > > government?
> > >
> > > By any means necessary.
> > >
> > Illogical. The "government" in that case would be picked by the guy with
> the
> > greatest firepower.
>
> Well, I don't think that would be the result at all. There is nothing
> illogical about it.

You _don't_ think that advocating change "by any means necessary" would
necessarily mean "might is right"?

> Further, if we today rose in arms against the government, who has the most
> fire power?

Are you claiming that mlitary coups have never happened?

> Unless something radical happens, and the people on the government side
> agree with the people, the only way to beat the government in armed
conflict
> is by guerilla means. As you well know, in the eyes of some people that
> makes the people terrorists.

I've given you an (obvious) example above that shows that's not true.

> I can think of another group that fits this bill perfectly, the founding
> fathers of the USA.
>
> Often times, people in power use force to protect that power. In that
event,
> the force must be met with force when peaceful change is no longer
possible.
> The greatest firepower argument assumes that the fight is not for freedom,
> but only for someone else's personal power.

Of course it is. What did you expect? That the only people who wanted
"change" are good, law-abidng, caring for the rights of others people?

And it's not "often times". It's "always".

"Lester" <wtfo1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yoPL9.227570$C8.646995@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>
> You are correct in that there is nothing in the charter of rights a
freedoms
> that specifically states that travel by roadway as a vehicle passenger is
a
> right,
> however there is nothing to state that it is not.
>
> The charter does however guarantee the right not to be arbitrarily
detained.

The key word is "arbitrarily".

> The charter does not state that being detained means being transported to
a
> police station.
> When the police set up roadblocks, every individual in ever vehicle is
> arbitrarily detained.

Are they? Define "arbitrarily".

> Most if not all of these road blocks are set up in such a manner that
traps
> travellers in a line of traffic

Pretty dumb to set one up on an untravelled roadway.

> with no way out. The detainees do not have an option to leave. What is the
> difference between being
> held immobile in your vehicle awaiting search and being held without cause
> at the police station awaiting search.

The words "without cause".

> In your opinion would it be ok for the police to set up a check point on a
> busy city sidewalk to detain and search pedestrians in attempt to
> catch law breakers?

If it could be shown that such a tactic was, overall, in the interests of
society as a whole.

> Actually according to your logic, those pedestrians have no right to be on
> the street.

Who said that?

"Lester" <wtfo1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kJQL9.227603$C8.647502@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>
> "Richard Collins" <r..collins@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:DtGL9.3288$pS6.654842@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> > "Lester" <wtfo1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:pxwL9.227299$C8.641769@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> > >
> > > "Richard Collins" <r..collins@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:5iaL9.1484$pS6.216317@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Lester" <wtfo1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:f%6L9.226822$C8.636120@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> > > > > Correct my if I am wrong but I have never believed it to be a
> > "privlege"
> > > > to
> > > > > travel as a passenger in a vehicle.
> > > >
> > > > Who can correct what you state you believe?
> > > >
> > > > I can only say "you have no "right" to be carried as a passenger in
> any
> > > > vehicle".
> > >
> > > Yes you can say that, but can you present any facts to support it?
> >
> > Sure. I have a car. You can't ride in my car - beacsue I won't let you.
> > Try to sue me.
> >
>
> You are very correct that I have no right to travel in your car. That is
> your private property, but that hardly translates to
> "I can only say "you have no "right" to be carried as a passenger in any
> vehicle".
>
Sure does, My single car is one of your "any", and therefore your statement
is false. You do not have the right to ride as a passenger in "any" vehicle.
As I stated.

> > You can be denied passage on a commercial aircraft for any number of
> > reasons. You have no "right" to fly.
>
> Air travel is a different situation. The skies are not built and paid for
> with tax dollars.

Oh? And the facilities that permit and allow flight?

> >
> > > The law is explicit in stating that it is a privlege to hold a drivers
> > > license but
> > > can you provide any references that will support your above statement
> > which
> > > appears to
> > > be presented as a fact?
> >
> > If that's what the law states. then that's what it is. Notice the
> wording -
> > you have no "right" to a drivers license. That says nothing about
> "driving".
> > You can drive you car on your own property without a license, or
> insurance,
> > you know.
>
> I cannot quite determine what point you are attempting to make here. I
think
> everybody is in agreement that
> holding a drivers license is considered a privlege under the law.

There you go. "Driving", in the context of on the public roadways, requires
a license, and holding a license is a privilege.

> >
> > > BTW  YOU can "correct" or maybe change what I believe if you can
present
> a
> > > logical argument based in fact
> > > that will "correct" my mind...I mean change my mind.
> >
> > The "logical argument" is "my car" - and I decide who rides in it.
>
> Thats just wonderful, but your car and your decisions are hardly worthy of
> debate on a newsgroup.

They were enough to show your statement to be false. That's all that need be
done.

> > > Would you point out where I implied that  the state is obligated to
> supply
> > > ambulances?
> >
> > They aren't. Therefore, no "right".
>
> The vehicle and who owns it is not the issue, it is the right of passage
> that is at issue.

You mean you're no longer arguing your "right" to be a "passenger"? If the
vehicle "isn't the issue", what point specifically mentioning an ambulance?

> > > I only suggested that it is a right to be permitted passage over a
> roadway
> > > that was
> > > built and paid for with tax dollars.
> >
> > That's not what you said.
> >
> > > If you can show me that it is in fact a privlege, I will have to
accept
> > > that.
> >
> > You've changed your argument.
> >
> My argument remains absolutely unchanged, you however are all over the
map.
> Your argument has gone from "all" vehicles to only "your" vehicle and
> then...to airplanes.

No, _your_ argument has changed, from your "right" to be a "passenger" to a
"right" to be permitted  passage over a roadway.

> You really don't get it, do you? It's not about whether somebody is
> doing something right or wrong, it's whether the police have the right
> to act in the manner they are. Common belief is the police are there
> to catch the 'bad guys', whoever they may be. In actuality, they are
> supposed to be there to uphold the rights of the citizens and of the
> state. They should be upholding our right to privacy, safety, and
> security via trained police work, not fishnet tactics that ensnare the
> whole to catch a few. 
> 
> If you aren't doing anything wrong, would you submit to a strip search
> to prove it? Why should you have to prove your innocence - it's the
> police and crown's job to prove guilt and we are under no obligation
> to make their job easier.

I am quite thankful that such road blocks are erected. They may be
somewhat prevetative in nature...much of law enforcement is
preventative in that if the chance of getting caught is high then some
choose not to commit the crime. Also, driving is NOT a right. There is
no constitutional provision...one must obtain liscence. Requiring such
a liscence gives the state the automatic authority to require that all
motor vehicle operators prove that they have a liscence and that any
conditions of a liscence are met (ie wearing glasse / contact lenses).
One must also keep their vehicle safe by adhering to certain
standards. Again, once rules are set in place then the state has
automatic authority to randomly check. The state routinely inspects
trucks for safety, bars for underage patrons, factories for
safety....etc.

With more and more of these road-blocks in many of the provinces, there
should be some terrorists and al-Qaeda members arrested by the RCMP and
local police this December.  Today (Wednesday) there were terrorism arrests
in UK (Edinburgh and London) and Dallas, Texas.

Yes, I am thankful for such road blocks too.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,343-518018,00.html

The concern is that al-Qaeda sympathisers have in the past planned attacks
to coincide with Christmas and holiday celebrations.

In December 1999 there was the millennium bomb plot, a series of
co-ordinated attacks in Jordan, Europe and America where police arrested a
team carrying explosives from Canada, intended for an attack on Los Angeles
airport.

In December 2000 there was a planned attack for a street market in
Strasbourg. In December 2001, Richard Reid, a social misfit and ex-convict
from South London, was arrested after trying to detonate explosives hidden
in his shoe on a flight from Paris to Miami.

According to French Intelligence, there has been a lot of movement of
al-Qaeda sympathisers around Europe. Both British and American intelligence
say there has also been an increase in "electronic traffic" - meaning
principally e-mail messages.

Not Me wrote:

> With more and more of these road-blocks in many of the provinces, there
> should be some terrorists and al-Qaeda members arrested by the RCMP and
> local police this December.  Today (Wednesday) there were terrorism arrests
> in UK (Edinburgh and London) and Dallas, Texas.

From the Toronto Star,

Dec. 18, 2002
Captive's tip led to terror suspect
Ottawa man held after U.S. alerted by bin Laden chief
ALLAN THOMPSON AND TIM HARPER

OTTAWA�An Ottawa man alleged to have been living a double life � pumping gas
and delivering pizzas as an Al Qaeda terrorist "sleeper" � may have been
betrayed by one of Osama bin Laden's top lieutenants under U.S. interrogation.

Court documents filed by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) this
week stress that Mohamed Harkat, 34, has been associated with bin Laden
lieutenant Abu Zubaydah, who is in U.S. custody and is reportedly providing
information to American authorities.

U.S. officials say Zubaydah worked closely with bin Laden in the managing of Al
Qaeda's terrorist camps in Afghanistan. He was captured last March in northern
Pakistan.

From a base in neighbouring Pakistan, Zubaydah vetted potential recruits for
the camps, deciding who would be accepted, the officials said. As they left
Afghanistan after training, Zubaydah then assigned them to Al Qaeda cells
elsewhere in the world and helped arrange their transportation.

Sources yesterday pointed strongly to the possibility that Harkat was fingered
by Zubaydah, and that U.S. intelligence sources helped CSIS make its case
against the Ottawa man.
:
The court documents filed by CSIS said Harkat, who entered Canada on Oct. 6,
1995, supports terrorist activity "as a member of a terrorist entity known as
the bin Laden Network, which includes Al Qaeda."

They also say he entered the country in Toronto from Malaysia, via the United
Kingdom, using a falsified Saudi Arabian passport, filing a refugee claim
fearing persecution in his native Algeria.
:

On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 21:36:04 GMT, Not Me <Not@Me.Club> wrote:

>
>With more and more of these road-blocks in many of the provinces, there
>should be some terrorists and al-Qaeda members arrested by the RCMP and
>local police this December.  Today (Wednesday) there were terrorism arrests
>in UK (Edinburgh and London) and Dallas, Texas.
>
>Yes, I am thankful for such road blocks too.
>
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,343-518018,00.html
>
>The concern is that al-Qaeda sympathisers have in the past planned attacks
>to coincide with Christmas and holiday celebrations.
>
>In December 1999 there was the millennium bomb plot, a series of
>co-ordinated attacks in Jordan, Europe and America where police arrested a
>team carrying explosives from Canada, intended for an attack on Los Angeles
>airport.
>
>In December 2000 there was a planned attack for a street market in
>Strasbourg. In December 2001, Richard Reid, a social misfit and ex-convict
>from South London, was arrested after trying to detonate explosives hidden
>in his shoe on a flight from Paris to Miami.
>
>According to French Intelligence, there has been a lot of movement of
>al-Qaeda sympathisers around Europe. Both British and American intelligence
>say there has also been an increase in "electronic traffic" - meaning
>principally e-mail messages.

I think you're lost - this is *.general, not alt.braindead.groupthink
Try thataway ==>

GC wrote:

> I think you're lost - this is *.general, not alt.braindead.groupthink
> Try thataway ==>

Talk with you over the alt.braindead.groupthink NG then.

One thing i always wondered.  If the police are so concerned about drunk
drivers, why don't they sit at the parking lot exits of some of the
surburban bars at closing time.  You know the ones,..that because of our
city planning you cannot walk home from.  It blows me away how many people
drive home drunk at bar closing time.  Seems like they would catch more
drunk drivers that way then stopping every car going from Halifax to Truro.
Just a thought,..maybe i'm wrong.  :-)

"Randal R. Gray" <at289@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1021214200530.20334A-100000@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca.
..
> It sure beats getting run over by a drunk driver while standing around
> waiting for the bus.
>