Nov 2, 2009 | Posted by: roboblogger
Comments
|
18 does not make 25.
|
||||
|
I'm counting 25.
|
||||
|
Since: Feb 09
|
11+1+1+4+2+1+1+3+1=25
At least the staff at YDR can count.:) |
|||
|
Judged:
7
7
3 I was anti-Obammy before It was cool. |
||||
|
Judged:
2
1
1 You like helping out drunks and criminals? Are you of the above? |
||||
|
Judged:
1
1 |
||||
|
Judged:
2
1 |
||||
|
Judged:
1
1
1 Right there with you big guy. |
||||
|
Judged:
2
2
2 What did Ben Franklin say? If you give up your rights for safety, then you have neither. You are a communist idiot. |
||||
|
Judged:
1
1
1 Ben Franklin also said "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." so I'm pretty sure you can't use a quote of his against DUI checkpoints. |
||||
|
Judged:
2
2
1 Good post. I get what you mean. And we will probably benefit from our GPS when they have check points and they won't be for drunken driver checks, either. |
||||
|
Judged:
1
1 This coming from someone who thinks free enterprise because it has union workers should be closed down. You are a fruitcake. hey let's close all factories where people make a living wage because they are union. Socialism at it's best. Share the wealth even if you work and earn it. |
||||
|
Judged:
3
3
2 |
||||
|
Judged:
3
2
1 |
||||
|
Where was this checkpoint? Seems like a highly traveled road.
|
||||
|
Judged:
4
3
3 |
||||
|
Judged:
1
1
1 Come on now turd sniffer, pig is so 60's. Grow up loser |
||||
|
Judged:
4
3
2 If it was unconstitutional, then why hasn't the Supreme Court stopped it yet? Why not try actually reading the Constitution before making your comments. The 4th Amendment states that we are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, yes, but if there is probable cause then the police can search whatever they want. They can stop you for whatever reason they want, that's not illegal. Once your stopped, if they notice something unusual, or can clearly see you're under the influence of something, then they are allowed to search. |
||||
|
Judged:
2
1
1 Ignoramus. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of police sobriety checkpoints. By a vote of 6-3, the Court held that these checkpoints met the Fourth Amendment standard of "reasonable search and seizure." |
||||
|
Judged:
2
1 I have already down load the app for my GPS, they can go F themselves in the future. |
||||
|
||||
Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.
| Topic | Updated | Last By | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| New diner to open in West Manchester Twp. | 8 hr | BlackCloud | 70 |
| Former Stetler aide Jones considered valuable a... | Sun | Been there D... | 3 |
| Victoria Matlock and Christina DeCicco star in ... (Jun '07) | Dec 26 | Billy Murphy | 15 |
| Traffic stop leads to burglary arrest | Dec 22 | AirportRanger | 7 |
| West Manchester Township approves police contract | Dec 18 | Same old ret... | 7 |
| Program provides gifts for 625 children in Nort... | Dec 18 | NESD proud | 3 |
| Gas leak disrupts W. Manchester Twp. neighborhood | Dec 17 | WTF | 1 |