231–240 of 286 posts
How many 64 year olds put their life savings in carry on bags? I'm not saying the CBP is innocent, but $60K in cash in a carry on is suspicious
How many 64 year olds put their life savings in carry on bags? I'm not saying the CBP is innocent, but $60K in cash in a carry on is suspicious
But, practically speaking, was it a good idea to blatantly take that much cash in a bag across a border? That's highly questionable.
I don't care who it is, government agent or not, I would just not risk it. At the end of the day, that "civil servant" is just another person - and they are liable to act in their own self-interest just like some other random individual. With such high stakes as putting your life savings on the line, it would make sense to be skeptical of anyone you make eye contact with. It's just my opinion, but I would sooner take my chances trying to smuggle the money across the border than just plainly walk through security with a bag full of cash. Unless there are specific legal/authoritative documents proving the legality of the money that's being taken across and a lawyer is traveling with me. As soon as the government seizes the money, it's an uphill battle from there.
Why would you risk carrying around that kind of money? What’s wrong with doing a wire transfer? Or just writing yourself a cheque? Failing to see an honest use case for moving that much cash by hand.
Besides the points already mentioned by others (as well as in the article), writing a cheque in this situation has the problem of being able to cash it on the other side. I cannot think of a single bank (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that would allow a client, especially a new, previously unknown client, to walk in and cash a $60k international check. Without special circumstances, you'd likely be looking at an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Vile hate speech” can cut both ways unfortunately. Both of us agree that racism is a bad thing. But the American South during Jim Crow declared progressive speech as “hate speech” and tried to ban it.[0] So it’s better to not empower the government to decide what is hate and what isn’t, or you may elect a government that decides what you say is hate speech. [0] “As we have seen, during the days of slavery and later…
> So it’s better to not empower the government to decide what is hate and what isn’t The government cannot just arbitrarily expand hate speech to include something which is patently not hate speech. The courts would not uphold it, neither would the judiciary or the public at large.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tommy Robinson Your press isn't even aloud to speak about him. The UK is dystopian
You mean the vile idiot who potentially ruined an ongoing trial by broadcasting sensitive details all over facebook directly outside the court , which was widely and thoroughly reported by the UK press? I would check where you are getting your facts from.
Did I mention that his entire video is still on Youtube? Still sitting their "jeopardizing" the case and it hasn't been taken down. Not only that, but anybody else outside the UK could repeat the same things and publish them anywhere on the internet without a problem. The UK no-talking-about-the-trial-in-public law completely fails without draconian China-scale internet censorship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a common saying: "There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order." Emphasis on Please use in that order. I can't believe this needs to be emphasized, but killing people should be a last resort. I'm glad these "2nd Amendment advocates" aren't as trigger happy as you seem to suggest they be. I don't think it's hyperbolic to say that shooting peo…
The first 3 have long been exhausted for civil forfeiture.
He explicitly didn't want people to be able to defend themselves! "Requiring the Federal Government to provide a free attorney to anyone who wants to contest a forfeiture action would overwhelm the judicial system with frivolous claims."
"Raise the standard of proof in forfeiture cases to clear and convincing evidence." He didn't want that.
Really, why is any democrat voter complaining about this? It's their own fault.
It amazes me when people think the government should be the go-to solution to society's problems. The government can indeed be used for good, and it has solved many problems, and regulations can be a good thing. But government should be applied very carefully, and probably as the last solution, after we see the failures of non-government solutions. The government is all powerful. They can destroy any business, destro…
Not last. Not first. Not all powerful. Not feckless. Americans act like their government is representative of governments. It isn't. They act like everything needs to be invented there. It doesn't. They believe that America is the greatest country in the world. It isn't. If people in America just stopped to look around at how other countries do things they'd be doubly as well run. Most parts of Europe, Japan, Canada,…
People in America are not generally ready to accept the immigration policies of Western Europe, nor do we have the luxury of a military power that we can free-ride off of. Your comparison is simplistic and wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do live in the US. And you know what? I think there is plenty the US has to offer that Canada doesn't. That's why I'm here.
I agree that the US offers a whole lot that other countries do not. I would disagree that the US government offers anything other governments do not. Of course, the US government has a role in the other attractive attributes the US has, but I personally think that role is exaggerated. I think the US would still be an economically dominant world power if it had the government of, say, Germany.
You are very first-world centric, then. While I am no interventionist, you are discounting the role the US Military has worldwide on trade, peacekeeping, and other vital roles it actually does a good job at when it's not fucking things up (which is often).
>> I think the US would still be an economically dominant world power if it had the government of, say, Germany.
Including the racial makeup of Germany and the immigration policies?
A huge problem here is that the government has zero skin in the game. Random people working for some three letter agency are able to plunge you into a bureaucratic labyrinth at the flick of a wrist, and even violate their own guidelines with an extremely low probability of accountability or repercussion. For example: > Under federal forfeiture law, the government was required to initiate a forfeiture case within 90 d…
Better yet, the Albanian gentleman should be deputized to seize and hold the property of the officers who flagrantly violated their oaths and his rights, garnish their paychecks, and let them wait anxiously for him to get around to telling them 'why'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an outside perspective, how do you quantify, that only "Few cops and agents are bad". If your job contains robbing people, I would rationally word it the other way around. Hopefully there are quite a few cops who dont follow the rules and subvert the system of organized theft. But if you take policies like civil forfeiture or for example police union cards for family members this sounds like organized crime to qui…
I don't think it matters whether few or many cops or agents are bad. The source of harm is the forfeiture law. With such laws in place, even a single bad actor can do enormous damage. We need to repeal the civil forfeiture laws.