California Govenor doesn't give a shit about the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution

Come on, get real, you have bias too and here it shows. If it aint republican it must be bad. I get you. I feel the same on the opposite side.

That bill is about disc manufacturers and not relevant to a personal cell-phone search. That would be like me posting a link authorising war on Iraq and saying see - I told you it was about war.

I did visit the links in your original post and it points to:
"RIAA Law Lets Law Enforcement Ignore 4th Amendment, Search Private Property With No Warrants"

Note it doesn't say cell-phone search in that story, it say "premises" search.

Your second link:
"Warrantless Cell Phone Searches Return to California"

It just says the law has been vetoed, nothing there to do with Hollywood.


See the bold bit above and tell me what's wrong with that. If suspects are NOT breaking the law then any search performed would be disallowed as evidence and any case thrown out of court.

Pirates are making huge sums from pirating, it's illegal. The law (now on premises instead of phones) gives the right for police to search somebody's premises who's breaking the law.

There's TWO different arguments there. One for phone searches, one for premises searches. Which one are we discussing?

 

I posted about two laws. One passed and one vetoed and I included included articles about both.

Not only did you conflate the issue with Iraq and Afghanistan, but it now seems you never realized there were two laws being discussed. I don't have time to hold your hand and explain it anymore than I already have.

I am not sure what you are saying about it being Repbublican/Democrat issue. Me and the ACLU are against these laws. You really don't have a clue what you are arguing, you are just arguing. Man this is lame talking with you.

You posted this:

I just assumed you realized that when I was talking about the connection to Hollywood movies and recordings, you knew I was speaking of the CD/DVD law and the article I cited and not the warrantless phone search one. My bad in making that assumption.

 

Just for the record: Do you support Democratic Warfare like Vietnam and Yugoslavia?

 

I don't support killing of any kind, on either side, so that would be a no.

 

Didn't you know that Governors and Congressman don't have to follow the Constitution? They can just find loopholes to please their corporate sponsors, I mean interest group campaign donors, I mean constituents. It's been that way for decades. They're just becoming bolder. Got to love a 2 party system with no viable alternatives. Let's you shun one side, and accept whatever candidate the other side gives you.

 

So why do you single out 'republican warfare'? Why leave 'liberal warfare' out? Liberal don't deserve credits for their fair share of lunacy?

 

Because the George Bush/Saddam led wars are why we're all in trouble now. It is the war I followed/watched occur as opposed to being a kid during Vietnam years. I can't 'fairly' argue that war because I don't know WHY they happened and most of the players are out of power, as opposed to Iraq where they're all still actively trying to spin whilst pulling coin everywhere they can. They repulse me.

 

They do make history books. And if you didn't notice, George Bush is out of power. You are not making a whole lot of sense.

 

Why would I need to read up about a war that finished 30+ years ago? Apart from taking me off-track from solving an existing problem what good would it do? Bush may be out of the presidency but many of the people who allowed it/congress are still running things and covering their arses. If it don't make sense to you then that's your problem. Try thinking 'rationally'.

 

Yeah, you're right. What was I possibly thinking could be learned by studying history. Ignorance is bliss.