Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Avatar image for Anon11

( Anon11 )

Comments made by Anon11

Mount Soledad Cross Dispute Far From Over

"slow slide into socialism"

We're already heavily socialized.
http://i.imgur.com/Aic2o.png

December 19, 2013 at 10:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Downtown San Diego DUI checkpoint leads to 29 arrests

The UT website has written articles about some of the DUI checkpoints, sometimes including how many people were cited for not having a license, expired registration, no insurance, and so forth.

While these are indeed "crimes", the 4th amendment is supposed to protect us from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. In the case of police, probable cause is supposed to be established in order to make the search reasonable. It is why DUI checkpoints were not allowed until an exemption to the 4th amendment was made, although it was supposed to be specifically for DUI activity.

Checkpoints are now used as a tool to allow unreasonable searches to be conducted in the process of the constitutionally exempted "reasonable" search. If this behavior was acceptable, they wouldn't need to specify them as DUI checkpoints.

December 16, 2013 at 11:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mount Soledad Cross Dispute Far From Over

Thanks for shoving your religion in my face on my dime. Put up a flag in its place already.

December 16, 2013 at 1:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Downtown San Diego DUI checkpoint leads to 29 arrests

How many were cited for non-DUI related offenses? The constitutional exemption which allows for these checkpoints is often being abused. That's a story I would love for KPBS to look into.

December 16, 2013 at 1:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Restoring A Natural Connection In Chula Vista

Knowing Chula Vista, it will only be a matter of time before Cox/McMillan build condos on it.

December 16, 2013 at 12:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Veterans Group Planning Challenge Of Judge's Order To Remove Soledad Cross

"What a joke, needing a court to rule a symbol unconstitutional."

How else would we do it? Due process for the win.

"I don't care for any religion. But i do love that for the most part they stand for hope and striving to be a better human for those that may need it."

That is an extremely subjective opinion. Even in cases where religion reinforces good morality and behaviors, it still comes with baggage in the form of doctrine. In many cases, the religions themselves are contradictory, so their faithful can apply religious logic in whatever manner is most convenient at the time. (For example, how many Christians promote slavery? It was very prominent in the Bible. The same book that encourages love and forgiveness. But I digress.)

Good people can be good without religion. To flaunt it as a clean, clear path to morality is disingenuous.

"I think the thin skinned people who's cause in life is to sue over anything that they find offensive is weak. Just like any one who wants to remove this icon of our local area. "

Again, your opinion. If you're not thin-skinned, why does this issue even raise your concern? Or are you just commenting because sue-happy people offend you? Ironic.

"Every land in the world is filled with religious and cultural icons. Why is it so offensive here?"

Because public lands are maintained by every taxpayer, and some of them do not like the idea of their money going towards religious symbolism, because religion is supposed to be divorced from the state. If someone put a giant crescent and star monument on the street in front of your house, would you be ok with helping pay for it? A little perspective helps you understand the other side.

"Because people are so spoiled and rotten in our country that they waste our judicial systems time with meritless lawsuits because they are meek. I hope people show up in mass to defend this thing."

Defend what, exactly? It's a religious symbol on public land. If this is about maintaining a war memorial, raise a flag or another universal symbol. To demagogue this issue by appealing to the most popular religion is underhanded and just plain wrong. Our rights are guaranteed to allow unpopular opinion to exist, as popular opinions need no protection. This is a perfect example of the Constitution doing its job.

December 14, 2013 at 3:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Veterans Group Planning Challenge Of Judge's Order To Remove Soledad Cross

@sd:

Because the ruling was that it is unconstitutional. If you want to vote on amending it, go ahead and try. But just like a majority can't vote to remove freedom of speech from someone with an unpopular union, we can't remove freedom of religion from those with less popular religions.

Would you be opposed to a giant star of David? We had many Jewish servicemen (and women) fight for it freedoms, so it could retain its status as a war memorial.

December 14, 2013 at 10:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Survey: Majority Of San Diego Latinos Feel Some Discrimination

"Californians revolted and won their freedom in 1846."

When white people overthrow a land and stake a claim, it's "revolting and winning freedom". When Mexicans sneak across a border to work, they're demonized. Where does the discrepancy lie?

December 11, 2013 at 7:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Indoor Marijuana Grows On The Rise In San Diego

"Medical mj is a farce. Everyone kmows it."

"But while it is illegal the laws should and must be obeyed. You are basically pissing on the constitution and our democracy when you blatantly disregard the laws put forth by democratic process."

You have successfully argued against yourself.

December 11, 2013 at 2:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous