 |
Another completely ridiculous statement.Quote:
You are saying they get one now, it is dangerous to call a cop, a murder might show up
And your point is?Quote:
You don't get it, do you. The police are on call for e.g., volatile DV matters or robberies or vehicle accidents. The professionals get involved if it is e.g., a mental health crisis or an argument resulting from long-brewing interpersonal conflicts.
No it is not ridiculous, Children have been shot by cops, women have been shot by cops, blacks have been shot and otherwise killed by cops and many of these people have been unarmedQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
There appears to be a culture of brutality and a shoot first policy
No there doesn't. That's why your statement is ridiculous. You are taking very isolated, very rare occurrences and trying to portray them as the norm. It's a completely foolish and wildly inaccurate approach. It's the same as if I met two dumb Aussies and then decided that all Aussies must be dumb.Quote:
There appears to be a culture of brutality and a shoot first policy
No one knew he was disabled so that line of argument doesn't fly .The compliant press kept that under wraps .Thankfully before SCOTUS got cold feet after FDR threatened court packing ("The switch in time that saved nine") ;the court was able to gut most of Roosevelts worse tendencies . If there is any defense to his acts it is in that he did not believe they were ideological based . He like Bismarck believed that a partial implementation of socialism would sate the more radical socialists ,both international socialists and national socialists in the US .Quote:
Surely, you're not suggesting this man in a wheelchair was proposing himself as a dictator like Stalin, et al. Encouraging Americans during the Great Depression called for exceptional leadership.
His New Deal policies, even with the SCOTUS set backs , brought about an unconstitutional colossal expansion in Federal power, spending, regulation, and control over virtually every facet of American life. It was a close to dictatorship as we can get because the leviathan he left us lives on .He transformed the American Republic almost beyond recognition. I think he believed he was benevolent and acting in our best interests . And maybe he would not call what he envisioned a dictatorship . But that is where his instincts were . Just like Woodrow Wilson before him.
As for his relationship with Stalin .... well he was much more comfortable dealing with him than Churchill. He gave away the farm at Yalta . FDR said that he admired the fact that the Soviet people “all seem really to want to do what is good for their society instead of(like us Americans ) wanting to do for themselves.” .He went on " We take care of ourselves and think about the welfare of society afterwards ."
In 1945, when he came back from the Yalta Conference, he told members of his cabinet that he found in Stalin’s nature “the way in which a Christian gentleman should behave.”
Your wheelchair/disabled part is true, but the rest of the statement stands as exerting leadership, not proclaiming a dictatorship.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Virtually EVERY facet? Colossal expansion? Exaggerate much?Quote:
His New Deal policies, even with the SCOTUS set backs , brought about an unconstitutional colossal expansion in Federal power, spending, regulation, and control over virtually every facet of American life.
Wrong. The closest we ever got was the amoral nutcase who was just defeated in 2020.Quote:
It was a close to dictatorship as we can get
Funny, it looks the same to me after Roosevelt.Quote:
He transformed the American Republic almost beyond recognition.
The rest of your message is simply the now cliche'd right-wing book on Roosevelt. Yalta, Stalin, the New Deal, etc., - it's all been done before and continues in the minds of Roosevelt haters even unto 80 years later!
Geez Tom. If FDR's policies were so unconstitutional why have they stood the test of time and the repubs relentless attack? You guys can't be THAT incompetent for That long can you?
Multiple deaths from shootings happen every day in America, and the few get attention and hardly considered rare.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
2020 Saw More Gun Deaths in the US Than Any Year in Over Two Decades (businessinsider.com)
Quote:
But many experts say that defining mass shootings based on how many are shot rather than the number killed offers a fuller picture of the scale of gun violence in the US. It also helps highlight incidents that generally don't make headlines and disproportionately impact Black Americans and people of color. Public mass shootings also account for just a fraction of total gun deaths in the US, and focusing on them can lead to myopic perspectives on gun violence.
Do I really have to explain to you how difficult it is to overturn SCOTUS decisions ? A slam dunk like Plessy took almost 60 years to overturn .Quote:
If FDR's policies were so unconstitutional why have they stood the test of time and the repubs relentless attack?
As I explained ;Roosevelt by threatening to pack the court accomplished his goals .The court was so intimidated by the threat that they stopped finding the New Deal legislation unconstitutional . Then when he got huge majorities in Congress after the 1938 election ;he was able to swing the court to a progressive liberal majority .
Once SCOTUS decides it then it is extremely difficult to over turn (the nonsense principle of 'stare decisis et non quieta movere' <to stand by decisions and not disturb settled matters > ) Stare decisis has little to no bearing in determining if a law is constitutional . But justices cling to the notion that once decided the issue is settled . It is a lazy logic .
Isn't that a matter of opinion?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Not always. "Decided" issues have been overturned many times in the past.Quote:
But justices cling to the notion (stare decisis) that once decided the issue is settled
yes not always . I explained in my opening paragraph to Tal that stare decisis makes it much more difficult because justices are almost loath to overturn the decision of previous courts .Quote:
Not always. "Decided" issue have been overturned many times in the past.
That is pretty much the conventional agreed historical record . I'll give you the name of the case and the justice that was so intimidated that he caved ....... West Coast Hotel v Parrish ; Associate justice Owen Roberts . He switched his vote during the debate in Congress about packing the court . I will agree that some revisionists have claimed he was planning on changing his vote before the controversy over court packing . Since Roberts burned his legal and judicial records, there is nothing definitive to determine that .Quote:
The court was so intimidated by the threat that they stopped finding the New Deal legislation unconstitutional
Isn't that a matter of opinion?
Chief Justice Hughes ;trying to save the court's rep said that in no way was the decision determined by political pressure . But clearly it was . The decision came down less than 2 months after Roosevelt announced his desire to pack the court .
Quid's threat will also work well on the weak spine John Roberts (maybe Kavanaugh also).....hmmm Roberts ...... I see a pattern here . John Roberts caved under the political pressure during the Obamacare case and did a last minute switch .
I'm way out of my league here with the history of the SC. But here's a link where it says over 300 decisions of the Court have been subsequently overturned by the Court.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I don't know about last minute, but I did wonder about his reasoning for his vote. Frankly, I thought it was forced, but I was glad for it anyway.Quote:
John Roberts caved under the political pressure during the Obamacare case and did a last minute switch .
and why do you think that is? The availability of guns, perhaps? The relaxed attitude to gun ownership, gun sales and gun use?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You are actually victims of the NRA and idiots like Charlton Heston
And why are males needing all those guns?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
A neighbor/homeowner (safe neighborhood) almost shot a woman neighbor in the head with his beloved revolver when she knocked on the door at 11 one night, needing two eggs for the cake she was baking.
Who bakes a cake without preparation at 11 pm and goes to a neighbour at that time of night. Of course he would challenge some one but greeting them with a gun is bizarre.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Why do males need guns and honking great SUV, as a woman you should know it is compensation, but shusssss, you can't say that. Must be a lot of compensation going on over there
Guns are far less available now than fifty years above, and in many large cities handguns are prohibited. In addition, to say there is some sort of "relaxed attitude" toward gun sales is to say that you have no idea of what you are talking about. Many of your facts are not straight.Quote:
and why do you think that is? The availability of guns, perhaps? The relaxed attitude to gun ownership, gun sales and gun use? You are actually victims of the NRA and idiots like Charlton Heston
Two points. Leading the way in this supposed expansion were, of course, cities controlled by democrats. "In over a dozen cities across the U.S., homicides have increased 50 percent or more compared with years prior.
According to the nonprofit newsroom The Trace, homicides, specifically, reflected this statistic as Chicago, Philadelphia, New York City, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Houston and Detroit, among other cities, saw increases compared to 2019."
https://www.newsweek.com/shootings-5...s-2020-1556763
The link above was to some outfit called the Gun Violence Archive. I think I'll wait for the FBI stats before I go crazy about it.
Ok JL so your answer is to outlaw demonrats in politics and this will solve the gun problem, a problem you pelicans caused by your lax attitudes to gun control
There are no lax attitudes towards gun control. Gun control is FAR stricter now than fifty years ago. If you are going to comment on the U.S., then spend some time learning the subject.
Just becuase it is stricter doesn't mean it is as effective as it needs to be, your population has grown 50% in that time, drugs have become a factor. Times change JL but you don't change with them, your thinking is stuck in the eighteenth century
Gun control is not strict - that's the problem. It is, however, extremely ineffective. When Democrats are blamed for the gun violence because they are the political party in urban centers, you know the Republicans are lacking any serious analysis of the problem. Every piece of legislation the Dems originate is shut down immediately by the NRA controlled Republican party. The Second Amendment is nothing but a smokescreen for public consumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
That is more accurate.Quote:
Just becuase it is stricter doesn't mean it is as effective as it needs to be, your population has grown 50% in that time, drugs have become a factor.
Just more nonsense. No one has suggested times con't change. And if your eighteenth century comment is aimed at the Constitution, then yes I do believe in the rule of law.Quote:
Times change JL but you don't change with them, your thinking is stuck in the eighteenth century
the law of the ancients, it is nothing more than ancestor worship
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:00 PM. |