![Sorry :( :ssorry:](./images/smilies/sign_sorry.gif)
![Fainting :fainting:](./images/smilies/fainting.gif)
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
But Jac,Jac3510 wrote:Actually, posting here isn't a right. But if you can post crackpot conspiracy theories and don't have to move on, then I'll post my diatribes and call out foolishness where I see it.
As to your question. why the attack on police? I suspect it's a complicated matter. The most obvious and direct cause, though, is that the current administration sees that it is politically profitable to highlight problems between white officers and minority communities. It's politically profitable because minority communities and police have long had an uneasy relationship, and that for a lot of reasons, some legitimate, some not. On the other hand, those who serve and work in the opposition party and their ideologically related groups find it politically profitable to come to the defense of police. It's politiclaly profitable because it encourages their own voters to come out and keep them in power as they back a "law and order" message, as well as the fact that it speaks to the frustrations a large percentage of the white community has with having been both implicitly and explicitly called racists for several decades now--in defending the cops, they are in large part defending themselves against attacks (real or perceived) on their character.
That's WHY there have been these "attacks on the police." And none of that has anything to do with federalizing the police force or Obama's planning a secret takeover. That's just stupid talk, there.
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
Read the whole article here:
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch Announces the Launch of the Strong Cities Network at the United Nations General Assembly
New York, NYUnited States ~ Tuesday, September 29, 2015
This is a truly groundbreaking endeavor. By connecting municipal leaders, facilitating information-sharing and providing training and other assistance where appropriate, the Strong Cities Network will help to fashion a global response to a global issue, without losing sight of its inherently local roots. It will offer city leaders a way to learn from one another about successful initiatives and productive programs. It will provide a platform for discussing community policing and prevention strategies that safeguard the individual rights of citizens. And it will support the practical delivery of community resilience programs in cities that are taking a new look at this evolving issue.
I want you to know that the Obama Administration is deeply committed to ensuring that the Strong Cities Network is as strong, vibrant and resilient as the cities it unites – because we know this model works. Here in the United States, we have joined with local partners to bring down far-flung human trafficking rings, to strengthen trust in law enforcement, to thwart cybersecurity threats and to combat official and international corruption. Our experience tells us that partnering with city-level officials and the communities they represent extends the reach and deepens the perspective of national governments and international alliances. And connecting those localities to one another – as the Strong Cities Network is doing – is not only a powerful way to lift up our communities worldwide. It also sends a message about who we are and what we aspire to be – as an alliance of nations and as a global community. When the representatives of the Strong Cities Network join together for their first Annual Summit in Paris in Spring 2016, they will be making a strong and clear statement to their citizens and to the world: we stand united against violence, united against fear and united in the pursuit of a better and brighter future.
This work will not be easy. There will be difficult days for us all. But the spirit of collaboration I see before me today – the devotion to partnership and mutual support – gives me confidence in our effort and hope for the journey ahead. Thank you, once again, for your outstanding service. Thank you for your visionary leadership on a project without precedent. And thank you for your commitment to the mission of our time.
At this time, I would like to turn things over to Sasha Havlicek, the Chief Executive Officer of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue.
I don't understand the obsession with political correctness. What exactly are the PC Police preventing you from saying?JButler wrote:There is an overload of real concerns about the US and Fed govt without conspiracy theories. I never thought I would see such a widespread attack on the 1st Amend and de facto censorship in the form of Political Correctness. I could go on for pages about the stuff I've seen the media do first hand to pervert/distort the truth, but my hands won't let me go that long.
I can't find any evidence that that actually happened. The conservative media is freaking out about it, of course, but all they're saying is that the Clinton campaign didn't fill out a questionnaire. How that constitutes a public snub is beyond me.JButler wrote:Suffice to say we are in dangerous times in many ways including the foundation of our very govt. Its unprecedented in history that a presidential candidate has told the Fraternal Order of Police that she will not be seeking their endorsement....and made that public to top it off. Shows the utter disdain for the enforcement of law and the enforcers, well except for the laws they like and want to enforce on others.
Are you seriously claiming that only "leftist" presidents hire like-minded people? Or is it that the Republicans have a "leave nothing but footprints" policy when it comes to bureaucrats and they take them all when they go? Or is this just another example of a conservative turning a blind eye when the people whose views he agrees with do precisely the same thing that the hated "lefties" do?JButler wrote:One Big Lie is it doesn't matter which party you vote for as they as the same. No! It makes a huge difference because Admins like Clinton and "O" pack the bureaucracies as much as they can with like minded people. These bureaucrats stay in power and run the govt the way they see fit unless micro-managed by Congress.
Each successive leftist president packs the Fed Govt with people and additional power via "rules". These people don't leave after 8 years, they stay for 30+ years hiring minions and molding agency polices to ensure their ideology carries on.
-Screen legend John Wayne equated aspects of 1960s social programs with the rise of the welfare state,
"…I know all about that. In the late Twenties, when I was a sophomore at USC, I was a socialist myself—but not when I left. The average college kid idealistically wishes everybody could have ice cream and cake for every meal. But as he gets older and gives more thought to his and his fellow man's responsibilities, he finds that it can't work out that way—that some people just won't carry their load ... I believe in welfare—a welfare work program. I don't think a fella should be able to sit on his backside and receive welfare. I'd like to know why well-educated idiots keep apologizing for lazy and complaining people who think the world owes them a living. I'd like to know why they make excuses for cowards who spit in the faces of the police and then run behind the judicial sob sisters. I can't understand these people who carry placards to save the life of some criminal, yet have no thought for the innocent victim."
Quoted from This ariticle.
John Wayne's real name is Marion. I have a hard time taking anything seriously, said by a man named Marion.PaulSacramento wrote:Very Well said by John Wayne.
You prefer a more masculine name? like Alice?RickD wrote:John Wayne's real name is Marion. I have a hard time taking anything seriously, said by a man named Marion.PaulSacramento wrote:Very Well said by John Wayne.
I think a name like Richard is the epitome of masculinity.PaulSacramento wrote:You prefer a more masculine name? like Alice?RickD wrote:John Wayne's real name is Marion. I have a hard time taking anything seriously, said by a man named Marion.PaulSacramento wrote:Very Well said by John Wayne.