ExiledInIllinois Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 I will lob the first throw: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/08/why-stop-and-frisk-matters-even-if-you-dont-live-in-new-york/278614/ "The issue goes beyond the city, its policies, and its unconstitutional law to the essence of the debate about law and order, crime and punishment. It's not just about the tension between liberty and securityit's about simple government competence."
Maury Ballstein Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 (edited) More crime and murders are better. Don't want to bother some gangbanger while he's on company business. That would be way worse. Stupid topic. Edited September 29, 2016 by Ryan L Billz
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 29, 2016 Author Posted September 29, 2016 More crime and murders are better. Don't want to bother some gangbanger while he's on company business. That would be way worse. Stupid topic. @ the price of everybody's liberty? You may want to rethink your argument.
B-Man Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) A look at stop-and-frisk data in Philadelphia, 3 other cities SCOTUS sets chilling precedent for stop and frisk in 5-3 vote The US Supreme Court has supported the ruling that evidence collected during an illegal police stop can be used in court. The decision is feared to have a “disproportionate” effect on people of color. In a 5-3 decision, Supreme Court judges ruled on Monday that if police detain anyone without cause and then find an outstanding warrant, the stop and search are legal. If something incriminating is found on that person, the search is admissible in court. New York Magazine Writer: Lester Holt Wrong on 'Stop and Frisk' NewsBusters ^ | September 28, 2016 | P.J. Gladnick Cavalier claims are being made about stop-and-frisk – an investigative method in which police, upon observing suspicious behavior, stop a person to ask questions and pat the person down to check for weapons. While Trump endorses the practice, both Clinton and Lester Holt suggested that it has conclusively been found unconstitutional by the courts; and Clinton insists that it is also ineffective. The claims are based on a ruling by a single, agenda-driven judge (who was actually removed from the case, as Ed Whelan explained at the time). But, as Heather relates, the Supreme Court sanctioned stop-and-frisk in the 1960s, so “[n]o federal judge would have the power to declare pedestrian stops unconstitutional.” At City Journal, Heather Mac Donald dismantles Hillary Clinton’s debate claims that the criminal justice system is infected with racism and that stop-and-frisk (which Trump has called for reviving) is unconstitutional and ineffective. As with anything Heather writes, the whole thing is worth your time. Hillary’s Debate Lies Edited September 30, 2016 by B-Man
Doc Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 It's always easier to demand that someone else change.
Prickly Pete Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) Trump "allegedly" called Machado "Miss Piggy", yet Hillary Clinton has "allegedly" used racial slurs and is abusive to Secret Service agents, her employees, her husband, and well, just about everyone. Bill Clinton has his own Racial Profiling / Stop and Search history in Arkansas.... http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/trump-racist-hillary-bill-used-slurs-profiling/ Edited September 30, 2016 by HoF Watkins
Benjamin Franklin Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) There's an intelligent debate to be had on stop and frisk. It's not a simple issue and I lean towards the anti crime results outweighing the surrender of civil liberty (not a freedom small government unintrusive stance so upstream of most of my views). My problem was Trump raising it as a solution to curing current racial tensions. Talk about a Marie Antoinette moment. Come out of the bubble a little Donald and listen just a little to the people on the other side. Edited September 30, 2016 by Benjamin Franklin
Maury Ballstein Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 @ the price of everybody's liberty? You may want to rethink your argument. blah blah blah.
4merper4mer Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 blah blah blah. But what if they find your stash?
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 30, 2016 Author Posted September 30, 2016 blah blah blah. Blah blah blah... The new chorus to the popular hit: "The Siren Song of a Dangerous Demagogue." By all means go with the guy who supports "Stop & Frisk." Just take note of bullet point #3 below: This from a newspaper that has to covet everybody's business, from conservative to commie lib. "It ticked off, mercilessly, in boldface, its objections to Trump: 1.He is erratic. 2.He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief. 3.He traffics in prejudice. 4.His business career is checkered. 5.He isnt leveling with the American people. 6.He speaks recklessly. 7.He has coarsened the national dialogue. 8.Hes a serial liar. It isnt about saving conservatives from liberals or vice versa, the editorials opine. It is, in the words of the USA Today editorial, about saving America from the siren song of a dangerous demagogue. By all means vote, the editorial reads, just not for Donald Trump." But what if they find your stash? He will beat his azz. Oh wait, that's if they shoot his dog.
4merper4mer Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 He will beat his azz. Oh wait, that's if they shoot his dog. I think his dog usually carries his stash so...
Keukasmallies Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 Blah blah blah... The new chorus to the popular hit: "The Siren Song of a Dangerous Demagogue." By all means go with the guy who supports "Stop & Frisk." Just take note of bullet point #3 below: This from a newspaper that has to covet everybody's business, from conservative to commie lib. "It ticked off, mercilessly, in boldface, its objections to Trump: 1.He is erratic. 2.He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief. 3.He traffics in prejudice. 4.His business career is checkered. 5.He isnt leveling with the American people. 6.He speaks recklessly. 7.He has coarsened the national dialogue. 8.Hes a serial liar. It isnt about saving conservatives from liberals or vice versa, the editorials opine. It is, in the words of the USA Today editorial, about saving America from the siren song of a dangerous demagogue. By all means vote, the editorial reads, just not for Donald Trump." He will beat his azz. Oh wait, that's if they shoot his dog. It seems to me that, with a simple pronoun change and no "stretching" whatsoever, items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 can be applied to the "other" candidate as well.
Benjamin Franklin Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 It seems to me that, with a simple pronoun change and no "stretching" whatsoever, items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 can be applied to the "other" candidate as well. Rubber - glue. I've seen this tactic before.
snafu Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 It seems to me that, with a simple pronoun change and no "stretching" whatsoever, items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 can be applied to the "other" candidate as well. You forgot 3.
B-Man Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 Rubber - glue. I've seen this tactic before. That doesn't change the validity of the statement..................but you knew that, that's why you went with an attempted glib response..............we've all seen that tactic before. .
Benjamin Franklin Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 That doesn't change the validity of the statement..................but you knew that, that's why you went with an attempted glib response..............we've all seen that tactic before. . Wait, what? A response where you're not a parrot? Say it ain't so. My actual response was above. The rules for posting on PPP are: Sometimes you comment on the issue, sometimes the poster, but always the media.
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 30, 2016 Author Posted September 30, 2016 It seems to me that, with a simple pronoun change and no "stretching" whatsoever, items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 can be applied to the "other" candidate as well. And here is what puts Trump over the top that doesn't apply to Clinton: "The Siren Song of a Dangerous Demagogue." Our Founding Fathers did warn us of the dangers of demagoguery. That is what separates the two. Notice, USA Today did NOT endorse Clinton. Rubber - glue. I've seen this tactic before. Trump uses it well. BETTER than Clinton.
Cugalabanza Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 I’m constantly surprised how many people are willing to give up civil liberties so quickly as a reaction to having their sense of security threatened. I would expect true blue Americans to have a little more spine than that. Especially among self-identifying conservatives, who supposedly distinguish themselves as honoring the spirit of our founding principles and profess to be suspicious of interference from the government. I’m definitely against stop and frisk.
Bob in Mich Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) Ever see this 7 minute video piece from Frontline on 'Policing the Police'? It is a stop and frisk. It is not a simple issue and certainly does create bad feelings in the community. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64IjdGdygAE Edited September 30, 2016 by Bob in Mich
Doc Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 And here is what puts Trump over the top that doesn't apply to Clinton: "The Siren Song of a Dangerous Demagogue." Our Founding Fathers did warn us of the dangers of demagoguery. That is what separates the two. Notice, USA Today did NOT endorse Clinton. Trump uses it well. BETTER than Clinton. LOL! You're joking, right? Do you remember Crazy Uncle Joe saying "they're gun' put y'all back in chains!" And she's a criminal. That puts LIAR over top over that doesn't apply to Trump.
Recommended Posts