Jump to content
"Unfortunately, the government can not create jobs..."
Sure it can. Who do teachers, firefighters, cops, forest rangers, clerks of court, judges, list goes on, work for, if not the government? If Obama hadn't radically decreased government employment, we wouldn't be half as bad off as we are now, because all those workers spend money, which creates private-sector jobs. Take away public-sector jobs, and guess what? Private-sector jobs disappear, exactly what we've seen happen in America.
I don't read Media Matters, preferring to form my own opinions. Contracting the economy in the midst of a recession through austerity, is about the stupidest thing imaginable (and this opinion I form from having taken economics in College), and anyone who disagrees just needs to look at Great Britain for all the current evidence they need -- that's the fuzzy math.
"Right wingnuts" are those who think they're standing up for the constitution, yet have radically off-base notions about what the constitution is. For a Sheriff to stand up for the constitution, means that he'll enforce even those laws he disagrees with. When a Sheriff refuses to enforce a law because in his opinion it would be unconstitutional to do so, not only does he lack a legal leg to stand on, but is also failing to follow his oath to uphold the constitution.
Not the Sheriff's call whether something is constitutional or not, according to the separation of powers which is at the heart of the constitution.
"People that worship the state are so well conditioned..."
Resorting to categorical ad-hominems against everyone you disagree with is in no way persuasive, and discredits any legitimate point you try to make. Seriously, calling me a "state worshipper" exposes your ignorance in your rush to insult. My writings here are clearly anti-establishment. Which has no bearing on my ability to see when a Sheriff has gone off the reservation.
"You support the state's authority to pass gun control laws without amending the Constitution..."
Because there's nothing under consideration here that goes against the 2nd amendment, or requires amending the constitution, and that's what the polling shows, so I'm not in any minority just because you think you're in a majority.
Also, calling Godwin's Law and ignoring your further comments. Come back down to Earth and try rational arguments, instead of wing-nut ranting laced with insults against those you disagree with, and maybe I'll give you another chance.
Much of the nation on the dole happen to be gainfully employed, by the likes of Wal-Mart. I doubt that any but a small minority are happy to game the system; most Americans have a solid work ethic and would be employed if only there were jobs available. Look at the numbers of jobs lost in the recession, subtract the number gained since, factor in a larger working-age population, and just try telling me all those folks on the dole are just lazy.
Government stimulus in the form of infrastructure spending not only gives an economic return from the infrastructure greater than the capital invested, but the jobs created increase demand for goods and services, causing businesses to start hiring again instead of sitting on trillions of dollars of capital currently sidelined when it's needed most. Raise the minimum wage to get the gainfully employed off the public dole.
I say it's time to put America back to work, instead of cynically grousing about how citizens are voting for free stuff and not having to work. We all know from history, that provided full employment, America has the most productive workforce in the world. Blaming the victims as freeloaders when massive numbers of jobs are eliminated, has no basis in history and is downright un-American.
I'm not speaking for him, merely stating what he had said in public, what his brother has said about him in public, and Google's your friend as far as Chomsky.
Why should he have to do that, when nothing in the legislation requires him to take such action? What does this have to do with national politics? Why would a Sheriff want to lose more votes through politicizing his office, than explain to constituents that "he is required by statute to keep and preserve the peace, serve and execute all processes, writs, precepts and orders issued or made by lawful authorities"?
My point is, a Sheriff stands to lose more votes by misunderstanding his job description, than he stands to gain by pandering to those who literally request that he state that it would be unconstitutional for him to do his job.
Well, we expect Presidents to politicize their offices. And congresscritters, state representatives, city council... but not Sheriffs. They must put their biases aside and serve the entire community, or law enforcement breaks down when the 2/3 of the community who aren't in the Sheriff's political party lose respect for the office and the department.
So all these "Obama does it too" arguments are strawmen, and you're preaching to the choir since I think he ought to be impeached, anyway. So stop changing the subject -- this is about how a Sheriff politicizing his office has a detrimental effect on public safety, and is strictly a local issue.
No, I recognize integrity and courage in the absence of politicization:
And I repeat, that if a citizen files a complaint against a gun store selling new high-capacity magazines, law enforcement has both probable cause and the duty to issue a citation.
That some of the law is unenforceable, I won't argue; but this is not reason to state that none of it will be enforced on constitutional grounds, when I see none at issue in this scenario.
Last login: Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.