The Republican Party’s violence problem

by eliminating constitutional rights? why does that sound good to you? were you a fan of the stop and frisk tactic?

No. It was a bad tactic; the classic Jack Bauer theme of breaking a person's legs to get information vital to the safety of others. It's the embodiment of Ben Franklin's comment about giving up freedom for security. Bad move. Once given away it's not easily taken back.
 
I'm against a police state, authoritarianism in general and haven't seen either of the two major political parties put their duties under oath over their party loyalties.

That said, I fail to see why your are condemning the entire justice system of the United States.

several reasons, but mainly because of their desire to reinterpret the constitution to further political ends...our history is littered with examples of blatant unconstitutional rulings, but because people have been led to believe that the supreme court tells us what the constitution means, we've become dumbed down to the point of not even bothering to read the constitution, let alone understand it.
 
The Republican Party has a violence problem.

Or perhaps “problem” isn’t quite the right way to put it, if that implies that there are negative political consequences for the role that violence — and more importantly, the threat of violence — plays in the party’s political identity and the way its officials encourage and channel the urges of their supporters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/12/republican-party-violence-problem/

The GOP is a fascist party. No joke.

Stupid bastard . look at the jails full of democrats very violent. Then look at all the riots not just this year and last but multiple year liberal killing assulting old crippled up women in wheel chairs arson thousand up9n thousands of assults and you think republicans have a issue . lol your one stupid liberal
 
several reasons, but mainly because of their desire to reinterpret the constitution to further political ends...our history is littered with examples of blatant unconstitutional rulings, but because people have been led to believe that the supreme court tells us what the constitution means, we've become dumbed down to the point of not even bothering to read the constitution, let alone understand it.

I do agree that there's a disturbing trend of politicizing justices and tilting courts based upon political ideology. That's been a problem of increasing severity over the past 25 years.

What rulings? Dredd-Scott? The 18th Amendment?

Not everyone is illiterate. The websites below spell out the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights/what-does-it-say

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration
The Declaration of Independence states the principles on which our government, and our identity as Americans, are based. Unlike the other founding documents, the Declaration of Independence is not legally binding, but it is powerful.

Our justice system rules on the law. Like the judge in the Rittenhouse trial reiterated in giving instructions to the jury, the jury rules on the facts and the judge rules on the law:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...ucation_network/how_courts_work/juryinstruct/
The judge will advise the jury that it is the sole judge of the facts and of the credibility (believability) of witnesses. He or she will note that the jurors are to base their conclusions on the evidence as presented in the trial, and that the opening and closing arguments of the lawyers are not evidence. Sometimes judges will explain what basic facts are in dispute, and what facts do not matter to the case.

The judge will point out that his or her instructions contain the interpretation of the relevant laws that govern the case, and that jurors are required to adhere to these laws in making their decision, regardless of what the jurors believe the law is or ought to be. In short, the jurors determine the facts and reach a verdict, within the guidelines of the law as determined by the judge.

Who rights the laws? Not the President. Not SCOTUS. Congress writes the laws on the federal level. States write their own under the umbrella of our Constitution.
 
That’s the story of the Jan. 6 rioters, who believed they could break down doors and smash windows and the American system of government would bend to their will.

It’s Rittenhouse’s story, too: When you go to a protest with a rifle, you’ve cast yourself as a potential killer in a righteous cause, and a killer was what he became. He’s now being cheered on by all those who stockpile weapons and say our country is headed for a civil war.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/12/republican-party-violence-problem/

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
 
No. It was a bad tactic; the classic Jack Bauer theme of breaking a person's legs to get information vital to the safety of others. It's the embodiment of Ben Franklin's comment about giving up freedom for security. Bad move. Once given away it's not easily taken back.

Kind of like forcing people to take a vaccine to make others feel safe.
 
It was worse than that
Nope. It wasn't.
and, yes, they are lying about the injuries to law enforcement and others. That said, some are simply stupid or mentally ill and don't realize they are lying. These are the same stupid dumbfucks who use "critical thinking" and do their own "research" on Facebook for all of their "facts".
Inversion fallacy.
https://apnews.com/article/docs-exp...-siege-chaos-fd3204574c11e453be8fb4e3c81258c3
Two firefighters loaned to Washington for the day said they were the only medics on the Capitol steps Jan. 6, trying to triage injured officers as they watched the angry mob swell and attack police working to protect Congress.

Law enforcement agents were “being pulled into the crowd and trampled, assaulted with scaffolding materials, and/or bear maced by protesters,” wrote Arlington County firefighter Taylor Blunt in an after-action memo. Some couldn’t walk, and had to be dragged to safety....

...Five people died in the attack, including a police officer. Two other officers killed themselves after. There were hundreds of injuries and more than 300 people, including members of extremist groups Proud Boys and Oathkeepers, have been charged with federal crimes. Federal agents are still investigating and hundreds more suspects are at large. Justice Department officials have said they may charge some with sedition.

Fake News. False authority fallacy.
 
Another lie.
Lie.
Unlike others here who are obviously mentally ill,
Psychoquackery.
I believe you to be both sane and a malevolent liar.
An evil person who deserves the life ending you've worked so hard to avoid.
Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).
Selling your soul to Satan won't save you from judgment, PmP.
You are not God. You do not get to speak for God. Omniscience fallacy.
 
No. It was a bad tactic; the classic Jack Bauer theme of breaking a person's legs to get information vital to the safety of others. It's the embodiment of Ben Franklin's comment about giving up freedom for security. Bad move. Once given away it's not easily taken back.

Paradox. Which is it, dude? You can't support and condemn tyranny at the same time.
 
several reasons, but mainly because of their desire to reinterpret the constitution to further political ends...our history is littered with examples of blatant unconstitutional rulings, but because people have been led to believe that the supreme court tells us what the constitution means, we've become dumbed down to the point of not even bothering to read the constitution, let alone understand it.

Bingo. The Supreme Court does not have authority to interpret the Constitution. Only the States do. The States own the Constitution.
 
I do agree that there's a disturbing trend of politicizing justices and tilting courts based upon political ideology. That's been a problem of increasing severity over the past 25 years.
[/QUOTE]
Yet you support doing just that. Which is it, dude? You are locked in paradox.
What rulings? Dredd-Scott? The 18th Amendment?
The 18th amendment is not a ruling.
Not everyone is illiterate. The websites below spell out the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights/what-does-it-say

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration
The Declaration of Independence states the principles on which our government, and our identity as Americans, are based. Unlike the other founding documents, the Declaration of Independence is not legally binding, but it is powerful.

Our justice system rules on the law. Like the judge in the Rittenhouse trial reiterated in giving instructions to the jury, the jury rules on the facts and the judge rules on the law:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...ucation_network/how_courts_work/juryinstruct/
False authority fallacies. The ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution is the Constitution. The ONLY authoritative reference of the Declaration is the Declaration itself.
Who rights the laws?
Various bureaucracies acting under authority of the President, Congress, or various bureaucracies acting under authority of Congress (for the federal layer). In other words, the President or Congress.
Not the President.
He has authority to write certain laws. See Article II.
Not SCOTUS.
it has the authority to write certain laws. See Article III.
Congress writes the laws on the federal level.
It has the authority to write certain laws only. See Article I.
States write their own under the umbrella of our Constitution.
Not quite. Many parts of the Constitution of the United States does not apply to the States. Some parts do.

States write their own laws according to the constitution of that State, and of those few portions of the Constitution of the United States that apply to States.
 
Back
Top