Printable View
Odd - how we can censor big tech on covid ”disinformation” that doesn’t align with this administration and the Hunter laptop stuff. On the other hand, big tech along with the FBI can’t stop people from sharing classified secrets for several months. Sounds like we got our priorities a little screwed up?
Seems to be Platform dependent.Quote:
Originally Posted by noteggs
Bail is part of our system. You'd have to link me to where people didn't show up for trial. And better than the link for the Tennessee congresswoman who supposedly apologized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterofreality
As to how the protestors and rioters were treated following the George Floyd situation, here's a factual comparison, complete with research and reasoning behind the government's actions.
https://apnews.com/article/records-r...f2fdd3345dace8
Republican leaders blocked the re-authorization of the assault weapons ban law, that was in place from '94-'04.
It was never overturned in court, so I feel confident of it's Constitutionality.
Sometimes your posts make no sense. If somehow during those 10 years, or the subsequent almost 20 of discussion on it sunsetting, and attempts to re-instate it, you missed it, here it is explained:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violen...nforcement_Act
Note: Lots of money for police and Biden drafted the Senate version with the National Association of Police Organizations.
Hmmm. Bail is a part of our system, but only if Judges decide to grant it. It is not a guarantee and unless you have liberal judges in place, many times bail is denied for violent criminals. Seems to me that people dying and billions of dollars in destruction would qualify as crime committed by violent criminals. The article you quoted about rioters states that “dozens out of over 300 cases were found guilty.” Pretty lousy ratio.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
Also “over 60 of the 100 cases in Portland had their cases dismissed” Those are pretty lousy percentages of convictions for billions of dollars in destruction and multiple deaths.
Then there is this:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/...owing-rioters/
I’m not talking about any Jan 6th comparison here. Focus on Summer 2020.
As to the Assault Weapons Ban. A) Why was there a “sunset provision” inserted if it was so great? The link to the specific provision on the Assault Weapons Ban from the Wikipedia you linked stated it didn’t measurably reduce gun violence since most gun crimes didn’t involve those weapons anyway. B) Democrats have had full control of Both Houses of Congress and the Presidency twice, yet no reinstatement. Why?
And don’t blame “Republican Filibustering for a reinstatement fail. The article from the LA Times spells out that 15 Democratic Senators voted against it when it lost 60-40 in 2013. By the way, that fail happened after Sandy Hook.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...417-story.html
From that LA article:
“ But 15 of her fellow Democrats, including a number from Western states, and one independent voted against the ban, as did all Republicans except Sen. Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois.
The controversial measure was doomed when Reid decided last month to leave it out of the broader gun control bill, saying that it would endanger more widely supported measures and was likely to win fewer than 40 votes in the 100-member chamber.”
The filibuster has been used successfully by Republicans on all kinds of common sense gun laws, including the assault weapons ban.
Here are just some of them:
https://www.bradyunited.org/program/...the-filibuster
I'm glad you read the article and picked out some highlights that you think indicate the justice system was too lax regarding the protests and riots following the George Floyd murder. That's the way our system works. Many, many of the J6 rioters were allowed to plead down to misdemeanors. And many, just like in the Floyd situation, were tried and convicted of more serious crimes.
If there were any who were granted bail (part of our system) and failed to show for trial, they would be fugitives. Did this happen?
You noted:My memory must have failed, that's why I asked for a cite to this so I could research. Do you really have a credible citation, or is this made up like the Tennessee women apologizing?Quote:
Others just disappear to crime again.Or did your memory fail???
My points above stand. Can’t you admit that 15 Democratic Senators voted against Feinstein’s attempt to reinstate when they had full control? That has zero to do with Republicans.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
I picked out “highlights” from the piece that you yourself posted. Maybe you should read your articles more closely first?
And from WATE.com as to the remorse by Gloria Johnson.
“ Friday, she (Johnson) publicly said she will not be apologizing, despite comments in her hearing suggesting that she should be more remorseful. “
Hey. It wouldn’t be the first time that a two faced politician says something in a private hearing to save themselves then go out and firebrand publicly. The Tennessee legislature does not make their private hearing notes public so we are left to read what our gatekeeper media choose to issue. And the media had a racial card narrative all set to go, so are we surprised that there has been little coverage?
By the way, why do you need a “cite to research”? Seems like you can sure find one when it fits your side.
Thanks for the WATE.com. information.
As to your question, it's very simple. I could find no indication, anywhere, that she had apologized.
In fact, she didn't, as the article at WATE points out.
For anyone to suggest like you didQuote:
Even before the hearings, Johnson said she did not regret what she did. Friday, she she said she will not be apologizing, despite comments in her hearing suggesting that she should be more remorseful.
“I’m not apologizing for what I did. That’s just a fact, I went.
requires me to know why you would state something exactly opposite of what happened. So...I asked for the cite, which only showed she did NOT apologize...not that she ACTUALLY apologized.Quote:
The woman you mentioned actually apologized and that is why she was allowed to stay.
It reminds me of a discussion I had the other night with two very intelligent people; one an orthopedic surgeon, the other a university chancellor. They were both convinced the IRS was going to hire 87,000 gun toting agents. Apparently they had only got their information from Fox and congressional interviews that promoted that nonsense. Even showing them Trump's own IRS head said it was nonsense, and sending them resources to verify, didn't seem to help.
Strange times we live in.
Also, yes some Dems help filibuster one attempt of multiple tries at reinstating the assault weapons ban. Some states have passed their own. I think there's another federal bill now up for consideration. Hopefully it'll get traction.
Maybe they kicked one guy out because they'd seen his videos from Bowdoin and realilzed he was a performative dumb ass these days, and perhaps the other one got kicked out because they knew he stopped cars during BLM protests and confronted the drivers. Good enough.
Your last two sentences is a stupid argument and kind of proves my point. Could you imagine the number of murders of it was legal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton
Pretty sure your idea stigmatizes mental illness, XVille. I'm not saying I agree with that, but good luck in 2023.