Quote:
|
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
This is a reply to the stuff you wrote in the body Apparently you believe that because Trump says he is rich, that he is. Perhaps John Barron told you so also. As far as being around for some number of years, the rest of the world's leaders also feel some responsibility for their economies and realize that business needs the ability to be able to plan based on stable relationships, not the latest deal that someone thinks he can bully others into. This is not selling your name to anyone who wants to buy it for a minority stake in a project and if it's a loser, on to the next one. You actually think Trump read any of Kissingers books, and developed a plan? I think you could spend some time researching Trump, assume 20% is true. To me, it's pretty scary that he is where he is. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Did the wealthy not get wealthier under Obama? Given the stock market surge, that would be a nifty trick. When the economy grows, that will always help the wealthier more than it helps regular folks, because they have more money to invest. Maybe that's not fair, but it's not a bad thing either, the wealthy aren't taking anything away from anyone else, wealth isn't finite, it's not like a pizza. Racism and income inequality, two favorite things for liberals to fall back on when they have nohting else, and cannot admit that the other guy has a point. |
Quote:
Income inequality is real and capital is somewhat finite, less so now that we do not have a gold standard. But capital has been flowing to the people at the very top(think 1%) and has accelerated. It's not just the latest administrations fault, but the tax change did not help. I'm sure the Waltons deserve it, after all they spread 2% out among their employees. |
Quote:
"Income inequality is real " It sure is. Here in ultra-liberal CT, it is real and getting worse. "and capital is somewhat finite" Wealth is not finite. There is no hard cap to what GDP can be. If Warren Buffet earns another $1 million today, that doe snot mean there's a million less for you ad me to scrounge for. Wealthy people are good for the economy. They pay taxes on some of that wealth, they invest some of it, they spend some of it, they give some to charity. All of those things, help the economy. And except in the case of thieves, they aren't taking anything away from anyone else. How would you deal with this? Would you pass a law saying that once someone achieves a certain net worth, that they can no longer work or invest? "But capital has been flowing to the people at the very top(think 1%) and has accelerated" It always does. And it doesn't negatively effect me or you, one bit. One person's wealth doesn't cause another person's poverty. "sure the Waltons deserve it" I didn't say that. I said that if the Waltons lost it all in the stock market tomorrow and became poor, I don't see how that helps anyone else. |
Quote:
"Income inequality is real " It sure is. Here in ultra-liberal CT, it is real and getting worse. "and capital is somewhat finite" Wealth is not finite. There is no hard cap to what GDP can be. If Warren Buffet earns another $1 million today, that doe snot mean there's a million less for you ad me to scrounge for. Wealthy people are good for the economy. They pay taxes on some of that wealth, they invest some of it, they spend some of it, they give some to charity. All of those things, help the economy. And except in the case of thieves, they aren't taking anything away from anyone else. How would you deal with this? Would you pass a law saying that once someone achieves a certain net worth, that they can no longer work or invest? "But capital has been flowing to the people at the very top(think 1%) and has accelerated" It always does. And it doesn't negatively effect me or you, one bit. One person's wealth doesn't cause another person's poverty. "sure the Waltons deserve it" I didn't say that. I said that if the Waltons lost it all in the stock market tomorrow and became poor, I don't see how that helps anyone else. "the tax change did not help" No? The $38 billion in taxes that Apple will pay when it brings cash back, that won't help? The new jobs and infrastructure investments promised by Apple and Comcast won't help? |
Quote:
BTW, I am still interested in how you believe that corporations will lead to the end of democracy in this country, but that judges usurping Congress's power to amend the Constitution simply by rewriting the law (the Constitution) through "interpretations" that suit their personal prejudices, will not endanger democracy in this country? |
Quote:
Our country is great, largely because of progressive thinking. We can do a lot better but the proof is in the putting. How is your life suffering because of progressive policy? |
Don't forget they invented the unisex bathroom and sanctuary cities too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Progressivism is not actually progressive as a political system. It is a newer, gentler (for the time being), version of past authoritarian regimes. The notion that it is the reason for human progress is, as you put it, a crock of #^&#^&#^&#^&. It has pretty much managed to flourish on the bedrock of this nation's founding. It developed in ascendance starting slowly, then more quickly over time toward its present dominance. And as it is reaching its apex of power, it's growing, massive and unwieldy structure is beginning to be exposed by things like those that concern Pete F, such as Corporatism (Big Government/Big Busaness complex), disappearance of the middle class, and "income inequality." It is also crumbling into the fissures of division by race, gender, income level, class struggle, expansion of government dependence, destruction and minimization of individual motivation, atomization of national culture creating culture wars, descent into a meaningless Post Modern relativism with its psychological stresses, alienation, futile wars, unsustainable government debt, I would add godlessness but that would be considered a plus by Post Modern, Social Marxist, Progressive relativists. |
Quote:
And maybe you could ask that question to Kate Steinle's father |
Quote:
If we are going to label a group based on an incident, there is plenty to go around |
Quote:
What made our country great is the idea that the individual has rights granted by god, and that the state serves the individual, not the other way around; also the concepts of individual liberty and upward economic mobility. These are the things that made us great, and progressives could not be more dedicated to the abolition of these principles. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
"I was an alternate juror in the Kate Steinle murder trial in San Francisco. I didn’t get a vote, but I saw all of the evidence and the jury instructions, and I discussed the verdict with the jury after it was delivered. Most of the public reaction I've seen has been surprise, confusion and derision. If these were among your reactions as well, I'm writing to explain to you why the jury was right to make the decision that it did. I’m not a lawyer, but I understood the law that was read to us in this case. Defendants in this country have the right to a presumption of innocence, which means that if there is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence that favors a defendant, the jury must accept that interpretation over any others that incriminate him. This principle is a pillar of the American justice system, and it was a significant part of our jury instructions. Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, the undocumented immigrant who was accused of killing Steinle, was charged with first degree murder and the lesser included offenses of second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. When the prosecution rested its case, it seemed clear to me that the evidence didn’t support the requirements of premeditation or malice aforethought (intentional recklessness or killing) for the murder charges. After having heard the evidence, I agreed with the defense’s opinion that the murder charges should not have been brought. The evidence didn't show that Garcia Zarate intended to kill anyone. These are some of the facts that were laid out to us: Zarate had no motive and no recorded history of violence. The shot he fired from his chair hit the ground 12 feet in front of him before ricocheting a further 78 feet to hit Steinle. The damage to the bullet indicated a glancing impact during the ricochet, so it seems to have been shot from a low height. The gun, a Sig Sauer P239 pistol, is a backup emergency weapon used by law enforcement that has a light trigger mode and no safety. (The jury members asked to feel the trigger pull of the gun during deliberation, but the judge wouldn’t allow it, for reasons that aren’t clear to us.) The pixelated video footage of the incident that we were shown, taken from the adjacent pier, shows a group of six people spending half an hour at that same chair setting down and picking up objects a mere 30 minutes before Garcia Zarate arrived there. There is a reasonable interpretation here that favors the defendant: He found the gun at the seat, picked it up out of curiosity, and accidentally caused it to fire. As a scared, homeless man wanted by immigration enforcement, he threw the gun in the water and walked away. The presumption of innocence, as stated in the jury instructions, required the jury to select this interpretation because it is reasonable and favors the defendant. But why the manslaughter acquittal? Most of the confusion I've encountered has been over this part of the verdict, and it does seem to me personally that manslaughter is the appropriate charge for Steinle’s killing. However, given the evidence and the law presented in this trial, it is clear to me that the jury made the right decision. The involuntary manslaughter charge that the jury was read included two key requirements: 1) A crime was committed in the act that caused death; 2) The defendant acted with "criminal negligence"—he did something that an ordinary person would have known was likely to lead to someone's death. The jury members were not free to select the crime for part (1)—they had to use the one chosen by the prosecution, and the prosecution chose that crime to be the "brandishing," or waving with menace, of a weapon. As a juror, I found this choice puzzling, because the prosecutor presented absolutely zero evidence of brandishing during the trial. I don’t think we even heard the word “brandishing” until it was read as part of the charge during the jury instructions at the trial's end. No witnesses ever saw the defendant holding a gun, much less brandishing it. Given that baffling choice by the prosecution, the manslaughter charge was a nonstarter for the jury. Had a different precursor crime been chosen—for instance, the unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon—the outcome might have been different. Even in that case, however, it is not clear to me that part (2) of the manslaughter charge was proved. Only a single particle of gunshot residue was found on the defendant’s hands, which seems to support his repeated claim that the gun was wrapped in some sort of fabric when he picked it up and caused it to fire. If he did not know the object was a gun, it is a stretch to claim that it was criminal negligence for him to pick it up. The jury did convict Garcia Zarate of the separate charge of illegal possession of a firearm, which indicates that the members felt it to be an unreasonable conclusion that he didn’t know he was holding a gun. He was in the seat where he claims he found it for about 20 minutes prior to the shooting, and he made some statements during interrogation that seemed to indicate that he had known what the item was. Without the benefit of being able to re-examine the evidence during deliberation, I’m not sure that I would consider that evidence to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but knowing these jurors, I would trust them to have made an accurate judgment if the manslaughter charge had survived the first requirement. I have come away from this experience with a strong sense of respect for the jurors and their objective handling of a sensitive case under the national spotlight. I hope that I would have acted with the same level of maturity." Phil Van Stockum is a mechanical engineer who lives in San Francisco and occasionally writes at abinitioblog.com. He is not a lawyer. |
Quote:
I'm not sure how you can possibly not know this, the answer is sanctuary cities. The shooter should have been deported, if he had been, she'd be alive. Your quotes form the juror are meaningless. I'm not saying the guy should have been convicted of anything, maybe it was an accident. But the shooter never should have been allowed to remain. You are concentrating on the legal issues related to the trial. Not the point. There's also the impact of liberalism on the crushing taxes on the state of CT, on the fact that 75% of black babies are born fatherless (the ones that aren't aborted, that is). I'm not saying conservatism is perfect. I am responding to Spence's comment that liberalism hasn't harmed anybody. |
Quote:
Regardless, you don't make policy over a single event like that. |
Quote:
A man picked it up It fired What does his immigration status have to do with a death, other than to be a focus point for authoritarian white christian conservatives One could also say that if there were no guns this would not have happened "Only a single particle of gunshot residue was found on the defendant’s hands, which seems to support his repeated claim that the gun was wrapped in some sort of fabric when he picked it up and caused it to fire. If he did not know the object was a gun, it is a stretch to claim that it was criminal negligence for him to pick it up." |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Boom
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Plus, the bump stock makes the semi nearly fully auto...which is heavily restricted to own and you know that... |
Now that is called progressive thinking
And you know that Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Antifa is good and you know that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I can understand, though, if you're ignorant of the significant Antifa violence and harassment pre-Trump since the mainstream media reported little to nothing about it. Trump helped to bring attention to what the media preferred not to mention. Most of us who don't turn our nose up at the alternative media knew about this stuff well before Trump said anything. Media inattention was the deke. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:22 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com