Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DeBlasio

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • EmmaPeel
    replied
    Originally posted by Iowa #1603 View Post
    Actually the United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered.



    As per the Federalist #10

    The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths"
    Outstanding post

    Leave a comment:


  • Iowa #1603
    replied
    Originally posted by [email protected]

    We have a representational democracy, which means that those citizens who voted for him don't get the opportunity to enact policy directly, they're required to elect individuals who represent their viewpoints and policy wishes. That's exactly what he was doing, and it's how our system is supposed to work.
    .
    Actually the United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered.



    As per the Federalist #10

    The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths"
    Last edited by Iowa #1603; 01-10-2015, 04:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iowa #1603
    replied
    Originally posted by [email protected]
    So we're ignoring the medical examiner and all the other evidence? When a forensic pathologist says there's no indication that it was anything more than one individual, that's ignored?

    When the DNA matches a rapist whose MO includes the way the woman was raped and he admits to it, including knowing key details, we're going to ignore that?

    Those are facts as well.
    I am going to go with the guy who was present during the testimony that was presented at court, by which the jury convicted the people.

    Yea, I will ignore anything else as I am allowed.

    During the 3 decades that I worked in maximum security prisons I really could have cared less if the person was "innocent' or not. What mattered was that he had been judged guility and I was given the job of incarcerating him. That was all that mattered to me

    If the conviction was overturned, I let them go----that doesn't mean I thought they were "not guilty' or "innocent" ---it just meant the courts decided that he was no longer to be incarcerated.


    My understanding is that the DA made a political decision and that the Mayor did also................neither equates to "innocent"

    Leave a comment:


  • Iowa #1603
    replied
    Originally posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
    Johnnie.....Quite obviously you do not read well. You are basing your opinion, for the little it is worth, on media reports. Why would you listen to someone who was at the trial? The evidence of the unknown person was presented at the trial. You watch too many CSI episodes. Rape does not require ejaculation. If the rapist does not ejaculate, there is an excellent chance that his DNA will not be present on the victim. The ADA who pushed to have the case thrown out was a self-aggrandizing woman who truly disliked the head of the sex crimes unit and the ADA who led the prosecution
    There you go confusing the situation with real facts..................Do you really expect him to understand what really happened as opposed to what he thinks happened

    Leave a comment:


  • BNWS
    replied
    Originally posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
    Johnnie.........I am only going to comment on the Central Park rape trial. Those five defendants were absolutely guilty. I was at the trial, saw the evidence, heard the testimony.The prosecutors were top notch and all the evidence including the "unknown" DNA was presented to the jury. I law the taped confessions, there was no coercion. The decision to free the five was the result of Morgenthau, in his cottage, listening to an ADA who had a personal vendetta against the actual prosecutor. In my career I dealt with all the actors in this case.

    Dino here's an article describing the vendetta in the NYDAO you alluded to.

    http://nypost.com/2002/12/08/legal-e...-jogger-probe/
    Last edited by BNWS; 01-11-2015, 12:12 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BNWS
    replied
    Central park jogger jury of their peers.

    The jurors, selected last week in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, include:
    • Earl Fisher, jury foreman, a retired housing inspector and a 1950 Boston University law graduate. He is black.
    • Charles Nestorick, a customer representative for New York Telephone who used to live in Pennsylvania, where the jogger grew up. He is white.
    • Pedro Sanchez, a city employee who plans to retire this year. He is a black Hispanic.
    • Ben Neal, whose cousin is a retired police officer. he is black.
    • Ronald Gold, formerly a speech and proposal writer for the national Gay Task Force. He also has written for TV Guide. He is white.
    • Rafael Miranda, a college-educated Transit Authority track maintenance worker. He is Hispanic.
    • Harold Bruland, a computer manual writer for the state Social Services Department and formerly a pastor for a Methodist church in Minnesota. He is an avid jogger who runs in Central Park. He is white.
    • Richard Peters, whose brother retired as police lieutenant in Queens three years ago. He is white.
    • George Louie, whose wife is a cancer researcher. He is Asian.
    • Samuel Holliday, a Consolidated Edison repairman who is a block association member. He is black.
    • Edith Milton, a clerk at her brother’s convenience grocery store and a churchgoer who is active in her tenant patrol. She is black.
    • Migdalia Fuentes, a secretary at the United Nations. Her UN department publishes material on child labor and street children. She is a black Hispanic.
    Last edited by BNWS; 01-10-2015, 03:51 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rudy8116
    replied
    Wait, did this Mensa member actually say rape requires ejaculation?

    Leave a comment:


  • BNWS
    replied
    if you hold some one down while another has forcible intercourse with a person you are guilty of rape.

    This is from the arresting officers statement posted on social media.

    4) There were witnesses against the defendants that included acquaintances and family friends including;
    a) Kharey Wise family friend Melody Jackson to whom Wise spoke to via telephone from Riker's Island after his arrest in this case. In their conversation Wise stated to Melody Jackson that he did not rape the jogger, he just merely, "held her legs down, while Kevin (Richardson) ****ed her." Because this woman, Ms. Jackson believed the act of merely holding down a victims legs while they were being raped is not a crime she volunteered this information to the detectives who questioned her brother regarding his relationship with the defendant Kharey Wise. She testified in open court that this is what Wise told her on the phone and in 2001 when asked again she confirmed that is what she heard. She has been the subject of threats as a result of her actions.


    So in ghetto logic Mr. Wise did not rape her but according to NYS law he did.

    Leave a comment:


  • PhilipCal
    replied
    Originally posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
    Johnnie.....Quite obviously you do not read well. You are basing your opinion, for the little it is worth, on media reports. Why would you listen to someone who was at the trial? The evidence of the unknown person was presented at the trial. You watch too many CSI episodes. Rape does not require ejaculation. If the rapist does not ejaculate, there is an excellent chance that his DNA will not be present on the victim. The ADA who pushed to have the case thrown out was a self-aggrandizing woman who truly disliked the head of the sex crimes unit and the ADA who led the prosecution





    Folks like our "johnnie" read very selectively. They seem bent on demonstrating to us that they can miss really salient facts, disregard incontrovertible evidence, and continue to live in their liberal dreamworld. We don't, as a forum, have to work too hard to prove that point, "johnnie" has done all the work, and continues to do so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dinosaur32
    replied
    Johnnie.....Quite obviously you do not read well. You are basing your opinion, for the little it is worth, on media reports. Why would you listen to someone who was at the trial? The evidence of the unknown person was presented at the trial. You watch too many CSI episodes. Rape does not require ejaculation. If the rapist does not ejaculate, there is an excellent chance that his DNA will not be present on the victim. The ADA who pushed to have the case thrown out was a self-aggrandizing woman who truly disliked the head of the sex crimes unit and the ADA who led the prosecution

    Leave a comment:


  • BNWS
    replied
    More on the jogger case

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/michael-...ase-1406674229

    Leave a comment:


  • EmmaPeel
    replied
    Originally posted by [email protected]
    A bit misleading here, aren't we? The rhetoric that he's using has also been used by the police union and others who have similar status to De Blasio in terms of media exposure. You seem to be implying that there's no counterpoint to the level of rhetoric that De Blasio is using, but that's untrue. Police unions, media identities, conservative politicians and others have all been using the "blood on their hands rhetoric" so I'm completely within reason when I compare the two.
    Do police union spokesmen have the power to incarcerate you....or tax you? Do they have the power of the entire GOVERNMENT behind them?

    Do media personalities have the power to incarcerate you or tax you? Do they have the entire GOVERNMENT behind them?

    A mayor, an AG, and a President have formidable powers these people don't have.

    As for conservative politicians, I've been watching most of THEM say they disagree with the "blood on his hands" wording. Show me a current conservative GOVERNMENT leader saying the words, "blood on his hands."

    Your argument continues to fail.

    Leave a comment:


  • PhilipCal
    replied
    Originally posted by EmmaPeel View Post
    The rhetoric that comes from an every- day- average- protesting- citizen is NOT the same, not even close, to rhetoric coming from a governmental leader like a mayor, an attorney general, or a President.

    It drives me nuts when liberals claim there is.

    If you need a visual - it's kinda like thinking the average Russian protestor has as much power as Putin.





    Emma, verbose and idiotic as he is, little "johnnie" has once more confirmed the ancient wisdom with respect to arguing with idiots.
    In true liberal B.S. fashion he attempts to defend people who are nothing but human trash, and who represent a totally bankrupt list of "values" and beliefs.

    Essential, basic truth, demonstrable evidence, conclusive proof, are all beyond the pale of people like our little troll "Johnnie" They simply cannot, simply will not EVER get it. Perhaps they should move to Russia. But when they came back, if they came back, they'd still be as lacking in intellectual firepower, ethics, and decency as they currently are.

    It's a basic right to be a dumb*** in this country, perhaps we'd be better served were we to allow "johnnie" to continue to exercise that right.

    Leave a comment:


  • PhilipCal
    replied
    [[email protected];3578428]I believe this is a police forum, not a conservative forum. As such, I'm fairly certain I'm in the right place.

    As to my being a child instead of who I am, I'll say this. I had a skateboard with plastic rails from Toys R Us. I took Guns N' Roses side in the battle against Metallica. I watched the Challenger blow up from my 5th grade classroom and I wrote a social studies report on the Berlin Wall coming down.

    I'm 36 years old, and you can dispense with the ridiculously immature insults if you intend to keep insisting that you're the mature one in this conversation. I've laid out my points like an adult, including my opinions on De Blasio's campaign and his reasons for supporting protesters.

    I find it disconcerting that you use the word "rhetoric" in one sentence to malign and then in the next paragraph discuss the "blood on their hands" as if that's not rhetoric as well, but simply a well decided and reasoned position of fact. It's especially disconcerting when it's attached to a criticism of people's exercise of their constitutional rights.

    People protested. Some of them were bad seeds. To say that they, or the people who gain the most attention in their support of them, are somehow personally responsible for the death of the officers is at the minimum a dog whistle for a restriction on their speech, a restriction on their access to the people in power.

    I don't consider it outside a politician's purview to support protester's rights, especially when that politician's campaign policies are in line with what those people are protesting. You may not like him, but it's been clearly mentioned that NY citizen's issues with the NYPD were a significant part of his campaign and as he was voted in, it's reasonable to believe that he has a responsibility to those citizens who voted him in.

    We have a representational democracy, which means that those citizens who voted for him don't get the opportunity to enact policy directly, they're required to elect individuals who represent their viewpoints and policy wishes. That's exactly what he was doing, and it's how our system is supposed to work.

    Now, if you have a problem with what I've just said, that's fine. But if you pretend that what I've just said is some sort of 13 year old banging his hands on the keyboard, then you're either a fool or a liar. Either you're not capable of recognizing an alternative position in an argument or you can see it but you refuse to acknowledge it.

    A final aside: Having an opposing position to someone is not trolling.[/QUOTE





    With each succeeding post you confirm not only my assessment of you, but that of the forum as well. You're simply one more WUS liberal jerk *** demanding respect and attempting, without success I might add, to defend ethically, morally bankrupt positions.

    Your hero's are equally morally, ethically, and intellectually bankrupt. I've mentioned them in prior posts, so even you should know who they are. On their best day, they are worthy of contempt. They deserve to see the backs of men and women possessed of integrity, courage and commitment. Attributes which your hero's so sadly and tragically lack.

    Once more, here you are demanding respect, crying, slinging snot and blame, and in general behaving like a typical liberal idiot. If that pleases you, and obviously it does, please continue to do do by all means. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence, which doesn't seem to include you, would conclude that you've really built a consensus here. an consensus which essentially holds you, your buddies, your views in the utter contempt which you deserve.

    Now you can tell me (us) and the rest of this board how intelligent and mature you are, and continue to demonstrate what a demonstrable juvenile crybaby you actually are. Oh, and make no mistake about it. You're a troll. Now report me to Hillary.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iowa #1603
    replied
    Originally posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
    Johnnie.........I am only going to comment on the Central Park rape trial. Those five defendants were absolutely guilty. I was at the trial, saw the evidence, heard the testimony.The prosecutors were top notch and all the evidence including the "unknown" DNA was presented to the jury. I the taped confessions there was no coercion. The decision to free the five was the result of Morgenthau, in his cottage, listening to an ADA who had a personal vendetta against the actual prosecutor. In my career I dealt with all the actors in this case.
    Don't confuse him with facts

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 5340 users online. 321 members and 5019 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X