11 Dallas police officers shot

[JMJ Farms]

Freeloaders and Deadbeats do have the right to vote. Based on our Constitution. But they SHOULDNT. A person SHOULD have to pay taxes to be able to vote IMO. But unfortunately that's not the way it was set up.

 

[callmefence]

I don't really think Poor Ole Granny needs to fear the police GB. I could be wrong.

There was a grandmother in Calif some years ago, in her own kitchen peeling potatoes. She neither spoke nor understood English. A Cambodian immigrant, (legally here only 6 months) that her husband called the police about to settle a minor domestic dispute--A heated argument about what was for dinner. When the police commanded her to put the peeler down and she didn't comply, she was shot to death by the police when she walked around the counter.
poor old granny...

Margie Carranza, 47, and her mother, Emma Hernandez, 71, were hurt when a Toyota truck they were driving on a Torrance street was repeatedly fired upon by Los Angeles Police Department officers in the early morning hours of Feb. 7.

The women, who were delivering the Los Angeles Times in a quiet suburban neighborhood, had unknowingly driven down a street that included the heavily guarded home of an LAPD captain named by Dorner in an online manifesto listing his grievances against law enforcement. Carranza sustained superficial wounds while her mother was struck twice in the back, their lawyers say. Both have recovered. Ms Carranza, in an interview with NBC has since stated ""She feels scared to go out at night. She is scared that she will get shot by police," Carranza told NBC4.

Emma Hernandez, age 71, mother and grandmother:

Them don't count..gotta be black life's

 

[greybeard]

The slippery slope of constitutionally guaranteed rights....
Yeah, all those 10s of millions of deadbeat stay at home moms that have had their way paid by their husbands, never earned a paycheck, never paid a dime in taxes and and all those who were born with birth defects that keep them out of the workforce and on the govt dole should never have a say in how the country is run. Not to mention the thousands of disabled veterans that can't work and are receiving govt subsidies for the basics of life. Heck, my own mother was only employed 2 years her whole life--I guess she shouldn't have been able to vote either. As far as I know, my grandmother never held a job after age 22 when she got married (became a widow at age 35) and the last 25 years of her life lived with one offspring or another, so she shouldn't have been able to vote either.
:roll:

 

[greybeard]

Freeloaders and Deadbeats do have the right to vote. Based on our Constitution. But they SHOULDNT. A person SHOULD have to pay taxes to be able to vote IMO. But unfortunately that's not the way it was set up.

Lots of folks thought the same thing, but more than one SCOTUS said poll taxes were unconstitutional. When someone appoints and confirms you as a Chief Justice to fill the empty spot, maybe you can rectify that.
I'm betting you can't even get a single one of the most conservative justices to even hear the argument, much less go along with it.
I've never believed the right to self determination, life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness is something that can be bought and paid for out of one's wallet.

 

[callmefence]

The slippery slope of constitutionally guaranteed rights....
Yeah, all those 10s of millions of deadbeat stay at home moms that have had their way paid by their husbands, never earned a paycheck, never paid a dime in taxes and and all those who were born with birth defects that keep them out of the workforce and on the govt dole should never have a say in how the country is run. Not to mention the thousands of disabled veterans that can't work and are receiving govt subsidies for the basics of life. Heck, my own mother was only employed 2 years her whole life--I guess she shouldn't have been able to vote either. As far as I know, my grandmother never held a job after age 22 when she got married (became a widow at age 35) and the last 25 years of her life lived with one offspring or another, so she shouldn't have been able to vote either.
:roll:

There's a big difference in what you listed above and someone who cast their vote to protect their welfare and food stamps.
Fwiw I think the country would be a better place with more stay at home moms.
But they have to go to work to pay for the stay at home( baby mama's)

 

[JMJ Farms]

I'm not talking about poll taxes. I'm talking about income taxes and/or property taxes. If you are a veteran of any shape/form/fashion you are automatically qualified to vote. Since this is theoretical anyway what I'm trying to say is that you have too many people that don't understand the repercussions of their choice. You shouldn't be allowed to make rules if you don't have a dog in the fight. When I borrow money I have to put 20-30% down. The bank knows that if I have something invested, that I have something to lose, and therefore most likely I will make better decisions regarding "our" investment. Voting should be the same. The voter should have something invested.

Again, JMO, doesn't make it right.

 

[red angus 2010]

Freeloaders and Deadbeats do have the right to vote. Based on our Constitution. But they SHOULDNT. A person SHOULD have to pay taxes to be able to vote IMO. But unfortunately that's not the way it was set up.

Lots of folks thought the same thing, but more than one SCOTUS said poll taxes were unconstitutional. When someone appoints and confirms you as a Chief Justice to fill the empty spot, maybe you can rectify that.
I'm betting you can't even get a single one of the most conservative justices to even hear the argument, much less go along with it.
I've never believed the right to self determination, life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness is something that can be bought and paid for out of one's wallet.

You must be really old were you at the second Continental Congress? What was truth then is still truth now. Well said !!

 

[True Grit Farms]

I'm not talking about poll taxes. I'm talking about income taxes and/or property taxes. If you are a veteran of any shape/form/fashion you are automatically qualified to vote. Since this is theoretical anyway what I'm trying to say is that you have too many people that don't understand the repercussions of their choice. You shouldn't be allowed to make rules if you don't have a dog in the fight. When I borrow money I have to put 20-30% down. The bank knows that if I have something invested, that I have something to lose, and therefore most likely I will make better decisions regarding "our" investment. Voting should be the same. The voter should have something invested.

Again, JMO, doesn't make it right.

He knows dang well who we're talking about JMJ. GB would of made a fine judge. We need a little relief from the government in this country. And as long as those that don't contribute to the country get to vote we are screwed. The freeloaders and deadbeats are leading us into another civil war in this country. When SHTF stuff will change.

 

[greybeard]

The voter should have something invested.

The voter, every single one of them, does have something invested--their rights and freedoms. Pretty dang valuable from where I'm standing and where I've been.
This is America, not aristocratic Europe.

There are many military veterans who believe no one should have the right to vote unless they have served their country.I disagree with that strongly, but if they had their way thru a constitutional amendment, I can just imagine the outcry from some here on this board . If any of you have read any of biochemist Issac Asimov's fictional writings, you know he depicted a world where not even citizenship or property ownership was allowed unless one had served. Not my idea of a free society.

The Brits tried a little different form of what you guys are advocating, and the bloody result was the American Revolution and the birth of this country. "No taxation without representation!" ring a bell? You on the other hand are calling for something just as bad. "No representation without taxation" and it goes against everything this nation has ever stood for.
Someone said we need to get away from govt, but you advocate a law (more govt) stating no one can vote if they don't pay taxes. It all depends on whose ox is being gored.

 

[Clodhopper]

Care to clarify your point here clod?

If your attempt was humor it escapes me.

sarcasm is an effective tool.

Time and place for everything.

I'm sorry if what I said was offensive, but what's even more offensive to me is the way our elected leaders use every shooting tragedy to push their agendas. They place no value on the lives on either side of the issue , the victims or the perpetrators. We are all just tools for them to gain more power and wealth. They're taking our liberties away slowly but surely. Their mouths water when tragedies like this occur. It's sad that we've come to this.

 

[Craig Miller]

The slippery slope of constitutionally guaranteed rights....
:roll:

I think your right gb. I had this same discussion with a buddy of mine about free speech.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

Seems to me that a lot of problems are bred from one single source.

Ask yourself where government sponsored welfare is guaranteed, protected or even mentioned in the founding documents of our nation.

End all government sponsored welfare, every last item where one citizen can vote to enrich themselves from the work of another, or for one party to enrich another party from the work of a third party in exchange for position, power, or financial benefit. Deem it unconstitutional as it was in the beginning.

Then ask yourself which citizen need not vote?

Then ask yourself which foreigner willing to make a life by the sweat of their brow and in AGREEMENT with our national laws need not enter?


The source of the problem is not in revising the Constitution, nor in the laws that were in agreement with it, but in actually following the Constitution.

Good intentions do not always lend to good results. And this is no better exemplified than in our government sponsored welfare society.

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

I get It clodhopper, I guess the whole event was so fresh and still sinking in at the time.

Have a good day.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

Do you wonder what purpose there might be in deligitimizing our local police forces?


Surely a national or international oversight is necessary for the incompetent and violent local policing, right?


Fixed education didn't it?


Wonder who the national or international overseers would listen to if individuals on their force were deemed violent or incompetent, the local voters? I'm sure they would.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

Dallas Police Chief's statement.

We're asking cops to do too much in this country. We are. We're just asking us to do too much," he said. "Every societal failure, we put it off on the cops to solve. Not enough mental health funding. Let the cop handle it. Not enough drug addiction funding. Let's give it to the cops.

Here in Dallas, we've got a loose dog problem. Let's have the cops chase loose dogs. You know, schools fail. Give it to the cops. Seventy percent of the African-American community is being raised by single women. Let's give it to the cops to solve that, as well. That's too much to ask. Policing was never meant to solve all of those problems.

 

[TexasBred]

Freeloaders and Deadbeats do have the right to vote. Based on our Constitution. But they SHOULDNT. A person SHOULD have to pay taxes to be able to vote IMO. But unfortunately that's not the way it was set up.

JMJ you're so narrow minded you could look through a keyhole with both eyes.....Admit it....you're wrong. Now live with it.

 

[JMJ Farms]

Dallas Police Chief's statement.

We're asking cops to do too much in this country. We are. We're just asking us to do too much," he said. "Every societal failure, we put it off on the cops to solve. Not enough mental health funding. Let the cop handle it. Not enough drug addiction funding. Let's give it to the cops.

Here in Dallas, we've got a loose dog problem. Let's have the cops chase loose dogs. You know, schools fail. Give it to the cops. Seventy percent of the African-American community is being raised by single women. Let's give it to the cops to solve that, as well. That's too much to ask. Policing was never meant to solve all of those problems.

I'm not a cop but from my limited knowledge I pretty much agree with him. And I will add that "everybody wants the cops to handle these problems, but they also want to tell them how they can and can't do it". Too many cheifs and not enough Indians.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Seems to me that a lot of problems are bred from one single source.

Ask yourself where government sponsored welfare is guaranteed, protected or even mentioned in the founding documents of our nation.

End all government sponsored welfare, every last item where one citizen can vote to enrich themselves from the work of another, or for one party to enrich another party from the work of a third party in exchange for position, power, or financial benefit. Deem it unconstitutional as it was in the beginning.

Then ask yourself which citizen need not vote?

Then ask yourself which foreigner willing to make a life by the sweat of their brow and in AGREEMENT with our national laws need not enter?


The source of the problem is not in revising the Constitution, nor in the laws that were in agreement with it, but in actually following the Constitution.

Good intentions do not always lend to good results. And this is no better exemplified than in our government sponsored welfare society.

Nailed it.
We need to dig LBJ up and hang him

 

[JWBrahman]

Nothing wrong with welfare to help an honest man who has bad luck just like there is nothing wrong with prescribing pain meds for pain.

The problem is with the lax oversight that allows the dishonest few to ruin it for everyone else.

Affirmative Action destroyed this country. You want real affirmative action? Make Lebron James wear a hundred pound neck collar so a slow old white guy like me can beat him at basketball...

 

[Commercialfarmer]

Nothing wrong with welfare to help an honest man who has bad luck just like there is nothing wrong with prescribing pain meds for pain.

The problem is with the lax oversight that allows the dishonest few to ruin it for everyone else.

Young grasshoper, empathy for your fellow man is good, and an argument could be made that to not have empathy and to also not act on that empathy through charital giving is imoral.

However, think through in it's entirety what you and I are saying.

Charity does not equal welfare. Charity, is the decision we can each make to give to a man in need, by whatever circumstances they are that caused them. You can decide if he or she is deserving. (Bad choices may have consequences. I believe in grace, but not in perpetuating bad choices.) There is nothing holding us back from giving what we feel morally obligated to give. There have been institutions that have existed before the creation of our government that were created with the purpose of assisting the needy and down troden.

But when you carefully disect welfare, it is the government using force (threat of jail, confiscation, fines, etc) to make one or many individuals give to another that the government has arbitrarily decided is worthy of the another person's property based on some arbitrarily decided means test, that absolutely cannot be monitored without an increase in beaurocracy to do so, and then cannot and will not be 100% accurate in its assesment.

So for welfare to exist, it does not take into consideration any ill effects it may cost in taking of the property of the one welfare is taxing, or to the family of the one they are taking from.

There is a cost to this forced "charity", a waste....a huge waste, due to all the cost of oversight by the government to force this exchange. It starts with the producer having to pay an accountant to figure in all the special rules to know how much of their earned property they have to give away. Created means testing and such... So there is a charge to even be forced to give away your property under this "moral" charity. There is threat of jail time, and people do go to jail for purposefully or nonpurposefully getting this wrong, so add the cost of housing these people that otherwise might have paid a simple constitutional tax burden.

Then, someone has to pay the thousands of government employees salaries to go back and check to see if the laws were executed as written. Plus all the attorneys to litigate any discrepencies or grey zones.

Then government organizations have to be created to decide all the basis for assistance (what factors someone should receive anothers property without exchange of goods or services and under force of threat), the means and logistics to distribute this property, and then there will need to be some type of organization and people paid to evaluate that the receivers of this coerced "giving" meet the criteria to receive it, plus people paid to look for fraud in its delivery, plus attorneys paid to pursue fraudulent situations, and jails to house those that are ruled guilty of abusing the system.

After all the hidden costs, and millions of people paid to force a person with property deemed excessive to give to one deemed insufficient not able to know the fine details of either's situation, how much of the original dollar "taxed" for the purpose of welfare do you think reaches the intended target? How much fraud do you think exists?

The intention is not what is important. What is important, is the constitutionality of a law first and foremost, and then the results.

Right to property is the first problem i see here. The rest does not matter. But is still obvious it fails.