Take all of that into consideration - you have to be criminally insane not to take steps to reduce your dependence (and enrichment of) this nation. This nation called China.
George Floyd
125,470 Views |
1023 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by SupplyChainPack
And just for toppers, let's throw in a little covid-19 pandemic that they caused.
Oh yeah, it is so very wise to make ourselves needy on the Chinese. If you actually hate America, that is.
Oh yeah, it is so very wise to make ourselves needy on the Chinese. If you actually hate America, that is.
packgrad said:
The ok sign is a white supremacist signal.
Hawaiian shirts are a sign of white supremacy.
"Dog whistles"
But the official website of BLM listing their views doesn't count.
There really needs to be a rule book.
Don't forget peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Have no idea why, but have been informed that those are very racist.
You could get yourself cancelled for mentioning one of those things.
Poverty is the root of racism. I am welcome to have my mind changed with legit arguments on this.
Poverty began with a lack of equal opportunity as far back as the Middle Ages. Today there is more opportunity than any other time in history. Today if you work hard, stay out of trouble, and live with some reasonable moral code then you will have opportunities regardless of social economic class or race. But this is not taught to everyone. Thus we have kids that fall behind and then grow into adults who are behind.
I do not believe there is 100% equal opportunity because there will always be kids who have nothing that can't even get a fair shake at life. Talking about kids who don't have a place to live or get food. These kids are so far behind based in their parents decisions. These kids have grown up and are trying to fight for equal outcome and not necessarily equal opportunity in my opinion. I believe it is because no one taught them they can have equal opportunity.
Until people realize the difference between equal rights and equal outcome one group will always feel slighted regardless of where it originated from.
Poverty began with a lack of equal opportunity as far back as the Middle Ages. Today there is more opportunity than any other time in history. Today if you work hard, stay out of trouble, and live with some reasonable moral code then you will have opportunities regardless of social economic class or race. But this is not taught to everyone. Thus we have kids that fall behind and then grow into adults who are behind.
I do not believe there is 100% equal opportunity because there will always be kids who have nothing that can't even get a fair shake at life. Talking about kids who don't have a place to live or get food. These kids are so far behind based in their parents decisions. These kids have grown up and are trying to fight for equal outcome and not necessarily equal opportunity in my opinion. I believe it is because no one taught them they can have equal opportunity.
Until people realize the difference between equal rights and equal outcome one group will always feel slighted regardless of where it originated from.
First, i'd take it a step further, in today's differentiated economy, poverty is the root of almost everything.WPNfamily said:
Poverty is the root of racism. I am welcome to have my mind changed with legit arguments on this.
Poverty began with a lack of equal opportunity as far back as the Middle Ages. Today there is more opportunity than any other time in history. Today if you work hard, stay out of trouble, and live with some reasonable moral code then you will have opportunities regardless of social economic class or race. But this is not taught to everyone. Thus we have kids that fall behind and then grow into adults who are behind.
I do not believe there is 100% equal opportunity because there will always be kids who have nothing that can't even get a fair shake at life. Talking about kids who don't have a place to live or get food. These kids are so far behind based in their parents decisions. These kids have grown up and are trying to fight for equal outcome and not necessarily equal opportunity in my opinion. I believe it is because no one taught them they can have equal opportunity.
Until people realize the difference between equal rights and equal outcome one group will always feel slighted regardless of where it originated from.
Second, 100% agree with bold section. Its great to say everyone has a chance. And technically, they do. But when you grow up in an environment that dis-incents that kind of pursuit of growth, that mountain often becomes too tall to climb.
When young boys don't have strong dads to set an example of hard work, honesty, faithfulness (to the mom, if not church), and encourages education, etc....that kid is going to instead tend to get dragged into all the riff raff surrounding them. This is regardless of skin color.
Even now -- our education response to Covid is a great example -- how many kids don't have the technical support or parental support to stay plugged into remote school. 99.999% of the ones affected will be ones who can afford to be uneducated the least. But they'll fall into that deeper hole.
And then those are the ones who will turn to crime, drugs, early pregnancies, etc.
Vicious vicious cycle. And as we discussed on here the other day --- will take generations of effort to make serious improvements to make it more "equal opportunity"
Packchem91 said:
First, i'd take it a step further, in today's differentiated economy, poverty is the root of almost everything.
Second, 100% agree with bold section. Its great to say everyone has a chance. And technically, they do. But when you grow up in an environment that dis-incents that kind of pursuit of growth, that mountain often becomes too tall to climb.
When young boys don't have strong dads to set an example of hard work, honesty, faithfulness (to the mom, if not church), and encourages education, etc....that kid is going to instead tend to get dragged into all the riff raff surrounding them. This is regardless of skin color.
Even now -- our education response to Covid is a great example -- how many kids don't have the technical support or parental support to stay plugged into remote school. 99.999% of the ones affected will be ones who can afford to be uneducated the least. But they'll fall into that deeper hole.
And then those are the ones who will turn to crime, drugs, early pregnancies, etc.
Vicious vicious cycle. And as we discussed on here the other day --- will take generations of effort to make serious improvements to make it more "equal opportunity"
Nice post Packchem.
Excellent post. Poverty is so much more insidious that many realize. Doing some academic work I found in NC that the correlation between student success at the end of High School was highly correlated to the SES and Single Parent status of the student. Poor kids with a single parent had the worst scores, and the worst outcomes. Sure you hear about these people who pulled themselves up by the bootstraps but most of that is a distortion. Getting out usually requires a helping/guiding hand from someone else who is out of poverty. It's no different than Jesus advising you to teach a man to fish. You get a bit of a better outcome on SES in western NC and the apparent reason is close extended family involved in the child's life - Grandma, Grandpa, Aunt Jo, etc.Packchem91 said:First, i'd take it a step further, in today's differentiated economy, poverty is the root of almost everything.WPNfamily said:
Poverty is the root of racism. I am welcome to have my mind changed with legit arguments on this.
Poverty began with a lack of equal opportunity as far back as the Middle Ages. Today there is more opportunity than any other time in history. Today if you work hard, stay out of trouble, and live with some reasonable moral code then you will have opportunities regardless of social economic class or race. But this is not taught to everyone. Thus we have kids that fall behind and then grow into adults who are behind.
I do not believe there is 100% equal opportunity because there will always be kids who have nothing that can't even get a fair shake at life. Talking about kids who don't have a place to live or get food. These kids are so far behind based in their parents decisions. These kids have grown up and are trying to fight for equal outcome and not necessarily equal opportunity in my opinion. I believe it is because no one taught them they can have equal opportunity.
Until people realize the difference between equal rights and equal outcome one group will always feel slighted regardless of where it originated from.
Second, 100% agree with bold section. Its great to say everyone has a chance. And technically, they do. But when you grow up in an environment that dis-incents that kind of pursuit of growth, that mountain often becomes too tall to climb.
When young boys don't have strong dads to set an example of hard work, honesty, faithfulness (to the mom, if not church), and encourages education, etc....that kid is going to instead tend to get dragged into all the riff raff surrounding them. This is regardless of skin color.
Even now -- our education response to Covid is a great example -- how many kids don't have the technical support or parental support to stay plugged into remote school. 99.999% of the ones affected will be ones who can afford to be uneducated the least. But they'll fall into that deeper hole.
And then those are the ones who will turn to crime, drugs, early pregnancies, etc.
Vicious vicious cycle. And as we discussed on here the other day --- will take generations of effort to make serious improvements to make it more "equal opportunity"
I like the athletic type
I have come to the conclusion that the foster home is part of the problem. I think a well run orphanage might work better so as to prevent kids from being socialized to accept crappy *****
What a lot of middle class white folks don't get is that crime and thuggery is a function of poverty and lack of education. You are going to have that criminal class concentrated at the lower socio economic end of society but in a lot of areas, there are so few black people that folks in white person land see crimes committed by blacks without comprehended how many other blacks are just normal citizens.
What a lot of middle class white folks don't get is that crime and thuggery is a function of poverty and lack of education. You are going to have that criminal class concentrated at the lower socio economic end of society but in a lot of areas, there are so few black people that folks in white person land see crimes committed by blacks without comprehended how many other blacks are just normal citizens.
I like the athletic type
Interesting read.
https://contexts.org/blog/who-gets-to-define-whats-racist/
"... justified under the auspices of empowering people of color is that relatively well-off, highly-educated, liberal whites tend to be among the most zealous in identifying and prosecuting these new forms of "racism."
For instance, a recent Cato study presented Americans with a series of canonical microaggressions and asked whether or not they were offensive. Hispanic and black respondents overwhelmingly said they were not:
Yet, white college students and graduates were significantly more likely than the average black or Hispanic respondent to brand these statements as "offensive." This effect was especially pronounced among white highly-educated respondents who identified with the left."
" This pattern is hardly unique to the Cato study. For instance, a recent study by More in Common found that highly-educated, upper-SES white urbanites were far more supportive of "political correctness" and political revolution than minorities tend to be. Looking at GSS and ANES data, highly-educated whites tend to be more 'woke' on racial issuesthan the average black or Hispanic; they tend to perceive much more racism against minorities than most minorities, themselves, report experiencing; they express greater support for diversity than most blacks or Hispanics; they report more favorable attitudes towards people of racial/ ethnic 'outgroups' over their 'ingroup' and are the only ethnic or racial group to exhibit such tendencies."
" What is more plausible is that many whites, in their eagerness to present themselves as advocates for people of color and the cause of antiracism, neglect to actually listen to ordinary black or brown folk about what they find offensive, or what their racial priorities are."
" White elites who play an outsized role in defining racism in academia, the media, and the broader culture instead seem to define 'racism' in ways that are congenial to their own preferences and priorities. Rather than actually dismantling white supremacy or meaningfully empowering people of color, efforts often seem to be oriented towards consolidating social and cultural capital in the hands of the 'good' whites. Charges of "racism," for instance, are primarily deployed against the political opponents of upwardly-mobile, highly-educated progressive white people. Even to the point of branding prominent black or brown dissenters as race-traitors (despite the reality that, on average, blacks and Hispanics tend to be significantly more socially conservative and religious than whites)."
" They allow institutions, and social elites, to gesture that they are "on board" with antiracism and "doing something" about racialized inequality without actually making major changes to the way they do business. "
https://contexts.org/blog/who-gets-to-define-whats-racist/
"... justified under the auspices of empowering people of color is that relatively well-off, highly-educated, liberal whites tend to be among the most zealous in identifying and prosecuting these new forms of "racism."
For instance, a recent Cato study presented Americans with a series of canonical microaggressions and asked whether or not they were offensive. Hispanic and black respondents overwhelmingly said they were not:
Yet, white college students and graduates were significantly more likely than the average black or Hispanic respondent to brand these statements as "offensive." This effect was especially pronounced among white highly-educated respondents who identified with the left."
" This pattern is hardly unique to the Cato study. For instance, a recent study by More in Common found that highly-educated, upper-SES white urbanites were far more supportive of "political correctness" and political revolution than minorities tend to be. Looking at GSS and ANES data, highly-educated whites tend to be more 'woke' on racial issuesthan the average black or Hispanic; they tend to perceive much more racism against minorities than most minorities, themselves, report experiencing; they express greater support for diversity than most blacks or Hispanics; they report more favorable attitudes towards people of racial/ ethnic 'outgroups' over their 'ingroup' and are the only ethnic or racial group to exhibit such tendencies."
" What is more plausible is that many whites, in their eagerness to present themselves as advocates for people of color and the cause of antiracism, neglect to actually listen to ordinary black or brown folk about what they find offensive, or what their racial priorities are."
" White elites who play an outsized role in defining racism in academia, the media, and the broader culture instead seem to define 'racism' in ways that are congenial to their own preferences and priorities. Rather than actually dismantling white supremacy or meaningfully empowering people of color, efforts often seem to be oriented towards consolidating social and cultural capital in the hands of the 'good' whites. Charges of "racism," for instance, are primarily deployed against the political opponents of upwardly-mobile, highly-educated progressive white people. Even to the point of branding prominent black or brown dissenters as race-traitors (despite the reality that, on average, blacks and Hispanics tend to be significantly more socially conservative and religious than whites)."
" They allow institutions, and social elites, to gesture that they are "on board" with antiracism and "doing something" about racialized inequality without actually making major changes to the way they do business. "
Poverty is a factor, but it is not the main factor. And it certainly doesn't make it inevitable that one becomes a violent criminal.
My grandparents were poor. My great- grandparents were quite poor. We knew several families who weren't well off when I was growing up.
Their standard of living was substantially lower than the poorest people today ( who have numerous social safety nets to ensure that they don't go hungry).
None of them were thieves. They weren't muggers, they weren't rapists, and they weren't murderers.
Being poor does make a person a violent criminal. It's their own character that does so.
My grandparents were poor. My great- grandparents were quite poor. We knew several families who weren't well off when I was growing up.
Their standard of living was substantially lower than the poorest people today ( who have numerous social safety nets to ensure that they don't go hungry).
None of them were thieves. They weren't muggers, they weren't rapists, and they weren't murderers.
Being poor does make a person a violent criminal. It's their own character that does so.
Congratulations to you and your family for being contributing members to society. But I don't believe I said poverty makes someone a criminal. I believe I said poverty is the root of racism.SupplyChainPack said:
Poverty is a factor, but it is not the main factor. And it certainly doesn't make it inevitable that one becomes a violent criminal.
My grandparents were poor. My great- grandparents were quite poor. We knew several families who weren't well off when I was growing up.
Their standard of living was substantially lower than the poorest people today ( who have numerous social safety nets to ensure that they don't go hungry).
None of them were thieves. They weren't muggers, they weren't rapists, and they weren't murderers.
Being poor does make a person a violent criminal. It's their own character that does so.
In a way I happy people do dumb things like this so the radical left will not win the general election. This kind of behavior really should activate a huge pro-Trump turnout.packgrad said:
More BLM terrorists.
I wish it didn't need to happen but more people are fed up with this behavior and are realizing change doesn't happen this way.
WPNfamily said:Congratulations to you and your family for being contributing members to society. But I don't believe I said poverty makes someone a criminal. I believe I said poverty is the root of racism.SupplyChainPack said:
Poverty is a factor, but it is not the main factor. And it certainly doesn't make it inevitable that one becomes a violent criminal.
My grandparents were poor. My great- grandparents were quite poor. We knew several families who weren't well off when I was growing up.
Their standard of living was substantially lower than the poorest people today ( who have numerous social safety nets to ensure that they don't go hungry).
None of them were thieves. They weren't muggers, they weren't rapists, and they weren't murderers.
Being poor does make a person a violent criminal. It's their own character that does so.
Didn't mean to cause confusion - several posts have been made regarding poverty above, this wasn't specific to any post in particular.
Very true. As the parent of an adopted child....can 100% assure that even if a pair of parents do "everything right" (ie, same things as has helped their biologicals to be well-adjusted), with an adopted child, there is a strong possibility things will go off the rails. The mother-child bond is so strong over those 9 months in utero, that breaking it creates a huge pain for a child. Even if they love and accept their adoptive / foster / orphanage parents, it is not the same. So many stories of issues heading into teen / adulthood.lumberpack5 said:
I have come to the conclusion that the foster home is part of the problem. I think a well run orphanage might work better so as to prevent kids from being socialized to accept crappy *****
What a lot of middle class white folks don't get is that crime and thuggery is a function of poverty and lack of education. You are going to have that criminal class concentrated at the lower socio economic end of society but in a lot of areas, there are so few black people that folks in white person land see crimes committed by blacks without comprehended how many other blacks are just normal citizens.
NOW....throw that into a system of poverty, where the grandmomma or aunt, or foster parent or ____ who has to rear the child has little to no access to mental healthcare, lives in the stress-filled world of being poor, and voila, you have your ill-adjusted teen criminal with little chance of recovery. Not absolute, of course....but the odds are strongly in that favor.
Just so many things stacked against them.
**Lest pg or scp or others step in to talk about raising themselves by the bootstraps, etc....I'm not giving excuses for crimes, or allowing them to get away with it. Its just a reality we all have to deal with, and its not tied to skin color.
Even Romulus and Remus had a she wolf instead of a boot strap.
I like the athletic type
Joined:
Jul 13, 2017
Posts:
50,623
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
If voting and replacing Trump will end all police brutality then I"m all for it.
James Henderson said:
If voting and replacing Trump will end all police brutality then I"m all for it.
Biden has had 47 years to end police brutality. He's not your guy.
Lol
Its not gonna happen....Trump has about as much to do with police on the street as i do with the sun rising in the morningJames Henderson said:
If voting and replacing Trump will end all police brutality then I"m all for it.
James Henderson said:
If voting and replacing Trump will end all police brutality then I"m all for it.
How much did DJT make off the last inaugural? lmao
And 8 glorious years of hope and change....
packgrad said:James Henderson said:
If voting and replacing Trump will end all police brutality then I"m all for it.
Biden has had 47 years to end police brutality. He's not your guy.
They ain't nothing but hound dogs.......BLM comes after Elvis...
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/bryan-preston/2020/09/01/blm-vandals-strike-elvis-presleys-graceland-n876814
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/bryan-preston/2020/09/01/blm-vandals-strike-elvis-presleys-graceland-n876814
James Henderson said:
If voting and replacing Trump will end all police brutality then I"m all for it.
Governors matter much more. Local mayor's, council, state AG even more than that.
The only thing really needed at the Federal level is ending Qualified Immunity
Edit to add. The president does set the "tone" on a lot of national issues. Their messaging does matter for providing momentum and support for state and local measures
James Henderson said:
If voting and replacing Trump will end all police brutality then I"m all for it.
There are very few really challenging issues that presidents can cause, or fix, unilaterally.
Almost everything they get done requires the support or complicity of Congress so swapping Trump for Biden doesn't guarantee of fix of much of anything - police brutality or any other major issue.
The economy is the most glaring example. Presidents get blamed for, and take credit for, the economy all the time but that causality is really hard to pin down. Unemployment started declining in 2010 and declined almost linearly till February of this year. Obama and Trump both take credit. Who's responsible? Both, to some debatable extent but their performance in that regard was almost exactly the same until Rona. Obama 'did' really well and Trump 'did' similarly well.
Job growth and wage growth actually slowed some from Obama's second term to Trump's first term so the Obama economy 'did better' on those key metrics but there are so many confounding factors at play that that result can't quickly be assessed as a knock on Trump or a huge win for Obama over Trump. Again, both contributed in some ways to both job and wage growth.
Trump didn't cause police brutality; the most healthy thing about swapping Trump for Biden is the removal of a head of state that's so consistently negative, petty, vindictive, impulsive, and constantly on Twitter. He's like Tom Hanks in Big - he's a fifth grader inside a grown man's body. His behavior sets a tone at the top that has a trickle-down effect on us domestically and internationally.
Swapping Trump for any president (D) or (R) will have this same benefit. Will this 'fix' police brutality? No, but I'll take my chances with a president that acknowledges social justice issues and treats them with respect, regardless of which way the president leans politically. Trump's successor in either 2020 or 2024 will almost certainly treat the issues with more respect than he does.
I wish people realized how much more the local elections have on their day to day lives over the federal elections.IseWolf22 said:James Henderson said:
If voting and replacing Trump will end all police brutality then I"m all for it.
Governors matter much more. Local mayor's, council, state AG even more than that.
The only thing really needed at the Federal level is ending Qualified Immunity
Edit to add. The president does set the "tone" on a lot of national issues. Their messaging does matter for providing momentum and support for state and local measures
Want to discuss how that worked out for the mayor of Portland....or really any of these democrat cities that have just about been burnt to the ground?Civilized said:James Henderson said:
If voting and replacing Trump will end all police brutality then I"m all for it.
There are very few really challenging issues that presidents can cause, or fix, unilaterally.
Almost everything they get done requires the support or complicity of Congress so swapping Trump for Biden doesn't guarantee of fix of much of anything - police brutality or any other major issue.
The economy is the most glaring example. Presidents get blamed for, and take credit for, the economy all the time but that causality is really hard to pin down. Unemployment started declining in 2010 and declined almost linearly till February of this year. Obama and Trump both take credit. Who's responsible? Both, to some debatable extent but their performance in that regard was almost exactly the same until Rona. Obama 'did' really well and Trump 'did' similarly well.
Job growth and wage growth actually slowed some from Obama's second term to Trump's first term so the Obama economy 'did better' on those key metrics but there are so many confounding factors at play that that result can't quickly be assessed as a knock on Trump or a huge win for Obama over Trump. Again, both contributed in some ways to both job and wage growth.
Trump didn't cause police brutality; the most healthy thing about swapping Trump for Biden is the removal of a head of state that's so consistently negative, petty, vindictive, impulsive, and constantly on Twitter. He's like Tom Hanks in Big - he's a fifth grader inside a grown man's body. His behavior sets a tone at the top that has a trickle-down effect on us domestically and internationally.
Swapping Trump for any president (D) or (R) will have this same benefit. Will this 'fix' police brutality? No, but I'll take my chances with a president that acknowledges social justice issues and treats them with respect, regardless of which way the president leans politically. Trump's successor in either 2020 or 2024 will almost certainly treat the issues with more respect than he does.
cowboypack02 said:
Want to discuss how that worked out for the mayor of Portland....or really any of these democrat cities that have just about been burnt to the ground?
How what worked out?
Not enforcing the law, I guess.Civilized said:cowboypack02 said:
Want to discuss how that worked out for the mayor of Portland....or really any of these democrat cities that have just about been burnt to the ground?
How what worked out?
It's idiotic that Portland hasn't called in the National Guard to clear the streets.
Really, no one wants to see military personnel walking the streets of cities. I think its just a bad thought to think about that, in general... So, the mayor's, in each city, has to give instruction to the Police to stop this mess.
I believe in a constitutional government. The following are the enumerated federal powers:
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings
All, that's it above for the federal government! Nothing more! And please read the original intent of the words before trying to understand what you think they mean.
So, we can speak about all the issues around the country and what should be done; however, most of the ideas, thoughts, possibilities, etc... need to either come the local governments or the people. The federal government has "Zero" jurisdiction over these matters.
I believe in a constitutional government. The following are the enumerated federal powers:
All, that's it above for the federal government! Nothing more! And please read the original intent of the words before trying to understand what you think they mean.
So, we can speak about all the issues around the country and what should be done; however, most of the ideas, thoughts, possibilities, etc... need to either come the local governments or the people. The federal government has "Zero" jurisdiction over these matters.
Sir, you just wiped out about 3/4 of our current federal government.
How dare you!
How dare you!
I didn't! The founders did.SupplyChainPack said:
Sir, you just wiped out about 3/4 of our current federal government.
How dare you!
This is not correct. The Insurrection Act of 1807 gives the Federal Government the right to put troops in the street and it's been used by many President's including John F. Kennedy and Dwight D. Eisenhower. It's been modified a few times over the last two hundred plus years, but these three instances let the Federal Government bring troops to the streets.caryking said:
Really, no one wants to see military personnel walking the streets of cities. I think its just a bad thought to think about that, in general... So, the mayor's, in each city, has to give instruction to the Police to stop this mess.
I believe in a constitutional government. The following are the enumerated federal powers:To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings
All, that's it above for the federal government! Nothing more! And please read the original intent of the words before trying to understand what you think they mean.
So, we can speak about all the issues around the country and what should be done; however, most of the ideas, thoughts, possibilities, etc... need to either come the local governments or the people. The federal government has "Zero" jurisdiction over these matters.
If the local governments do not have the capacity to control the riots, then they can call up the National Guard. If the citizens of said state are in danger, then the President can unilaterally insert troops, but that is a last resort. I am not in favor of inserting actual troops, but the National Guard should and can be called up. After three nights of riots in Kenosha the Governor asked the President and they brought in the Guard and it's been reasonably quiet for the last 6 nights.
'
Edit: Hey I am a Constitutional guy and believe in the founding and the enumerated powers of the Constitution. I am a big believer in limited government, but this legislation is needed for times like these.
Here is the Wikipedia version of the part of the law I am referencing.
The Act empowers the U.S. president to call into service the U.S. Armed Forces and the National Guard:
- when requested by a state's legislature, or governor if the legislature cannot be convened, to address an insurrection against that state ( 251),
- to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law ( 252), or
- to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of Constitutionally-secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights ( 253).
Being an N. C. State fan builds great character!
Having a mayor that acknowledges social justice issues and treats them with respectCivilized said:cowboypack02 said:
Want to discuss how that worked out for the mayor of Portland....or really any of these democrat cities that have just about been burnt to the ground?
How what worked out?
Featured Stories
See All
IPS IN 5: The Pursuit Continues
by James Henderson
IPS INTEL: The Remaining Spot
by James Henderson
IPS INTEL: Defensive Line Target On The Radar
by Steve Williams
IPS IN 5: Big Win For Wolfpack In Opener At FSU
by James Henderson