Defund the Police!

...[2nd amendment quote referencing --> the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed]
Does it say "guns"? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Nope. Clearly they meant that everyone, including militia members, are allowed to wear short sleeves, so long as they are neatly hemmed and not festooned with fringing.

Anyway, back to defunding the popos. I'm OK if shit-hole cities go that route. Just don't want it spreading to normal-ville. Best case scenario will be that even more egregious trampling of rights will occur and quality of service will decline.

How will they do more with less? In a word - Technology. Way more pervasive and invasive. So faggit about that

• 1st amendment - can't be talking bad about da gubmint - they be listening
• 2nd amendment - clearly, can't have dem guns
• 3rd amendment -it's really like have digital soldiers in your life without consent
• 4th amendment - secure in your person and papers? Faggit-about-it
• 5th ameedment - save ton-o-$$ without costly trials - just release 'em all
• 6th amendment - why have burden of a trial when ya gots the video and data
• 7th amendment - What trial? We gots da video
• 8th amendment - get rid of the others would be cruel and unusual, so it's got to go
• 9th amendment - can't let implied privacy get in the way of a techo-privacy wall
• 10th amendment - Winner-winner chicken-dinner. A keeper, in case the Federalies can't screw you over, your local State still can. Thought might have to scratch out that bit about the people.

I believe that normal-ville will have an awesome opportunity to pick up some qualified Police candidates at below market pricing.

Seattle Cops - you want a job where you are respected for good police work - instead of assaulted by criminals and reviled for trying to protect society and yourselves - Come to Texas!!! Originally Posted by oeb11

They will be needed to clear the backgrounds of the carpetbaggers. Who must be tested and quarantined.

Nope. Clearly they meant that everyone, including militia members, are allowed to wear short sleeves, so long as they are neatly hemmed and not festooned with fringing.

Anyway, back to defunding the popos. I'm OK if shit-hole cities go that route. Just don't want it spreading to normal-ville. Best case scenario will be that even more egregious trampling of rights will occur and quality of service will decline.

How will they do more with less? In a word - Technology. Way more pervasive and invasive. So faggit about that

• 1st amendment - can't be talking bad about da gubmint - they be listening
• 2nd amendment - clearly, can't have dem guns
• 3rd amendment -it's really like have digital soldiers in your life without consent
• 4th amendment - secure in your person and papers? Faggit-about-it
• 5th ameedment - save ton-o-$$ without costly trials - just release 'em all
• 6th amendment - why have burden of a trial when ya gots the video and data
• 7th amendment - What trial? We gots da video
• 8th amendment - get rid of the others would be cruel and unusual, so it's got to go
• 9th amendment - can't let implied privacy get in the way of a techo-privacy wall
• 10th amendment - Winner-winner chicken-dinner. A keeper, in case the Federalies can't screw you over, your local State still can. Thought might have to scratch out that bit about the people.

I believe that normal-ville will have an awesome opportunity to pick up some qualified Police candidates at below market pricing. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Interesting thoughts

Please Add - not one dime of Federal Taxpayer money to be spent bailing out the idiot Mayors and city councils who led the rrioters and looters to the destruction of their cities.

let 'em fix it themselves - after decades of riots about anecdotal incidents - i am sick of Funding riot reparations .
and no - I am not paying Black F'ing reparations. What the F do they think Welfare is???

Interesting thoughts

Please Add - not one dime of Federal Taxpayer money to be spent bailing out the idiot Mayors and city councils who led the rrioters and looters to the destruction of their cities.

let 'em fix it themselves - after decades of riots about anecdotal incidents - i am sick of Funding riot reparations .
and no - I am not paying Black F'ing reparations. What the F do they think Welfare is??? Originally Posted by oeb11

The Mayor of Atlanta was asking for recovery funds to "rebuild" after "peaceful protest". Uh, why would you have to rebuild after peaceful protests? George Orwell would be so proud.

Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms today announced the creation of the CoA Recovery Fund, a program tosupport businesses and facilities adversely impacted following the peaceful demonstrations in the City of Atlanta that began on May 29, 2020. The fund offers grants to eligible small businesses to help them address physical damages and other debilitating losses, and to ensure they can continue to offer employment opportunities and support Atlanta’s communities, trade and commerce.

As hannah - Jones - a pillar of the DPST's wrote in her 'Pulitzer Prose" - "Rioting and Looting is not Violence".


Unless it is her NYCity brownstone smashed andlooted.

https://t.co/e6X6PkEOaK?amp=1

We conclude that the record makes clear that Andrus has
demonstrated counsel’s deficient performance under Strickland, but that the Court of Criminal Appeals may have failed properly to engage with the follow-on question whether Andrus has shown that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced him. We thus grant Andrus’ petition for a writ of certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.


In several different respects, it appears that “our analysis
is no longer grounded in the common-law backdrop against
which Congress enacted the 1871 Act.” Id., at ___ (opinion
of THOMAS, J.) (slip op., at 5).

There likely is no basis for the objective inquiry into
clearly established law that our modern cases prescribe.
Leading treatises from the second half of the 19th century
and case law until the 1980s contain no support for this
“clearly established law” test. Indeed, the Court adopted
the test not because of “‘general principles of tort immuni-
ties and defenses,’” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U. S. 335, 339
(1986), but because of a “balancing of competing values”
about litigation costs and efficiency, Harlow, supra, at 816.

Good on Clarence

Supreme Court rules existing civil rights law protects LGBTQ workers

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/su...gF6?li=BBnb7Kz


9500- still shame on the SC ????
This decision makes it clear employers may not discriminate on the basis of sexuality. Existing law forbidding that practice are supported.
something I support. .